Congratulations to Villarreal

I would like to congradulate Officer Villarreal on his successful arbitration results. Once again the PBA slams the City of Homestead. Special recognoition to Attorney Fuste on his involvement in this delicate matter. The PBA is our voice and we will not deviate from utilizing the PBA as our strong union. I hope the City of Homestead has plenty of spending money for future payouts to come. Thank you AA, MK and AR on your poor performance.


Sincerely,

Homestead50

Stand by, the train has began to derail and soon will all be back to normal, I only wonder if the city council and the Mayor have began to see the problem at HPD yet? They can't possibly be that blind I'm guessing..........

Ps: welcome back SK welcome back JV ..........

Now Lets bring back Randy as Chief and this will be the PD it once was ,and not the opalocka South many think we are.

Chief Rolle thinks he's the Homestead Black Jesus

Only HPD could unwittingly hire an illegal alien as an officer. Can you say failure to properly and critically screen prospective employees.

Does your leader dodge the truth and avoid the tough decisions by asking questions – superficially seeking the opinions of followers. Too many “What do you think?” questions are nothing more than avoidance.
Does your leader if he attends roll call answer questions by beginning their response with, “That’s a good question.” This gives spineless leaders time to choreograph a political response that either fails to answer the question or does so in vague terms.

Spineless leaders are accidental leaders, not intentional ones. And everyone knows it. The obvious question is “how do these cowards become the boss in the first place?” While one can attribute their rise to political shrewdness, the frightening answer is that someone bought into their “smoke and mirrors” and promoted them into a leadership position.

Spineless leaders hire spineless leaders and create a slithering chain of command that is difficult to break. Sadly, in the case “close to home,” that person remains at the top of the heap.

Well its been almost two weeks since I sent out this letter and still no response from AA. Based upon what has been said here about him, I am not surprised.



Dear Detective Aquino,


It was extremely informative meeting with you on Friday afternoon 2/7/2014 in

Chief Rolle’s office.



I have considered your comments about the “Police Officer Bill of Rights”. You

are absolutely correct with respect in regards to there being a 180 day limitation to an

investigation of a complaint for the police department to make an adverse employment

decision against an offending officer. I give all my thanks and praise to God almighty for

our rights and due process (Acts 16:37), and that we live in a free nation, not a police

state (Hill v. Houston).



However, it is respectfully submitted that your understanding of the “Police

Officer Bill of Rights” as enshrined in Florida Statute 112.532, as you explained it to

me, appears to be incomplete and critically flawed at best. It cannot be positively

ascertained at this time if this critical omission is through corruption or incompetence.

The outcome to me is the same, as it results in me being denied my due process rights

and my right to petition for redress of grievances as enshrined in the 1st

amendments of the U.S. Constitution; and Article I, sections 4, 5 and 9, of the Florida

Constitution. Furthermore, it would appear to be an additional deprivation of my rights

under color of law (title 18 U.S.C. 242). It is noted that while an officer may retain

qualified immunity for a mistake of fact, they are not generally offered qualified immunity

for a mistake of law, irrespective of ones intentions, if a willful violation of a well-established right

is deemed to have occurred.



Direct your attention to Florida Statute 112.532(6)(a)(2), which specifically

states, “The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that ANY criminal

investigation or prosecution is pending in connection with the act, omission, or other

allegation of misconduct”.



Your attention is also pointed towards Attorney General Opinion 2006-25, which

dealt specifically with somewhat similar matters.



As an important established timeline, it is offered here that I first called you on 1/

24/2013, so this should be the earliest time that the complaint could have been initiated.

Officer Murguido initiated his criminal complaint against me on 2/15/2013, which was a

criminal prosecution in connection with the allegation of misconduct. The time would

be paused beginning on this date. The criminal charges were dismissed against me

on 1/9/2014, the date when the limitation period should recommence. Therefore, from

1/24/2013-2/15/2013 is 22 days, and from 1/9/2014-2/26/2014 is 48 days for a total of

70 days, well below the 180 day limitation you have alleged is barring you from taking

action. Therefore, contrary to your alleged understanding, the statute is clear and

specific that Officer Murguido will not/should not be protected from discipline because

he had initiated a false criminal investigation/prosecution against me (LeChance v.

Erickson).



