Updates

December 13, 2011 - Collateral Damage?

Update to the November 22 posting. It appears a stray round may have hit a house during this debacle.

Sgt. Williams says in an internal statement "While waiting on Lt. Flores and Lt. Brock dispatch had me call in. Raelee advised me that someone at 411 Ellis reported a bullet hole going through there front door."

"I then had Officer Petersen respond to that location to insure that everyone was okay at the residence, which he reported back that they were."

Ellis street runs one block east parallel to the I-35 service road.

November 22, 2011 - Can't they do it right the first time?

On Wednesday, October 5, 2011, Officer Nando Pedrero of the Red Oak Police Department stopped a vehicle for a defective license plate light in the NB 600 block of IH 35E. Defective license plate lights are a very big deal in Red Oak, Texas.

In this case, the driver wasn't Suzy Soccer Mom on her way home from a tournament, it was a guy with no ID that verbally identified himself to Officer Pedrero.

According to the information provided by the City of Red Oak, the name the driver gave returned with a "hit" for another individual with aggravated robbery warrants and felon in possession of a firearm.

Officer Pedrero wasn't able to determine what the "hit" was. Sergeant Danny Williams arrived on the scene to provide back up.

Now, this guy has no ID, he may be one bad hombre, but our sleuths fail to handcuff him. Instead these officers get the guy out of his vehicle, and, according to the report provided by Red Oak PD, Sergeant Williams searched the guy by pulling his shorts out and looking in them and Officer Pedrero had him raise his shirt up above his head. The officers then decide to take a picture of him. Sometime during the "investigation" and discussion the suspect breaks and runs. Sergeant Williams screams three times at Officer Pedrero as the man is running, "Shoot him!" so Officer Pedrero, dutifully following Sergeant William's orders, fires off three rounds at the suspect missing him each time. Luckily these shots didn't hit my poor ol' gray haired mother as she was driving down the street (OK, I don't have a poor ol' gray haired mother, but somebody in Red Oak does, and somebody's poor ol' gray haired mother could have taken a stray round between the eyes.)

I have in my possession what appears to be a transcribed interview of Sergeant Williams and Officer Pedrero conducted by a Lt. Flores of the Red Oak Police Department. The grammar, structure and spelling in this transcription is horrible, and reading it leaves one a little dizzy. Statements in quotation marks are as they appear on the transcripts. I don't have the space to place every quote in both interviews. I'll be glad to share the full info and transcript with anyone interested.

When asked, Officer Pedrero said he didn't see a weapon, and fired at the man because Sergeant Williams told him to. Officer Pedrero stated, "I was shooting because he (Sgt. Williams) told me to shoot. My thought was he had seen something that I did not see."

Officer Pedrero was asked, "Your decision is based off of what you thought Danny saw?" to which Officer Pedrero answered, "Yes. The way I was looking at it if I had tried to wait and the threat was actually there, by the time that split second went by and either me Danny (Sgt. Williams), or Petersen (another officer at the scene) got hit, how am I going to feel about that. Danny is running behind me and he's screaming that my initial thought is that he sees a threat and this guy has a gun. My thought is that since we work together and we are supposed to trust each other then I'm assuming this is what he sees."

Sgt. William's interview with Lt. Flores is interesting.

Sgt. Williams was preparing to take a picture to ID the unsecured suspect when the man bolted and ran.

When asked about the search prior to the gun play, Sergeant Williams states, "No I didn't look inside his shorts but I could tell that there was nothing there. I pulled the lining back to make sure there was nothing there but did not look down inside his shorts. I was comfortable that he did not have anything on him."

Sgt Williams was asked if he could have concealed a weapon, and he responds with "No, I was sure he didn't have anything on him."

Sergeant Williams states, "I yelled stop or we are going to shoot, I remember saying shoot, shoot he crossing the street and under a light, I seen his pants down, he was trying to pull his pants up and looking back and I remember thinking he was at a disadvantage so I'm going to yell it again and maybe it will work this time because he is at a disadvantage."

Sgt Williams, in his statement, says, "That was about the time I heard the shot. I then looked and thought, who's shooting. I then looked at Nando and Petersen to make sure they were ok and that when I looked back at Nando (Officer Pedrero) and saw him fire two more shots. That's when I waved my left hand and said to Nando, hold off Nando, hold off. In other words, don't shoot, that's what I'm meaning."

Sgt. Williams tells Officer Pedrero to shoot, then tells him don't shoot.

Why did Sergeant Williams tell Officer Pedrero to shoot, "comfortable" that the man didn't have a weapon on him? According to Sergeant Williams, he didn't really mean it! Sergeant Williams told Lt. Flores, "I was meaning to say, stop or we are going to shoot. It shortened to like shoot, shoot. I don't ever remember saying shoot him."

Sergeant Williams was asked if he was aware that he yelled "shoot him" three times, to which Sergeant Williams responds with no, he wasn't. "I know you and Rick White told me that I'm sure I did but I know it, No I didn't know that."

Sergeant Williams answerd when asked if he's ever done this before. "No, never. I can't tell you why I did it this time. I've said stop or I'll shoot thousands of times but I've never shortened like that, I can't tell you why I shortened it. I don't know if it's because I was running, I don't know what the deal was, I don't know. I still don't remember saying, 'Shoot him.' I never intended for anybody to shoot him. I wanted to scare him to where he'll stop: he's at a disadvantage and I'm thinking that if I yell that again, he's going to stop."

Thousands of times shouting "stop or I'll shoot" is a lot of stop or I'll shoots!

A third officer was at the scene, who reportedly has 18 months on. This officer seems to have handled himself well.

Apparently there's video of this blind mice fire drill, as Lt. Flores asks if Williams or Pedero made copies.

Neither of these officers are now employed with Red Oak PD. Sergeant Williams submitted a resignation letter dated November 7, 2011 and according to TCLEOSE Officer Pedrero separated employment with ROPD on November 7, 2011.

Reading the paperwork the City of Red Oak provided, I can't help but wonder if there's more to this misadventure than meets the eye.

I noticed something interesting perusing through the 30 some pages of paperwork obtained from the City of Red Oak. Although the incident happened on October 5, 2011, a request for an immediate investigation wasn't ordered until Friday, October 21, 2011. There could be a logical explanation why well over two weeks passed before the ROPD decided to launch an internal investigation into this incident. I also found it odd that the complainant on the Red Oak personnel complaint form is Lt. Boyd Brock of the ROPD instead of the guy that got shot at. Again, there could be an explanation for this.

Once again it is supervision on the Red Oak PD called into question.

I've mentioned elsewhere on this site that ROPD Chief Rudolph was ready to come after my employment after being instigated by ROISD Police Chief Lindsey.

On this site is the video of (former DPS) ROPD Sergeant Langham offering to fix a citation before and after he writes it.

On this site we mention former Sgt. Goodson leaving ROPD after he claimed workmen's comp for an injury he didn't receive on duty.

Sergeant Robinson was promoted after he had to supplement my daughter's simple accident report he didn't get right the first time (On October 12, 2011 Sgt Robinson submitted a Self Demotion Request).

Then this incident with the now former Sergeant Williams.

Red Oak is not a civil service department. These "supervisors" are anointed at the discretion and pleasure of Chief Rudolph. What's going on here? If this was a two thousand officer department, a few screw ups here and there could be expected, but there seems to be a lot of controversy within this police department considering its size.

This is Chief Rudolph's department, these are his people, the buck stops with him.

October 19, 2011 - Getting Our Money's Worth?

With the current economic situation there's no shortage of news reports telling us how hard public education has been hit. Public school districts around the country are facing budget shortfalls, and teacher lay offs are common place.

Last Spring I asked ROISD how much money was being spent on ROISD police department salaries, and I was surprised at the current change ROISD PD Chief Lindsey is bringing in.

According to Gay Broom, Executive Director of Communications for ROISD Lindsey's paid a whopping $76,194 annually. Ms. Broom also provided the salaries of the other officers on the ROISD PD, collectively we're paying $267,082 a year for these police officers. This is not counting the officer that abruptly resigned as I was making this inquiry, his salary was $34,289.53.

Are we getting the best police department for over a quarter of a million dollars annually in salary? At the time I received this information, 3 of the full time officers on the staff collectively have a total of 25 prior TCLEOSE entries on their record. Our experiences with Chief Lindsey and some of his subordinates are documented elsewhere on this site.

Are these expenditures justified so we can have security at sporting events, minor traffic control and the criminalization of juvenile behavior with hefty fines for offenses that at one time in this District's history simply merited a trip to the principal's office?

I don't know how much the squad cars cost, or the expense of letting some of these officers drive them home. I don't how much we're spending on uniforms, weapons or training. I do wonder how many teachers ROISD could hire if these expenses were cut back, or in some cases eliminated. I do know that prior to 2001 ROISD didn't even have it's own police department.

June 1, 2011 - Red Oak Loses Attorney General Appeal

Regarding the April 28 update below—as I predicted, the City of Red Oak lost their appeal to the Attorney General. In a letter I received today, signed by Assistant Attorney General Sarah Casterline, the City of Red Oak has been told to release the information I requested.

I asked for the name of the officer arrested. I asked for the charges filed against the officer. I asked for the status of the officer at ROPD (i.e. administrative leave, restricted duty, full duty).

TCLEOSE provided all but the officer's departmental status.

The arrogance and hypocrisy of the City of Red Oak is defined by the appeal to the Attorney General. One can go to www.elliscountypress.com, type Red Oak arrests in the search engine, and not only review who the ROPD arrests, but even the tickets they issue. Yet they want to play this game when one of their own is locked up.

The City of Red Oak isn't a nameless, faceless bureaucracy. The Mayor is Alan Hugley, the City Manager is Tim Kelty, and the Red Oak Police Chief is Craig Rudolph.

If the arrested Red Oak officer worked for a major metroplex police department, his name would have been in newspapers, on television news, and mentioned on local radio. What makes Red Oak think they're special?

I have to wonder if "they" think I'll just give up and go away. If this is the prevailing thought, "they" are wrong. We just updated this domain for the site to go on. This site will continue to thrive with updates as information develops.

I haven't yet received the information that Red Oak has been ordered to fork over. I'm updating this site now as my webmaster will be on vacation when the information arrives. When she returns it'll be on here.

My intention was not to reveal the arrested officer's name but considering the stance of the City of Red Oak I think his name is of interest to the general public.

The arrested officer's name according to TCLEOSE is Charles Moses. Officer Moses charges are Assault/FV (Family Violence) and Interference with Emergency Telephone Call. Police Chief Rudolph signed the form sent to TCLEOSE stating the criminal charges.

More to come.....

April 28, 2011 - Why is the City of Red Oak wasting the Attorney General's time?

See the April 23 entry below. When a police officer is arrested in the State of Texas, the department that employs the officer submits an E-1 form to TCLEOSE (the governmental bureaucracy that licenses police officers in Texas) notifying them of the arrest. I submitted an open records request to TCLEOSE asking for an E-1 sent from the Red Oak Police Department.

While the City of Red Oak wastes the Attorney General's time with a worthless appeal, TCLEOSE, in the true spirit of transparent government, answered my TPIA request without delay or fanfare.

Seems that the City of Red Oak, or the Red Oak Police Department, doesn't want it made public that one of their own was arrested by another agency for Assault Family Violence and Interference with Emergency Telephone Call. I have a copy of the E-1 submitted to TCLEOSE and signed by Craig Rudolph, Chief of Police dated 04-12-11.

There's nothing to gain by posting the arrested officer's name reported on the E-1; I see this issue as a case of the City of Red Oak trying (in vain) to deny information that is public record.

Shame on them.

April 23, 2011 - Speaking of ROPD...

I submitted an open records request to the City of Red Oak inquiring about an off duty incident involving an ROPD officer. The City's law firm of Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith appealed to the Attorney General to prevent me from getting the requested information.

Open records request letter

I underlined the salient points of the appeal.

Seriously, City of Red Oak? The City really thinks the information I seek isn't of interest to the public?Ê And shouldn't be public?

If Joe Nobody gets arrested, that's public information, and releasing Joe Nobody's name doesn't hinder the arrest or the prosecution of Joe Nobody.

I'm not Miss Cleo, but I confidently predict that the Attorney General will order the City of Red Oak to release the information I seek.

April 19, 2011 - The difference between the Red Oak Texas Police Department and the NYPD is...

The NYPD doesn't condone "ticket fixing." Scroll towards the bottom of our page to see the video of the traffic stop conducted by Sgt Langham (former Texas DPS). At about 3:50 or so into the video, Langham compromises the ticket by telling Pam to have me call him, and tells her I'll know exactly what to do (I didn't call him, and to this day don't know exactly what I should have done). Listen to what Langham says when he returns to the car with the written ticket.

According to the linked article, the NYPD considers ticket fixing so egregious officers could get fired or even face criminal charges.

ROPD doesn't take quite the same stance as the venerable New York City Police Department-it's accepted here, and there's not a shred of evidence that Sgt Langham was ever disciplined, even though ROPD Chief Craig Rudolph is aware of his antic. In fact, Municipal Judge Scott Kurth presided over the trial when this issue was raised, and he didn't seem to find Langham's actions objectionable.

Ironically, in some circles, the NYPD is considered hopelessly corrupt.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/18/400-new-york-police-officers-face-charges-ticket-fixing-scheme/?test=latestnews

March 22, 2011 - Other People's Money

According to "Hawk Eye News,"Êhttp://www.facebook.com/#!/hawkeyenews Facebook website,Êsome kind of flash was caused by a mixture in a plastic bottle in the parking lot of Red Oak HS. Apparently no one was injured. On the same day this is reported, it is announced that the ROISD Police Department is offering a $1,000 reward for information leading to an arrest and conviction for this offense.

The offense is still fresh, no reported injuries, and already the ROISD PD is offering a thousand dollars for someone to solve the crime for them. I hope taxpayers aren't paying the bounty.

I realize that ROISD PD may need a hand here, but in one day? I'm somewhat familiar with how Chief Lindsey investigates some offenses, likeÊcontacting Êan investigator in the DA's office and clearing a possible offense when he doesn't even possess a preliminary offense report or witness statements, but they ought to at least give this a little time. Oh well, it's just money no problem—those take home ROISD PD squad cars are still seen tooling around town off campus after school hours, despite the price of gas. A luxury at the taxpayers expense.

March 14, 2011 - Red Oak PD Follies

The Red Oak Texas Police Department promoted a new sergeant, I'm guessing to fill the vacancy left by Sergeant Goodson. The prestigious award goes to...get ready...here it comes...Roderick Robinson!

Yes Officer Robinson, who made multiple mistakes on our daughter's simple accident report, who testified in court that he didn't know how an additional passenger ended up listed in unit 2 on his corrected supplement (see April 13, 2010 entry).

According to TCLEOSE, Officer Robinson became a full time RO police officer on July 15, 2007 after a year or so of serving as a reserve. Less than four years of full time service!

My first thought was that perhaps Officer Robinson excelled on some sort of exam for the position, so I inquired about the promotion process of the ROPD. All I received from RO was page 18 of some manual with a 7 line paragraph under Section 8.2 Promotion. All that is essentially stated is that the employees considered for promotion must have completed their probationary periods, and that said promotions must be reviewed and approved by the City Manager or designee and approved by the Department Head.

Apparently there's no aptitude or competency test given for the rank of supervisor.

I believe I read once that per ROPD policy a supervisor will review accident reports.

Oh well, who are we to judge the Red Oak Police Department?

Nothing personal Officer uh, Sergeant, Robinson-good luck.

December 20, 2010 - Former Sergeant Ronnie Goodson

Sergeant Ronnie Goodson was fired for being untruthful regarding an injury he claimed occurred on duty.

Goodson claimed he hurt his shoulder on August 20, 2010 and completed an injury report on August 23 in which he hand wrote that he injured his shoulder while changing a squad car tire. An investigation was launched into this incident after another officer heard in a conversation that Goodson had participated in a softball game the evening he allegedly injured his shoulder on duty.

Goodson changed his story in a statement he provided the Red Oak PD on September 24, 2010. In this statement Goodson stated that he may have injured his shoulder on July 5, 2010 from falling. The internal investigation concluded that Goodson was guilty of misconduct.

Interestingly, on November 15, 2010 in a memo from the Red Oak city manager, the city manager states "After review, I have concluded that due to the Human Resources discrepancies and a critical witness is unavailable, you should be reinstated." In a handwritten statement also dated November 15, 2010 Goodson states "effective immediately, I , Ronnie Goodson, do hereby resign my position with the city of Red Oak Police Department."

Why would Goodson quit on the day the city manager says he should be reinstated? If a "critical witness" was unavailable, why not wait until the "critical witness" is available? It is my opinion that this was a "deal" worked out, that Goodson would resign so his record wouldn't officially reflect that he was fired, so he could get another police job in the future.

A police officer's words often times are enough for an arrest and conviction. If a cop is untruthful, or cannot be trusted, his police career should be finished for good.

As we reported on this site on 4/13/10, then Sergeant Goodson came to court to testify against our daughter for the ticket she received after her accident, for a violation neither Sgt. Goodson nor the issuing officer witnessed.

I have no doubt Goodson was sent to double team my daughter out of vindictiveness because I submitted a written complaint over the numerous errors on the accident report. The Red Oak Police Department was forced to make corrections to that report. According to our attorney, prior to the trial Red Oak Police Chief Craig Rudolph called him; our attorney assured us he didn't return Rudolph's call, our lawyer presented the distinct impression that returning Rudolph's call might have placed him in a compromising position. It is inappropriate, to say the least, for a police chief to call a defendant's lawyer before a trial when that chief's subordinates will be testifying against the attorney's client.

The Red Oak police department did not bring the other driver of that accident into court to testify. Goodson did not write up the accident, but he certainly seemed determined to get a 16 year old driver convicted of a moving violation no one in that courtroom for the prosecution witnessed. Goodson tried to impress the jury with his "level 2" accident expertise; now we know what kind of officer Goodson was. Luckily the jury saw through him and the ROPD and found my daughter not guilty.

We've reported here on Sgt. Langham of the Red Oak PD. We even feature the video on this site as he offers to fix my wife's traffic ticket before and after he wrote it. We've reported on Red Oak ISD Officer Tapp who eventually was let go, while ROISD lies about the reason for his departure. We've presented the report and the incident in which with a casual conversation ROISD Police Chief Scott Lindsey blunted any chance of a criminal investigation of former ROISD cheerleader coach June Burrow. We've told about ROISD Chief Lindsey writing to my employer, falsely accusing me of the criminal offense of Stalking, with ROPD Chief Craig Rudolph supporting him and offering to help him on public email.

Undoubtedly, there are good officers on the Red Oak Police Department, good decent employees working for Red Oak ISD, but a government entity is judged from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of the incompetence and shady dealings we've reported on this site have been committed by those in supervisory positions, from the Red Oak PD, to the Red Oak ISD, to the Red Oak municipal court (our July 21 2010 entry summarizes our experience with the RO municipal court).

This website hasn't earned us any friends in certain circles in this politically incestuous town. We can easily live with being considered pariahs by those that we distrust and hold in contempt.

November 27, 2010 - Sergeant Leaves Red Oak Police Department...Why?

It was heard that Sergeant Ronnie Goodson is no longer employed with the Red Oak Police Department. Goodson's role in our daughter's traffic trial is chronicled in our 4/13/10 update.

We don't publish rumors on this site, so I filed an open records request with the City of Red Oak on November 9, 2010 asking for paperwork related to Sergeant Goodson's departure to include a resignation letter or letter of termination. According to TCLEOSE, Sergeant Goodson left ROPD on 10/21/10.

The City of Red Oak, through the law firm of Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith appealed my TPIA request to the Texas Attorney General in a letter dated November 15, 2010. In this letter The City wants the documents excepted from disclosure citing an "ongoing Internal Affairs Investigation."

Hmmm. By the time the city appealed to the Attorney General Sergeant Goodson had been gone over three weeks. Why would there still be an internal affairs investigation pending after the officer left?

If the Attorney General buys off on the appeal, we'll eventually get the documents we seek as no "investigation" lasts forever.

Time will tell.

October 13, 2010 - Kelty's Response

I sent this email to Red Oak City Manager Kelty and the Red Oak city council and mayor on August 13, 2010 in response to Kelty's answer to usÊ(see below)Êregarding Pam's loss of her appeal right at the hands of the City of Red Oak. Naturally, we never heard from the mayor or anyone on the city council about this. Their mouthpiece doesn't make a convincing argument.

October 12, 2010 - Red Oak - Top notch Fire Department!

We've noticed a pattern here in Red Oak. Government officials seem loath to leave a paper trail when they conduct an "investigation."

Way back, when I brought a potential felony to the attention of Red Oak ISD Chief Lindsey, instead of conducting interviews, taking statements or collecting evidence he killed off an inquiry after a casual conversation with an investigator from the Ellis Co DA's office (that "investigation" summary is posted elsewhere on this site).

After we notified Red Oak Police Chief, Craig Rudolph, of the conduct of his subordinate Sgt. Langham, when he offered to fix Pam's traffic ticket before he even wrote it, in a letter Rudolph assured us that "prompt disciplinary (action?) has been taken against Sgt. Langham for his conduct" (that letter appears elsewhere on this site). After an open records request, we learn that there is nothing in writing documenting Sgt. Langham's "discipline."

In August, we received the following letter from Red Oak City Manager, Tim Kelty, in response to Pam's complaint regarding the theft of her right to appeal a traffic ticket—the ticket Sgt Langham wrote her (a video of that traffic stop is on this site). Pam's complaint letter is posted here dated July 21, 2010.

Letter - Page 1
Letter - Page 2
Letter - Page 2

After Kelty sent us this letter, we submitted an open records request for notes generated by Kelty during his "investigation" of Pam's complaint, for written statements provided to him, and for a list of witnesses Kelty spoke to or interviewed during his investigation. In a letter dated August 24, in response to the aforementioned requests, we were advised "we do not have any documents responsive to your request." Again, no paper trail, no record or documentation of Red Oak City Manager Kelty's "investigation."

Kelty's letter to Pam is an insult. Note in the letter that Kelty tells Pam "we are unable to find any demonstrative evidence, other than your verbal statement, that you tendered any funds along with your alleged appeal bond." Pam never said she tendered funds, in fact that is the crux of the problem. After repeated attempts, Clerk Collins REFUSED to accept bond! Pam's appeal was rejected because she didn't post bond! How could Pam post bond when the court clerk, Collins, refused to take it?

Kelty's entire letter is fraught with absurdity. I'm not taking the time here to dissect it line by line, any objective reader can see it for what it is.

Every citizen in this country has the right to appeal a verdict. This was not a garden variety traffic ticket, there were several issues that needed addressed in a neutral setting, which we think Ellis County court could have provided. It wasn't just about getting a ticket. Pam has received a ticket before in Red Oak and resolved it without fanfare.

Someone, either Judge Kurth who signed Pam's appeal, or Clerk Collins, or someone unseen—whether intentionally or incompetently—cost Pam her right to appeal. And all we have to show for it is this milquetoast response from the Red Oak City Manager trying to cover for the city. Pam had to pay the ticket under penalty of an arrest warrant, because of someone in Red Oak city government.

I don't believe in conspiracies, but I don't believe in coincidences either. The City of Red Oak, and the ROPD, would have been very embarrassed if Sgt. Langham had testified in a court of permanent record.

We wanted to ask Sgt. Langham why he left DPS (Texas State Police) after 8 years and 11 months to become a Red Oak reserve, then a full time RO police officer.

We wanted to ask Sgt. Langham if he had ever written a speeding ticket based on what he was told by an off duty officer from another jurisdiction.

We had several more questions we wanted to ask Sgt. Langham as he was under oath but Pam never got her day in court.

We never expected anything out of the city manager. Past experience told us that this would be covered up and glossed over, and we were not surprised. We have pending complaints with other agencies over this. Perhaps we'll be vindicated yet. This little stunt would not stand up to strong media scrutiny, and we're currently shopping for a civil attorney to help us address this latest outrage.

From the school district, to the local PD, to the local court system in Red Oak I've witnessed what I would have preferred not to know. I'm not going to say Red Oak is the crookedest town in Texas, but it's the dirtiest town I'm familiar with.

Oh well, at least the fire department is top notch!

July 26, 2010 - From ROISD PD to Combine, TX

It's been widely reported that Combine TX has dismissed the vast majority of the Combine Police Department.

     http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/City-Terminates-Entire-Police-Force-99199869.html

We find this worth mentioning because there is a connection between the now dismissed officers and the ROISD PD.

The private investigator that wrote ROISD PD Chief Lindsey that I "tried" to hire him is also an itinerant gypsy cop that found his 12th or 13th or so police gig on the Combine, PD. This individual left before the July Combine coup, after participating in anÊ investigation that fell apart and embarrassed the North Texas police community. Lindsey was so taken with what this individual had to say that Lindsay referenced his letter to come after my job, to falsely accuse me of the criminal offense of Stalking, and to incite ROPD Chief Craig Rudolph.

A more direct link to Lindsey and the ROISD PD is the Combine employment of reserve officers Greg Tapp and Gregory Rookwood, both former ROISD PD officers hired under Lindsey.

Tapp was Lindsey's community relations officer, and Rookwood was paid thousands of ROISD tax dollars as a part time police officer with ROISD. An interesting side note here is, at the time Lindsey accused me of trying to hire a private investigator Rookwood was on the ROISD staff even though he is, according to the web site, the president of Dimensional Analysis Group a company that offers private investigations.

Tapp and Rookwood left ROISD after it was learned that Tapp was employed as a side job to wait for a man to come out of a bar and have him stopped for DWI. Tapp was hired by the man's estranged wife who was going through a divorce. This incident is explained in detail elsewhere on this site. Assistant Superintendent Schupmann, in a June 2009 school board meeting, minimized Tapp's separation with ROISD PD as violating ROISD PD policy of failing to report secondary employment. At the time Schupmann was saying this, ROISD had in their possession Tapp's resignation letter in which he admitted trying toÊcatch the man for DWI, admitted omitting information in an earlier statement Êand implicated Rookwood in the scheme.

Tapp and Rookwood may not have found themselves on the Combine TX police department if ROISD had been forthcoming as to why they left the District. We're not sure if the objective was to protect Tapp and Rookwood or the image of Lindsey, but Schupmann and the school board know Tapp left for a far more sinister reason than working an extra job without permission.

Under Lindsey there have been sex scandals involving his officers, and then this Tapp/Rookwood fiasco. Lindsey's newest hires have about 20 prior TCLEOSE entries between the two of them, and one would think that job stability, considering the past shenanigans under Lindsey's command, would be a high priority.

We have learned that despite what Lindsey does that he is untouchable, that the District will go to any length to protect him and redirect allegations against him.

Such is small town patronage politics.

July 21, 2010 - Complaint to Red Oak City Manager

Pamela Johnson
Red Oak, TX 75154
pjkj5312@swbell.net

Mr. Kelty, RO City Manager:

Consider this a formal complaint and a request for an investigation into the actions of Red Oak Municipal Judge Scott Kurth and Court Clerk Peggy Collins.

On September 10, 2009 I was found guilty of speeding in Red Oak Municipal Court. I chose to appeal the verdict, as I do not feel I was guilty of the offense. I can supply you with a video of that traffic stop conducted by Sergeant Jim Langham of the Red Oak PD, or you can view the stop at www.corruptredoakisd.com,

I made several phone calls inquiring about the procedure to appeal this verdict. I had to make many calls because I kept getting conflicting answers. I was told that I had ten days in which to file my appeal to the municipal court which made it due by September 20, 2009 a Sunday, so Court Clerk Peggy Collins told me I had to have the paperwork completed and turned into her by Friday, September 18th.

I traveled to Red Oak Municipal Court twice between the dates of September 11th through the 17th to deliver my appeal application and pay my fee. Collins told me I could not pay any money until the judge had approved my appeal. I called on September 18th to finalize my appeal but there was a recording stating that the court was closed and would reopen on September 21st. I called and spoke to Collins in the afternoon of September 21st to ask if the judge had accepted my appeal. She told me he hadn't come in yet but she expected him later that day. I went to the municipal court building that afternoon and was greeted by Judge Kurth who was on his way out as I was entering. He told me several times in the entryway that I had perfected my bond and that he had accepted my appeal application. I then went to the window to speak to Collins to pay my fee. Collins told me that I didn't have to give her any money, that she was mistaken. She apologized to me for all of the confusion stating that I was her first appeal. Aren't the RO court clerks supposed to be trained and capable of filing an appeal? It doesn't matter if I was her first appeal, Collins should have been prepared and well versed in the appeal procedure. I did not request legal advice from Collins, but procedural instruction.

I want to know if Kurth told Collins on that date that I didn't have to post cash, or if Collins made the decision to refuse to accept payment. All along in this debacle Collins had been advising me I had to post a bond, but after Kurth left the building and I spoke to Collins for the last time, Collins refused to accept any amount from me. Someone is responsible for this. RO Municipal Court had a chance to correct or address the problems with this appeal when Ellis County returned it for correction. Instead, in January 2010 it was sent back to Ellis County.

Thinking this was handled, I hired an attorney and prepared for this case to be heard in Ellis County Court. I made a total of four trips to Ellis County court regarding appeal proceedings. The third trip to Ellis County Court we were advised that there was a problem with the appellate procedure, because I had not posted a bond with RO Municipal Court and because of that Ellis County didn't have jurisdiction in the case. Judge Calvert reset the court date to give my lawyer an opportunity to examine what had happened in Red Oak. I went to the municipal court and got a copy of the appeal package that was forwarded to Ellis County. We went back to court and told Judge Calvert what had happened in Red Oak and that I went several times to pay my bond and RO employees refused to take my money. He seemed sympathetic to my plight but told me he had no jurisdiction. Judge Calvert told me and my lawyer that he was going to contact Judge Kurth and ask for a response as to what had occurred at his level and if there was a remedy. Judge Calvert told us he would respond to us in thirty days. I don't know if Judge Kurth offered an explanation or not but I received a letter yesterday signed by Judge Calvert stating that because the Appeal Bond was defective (no amount was received by the Court), Ellis County was returning the case to the municipal court in Red Oak, TX for the judgment to be enforced.

I lost my appeal right because I didn't post a bond, yet RO Municipal Court refused to accept my bond! I could not force Collins to take my money.

Today (July 21, 2010) I was advised by Deputy Court Clerk Joane Mohammad that she talked to Kurth and was told by Kurth that I have thirty days to pay my original fine. I've been denied my due process, my right to appeal, and now Kurth is telling me through Joane Mohammad to pay up!

I've taken time off work, I've scheduled events around my Ellis County Court appearances, I've hired a lawyer and planned my trial in Ellis County all for naught, because of at the very least incompetence at the hands of Red Oak employees under your tutelage as the City Manager of Red Oak.

I hope the magnitude of my outrage and sense of justice denied isn't lost on you Mr. Kelty. I do not believe I was speeding that day, the conduct of the officer (Sgt Langham) was outrageous when in front of our daughter he offered to "fix" the ticket even before he wrote it by telling me to have my husband call him. Why would my husband tamper with a witness? Was Langham going to destroy a governmental document if my husband had called him? There are unresolved issues surrounding this incident. Was my appeal deliberately sabotaged because someone recognized the implications of Langham testifying about his conduct in a court of record? Your Police Chief, Craig Rudolph, is aware of Langham's behavior on that traffic stop.

I'm owed an explanation and a remedy to this situation, and those responsible for the loss of my right to appeal, who have breached a public trust, need to be held accountable. I sincerely hope you are taking this seriously and grasp the implications of what has happened to me, the denial of due process.

I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss this issue with you in person, perhaps with an audience consisting of the Red Oak City Council and Mayor.

I intend to confer with my attorney and research the available state and federal agencies that I can take this complaint to. I'm sickened by the thought that my rights can be stolen from me without remedy or resolution, through no fault of my own.

Find enclosed with this complaint a copy of the Municipal Court Appeal Bond signed by Judge Kurth, and Judge Calvert's signed Application for Writ of Procedendo.

Pamela Johnson

April 13, 2010 - Red Oak Police Department: Meet the New Boss / Same as the Old Boss

In the entry below dated February 1, 2010 is a posted complaint to RO Police Chief Craig Rudolph regarding the bungled accident report following our daughter's wreck on January 9, 2010. I emailed that complaint on January 31, 2010, a Sunday, and Chief Rudolph answered me on February 1, 2010 with two emails informing me I would have to provide a sworn statement. I thought this odd, as Chief Rudolph didn't request a sworn statement when a complaint was submitted after his Sergeant Langham offered to fix a ticket before and after he wrote it to Pam. Either Rudolph discriminates against the lower ranks of the ROPD, holding them more accountable than his supervisors, or he thought he was somehow intimidating me with the prospect of signing a sworn affidavit. The last email exchanged regarding the sworn statement was sent from me to Rudolph (& RO City Manager T. Kelty) when I reminded him I didn't sign an affidavit after the Langham fiasco, whose unethical behavior was far more outrageous than Officer Robinson's multiple mistakes on a simple accident report. The issue of the sworn statement was dropped. A few hours later, Rudolph emailed RO City Manager Tim Kelty that my complaint was "bogus." Rudolph openly questioned why it took 3 weeks to complain (because I waited about 3 weeks to obtain the accident report), was dismissive of the complaint, but advised Mr. Kelty an internal investigation had "commenced." The City of Red Oak has appealed to the Attorney General of Texas over releasing the findings of the investigation.

In the complaint below, I raise the issue of my daughter being issued a citation for a moving violation that the officer did not witness. On April 8, 2010, after a jury trial, my daughter was found NOT GUILTY of the charge. There were two other cases I witnessed that night in RO City Court in which the defendants were issued moving violations that the officer didn't witness, and both of those defendants prevailed as well. The City of Red Oak suffered a 100% loss of cases in which they wrote tickets for violations they didn't see. ROPD really, really shouldn't be writing tickets they don't see. I know it's about the money, but the law, professionalism, ethics and common sense should trump the dollar.

The trial itself was somewhat puerile, but entertaining. The City had two officers to testify in this case, I guess they really wanted to win. First up for the City was a sergeant, I believe his name to be Goodson. I recall this officer being at the scene, and telling me my daughter's car needed towed from the site (we were able to drive it off). After Sergeant Goodson settled in to testify he proudly declared that he is a Level 2 accident investigator, and that he is trained to reconstruct accidents. Investigative levels go as high as 5 or 6 in category, so level 2 is about equivalent to a yellow belt in Karate, or one notch above the expertise of a fresh rookie patrolman. Impressive as his skills may be, both cars had been moved out of the intersection, the other officer at the scene collected the information for the report, and he "reconstructed" nothing. Goodson couldn't say, with his traffic expertise, how fast either car was going, if the other vehicle could have had a red light and he didn't testify that he talked to the other driver. As I watched Sgt Goodson testify, I was reminded that ROPD policy stipulates that a supervisor will check accident reports to ensure completeness, accuracy of reports and issued citations. I wondered then, and now, if Sergeant Goodson, Mr. Level 2 traffic investigator, approved Officer Robinson's accident report that was fraught with errors. Sergeant Goodson testified that he graduated to the prestige of level 2 accident investigator after a 40 hour course taught by Sergeant Langham of the Red Oak PD. That would undoubtedly be ROPD Sergeant Langham who is showcased elsewhere on this site on video offering to fix Pam's ticket before and after he wrote it. Sigh.

When Officer Robinson testified he admitted to two errors in the report. Officer Robinson conceded that his narrative didn't match his diagram, but didn't testify to other errors in the report. When asked by our attorney if the report had to be supplemented (corrected), Officer Robinson admitted that it did.

I found Officer Robinson's testimony disturbing when he stated that he didn't know how the additional passenger for unit #2 appeared on the supplemented report. In an email from Chief Rudolph to myself, Mayor Hugley and City Manager Kelty dated March 30, 2010 Chief Rudolph states that "on review of the original accident report Unit #1 lists a driver and 1 passenger and Unit # 2 lists a driver and 3 passengers." Part of my complaint about this report is the fact that there was an omitted passenger on the original report. That passenger was not listed, despite what Chief Rudolph implies. Why does Chief Rudolph state that the passenger was listed on the original when she wasn't? Why does Robinson say he doesn't know how the passenger appeared on the corrected report? Officer Robinson took the notes at the scene, his name is on the report, if he didn't put the name there who did? Despite the many errors in the report, the Red Oak PD chose to issue a ticket, and appear in court against a 16 year old driver for an offense that was not witnessed. The City of Red Oak did not produce an eye witness to the wreck at trial. We do not think they wanted those in unit #2 to show up.

Not all was somber that night, ROPD provided us some comedy relief. Before our trial, there were about 3-4 Red Oak officers in the court room. Suddenly they all ran out of the court room jumped in their cars, and took off with lights and sirens blaring abandoning their cases and trials. My first thought was Thelma Lou burnt the roast, and Barney had to drop what he was doing to turn the oven off. I don't know why they left, maybe 30 minutes later they all came strolling back to court, no worse for wear, and the hearings resumed. I don't know if an officer was in trouble or what the situation was; any decent police officer will drop what he or she is doing if there is a colleague in danger. The problem is, there are defendants, witnesses, jurors in that court room dependent on a timely procedure so they can get on with their lives. If the ROPD is writing so many tickets, is so committed to court that they're leaving their fellow officers shorthanded to fend for themselves as they prosecute tickets they shouldn't have written in the first place, there is a definite leadership problem in that department.

We get many hits on this site from outside Red Oak, TX. Our concerns are not limited to the boundaries of Red Oak, TX. There are "Red Oaks" all over the state of Texas, and beyond. In Texas, there is no governing authority that supervises small town police departments, no entity that has the final say over incidents of corruption or incompetence. Full service police departments in this state and elsewhere have Internal Affairs Divisions for a citizen to air their concerns and complaints. In small town Texas, the police chief, if he's a good ol' boy hooked up with the mayor, city council and city manager, can do whatever he wants and there is no recourse. I have yet to receive an email, letter or phone call from Mayor Hugley or City Manger Kelty although we've informed them of our issues and conflicts. They do not respond when specifically asked and there is no outside pressure to force them to.

Just as doctors and lawyers are governed, there should be a final arbiter for police departments in this state when the local yokels refuse to listen, or even communicate. If the issue isn't blatantly criminal, any small town police chief can discard complaints like water off a duck's back.

We've gotten feedback through this site with warnings from concerned readers advising us that we're setting ourselves up as "targets" for maintaining this site. We had to create this site to counter all the rumors against us that started in this small town when we finally had to take our daughter out of the school district. These issues evolved to include the local police department when ROISD Police Chief Scott Lindsey emailed ROPD Chief Rudolph on July 1, 2008 suggesting that he (Lindsey) could come up "floating," insinuating I could be "LURKING" around his (Lindsey's) house and Rudolph answers offering that "maybe we need to go see.." my boss. As we've said before this is a politically incestuous town, and it seems if you upset one of the insiders they're all upset. As American citizens, we are loath to fear our local government, a government that works for us. Apathy and cowardice do not change government, activism and resolve do.

February 1, 2010

Craig Rudolph:

Consider this an official complaint against your officer Roderick Robinson over his investigation of a motor vehicle accident that my daughter was involved in, #1000000337.

On January 9, 2010 my daughter was involved in an accident that your department, specifically Officer Roderick Robinson, "investigated." My juvenile daughter was issued a citation for FAILURE TO YIELD ROW TO VEHICLE IN INTERSECTION, a moving violation Officer Robinson did not witness, but issued based on his "investigation."

I have included the completed accident report with this complaint.

There are numerous errors in this report, some could be considered minor, some quite egregious.

I've checked off the mistakes I've found, let's start with the lessor ones. SH 342 is defined in this report as rdwy. Part 1. I believe by calling this a part 1 roadway your officer is calling SH 342 an interstate.

Why does Robinson list a reference marker for an intersection wreck?

I do not believe that State Farm insurance is Financial Responsibility type 2.

Robinson lists this as an intersection accident, (it was) and lists SH 342 as intersecting with SH 342! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that the intersecting street should be Red Oak Rd.

Robinson's narrative does not correspond with his diagram. Robinson states "Unit 1 entered the right turn lane in an attempt to turn east onto Red Oak Road. Unit 1 failed to yield right of way turning left in the intersection..." What? What right lane? What is he talking about? Is he trying to say Unit 1 made a wide left turn from the far right side of the roadway?

Robinson lists the driver of unit 2 as a XXXXXXXXXXXX, and the owner of the car as XXXXXXXX who also happens to be listed as a passenger in the vehicle. After I received this accident report, my daughter told me that the driver told her that he was going to tell the police his friend was driving, because he had no driver's license. I would think an investigating officer would find it strange that a PASSENGER would be the OWNER of the car in a wreck, and I'd assume a skilled officer would ask pertinent questions to determine the driver. There were a total of four people in unit 2, not merely 3 as listed.

Unit number 2 WAS NOT INSURED, THE DRIVER WAS NOT CITED, AND THE DRIVER WAS ALLOWED TO DRIVE AWAY IN UNIT 2! I tracked down the policy Robinson listed on the accident, TFA24277 to Andrews Insurance at P O Box 39, Ore City TX.

2010-01-09 Citation page 1

2010-01-09 Citation page 2

2010-01-09 Citation page 3

On January 28 I talked to employee Wanda Holley (903 968 6840) and she advised me that the policy number listed in this accident report was a canceled policy as of August 21, 2009. Ms. Holley told me that on that policy was an '87 Olds, and there was never the '94 Honda Accord listed in the accident on the policy. The owner of that policy took out another policy on Jan 5, 2010 for a 97 Cavilier, and again there is no Accord on that policy. To confirm what I was told, I called the company again on January 29, talked to employee Robbie Humphrey, who reiterated what I was told the day before.

So, why did your officer list this car as insured, allowing it to drive away from the scene, without insurance? What was he given to convince him this car was insured? How did he get this bogus policy number?

Robinson records the license plate on unit 2 as BM1S937. According to publicdata.com that plate is not good, it does not come back to any vehicle in TX. Did Robinson write the wrong plate down, or were there obvious errors with that plate on that car that he failed to recognize? When unit 2 is run by VIN on publicdata.com the plate that comes back on unit 2 is CZT153, expired in 09/2009.

Despite the obviously flawed investigation conducted by your officer, Robinson saw fit to write my daughter a moving violation citation that he didn't witness. Your policy justifies writing moving violations at accident scenes when "moving violations that can be proven by physical evidence or impartial witnesses." Did Robinson take pictures to preserve evidence? Did he measure skid marks? Robinson lists no impartial witnesses on the accident report. Your written policy also states "Patrol supervisors check accident investigation reports to ensure completeness, accuracy of reports and issued citations." Did a patrol supervisor check this abomination? This is an academy level training exercise accident investigation, no injuries, both cars drivable, yet your officer and the supervisor that should have checked it display a glaring incompetence.

This accident report is laughable; what isn't funny is the fact that my daughter was issued a moving citation based on this flawed (to put it mildly) investigation. Most professional police departments in Texas do not issue moving violations that the officer didn't witness at the accident scene; as the ROPD Chief I suggest you research why. Contrary to the image of the Red Oak Police Department, there's more to police work than generating revenue from the citizenry.

This comedy of errors, although unacceptable, would be a bit more palatable if I hadn't had prior negative experiences with the Red Oak Police Department, starting with being humiliated by your Sgt Langham in December '06, your offer to come after my job with ROISD PD Chief Scott Lindsey suggesting "we" go to my boss after you received an email from Lindsey, and that traffic stop by the same Sgt Langham in which he offered to compromise a citation before and after he issued it to my wife.

Past experience tells me I'll have to file an open records request to learn how this complaint is resolved.

If it is imperative that your officers write my family tickets, I expect those citations to be accurate and justified, or they will be challenged in court, as Sgt Langham's citation to my wife has just been filed with Ellis Co Appellate Court.

Keith Johnson

December 6, 2009

AND PEOPLE SAY WE OUGHT TO GET OVER IT... on Sunday, Dec. 6, 2009, I was at a cheer competition in Garland. The event ended at about 6:30 and I was walking toward the door with my daughter, her teammates and other parents when I was suddenly assaulted. This woman in her Spirit of Texas jacket and purple hair purposely made physical contact, in an offensive manner, against me in the hall. At first, I didn't realize what was going on as this woman then gave me the dirtiest look I have ever seen. As I mentally rebounded from the surprise and unexpected assault, I realized the antagonist was Kellie Castillo. She hurried away with her toddler in tow. Kellie Castillo is the mother of the girl who got kicked off the cheerleading squad for viciously attacking my daughter on her Myspace. Kellie Castillo and her husband Freddie appeared on FOX news and professed their daughter's innocence afterwards, which set in motion the nightmare our daughter then endured at Red Oak ISD.

The next day, my daughter got a text message from a Red Oak friend who said that Kellie Castillo was bragging to the teenagers she took to the cheer competition that "she tackled me and hit my daughter" and then she said "no f----- excuse you b----".

Kellie Castillo works at a main hair salon here in Red Oak, Texas. When our situation spiraled out of control back in '06, we had heard from multiple sources that Kellie was running her mouth about us at work; Keith contacted proprietor to request that she muzzle Kellie while Kellie was at work. She dismissed us and didn't seem to be the least bit concerned about her employee spouting off about our 13 year old. I can't help but wonder if she's once again gossiping about us in the shop.

This must be how Jerry Springer gets his guests.

October 8, 2009

The update below was created on October 6, 2009. Apparently we weren't too clear on the actions taken by one of Lindsey's former ROISD officers, Greg Tapp.

Tapp followed a man in NE Dallas on November 20, 2008 in his personal car for the alleged offense of DWI. Tapp tailed the driver while calling Dallas PD to make the stop. The man drove into his apartment complex, and as DPD hadn't yet arrived Tapp executed a traffic stop, as he admits in a letter to Lindsey, with emergency lights in his PERSONAL VEHICLE.

When DPD arrived, Tapp played off his actions as a concerned off duty ROISD PD officer doing his civic duty. A DPD DWI officer tested the man at the scene, and determined he wasn't legally intoxicated, and the man was released without arrest.

Tapp generated a letter to ROISD Chief Lindsey regarding this incident on November 24 2008. Tapp stated in his letter to Lindsey that as he followed the driver "the SUV then pulled into a McDonalds drive thru." Tapp then goes on to state that the driver then pulled out of McDonalds parking lot and went west bound on the street in front of the McDonalds. Tapp then goes on to describe the route the driver took before Tapp stopped him in his apartment complex parking lot.

Lindsey accepted Tapp's actions and even defended Tapp having emergency lights in his personal vehicle. There is NO REASON for a police officer to have emergency lights in his/her personal car. As Lindsey read Tapp's account, why didn't he ask Tapp why he didn't contain the man as he sat through the McDonald's drive through lane in order to protect the public? Tapp's letter was very weak and either Lindsey is incredibly naive or he was complicit in covering for Tapp.

Later it was learned that this stop wasn't random at all. Tapp didn't just happen to follow this man, he had been hired as a PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR to sit up on the man by the man's wife to trap him in a DWI pursuant to a custody battle. Tapp waited as the man left a bar and followed him. Tapp played PI for hire, then became a "police officer" to entrap the citizen.

The irony bears repeating, that Lindsey accused me of trying to hire a PI as he had PI's on the ROISD payroll.

I notified the board of this when I heard about the connection between Tapp and the citizen, and no action was taken against Tapp until a DPD supervisor contacted the Red Oak PD after another incident with Tapp, and Lindsey called that supervisor to tell him Tapp had resigned. Lindsey has or at least had that DPD supervisor's phone number, he could have investigated Tapp if he had wanted to, as that supervisor was at the scene of Tapp's stop and has knowledge of the attachment between the citizen and Tapp.

If you read Schupmann's speech in the posting below, read at the June 1st 2009 Board meeting, the official position is that Tapp left because he didn't get permission to work an extra duty job. It is incredible how employees of this District, at the highest levels, will obfuscate, lie and attack the accuser to protect their perceived image.

Another part time ROISD PD officer left when Tapp did. Tapp implicates him in his handwritten resignation letter. In Rookwood's resignation letter, he references "recent events involving one angry and I believe troubled individual underscore the length that he is willing to go in his vendetta against you" (Rookwood's addressing Lindsey in the letter). In the context of Rookwood's letter, that "angry" individual has to be me. Rookwood is not a "victim" of an "angry" individual. No one on the ROISD payroll is. Although I get disgusted with District employees trashing me, spreading rumors about me, coming after my job and denigrating me in public, I'm an adult and I can handle it. I'm not a victim. The only victim in all of this is a then 7th grade child driven from her home town ISD. For a refresher on all of that, to understand the reason for creating this site, review Ryann's story.

No member of the ROISD school board can honestly claim ignorance of the issues raised on this site.

And you wonder why we call this site corruptredoakisd?

We've reported previously on this site about the June 1, 2009 ROISD Board meeting which was convened to hear my complaint of Lindsey trashing me on public emails, and the cover up of the former ROISD officer that attempted, for pay, to set a man up for a DWI arrest. Lindsey didn't show up for that meeting. Either he didn't have the guts to face his accusers or the District didn't want him there.

I suspect the former, but either theory reflects poorly on the District.

After that meeting we filed open records requests for the prepared dissertation Assistant Superintendent Schupmann read, and the resignation letter of the ROISD officer. The District, through their law firm of Henslee and Schwartz appealed to the Attorney General of Texas to prevent us from getting Schupmann's speech and the officer's resignation letter, with ridiculous arguments. The AG dismissed their claim and told them to give us the requested documents. After the District's stall tactic, Deron Robinson, the attorney representing the District even had the nerve to send us a statement which conveniently left out the sentence accusing me of following district employees around. We sent a heated e-mail to Robinson's law firm and the AG informing them of the "mistake"and Robinson did manage to locate and send us the requested document.

At that meeting, Schupmann read this bombastic speech aloud...

2009-06 Rebuttal

...accusing me of following "school district employees in the past." In response to a Texas Public Information Act, the District has no evidence of me or my family following school district employees. They have no evidence because none exists. Schupmann lied in this meeting to focus attention on me and away from his boy, Lindsey.

Lindsey was not practicing free speech when on public emails he forwarded an email sent to him by a gypsy cop stating I "tried" to hire him as a PI. One either hires a PI or one doesn't and I didn't. Lindsey, when forwarding this email to the Red Oak Chief of Police Rudolph, suggested I could be "lurking" around his house and that he could come up "floating."

Schupmann, in this letter, minimizes the actions of Lindsey's former rogue officer. Schupmann says that the officer resigned because he violated ROISD's policy of secondary employment. Schupmann states if any laws were violated that it was up to DPD to investigate. Ironically a DPD supervisor sits on the Board and listened to this, and to this date I know of no action he has taken. Additionally, Lindsey talked to another DPD supervisor after this officer, and another resigned over this. Lindsey has that supervisor's phone number; he could easily have followed up with him if he wanted or needed more information.

The Board sat and listened to Schupmann read his prepared statement blaming everyone but Lindsey for sending e-mails to the RO police chief. It falsely accused me of endangering him and covering up for Tapp's blatant misuse of police power. As is standard for ROISD, they found nothing wrong with what Lindsey did. The biggest irony is that they had Tapp's resignation letter the entire time in which he admits that he did exactly what I told his supervisors he did.

2009-01-12 Resignation Letter

Tapp has now taken his police gig down the road, hooking up with the Combine, TX police department on 6-8-2009 according to TCLEOSE.

Isn't it suspicious that the same day Tapp resigned, another officer named G. Rookwood (who was kept conspicuously off the ROISD Police website) also resigned. According to his website, he is the president of a company named Dimensional Analysis Group which offers Private Investigation services. How ironic that Lindsey accuses me of hiring a PI when, in fact, he actually hired a PI at taxpayer expense.

And you wonder why we call this site corruptredoakisd?

Ticket fixing in Red Oak, Texas alive and well... see video accompanying narrative

We appeared in Red Oak municipal court on September 10, 2009 to challenge the ticket Pam received from Sergeant Langham of the Red Oak PD on May 21, 2009. I believe the prosecutor's name was Dana Huffman, and the judge in this case was Judge Kurth.

Before the trial started, in a discussion with Judge Kurth, the prosecutor was running her mouth about this site, telling the judge that we were not to bring up Lindsey, ROISD, ticket quotas, or our "conspiracy theories." Prosecutor Huffman acknowledged that she read this blog, and her contempt for us and this website was obvious. If representatives of ROISD or the city of Red Oak are upset with this site I'm happy. I've been around a little, and I've never seen a prosecutor so hostile and vindictive over a purported traffic violation. I realize that Red Oak needs the money, but this wasn't the Manson family trial, it was a charge of whether or not a citizen was operating a motor vehicle faster than a posted sign said she could. Perhaps it was acting on Huffman's part, or maybe she needs more fiber in her diet, but on the surface she seemed to be taking this case way too seriously.

A deeper issue here was not the alleged offense of speeding, but the integrity of the officer that wrote the ticket. During the trial Langham took the stand, and in open court, in front of Judge Kurth, Huffman and the jury he admitted what we accused him of-offering to fix the ticket. When asked what he intended to do with the ticket if I had called him, Langham said he would have generated a memo dismissing the ticket. Langham stated this would be done in the guise of "professional courtesy"-- not that the ticket was flawed, or that the radar was faulty, but simply because I had called him. Incredible. Frankly, I don't believe Langham would have generated any kind of memo supporting his fixing of the ticket. I can't prove it, and I don't have to, but I think the citation would have been destroyed that night without a trace had I called him.

I was taken aback that Langham would be so open, so caviler about this. Apparently in Red Oak, if you're "somebody" a written ticket can be dismissed out of hand. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor seemed to have any objection to a cop stating in court that he would fix a ticket after a phone call.

There is discretion in police work. If an officer stops a violator and assesses the situation and decides for whatever reason not to issue a ticket — that is discretion. "Professional courtesy" or discretion stops when pen is put to paper, once that ticket is issued a mechanism is set in motion. Professional courtesy is not inviting me to participate in his corrupt good ol' boy custom. I've stated elsewhere on this site my previous encounter with Langham, and there was no hint of a fraternal bond. In fact, Langham told me I wasn't under arrest "yet" for an incident he hadn't investigated.

Huffman demonized Pam during the trial. In closing Huffman told the jury that Pam was offered a favor by Langham and in gratitude she complained on him. Huffman emphasized to the jury that Pam commented during the stop that her husband is a police officer, which is a fact. Pam did not ask for any break or favor when she made that comment. Langham testifed that he assumed Pam's comment was a request for a break. Langham also assumed I would call him.

What Huffman didn't tell the jury was that the complaint was over Langham's conduct, demonstrating corruption in front of our daughter who was a passenger in the car. Huffman didn't tell the jury that we were there on a Thursday night at 11:00 PM because we didn't take the easy way out, choosing Deferred Disposition. Huffman didn't remind them that, as Langham testified, had I called him the ticket would have been taken care of. No, Huffman chose to portray Pam as an unappreciative child. Huffman crafted a corny analogy that Pam opened the "cookie jar" and got caught, and was upset over getting the ticket, and that was why the jury was there. Pam was accused of having no integrity. In this context, the burden of integrity was on Langham, not Pam. Langham was the officer, Langham had the badge, the decisions made on this stop were Langham's; not Pam's. Langham is a supervisor with the Red Oak PD. Langham was responsible here, not Pam, and Langham offered to fix the ticket before he had even written it. That is corrupt. If Pam changes a math grade because a parent with influence asks, is Pam or that parent responsible for the grade change?

Huffman focused on the fact that Pam didn't deny speeding--Pam never affirmed the accusation either. Pam doesn't believe she was speeding, and Langham even testified that Pam acted surprised when he told her what her speed was.

Huffman won. The jury bought her shtick and came back with the maximum fine. It was a victory for Huffman. It was a victory akin to the Dallas Cowboys beating the Red Oak Hawks varsity team, as Huffman wasn't up against another lawyer and, candidly, Pam didn't make her case as forcefully as she should have. We respect the decision of that jury. The jury had been there for 5 hours and they were tired. They didn't clearly hear our position which was not their fault. If you were on that jury and reading this, thank you for your service. We would like to thank Judge Kurth for staying above the fray. We didn't hire a lawyer, because I didn't really believe an objective prosecutor would pursue a case where the officer generating the offense made such a fool of himself, his department, and demonstrated institutional corruption. A prosecutor's job is not conviction at any cost; it is seeking justice and truth. Apparently Ms. Huffman forgot this. If a cop will offer to fix a ticket before he writes it, how valid is the ticket?

Huffman won round 1 of this. Kudos to her. Round 2, our appeal, will be taken out of the Red Oak comfort zone, and having learned our lesson we'll hire a lawyer. We're posting the traffic stop here for the court of pubic opinion to decide. It'll be interesting to see how many "youtube" hits the video gets when we post it there.

There have been times I've been angered, other times I've been saddened over issues with the ROISD that we've documented on this site. In this case, the whole Langham offering to fix a ticket, Pam's the bad guy for complaining is too farcical to get mad or sad about. It's like bizarro world, a parallel universe in which Red Oak, TX operates under its own set of rules and its own code of conduct.

Recently, I was going through the cable channels, and hit upon the movie "Smokey and the Bandit". Part of the theme of the movie is making fun of small town southern police departments and their unique justice systems. I thought the movie was fiction. After sitting through Pam's trial, and witnessing the trials that went before us, I'm convinced now that the flick wasn't fiction, it was a docu-drama.

If there is no scroll bar, click the video to start and again to stop.

Is this whole town dirty, from the School District to the City Police Department?

We've chronicled the failure of the Red Oak PD to document the "investigation" into the behavior of Sgt Langham of the Red Oak PD the evening he offered to "fix" Pam's citation before he even wrote it.

We filed an open records request, and were told that the statements made per this inquiry were "verbal" and that there was "discussion only" so no written records exist.

Thinking that the ROPD may be playing semantics with us, we filed another TPIA asking for any audio recordings of this investigation.

We received a letter from the RO city attorney advising us there are no audio recordings, personal notes or recorded conversations created during this investigation.

The ROPD is fighting us over releasing the video tape of the of the traffic stop. We would like to have this in court, so a jury of our peers can hear and see for themselves the conduct of this ROPD sergeant.

We also asked for a copy or recording of the Garrity Warning issued to Sgt. Langham when this "investigation" was launched. In the State of Texas, a police officer is administered what is known as the Garrity Warning prior to interviewing him in an internal police investigation.

This warning is issued to the officer advising him that any statement he gives will be used against him for internal purposes only, that any statement cannot be used in a criminal matter. This allows for police departments to investigate their own over matters that may not rise to the level of a criminal offense. If the investigation involves possible criminal charges, the officer has the same rights as any citizen who is a criminal suspect.

An officer cannot refuse an internal statement for administrative purposes, and police departments routinely invoke the Garrity Warning before questioning an officer-that is, responsible and transparent police departments do. As is stated in the letter from the attorney there IS NO COPY OR RECORDING OF ANY GARRITY WARNING IN REGARDS TO SGT. LANGHAM.

2009-06-12 Letter from ROPD

We can only conclude that as no Garrity Warning was given to Langham, since there are no documents or audio recordings of this investigation, that there WAS NO INVESTIGATION.

We are still unsure whether Langham's offer to "fix" the ticket was a ploy to entice me into asking that it be "fixed" or if Langham is under a ticket quota and has to write a certain number of citations regardless of the citation's disposition.

Either way, this is dirty unethical police work.

Instead of Craig Rudolph offering to come after my job after an email from ROISD PD Chief Scott Lindsey (who was a member of the Red Oak city council during the last ROPD ticket quota accusation) Rudolph should have been watching his own subordinates closer.

A police chief that won't investigate unethical, possibly illegal behavior by his own subordinates needs to go and take his "supervisors" with him.

The citizens of Red Oak deserve better.

Another traffic enforcement Scandal with the Red Oak, Texas Police Department

Pam was stopped for speeding on May 21, 2009 by Red Oak PD Sergeant Langham. When Langham advised her she had been speeding, Pam said she should have known better because her husband is a police officer. Our 15 year old daughter was in the car with Pam. Langham asked Pam where I worked and she told him. Langham told her he was going to write her a citation, but that he would put his cell phone number on the ticket and told her to have me call him that evening. When Langham came back to Pam's car with the citation, Pam asked how much the ticket would cost, and Langham told her that if I called him, she wouldn't have to worry about it.

When Pam later told me what had happened, and showed me her copy of the citation with a phone number hand written across the top of it, I immediately became suspicious.

As is referenced elsewhere on this site, Sgt Langham's boss, Chief Craig Rudolph, was willing to come after my job with ROISD PD Chief Scott Lindsey after Lindsey forwarded him an email Lindsey received from a private investigator that advised Lindsey I attempted to hire him to investigate Lindsey. Lindsey subsequently filed a false and libelous complaint against me that accused me of the criminal act of Stalking. Lindsey's complaint, which was rejected, is posted on this website.

I had a previous encounter with Sgt Langham on December 9, 2006 at the Red Oak Christmas parade.

That incident, also chronicled elsewhere on this site, was when the booster club mothers attempted to have me arrested. Langham was the first officer they approached, and after talking to them Langham confronted me, indicated he knew I was a police officer and asked if I was armed. When I told Langham I was, he disarmed me in front of the crowd, and when I asked him if I was under arrest, he stated not "yet." The final report generated over that incident is in the documents section of this site, and specifically states no offense had been committed, yet Langham chose this course of action when contacting me. After it was over, rumors spread that I had been brandishing a gun at the parade, because the onlookers had observed Langham disarm me.

Pam filed a complaint about Langham's conduct to Chief Rudolph, and I voiced my concerns over the possibility that Langham could have been setting me up to ask that the ticket be dismissed. THE COMPLAINT IS NOT ABOUT THE ISSUANCE OF THE TICKET, IT IS ABOUT LANGHAM'S CONDUCT. ALTHOUGH HIS BEHAVIOR WAS OUTRAGEOUS, IT WAS EXACERBATED BY THE FACT THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE COMMITTED IN FRONT OF OUR DAUGHTER.

In a letter dated June 12, 2009:

2009-06-12 Letter from ROPD

Chief Craig Rudolph states "The conduct of Sgt. Langham is not in line with departmental policy and cannot and will not be tolerated. This administration will not tolerate even minimal improper action by its personnel. Prompt disciplinary action has been taken against Sgt. Langham for his conduct."

While the talk sounded tough in Rudolph's letter, we noticed the glaring omission of what type of disciplinary action Langham received, and we saw no references in the letter to allay any concerns I have over being set up.

We filed an open records request, with 5 questions asked; any evidence that the possibility an entrapment had been investigated, the punishment Langham had received, if Langham had been working a federal overtime grant at the time of the stop, a copy of Langham's statement given during this investigation, and evidence a review of possible criminal violations could have been committed by Langham during this incident.

We received a letter from the city's law firm that was dated June 18, 2009:

2009-06-18 Letter from Attorney General

This letter is addressed to the Office of the Attorney General. In this letter, there is an admission that there was no investigation of entrapment so no documents exist.

This letter says all statements made by Langham were verbal, so no documents exist, and the letter references our 5th question, asking if the possibility of criminal violations could have occurred, and again the answer is there was 'discussion only" so no documents exist.

The City challenges us on request #2, wanting to withhold the punishment Langham received (or didn't).

The question that begs to be asked here, is, why is a police investigation into possible corruption conducted verbally? Why are there no documents? An axiom of government is, if its not documented it didn't happen—what are they afraid of? Why isn't Rudolph open and transparent with this?

Although I'm still suspicious, what if Langham wasn't trying to set me up but was just going to offer the "professional courtesy" he certainly didn't demonstrate on December 9, 2006? Professional courtesy would have been not to write the ticket, not offer to "fix" it before he even filled it out. What was he going to do if I would have called him? Was he going to tear it up, destroying a governmental document? Was he going to perjure himself in court, or just not answer a subpoena to traffic court?

Langham is a sergeant with the Red Oak PD, and Rudolph is the Chief—if the two colluded to bury this, does that not indicate a culture of corruption at the top of the ROPD? There are many fine street officers on the ROPD, what sort of conditions are they forced to work under? Is Langham under a ticket quota, as has been alleged before against the ROPD, so he's writing tickets to show productivity yet dismissing them on the side?

I've informed Red Oak Mayor Hugley about this via email (which he doesn't seem to have the courage to answer) and in person during a chance encounter at a local business.

Is this whole town corrupt? A friend of mine, trying to wrap his mind around all of this, expressed his thought that my problem was with the school district, not the city. That is how it started out, but with Lindsey's email he invited Rudoph into this, and Rudolph willingly accepted. Like I explained to my friend, although the city and school district are separate governmental entities, because of the politically incestuous nature of this town those that run things are intertwined.

Offering to fix a ticket before it's even written is dirty. Covering up for it after the fact is dirty. The city of Red Oak has hired outside investigators in the past to look into it's dealings. Perhaps it's time to ask for another outside review.

If Mayor Hugley wants to be open and above board with this, I will gladly accept an invitation to speak at a Red Oak city council meeting. The only condition I put on this offer is that the meeting be open to the press and the public. I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting on the invitation.

The Soviet Union was a stronger believer in open and transparant goverment than the ROISD Board

We met with the ROISD Board on June 1, 2009. All Board members were present. Our meeting was the culmination of the 3 step complaint process. Our complaint was two fold: that Lindsey had been denigrating me on public emails; and that Lindsey failed to investigate allegations brought against a ROISD PD officer that left employment in January 2009.

