Dear Chief Rolle,

Introduction
In response to our meeting scheduled for 2/7/2014 at 10:00 hrs, I thank you for
taking the time out of your busy schedule to meet with Albert Livingston and me.
I left this meeting feeling very disillusioned, feeling that you are not willing to do
any more than what had been done before our meeting. As a citizen, I find your
responsiveness to my request, comments and questions disappointing.
Please note that this letter, as well as the letter to Det. Aquino, are part and
parcel of my exercising my rights to speech, press and right to petition for redress of
grievances. As such, no negative actions should be brought against me for such
expressions made in these letters (Hill v Houston).
Nothing in these two letters is to be construed as any type of threat of harm or
credible threat (FS. 784.048(1)(c) or other statutory definitions), or corruption through
threatening of a public servant (FS. 838.021).
I know there are good Homestead Police Officers, as well as many good and
decent hard working law enforcement officers in South Florida. This letter is not meant
to be so construed as to include them in with those named herein, or to deny/disparage
their good names or the honorable and noble service they perform for the public in our
communities.
This letter is intended to serve as an informal version of a “writ of mandamus” to
the fullest extent of the law possible, as I am hereby formally requesting you to follow
statutes, to which you are sworn upon to uphold.
 

Background and Brief Synopsis of Meeting
I am writing this letter so that there is no question left to the fact that I am deeply
afraid for the safety of my family, friends, witnesses and myself. I fear that there will be
further retaliation and/or intimidation by the Homestead Police Department, the MiamiDade Police Department and their employees or agents. This fear is not unfounded and
could be reasonably inferred and expected from the timeline of facts I have collected
and only partially presented to you.
My greatest fear is that someone in connection with these matters will have me
“SWATed” to prevent me from bringing my information/evidence forward. As an extreme

 

 measure of precaution, I have taken the liberty of distributing multiple copies of my
evidence with several people who have been instructed to release said information to
the appropriate law enforcement agencies and media outlets. This will be done in the
event that I become incarcerated, incapacitated or deceased for any reason. Please
note I will not release all of my evidence until and unless I am offered immunity and
protection.
If any harm comes to my family, friends, witnesses, or myself through any further
retaliation or intimidation, my representatives or I will hold you, the Homestead Police
Department and/or the City of Homestead, liable for all damages occurring, irrespective
of and separate from the liabilities already present. Thank you for acknowledging these
liabilities in our meeting.
I am putting you under proper notice of some of the injuries I have suffered and
some of the statutory violations officers under your command have committed to allow
you an opportunity to perform your sworn duties.
Of all of the Homestead Police and Miami-Dade Police officers who responded to
the scene of my detainment on 10/29/2012, Bob Brown was the only one to treat me
with respect. I do not feel he is liable to me in his personal and/or professional
capacities in any manner, way, shape or form. He has been the only officer from either
department willing to talk with me while being fair and honest, as well as to lend a
sincere offer of help.
It is hereby noted that the information/evidence I possess could rightly be
classified as work product and protected (title 42 U.S.C. 2000aa). I make this statement
as Det. Aquino seemed to suggest in the meeting that he could seize such materials
without court intervention. This statement from him could present a chilling effect on
first amendment press protections (Smith v City of Cumming). I claim my right to
exercise and preserve my rights, as a citizen journalist as well as all other rights,
liberties and immunities secured, enumerated and enshrined by/in the Constitution and
Laws of the United States and the Great State of Florida.
It is noted that you and Det. Aquino clearly elucidated your plans during our
meeting, by attempting to improperly use procedural due process rules included within
the “Police Officer Bill of Rights”, to shield Officer Murguido from both prosecution and
punishment (FS. 112.532(6)(a)(2)).
I appreciate your assurance that Officer Murguido will be told to stay away from
me. Said assurances are given little weight due to your admission that you would not
have been aware of the illegal alien working for you unless it had been discovered
during an unrelated investigation. Also it appears that officers Rome, Desoto and
Deegan were only prosecuted because of video evidence created during another
 

 unrelated investigation. I feel this as well as other evidence I possess, some of which I
presented you clearly demonstrates an abject failure to properly and critically screen
prospective employees on your part, as well as a failure to properly train, supervise and
discipline employees under your command.
I appreciate your unsolicited admission that Officer Murguido is a “nasty” person.
This does not however address or attempt to solve any of the problems we currently
face nor does it recognize that you continue to allow him to prey upon members of our
community. I also appreciate your unsolicited admission that Officer Murguido had
fabricated evidence leading to my being kidnapped.
I hope you understand if I now doubt your commitment, or question how serious
you view these matters, in light of the fact that you showed up over an hour and a half
late to a meeting, which you selected the date, time and location. This was further
aggravated by the fact that you took a personal phone call for approximately ten
minutes about the work you were thinking of having done at your house. This was done
after I had informed you that I felt that the actions of Officer Murguido had led to me
being kidnapped.
I was also greatly disappointed by your statement that you would only deal with
things from this point forward which clearly demonstrates your attempt to sweep under
the rug felony allegations of an officer under your command.
During our meeting you repeatedly stated that I should have come to you or Det.
Aquino first as he works for you. What is this supposed to imply? Does Officer
Murguido not also work for you? Do Lt. Johnson and Sgt. Sherman not also work for
you? Were you not made aware of the situation through either of Det. Aquino, Lt.
Johnson or Sgt. Sherman as according to the dictates of the SOP manual? I had
informed all three that I believed Officer Murguido had committed multiple felony
violations against me under both Florida and Federal Law, by at least 1/24/2013.
I pointed out to you in our meeting that on 2/28/2013 Officer Murguido swore
under oath to a statement alleging I had contacted IA and that he was advised to file an
order of protection against me. In light of this fact, Det. Aquino did not return my call
from 1/24/2013 until 3/19/2013. I hope the implications of these proven facts are not
lost on me alone (HPD SOP standard No. 073, III(D)(1)(b)). Further, I gave you
evidence Officer Murguido's many perjurious statements in said sworn statement, such
as when he states that I have “a history of clinically diagnosed mental health problems”
(FS. 873.02 and 837.021). Most of Officer Murguido’s statements given under oath are
made from nearly whole cloth.
Note that Officer Murguido skipped two scheduled depositions with my attorney
and skipped his court date for the restraining order he falsely initiated. He also has a
 

 past history of skipping court and lying about it on more than one occasion, not to
mention he has a past history of being in at least six accidents generating six injury
reports due to his driving. This evidence supports the fear I have for the safety of my
children due to his driving habits. Officer Murguido also has a history of retaliating
against people who stand in his way and abusing his authority. Here again the clear
evidence of Officer Murguido’s past history clearly supports the fear I possess.

Limited Enumeration of Offenses and History
Let me clearly state here for the record that I believe officers currently under your
command, as well as Miami-Dade Police Department officers have committed crimes
against me up to including but not limited to official misconduct (FS. 838.022); false
imprisonment (FS. 787.02); stalking/agg.stalking (784.048(2-3)); kidnapping (FS.
787.01(1)(a)(3), see also German Bosque); perjury (FS. 837.02/837.021); conspiracy
against/deprivation of rights under color of law (title 18 U.S.C. 241-242); obstruction of
justice (title 18 U.S.C. 1510 and FS. 843); retaliation/tampering with a witness, victim or
informant (title 18 U.S.C. 1512-1513 and FS. 914.22-914.23); fabrication of evidence
(title 18 U.S.C. 1519 and FS. 918.13); use of simulated legal process (FS. 843.0855(3))
abuse of process (Valdes v GAB Robins N. Am. Inc.); malicious prosecution; filing false
reports to law enforcement authorities (FS. 837.05), intentional infliction of emotional
distress and pattern and practice (title 42 U.S.C. 14141).
I will also note for the record, that as two or more R.I.C.O. predicate acts have
been committed, which said acts are interrelated and not isolated (i.e. they have the
same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or
otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events
H.J. Inc. v Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.), where the unlawful acts could only be
carried out through association with an ongoing organization/enterprise. A pattern of
racketeering activity appears to have been established and charges under the R.I.C.O.
Act (title 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 and FS. 895.02(1)(a)(23, 26, 40, 41, 42 and 48) should
be explored.
The above statutory violations are not meant to foreclose upon the fact that there
are also many policy violations of the SOP’s as well as ethical violations of the FDLE
ethics requirements Officer Murguido and other offending officers are sworn to. As
examples we do not need to even go three pages into the HPD SOP Manual before we
find five policy violations of Officer Murguido and other officers under your command
(Standard No. 001; II(A)(1)(a), II(A)(1)(b)(1), III(A)(1), III(A)(2) and III(A)(3)). I will not
elaborate farther as to the ethical/policy violations here. However, I do hereby reserve
all rights to comment on these policy/ethical violations at a later time.

 

 I also feel the unlawful actions of Officer Murguido and others in your department
and Miami-Dade Police Department have led to the violation of at least my 1st, 2nd, 4th,
5th, 8th, 9th and 14th amendments rights as enumerated and enshrined under the U.S.
Constitution, elaborated in the statutes, and interpreted through relevant and controlling
case law.
Your comments about a “pissing contest” between Officer Murguido and me,
were not well taken, miss the point entirely and trivialize the seriousness of these
matters. I had attempted to request Officer Murguido to mind his driving through the
neighborhood on 10/29/2012, as he had run another driver and me off the road the
previous week as well as committing other hazardous traffic infractions. I was
concerned for the safety of the neighborhood. I currently have two, soon to be three,
children, and there are many other children in and around the neighborhood. The
speech I was making was speech of public concern, which did not contain fighting
words, and as such would be protected. It is noted that US Supreme Court has ruled in
Hill v. Houston
"The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without
thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we
distinguish a free nation from a police state." — 482 U.S. 451, at 463
Officer Murguido chased me down after I had walked about two blocks away from being
in front of his property and demanded that I remain in place or he would arrest me. How
is this not an action under the color of law? He then stated that he was “going to show
me”. This is an action that clearly would present a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
It is noted here that I have never entered Officer Murguido’s property at any time.
When, I then later attempted to file a complaint with Homestead Police IA, not only was
my call not returned in a timely manner, but the offending officer was actually alerted
that I had contacted IA and he was advised to file an order of protection against me.
This is an action that would present a chilling effect on the right to petition government
for redress of grievances. Based upon the above fact pattern I cannot understand how
someone could view this as merely a “pissing contest”, such assertions are below the
level of the office you maintain.
During my false imprisonment on 10/29/2012, no Homestead or Miami-Dade
officer was able to articulate any reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal
activity for why I was detained against my will for approximately 90 minutes (United
States v Place), even after my specific and direct questioning of Lt. Diaz de Villegas and
other officers present. Lt. Diaz de Villegas unequivocally stated that I had committed no
crime, and that is why I was not arrested. He did however strongly urge me not to file a
complaint and suggested that the results would not be good for me.

 

 After aggressively ripping a small pocket knife clipped to my side, Lt. Diaz de
Villegas demanded I undergo a “Terry Search” (J.L. v State). Upon doing this improper
search, Lt. Diaz de Villegas questioned what was in my left front pocket, then
immediately reached his hand into my pocket and retrieved my belongings, then stated
“Oh it’s your cell phone, cigarettes and a few dollars”. He then placed my possessions
back into my pocket. This is a clear violation of the dictates as established under Terry
v Ohio. Furthermore, an investigative detention must be conducted in a manner that is
no more intrusive than necessary to establish or dispel the officer’s suspicions (Florida
v. Royer)
I also note that due to the actions of Officer Murguido and Lt. Diaz de Villegas, I
was barred from walking down my street west, past the stop sign at 324 St and 202
Ave. Lt. Diaz de Villegas specifically instructed me that if I walked down my street past
the stop sign and was on Officer Murguido’s block of 324 St for any reason I would be
arrested for criminal trespass, a denial of my constitutional right to travel without due
process (Kent v. Dulles and Schactman v Dulles). Due to this I was unable to walk my
daughters for most of the Halloween trick or treating, as the majority of the houses in my
community are past that stop sign. The reasonable and prudent man would clearly find
that such actions shock the conscience.
No Miami-Dade Officers that I had interacted with during my kidnapping on
4/15/2013, would tell me what I had been arrested for (FS. 901.15 and 901.17), after
multiple request on my part of at least five separate officers. The arresting officers
advised they had an arrest warrant, which proved to be false. I feel that this was all an
attempt to terrorize me into submission, to cover up their misdeeds, further
compounded by the fact that the Miami-Dade Police report from 10/29/2012, stated that
it was a simple neighbor dispute, and was settled on scene. This report also stated that
I was advised to take any further complaints about Officer Murguido to the Homestead
Police Department. When I attempted to file a complaint, I was again retaliated against.
I know these Miami-Dade officers are not officers from your department, however
they have worked with officers from your department to willfully deprive me of my rights
under the color of law. Acknowledging that they are from a different department does
not absolve you or the Homestead Police Department of the injuries that directly or
indirectly resulted from the actions of your officers. An officer who files a false report
resulting in a false arrest, is liable even if he himself did not carry out the arrest
(Acevedo v Canterbury). An officer who fabricates evidence leading to a false arrest is
guilty of 14th amendment dues process violations as well as 4th amendment illegal
seizure violations (see F.B.I. webpage “Color of Law Abuses”).
Several friends of mine witnessed Officer Murguido on 2/12/2014 at
approximately 13:00, blocking the roadway and creating a hazard by parking across the

