Formal Internal Affairs (IA) Complaint Against Homestead Police Officer John Thomas Monaco (Monaco) Submitted By Victim Dr. James Eric McDonough (complainant). Abstract Monaco falsely arrested the complainant for the charges of disorderly conduct and trespass after warning, on August 24, 2016. Monaco made false statements of material facts in his arrest narrative. Monaco unlawfully used excessive force against the complainant during the arrest. Monaco committed perjury in deposition related to this arrest. All charges were dismissed by the State Attorney's Office (SAO). Monaco had the complainant falsely arrested a week later on September 1, 2016, for the charges of witness tampering and cyber stalking. Monaco falsely and repeatedly claims the complainant threatened him and/or made threatening comments towards him. All charges were no actioned by the SAO. Monaco had the complainant served with a false injunction for cyber stalking on September 2, 2016. Monaco made false statements of material fact under oath about the incidents in his injunction, and in open court. Monaco prosecuted his personal vendetta using City resources. The injunction was dismissed as being in violation of the First Amendment. Monaco's actions violate Florida and U.S. law. Monaco's actions constitute stalking the complainant. Monaco is in violation of Homestead Police Department (HPD) policies including cowardice, nepotism, abuse of authority, knowingly making false statements, being unprepared for duty/court, incompetence, as well as many other acts/violations which are unbecoming of an officer. Monaco's actions were all taken in retaliation for the complainant exercising his First Amendment rights, as well as rights under the Florida Constitution and the Home Rule Charter. Page 1 of 17 Facts, Background, And Reasoned Analysis Supporting Validity Of Complaint First, it is noted that under established law a person in Florida cannot be trespassed from public property that is open for the public to come and go, nor can they be lawfully trespassed from a public sidewalk where complainant was arrested. Further, every element of the false arrests suffered by the complainant were taken in retaliation of constitutionally protected activity. Further still, upon Monaco informing the complainant that he was under arrest for disorderly conduct, the complainant clearly and specifically informed Monaco that the disorderly conduct arrest was unconstitutional, that it was a false arrest, that it was in retaliation of well established First Amendment rights, and that giving an officer the middle finger is protected First Amendment activity. Second, Monaco used hinge cuffs on the complainant and purposefully twisted/torqued them on him in a pain compliance measure, even though the complainant was fully cooperative and not resisting. The marks/damage to complainant's wrist made by Monaco's actions are seen in evidence exhibit 1a and 1b (picture of wrist and timestamp). While handcuffed the complainant told Monaco that the cuffs were too tight and were cutting off circulation making the complainant's thumb completely numb and tingling. To this Monaco refused to loosen the cuffs aggravating the nerve damage done to complainant's wrist by his knowing, willful, and excessively abusive actions. Such actions violate the complainant's rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment, and constitute battery against the complainant. Page 2 of 17 These actions also violate the complainant's due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Monaco willfully instilled disciplinary punishment tantamount to affecting summary judgment. Third, Even assuming Monaco's narrative to be true and viewing it in the light most favorable to him, his allegations do not reasonably meet the required elements for the crimes of either disorderly conduct or trespass after warning. Therefore, no argument of reasonable probable cause for arrest exist, and it was only contempt-of-cop for which Monaco saw the complainant as guilty of. As such the arrest is a patently false arrest, and is partly the reason that the State Attorney's Office dismissed these charges. However, Monaco did knowingly and willfully falsify his arrest narrative with corrupt intent to harm the complainant, which constitutes felony official misconduct. In his narrative Monaco falsely claims that the complainant took 10-15 steps then stopped, then complainant took another 10-15 steps and stopped turning to grab his genitals and screaming FUCK YOU. Monaco falsely claims there was a woman with three kids walking in right behind him, several more people on the steps, and approximately ten people in the parking lot, evidence exhibit 2 (Monaco's narrative). However, video , evidence exhibit 3 (Multi-feed video), of the false arrest shows that: 1) the complainant DID NOT stop until told to do so by Homestead officers; 2) the complainant DID NOT grab his genitals; 3) the complainant DID NOT scream FUCK YOU; Page 3 of 17 4) there was NEVER a woman with three kids inside or walking into the building behind Monaco; 5) the ONLY people on the steps at the time of complainant's alleged unlawful actions were Homestead police officers; and 6) the ONLY people in the parking lot were two women who were walking away who did not stop to turn around until after the officers were already approaching complainant, see exhibit 3 at 1:12. 