Rolle's lame attempt at lying under oath to the FDLE

[doc justice]

Well I thought I would share this for those who know just how much of a criminal scumbag Chief Rolle actually is.

I filed a criminal complaint against Rolle for official misconduct (FSS. 838.022(1)(a-c)).

FDLE was provided with a full copy of the recording I made on 2/7/2014 in Rolle's office, along with other documentation including responses from Rolle stating I had given him no documentation during our meeting.

Two FDLE special agents from Tallahassee came down and interviewed my witness, me, Rolle, and Aquino under oath.

Their report can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/307136642/FDLE-Report

The two best excerpts are:
"After the Chief had an opportunity to listen to segments of the meeting, Inspector Lycett asked
him to respond to a comment he made in the recording at approximately 52 minutes where he
says to McDonough "let me make a copy of this" after McDonough references a document
("Homestead police corruption") he created through an internet search. On the recording, it
sounded as if Chief Rolle left the meeting for a short period of time and then returned. Chief Rolle stated that he did not make a copy of any documents but went out to locate Detective
Aquino."


"Inspector Lycett asked Chief Rolle to also respond to a second comment he made at the end of
the recording at approximately 1:24:00 where Chief Rolle says to McDonough, "Is there
anything you need me to do with this..this..you gave me, cause I'm going to look at all this
stuff....." Chief Rolle explained that the comment pertained to allowing the HPD Internal Affairs
Unit to review any information regarding McDonough's complaint."

There are other parts of the recording demonstrating that these are both false statements.

We all knew Rolle wasn't the brightest bulb, but you would think he would either come up with a more believable/reasonable lie, or plead the fifth. There are two witnesses and an audio recording proving he was given documentation which he later destroyed, before falsifying the official record.

I'm guessing that Rolle is having some sleepless nights while my federal case (pacer # 15-14642-G) is waiting on the 11th Circuit to rule on it. Based on the absolutely weak arguments made by the FLAGO defending the MDSAO it does not look good for Rolle.

KFR's rationale for not prosecuting Rolle was that my recording was illegal. This is a patently false assertion by our illustrious SA. The best arguments they came up with was that Rolle had an expectation of privacy which surpassed my First Amendment rights because of Roe v Wade, yes they actually argued such non-sense. Im guessing that once KFR gets dragged through the mud for this, her feelings about Rolle may change a little.

They also argued that when Rolle called me and asked me to come to his office for a meeting, because I agreed to the meeting I was not invited. Yes KFR actually made that argument in her response to my statement of facts.

Rolle also claimed that he knew I was coming in to make a formal complaint, but he thought the meeting was private, even though two people other than us were in his office, we could be overheard by others outside, planned to tell Murguido the contents of the meeting, he told Surman the contents of the meeting, and him and Aquino wrote about the meeting as part of the public record. So how was this a private meeting?

Rolle should look at two important cases, one from the 11th US Circuit, and the other from the 1st DCA Fla.

Smith v City of Cumming the only binding federal law on this matter held "The first Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, specifically the right to record matters of public interest." Unless I missed something Rolle is a public official, HPD is public property, and police conduct is a matter of public interest.

Dept. Ag. and Con. Servcs. v Edwards, from the 1st DCA Florida, which since there is no conflict in other districts is binding Florida law held "[T]he Florida Constitution contemplates that public business is to be conducted in the "sunshine." Reasoning from this open-government premise, and the fact that all persons claiming an expectation of privacy in this case were public employees acting in furtherance of their public duties…any statements made…in performance of their public duties were not privileged, hence no reasonable expectation of privacy attached to those statements." Since Rolle had no privacy privilege in our discussion, my recording does not fall under FSS.934.03, as the definitions under FSS.934.02 exclude it.

Interesting in my appeal I made three separate and distinct arguments. The first and most important was there being no expectation of privacy. The state completely ignored this argument, thereby conceding it.

Once that appeal finishes there will be a nice little complaint under 42 USC 14141 and 18 USC 241-242 sent to the DOJ.

To the good guys out there stay safe and God bless.

