Fire 3 FDLE Agents

Wlth the FHP investigation completed by 3 of your agents and 1 DEP, it is now time to fire them for falsification of a state document. All of FDLE think everyone whom is not employed with your agency in this state are dumb and can't do anything. This proves you guys take the cake. The sign off sheet is dated the September 14, 2007 and Inspector Wayne Thompson, Inspector Tonja Bryant-Smith, and Captain Andrew McClenshan sign it September 13, 2007. Is this the same quality you used in the investigation you puppets.

What are you talking about?

I agree with many of your statements that Col. Knight certainly should not have been fired over such a minor infraction.

I am not sure I understand your animosity toward the FDLE reps that investigated the allegations. They were given a list of allegations that originated out of complaints from members of the patrol. They looked at each one independently and objectively. All but one was either unfounded or not sustained. Sounds to me like FDLE acknowledged he was doing a good job except for the one item.

It was the FHP
Posted: 09/22/07 20:43:48 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with many of your statements that Col. Knight certainly should not have been fired over such a minor infraction.

I am not sure I understand your animosity toward the FDLE reps that investigated the allegations. They were given a list of allegations that originated out of complaints from members of the patrol. They looked at each one independently and objectively. All but one was either unfounded or not sustained. Sounds to me like FDLE acknowledged he was doing a good job except for the one item.

It was you Secretary's decision that he be fired over this minor issue.

Don't kill the messengers.

Posted: 09/22/07 20:43:48 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with many of your statements that Col. Knight certainly should not have been fired over such a minor infraction.

I am not sure I understand your animosity toward the FDLE reps that investigated the allegations. They were given a list of allegations that originated out of complaints from members of the patrol. They looked at each one independently and objectively. All but one was either unfounded or not sustained. Sounds to me like FDLE acknowledged he was doing a good job except for the one item.

It was the DHSMV Secretary's decision that he be fired over this minor issue.

Don't kill the messengers.

Did they acknowledge anything about his work or let him slide on a mulitude of mismanagement issues?
I agree with many of your statements that Col. Knight certainly should not have been fired over such a minor infraction.

I am not sure I understand your animosity toward the FDLE reps that investigated the allegations. They were given a list of allegations that originated out of complaints from members of the patrol. They looked at each one independently and objectively. All but one was either unfounded or not sustained. Sounds to me like FDLE acknowledged he was doing a good job except for the one item.

It was the FHP
Posted: 09/22/07 20:43:48 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with many of your statements that Col. Knight certainly should not have been fired over such a minor infraction.

I am not sure I understand your animosity toward the FDLE reps that investigated the allegations. They were given a list of allegations that originated out of complaints from members of the patrol. They looked at each one independently and objectively. All but one was either unfounded or not sustained. Sounds to me like FDLE acknowledged he was doing a good job except for the one item.

It was you Secretary's decision that he be fired over this minor issue.

Don't kill the messengers.

Posted: 09/22/07 20:43:48 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with many of your statements that Col. Knight certainly should not have been fired over such a minor infraction.

I am not sure I understand your animosity toward the FDLE reps that investigated the allegations. They were given a list of allegations that originated out of complaints from members of the patrol. They looked at each one independently and objectively. All but one was either unfounded or not sustained. Sounds to me like FDLE acknowledged he was doing a good job except for the one item.

It was the DHSMV Secretary's decision that he be fired over this minor issue.

Don't kill the messengers.

They applied factual findings to specific allegations without using opinion or emotion.

[MOD 353]

Did FDLE fire him? I think that would be FHP that did that. Go talk to them.

Exactly

It sounds like Road Rash may have put too many horse behine one cart, and is now left without his/her protection?

They applied factual findings to specific allegations without using opinion or emotion.WELL THEY GOT ONE OF THEM WRONG. THEY TOOK AN ANONYMOUS EMAIL AND STARTED THE INVESTIGATION. THEY TOOK A LOT OF INNONCENT PEOPLE OUT. THEY DID NOT DO THE INTIAL INVESTIGATION CORRECTLY. WHETHER IT WAS FDLE OR THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE. THANKS FOR YOUR INFORMATION, BUT GET THE FACTS RIGHT. :evil:

They applied factual findings to specific allegations without using opinion or emotion.NOT :twisted:

[lostinspace]

Factual? What report did you read? It sounded like a pre-empted television script. :lol: