Updates

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.