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, 5th and 14th 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 wellestablished 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; Julio-LEO and Nancy Alvarez-LEO; Reed Berger (federal)LEO; Bob Brown(retired)LEO; Marc Lequieu-(retired)LEO; Carmen Caldwell-Citizens Crime Watch; Chris Rollins-Manager, Fruit and Spice Park; Bob Doherty-Retired NHTSA/witness; Sue Casey-witness; Jason Vanneman-witness; Joyce and David Nero-witness; Bob ZannniniManaging Director, Kaleidoscope productions; David Payton-Screen/Play writer Kaleidoscope productions; Dr. Carl Hoff; Dr. David Hudson; Dr. Kengkaj Suckacharoenphon; Dr. Daniel Yeoman; William B. Rodill-Nuclear Engineer; Matt Oakey-Member Core Community Church; James L. McDonough, III; Vanessa McDonough; Charles McDonough; Michael A. Jones; Jim Glass