 

 middle of the lane on 192 Ave immediately south of 320 St. These friends do not wish
to file a complaint due to the treatment they have witnessed me receive. I know of
many others in the area that have had negative interactions with Officer Murguido, who
will attest to his attitude, demeanor and treatment of citizens. Note that I am not the
sole citizen having problems with Officer Murguido or concerned with his behavior. I
would hope that you begin to take immediate and corrective action, as I understand why
so many people are afraid of reporting transgressions by the police.
You can also take additional actions that would go further in helping to eliminate
the possibility of Officer Murguido and me having any further negative interactions, such
as shifting his patrol to the far east/north east side of the city, and also having him take
202 Ave, to Palm Dr, to Krome Ave to and from work. I only state this as most of our
encounters occur on 320 St near the intersection of 197 Ave.
 

Request for Immediate Action(s) on Your Behalf
I request an investigation of Officer Murguido to be completed in a timely,
thorough, proper and impartial manner. It is anticipated that you will exercise great care
and due diligence in these matters, as no less should be expected from a reasonable
and prudent man.
During our meeting, Det. Aquino was attempting to intimidate Albert and me.
The effect on Albert could be easily seen by his reaction to Det. Aquino and his
irrelevant repeated questioning and interrogation techniques. As you said in the
meeting “this foolishness needs to stop”. Albert should be reassured in writing that no
retaliation or intimidation will come to him, because of him serving as a witness for me.
Although I can understand the attempt to try to minimize and limit the liability of
yourself and the police department in relation to these matters, I am confused that you
would fail to take the one action within your power and discretion to minimize any further
damage to me, my business, good name and reputation. This could be accomplished
by simply writing me a letter to me explaining that Officer Murguido had initiated false
charges against me and has been disciplined. I feel failure to do such continues to
harm me in my present and future employment prospects, and most importantly falsely
and unjustly discredits my good name and reputation.

Concluding Remarks
The enumeration here of certain injuries and/or offenses, shall not be considered
as a complete and/or exhaustive list of the injuries and/or offenses for which I may seek

 

 claim, remuneration and redress. Further, is it not meant to be so construed as to limit
me to being the only party currently possessing valid claims in these matters against
Homestead Police Department, Miami-Dade Police Department, or any and all agencies
and affiliates/municipalities associated therewith, including any agents and employees
thereof.
As a further preparation one of my attorneys will be drafting a letter of “Notice of
Intent to File a Claim” under FS. 768.28. How far this escalates after that is at least
partially dependent upon the level good faith I see in you.
David Payton an award winning playwright/author on the topic of bullying has
approached me to write a book/play on the bullying that occurs from those in positions
of power when they abuse their authority.
You should be able to reasonably make an initial response to this letter within
seven business days of receipt of this letter.
You have publicly stated “We will not tolerate any kind of abuse from our police
officers”. So I must ask why haven’t you done anything? Failure to act should be
rightfully viewed as deliberate indifference.
If Officer Murguido would have just apologized for his unlawful actions this could
have all been avoided.
We must come together to protect the safety and sanctity of our children and our
community at any and all cost. If I must stand up to corruption I will do so, even if it
means I must stand alone.

Sincerely,
/James Eric McDonough/
Dr. James E. McDonough
CC (Anticipated list).
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 RosLehtinen; 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 Vannemanwitness; Joyce and David Nero-witness; Bob Zannnini-Managing 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