Bureaucratic abuse in Orange County

From time to time, CourtWatch comes across cases that appear, on the surface, fairly straightforward. And then we encounter cases that are rather complex. This is one such case. This is the story of one man’s apparent attitude of entitlement and members of the County government that seem to support and perpetuate that attitude.

Farling Rivera, a secretary in the Probation Unit of Orange County Corrections has been married to William Rivera, Manager of Human Resources for Orange County Corrections, for 7 years. They work in the same building and are currently in the throes of a divorce.

On February 1, 2010 the Orange County Sheriff’s Department was called to the Rivera home for an alleged domestic violence situation. Once Mr. Rivera identified himself and his position with Corrections to law enforcement, the deputies chose not to arrest either party and indicated that they believed it to be a situation of mutual combat. Mrs. Rivera subsequently applied for a temporary injunction. Mr. Rivera reciprocated 3 days later. A hearing date was set for March, with no temporary injunction granted to either party.

In March, Judge Bronson denied William’s request to return to the home in order to retrieve additional personal belongings.

A permanent injunction was granted to Farling on June 1, 2010 for six months.

On June 2, 2010, OCSO Deputy Luna served the final injunction on William and told him that he was not to return to their mutual place of employment. Rivera defied the court order the following day by coming to the work address (which was prohibited by the court order) and remaining there, with Management’s knowledge, for approximately 6 hours. When he learned that a deputy was on the way to arrest him for violating the injunction that afternoon, he was aided and abetted by Corrections Management to elude them. He was escorted to a golf cart that quickly took him to his vehicle so that he might evade arrest.

William has returned to the home, which is expressly prohibited by the injunction, on several occasions. He repeatedly told his wife that he was very powerful and that she could not stop him from doing what he wanted. Sadly, it appears as though the County is sending her the same message.

CourtWatch is shocked at the conduct of Corrections managers by their collusion with an employee in his effort to evade arrest. CourtWatch is also disappointed at how the Office of Professional Standards and the County Attorney’s Office have responded to our inquiries relating to the conduct of Corrections management in this matter. We are perplexed as to why the County Attorney, whose job it is to interpret the law and represent the County, has to ask Corrections what they can release to us in response to our public records requests under Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. Finally, CourtWatch is extremely concerned that there appears to exist either (1) a gross lack of documentation or (2) an effort to withhold information from our organization by the Sheriff’s Department as it relates to the times they were called to the Rivera residence.

Mr. Rivera is clearly well connected with law enforcement in our community. The apparent abuse of power by him and others on his behalf should not be condoned. It would indeed appear as though Mr. Rivera’s position has given him preferential treatment by several County agencies.

A comprehensive timeline of events, and supporting exhibits is available at the links below:

• Timeline of events
• Exhibit A: February 1, 2010 police report
• Exhibit B: June 3, 2010 police report
• Exhibit J: Farling's Affadavit
• Exhibit K: Witness Benzer's Affadavit
• Exhibit G: Memo 6/8 from Sr. Corrections Officer Smedley to Management detailing his concerns regarding their handling of the situation
• Exhibit I: Response 6/8 from Jill Hobbs, Acting Deputy Chief of Administration
• Exhibit H: CourtWatch correspondence 6/29 with Commissioner Brummer requesting investigation
• Exhibit C: CourtWatch correspondence 9/24 - 9/26 with County Attorney's Office
• Exhibit D: CourtWatch correspondence 9/29 with Office of Professional Standards
• Exhibit E: Sheriff's Department report 9/30 showing no calls for service all year to the Rivera home
• Exhibit F: CourtWatch correspondence 10/5 with County Attorney's Office

It should also be noted that only AFTER the media began to inquire about this situation last week, did CourtWatch receive a copy of the 6/8 email from Corrections Officer Smedley to Management that we verbally requested on 8/26. It was made available for pickup 10/12.

A motion to dismiss Mr. Rivera’s criminal case 2010-MM-010839-A-O (violation of injunction) was denied without prejudice on October 11, 2010. The prosecution is in its early stages and a trial date has not yet been set.