Doc

[Unregistered]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...int-Filed.html

[Unregistered]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtDRr1p_kg

[Unregistered]

Well I thought I would share this for those who know just how much of a criminal scumbag Chief Rolle actually is.

I filed a criminal complaint against Rolle for official misconduct (FSS. 838.022(1)(a-c)).

FDLE was provided with a full copy of the recording I made on 2/7/2014 in Rolle's office, along with other documentation including responses from Rolle stating I had given him no documentation during our meeting.

Two FDLE special agents from Tallahassee came down and interviewed my witness, me, Rolle, and Aquino under oath.

Their report can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/307136642/FDLE-Report

The two best excerpts are:
"After the Chief had an opportunity to listen to segments of the meeting, Inspector Lycett asked
him to respond to a comment he made in the recording at approximately 52 minutes where he
says to McDonough "let me make a copy of this" after McDonough references a document
("Homestead police corruption") he created through an internet search. On the recording, it
sounded as if Chief Rolle left the meeting for a short period of time and then returned. Chief Rolle stated that he did not make a copy of any documents but went out to locate Detective
Aquino."


"Inspector Lycett asked Chief Rolle to also respond to a second comment he made at the end of
the recording at approximately 1:24:00 where Chief Rolle says to McDonough, "Is there
anything you need me to do with this..this..you gave me, cause I'm going to look at all this
stuff....." Chief Rolle explained that the comment pertained to allowing the HPD Internal Affairs
Unit to review any information regarding McDonough's complaint."

There are other parts of the recording demonstrating that these are both false statements.

We all knew Rolle wasn't the brightest bulb, but you would think he would either come up with a more believable/reasonable lie, or plead the fifth. There are two witnesses and an audio recording proving he was given documentation which he later destroyed, before falsifying the official record.

I'm guessing that Rolle is having some sleepless nights while my federal case (pacer # 15-14642-G) is waiting on the 11th Circuit to rule on it. Based on the absolutely weak arguments made by the FLAGO defending the MDSAO it does not look good for Rolle.

KFR's rationale for not prosecuting Rolle was that my recording was illegal. This is a patently false assertion by our illustrious SA. The best arguments they came up with was that Rolle had an expectation of privacy which surpassed my First Amendment rights because of Roe v Wade, yes they actually argued such non-sense. Im guessing that once KFR gets dragged through the mud for this, her feelings about Rolle may change a little.

They also argued that when Rolle called me and asked me to come to his office for a meeting, because I agreed to the meeting I was not invited. Yes KFR actually made that argument in her response to my statement of facts.

Rolle also claimed that he knew I was coming in to make a formal complaint, but he thought the meeting was private, even though two people other than us were in his office, we could be overheard by others outside, planned to tell Murguido the contents of the meeting, he told Surman the contents of the meeting, and him and Aquino wrote about the meeting as part of the public record. So how was this a private meeting?

Rolle should look at two important cases, one from the 11th US Circuit, and the other from the 1st DCA Fla.

Smith v City of Cumming the only binding federal law on this matter held "The first Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, specifically the right to record matters of public interest." Unless I missed something Rolle is a public official, HPD is public property, and police conduct is a matter of public interest.

Dept. Ag. and Con. Servcs. v Edwards, from the 1st DCA Florida, which since there is no conflict in other districts is binding Florida law held "[T]he Florida Constitution contemplates that public business is to be conducted in the "sunshine." Reasoning from this open-government premise, and the fact that all persons claiming an expectation of privacy in this case were public employees acting in furtherance of their public duties…any statements made…in performance of their public duties were not privileged, hence no reasonable expectation of privacy attached to those statements." Since Rolle had no privacy privilege in our discussion, my recording does not fall under FSS.934.03, as the definitions under FSS.934.02 exclude it.

Interesting in my appeal I made three separate and distinct arguments. The first and most important was there being no expectation of privacy. The state completely ignored this argument, thereby conceding it.

Once that appeal finishes there will be a nice little complaint under 42 USC 14141 and 18 USC 241-242 sent to the DOJ.

To the good guys out there stay safe and God bless.

