Thursday, June 13, 2019

Prince George's County Police Motion to Dismiss status


All,

On June 7, 2019 the Judge heard from both sides in reference to the county’s motion to dismiss.The County had two principle arguments for partial dismissal of the case. They are listed below. It is my opinion that the county should be ashamed of itself. They have chosen to spend approximately over a million dollars to protect racism, discrimination, retaliation and police corruption for the reputations of a few wrongdoers. In the meantime, they are sacrificing the reputation of the county and its residents because this is happening in their back yards.

As many of you know, it was our last resort to go public but this police administration chose to make this public in February 2017 (Chief’s Press Conference) and the new county executive co-signed on keeping that administration in place. Attached is the DOJ letter notifying the PD of its investigation.

Here are the highlights:


1.    “THE COURT SHOULD DISMISS HNLEA AND UBPOA AS PLAINTIFFS
PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(1) OF THE FED. R. CIV. PRO. BECAUSE THEY DO
NOT HAVE ARTICLE III STANDING, AND THEY DO NOT HAVE
ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING TO SEEK CERTAIN RELIEF ON BEHALF OF
THEIR MEMBERS.”

HNLEA and UBPOA seek other forms of relief that require individualized
proof. For instance, the Complaint requests that the Court order Defendants to:

• “Immediately rescind and expunge any and all discipline
issued to Plaintiffs and their members from any and all files
and records of the PGPD;

• “Immediately reinstate any and all Plaintiffs and their
members who were wrongfully terminated from
employment due to the discriminatory acts complained of
herein . . . .”

Our attorneys explained why it was important not to remove HNLEA and UBPOA from the complaint.We are waiting for a decision on both arguments from the judge. All I could say is that it was refreshing to see how good this federal judge was, in contrast to the Prince George’s County Judges which seem to automatically side with the county.

2.    The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Claims Against Defendant Murtha.

The following is what our attorneys filed in response to removing Defendant Murtha from the case.This is only partial information on why not to remove him as a defendant:

·      “This is more than sufficient to state a claim against Murtha under Rule 8. The Court should reject Defendants’ suggestion that the allegations against Murtha are subject to a heightened pleading standard. If the Court requires further information, Plaintiffs hereby proffer that discovery will show:

·      In May 2016, the Internal Affairs Division received an anonymous complaint against Deputy Chief Murtha, regarding his approval and falsification of electronic time sheets for Corporal Richard Smith over a period of 14 months.
·      At the time Murtha was Defendant Chief Stawinski’s Executive Officer, and the second highest ranking officer in the Bureau of Patrol.
·      Capt. Perez was assigned to the investigation, and he gathered evidence sufficient to show that Murtha had falsified time sheets for Cpl. R. Smith.
·      However, soon after Capt. Perez reported that information to his commanding officer in IAD, Major Rafael Grant, the investigation was taken away from him. Without explanation, the investigation was assigned to an officer outside of IAD, Major Irene Burke. A White officer in IAD beneath Capt. Perez in rank, Lieutenant Lightner, was assigned to assist Major Burke.
·      Capt. Perez was instructed to provide all materials concerning the Murtha investigation to Major Burke and Lt. Lightner. Capt. Perez was also ordered to instruct Lightner to delete from IAD computer systems the investigatory materials concerning the Murtha investigation.

·      Capt. Perez continued to express interest in the matter. However, Lt. Lightner had been ordered not to discuss the matter and was not permitted to discuss the status of the matter with Capt. Perez, even though Capt. Perez was his commander.
·      In an interview that was recorded and transcribed, Defendant Murtha provided a false statement to Major Burke and Lt. Lightner. Specifically, to explain the absence of scan-card records that would support that Cpl. R. Smith was actually working and present in the County, Murtha stated that he had assigned Cpl. R. Smith to night duty and that Murtha personally observed him working each evening because he let him into the building.
·      After taking over the investigation, Major Burke and Lt. Lightner did not sustain the complaint against Murtha. Lt. Lightner was then promoted and reassigned to work for Deputy Chief Murtha.
·      In October 2016, when Capt. Perez and other PGPD Officers of Color filed a supplemental complaint with the Department of Justice, it contained a description of Murtha’s conduct in approving and falsifying electronic time sheets, as well as the efforts of others within the Department to cover up this misconduct. The Complaint cited additional evidence that Murtha was authorizing overtime pay for White officers who were not entitled to it.
·      A few days before filing the supplemental DOJ complaint, Capt. Perez met with and advised Defendant Stawinski that he would be filing the complaint described above, as well as an EEOC complaint.

·      Within an hour of informing Stawinski about the supplemental DOJ complaint and EEOC complaint, Capt. Perez was advised he was being removed from Internal Affairs.

·      In sum, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Deputy Chief Murtha lacks merit.”


No comments:

Post a Comment