By Nicole Montesano • Staff Writer • 

Yamhill woman loses to county's forfeiture claim

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Click here for one-day access.

For all other subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please .


Christmas has Talons

Normally I am not a fan of foreclosure but in this case I am thrilled.


Thank God,the poison this POS put out there was incredible.

David S. Wall

"Ray said that forfeiture proceeds are distributed as follows: 47.5% to law enforcement agencies; 20% to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission;10% each to the state Department of Education and scholarships to children of public safety officers who died or were disabled in the line of duty; 5% to the Department of Environmental Quality, and 2.5% to the Asset Forfeiture Oversight Advisory Committee."

The "forfeiture proceeds" as discussed in the article totaled "95%." Where does the remaining "5%" go?

"He also argued that the state moved to seize the property after the deadline expired. However, a judge denied the motion." Did the judge commit a "reversible error?" Deadlines are "Deadlines."

"Sheriff’s Capt. Chris Ray, no relation, said it is rare for the county to pursue forfeiture of real property."

Maybe this is true for drug-related cases but, Commissioner Starrett's unquenchable thirst for tax-foreclosed properties being seized by the County and then turned over to "Non-profit and or Public Benefit Corporations" for "Drug-Criminal element jail diversion-Rehab" is legendary.

The irony of this case is Ms. Sublet might end-up in a County "Rehab-house" located in our neighborhoods; where "Peer Counseling" paid for by Taxpayers, will "rehabilitate" her.

Great job Law Enforcement!

...More money should be afforded to the "widows and orphans fund" of fallen public safety officers. And these monies should be "tax-free" if they are not already.

David S. Wall


When will the airplane arrive?


On March 30, 2018 the News Register posted a story on Sublet titled "Rural Yamhill Drug Dealer Indicted". In that story the News Register wrote;

"According to the probable cause affidavit:

On two occasions last October, the Yamhill County Interagency Narcotics Team used a confidential informant to purchase about one-quarter pound of meth from Sublet. The buys took place at her Northwest Pike Road residence, west of Yamhill.

Then, in late October, a search warrant was served on the home and a FedEx package delivered to the residence.

The package contained more than five pounds of meth and about one-half pound of heroin. Sublet admitted the package was hers and she intended to sell the drugs to about 10 customers. A handgun belonging to Sublet was also seized."

Has the News Register asked if YCINT knows how many packages Sublet may have received at her home before she was investigated and arrested?


The war on drugs is evil.


I'm not sure how much sympathy I could muster for a 61 year old woman who has enabled the meth / heroin industry in our town. Mr. Stein your client deserves to lose everything. While I hate to see anyone end up on the streets at any age her actions merit the loss of her house and savings. Maybe some of her customers can take her in.


A recent article (2/14/20) reported about the forfeiture of property and home of a convicted drug dealer in Yamhill. I’m not inclined to sympathy for drug dealers, but the circumstances surrounding this forfeiture left me feeling that the court had overstepped justice in this case. The woman, Sheryl Sublet, was sentenced to a 6 year prison term and fine of $50,000 for her crimes. The court then proceeded to sentence additional punishment, forfeiture of her home and property, arguing that once Sheryl is released from prison, she will “try to put her life back together,” implying that she will go back to dealing meth from her home.
This argument, however, is not based on any facts or evidence, but rather is baseless and prejudicial as it is not possible to know what the future holds for this woman. The result of this forfeiture decision will force her into penury and homelessness for crimes that she hasn’t actually committed but is suspected of possibly committing sometime in the future. Perhaps it would be best to hold off additional punishment until the ‘possible future’ crime has actually been committed.
My hope for this woman is that after 6 years of incarceration, she would have recovered from drug addiction, rehabilitated her lifestyle, and received appropriate medical treatment for her medical and HIV conditions.
Kudos to her attorney, Zachary Stern, for working to overturn this verdict that would surely enrich the county but push her into homelessness based on the idea that she might commit a crime 6 years in the future.


This vile woman has contributed more than her share of misery in her own life and the lives of countless hopped-up others.