7) the complainant did give officers the bird while stating that he was leaving and saying bye-bye, but never stopping in his retreat, see exhibit 3 at 0:52-1:00, this was done in response to Wright taunting the complainant then proclaiming the trespass included the parking lot, which complainant knew to be in violation of, and in retaliation for the exercising of his constitutional rights. The multi feed video also shows that Monaco was pursuing the complainant before the complainant turned off his feed proving definitively that complainant never screamed any obscenities, stopped or grabbed his genitals as Monaco alleges, see exhibit 3 at 0:26-1:04. The false arrest violates the complainants rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. At best, such actions constitute false imprisonment as there was NO lawful authority to detain the complainant against his will, and it was done in retaliation of protected rights. At worst, a prima facie case of kidnapping has been presented as it is shown that Monaco's deliberate, willful, and malicious actions were meant to both inflict bodily harm upon the complainant, as well as to terrorize the complainant, carried out to ensure maximum shame, embarrassment, and ridicule. Also, Monaco had no lawful authority to detain the complainant. Page 4 of 17 Again it was Monaco who verbally told the complainant he was being arrested for disorderly conduct, see exhibit 3 at 1:22-1:27, it was Monaco who cuffed the complainant, and it was Monaco who needlessly gave the complainant a "walk of shame" of approximately 200 feet while twisting/torquing the hinge cuffs on him. Fourth, Monaco or another officer took the complainant's cell phone and stopped his feed violating his federal work product rights. The complainant was clearly wearing press credentials, and was openly recording the incident. Further, binding case law Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000), holds that "The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically a right to record matters of public interest." This may likely also be evidence tampering. However, the falsification of his official narrative does qualify as fabrication physical evidence under Florida statute. Fifth, Monaco committed perjury by lying about this incident under oath in deposition, evidence exhibit 4 (Monaco's deposition). Monaco in deposition falsely made the underlined allegations below that: 1) the complainant left went down the flight of stairs then stopped (p. 15, l. 18-21), when the complainant never stopped until instructed to do so by Wright; Page 5 of 17 2) the complainant stopped for a minute or two (p. 16, l. 2-5), the time elapsed from the complainant starting to walk away until he was in cuffs is only about 40 seconds in total, and shows the complainant never stopped until told to do so, see exhibit 3 at 0:47-1:27; 3) the complainant then took another 10-15 steps to the west (p. 16, l. 19-21), Sergeant Wright advised complainant that he had to leave and that included the parking lot (p. 18, l. 2-4) (this part is mostly true), the complainant then stopped turned and made motions while screaming FUCK YOU ( p. 18, l. 12-16), but the complainant did not scream any obscenities; 4) that complainant grabbed his genitals (p. 19, l. 15-19), however, the complainant never grabbed his genitals; 5) that complainant yelled FUCK YOU and grabbed his genitals (p. 22, l. 2-5), however, such actions never occurred; 6) that a Hispanic woman with three kids was behind him (p. 24, l. 18-22), no one is seen walking inside other than Councilman Burgess, and no civilians are standing anywhere near the "east" exit of city hall, inside or out, this is in response to being asked if he remembers if the women were white or black, see exhibit 3 at 0:04-1:07; 7) that two or three people were inside right behind him, two or three people were in the parking lot, and two or three people were on the busway (p. 27, l. 11-18), when there were only ever two ladies in the parking lot walking away at this time, and these ladies never stop to turn around until Monaco and other officers approached the complainant, see exhibit 3 at 0:54-1:14; 8) that there were not 10-15 officers outside and it was only Monaco, Wight and Mata (p. 27, l. 19 to p. 28, l. 6), there were at least 14 officers outside before I was cuffed, and in Page 6 of 17 total at the least 21 Homestead police officers came out to participate in or to witness false arrest of the complainant, see exhibit 3 at 1:19-1:24 and at 2:40-2:48; 9) that Wright told complainant that he was under arrest for either trespass or disorderly conduct (p. 22, l. 21 to p. 23, l. 8), however, it was officer Monaco who told the complainant that he was being arrested for disorderly conduct, see exhibit 3 at 1:22-1:27; and 10) that he was holding the door open for the "entire melee" until Wright advised the complainant he was under arrest (p. 25, l. 8-14), however, Wright never advised the complainant he was under arrest Monaco did, and Monaco only briefly opened the door for a brief moment to allow another officer to walk out, then began walking towards the complainant, see exhibit 3 at 1:22-1:27 and at 0:28-1:07. The video of exhibit 3 proves the above statements from the deposition are false statements, and most if not all are false statements of material fact, as well as knowingly false. Monaco also claims that the disorderly conduct charge was for complainant flicking them off and grabbing his genitals (p. 24, l. 12-17), thus plainly swearing under oath to retaliation against protected First Amendment activity. Sixth, Monaco filed a false charges having the complainant arrested for witness tampering and cyberstalking in retaliation for exercising his rights. He falsely swore that the complainant directed threatening comments towards him placing him in fear for his safety and that of his family, when the complainant had never committed violence or threatened any violence, yet Monaco had willfully committed violent acts against the complainant. Page 7 of 17 The complainant never made any threats of harm towards Monaco, explicit or implied, or attempted to have Monaco not