Conjuring Justice

Proof that One Person Can Make a Difference

On 7-22-2016, Lt. Frank Forte gave a statement to the Internal Affairs division of the Escambia County Sheriffs Office (ECSO). His statement was about a complaint he filed concerning court testimony of another officer. The officer, Sgt. Philip Nix, was a witness to a parking citation that had been issued on Pensacola Beach. Dep. David Cripe wrote a citation that he had been ordered not to issue. Sgt. Nix had instructed Dep. Cripe that a vehicle parked on the curb had asked permission and he was aware of the parked vehicles. Sgt. Nix also was aware that an ongoing issue about the parking area had not been resolved. The issue was about the parking area having legal marking to make a citation legal if issued.

Lt. Forte had been informed of the issue concerning parking by Dep. Cripe. This occurred on a Saturday morning, in January, on Pensacola Beach. The temperature was near freezing and the day not exactly a busy summer day. Parking was not creating any hardship for any person at the beach. Sgt. Nix had stated that it was not a situation that required any need for concern. The issue of parking was not a major concern and the incident was not one that could be considered urgent. Now, consider that Lt. Forte is involved. Situation becomes a major issue because in true fashion Lt. Forte must be center of attention. He could never miss an opportunity to flex his muscles and prove he is in charge.

Sgt. Nix left the beach from the duty assignment he was working. Shortly after Sgt. Nix left Dep Cripe rushed to the parked vehicles and issued citations. This action by Dep. Cripe is completed with the blessing of Lt. Forte. Later, Lt. Forte is quoted as saying “I don’t give a shit what he ordered” referring to Sgt. Nix instructing Dep. Cripe to not issue citations. Lt. Forte gave no consideration to the people that had been informed by a law enforcement officer to park in a location that he was now ordering citations to be issued. His ego controlled a decision to be made that cause innocent people to be caught up in a temper tantrum he was having against Sgt. Nix. Lt. Forte was more concerned about proving Sgt. Nix was not going to control “his Beach” and this point would be made by citing unsuspecting individuals with a ticket costing around $130.00. Lt. Forte didn’t even think about the fact Sgt. Nix wouldn’t be impacted by the decision. It would only impact the individual Sgt. Nix didn’t know receiving a ticket. Lt. Forte was caught up in proving he was in charge and flexing his muscle. This mentality is why he has been forced to bribe officers to even work for him, by buying sunglasses, if they transfer to him. The same reason he failed to motivate his shifts to the point he offered cash rewards for completing expected job requirements to officers that met a defined goal. He failed to even consider he was violating the law with providing gifts for doing a job.

Getting back to the citations on the beach, recipients of the tickets contested them. Sgt. Nix was subpoenaed to court to testify about the facts of the case. Sgt. Nix appeared in court as required. The testimony he gave was brief and to the point when asked questions concerning the citations and his involvement. Lt. Forte was in the courtroom when Sgt. Nix gave testimony. Lt. Forte falsely report back to ECSO administration that the testimony given by Sgt. Nix was considered “Conduct Unbecoming an Officer”. Lt. Forte explained that Lt. Nix made statements that were derogatory toward the ECSO and stated Sgt. Nix made critical remarks about the agency that were shocking.

The traffic hearing occurred on 6-10-2016. After confirming the traffic court had not been recorded by any type of court reporter, an internal investigation was ordered to be completed on Sgt. Nix. The investigation was based on the complaint made by Lt. Forte. At that point, the only evidence would have been the statements given by those that witnessed the court hearing. The case would relied on the memory and recall of those that were in the court room on the day of the hearing. Lt. Forte was one of the individuals that provided a statement concerning the conduct in the hearing that Sgt. Nix gave testimony. It would be safe to assume that Sgt. Nix didn’t have much of a chance with this investigation. Lt. Forte had previously given an opinion of what he believed had occurred. He was the person actually responsible for the complaint.