The Fraternal Order of Police, one of the biggest proponents of the “Police

Officer Bill of Rights”, states as their public opinion, “The bill does not protect the jobs

of ‘bad cops’ or officers unfit for duty. Nor does it apply to allegations of minor violations

of internal departmental rules or regulations or employment-related performance

of officers, thus preserving the discretion of the individual agency in disciplining its

employees. This measure does not afford police officers any greater rights than those

possessed by other citizens; it simply reaffirms the existence of those rights in the

unique context of the law enforcement community.”



Based on the above it can clearly be seen by a reasonable man of ordinary

understanding, that any deliberate and calculated attempt to shield an officer using such

procedural due process limitations is a blatant misconstruction of not only the letter,

but also the spirit of the law, and should be rightly viewed as official misconduct (FS.

838.022). Also as Officer Murguido swore under oath on 2/28/2013 that I had contacted

IA and that he was advised to file an order for protection against me, combined with

the fact that my 1/24/2013 call to you was not returned until 3/19/2013, additional

misconduct/retaliation could be plausibly inferred by a reasonable and prudent man

from this established and documented timeline/pattern of facts.



If you do not concur with this analysis, it is requested that you immediately close

the open file as it would be “stale”, so that I may access it and complete my records.

On the other hand if you do agree with this analysis then the case should remain open

and be properly, thoroughly, completely and impartially investigated.



You are hereby placed under due and proper notice, that I believe you

have also committed violations against me, possibly up to and including conspiracy

against rights (title 18 U.S.C. 241). I have evidence you have made false statements to

me, even though your intention in making said false statements is not known at this

time. As such, it would be a major and severe conflict of interest for you to remain

active in this investigation. It is hereby requested that you cease and desist with any

and all work on/with my file(s) and have them placed in the possession of Chief Rolle

until such time as he can find an impartial investigator to properly proceed with such

matters. A reasonable and prudent man would recommend an outside prosecutor such

as the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). It is actually assumed that this

will be required as this should properly be a multijurisdictional investigation. In view of

the general stipulation in public service that any situation that could even present the

possibility of an appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided, any modicum of

ethics would dictate that you personally recuse yourself at this time. This should also

cause the time limitation to be paused again (FS. 112.532(6)(a)(3 and 4)).



Someone within the Homestead Police Department would have necessarily had

to have alerted Officer Murguido of my intention to file a complaint against him, unless

his sworn statement from 2/28/2013 is a further act of perjury. You emphatically and

specifically denied that this statement of his was an act of perjury. The only possible

candidate(s) that fit the fact pattern and evidence for improperly informing Officer

Murguido are Lt. Johnson, Sgt. Sherman and/or IA personnel (SOP, Std. No. 073,

(III)(D)(1)(b)). This is contrary to your attempted assertion that I had informed Officer

Murguido of such. It is also noted that I have not had any contact with Officer Murguido

since 10/29/2012, nor do I want to have any contact with him in the future.



It is here requested that all calls from 10/29/2012 forward should be securely

stored as evidence, as well as all logs, notes, radio calls, dispatches, emails, and any/

all other materials of any nature related to Officer Murguido and me. This includes all of

the calls and dispatches from 10/29/2012. A reasonable man could assume these calls/

records are already part of the IA file, as they rightfully should be.



You may contact me by email with the decision you feel you should make, with

respect to whether the case should be closed or remain open for investigation and/or

action. However, after such contact it is requested that you do not contact me other

than through your legal representative(s). Any delay in such decision on your part will

be duly noted and considered to be a further violation of my rights and an attempt to

deny me my right to petition for redress of grievances. I expect that you can reasonably

make this decision within one week of receipt of this letter. For your convenience, to

minimize the possibility of conflict of interest and ex parte communication, you may

have Chief Rolle contact me with the decision. At this time, I prefer all correspondence

via email to be sent to the following address phd2b05@gmail.com.



You have made the following public statements “Those who are sworn to enforce

the law must uphold it, the law, when we find these violations we address them swiftly

correctly and fairly,” and “Our officers here in Homestead are some of the finest.” You

have also publically stated when discussing restoring the faith of the public in relation to

the police “We restore it by showing them we’re addressing it and any complaints that

come in we address them and go through them and deal fairly with everyone involved,”.

I must note that your actions in this case fall greatly short of the standard you have

established with your own words.



It should be noted that your statements to me in Chief Rolle’s office -“What do we

need; What are we here for; our attention; that we are not dealing with it; for information;

or we have another complaint”- were not well received by me, and I feel this and

other comments you made further demonstrate the adversarial nature of your position

towards me, and your utter lack of impartiality and professionalism.