CourtWatch intends to not only follow the court cases until they are concluded, but also pursue accountability for the county officials whose collusion with a high ranking Corrections Department official has left his victim in fear for her safety.

Mr. Rivera's next court date is 11/24/10 for a Motion to Modify the injunction in the Domestic Relations case.

Injunction Denied to Victim of Stalking - Stalker/Arsonist Granted Bond

With all the media attention focused on Judge Moxley's denial of an injunction request by Alissa Blanton and her subsequent murder earlier this month, I monitored a criminal case in Judge Marc Lubet's courtroom today that is equally frightening.

On December 1, 2009 19-yr old Tameka Hibbler requested an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence against her ex-boyfriend, Tommy Lee Knight. Her petition noted five different instances of stalking behavior during the previous 4 days:

11/27/09: At her place of work, Mr. Knight was there from 7:00-9:45pm, crying and making a scene. He refused to leave after she asked him to leave her alone.

11/28/09: At the home she shares with her mother and 16-yr old brother, Mr. Knight repeatedly knocked and yelled  at the front door from 11:45pm until 2:00am.  When the Petitioner opened the door, he grabbed her by the arm and insisted she listen to him. He left after her mother threatened to call the police. Ms. Hibbler indicated that for the prior two days he had been repeatedly called her personal, as well as employer's, phone.

11/29/09: Mr. Knight followed her to her church and refused to leave her alone. She asked him to sit in another location, but he refused.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight waited at her place of employment for her to appear. Petitioner's co-workers advised her that he was there from 10:30am until 1:00pm.

11/30/09: Mr. Knight followed Petitioner to her friend's apartment and watched them from the bushes at the apartment complex. Her friend called the police to report Mr. Knight's behavior because they were concerned he might harm one or both of them.

On 12/1/09, Judge Theotis Bronson denied Ms. Hibbler's petition, stating "the allegations are not sufficient for a domestic violence injunction." They certainly seem sufficient to CourtWatch. Actual physical assault is not the sole thing that can be considered when deciding whether or not to grant an injunction.

Click here for the Statute definition of stalking and tell me if you don't think the above allegations support a temporary injunction and a hearing.

It should be noted that Mr. Knight lived in the Petitioner's home with her mother and brother after his parents kicked him out of their home. Mr. Knight is 22-years old.

 

Mr. Knight was in Judge Lubet's courtroom today for a Bond Hearing.

The charges?

Arson 1st Degree of Dwelling/Building w/People Present (a felony) & Stalking (a misdemeanor).

Mr. Knight allegedly doused the doors and windows of the victims' home with gasoline and ignited a blaze at approximately 4:00am on December 2, 2009 - the day after Ms. Hibbler's injunction was denied.

Earlier that evening, some neighbors alerted the family to the defendant's presence in the neighborhood. His bike was seen nearby. The main breaker to their home had been turned off. According to the mother's testimony, the Orange County Sheriff's Department said there was nothing they could do unless someone witnessed a criminal act. This was not the first time they heard that from law enforcement.

Thankfully, Ms. Hibbler's younger brother was unable to sleep as a result of the events earlier in the day, heard and saw the defendant through the front door peephole with a gas can, and got the family out of the house safely when he realized it was on fire.

All three family members testified today that they are terrified that Mr. Knight will return to "finish the job" if he gets out of jail. The defendant's family and friends are allegedly pressuring the victim to drop the charges against him.

Judge Lubet commented that he was surprised that the State Attorney's Office had not filed 3 counts of Attempted Murder charges against Mr. Knight. Assistant State Attorney Shannon Corack indicated that it was being reviewed for possible upgrade. Had that been done, Judge Lubet indicated he probably would not have granted a bond at the hearing today. However, because Arson and Stalking are both bondable offenses, he was obligated to set a bond and conditions of release that accomplish two things:

1. Ensure the saftey of the community, particularly the victims.
2. Ensure the defendant's presence in court.

Considering the fact that Mr. Knight scores 46 months as a minimum in the Department of Corrections, with a maximum of 30 years, it is entirely possible that he would be tempted to flee. He has demonstrated by two earlier Violation of Probation charges that he has a problem with complying with court orders.

Ultimately a bond in the amount of $26,000 was set with the following conditions of release:

• Ankle monitor
• Home confinement - may only leave home go to work, school, meet with his attorney, or seek medical attention
• No contact with any of the victims - either directly or indirectly
• Stay 1000 feet away from the victims' home
• Possess no weapons or firearms
• Possess no flammable liquids

At this time, the family is in a confidential location. But my gut tells me they are far from safe, even with the conditions placed upon the defendant if he does manage to make bond.

Today's SWAT Standoff & Another "Injunction Dysfunction" Are Related

Last month, Judge Sally Kest presided over an injunction hearing that ended in the SWAT shooting of one of the parties, Palin Perez, today.

In her Petition for Injunction, the mother of his two children (ages 2 and 3), alleged Perez (Facebook photo below) had been abusive throughout their 4-yr relationship.

She wrote:

Mr. Perez has been violent, mentally, emotionally, verbally, and sexually abusive throughout our relationship. He has raped me . . . at least 4 times, laughing and calling me a whore. Also asking if I liked it. I cried the whole time. He has called me a slut, [expletive], whore, n . . .loving whore and bitch. He has threatened to take my life and even told me he would "cut my throat."

He has given me multiple black eyes and punched me in my head so hard and so many times I have migraine headaches. He has choked me and hit me during my pregnancy of my 3-year old.

I am in fear of my life scared that Mr. Perez will find me. I am afraid to go anywhere especially alone. I have a 911 phone, but I do not feel safe.

He was my boyfriend for the last 4 years and we have 2 children together. During the course of our relationship I wasn't allowed (per order of Mr. Perez) to leave the house at all! I wasn't allowed to have any communication with anyone. I wasn't allowed to have a phone or seek therapy. I could not look at any men, even on TV that made Mr. Perez feel [indecipherable] about himself.

Soon (2 months) after Mr. Perez and I began our relationship I found out that Mr. Perez had Domestic Violence issues (pending) with his ex-wife. I then found police reports and other papers explain what he did to her and realized he was doing the same to me. He was arrested and charged with Attempted Murder and Assault on his ex-wife, but it appears that it was continued without a finding.

CourtWatch monitored the first hearing over which Judge Kest presided on Wednesday, October 7, 2009. The Respondent (Perez) failed to appear when the case was called at 10:09 AM (it was on the docket for 9:30 AM). After the Petitioner briefly testified about the situation, Judge Kest granted a 6 month injunction, ordered $362/mo in temporary child support, and supervised visitation through Family Ties. The hearing concluded at 10:17 AM and the Petitioner left soon thereafter, with her injunction paperwork in hand.

At that point, the only fault we could possibly find was that the injunction was only granted for 6 months.

Fast forward to later that morning.

Mr. Perez arrived about an hour later and claimed he had been present but had not been called for his hearing. As one who has spent many hours on the 16th floor of the courthouse, I find his claim to lack credibility. If he had reported to the room he was instructed to, and at the time he was instructed to arrive, court personnel would have made certain he was in the hearing.

Here's where Judge Kest blew it.

Instead of telling Mr. Perez to file a motion to request a re-hearing, she cancelled the injunction she had just granted to the Petitioner and told him to return the following afternoon at 1:00 PM for a hearing.

When the parties returned the next afternoon, they had to wait for all the other cases to be heard first (Thursday afternoon is devoted to hearings that require Spanish interpreters). When the case was finally heard at 4:21 PM, the Petitioner's attorney attempted to introduce testimony about Perez's attempted murder case from another jurisdiction, but Judge Kest refused to consider it. Perez allegedly got those teardrop tattoos on his face while serving time in prison for that assault.

In addition to the above petition  against him, Mr. Perez (6'1" and 280 lbs) had filed an injunction a few days earlier on behalf of his two children, claiming that Ms. S (5'2" and 130 lbs) had been behaving erratically, had physically assaulted him, broken things, and threatened to kill him and to commit suicide with a knife. Police were called and she was Baker Acted. Her petition was filed after her release from Lakeside.

At the hearing on October 8th, Judge Kest granted a 1-year injunction, but no longer required supervised visits through Family Ties. In fact, Judge Kest also granted custody of the children to Mr. Perez  and only weekend visits for the mother.
 
Three weeks later, Perez filed an affadavit stating that Ms. S had violated the injunction by driving by his home, making harrassing phone calls, and alleged that his 3-year old daughter had been exposed to improper sexual behavior by her mother and her new boyfriend.
 
At the hearing for the alleged violations on November 20, 2009 Judge Theotis Bronson dismissed the charges.
 
Mr. Perez apparently realized he was not able to control the situation further, the Court system having thrown gasoline on the fire, and he took Ms. S and the children hostage shortly thereafter - holding them for 4 days until she was able to escape this morning.


The act of a desperate man? Undoubtedly.

Suicide by Cop? Maybe.
 
Whether or not this situation could have been averted will be the subject of a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking by law enforcement, court personnel, DCF, and domestic violence advocates. I'm just relieved that the children and their mother were not injured or killed.

Now for our two cents about Judge Kest's performance on the injunction court bench:

CourtWatch has sent our concerns about Judge Kest to her and to those above her in the past. Our concerns, thus far, do not seem to have been addressed. So we'll share them with you.

CourtWatch volunteers have consistently noted that Judge Kest is often disrespectful to the parties in her courtroom, speaks condescendingly to them, and seems to expect them to know the legal procedures for presenting their case (in spite of the fact they rarely have an attorney to represent them).  She conducts hearings in a manner that suggests that getting it done fast is more important that getting it done thoroughly - often failing to to elicit additional testimony that would be pertinent to the case and failing to cover all the issues (child support/visitation, property retrieval) that need resolution.

After 11 months hearing injunction cases, she should be doing a better job for the citizens of Orange County.

12/11/09: More information in the Sentinel about this case.

Sometimes It's Tough to Walk Away

Sometimes it's tough to walk away from a hearing, wishing there was more that could be done personally. Wednesday was one of those days.

I was in Judge Theotis Bronson's court for injunction hearings and the Petitioner (age 34) had filed for an injunction against her husband, Edward Demirdjian (age 54), who was in custody for an assault against her. She testified that while on a flight from the Dominican Republic to the US, Demirdjian, in addition to verbally abusing his 3-yr old daughter, told her that her mommy was dead. I initially understood this to be a threat against the Petitioner. However, subsequent testimony revealed that the Petitioner was the child's stepmother. The child's biological mother is indeed deceased - murdered in New York last month. Demirdjian is a person of interest in that shooting.

Several people on the flight reported the conversation to the authorities when the plane landed in Miami. However, the family was cleared to proceed to Orlando. Details are sketchy because I have not reviewed the court file. However, the Petitioner filed for this injuction on 7/29/09, after an assault against her on 7/24 for which Demirdjian was arrested on 8/12. Judge Bronson granted a 12 month injunction and ordered the Respondent to complete BIP.

I learned today that Demirdjian had his Initial Appearance for the 7/24 assault before Judge Martha Adams yesterday (case 2009-CF-0011841-O). In spite of the Assistant State Attorney's representations about his possible role in the New York case and argument that no conditions of release could assure the safety of the victim or his own child, he was released by Judge Adams as follows:

• $100 bond
• home confinement with electronic monitoring
• no contact with the victim or child
• may return once to the residence with a law enforcement officer to pick up personal belongings
• maintain a separate residence
• have no weapons or firearms
• stay 500' or more away from the wife's residence

Needless to say, CourtWatch will be carefully monitoring this case as it works its way through the criminal justice system.

For victims who want to keep apprised of the custody status of their perpetrator, VINELink can provide updates on their custodial location (as they're moved from one corrections facility/jail to another) or notify them of when their perpetrator has been released. After navigating to the correct page for the state, click on the "Search and Register" tab to locate the defendant and provide your contact email or phone number. The service is free of charge.

The Last 10%

In monitoring Judge Theotis Bronson's injunction court this morning, I was pleased to see him do about 90% of what needed to be done. But the last 10% was sadly missing.

When the hearing began, the Respondent (Alton Bell) initially agreed to have an injunction placed on him. As Judge Bronson was telling him that the order would last 12 months he had no objection. Once the judge told him he would be required to complete BIP, he objected and a hearing was held.

The Petitioner and the Respondent have a 1-yr old child together. After her testimony about his assaults and harrassment, the parties accused one another of lying and Bell stood up to walk out of the courtroom (this is a big "no no" - deputies don't take too kindly to this sort of thing). He was admonished by the judge and two heavily armed deputies to sit down. When the judge ordered temporary child support, Mr. Bell was even less inclined to remain in the courtroom and he attempted to walk out a second time. He complied with the judge & deputies' instructions to sit down again.

Judge Bronson ordered a 6-month injunction but neglected to do something that is crucial to solidify its chances of success. He did not take the time to work out a temporary visitation schedule for the child, nor did he work with the parties to designate a friend or family member as the go-between for scheduling visits or monitoring the child while mom & dad exchange her. Usually a third party's home serves as the drop-off / pick-up when the child is not in school or a daycare facility. The judge never inquired about whether she was in daycare or who might be a suitable facilitator.

Judge Bronson and the deputies in the courtroom did a good job in getting the Respondent to sit down and be quiet. But I suspect that Mr. Bell's belligerence is the reason the Court ended the hearing before visitation matters were addressed. Thankfully, he did order BIP, although he did not tell either party he did so in open court. It was attached to the paperwork that was given to the parties at the end of the hearing.

Recipe for Future Conflict

I monitored several injunction hearings today in Judge Theotis Bronson's court, and one struck me as headed for disaster. The participants are currently married to one another and have a five month old child. The judge did grant a 6-month injunction, but then failed to work out all the issues that need to be addressed so that the Respondent (dad) could visit his child without having to come into contact with the Petitioner (mom).

Judge Bronson, although doubtful about its accuracy, accepted the father's representation that the Ocoee Police Department would serve as a monitored exchange location (from his testimony, it sounded as if the patrol officer who responded to the 911 call told him they would do it - I'm not familiar with any police department serving in this capacity on a regular basis, though it would be wonderful if they did).

The judge failed to fully explain what "no contact" means. In addition to not going near the Petitioner's home/workplace, the Respondent is not permitted to call/email/text her nor is he to have someone contact her on his behalf. The only exception is to have the judge designate a third party for them to communicate about their child. Judge Bronson did order child support, but failed to work out a schedule for visits with the child. After the hearing had concluded and the mother had left the courtroom to wait for her paperwork, the father asked the judge when he could see his child. The mother had to be brought back into the courtroom and a schedule was arranged. The judge even commented that he was doubtful the police would monitor the exchanges and that if it needs to be changed, the parties will have to come back to court to do so.

The judge also did not remind the parties that the injunction is only a temporary order. For these issues to be fully addressed until their child is 18, they need to file for a dissolution of marriage. He failed to ask if either party has done so. What happens in six months?

It seemed to me and the volunteer I was training that Judge Bronson was rushing through this case (it lasted about 20 minutes). In addition to only granting the injunction for 6 months (most other judges grant them for a year), his expectation that they'll come back to court if it doesn't work out with the police department is unrealistic. Most people are not able or willing to take half a day off from work to attend a hearing for which they have to wait 2 weeks. The likelihood is that they'll violate the "no contact" requirement of the injunction in order to take care of visitation issues.

As I said, this case is a recipe for future conflict which will serve to victimize all parties, but most especially the child.