Corruption = Liberty & Justice for ….the Favored

Recently, there has been article after article about the corruption of the law enforcement agencies in the area. The attention was, at first, on the employees that were wronged, which is reasonable because those individuals are the most obvious victims of the corruption. When an employee is wrongly terminated, the process demands the employee to, ultimately, seek a court action to remedy the wrong. A court action is all that most people ever see.  The events that happen up until the filing of a suit, all the behind the scenes, or “the real cause”, is seldom known.  The public has not seen the battles or the battle scars, that nexus of the issue, or what lead to the “law enforcement gods” to eviscerate the rights of, in this case, their employees.

In each one of these cases, that are known, information provided by public records is the only understanding available to the general public.  If all the stars and planets are aligned, articles are written, using those documents, can explain the meaning of the records exposed. These articles and documents typically support the idea of poor leadership existing in the law enforcement community in Escambia County.

It is a common theme to see Sir David and his loyal followers act more as tyrannical dictators than public servants. The layperson would observe that free speech, employment rights, and laws, in general, are only rights reserved for the favored ones outside of the agency. Sir David wouldn’t consider applying those laws to his or his cronies’ actions.  His leadership proves that it is best to do what he says and ignore the rules. Rules do not concern him and are used to attack him improperly because after all he is David Morgan.

In Escambia County, Sir David has been seen allowing two favored employees to violate state law as the staff attempts to ignore it. Colleen Burt and Jessica Hackathorn, both committed law violations and their incidents were compared to past incidents showing that unfavored ECSO employees were punished for the same type of acts. Fortunately, they have been exposed and now, everyone is waiting for the reports of what action will be taken, if any.  Based on the patterns of behavior demonstrated over and over, the ECSO staff will drag out a simple investigation, hoping for the everyone who is watching to become distracted and not notice when that overt action is taken to put the “fix” in, to resolve the matter most favorable to the agency—not the law or the community but the agency.  It would be prudent for the ones guilty of overriding policies, laws and ethical codes to remember that because of the past issues handled inappropriately, attention to them will increase as they have been identified as corrupt.  This is something most people subverting the law might be cognizant of, however, arrogance is the biggest enemy to any criminal. And these criminals think they are ABOVE the law.

Still, even with those cases (or best described as crimes), many of the other incidents involved normal everyday citizens that are not aware of how to expose law enforcement corruption. Some may even be intimidated by the perception of power those such as Sir David possess. The citizens forget, just as Sir David did, that they are source of elected power and it is with them the actual power exists. Sure, it is a tough battle but what has worth, that isn’t worth a fight? It is not difficult for Morgan to destroy individuals in a battle. With cowards, such as Haines, paying his debt to Morgan, for boosting him well beyond his actual capability of a law enforcement officer nothing is off the table. Morgan easily motivates those lacking integrity to do the dirty work. Even if the staff doesn’t participate directly, they have no issue with watching the henchmen destroy, or attempt to destroy good people. This may even be worse than participating. At least, Haines knows he must jump when Morgan says to jump. This forces him to put in some effort and could even cause him to perceive he is doing his job in some insane thought process. Those, who watch, are not willing to act but see no problem in ignoring anything that doesn’t affect them directly. Would it be regarded as acceptable for a cop to watch a person get robbed by a suspect but not get involved because of fear of being harmed? Of course not, but that is exactly what ECSO staff does.

Another issue has been exposed recently. The Brady List. This is a list that has clear guidelines concerning the conduct that would cause an officer to be placed on the list. By reading the list, with information provided by ECSO, there is no indication of what criteria these officers have met to be on the list, nor to determine what that process is. The only real common denominator is that all on the list are disliked by Morgan and/or Haines. After reading the case law concerning Brady several times, it is worth mentioning that there is not one mention of anything that allows Morgan or Haines the sole discretion to place whoever they wanted on the list.

ECSO can’t say that all people who commit a policy violation of any kind should be on the list. Many have committed violations that were not indicative of their trustworthiness as an officer of the law.  It would be impossible to say all employees that are terminated are on the list. There was an occasion that a colonel was terminated and not listed. Maybe because Haines was fearful of the repercussion because of a lawsuit pending. However, if it is legal to put others on the list, why would he be scared to put that employee on there too?

A recent demotion occurred to an employee–a lieutenant, was busted to deputy. Two full ranks in the chain of command. Why does Haines think that wasn’t reasonable for that person to be on the list? Remember Burt? She was found to have lied on her timesheet and received discipline for lying.  This employee is exactly an employee that qualifies for the list. She could testify in a criminal proceeding about evidence and has proven to have questionable credibility by lying on a timesheet. If she would lie about work hours, it would be reasonable to be concerned she might lie about important issues that could have adverse effect on someone’s future in court. Now Hackathorn also has an issue too. She could be called to give testimony concerning officers committing insurance fraud or in at least, in one case, complain about it. She, then, is given a free pass when she commits fraud with a clear intent of a planned theft of services from the insurance company.

The truth is Morgan and Haines should be on the list. They routinely act in a manner that causes their character to be questioned. They act as if ruining the careers of others is a hobby. No hesitation to ruin lives when it betters the position for them. David Morgan was given proof of Lt. Forte committing perjury and ignored the complaint. The fact an official complaint of perjury was filed should have landed Forte on the list. This is a typical example of Morgan and Haines playing favorites. With a certified court transcript in hand, to compare to a statement under oath to internal affairs by Forte clearly lying, he is found not to have committed any policy violation even. It is often said that anyone can have their own opinion but not their own facts. It is clear the Brady List provided by the ECSO has undermined a check and balance process to help make certain law enforcement officers can be held to a standard that cultivates trust. Morgan and Haines made the choice to use it as a tool to punish those identified as enemies, further pushing public trust away from the good cops in our community.

Takeaway from this article:

Wrong is always wrong; right is always right. If one person is persecuted by  someone using a law or policy as a weapon, any person may be persecuted the same way. Corruption is equal opportunity with no one being safe.

banksy

Source from Inside ECSO Speaks Again!

The most recent headline creates the Illusion that Sheriff Morgan has rid the ECSO of another rogue employee. The story has all the popular buzz words that would cause the reader to believe a dangerous “drug trafficker” has been removed from society. This criminal will not enjoy any benefit for being an employee of the ECSO and will suffer every penalty allowed by law. Sheriff Morgan has exposed her violation of law and emphasized his dedication to destroying the “good ole boy system” by offering her as a sacrifice to the citizens of our county.

For those not familiar with the hypocrisy of Sir David I’ll explain. It is entirely possible that the accused in this case has violated the law. She is not a favorite of any of the incompetent staff members at the agency. She is a very accomplished crime scene technician. She is the senior tech in that unit. She has been dedicated to her job and remained loyal for many years despite the low pay and lack of appreciation. She has attended training classes without fanfare or begging for the spotlight. She is a dependable employee with actual job-related skills. With all the attributes described, she should be held accountable if she betrayed the trust of the agency. If found guilty, she should be punished as would any person found guilty for this type of crime. The standard should be applied to all employees at the ECSO, I would think. The problem is, it is not how the agency operates.

Recently, there have been stories posted about other employees that were caught violating laws. Jessica Hackathorn was reported for committing insurance fraud. This is the same employee that initiated a complaint on an officer for having a step-child on the agency insurance plan after divorcing the mother of the child. The officer was placed on administrative leave and investigated for nearly a year. Evidence supporting that the officer committed no violation of law, was ignored. That exculpatory evidence included a court order stating the officer would pay child support and provide insurance. Any person would interpret this order, from a Circuit Court in this district, to be proof that a crime had not occurred. Somehow, that is not how Chief Eric Haines viewed it.

Chief Haines disagreed with the States Attorney’s Office that no charges should be filed. Haines has developed the reputation for being less than knowledgeable concerning law enforcement issues and having strong tendencies to avoid any display of honest behavior. If, in fact, he had truly believed a law violation had occurred Florida law allows him every opportunity to prepare an affidavit stating probable cause for the court to review. It would only be conjecture to speculate why he did not do this. One could assume his cowardly nature, fear of giving a statement under oath or just lack of intestinal fortitude, contributed to avoiding this option. What he did do is contact the Florida agency tasked with investigating insurance fraud cases. When informed there was not a fraud in this situation, by an official that investigates these crimes as a career, Chief Haines accused the official of misconduct by failing to file charges against the officer because of “professional courtesy,  refusing to believe there was a possibility he was simply wrong. Fortunately, Haines failed to succeed with his bully tactics and the officer was able to return to duty. Haines did feed his demented appetite for abusing people he dislikes by causing the officer to serve a short suspension before returning to duty.

Currently, Hackathorn has found herself in a similar situation. She put a child of an ex-boyfriend on her insurance policy at the agency. She is not the mother of the child and has no legal custodial rights to the child. I applaud her desire to care for this child and would believe she is a decent person to extend her affection to the child. However, she gave misleading information to the insurance company when asking if she could add the child to her policy. It should be mentioned that she would be considered the fiduciary of the insurance plan offered at the ECSO. Add the fact that she considered herself expert enough to file a complaint on an officer for having a “non-qualified” individual on the plan. She considered herself expert enough to even argue against a judge’s court order. I believe it would be extremely unreasonable for her to claim she made an honest error. Facts support what she did was manipulate the law and process to give her an out. She knew the process well and is well-informed on the rules of the insurance plan. She is the gate-keeper for the agency plan. Her job is dedicated to informing all agency employees on rules and answering questions they may have concerning the plan. Within weeks of illegally adding the child to the plan the child had an insurance claim for glasses and braces. I am not saying this was planned but I am saying it is suspicious. All indication here is that she willfully committed a fraud. Maybe, Chief Haines could inform us what he found out after talking to the state about fraud. Surely, he put the same effort into this issue as he did the one he investigated involving the officer.

Then the issue concerning a gun inside a county building. Jamie Higdon was a mechanic working in the garage at the ECSO. He was in possession of a firearm, while at work. There is written documentation that proves he had permission to possess the firearm during certain work-related duties. The state law allows for this. Again, enter Haines with his less than stellar knowledge of the law. An investigation is ordered, and the results are a surprising. The investigation revealed exactly what Haines had stated as law violations. The problem is with this matter:  Haines was wrong. One may ask how that could be. I’ll answer that. One explanation is that the person responsible for the investigation is as ignorant to the law as Chief Haines. This is entirely plausible, as it was one of the incompetent staff members of Sir David that completed the investigation. Another explanation is the investigation was corrupted by Haines. It is common knowledge that Haines never actually makes decisions that can be directly blamed on him personally. He uses internal investigations or another agency to do his dirty work. This gives him the opportunity to blame others and avoid being accountable himself. Either scenario supports the overwhelming opinion that the agency is corrupt and incompetent. Higdon ultimately leaves the agency. A superior employee lost to the poor leadership at the ECSO.

The comparable incident to this story involves Coleen Burt. She is a crime scene tech at the agency. She is often applauded for her stellar ability. Recently, Burt attended a training class and for her graduation, staff members went on a road trip to Tallahassee to celebrate. Never have I known of staff members attending an employee’s graduation ceremony out-of-town. Also, Burt works inside the main building at the ECSO. Her position is a civilian position. No civilian should be armed with a firearm in the area she reports to for work. This is an area defined specifically by state law as being an area that guns will not be in possession of civilians. Well, that isn’t the case for Burt. She mistakenly left her personal firearm in the bathroom while working. It is explicitly illegal for her to have been in possession of a firearm in the area and she carelessly left hers laying unattended for some period. The area is a secure area and often has members of the public in the area there for various business they may have at the ECSO. Had the wrong person found this gun before a responsible individual, what would happen? What if a child went into that bathroom and retrieved that weapon?

Let’s examine Burt. She has been involved in various “investigations” involving her propensity to be involved with individuals that are married or in some way relate to promiscuous behavior. Some jokingly comment her job title should be “Sex Scene Tech” and not Crime Scene tech, because there are more biologicals left by her than taken from a crime scene. This description is not “slut shaming” or being plain hateful. A public records request of investigations she has been involved in would support what is stated here, assuming Haines will, in fact release this information.

Here is a prediction. Hackathorn and Burt will never have to answer for the incidents described above. When their investigations are completed, no action will be taken. In fact, Hackathorn’s fraud related investigation is focused on the “leak” to Hunt insurance and not the lie/ fraud she committed. If the ECSO is called out, the defense will be the recent arrest of the employee in the headlines now. Morgan will use her as an example of just how honorable he is. He will say all employees are treated equal. You know now that he is a liar and that is not true. Do not allow him to do that when the time comes.

 

 

How Many BJ’s for This?

colleen burt

I was shocked that THIS crime scene tech was actually applauded for this award, while no other such awards have been recognized with the same fanfare. But I suppose it should not have been such a surprise being that LEO AFFAIRS posts have been deleted about the open talk of the “oral” gratification this woman provides at crime scenes and the fact her nipple rings can be identified in a line up, Eric the social media Nazi, probably has sampled her talents.  While the one LEO AFFAIRS post addresses her by name, Escambia, & Santa Rosa reference her.

cb

Escambia LEO Affairs post

cb

cb

Santa Rosa LEO Affairs

While the number of BJ’s given for the attention by Chief Deputy Nonsense is in question, the real question is why Colleen did not get the opportunity to go to jail for leaving her gun in the women’s restroom? James Higdon was burned at the stake for that but yet there is NO documentation on Ms. Crime Scene Nipple Ring, why?

Attached is the IA on Higdon, if anyone has any info on “lady” referenced here, please let me know.

higdon investigation_Page_01higdon investigation_Page_02higdon investigation_Page_03higdon investigation_Page_04higdon investigation_Page_05higdon investigation_Page_06higdon investigation_Page_07higdon investigation_Page_08higdon investigation_Page_09higdon investigation_Page_10higdon investigation_Page_11higdon investigation_Page_12higdon investigation_Page_13higdon investigation_Page_14higdon permission_Page_1higdon permission_Page_2