We've addressed Lindsey's email slam campaign elsewhere on this site; the ROISD PD officer left after the issue was raised that he was working as a private investigator sitting up on a man inside a bar in NE Dallas, waiting for him to leave, then stopping the individual posing as a concerned off duty ROISD police officer. The former ROISD officer had been hired by the man's wife due to a divorce issue. When on duty Dallas police arrived, it was determined that the citizen was not DWI. When I first brought the incident to the attention of the District, before the entire scam was known, the officer generated a weak statement to Lindsey that a child would have questioned. Lindsey accepted the letter and justified the officer's actions; Lindsey went so far as to excuse the fact that the ROISD officer had emergency lights in his personal vehicle. Our question was, and is, what did Lindsey know and when did he know what this officer was doing? Lindsey has a record of failing to investigate and covering up incidents brought to his attention.

We first met with Assistant Superintendent Humphrey, and as our complaints weren't resolved at that level we then moved on to level 2, which was Assistant Superintendent Russ Schupmann's jurisdiction. Schupmann refused to meet me at a time when I didn't have to take off work, so he had his level 2 meeting alone!

When we arrived for our Board meeting, we were told we had 10 minutes to speak, and the Board would ask us no questions, and we could not ask them anything. Before the meeting even got underway, it was obvious that it was a sham, that the Board was seated just so they could say they went through the motions. We spoke without a prepared statement, and at one point I looked at Board President John Hawkins and asked him (rhetorically I suppose, since we weren't allowed to question Royalty) if he wanted to know what an ROISD officer was doing while carrying the District's commission. Hawkins just gave me a blank look without a reply. We expressed our concern that there were many questions about this former officer's conduct, and it was obvious they just didn't care. I told them what I thought of Lindsey denigrating me on public emails, and reminded them that when Lindsey came after my job with a false complaint they excused that by saying he did it on his own time, but when he's caught sending emails on District equipment and time that is Freedom of Speech (which was the conclusion of Schupmann's solo "meeting").

After our time was up, 10 minutes was allowed for rebuttal. ROISD PD CHIEF SCOTT LINDSEY DID NOT APPEAR AT THE MEETING. Either Lindsey was too cowardly to attend, or the Board didn't want him there. Whichever thought one takes, it's pathetic that Lindsey wasn't there. Assistant Superintendent Schupmann carried Lindsey's water for him, and read from a prepared statement.

Schupmann stated that if a criminal offense had been committed in Dallas by the former ROISD officer, it would be up to the Dallas PD to investigate. Ironically, sitting on the Board listening to this is a Dallas PD Sergeant assigned to Criminal Intelligence.

Shupmann read his statement with the passion and fervor of a Pentecostal preacher; Shupmann defended Lindsey against all allegations, and at one point, stated openly and unequivocally that I have "followed" ROISD employees. I have never followed any ROISD employee. We filed an open records request asking for any evidence Shupmann has to support this claim, and as illustrated in the District's response they have none.

2009-06-18 Deron Robinson Letter

After Schupmann spewed his venom the Board went into closed session to discuss the matter. The whole thing was such a dog and pony show that we left before they came back out. The Board told us they would advise us of their findings, and as of this date June 21, 20 days later, we haven't heard from them. It doesn't take a fortune teller to predict their "findings." We asked for a copy of the speech Schupmann read, and as the letter indicates to the Attorney General they are fighting us over it, characterizing the rebuttal as an "evaluation." The District often runs for cover to their law firm at the taxpayer's expense.

We are supporters of the First Amendment, which we've exercised by creating this site. The First Amendment is exercised when Lindsey runs his mouth to his little sycophants; when a Board member's wife gossips about me to a friend at a volleyball game, or when some good ol' boys are standing around the barbecue grill at a Lion's Club function.

When local governmental employees, under color and authority of their positions, use government equipment and time to attack and slash a critic's reputation that is not freedom of speech, that is authoritarianism. If employees of this District can successfully dismiss us as malcontents, obsessive, or stalkers, then they have succeeded in quashing our message. That ain't gonna happen, as we are none of those things; we are determined citizens pushing for an open and honest investigation into issues that we've raised, and we've done so without lying, cheating, or hiding behind taxpayer funded law firms.

When our conflict started with the District, we at first thought it was just a few employees at the ROISD Junior High. Then we learned about Lindsey, who is at the very least incompetent and at the worst corrupt, unfit to collect $67,000 a year, a higher salary than any teacher in the District. The cover ups and corruption go way beyond Lindsey. It starts with Board President John Hawkins and works its way down. That entire Board knows everything we know, and they have done nothing. When we first brought the problems our daughter had to their attention, they refused to discipline the coach, who was instrumental in driving our daughter out of the District. When we went back and advised Hawkins that she had altered a document to change the course of our grievance, Hawkins took no action and the coach wasn't even removed from her coaching position.

We named this site corruptredoakisd.com instead of poorjohnsons.com because we found a pattern of cover ups, inattention, and outright lies from top employees and elected officials of this District. Although some of this has spilled into city government, our attention is still on the District. We just spent $155 to renew this site for another year, and we intend to get our money's worth. We're sure this bumbling District will continue providing us issues.

Email to Red Oak Police Chief Craig Rudolph

This email was sent to RO Police Chief Craig Rudolph and Mayor Hugley two weeks ago.Ê It was followed up with a signed written complaint.Ê So far we have not heard from the Chief or Hugley, and Rudolph hasn't yet returned a call placed to his department.Ê With Rudolph jumping on Lindsey's bandwagon, coupled with the negative experience I had with Sgt Langham at the December 9 2006 parade described elswhere on this site, we have many questions.

04/30/2009 - ROISD Teachers and Employees -
You have absolute rights to FREEDOM OF SPEECH in and out of the workplace!

If you're an employee of Red Oak ISD, you now have freedom of speech when it comes to sending emails on the ROISD mail system, whether or not you're at work.

I filed a complaint with the ROISD regarding several emails ROISD "police chief" Scott Lindsey sent about me through the ROISD email system. One email was particularly upsetting to us, that was sent on July 1, 2008 at 2:29 PM from Lindsey's email address of Scott.Lindsey@redoakisd.org to crudolph@redoaktx.org. The latter email is the address of Red Oak Police Chief Craig Rudolph.

Lindsey is quite defamatory in this email to Rudolph. We won't release the entire content of it at this time due to pending action, but in it Lindsey, referring to me, suggests someone could be LURKING around his house, and expresses concern that he may come up "floating." Lindsey suggests I am obsessed, and states because of my vocation he is getting concerned. Lindsey bases this on an email he received from a PI and gypsy cop that tells Lindsey I "attempted" to hire him as a PI. Lindsey incites Rudolph, who responds to Lindsey suggesting "we" (Rudolph and Lindsey) go to my employer.

We've gone through two tiers of grievance so far.

Assistant Superintendent Russ Schupmann responded to my level two complaint (Click here to read.) and exonerates Lindsey.

Note that Schupmann references Lindsey's Constitutional First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

We were never aware of an absolute right to freedom of speech in the workplace. July 1, 2008 was a Tuesday, a work day. This email was sent in the afternoon.

Despite the fact that under the ROISD agreement for acceptable use of technology, Inappropriate Use, point # 7 states posting, sending or accessing material that is "damaging to another's reputation" is inappropriate Schupmann gives a pass to Lindsey.

In the aftermath of this, I don't see how any other ROISD employee could be disciplined for anything short of illegal comments sent on the ROISD email system. Precedent has been set here.

If the "police chief" isn't expected to follow rules or procedure, how could any other employee be held accountable? If a teacher wants to send denigrating emails about a parent that crosses them it seems that they may.

If any teacher or employee reading this has trouble copying Schupmann's letter, contact us and we will give you a copy. All correspondence through this site is confidential. If you're a teacher, make sure your ATPE representative reads this update.

Another precedent, set on behalf of Scott Lindsey, comes from Superintendent Scott Niven. Niven, in a letter dated September 2, 2008, refuses to take action against Lindsey over a complaint Lindsey sent to my employer, which included the false and baseless accusation of "stalking", a criminal offense. In this letter from Niven, he excuses Lindsey by stating Lindsey "composed the letter on his own time and that he did not use district equipment." Lindsey used his ROISD work phone and his ROISD work address when filing this false report for contact information, but it is excused because Lindsey "assured" ROISD that he wrote it on his own time. Lindsey in this complaint introduces himself in the first sentence by stating, "My name is Scott Lindsey, I am the Chief of Police for the Red Oak Independent School District ..." The complaint and Niven's letter can be seen in the documents section of this site, under July 2, 2008, Lindsey's complaint and under September 2, 2008, Letter from Niven.

If Lindsey files a false complaint, it is excused because he did it on his own time; if Lindsey gets caught sending defamatory emails about a taxpayer on a workday, during work hours, and on district equipment—well, then it is freedom of speech.

Teachers and staff, send what you will through the ROISD email. If a parent upsets you, you're free to file a police report and use your ROISD contact information, despite the veracity of the allegations you put forth.

If any ROISD employee needs our assistance over this call or contact us via this site.

02/15/2009 - The "Whys" of it all

The reason we've taken a stand against this District is simple-the administration throughout our daughter's ordeal refused to help her in any way, and the Board, when apprised of the situation, refused to hold anyone accountable. In the aftermath, we discovered the coach changed a document to favor the aggressor child, an act that was consistent with her behavior throughout this fiasco. The ROISD PD Chief, Scott Lindsey, quashed a criminal investigation after a conversation with an Ellis County District Attorney Investigator. What we have on this site is the documentation and the details to support our charges of corruption against this District.

We've voiced our concerns as parents and taxpayers, holding some accountable for their actions committed via their professional positions with the District. On this site we've left out the names of the students and adults who were not employed by the District, yet were instrumental in fomenting the hostilities our daughter endured as a student at ROISD. Employees and public figures within the District have slandered our family name and spread rumors within certain Red Oak circles.

No family should be smeared like ours has, simply because we didn't lie down and accept the actions of this District. There was a time when we were considered mainstream, involved parents, within the District. Pam was involved in PTA for 4 years, was on the cheerleading booster club and volunteered her time on many occasions for District functions. I received a plaque for Father of the Year for the entire District in 2001.

Nothing short of a critical illness or death could equal the destructive impact this ordeal had on our family. My daughter's life was turned upside down, adults she had known practically all her life turned against her, every morning she got up to go to school was filled with dread and anticipation. Eventually she lost her sense of community and left her home town school district because of the ineptitude, cavalier attitude and even the support of her treatment by some ROISD employees.

When starting this site, we had no idea how politically inbred this small town is. ROISD PD Chief Lindsey also sits on the Red Oak City Council and his wife is the Vice Chair of the Red Oak Parks Board. Lindsey's officers have provided off duty security to the First Baptist Church, which is the church of several local VIPS, including Lindsey. Several Board members have spouses who work in the District. It seems everyone on the "inside" takes care of their crony, regardless of the impact their actions have on others.

When Lindsey made his complaint to my employer, to give himself credibility, he mentioned that he is a member of the Red Oak City Council. I mailed a letter of complaint to Mayor Hugley of Red Oak regarding Lindsey throwing his council position into his bogus complaint. Erroneously, I assumed the Mayor would take umbrage with Lindsey bringing the Red Oak City Council into his personal protestation. The letter to Hugley was received 9-5-08. Hugley failed to answer or acknowledge the letter. I followed up with an email on 9-21 and again on October 6, and never received a reply. I noticed in the October 30 edition in a local paper that Hugley nominated Lindsey Mayor Pro Tem on October 14. I guess I got my answer after all.

We often get emails and phone calls from people that have read our site and support us. According to our stat counter, this site has been read all across the country. When doing an internet search for Red Oak ISD, this site appears. It's our hope that eventually this District will evolve from the good old boy network that it now is to a District that recognizes its mandate, which is to provide a hostile free educational environment for all students. This District is beholden to its taxpayers and its students; this District does not exist to provide a social and political network for small town politicians and community activists.

02/15/2009 - Red Oak ISD Police Department

On January 12 2009, two ROISD PD officers resigned. One of them, a part time officer, was president of a firm that offers, among other services, private investigations. We find it ironic that ROISD PD Chief Lindsey, when he came after me through my employer, accused me of attempting to hire a PI yet the ROISD PD hires one with public money!

The part time officer was hired at a yearly salary of $18,500, pretty decent money for a District that's recruiting from all over Ellis County and Glenn Heights for students to increase their Average Daily Attendance funding.

Curiously, this officer was never named or pictured on the ROISD website, where even the retired canine is showcased. This officer was kept under the radar, for unknown reasons.

The culture of victimhood permeates throughout that "police department"; this officer who resigned stated in his letter "recent events involving one angry and I believe troubled individual underscore the lengths he is willing to go in his vendetta against you. I witnessed firsthand the effect this had on you and a fine officer, who I fear is only the first to be used in attempts to harm you."

I have no doubt the reference to the "troubled" and "angry" individual means me. I guess I made this guy and the other officer quit. Lindsey's sense of persecution seems to be rubbing off.

Everyone's a victim. Except our daughter.

According to paperwork we have from the District, payroll cost alone for FY 2007-2008 was $336,074.62. What are we getting for this outrageous sum besides police officers who respond to teen fights in the hallway and direct traffic? Have they ever made a major drug bust in the school? Have they ever thwarted some major crime? I know firsthand that the ROISD PD officers were never around when my daughter could have used them.

This $336,074 is just for payroll. The documentation I received from the District, for 2007-08 FTD Activity lists after payroll, $29,604.68 for contracted services, $22,438.69 for supplies and $3,648.50 for "misc operating cost" for a grand total of $391,766.74.

The District could contract with the Ellis County Sheriff's Office for a deputy to be assigned to the high school. If the District paid half of, say, the deputy's annual salary of $60,000, the District could cut it's police payroll budget down to less than 10%. An added bonus here would be that an officer from an outside agency wouldn't be beholden to the District, or inclined to cover up "uncomfortable" incidents that happen within the District.

10/28/2008 - Did Lindsey add information to the June Burrow inquiry months after he closed his "investigation?"

We submitted an open records request last summer with Red Oak Independent School District, asking for copies of investigations that Lindsey conducted. Among these investigations was the "investigation" that Lindsey lead after I brought the allegation of possible tampering with a governmental record by former coach June Burrow to his attention.

The District fought our open records request, appealing to the Texas Attorney General. In a letter dated October 3, 2008, the AG advised the District that some of the information they were trying to withhold must be given to us. We finally received the information from the District October 28, 2008.

We already had part of Lindsey's investigation, and that investigation is posted under the DOCUMENTS section on this site. This is the "investigation" that Lindsey cut and pasted the statute of Tampering with a Governmental Record, and states in this "investigation" that he contacted Philip Martin, a mere investigator in the Ellis County DA's office and ran by Martin what he had. Martin then got back to him and it was decided no offense had occurred. Lindsey considered his chat with Martin to be an "investigation" then closed the "investigation." Real police officers wouldn't lock down a criminal inquiry based on second hand information received from a political partisan, but we are talking ROISD PD here." It was not Martin's job to convey to Lindsey that no offense occurred, it was Lindsey's job to conduct an investigation, and forward his findings to the DA's office for their review. This is police 101. Rookies learn their police responsibilities in the police academy.

When we received this copy, curiously the narrative was mostly redacted, and we find that odd since we already have this report. We can't help but wonder if the narrative somehow got changed from the original we received back in the spring of 2007. Only Lindsey and the District know why the narrative is blacked out on this copy, but we certainly are entitled to our suspicions.

What is even more striking and suspicious are two other documents that we had not seen before. If these had been in the ROISD PD file in the spring of 2007, they would have been, under state law, subject to disclosure when we asked for Lindsey's investigation.

These forms both have the narrative redacted. We have no idea what is said here. Note that Lindsey dismisses the entire incident as an "information only field incident report." This case was closed, based on the information Martin related to Lindsey. Lindsey shut this case down on or about February 28, 2007. At the bottom of the form with the Information only disposition labeled 'B', the date is 8/27/2007 ( Click here for document page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5.) By all accounts Lindsey closed this case in February 2007, so why was this form submitted in August 2007, and why is the narrative blacked out?

We started this website on or about July 25, 2007. Lindsey adds this document to the file in August 2007, right about the time school is starting. What does this narrative say? What did Lindsey add, and why did the District fight us over releasing this?

10/25/2008 - ROISD "POLICE CHIEF" Lindsey acted on his own, yet hides behind the ROISD attorney

In a letter from ROISD Superintendent Scott Niven, I am told he has no reason to punish Scott Lindsey for his false police report to the Internal Affairs Division of the Dallas Police Department. Lindsey voiced his "personal concerns and opinions" according to Niven, despite that fact that Lindsey used the District's address and phone number for his contact information when making his complaint. See "ROISD Police Chief Scott Lindsey Submits False Police Report" on this site dated 10/3/08 for Lindsey's complaint letter and Niven's response.

We filed an open records request for any communication generated after I emailed the Board and Niven about Lindsey's complaint, and all we received was an emailed communication between Assistant Superintendent John Humphrey and Lindsey, and the District appealed to the Attorney General to withold other information from us under Attorney Client privilege. The AG sided with the District. (Attorney General letter: Page 1, Page 2, Page 3.)

Niven refuses to take any action against Lindsey because Lindsey acted in a personal capacity when he sent his bogus complaint to the Dallas Police Department, yet Lindsey is allowed to hide behind the ROISD attorney, citing attorney-client privilege over what appears to be a statement he gave to the District's law firm written for him by Humphrey.

Which is it-did Lindsey act as a private citizen, or as an employee of ROISD? Why is Lindsey represented by the District's attorney, at the taxpayer's expense, if his fraudulent and libelous letter to the Dallas Police Department was generated on his own time? Niven knows Lindsey's action reflects on, and involves the District; he just refuses to take any action against Lindsey.

If the ROISD "Police Department" was a full service police department with oversight, Lindsey would be fired for accusing a citizen of a felony, in writing, to another police department, with no evidence to support his accusation. Since Lindsey is a good old boy in a small politically inbred town, he gets away with actions that would have gotten police officers fired in other jurisdictions.

10/03/2008 - ROISD Police Chief Scott Lindsey submits false police report

When this ROISD fiasco started with our daughter, we had never heard of ROISD Police Chief Scott Lindsey. When we discovered that former coach June Burrow had changed the constitution at the height of our grievance, I first contacted Red Oak City PD, and was directed to Lindsey because the offense occurred in his jurisdiction. We had a bad feeling bringing this case to Lindsey's attention, and our concerns were realized with Lindsey's handling of the case.

Lindsey's "police report" regarding his investigation of a possible tampering with governmental record is documented elsewhere on this site. Lindsey didn't "investigate" anything.

More...

10/03/2008 - ROISD PD officers working security at Chief Scott Lindsey's Church

Chief Lindsey lies in his letter to the Internal Affairs Division of the Dallas Police Department, stating he is concerned "about someone trying to hire private investigators and driving around taking photos of my officers as they work approved off duty security for a local church."

More...

05/21/2008 - ROISD PD squad car at the First Baptist Church—round two On May 21, 2008, I drove by the First Baptist Church at about 6:45 PM. Lo and behold, there sat the same ROISD PD squad car, with the same license plate, that I saw sitting at the church on May 7, 2008. I wonder if this is an every Wednesday hook-up.

Click image for more detail.

05/08/2008 - More dirt and Taxpayer Waste

More...

04/20/2008 - Police Chief Scott Lindsey Casts Himself as the Victim!

Mr. Joey Dauben is the News Editor for the Ellis County Press. Mr. Dauben contacted Red Oak ISD Police Chief Lindsey by email for his input into issues we've raised on this site. ROISD Police Chief Lindsey responded with two emails to Mr. Dauben, the first dated January 19, 2008 and the second dated January 22, 2008. In the correspondence dated January 19, Lindsey tells Mr. Dauben that that a suit could be brought against me for defamation of character, that I'm attempting to "slander" many people and that I've been shut down by "multiple media outlets for a reason." When Lindsey boasts to a reporter that he could sue me for defamation, he defames me, when he accuses me of slander to a media representative, he is slandering me...

More...

04/19/2008 - ROISD Superintendent says Lindeys' take home car isn't a benefit-it's a job requirement!

With gas prices being what they are, I'd consider driving a car on the districts dime a benefit. If anything happens after hours on school campus, the first responder would be the on duty full time police department. Note how Niven states that the car is for official use, then says "assigned vehicles will only be used for transport to and from work or for official police business unless exceptions are made with consent of Chief of Police." So, in other words, Lindsey can "consent" to drive a ROISD squad car anyplace he wants? I guess he can give "consent" to his subordinates to tool around on ROISD gas too. Perhaps this explains why I saw that gaudy ROISD PD truck going north on 342 on a Saturday afternoon while ROISD was out on spring break.

See Letter...

03/31/2008 - ROISD Niven instructs me to follow ROISD rules and put my complaint on the proper form.

Note that this letter from Niven is dated February 4, 2008, acknowledging he received my complaint on January 23. Niven returned my complaint, instructing me to put it on the proper form! I filed a complaint but that wasn't good enough I'm expected to follow ROISD rules as if I worked for them. The attutude from the top down is reflected in this letter, that many ROISD employees forget that they're public employees beholden to the taxpayers, not the other way around. I dutifully filled out the proper form and returned it, obeying ROISD rules. It's a pity the employees don't have to follow the rules that the district burdens the citizens with.

See Letter...

03/31/2008 - Probationary Coach Burrow claims to be victim instead of poor authority figure!

Details...

10/27/2007 Update - After repeated open records requests, we received a copy of the DVD that was shown at the awards banquet. A scene displays Ryann looking beaten down in the face painting booth, while the picture of the aggressor girls in the room, taken that same night, shows them smiling, having a good time. A picture taken a month after the aggressor girl was taken off the team was the last picture showing people at the awards banquet. The picture is taken in her house, showcasing her and several of the "I hate Ryann" girls.

Above the girls in the picture is a picture of the family which includes her father-who got on FOX News and set the trouble in motion.

Why would the coach display this as the final picture? What kind of message would have been sent to Ryann's family, had we gone to the awards banquet?

It is obvious by the pictures that the coach chose to display at the awards banquet where her sympathies were.