On 7-22-2016, Lt. Forte gave a statement concerning the testimony of Sgt. Nix. The statement was under oath. He was asked if he had knowledge of the incident. Lt. Forte responded with a response that took 5 transcribed pages to document. Lt. Forte included statements that he heard Sgt. Nix say the ECSO wrote illegal tickets routinely and have for years. He stated that Sgt. Nix was blurting out statements with being asked questions. He continued with testimony that made Sgt. Nix appear out of control and obviously not acting in a professional manner. Lt. Fortes statement described an officer that needed to be not only disciplined but for the discipline to be harsh up to even termination. This statement was the best evidence because there was not a court transcript. The issue came down to Lt. Fortes word against Sgt. Nix’s word.

On 8-31-2016, Sgt. Nix was interviewed by internal affairs investigators regarding the court appearance. Sgt. Nix reviewed the evidence and statements that had been given to this point. Sgt. Nix noticed that Lt. Forte was a confirmed liar and had no intent on being truthful. When compared to actual events, the statement of Lt. Forte could not be recognized as the same hearing that Sgt. Nix had appeared at causing this investigation. Lt. Forte made statements that were absolutely false and had no truth to them. Lt. Forte lied consistently through the entire statement concerning the conduct of Sgt. Nix. Lt. Forte had the belief he could say whatever he wanted to say because he knew the ECSO had not been able to receive a transcript of the actual hearing. It was not available from the clerk’s office.

Sgt. Nix had anticipated the possibility that there could be an issue with Lt. Forte and the court appearance concerning the parking tickets. Sgt. Nix was able to provide an official transcript of the court hearing. The court hearing had been documented by a court reporter at the expense of Sgt. Nix. Knowing Lt. Forte had the reputation of being a liar and avoiding truthful statements when it did not benefit his cause he hired a court reporter. Sgt. Nix was able to prove that Lt. Forte was the liar that he had always been believed Lt. Forte to be. It was in black and white. Lt. Forte gave a statement that was a complete lie and there was an official transcript that proved Lt. Forte had lied while under oath.

Sgt. Nix having a copy of a court transcript prompted an investigation against Lt. Forte for being untruthful. In true ECSO fashion Lt. Forte was exonerated because he said he didn’t have a chance to review the transcript. Had Sgt. Nix not paid for a court reporter there would not have been a transcript. I guess Lt. Forte can only be expected to tell the truth if he has an opportunity to review what can be used against him if he decides to be a liar. Most law enforcement issues that require a statement do not have transcript’s available to rely on when giving testimony from memory of an incident. This mentality would suggest unless Lt. Forte has little credibility when being judged on honesty. Lt. Forte said his statement would have not been the same if he could have had a chance to read the court transcript before his statement under oath. What that actually means is he would have been truthful if he would have known he would get caught in a lie. It is possible there are people that have suffered from his testimony in the past. If he would lie about another officer, because of a personal vendetta, it is not a stretch to think he would lie to look like a competent cop.

Now, the ECSO has made the decision to place Lt. Forte as Officer in Charge of Internal Affairs. Let that sink in for a minute. A known and proven liar placed in a position to investigate officers that have had complaints on them. He knows that if you are in favorable position with the administration an investigation of a complaint will be directed toward being covered up. He knows because he was the benefactor of such an investigation. If there is not a case against an officer, he can control information to appear the officer is at fault. The most tragic part of this is the officers that are continually subjected to the incompetent leadership of this administration. There is not a scenario that one could imagine that would make Lt. Forte a good choice for a position that should require honesty and integrity. There should not be a surprise here because the administration has proven there is not a requirement to have honesty or integrity. In fact, you don’t even need ability. All you need is the desire to carry water for the powers that be regardless of how deplorable they may be.

 

Advertisements

Recently promotions were made at the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office. Congratulations to one that deserved the promotion. Sgt. Tom Kelly was promoted and now Is Lt. Kelly. This IS an actual promotion that should have happen and Lt. Kelly can perform at a level expected by the officers under his command. He will be an example of leadership and professionalism. Many officers will have a chance to observe real supervision, that has become folk lore at the ECSO, for the first time in their career.                    ‘

Now, let’s talk about another– Lt. Frank Forte was promoted to 1st Lt Forte. While Frank will brag as if he had the winning numbers to the Mega PowerBall about this promotion but it is truly lackluster when compared to the other promotions. In fact, anybody should be insulted if they are compared to Forte. He has performed every cut throat task with diligence second to none, except maybe Morgan.  He was passed over for promotion when those promoted had half the years of experience as he does and they were promoted to much higher positions. Because Frank lacks morals and integrity, he was promoted to a position that will allow him to be used. He will carry water for Haines and allow plausible deniability when Haines deploys one of his search and destroy missions. Add the fact that Frank is a documented liar and Haines has the perfect minion for his devious duty assignments. Frank is incompetent, dishonest, and vindictive. All the boxes are checked for what Haines expects from a person running Internal Affairs Investigations.