attend any court function, the complainant made comments critical of Monaco's performance, which is constitutionally protected activity. These charges were no actioned by the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office as it was "instantly apparent" that the allegations did not meet the elements of any alleged crime, and simply described constitutionally protected activity, evidence exhibit 5 (Close out memo). Further, any reasonable officer should have known that the alleged behavior is protected, and that these rights have been well established, and this is assuming Monaco's allegations are correct, but they have been definitively shown to be falsified. Seventh, Monaco filed a false injunction against the complainant for cyberstalking, evidence exhibit 6 (Monaco's injunction). From the outset it is noted that all of the alleged elements were protected under the First Amendment rights to speech, press, and to petition for redress. This was specifically noted by the judge before she dismissed the injunction, evidence exhibit 7 (Injunction hearing transcript) (p. 19, l. 4-17). Monaco alleged in the injunction primarily that the complainant: 1) reposted the City of Homestead's video of Monaco speaking at a council meeting; 2) made derogatory and threatening comments towards Monaco on leoaffairs.com a police blog; and 3) That complainant published video(s) of Monaco going about his daily duties as a police officer. Page 8 of 17 However, the City's video was publish publicly by the City and is a public record, where republishing it for media purposes is constitutionally protected activity. The complainant did not make threatening comments towards Monaco, but merely called out Monaco as a liar and coward based on his public statements that he would be the first to wear a body cam because he has no fear as God guides him daily. Obviously, the complainant was correct as Monaco immediately filed false criminal charges and a false injunction when his honesty and courage were questioned, claiming great fear because he was publicly recorded and challenged. However, the complainant's comments are clearly protected speech activity. The only time the complainant published video of Monaco going about his daily duties as a police officer, was when Monaco falsely arrested the complainant and then falsified his arrest narrative/arrest affidavit, which is of course constitutionally protected activity. Monaco committed perjury by making false statements of material fact in his injunction for protection, at least by falsely claiming between August 24-30, 2016 that complainant posted messages instructing people on how to get to Monaco's home, and that complainant sent out messages to people with instruction in reference to Monaco. The complainant never carried out any such activity, and demands strict proof if this is challenged. Monaco committed perjury again by repeating these false statements of material fact in open court multiple times, see at least (p. 6, l. 6 to p. 7, l. 18) and (p. 11, l. 10-14). Monaco also falsely claims that the complainant hired a PI to follow him, and that the complainant instructed an undercover Homestead police officer (Freddie Paschal) to go to his house and take photos of his house as well as tags and vehicle numbers (p. 13, l. 1-6). Monaco failed to come to the hearing prepared with his evidence as required by HPD policy. Monaco came to court while on-duty and with HPD Detective David Mata supporting Page 9 of 17 him as a witness in a personal civil matter. Not only was Monaco aware of details of an open criminal investigation, he also had the lead investigator there to testify about confidential details of an open criminal matter in a personal civil hearing (p. 18, l. 11 to p. 19, l. 3). Therefore, Monaco used official government resources to retaliate in a personal civil matter against a citizen for exercising his First Amendment rights, outside the jurisdiction of HPD. It appears that such would be considered theft of government resources unless the City or HPD encourages, supports and/or allows such deviant behavior. Monaco also attempted to offer third hand hearsay as evidence in court (p. 15, l. 7-18), demonstrating incompetence in knowledge of his duties, and/or showing further the malicious intent to the use of inaccurate and/or false testimony against the complainant, in response to the complainant exercising his First Amendment rights. Monaco's actions here also lead to the violation of the complainant's Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights due to the mandatory surrender of my firearms as required under law, which commanded without due process, and was knowing and willful violation or should have been foreseen. Demonstrating further the level of malice and deliberate indifference towards the life, liberty, and property rights of those victims who Monaco targets for official abuse and retaliation. Monaco's actions above in the First through Seventh sections were all done in retaliation against the complainant's First Amendment rights to speech, press, and petition. These actions also violate the complainants corresponding and related rights under the Florida Constitution, as well as the complainant's rights under the Miami-Dade Home Rule Charter. Page 10 of 17 Eighth, Monaco's actions against the complainant amount to stalking as well as repeat violence, where Homestead Police Department's failure to take action could violate mandates of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). False imprisonment and/or kidnapping are defined as violence under the stalking law FSS. 784.046(1)(a). Monaco's first false arrest and excessive force against the complainant amounts to at least one act of violence and was an act of harassment. Monaco's