Welcome!
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Former sheriff’s worker charged with embezzlement - Daily Inter Lake: News

Login to DailyInterLake.com

Subscribers Click Here

Non Subscribers Click Here

Former sheriff’s worker charged with embezzlement

Theft case involves missing $90,000

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 6:30 pm | Updated: 2:12 pm, Tue Apr 22, 2014.

A former Flathead County Sheriff’s Office employee has been charged with embezzling more than $90,000 from the employees association.

Nicole Fister, 36, was charged Wednesday in Flathead District Court with felony theft. She is accused of stealing the money while she was an office employee at the Sheriff’s Office and secretary/treasurer of the Flathead County Sheriff’s Office Employee Association.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Choose an online service.

    Current print subscribers

      You must login to view the full content on this page.

      Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 406-755-7000 . You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

      Have an online subscription?

      Login Now

      Need an online subscription?

      Subscribe

      Login

      Choose an online service.

        Current print subscribers

          Welcome to the discussion.

          29 comments:

          • DJJackson posted at 8:29 pm on Sat, May 11, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            Transparency,

            I can honestly say, I have never been sanctioned, but I have defended quite a few, very successfully. I do find it amazing that someone that is not transparent, uses the name "Transparency" You Chicken ****!

             
          • DJJackson posted at 8:25 pm on Sat, May 11, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            Yada, Yada, Yada. Typical.

             
          • Transparency posted at 11:59 am on Sat, May 11, 2013.

            Transparency Posts: 87

            I have to wonder if the legal eagle spends all his time in court being sanctioned by the judge for his language and deportment? Probably.

            I quote, in pertinent part, from the legal eagle's May 10 posting, wherein he stated:

            ".... we are all buffoons...." He will get no argument from me.

            With his posted comments, the legal eagle, has done more, than anyone else, to prove my point.

            I suppose I should say thank you.

            In summation, the legal eagle's comments have provided the public discourse with ample probable cause.

            Therefore, the rhetorical case against licensed stupidity, rests.

            The jury of public opinion, is out.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 9:59 am on Sat, May 11, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            Just to add guys, at least I am using my Real name in these childish debates, you however are chicken **** and hide behind aliases.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 9:56 am on Sat, May 11, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            "And you raised a question requiring an answer. You will find stupid by looking in the mirror!"

            That is all you got?

            LMFAO

             
          • Transparency posted at 8:14 am on Sat, May 11, 2013.

            Transparency Posts: 87

            As in any rhetorical debate, discussion or court room argument, our resident legal eagle's best advise is cease and desist. Opt out. Turn tail and run.

            That is what you would do and probably have during your career.

            And you raised a question requiring an answer. You will find stupid by looking in the mirror!

             
          • mrknowitall posted at 9:10 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            mrknowitall Posts: 78

            What we need here ladies and gentleman is a tall tree and a short piece of rope. Actually make that two. Two ropes. One for her and another for her husband. What kind of maniacs are we hiring these days to investigate crimes and keep an eye on things? Even a complete retard would know something is up when their wife starts feeding him prime rib instead of mac and cheese every night. If that didnt get him wondering whats up then surely the fact that she has an additional $1726.00 a week to spend on him would turn the light bulb on. But no it doesnt. Why? Makes a person wonder if he knew of or was part of the crime. I can think of at least three past high ranking police officers in Kalispell who were caught stealing money. One was handed a purse full of money that a citizen asked him to return to the person who lost it. He gave her the purse but the $900 Christmas money was gone. Where did it go? In his pocket. He got caught cuz the citizen who found the purse kept the persons name and called them to see if the money had beeen returned. Busted!! The other low life had his cop buddies set him up in an undercover sting. They called him and said they had a dead man in a motel. He went there because he was a coroner. Before he left they gave him a wallet containing several thoasand dollars the dead guy had in his wallet. He stole it! Busted. There are a few good cops I'm sure. Theri are a whole bunch of bad ones too.

             
          • Lexiconman posted at 7:56 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            Lexiconman Posts: 3

            Sorry, Transparency. And I agree with you about the public's opinion. They have the checks Fister wrote to herself and her son and her statement about the theft. If she stole that money, she betrayed her coworkers, the public who contributed, and the charities. I'm glad people can express their opinions.