It could be also that Frank needed to be removed from any position that allowed further destruction of an already weak morale level of current employees. Frank has also been called out for offering rewards for law enforcement activity when assigned to a shift. His failed leadership style reduced him to paying, presumably from his own pocket, and what officers are already hired to do. A law enforcement leader should know that is improper and that process should alert those with decision making authority to look for a problem. A  quick glance would reveal Frank had to bribe officers with gifts to request an assignment to his command and he paid officers extra to simply do their job. This conduct does not have any characteristic of what one would consider a valuable leadership tool.

Now, to another individual that was promoted—Lt. Ken Simmons. He was elevated to the rank of captain. It appears he has begun to reap the rewards of a relative (Chip Simmons -Sheriff candidate and current Chief Deputy) being in high places. His career has been less than notable to this point. He has few qualities that separate him from the pack and a reputation that is less than honorable. No special training, education or accomplishment that would qualify him for advancement ahead of others except for having a brother as Chief Deputy. The obvious question would be if this is a nepotism violation. I believe the law concerning nepotism is clear and this will be a promotion that is reversed in time. Haines would know this but agreed to not fight it so he could avoid being blamed at a future time.

Moving along there are 3 sergeant position that were elevated to captain or above and a  deputy position elevated to captain. One would pause to wonder how you promote sergeants all of whom were inadequate for a lieutenant’s position to a staff position. That is a kick to the teeth of the good officers that earned their position on the list for lieutenants. I assume the message to the ones that took the time to study for a test and dedicate the time to do well is, don’t waste your time and become a member of staff. Apparently, staff is seeking known failures and skipping the process to discover the individuals promoted are failures. This idea of leadership is the reason the ECSO has evolved into an agency that is ineffective and embarrassing to the citizens it serves.

There will be more to report soon. The monster that is known as David Morgan will continue to allow the destruction of the ECSO by the hands of Haines. He will continue to claim victory when placing last and fail to build leaders tasked with protecting our county. If Chip continues to ignore these failures and associate himself with this failed administration, as he has consistently done since taking his oath, he will prove he is not the person we should support for our next law enforcement leader. Some may even believe he is just a continuation of Morgan. The rumors of infidelity could be true and Haines has the relevant information to control Chip. There are few facts to support Chip being worthy of election at this point. There are many facts to cause one to believe he is only an extension of the failed Morgan administration. A brother is promoted, failed first line supervisors brought into the administration, failure to be a leader when deputies’ rightful raises were being extorted, rumors of infidelity being leveraged against Chip, and Chip is silent all the way through it all. That adds up to incompetence or corruption. Chip should either speak up or step away from Morgan. Staying the course he is on, only indicates he is the wrong person for the job.

The following ECSO Personnel Orders have been issued:

2018-369              PROMOTION – Effective 10/20/2018, Sergeant Thomas Michael Kelly, #082, to Lieutenant, new radio number #046, remain assigned Administration/Professional Standards/Training

2018-370              RANK DESIGNATION – Effective 10/20/2018, Lieutenant Frank Michael Forte, #024, to 1st Lieutenant, remain assigned Uniformed Services/NO/P4/F Shift

2018-371              PROMOTION – Effective 10/20/2018, 1st Lieutenant Darrell Scott Allday, #036, to Captain, new radio number #017, remain assigned Administration/Professional Standards

2018-372              PROMOTION – Effective 10/20/2018, 1st Lieutenant Kenneth Alan Simmons, #029, to Captain, new radio number #016, remain assigned Community Services/SRO

2018-373              RANK DESIGNATION – Effective 10/20/2018, Captain Mindy Marie Von Ansbach Young, #018, to Colonel, new radio number #009, remain assigned Community Services/Court Security

2018-374            RANK DESIGNATION – Effective 10/20/2018, Lieutenant Colonel Ronald Eric Ross, #011, to Colonel, new radio number #008, remain assigned Investigations/Special Investigations

Danielle L Landrum, PHR, SHRM-CP, Human Resources Associate II

*Dawn Janes was also promoted from Sgt to Major, although not on this list. 