Further, it is stated plainly again here for the record that Officer Murguido has a

well-documented past history of repeatedly making false statements and issuing tickets

with malicious intent. This has now been clearly and concisely brought to the attention

of the Homestead Police Department. This is further compounded by the allegations I

have made and the evidence I have presented. This leads me to believe it could not be

in good faith to fail to inform the State Attorney’s Office and/or all defendants in cases

in which Officer Murguido is a witness. Failure to do such would appear to be a Brady

evidence violation (see Brady v. Maryland), as it would deny any defendant in said

case(s) their due process rights to properly attempt to impeach the credibility of Officer

Murguido as a witness. It will verified at a later time, that such notice has been made,

as failure to act would appear to be a constitutional right violation and may establish a

pattern and practice (title 42 U.S.C. 14141).



Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your help in reigniting

a passion in me and helping to cement my decision to attend law school to study civil

rights/constitutional law.



Sincerely,

/James Eric McDonough/

Dr. James E. McDonough

CC(Anticipated list).

Alexander Rolle-Chief of Homestead Police; Jeff Porter-Mayor of Homestead; George Gretsas-Homestead City Manager; J.D. Patterson-Director MDPD; Adrianne Byrd-Major South District MDPD; LaTishia King-MDPD Resource Officer; FDLE-officer misconduct; Janeen Jones-SAO; DOJ/OPR; Dennis Moss-County Commissioner; Lynda Bell-County Commissioner; Erin Muir-
Aid to Holly Raschein; Lourdes Ruiz-Aide to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Marco Rubio-U.S. Senator; Bill Nelson-U.S. Senator; Alan Greenstein-Attorney at Law; Craig Weissberg-Attorney at Law; Nima Fiuzat-Attorney at Law; Neil Jetter-Attorney at Law; Amy Spadaro; Steve Adt-LEO; Wayne Cox-LEO;

Thank god almighty for public records request. Even though HPD has been nonresponsive to most of my request by either not giving me the info I asked for rgiving me the wrong dates or incomplete data. However, I have received enough evidence through said request to show that AA was not truthfull when he stated that the officer drove past my house gunning his engine and chirping his siren because he was chasing an off road vehicle and the radio logs and dispatch would prove it. Seems my time stamped photo of officer AM at 12:02 pm does not jive with the dispatch logs showing he was not dispatched untill 12:15pm to a hit and run several miles away from my house. Well I guess you got called out on this one.

Another intersting public record request shows that officer AM was working from 9am till 7pm on the day he filed a false injunction against me. I guess this shoots down AA's assertion that he did such as a private citizen and off the clock so they have no controll over such actions. This is interesting in several ways first whether he was off duty or not is not relevant to if HPD has controll over his actions as he is required to comport himself in a manner befitting his position. Im not sure who would argue that a police officer committing perjury is not conduct unbecoming. Well i guess AA would. Further, even if it could be said to have occurred during lunch break, how do you drive from homestead to the court house and back while taking care of business in less than an hour, impossible. Further even if AM was superman and didnt have a time issue, what vehicle did he use? It is against HPD policy to use a police vehicle for personal business outside of the city. AA is a liar and possibly a criminal who should be investigated.

Bovine excrement? Or whatever you call your self! Are you really that stupid? Villarreal was cleared it was all made up allegations and it had no juice" you can't possibly be that upset? He was a very good officer when he worked at HPD and if he comes back I'm sure he will be great, he has always been a man of integrity and has done nothing but his job as a police officer. You should really keep your stupid comments to your self and stop annoying people may you have a better day.

Bovine excrement? Or whatever you call your self! Are you really that stupid? Villarreal was cleared it was all made up allegations and it had no juice" you can't possibly be that upset? He was a very good officer when he worked at HPD and if he comes back I'm sure he will be great, he has always been a man of integrity and has done nothing but his job as a police officer. You should really keep your stupid comments to your self and stop annoying people may you have a better day.

Well please forgive my ignorance, which is different than stupidity. If he is not an illegal I apologize. I figured I could take the statements made by law enforcement officials as accurate. That mistake will not be made again. If this officer has been cleared and it was all bogus, this looks even worse for HPD and AR. I have not seen any news stories or reports that he was cleared, only this forum. If he is indeed and honorable man I wish him the best and his job back, which he would rightfully deserve. For the record im not upset But you sure seem to be so. Also it is suggested you try to be a little more precise with your language as such statements make you look less than intelligent. Last thought will the people behind said false allegations be held accountable?