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.

What Was Sheriff Bob Johnson Thinking?

I have been blogging about the organized fleecing of Dorothy Rogers for years. Scott Haines is at the helm but others allowed him to stay employed–namely Sheriff Bob Johnson. To say that Haines is anything less than a sexually deviant cancer within the SRSO, would understate the situation. I recently requested all the IA’s for Haines. I was provided 3. In further prodding, it has come to light that there are 10 Supervisory Inquiries (SI’s), which is a way to sidestep official investigations.

Supervisory inquiries, according to Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s General Order J-003 Disciplinary Guidelines and Standards, are done when a complaint on an officer comes in and a supervisor does a mini-investigation to determine the validity of the complaint. I am told by other officers, that it also can be used to dispense discipline in the case of a minor infraction, like in the case of a written coaching or written warning. The offense and the discipline tend to be lesser and does not rise to the level to open an Internal Affairs case. If the complaint alleges criminal activity, an IA must be opened, but not in Santa Rosa.

Now at least 2 of these SI’s are serious allegations that should have triggered IA’s but Sheriffs Hall & Johnson decided to basically dismiss the complaints without real investigations, despite the severity of the claims. The first of the ones I knew about, was in 2012. William Sumner, a former cop, submitted a complaint, commonly referred to as “repo nights”. Sumner claimed Haines used NCIC/FCIC to repossess cars and used the SRSO impound lot to store cars. He would cannibalize cars held there to put on other vehicles. Sumner claimed Haines used other officers log in info to avoid detection. The complaint was dropped and found to be “unfounded” after Sumner avoided speaking to those investigating his complaint. It is my understanding he was aware of or participated in other illegal activities that an interview would uncover. That is the speculative understanding of his reluctance to talk to colleagues of Haines.

This is a typical deflection used to bypass investigating crimes reported. For instance, let’s go back to Naomi Jones’s mother going to ECSO to report her daughter missing and being arrested for a warrant for welfare fraud without the ECSO immediately looking into the missing child. I would have been suspicious of this myself, had I been Sumner. When these agencies, specifically ECSO & SRSO, do not want to give credence to a report given to them, they turn on the messenger who comes to them in good faith. It is common practice. People wonder why there is no relationship between law enforcement and many communities in the Panhandle.

The second SI complaint was filed in 2015 regarding the exploitation of Dorothy Rogers. Matt Groelinger submitted the complaint to Chris Watson regarding the pilfering by Haines of the irrevocable trust, Haines convinced Rogers to revoke in order to make him executer.

An investigator working for Marie Mattox, the attorney representing Groelinger, documented the following:

“It should be noted that Watson made no documented effort to interview any other family members or independent witnesses.

Watson ignored Groelingers request to have Haines cease any business relationship
with Eastgate Mobile Home Park even though Groelinger provided documents proving
his authority in Skirpan Properties LLC…..Watson documents his recommendation as, This case is to be closed and classified as UNFOUNDED.
There is no credible evidence or information of any kind proving that any unethical or
illegal acts or policy violations have been committed by Lt. Haines.

Again this isn’t surprising. If you don’t do an investigation or talk to people, then you reserve plausible deniability. It is better to be seen as incompetent than to open Pandora’s box.

Here is a list of the SI’s provided:

I have requested the documents associated with these SI’s. But doesn’t that look like a lot of issues? 9 since 2012 & 2 formal IA’s (2011 & 2019). Why was this cop kept around? I am reminded of an article in the Santa Rosa Gazette on 2018. The following quote by Bob Johnson was made, in reference to Rich Aloy’s assertion that “There is nothing more damaging than a bad cop”:

So if somebody wants to complain on an officer and I’m out of town, the chief deputy, the major over law enforcement, the captain over law enforcement, can take that complaint,” Johnson said. “You don’t have to give your name but we do need enough information so we can contact you back and let you know the status of your complaint against the officer.….Whatever punishment is due we deal it out all the way up to termination,” Johnson said. “We take it seriously, and if they’re not performing their job as they’re supposed to, that’s a bad reflection on law enforcement (and) the sheriff’s office in general, and we’re not going to tolerate that.”

Santa rosa gazette, Feb. 2018

Everything having to do with Scott Haines is completely contrary to this statement. I would have to say, besides a bad cop, the more damaging thing is to have admin cover up for that bad cop. Those are the people who should know better and bear the burden on insuring the safety of the public. Since this cover-up is not a duty of any officer or elected official, those actions occur outside their official roles, thereby taking on professional liability and personal liability. This is the one exception to the immunity provided to protect such officials in the course of their duties within their positioning. Once they step outside the scope of that duty and act upon that, the immunity is waived.

It seems Bob has joined the ranks of some of his Escambia County counterparts. What a shame! He was thought to be a more honest Sheriff. It appears those do not exist after all.

GUEST POST: BEHOLD THE BEARD

An anonymous guest writer from within the Escambia County Sheriff’s office asked me to post this in response to the civil unrest over police brutality. I am compiling a post to accompany this post for later this week.

Behold the Beard

 Do we have a loose cannon at the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office as well?