Now, this is just inflammatory to most deputies, but it is possibly the way Sir David may be using to manipulate his #2. Above there is one name in red, Kenneth Simmons, Chip Simmons’s younger brother. The problem with his promotion is a very strongly upheld and broadly defined anti-nepotism law in Florida which may obfuscate the horizon for Chip.

The law states:

A public official is prohibited from seeking for a relative any appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in the agency in which he or she is serving or over which the official exercises jurisdiction or control. No person may be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a position in an agency if such action has been advocated by a related public official who is serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency; this includes relatives of members of collegial government bodies. NOTE: This prohibition does not apply to school districts (except as provided in Sec. 1012.23, Fla. Stat.), community colleges and state universities, or to appointments of boards,other than those with land‐planning or zoning responsibilities, in municipalities of fewer than 35,000 residents. Also, the approval of budgets does not constitute “jurisdiction or control” for the purposes of this prohibition.

In the ECSO administration, it is POSSIBLE that Chip wasn’t behind this promotion for his brother, but the anti-nepotism law as it has been interpreted by the Ethics Commission and the Attorney General, really doesn’t take that into consideration. He merely must have been in a position to give input. Just the fact that someone has the potential to influence a promotion for a relative (deserved or not) is a violation of Florida law, in public agencies.

Now it is my suspicion is that Sir David will be running for Sheriff for 2020.  This is based on him not being able to go back to being John Q. Citizen. Without the power of the position, Morgan is just a common crook with no influence.  It simply isn’t possible for him to give up that addiction. For that reason, after backing Chip, it would appear that Chip’s extra-marital affairs and perhaps this nepotism issue with his brother are going to be used to leverage Chip out of the Sheriff position.

Because of the corruption in this area, if Morgan files his papers to run, he will win. His benefactors have him on the payroll and to break in a new Sheriff would be inconvenient. Morgan is already bought and paid for, why risk someone else stepping in that might clean up the corruption?  Personally, I don’t think Chip has the stones to do anything like that but he may be less controllable than Morgan.

Chip hasn’t even smelled the smoke, yet the house of cards under him is slowly burning away.

chip on fire

 

 

 

 

The following email was sent to the admin of the ECSO weeks ago; the commentary below is from a source inside the agency after seeing no response by admin.

 

I am aware of the investigation that has started on Col. Custer. I believe that if an investigation is being completed all involved should be part of the investigation. Much of our problems are with the staff members at the office acting one way and judging others when they do the same thing.

All witnesses should be interviewed in the investigation with Col. Custer. This would include Capt. Dixon and her boyfriend Dep. Hall. They had a party at their house for a football game one Thursday night. Col. Custer and Katie were invited and came to the party. They spent the night there after the party. Capt. Dixon and Dep. Hall both knew that happen and allowed it. Capt. Dixon knows Col. Custer’s wife and knows that it was not right to allow two married people spend the night in the home. Both spouses know about this and could verify it is true. If they are not continuing to talk with you there are others. Unless a real effort is placed into this there would be no need to provide that evidence at this time. It would only expose those employees to the likely possibility of losing their job.

This behavior speaks to the lack of values for most of the staff and the double standards that are always displayed. She should not be able to make decisions on our future when she is involved in such poor decisions in her own personal life. Her assistance with allowing an illicit rendezvous to occur jeopardizing two families is deplorable.

Also, Whitney Lucas should be interviewed. Her husband Jake should be allowed to give his thoughts too. If you are wondering how these fits in it is easily explained. Whitney and Katie are best friends. Whitney has been involved in an affair for over two years. Her affair that is continuing is with Chief Simmons. Jake doesn’t want to report the incidents that he knows of because he fears losing his job and causing a divorce with his wife. It is very reasonable to assume he could feel this way when the possibility is Chief Simmons is the next sheriff and he works at the office.

