To Serve, Protect & ….Target

In this post, I’m going to minimize my commentary. I want to put SRSO & Scott Haines’s lies on display.

Also, some of the excerpts in here are part of writ of mandamus filed by Marie Mattox’s firm on behalf of Matt Groelinger. This writ was filed in response to the games the public records folks played when records about Scott were requested. I have experienced mild games, such as constantly having my password rejected and having to request a reset. Literally the first handful of times I logged into the public records part of the SRSO site, I was told my password is incorrect. Then requested a reset delayed me getting into the website for hours. That eventually stopped. Cindy Myers, one of the attorneys representing Groelinger and his family, had the exact same password issues. However, they also, played games by closing requests prematurely, denying counsel access to records that they had a legitimate right to have. Another thing was redaction of information as to protect Scott.

The frustration in dealing with these petty games led the Mattox firm to file the writ outlining the fuckery of the SRSO, which violated FL Statute 119 (public records disclosure). Sadly, for the SRSO, these public records shenanigans are not unique; I personally dealt with these same antics with the ECSO. I educated myself on the Sunshine & public records laws. I have fought these sorts of fights already. Working in conjunction with Groelinger & his attorneys, I was able to point out issues that this was just an attempt to hinder transparency. People only hide things that need to be hidden. No one ever, innocently, covered up the truth with lies. It is that simple.

Now onto the facts of this case:

This really begins with the arrest of Matt Groelinger in December 7th, 2015:

On April 28. 2016, Scott Haines was deposed by Michael Griffith, Groelinger’s criminal attorney. When asked about the alleged theft and his role in the investigation, here is what Haines had to say:

Here is an unredacted view of the TAR requests done in reference to this case:

Screenshots of the FBI email to Shane Tucker that initiated the 2021 IA

The following is a chart showing the significant time frames that Scott ran Groelinger through NCIC/FCIC:

Excerpts taken from Writ of Mandamus filed against the SRSO by Cindy Myers, one of the counsels for Groelinger.

The entirety of this document can be found here

So, this is what Scott staying “above reproach” looks like? Various SRSO admin seem to be following this “professionalism” example., as they lie, minimize and seemingly remain blind to issues dealing with Haines.

Previously I posted the redacted IA from 2021, well now I have the UNREDACTED IA.

Here are some highlights:

Throwing Chris Watson under the bus by saying Scott points out that Watson conducted the complaint where this was alleged, and Watson found it unfounded. He continues to deny all the entries but it is to no avail as the FBI has authenticated the information.

Here is the IA for which termination was the judgment of his violations:

It is incomprehensible to me that this document, signed & dated on 8/24/2021, calls for termination. Yet on 8/31/2021, I know there are some officer’s rights issue following this decision but that should not be completely set aside allowing him to retire in lieu of termination. The havoc and detriment this one officer created over the years ought to factor into this decision. Not only that but the pressure of the FBI forcing Watson & Johnson to both do something about this situation, forcing their hands, compound to make a much bigger “fuck off” to the FBI.

I also believe that since Watson evidently stands behind his assessment that the use of NCIC/FCIC was used in the course of legitimate investigations, he should be investigated himself. The FBI knows this was not the case and there is no genuine agency related business going on. So why would Johnson reassign the case from Holcomb back to Watson who obviously did not properly conduct the 2015 complaint professionally or unbiasedly? Watson’s investigation is literally being called out as BS by the FBI. Why is he not under investigation now?

What really shocks me is the number of people being dragged into Scott’s exploitation of Dorothy Rogers. We have Watson, Johnson, Kilburn, Utsey, Tucker & Neff. How many other people are going to be involved in this cover up (which amounts to racketeering in furtherance of Scott’s crimes)?

I think the documents speak for themselves. It is for you to decide.

Bullshit, Bob!!

In 2013, I started blogging because I felt I had a civic duty to start a conversation about the stories & issues not being discussed in the media. No one was acknowledging the shameless abuses of power. Today, I still have that same fire and passion. I absolutely believe that people have an aversion to those who violate public integrity. Nevertheless, with the 24 hour news bombardment, we have been anesthetized to things that don’t affect us directly. We want to believe that people who are arrested are justifiably guilty or else they wouldn’t have been arrested. How could we live without certain axioms or presumptions about society? The trust in officials is ingrained into the consciousness, as it should be. In researching and investigating Escambia County justice, my understanding of crime and criminals changed. The good guys aren’t always the “good guys”; the bad guys don’t always get punished. While I knew sociopaths gravitate to positions of power to get the juice they need to indulge their every whim, I never conceptualized the extent of truth about that. Ultimately, respect is  lost for the law and justice system, starting with the officers themselves in these cases. I was told once, “there is no justice to be had in Florida.”  Indeed, the administration staff in the Santa Rosa Sheriff’s Office, as is the admin staff of Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, shows no semblance of integrity or duty of care to the public.

In this blog, I will be posting THE Internal Affairs Report that sent Scott Haines out of the agency, but I would like to first put a podcast clip up that seems more propaganda than fact, based on the documentation.

On September 6, 2021, Santa Rosa Sheriff Bob Johnson spoke on NewsRadio923. I clipped this portion of interest. 

Here is a transcript of that clip:

Andrew
…. But I did want to at least give you a chance to address the situation with Scott Haines,
who had prior disciplinary issues within the Department. Whatever you can tell people, I’ll let you give you a chance to tell people.


Sheriff Bob Johnson
Yeah. And unfortunately, there’s an ongoing investigation by another law enforcement entity, so I can’t really discuss it much. But I can just tell you if you looked at our agency over the past five years that I’ve been shared, we take care of discipline. So if one of our guys or gals acts out and does
something, they get punished for it and you make bad choices, you get bad consequences. And that’s just basically what occurred here is that.


Andrew
And I know it’s not that common, but having to discipline internally your officers, how frequent of a
thing is that? And I don’t just mean they make some mistake. That’s a training issue where they’re
really doing something that they definitely shouldn’t be doing where it’s a problem.


Sheriff Bob Johnson
It’s not that common. We’re pretty blessed. We have probably 400 sworn counting the deputies that
work in the jail. And it’s not very common. It’s like you hear in the national news when my officer does something stupid on camera and we all get blamed for it. Less than 1% of the officers in this country tarnish the badge less than 1%. That’s better than doctors and lawyers. So we take care of our own in that aspect of if you’re a bad cop, we don’t want you there. It makes us all look bad.

Sheriff Bob Johnson
And sooner or later, a bad cop is going to do something to where we can get rid of them. And
unfortunately, we have to do that not on a regular basis. But since I’ve been shared, probably in five
years, fire and law enforcement officers and Correctional officers, probably in five years, maybe 15
times at the most. Maybe I’d say closer to ten, probably. Yeah, it’s not very common.

Andrew
And it’s, as you say, it’s the very few that make for the vivid news story. Just like when you watch
fictional accounts of police, it’s the corrupt one to the vigilante style or the incompetent one that
creates an expectation which just isn’t borne out by the reality. And it’s hard to tell the good story
when things go right. Because when things go right, that typically doesn’t. We try to focus on the good as much as we can. But that’s not really going to grab the headlines most of the time

So what Bob is insinuating is recently committed violations of policy or law, committed by Scott which required discipline. But is that true? NO! The 9 Supervisory Inquiries that repetitively involved sexual misconduct or harassment, surfing porn, etc. Let’s not forget the 2020 shitshow in Escambia County, where Scott feigned suicidal ideations to get access to a co-worker. There is dispatcher to dispatcher reporting of this to Sheriff Johnson. Yet not only is it never cited within his disciplinary history, never psychologically evaluated. This is Baker Act material—no question. Yet it was swept under the rug and never gets even an “honorable mention” in his moral integrity evaluation.  C’mon Bob. This guy did more than any one officer should be

It is clear Bob Johnson has been aware of Scotts hijinks for years. He oversaw many disciplinary concerns prior to being elected as Sheriff. Prior to Jan 2017, there were 5 Supervisory Inquiries & 3 full on IA’s. “Porngate” & “Repo Nights” are among the highlights.

Now we see what the straw was that broke the camel’s back. The IA (that was not disclosed even after I balked at the number of IA’s. Even on 9/14/2021, when Adam Riddle informed me the 3 were all there was but there was 10 Supervisory Inquiries) that caused Scott to be terminated is revealed.

There are so many things that need to be pointed out and discussed. There are numerous highlighted areas that I will be delving into but for today, notice the dates and the one glaring issue is the unanimous vote to terminate Scott, yet he “retired”. Once everyone agrees there is a violation and agreed on the punishment, he should be terminated. Allowing him to resign only works prior to that board vote. They voted. He is fired before he “retired”. Don’t know how that works.

I am going to put this out there for everyone to draw their own conclusions. Without further adieu: