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 an  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 to catch the man for DWI, admitted omitting information in an earlier statement  and 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.

Overview