None of the issues with Chief Simmons were going to be brought out at this time because the intent was to expose him closer to the election. The decision was to expose all now because so many families are now involved. This issue goes beyond politics.

Chief Haines knew of this affair that Chief Simmons was having before the recent events. He should be removed from any dealing with any investigations because as he puts it “that money in the bank” and knows he can use it to his advantage. He is constantly involved in these situations and always gets out of it because he is part of the problem.

This information is being provided so the office can clean up the mess we are in. This is the perfect time to remedy many problems. This issue can absolutely be proved provided a legitimate investigation occurs. You will find many other witnesses and evidence if any type of effort is made to find truth.

Commentary by source:

The ECSO is often found at the center of decisions that are questionable at best. There appears to be no consistency in how decisions are made. Discipline is an area that should be consistent. There should be predictable outcome to any issue that has been dealt with in past incidents. The activity of the ECSO administration has routinely acted inconsistent with several issues.

The above email was sent to the ECSO that outlined facts that would concern any reasonable administration. The email was detailed and would allow a mediocre investigator to follow the breadcrumbs to the truth. The information is not what I would believe any citizen would expect from the leaders in the law enforcement community. The details should be investigated, and the truth should be exposed.

What has been proven is there can be no expectation for any investigations to be reliable if conducted by the ECSO. Chief Haines has been proven to be less than honest. He uses his “power” to manipulate lives of those he can control. When he is finished with you he decides of how to discard you. He uses others to do the dirty work and believes that he appears clear of any wrong doing. Those who know him also know that is not true. Chief Haines is always involved but is careful to avoid touching anything that could leave his finger prints. The longer he can do this without having to answer for his actions the more he destroys.

None of the investigations conducted by the ECSO on employees can be trusted to have facts. Chief Haines should not be allowed to control the investigators that conduct internal investigations. The investigation is only a step he uses to prop up his opinion of a person. If he likes you or needs you the investigation will reflect there was no wrongdoing. If he has decided that you are of no use to him the investigation will reflect you should be fired. Having a pre-determined outcome of an investigation is unfair and illegal. Chief Haines has proven he is not capable of being in control of the agency.

This email is an example of how Chief Haines only picks the investigations that benefit him to be investigated. There is not any person in this email that is on his hit list so there will be no action taken on any of this information. No investigator has been tasked with finding the facts surrounding this email. Chief Haines has determined that the email contains no information on a person he has placed on his hit list so there is nothing to investigate. He decided and that is final. However, he will use this email to support a person losing their job if the end up on the hit list.

No complaints should ever be sent to the ECSO to be investigated. They have proven to be bias and untrustworthy.  I would question any and everything from Chief Haines. He  should not even be supervising people at this point. There is far more than a simple preponderance of evidence against him to prove bias concerning his decisions. His career should be reaching conclusion at this point. He has harmed enough people already and future victims deserve to be saved from his tyrannical decisions. His view of people based on his standard and void of any consideration of what is ethical or lawful. Any citizen that has a concern regarding employees should be reported to FDLE. They will send it to the agency for investigation but eventually an issue will pass through and the realization will set in that there is a problem at the ECSO.

The information provided in this email shows an environment that is “do as I say not as I do’ and has no clear rules that apply to all in an equal manner. It gives a glimpse of what the sheriff they have picked for us will be like. As citizens we deserve better representation from those tasked with protecting our county. Chief Haines has fallen short of proving he is a capable leader with values that reflect honorable intentions.   He is a disgrace to the agency as is the leader the non-LEO, David Morgan.

mission statement

I want to address the fallacy spouted on Escambia Citizen’s Watch group on Facebook, aka JUECW or the Jackie Rogers Hate Group. Melissa Pino has been characterized as pursuing a personal vendetta after she told Doug Underhill she was coming for him. Let me explain this to the layperson that believes this is just a “personal vendetta”. There is a fortified, adulterated effort to pervert and abuse the processes of the county to secure personal gain either by political capital (favors in the wing) or subverted contributions to PAC’s or personal campaigns. This aligned effort by some of those in politics, like Underhill, Sheriff Morgan and Bill Eddins (Curtis Golden-light) are bought and paid for and act in there own best interest rather than honoring their oaths of office.