actions in filing a false police report leading to a second false imprisonment of the complainant, as well as Monaco's false stalking injunction, are repeated acts of violence and/or harassment against the complainant, which establish a course of conduct directed at the complainant, causing the complainant substantial emotional distress, and serving no legitimate, privileged and/or lawful purpose. Monaco's actions have placed the complainant in great fear the his life and safety as well as that of his family. Ninth, Monaco's actions above present prima facie case Monaco knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly making false statements of material fact in his affidavits/reports, under oath in writing, and under oath verbally in open court. This behavior is commonly called "testilying". Conversely, if it is said that Monaco's false statements were not deliberate, then it demonstrates significant and unacceptable memory problems, wherein said unreliability of his testimony makes him unfit for duty. This also cast a shadow on the validity all convictions where Monaco's testimony was necessary for the prosecution. Page 11 of 17 Further, failure in all ongoing prosecutions to make all defendant's and the SAO aware of this possible exculpatory evidence which can be used to impeach the credibility of Monaco as a witness, would violate the due process rights of the accused under the landmark Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland. Tenth, at the July 2016 City Council Meeting Monaco got up and spoke during the public comment section, evidence exhibit 8 (Monaco speaking at City Council). Monaco said that he was addressing the continued bashing of command staff by several entities appearing to imply the actions of many activist, as well as the complainant, exhibit 8 at 0:14-0:30. However, it was only Mr. Kim Hill who Monaco called out by name angrily addressing Hill for half of his time. Monaco not only made many logical fallacies (including many nonsequitors and straw-men arguments), but made comments which could easily be construed as veiled threats of official retaliation for the continued exercising of rights, exhibit 8 at 1:04-2:27. Monaco was on-duty, in uniform, stating he was a police officer, and that he was speaking as a city employee. Monaco's speech serves to chill the free speech rights of those who speak at city council, and increases the concern the complainant has for his life and safety and that of his family. This is due to both the implied inclusion of the complainant as someone who continues the 'bashing command his command staff', and Monaco's veiled threats made publicly to the community as a police officer with apparent support from supervisors. The complainant's concern is further increased exponentially and justifiably due to Monaco's unlawful actions directed at the complainant while using City resources in a personal Page 12 of 17 vendetta against the complainant, as well as the assistance Monaco has acquired from other HPD officers acting in conspiracy against the constitutional rights of the complainant. The totality of facts above gives the clear impression that Monaco's stated opinions are that of the HPD's on each and every topic of which he spoke. If Monaco's opinions are not that of the HPD's on each and every topic which he addressed, then his actions would also violate policy as he is not the public information officer (PIO), and these statements would not be protected under the First Amendment, and alone are sufficient to terminate his employment for due cause, see Garcetti v Cabellos. Eleventh, the City of Homestead has a nepotism policy forbidding any two relatives from working for the same agency or department, and includes father and sons, see evidence exhibit 9 (Homestead Nepotism Policy). Monaco's son also works for HPD, and the City brags about these blatant violations of the nepotism policy, see evidence exhibit 10 (City Posting). That the City and HPD openly flaunt their violation of clear policy, only further increases the complainant's fear of continued and unabated retaliation. Twelfth, Monaco has displayed great cowardice by repeatedly swearing to being in great fear for his life and safety and that of his family because a citizen exercised their constitutional rights in a non-violent and non-threatening manner. Such overt and cowardly behavior is clearly conduct unbecoming an officer. Further ridicule, embarrassment, and shame is brought onto the reputation of HPD by the actions of Monaco when he publicly states that he has "nothing to fear" because "God Guides" Page 13 of 17 him daily, exhibit 8 at 0:51-1:03. Here he is shown to be likely either delusional, or to be hypocritically using religion to cover for his shortcomings. The contradiction between Monaco's public statements and his sworn statements is astonishing to say the least. The cowardice Monaco displayed here and in the above actions, whether through irrational fear or through deliberate falsification, demonstrates that Monaco is unfit for duty. Thirteenth, while HPD officers such as Monaco rail against body cameras, HPD officers record arrest on their cell phones. Apparently multiple HPD officers recorded the August 24, 2016 arrest of the complainant on their personal cell phones. HPD officers having to use their personal cell phones to document an arrest raises serious safety concerns, as the officer must use at least one hand to capture the video placing him at a strategic and tactical disadvantage, when actually dealing with a dangerous situation. This strongly supports the argument for body cameras which would not present this potential hazard to officer safety. There appears to be no procedure for officers who make digital files (video or picture) to document these as part of the public record, likely leading to knowing and criminal violations of the public records law. Which has occured since the first false imprisonment of the complainant. The fact that only one such recording was provided provides a prima facie case of a violation of the records law for the other officer(s) not submitting their recordings. The failure of HPD to establish policies for the use of officer cell phones for video and picture evidence taking is ripe for abuse and unlawful destruction of public records/spoliation of evidence. Page 14 of 17 Fourteenth, HPD filed subpoena's for the complainant's IP address while making false and defamatory statements about the complainant, evidence exhibit 11 (Mata's subpoena), when the complainant did nothing but make constitutionally protected speech activities. However, HPD was not able to file subpoenas to find the IP addresses when HPD officers were threatening, intimidating, retaliating, inciting others to retaliate against, and committing criminal liable against the complainant and his wife. The preponderance of evidence shows HPD officers were involved including but not limited to the following: 1) the releasing of confidential internal HPD investigative information related to the complainant; 2) asking other officers to file false complaints against complainant with his employer; 3) the comments were primarily made on the HPD forum of a police blog with extremely narrow distribution; and 4) the posters claim to be police officers. This unabated abuse against the complainant and his family coupled with HPD's apparent covering for the crimes of its officers, and/or deliberate indifference displayed for the deprivation of constitutional rights committed by its officers, only serves to further heighten the fear the complainant has for his life and safety and that of his family. This fear is even further magnified when the record clearly shows incriminating evidence has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the higher ups in both the City and HPD, and all have refused to take positive steps to begin to curb such abuse. Page 15 of 17 Fifteenth, when Monaco says he has seen Mr. Hill on you tube, exhibit 8 at 1:03-1:17, it is not reasonable to believe that Monaco has not seen the videos about himself and/or Wright which were made by the complainant. Monaco would have heard the complainant saying he looked forward to seeing Wright in a deposition right before the August arrest. Monaco was personally told he was falsely arresting the complainant in violation of the First Amendment. Monaco has admitted to seeing the complainant speak at city council, and must be aware that the complainant has filed, is filing, or plans to file civil rights lawsuits against the City and HPD. Monaco must have reasonably known after the August 24, 2016 arrest that he was to be a defendant in a federal civil rights lawsuit. This is particularly true after reading the complainant's comments about him, and seeing the complainant's videos about him. As such Monaco's actions rise to the level of tampering with witness, victim, or informant and/or retaliating against a witness, victim, or informant; and under federal law there does not need to be a suit pending, only the reasonable anticipation of one to be filed. This coupled with Monaco's other actions provide more than the prerequisite two predicate acts, they are not isolated incidents, and could be carried out only through Monaco's association with HPD as an organization. Thus presenting a prima facie violation of the RICO Act, and further increasing the fear of the complainant. Page 16 of 17 Conclusion And Request The evidence presented herein demonstrates conclusively and beyond any reasonable doubt that HPD officer John Thomas Monaco has violated many federal and state criminal laws; has violated and/or retaliated against the federal, state, and local rights of the complainant multiple times; has stalked the complainant; and has violated many HPD/City policies. Monaco acted purposefully, willfully, repeatedly, and maliciously in retaliating against the complainant for exercising his constitutional rights on at least three distinct sets of false charges. Monaco acted with deliberate indifference to the life, liberty, and property rights of the complainant, when he used excessive force against the complainant, and failed to take steps to mitigate damage to the complainant. Monaco did willfully, repeatedly and maliciously make false statements of material facts under oath in both writing and verbally. This accounts for at least one count of official misconduct, and at least three counts of perjury. Monaco did willfully, repeatedly and maliciously misuse his authority and City resources to further his personal vendetta against the complainant. Monaco's actions not only deprive the complainant of his rights under the color of law, they rise to the level of stalking the complainant. It is requested that a proper, complete and thorough investigation be done. It is respectfully requested, upon conclusion of the investigation when it is unequivocally found that Monaco committed the acts alleged above, that HPD immediately: 1) relieve Monaco of duty, 2) notify the SAO and defendant's of this "Brady" material, 3) file the proper criminal charges against Monaco or refer them to the appropriate agency, 4) file this information with the CJSTC to have Monaco stripped of his law enforcement certification for being in direct conflict with FSS. 943.13(4 and 7). I Dr. James Eric McDonough due solemnly swear every statement above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, understanding I can be charged for willfully making a false statement. Dr. James Eric McDonough /James Eric McDonough/ 1-5-2016 Page 17 of 17