Doc

Keep the pressure Doc

[Unregistered]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD3Owz4ls3c

[Unregistered]

Well I thought I would share this for those who know just how much of a criminal scumbag Chief Rolle actually is.

I filed a criminal complaint against Rolle for official misconduct (FSS. 838.022(1)(a-c)).

FDLE was provided with a full copy of the recording I made on 2/7/2014 in Rolle's office, along with other documentation including responses from Rolle stating I had given him no documentation during our meeting.

Two FDLE special agents from Tallahassee came down and interviewed my witness, me, Rolle, and Aquino under oath.

Their report can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/307136642/FDLE-Report

The two best excerpts are:
"After the Chief had an opportunity to listen to segments of the meeting, Inspector Lycett asked
him to respond to a comment he made in the recording at approximately 52 minutes where he
says to McDonough "let me make a copy of this" after McDonough references a document
("Homestead police corruption") he created through an internet search. On the recording, it
sounded as if Chief Rolle left the meeting for a short period of time and then returned. Chief Rolle stated that he did not make a copy of any documents but went out to locate Detective
Aquino."


"Inspector Lycett asked Chief Rolle to also respond to a second comment he made at the end of
the recording at approximately 1:24:00 where Chief Rolle says to McDonough, "Is there
anything you need me to do with this..this..you gave me, cause I'm going to look at all this
stuff....." Chief Rolle explained that the comment pertained to allowing the HPD Internal Affairs
Unit to review any information regarding McDonough's complaint."

There are other parts of the recording demonstrating that these are both false statements.

We all knew Rolle wasn't the brightest bulb, but you would think he would either come up with a more believable/reasonable lie, or plead the fifth. There are two witnesses and an audio recording proving he was given documentation which he later destroyed, before falsifying the official record.

I'm guessing that Rolle is having some sleepless nights while my federal case (pacer # 15-14642-G) is waiting on the 11th Circuit to rule on it. Based on the absolutely weak arguments made by the FLAGO defending the MDSAO it does not look good for Rolle.

KFR's rationale for not prosecuting Rolle was that my recording was illegal. This is a patently false assertion by our illustrious SA. The best arguments they came up with was that Rolle had an expectation of privacy which surpassed my First Amendment rights because of Roe v Wade, yes they actually argued such non-sense. Im guessing that once KFR gets dragged through the mud for this, her feelings about Rolle may change a little.

They also argued that when Rolle called me and asked me to come to his office for a meeting, because I agreed to the meeting I was not invited. Yes KFR actually made that argument in her response to my statement of facts.

Rolle also claimed that he knew I was coming in to make a formal complaint, but he thought the meeting was private, even though two people other than us were in his office, we could be overheard by others outside, planned to tell Murguido the contents of the meeting, he told Surman the contents of the meeting, and him and Aquino wrote about the meeting as part of the public record. So how was this a private meeting?

Rolle should look at two important cases, one from the 11th US Circuit, and the other from the 1st DCA Fla.

Smith v City of Cumming the only binding federal law on this matter held "The first Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, specifically the right to record matters of public interest." Unless I missed something Rolle is a public official, HPD is public property, and police conduct is a matter of public interest.

Dept. Ag. and Con. Servcs. v Edwards, from the 1st DCA Florida, which since there is no conflict in other districts is binding Florida law held "[T]he Florida Constitution contemplates that public business is to be conducted in the "sunshine." Reasoning from this open-government premise, and the fact that all persons claiming an expectation of privacy in this case were public employees acting in furtherance of their public duties…any statements made…in performance of their public duties were not privileged, hence no reasonable expectation of privacy attached to those statements." Since Rolle had no privacy privilege in our discussion, my recording does not fall under FSS.934.03, as the definitions under FSS.934.02 exclude it.

Interesting in my appeal I made three separate and distinct arguments. The first and most important was there being no expectation of privacy. The state completely ignored this argument, thereby conceding it.

Once that appeal finishes there will be a nice little complaint under 42 USC 14141 and 18 USC 241-242 sent to the DOJ.

To the good guys out there stay safe and God bless.

Doc

Doc
You see your getting to them. Step by step

[Unregistered]

Doc
You see your getting to them. Step by step

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq5rga2qs2Q

[Unregistered]

Well I thought I would share this for those who know just how much of a criminal scumbag Chief Rolle actually is.

I filed a criminal complaint against Rolle for official misconduct (FSS. 838.022(1)(a-c)).

FDLE was provided with a full copy of the recording I made on 2/7/2014 in Rolle's office, along with other documentation including responses from Rolle stating I had given him no documentation during our meeting.

Two FDLE special agents from Tallahassee came down and interviewed my witness, me, Rolle, and Aquino under oath.

Their report can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/307136642/FDLE-Report

The two best excerpts are:
"After the Chief had an opportunity to listen to segments of the meeting, Inspector Lycett asked
him to respond to a comment he made in the recording at approximately 52 minutes where he
says to McDonough "let me make a copy of this" after McDonough references a document
("Homestead police corruption") he created through an internet search. On the recording, it
sounded as if Chief Rolle left the meeting for a short period of time and then returned. Chief Rolle stated that he did not make a copy of any documents but went out to locate Detective
Aquino."


"Inspector Lycett asked Chief Rolle to also respond to a second comment he made at the end of
the recording at approximately 1:24:00 where Chief Rolle says to McDonough, "Is there
anything you need me to do with this..this..you gave me, cause I'm going to look at all this
stuff....." Chief Rolle explained that the comment pertained to allowing the HPD Internal Affairs
Unit to review any information regarding McDonough's complaint."

There are other parts of the recording demonstrating that these are both false statements.

We all knew Rolle wasn't the brightest bulb, but you would think he would either come up with a more believable/reasonable lie, or plead the fifth. There are two witnesses and an audio recording proving he was given documentation which he later destroyed, before falsifying the official record.

I'm guessing that Rolle is having some sleepless nights while my federal case (pacer # 15-14642-G) is waiting on the 11th Circuit to rule on it. Based on the absolutely weak arguments made by the FLAGO defending the MDSAO it does not look good for Rolle.

KFR's rationale for not prosecuting Rolle was that my recording was illegal. This is a patently false assertion by our illustrious SA. The best arguments they came up with was that Rolle had an expectation of privacy which surpassed my First Amendment rights because of Roe v Wade, yes they actually argued such non-sense. Im guessing that once KFR gets dragged through the mud for this, her feelings about Rolle may change a little.

They also argued that when Rolle called me and asked me to come to his office for a meeting, because I agreed to the meeting I was not invited. Yes KFR actually made that argument in her response to my statement of facts.

Rolle also claimed that he knew I was coming in to make a formal complaint, but he thought the meeting was private, even though two people other than us were in his office, we could be overheard by others outside, planned to tell Murguido the contents of the meeting, he told Surman the contents of the meeting, and him and Aquino wrote about the meeting as part of the public record. So how was this a private meeting?

Rolle should look at two important cases, one from the 11th US Circuit, and the other from the 1st DCA Fla.

Smith v City of Cumming the only binding federal law on this matter held "The first Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, specifically the right to record matters of public interest." Unless I missed something Rolle is a public official, HPD is public property, and police conduct is a matter of public interest.

Dept. Ag. and Con. Servcs. v Edwards, from the 1st DCA Florida, which since there is no conflict in other districts is binding Florida law held "[T]he Florida Constitution contemplates that public business is to be conducted in the "sunshine." Reasoning from this open-government premise, and the fact that all persons claiming an expectation of privacy in this case were public employees acting in furtherance of their public duties…any statements made…in performance of their public duties were not privileged, hence no reasonable expectation of privacy attached to those statements." Since Rolle had no privacy privilege in our discussion, my recording does not fall under FSS.934.03, as the definitions under FSS.934.02 exclude it.

Interesting in my appeal I made three separate and distinct arguments. The first and most important was there being no expectation of privacy. The state completely ignored this argument, thereby conceding it.

Once that appeal finishes there will be a nice little complaint under 42 USC 14141 and 18 USC 241-242 sent to the DOJ.

To the good guys out there stay safe and God bless.

Doc

First time reading this. Read it a second time. Wow!! The guy doesn't mess around.