In full view of the public, this bunch act brazenly. They hide very little. Underhill subverts information for his own gain, such as the Seafarer incident, gating a public access beach, bought for the purpose of public access. Underhill also fixes fraud that he and his business partner, Morgan Speranzo committed via the contracting laws. When called on the illegal action, by me, he doctored the paperwork by telling people it didn’t happen and having the paperwork “adjusted” to fit an implausible circumstance, he claims happened.

Sir David became a millionaire on a public servant’s salary while his department went to hell in a handbasket. No one is safer since this man took his oath. Oh and let’s not forget the LET money he bought his reelection with, to the tune of $2million over 4 years.

Eddins showed his colors with the medical examiner recently, going against the county’s stance on Dr. Minyard’s bloated salary. Eddins supported Minyard when she is clearly replaceable. She was forced to step down twice in her career for incompetence. Failure to do paperwork (kind of essential in the Medical Examiner field) was her main flaw. While this sounds harmless, it is far from it. Imagine something happens to your loved one, and while, in Minyard’s care, personal items or autopsy reports are not accounted for or are missing. Also, imagine your loved one was possibly murdered, if the police say they suspect suicide, she concurs, when there may not be evidence to that effect because it lessens her case work.  Now imagine her taking home in excess of $500K for treating your loved one, with such disregard. Now imagine the State Attorney of the 1st Judicial Circuit is throwing his weight behind this woman, against all logic.

My point is that if someone says publicly, “I’m coming for you” to one of these corrupt officials, it is plight with little recognition or support (publicly) and is, in and of itself, an albatross.  There is nothing personal about this sort of targeting. In fact, if law enforcement were not so impotent, they would be targeting these individuals also, and that would not be considered a “vendetta”.

I have said to Sheriff Morgan via this blog that I am coming for him and hell’s coming with me. I set my sights on Morgan because I believe he is the most dangerous and most psychopathic of them all (Underling being a step behind and Eddins being merely a puppet working at the behest of his benefactors). Morgan has single handedly ruined more lives within his agency as he has outside his agency. He has neither the capability nor the psychological capacity to hold the position he was elected to steward. The evidence is in the public records, not the statistics, because there are deputies that will explain to you how they were directed to alter levels of crimes for the purpose of skewing the stats. Sexual assault is the tell-tale statistic. Currently, Frank Forte is giving gift cards for tickets written…highly unethical and probably illegal. But why should that be a factor for a law enforcement agency.

Predators on the community should be dealt with by the agencies designed to police them within the system, but since that is broken in this county, it falls on individuals with the moxie to stand up and name their target. Any bricks taken out of the wall of corruption, makes the others weaker. Divide and Conquer is my motto. While these men are not the true threats as much as puppets for those who are, pulling back the curtain is the mission. I hope Morgan, Underhill and Eddins know you can’t beat someone who doesn’t stop fighting. Melissa and I are ready for the long haul.

 

This came to me today from a source inside the ECSO.

 

We are in a time that society views sexual behavior of our leaders through a microscope, as well as the people in the workplace. We review what is right and what is wrong. Our views may not be the views of everyone. In fact, we have all heard of issues in the national media condemning people for issues that occurred over 30 years ago in some cases. That seems less relevant, but that does cause one to ask why society did not have the same thoughts about sexual harassment as they do now? It simply isn’t possible that people didn’t care about sexual harassment or sexual assault years ago, but there is a hypersensitive to sexual issues now. Story after story about people being affected by #MeToo movement. People are being used to further a movement that treats everybody the same, with facts being omitted, because the point is better made without facts. This is all an insult to people who have to deal with this situation.