             
          • photoguy posted at 7:40 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            photoguy Posts: 940

            Boy would I love to meet and A** like this Lexiconman, that would be a fun interaction.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 7:36 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            And Tansparency, if it is becoming "Tiresome", then my gad man, don't read it, are you stupid?

             
          • DJJackson posted at 7:35 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            Yup, Transparency, we are all buffoons until such time as you need one of us.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 7:33 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            Lexi, please state your credentials, so that I and the community know exactly what level we are talking from.

             
          • Transparency posted at 7:18 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            Transparency Posts: 87

            This free legal advice is becoming tiresome. The police believe they have evidence to convict based on
            probable cause. The public's opinion, based on information available, believes there is enough evidence to
            convict. Hence cause and opinion are the same. Each is a subjective determination.

            Lawyers always believe they are smarter than everyone else. The reality is they are only half as intelligent as they believe themselves to be. There is a lawyer protective association called the Commission On Practice. I've been there twice and won both times for the aforementioned reason.

            For the uninitiated in legalize, I suggest you watch the videos of the O J Simpson trials or the Arias trial or some other high profile trial.

            It is your best opportunity to observe licensed buffoons practicing their trade.

             
          • Lexiconman posted at 7:09 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            Lexiconman Posts: 3

            Again, DJJakson, you do not understand the simplest legal terms. You say, "there has been no bench trial, no pleading, basically other than the charge no nothing." DJJackson, the criminal information filed in the case is what is called a pleading. The defendant's not-guilty assertion is a pleading. You obviously are not familiar with a very basic word.

            You also said, "I am here to tell you, you can only be sanctioned "after" you are convicted by a jury of your peers, or you admit and plead guilty in a court of law." That is incorrect in a very fundamental way.

            And you misunderstood a poster who used the word cause to mean case? For a supposed attorney, that's like a veterinarian mistaking a dog for a hog. Unlikely. By all means, though, continue with your attitude that " I do know what I am talking about, unlike many in this valley." It's most amusing.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 5:50 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            As far as what Kohono was talking about, I did make a mistake, he posted "Case" I mistakenly stated "Cause" never the less, it really does not matter how much of a "Case" they have, certain events must occur before guilt is established or an admission that there is enough evidence to convict.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 5:47 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            Well Lexicon, we were not talking about the situations you bring up in your post, none of those acts have happened yet, she has simply been accused of a crime, there has been no bench trial, no pleading, basically other than the charge no nothing.

            Anyway, fortunately for me, the State of Montana disagrees with you on my ability to practice law in this state. Now care to offer your credentials?

             
          • Lexiconman posted at 5:24 pm on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            Lexiconman Posts: 3

            That's hilarious, DJJackson. "Cause" does not by any legal definition mean "they have enough evidence that can convict." I have no idea how you "do the law for a living," but you are no attorney. You wouldn't have passed the first year of law school with the mistaken belief that you can only be "sanctioned," as you call it, after "you are convicted by a jury of your peers, or you admit and plead guilty in a court of law." You might want to learn about summary conviction or conviction by a judge by bench trial or the option of nolo contendere as a conviction that does not involve admission or a guilty plea before you continue posing as a legal authority.

             
          • Pequot posted at 8:08 am on Fri, May 10, 2013.

            Pequot Posts: 525

            Unfortunately DJJackson is right. It has always amazed me that a person can admit to having committed a crime yet he or she pleads not guilty. You have to remember as Oscar Wilde put it "The law is an a**". The law is also a very lucrative profession. Attorneys who become legislators and judges work very hard to ensure the law continues to be a a cash cow and goose laying golden eggs.

             
          • MIke10001 posted at 10:51 pm on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            MIke10001 Posts: 5

            One count of felony theft? Why isn't she being charged with one count for each time she stole?

             
          • DJJackson posted at 9:55 pm on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            kohana,

            I could care less how much "Cause" they have, cause does not equate "guilt" it simply means they have evidence that could convict. You are still innocent in this country until you are convicted. That is the problem with people in this state, because an article appears in the news, means they are guilty, but I am here to tell you, you can only be sanctioned "after" you are convicted by a jury of your peers, or you admit and plead guilty in a court of law.

            I have NO problem punishing someone once they are convicted of a crime, not accused, but convicted, in other words, you admit you did it, or a jury says you did it.

            I do the law for a living, have done it on both the prosecution side as well as the defense side, so I do know what I am talking about, unlike many in this valley.

            I certainly will not base my opinion on a media report, I will wait to see the evidence against her, then I will render an opinion and offer my thoughts on punishment, just as judges are suppose to do.

            People you need to realize, the police have a job to do, they investigate and make recommendations, the prosecutor decides if there is enough evidence to offer a good chance at conviction, the judge plays moderator, to make sure procedure is followed and then passes sentence when a conviction is secured.

            You can have all the suspicion you want, that still does not equate guilt. Guilt is only ascertained after a certain constitutional process is carried out.

             
          • kohana posted at 7:49 pm on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            DJJackson, you might want to read the article again.

            "The document alleges Fister admitted those three checks were theft and admitted illegally cashing 30 or more checks totaling more than $30,000 on the employee association’s show fund account over the last two years."

            She was fired for the theft, so looks like they have a pretty good case.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 6:03 pm on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            bird72, I never said people were not entitled to an opinion, but you should state it is your opinion, you have no right to guess when it comes to another persons life.

            As a working attorney, who has both worked as a prosecutor as well as a defense attorney, the decay is amazing.

            Now of course, I guess I am not entitled to MY opinion based on your comment, right?

            One thing, I will remind those who strongly post their opinions on these pages, remember what happened to many who did that in the Justine Winters case! They had their butts hauled into court., so if you think it can't happen, then you are sorely mistaken.

             
          • Transparency posted at 3:21 pm on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            Transparency Posts: 87

            Uh, hubby is a deputy sheriff??

            Dear wifey is flush with $4000 and sonny boy suddenly has a $2500 slush fund.

            Hubby takes no notice?? Or is it a question of hear no evil, see no evil??

            Reportedly, at least $90,000 passed through dear wifey's hands and it raised not one iota of suspicion
            from hubby??

            There is something rotten in Denmark and Denmark is located in the sheriff's office in the 'Justice Center'.

             
          • bird72 posted at 12:42 pm on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            bird72 Posts: 101

            DJjackson, the cool thing about internet comment sections under news stories is that one is allowed to opinionate on potential guilt before the verdict. It is understood it is ones "opinion, guess, whatever.... It is like an "editorial page" so to speak, with people logging on as guest opinionators. So to be correct, you think we are not allowed opinions any more?

             
          • Mcooper posted at 11:52 am on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            Mcooper Posts: 23

            Yep - she made a mistake. A really, really, really, great big mistake. Oops! There is definate need for internal controls when dealing with finances. Woudn't you think the sheriffs office would at the very least require a couple of signatures on checks that are written? And..I have to wonder why she thought she wouldn't get caught. Of course she hasn't been found guilty yet, just an accusation and alledged theft. So, DJ is right "innocent until proven guily".

             
          • Pequot posted at 7:57 am on Thu, May 9, 2013.

            Pequot Posts: 525

            Classic. She receives the money, deposits the money, writes checks for the money and signs the checks. That system and the lack of a periodic audit tends to produce theft and fraud. No need to be "shocked". It happens quite frequently. How much is really missing will never be known. Another element is the obvious amount of trust placed in one employee. Then the president of the association, at least partially responsible for instituting internal controls, is still buds with the perp ! ( "We're still supportive of her personal life." ) All of this is followed up with a request for the public to donate even more money to "defray the association's losses." How about proving there are controls established which will prevent this from happening again. It's not that difficult.

             
          • DJJackson posted at 9:34 pm on Wed, May 8, 2013.

            DJJackson Posts: 730

            It would probably be prudent to at least convict her, before passing judgement.

            I will never understand, why American's have stopped believing in the "Innocent until proven guilty" that we enjoy.?

            [sad]

             
          • flatface posted at 2:45 pm on Wed, May 8, 2013.

            flatface Posts: 41

            It takes quite a pair to steal from the sheriff's office. man oh man.

             
          • 888111 posted at 10:05 am on Wed, May 8, 2013.

            888111 Posts: 541

            that's nice,big felony,she'll be out real soon,but send those potheads to prison

             

          AP Montana