On December 1, 2014, Deputy John Beard and another officer were involved in an incident in which Deputy Beard tased a man five times. The man died a few weeks later and a lawsuit was filed. This is a news article of the incident:

http://www.northescambia.com/2014/12/man-dies-two-weeks-after-being-tased-by-escambia-deputies

BEARD

On February 18, 2018, Deputy John Beard hit an arrestee who was already handcuffed. This incident was not caught on video; however, Dep. Beard was cleared of using excessive force because he claimed the arrestee attempted to head-butt him (ECSO18OFF003324).

On July 14, 2019, during the Blue Angel Airshow, Dep. Beard was attempting to arrest a subject on Pensacola Beach. The video of this incident went viral and depicts Dep. Beard on a man’s back.  The man was in the water and appeared to be resisting, or not complying with, Dep. Beard. Dep. Beard punched the male and eventually took the man into custody. Several officers observed on the video stood around and did not assist Dep. Beard. Text messages between administrative employees at the ECSO indicated that the man was in the hospital, unconscious, two days later. The arrestee was said to have been extremely intoxicated at the time of the incident. Deputy Beard may have also injured his hand during the incident as well because he was seen in a news video with a cast on his arm not long after the Blue Angel Airshow. According to a PNJ news article, the ECSO stated that they would be reviewing the Blue Angel incident. The results of this review have not been released publicly to my knowledge.

https://www.wkrg.com/northwest-florida/ecso-comments-on-video-showing-deputy-tackling-suspect-on-pensacola-beach/

On 09/15/2019, Deputy Beard was again involved in an arrest in which he hit a man who was already in handcuffs. Again, Deputy Beard claimed the man attempted to head-butt him, but according to the other officer on scene this did not happen. The other officer on scene, Dep. Ward, noted in his supplemental report that he felt that Dep. Beard’s use of force was excessive. The incident was investigated and Dep. Beard was EXONERATED!! What happened to the whistleblower in this case? The other officer on scene? Just as expected, and in true David Morgan style, Dep. Ward was suspended for a week without pay. The ECSO’s new Use of Force Expert is a training Sergeant. That Sergeant claims that many things COULD HAVE happened and Dep. Ward was punished based on what COULD HAVE happened because he did not participate in the incident to the liking of David Morgan. Dep. Ward was never allowed to give his account of the incident and was punished based on, once again, what MIGHT HAVE or COULD HAVE happened. And Deputy Beard? Well, he received no punishment for what actually DID HAPPEN. Why?? Is it because they did not want the public or the attorney for the first case to become aware of Dep. Beard’s actions since the lawsuit was filed? Too late.

And if that’s not enough get this…the Sergeant in training. The new Use of Force Expert, utilized by ECSO’s Internal Affairs Unit as an expert when they deem it necessary, is none other than the Sergeant who left a high-powered rifle and other miscellaneous ECSO equipment/ammo/etc. unsecured in his county-issued vehicle and had the items STOLEN!!! Was this a policy violation? Yes! Did he receive punishment for this incident when the guns and other items ended up on the street in the hands of criminals and some of the equipment was never recovered? NO! He was placed on Administrative Leave with Pay until the incident blew over and then transferred to train the new recruits! Do you think this Sergeant owes David Morgan for overlooking his “little” indiscretion/policy violation enough to write up an Internal Affairs case to David Morgan’s liking? One would tend to believe so.

One would also tend to believe that there may be other incidents involving Dep. Beard that have been overlooked, unreported or under-reported. Public Records requests sent to the ECSO to obtain a copy of the video from the 2019 incident have been ignored and unfilled. Why? David Morgan believes he is above the LAW!

Who’s Protecting Escambia County?

Once upon a time, when people spoke of Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, there was respect in their voices, an air of reverence and admiration that went without question. Now, there is just an aura of malevolence and shame. That is all that remains.

We all are aware that Morgan is NOT any example of a law enforcement officer. We are also cognizant that Haines is not any closer to be a cop than Morgan. His success come from instilling fear, manipulating honorable people into dubious situations for no better reason than he wants to control. In order to survive, “yes men & women” are necessary to fall in line.  Rank and file led by historic failures and an embarrassment to law enforcement.

Recently, there was a public records request obtained that included text messages from ECSO staff members. It should be noted the texts are from people in leadership positions at the ECSO. The same people making decisions about how to investigate cases, make arrests and keep the community safe. These same people are responsible for deciding the fate of so many people without opposition or any check and balance.

During the summer of 2019, make-believe investigation was ordered on Chief Deputy Eric Haines by Sheriff David Morgan. This supposed investigation was to be centered around his treatment of females. Keep in mind that a Federal Court judge has ruled long ago that Eric Haines had displayed conduct that indicated gender bias. The investigator assigned was Mindy von Ansbach Young, who is a subordinate of Chief Haines. Young is in the chain of command for Haines. Still Morgan believed it was a good idea to have a subordinate investigate a supervisor.

Surprisingly, Young fulfilled the dog and pony show of an investigation and it was determined that Chief Haines had committed no violation! How lucky for him. The following text messages were obtained from the ECSO through a hard-fought public records request. The content speaks for itself. Incomprehensibly, Young seems to deeply admire Haines. For this reason, she should have never been assigned to investigate him.

Here are the highlights from the Eric Haines IA:pages-from-i2019-015_eric-haines-ia_unlocked_page_01.jpgPages from I2019-015_Eric Haines IA_unlocked_Page_02Pages from I2019-015_Eric Haines IA_unlocked_Page_03

Pages from I2019-015_Eric Haines IA_unlocked_Page_04
The witnesses highlighted are in the command staff or is Lee Tyree.

pages-from-i2019-015_eric-haines-ia_unlocked_page_05.jpgpages-from-i2019-015_eric-haines-ia_unlocked_page_06.jpgpages-from-i2019-015_eric-haines-ia_unlocked_page_07.jpgpages-from-i2019-015_eric-haines-ia_unlocked_page_08.jpgpages-from-i2019-015_eric-haines-ia_unlocked_page_09.jpgpages-from-i2019-015_eric-haines-ia_unlocked_page_10.jpg

Here is the link to the entire IA:  I2019-015_Eric Haines IA_unlocked

Just to remind everyone, Mindy von Ansbach Young has previously been mentioned in this blog.

For further entertainment here are some of the texts between Young & Haines:

Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_1 (2)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_1 (3)

Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_2 (3)

Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_2 (2)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_5 (2)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_5 (3)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_5 (4)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_6 (2)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_2 (4)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_4 (3)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_4 (4)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_6 (2)Pages from unlocked text file-3_Page_6 (3)

But to sum it up:

mindyPages from unlocked text file-2 (2)

my creation

 

More Morgan Drama

So the Rogers vs. Morgan lawsuit has heated up. This is a new twist. Mindy Pare claimed her letters to and from Leah Manning were not relevant to this lawsuit only to be proven wrong after an inspection of the letters on camera.

Pages from ROGERS_v_MORGAN_et_al__flndce-17-00753__0085.0 quashROGERS_v_MORGAN_et_al__flndce-17-00753__0085.0 quash_Page_2ROGERS_v_MORGAN_et_al__flndce-17-00753__0085.0 quash_Page_3ROGERS_v_MORGAN_et_al__flndce-17-00753__0085.0 quash_Page_4ROGERS_v_MORGAN_et_al__flndce-17-00753__0085.0 quash_Page_5ROGERS_v_MORGAN_et_al__flndce-17-00753__0085.0 quash_Page_6

The excerpt says:

“I hope to make Morgan eat his words from the press conference (in 2015). He deliberately gave false information about the pictures and the computers, just to make a bigger better case. Fuck him and his election year! ANYWAYS! I feel he did it so it would make us look our daughters predators and it would get picked up by more news affiliates instead of just teens accusing of wrongdoings! And then he got to throw my sex life in and make the juicy twist. What goes around comes around and he has quite alot going around in his life. I wonder if he (illegible) his cell # when it showed up in my phone? LOL! Enough about that for now. It’s like a tv show. …to be continued!”

 

2 Sheriffs, One Sex Scandal

img_0673

On February 23rd, 2017, Chief Deputy Eric Haines started an internal affairs investigation into deputy Heath Jackson and with allegations of Jackson giving information to Leah & Doug Manning when they were on the run in 2015.  The IA investigation was thrown together and completed very quickly. It consisted of testimony of Doug Manning, Leah Manning, Heath Jackson and phone records. There was no true investigation as pieces of the criminal investigation and other internal affairs investigations were cropped together, to give the facade of an actual investigation being conducted. Naturally, the IA found the claims unsubstantiated. This was a political favor because Heath Jackson had political ambitions. He wanted to run for Sheriff in Escambia County, Alabama. In 2019, Jackson was sworn in after winning that election.

The sham of an internal affairs investigation doesn’t pass the legitimacy test. The key is in looking at the timeline of events.Pages from Chief Deputy Eric Haines - 30(b)(6) Deposition Exhibit Number 8 (1)_Page_1Pages from Chief Deputy Eric Haines - 30(b)(6) Deposition Exhibit Number 8 (1)_Page_2Pages from Chief Deputy Eric Haines - 30(b)(6) Deposition Exhibit Number 8 (1)_Page_3Pages from Chief Deputy Eric Haines - 30(b)(6) Deposition Exhibit Number 8 (1)_Page_4Pages from Chief Deputy Eric Haines - 30(b)(6) Deposition Exhibit Number 8 (1)_Page_5Pages from Chief Deputy Eric Haines - 30(b)(6) Deposition Exhibit Number 8 (1)_Page_6Pages from Chief Deputy Eric Haines - 30(b)(6) Deposition Exhibit Number 8 (1)_Page_7

The entirety of the IA file can be seen here.

This is an investigation that began on February 23, 2017, with Heath Jackson contacting Eric Haines. The first interview of this IA is Doug Manning from January 2016. Why was no IA started then? Then, an IA interview with Doug on February 10th, 2017 (before the IA began).  How is that possible?  Answer: IT ISN’T.