CEOs across the country have turned a blind eye to the issues that could cause embarrassment or be problematic. This was done to save themselves all the pitfalls that come with addressing the sexual harassment, such as having spouses of married people becoming involved in the workplace issues. That can get messy, but this lack of formal acknowledgement, it appears there is a complicity to the harassment. If you are not part of solution, you are part of the problem.  The true intent of sexual harassment movements should be to inform the public and others of what is wrong with using sexual actions for any gain personally or in professional environments. In turning a blind eye, the message that this behavior is acceptable seems to rise to the top, not to mention the increase in employee tension, and the increased chance of being sued.  We should trust our leaders in the workplace to ensure that employees are being kept from sexual issues at the workplace because it is not conducive to any professional environment.  Leaders should be the gatekeepers of their employees’ overall well-being while they are at work.  Included in that is the ability to perform the work requirements effectively without undue restrictions or complications.  The responsibility to act appropriately at work falls on the workplace leaders, as well.

The leadership of the Escambia County Sheriffs Office has been questioned many times concerning leadership abilities. Names, such as Chief Deputy Eric Haines, are a frequently associated with criticism of failed leadership. The obvious question then, is why David Morgan as Sheriff does not stop Haines’s tactics are that clearly dismantling the agency? If not Morgan, couldn’t Chip Simmons, the man directly under the Sheriff do something? In fact, recently, a cry for help for went out to Simmons, when Haines held $9million + of deputies’ money and extorted the PBA into giving up rights to receive a reasonable wage. Could it be Simmons is not able to challenge Haines?  Could Simmons be in a situation that Haines controls him? The question would be then, what Haines could have to hold over a law enforcement professional and leader like Simmons? We know it isn’t knowledge, ability, respect, or experience. Haines has not even a small fraction of law enforcement ability that is displayed by Simmons. Simmons was a law enforcement officer for a living long before reaching a leadership position. Haines performed very little law enforcement duties in a brief period before rocketing into a leadership post. With all these things going for Simmons, with deputy support, why not throttle Haines?

Simmons has a reputation for being less than faithful to his marriage. I am not passing judgement but stating what the “shop talk” has always been. Its possible Haines could have information on Simmons that could cause embarrassment or sacrifice a bid for the top office.  It fits the scenario. Haines can be left to destroy lives and Simmons is in debt to him because of the information Haines has in his pocket. Simmons can enjoy the top spot and Haines has the continued joy of playing God judging subordinates and hailing down wrath on the future of others including Simmons. Simmons never answered the cry for help from the employees when their money was made a game for Haines to play with to achieve what he wanted, which was a loss of deputies’ rights in their contract. By not supporting the deputies, Simmons protected himself as well as Haines.

Maybe an investigation should be conducted by an outside agency to determine if this is true. If Haines has information that is being held, it is a violation of law. By federal law, sexual Harassment must be reported if Haines knows about it.  FYI sexual harassment can occur even if the person involved in sexual acts isn’t the victim. If such a thing occurred and two willing parties were sexually active and married, the spouses could have a case to be reported as a victim. Especially if one of the victims was working for one of the offenders in a leadership position and fearful of losing his job if it was reported his wife was involved in an affair with a person that could terminate his employment.

I think this is a subject we will soon be hearing more about. Haines should look deep and decide if he truly feels he has responded with the information he may possess as a true Christian would respond. Should he possess information that tears a family apart for his personal gain or should he do what the law says. I challenge Haines to do the right thing and finally be honest and be satisfied with the turmoil he has created thus far.

 

Patrick Gonzalez Jr.’s latest appeal was denied, but it was expected by his attorney, Eric Pinkard. I, personally, was taken aback. During oral arguments, it seemed as if at least a couple of justices “got it”, but I suppose, they did not. The fight is not over; next is the re-sentencing that the PNJ is ensuring will end in the same result (death penalty) with their assertion of Patrick being, “the Mastermind” and writing articles stating he is a murderer as a fact, rather than saying he was convicted of murder. The two are vastly different, but why would portray the case objectively now? They spew the nonsense the public regurgitates and that is just one way a person gets wrongly convicted.

But to get more FACTS out about the case, I put together 10 major errors by the ECSO. These 10 are not the absolute ONLY errors (by any stretch) but they are ones that may have changed the outcome.

6586137783828480

%d bloggers like this: