Report Regarding the Failure of HPD Internal Affairs in Preventing Officer Retribution

by on 18/05/11 at 7:45 pm

HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT
1200 TRAVIS STREET
HOUSTON, TEXAS
____________________________________
REPORT REGARDING THE FAILURE
OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS IN PREVENTING
OFFICER RETRIBUTION
____________________________________

 

Delivered to:
Mayor Annise D. Parker
City of Houston

Charles A. MCClelland, Jr.
Chief of Police

M. A. Dirden
Executive Assistant Chief
Strategic Operations

Dorothy A. Edwards
Assistant Chief
Professional Services Command

George T. Buenik
Assistant Chief
Criminal Investigations Command
Craig Ferrell
Deputy Director
Legal Services

 

 

Note Regarding Exhibits

All of the exhibits referenced in this report can be immediately accessed by simply clicking on the linked text throughout the body of the document.  This not only makes the document easier to read but also allows the reader to forward the main document though email without concerns regarding the file size or location.  Additionally, the author is able to insure the integrity of the original files while still making them available to any number of simultaneous users.

SUMMARY

After filing a sworn statement in support of a complaint with the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD”) of the Houston Police Department (“HPD”), Richard C. Hesseldahl, the subject of the complaint, began a campaign of retribution against the complainant.  Officer Hesseldahl acted both individually and in concert with other parties to deprive the complainant of certain secured rights under the color of law, to make false and fictitious claims, to file fraudulent police reports, to obstruct court orders, to suborn perjury, to seize property and to aid in the theft of property.

Officer Hesseldahl falsely pretended to be an employee of the U.S. Secret Service and used this pretended character1 The main contact telephone number is the Secret Service switchboard in Houston, TX, the second contact number is a private cell number and the fax number noted is a private fax number.  Officer Hesseldahl was a member of the Houston Area Task Force as an HPD officer.  This card deliberately obscures that he is an HPD officer and demonstrates intent to act with the authority of a pretended character.  See also 18 U.S.C. § 912] in order to obtain papers and documents of value.2 Further, Officer Hesseldahl abused the grand jury subpoena process in Harris County, Texas, reserved for grand jury investigations, by issuing subpoenas in the furtherance of his own pretended U.S. Secret Service investigation transforming a court process into a function of his own.

The complainant, Gregory Montelaro (“Montelaro”) was engaged in a complex and heated civil battle over title to a residential property when he first encountered Officer Hesseldahl.  Officer Hesseldahl interfered with and deliberately obstructed the civil suit by assisting in an illegal eviction of Montelaro and taking Montelaro into custody to prevent any interference.  Acting with other officers and private parties – without a writ or warrant of any kind, Officer Hesseldahl seized Montelaro’s home, vehicles, possessions, papers and effects and initiated and maintained criminal actions against Montelaro the sole purpose of which was the deprivation of Montelaro’s Fourth Amendment Rights.3 Montelaro was instructed to file a complaint with IAD and was assured that by doing so he would not be made the target of retribution by Officer Hesseldahl.

This document details criminal allegations specific to the actions of Officer Hesseldahl before and after Montelaro filed the IAD complaint.  Officer Hesseldahl targeted Montelaro for retribution despite HPD’s assurances to the contrary and he and others continue their actions against Montelaro to date.  Officer Hesseldahl appears to be above having to answer for his actions and Montelaro does not wish to engender any further acts of retribution by filing another IAD complaint.4 Instead, Montelaro submits this document to Officer Hesseldahl’s chain of command alleging a number of crimes committed by Officer Hesseldahl, attaches evidence supporting each allegation and relies on their duty as officers to prohibit further retribution.

BACKGROUND5

On or about September 28, 2001, Montelaro’s partner purchased a home and financed the purchase through Memorial Park Mortgage Ltd. (“Memorial Park Mortgage”), a local mortgage bank.  Montelaro’s partner signed a promissory note in the amount of $262,650.00 (the “Note”) in favor of Memorial Park Mortgage. (Exhibit “2”)  Memorial Park Mortgage immediately infected the chain of title, and the clarity of the security and legal interests in the property, as a direct result of selling fraudulently created documents to multiple investors and banks representing each set of documents as the original loan and warranting to each investor a transfer of all rights, title and interests of Memorial Park Mortgage in the original loan. (Exhibit “3”)  In effect they sold the same loan to multiple parties as part of a mortgage fraud scheme.

Discovery in the civil matter would eventually demonstrate that Memorial Park Mortgage first sold the loan to Freddie Mac under an Irrevocable Power of Attorney6 in which they forever conveyed all rights, titles and interests in the loan and through which Freddie Mac took delivery of the Loan on or about October 9, 2001. (Exhibit “5”)  As such, the sale of the loan by Memorial Park Mortgage and any other documents of transfer filed after this date in the county records claiming ownership through assignment by Memorial Park Mortgage are fraudulent as Memorial Park Mortgage no longer had any rights or interest in the loan.7

In November of 2003, Montelaro’s partner, working with Freddie Mac, agreed to modify the terms of the original loan.  Freddie Mac instructed Montelaro and his partner to go to the law offices of Barrett Burke in Houston, Texas, to sign the final documents.  There Montelaro’s partner was fraudulently induced into signing a loan modification naming Principal Residential (Exhibit “6”) and not Freddie Mac as the owner of the loan.8

Montelaro and his partner are domestic partners and had agreed that although title was taken in his partner’s name for credit and convenience purposes only, the home would be enjoyed jointly as tenants in common,9 which included the right of either to subdivide the property.  In order to recognize the money, labor and materials Montelaro had contributed and recognizing that Texas affords no property protection for domestic partnerships, Montelaro and his partner agreed to execute a mechanic’s lien as the vehicle best suited to protect Montelaro’s interests.  In strict compliance with the requisites of mechanic’s liens under Texas Property Code, Montelaro filed an affidavit in the Real Property Records establishing an inception date of 2002.

When Principal Residential fraudulently and materially altered the loan modification agreement in 2003 changing the mortgagee from Freddie Mac to Principal Residential, they created a subordinating event as it related to Montelaro’s mechanic’s lien that had not before existed.  As a direct result of their fraud, the mechanic’s lien took priority over the Principal Residential Loan Modification Agreement under the Relation Back Doctrine.10

In July of 2004, Principal Residential sent notice of foreclosure and appointed a substitute trustee.  On October 5, 2004, Principal Residential foreclosed the fraudulent loan and filed a Substitute Trustee’s Deed into the Harris County Real Property Records identifying Freddie Mac as the buyer.  (Exhibit “8”)

Montelaro’s partner filed suit in the 189th District Court of Harris County, Texas, through which Freddie Mac requested and was eventually denied possession of the property in final judgment.11his Judgment finally disposes…of all claims.”  The summary judgment motion did not request possession of the property as part of the relief.  As a matter of law, any relief not granted by Final Judgment is specifically denied. ] Freddie Mac then twice improperly petitioned justice court for possession of the Montelaro’s home without disclosing the District Court’s previous denial of possession in final judgment.12 The fraudulent conveyance rules permit a defrauded creditor to ignore the subordinating transfer and realize recovery against the assets surreptitiously squandered.13 Accordingly Montelaro regained possession of the property and moved back in during September of 2006.

COMPLAINT

On October 5, 2006, Shadrick Bogany (“Bogany”) pretending to act as a real estate agent for Freddie Mac arrived at the Montelaro’s home and demanded that Montelaro vacate the property.  Montelaro called the police who on arrival instructed Bogany to leave the property.  Bogany was also instructed to leave the property by the Harris County Constables office.

The following day, after Montelaro left for work, Bogany filed a sham affidavit of trespass acting on Officer Hesseldahl’s instructions and returned to the property accompanied by HPD patrol officers who allowed Bogany to break into and take possession of Montelaro’s home. (Exhibit “9”)  Several patrol officers stood by and watched Bogany remove great deal of Montelaro’s personal property, business inventory, Mercedes 560SL parked in a locked garage and moving truck parked in the driveway.  None of this property has been recovered.  Montelaro called the police and was instructed to contact Financial Crimes and informed that if he attempted to return to his home or interfere with the officers currently at the address he would be arrested.

Montelaro’s attorney advised him not to return to the property before securing a bond granting him immediate possession.  Despite securing such a bond, Montelaro was arrested while sleeping in his home on the morning of October 20, 2006, based on Bogany’s sham affidavit of trespass.

On October 27, 2006, based in part on the preceding summary and exhibits, all charges against Montelaro were dismissed on his first court appearance on which the Court specifically noted that Montelaro “was the owner of the property.” (Exhibit “10”)  Six days later Montelaro was again arrested by Officer Hesseldahl on November 2, 2006 based on Bogany’s sham affidavit of trespass.

During both arrests, Montelaro had property and papers seized by the arresting officers.  Officer Hesseldahl acted to hold over the seized property until June of this year when Montelaro procured an order from County Court 8 for the complete release of his property followed by obtaining a release from the HPD Burglary and Theft Division.  However, the property room staff no longer had custody of Montelaro’s personal property and instead produced a box containing approximately 5000 original certified copies of documents from Harris County produced in response to two Grand Jury subpoenas issued by Officer Hesseldahl. (Exhibit “11”)   Also contained in the box were several letters with accompanying document CDs from law firms responding to these Grand Jury subpoenas, several hundred various additional documents which appear to correlate to the large number “case” or “research” notes from Officer Hesseldahl.  Finally, contained in the box were the non-public incident reports referenced in this complaint.  The custody receipt issued by the property room identifies the box of documents and a separate CD containing documents as those items released to Montelaro. (Exhibit “12”)  Officer Hesseldahl continued to add these items to Montelaro’s property box through April 30th of this year.  A property room supervisor stated that all of Montelaro’s property had been released to “the division”.

The crimes reported by this document are based in large part on the documents handed over to Montelaro by the property room on June 24, 2010.  On information and belief, the police reports referenced herein have all been tampered with and include fabricated statements entered after the reporting officers entered their reports.

The October 6, 2006 report was entered by Officer Lindquist. (Exhibit “13”)  The narrative section of report 154308606-S falsely states that Montelaro’s home is vacant and deliberately avoids referencing reports from the previous day which would demonstrate Montelaro’s occupancy of the property.  Contrary to the report, Bogany is not the field representative for Freddie Mac nor is he employed by Freddie Mac.  In fact, according to documentation produced by Bogany in the civil matter and by the Houston Association of Realtors, Bogany’s contractual relationship with Freddie Mac to act as a real estate agent, if there ever was one for this property, did not commence until sometime after October 18, 2006.  (Exhibit “14”)

In effect, Officer Linquist’s report states that she was called out to the address at 11:55 on 10/06/06 on a trespass call.  The officer arrives at Montelaro’s home to find the property secured with vehicles registered to that address parked in the garage and driveway.  She then allows a man she has never met without any documentation to demonstrate either his residence or his representation, to break into the property and take possession of Montelaro’s home based only on his story that Officer Lindquist then enters verbatim in her report without any attempts to verify.  She then dates her report for the previous day, 10/05/2006, and submits it.

On the advice of counsel, Montelaro obtained a bond granting him immediate possession of the property.  Despite securing such a bond, Montelaro was arrested while sleeping in his home on the morning of October 20, 2006, based on Bogany’s affidavit of trespass.

Officer Lindquist was the arresting officer on October 20, 2006.  The copy of the public incident report 162083106-X, certified on 06/05/2007, demonstrates that the non-public report of the same designation was tampered with (Exhibit “15”) sometime after 06/05/2007.  The non-public report includes a third “Article” not part of the report on 06/05/07 described as “[miscellaneous] documents, some of which may constitute forgery or fraud, which the [suspect] provided to the [officers] regarding the property on Knox”.  The report falsely states that documents were tagged in the property room under the incident number.   The non-public report also contains a witness not in the original report including a false driver’s license number for the witness.

As with her report of 10/06/06, the entirety of Officer Linquist’s narrative is fabricated and charges Montelaro for a window broken by an HPD officer the previous evening.  Officer Linquist reached into the broken window, unlocked the door, entered the property and arrested Montelaro while he was sleeping.  On information and belief, Exhibit “16” demonstrates the ruse employed by Officer Hesseldahl on 10/23/06 to take over the investigation.

On October 27, 2006, based in part on the preceding summary and exhibits, all charges against Montelaro were dismissed on his first court appearance on which the Court specifically noted that Montelaro “was the owner of the property.”14

On November 2, 2006, responding to a call from a neighbor, Montelaro arrived home to find two patrol cars parked in front of his home and Bogany in his driveway.  Bogany immediately told the patrol officers that the U.S. Secret Service was in route and gave them a telephone number to call. (Exhibit “17” at page 2,  paragraph 2)  Several minutes later, Officer Hesseldahl arrived with Srgt. Gorski in the same vehicle stating to the patrol officers that Srgt. Gorski was acting as the on-site supervisor.[15. Exhibit “18” – In his report, Officer Hesseldahl deliberately obscures the fact that he and Srgt. Gorski arrived together in Officer Hesseldahl’s truck. Montelaro’s request for another supervisor was ignored. ]

On information and belief, Officer Hesseldahl’s report was altered after being filed.  On its face, the entirety of the narrative section is a complete fabrication.

On arrival, Officer Hesseldahl placed Montelaro in hand-cuffs, seized Montelaro’s wallet, lighter, money, mail and keys with which he let himself and Bogany into Montelaro’s home.  After approximately ten to fifteen minutes, Officer Hesseldahl came back out to the street with several folders seized from Montelaro’s home and instructed one of the patrol officers to place Montelaro in the back of the patrol car.

At the time, Montelaro had on his person (1) a dismissal order from County Court 8 with a note from the judge stating that Montelaro “was the owner of the property,” (2) a bond granting Montelaro immediate possession of the property, (3) a writ of possession, a copy of which was left on the front door of Montelaro’s home by the constable and (4) a copy of the Final Judgment from the 189th District Court denying Freddie Mac possession of the property.

Officer Hesseldahl’s Incident Report # 169628406-Y states that the property was vacant. Id. at page 2.004 However, this same report notes the removal of property from Montelaro’s home obviating Officer Hesseldahl’s attempt to portray Montelaro’s home as vacant.  Montelaro watched Officer Hesseldahl and Bogany remove a number of items from his home but was never presented with an inventory. [16. The HPD property room records released to Montelaro demonstrate that at one time they had custody of some of this property without indexing the specific property items. ]  Montelaro asked one of the patrol officers why he had been arrested and he was told by the officer that he had no idea what was going on.

After approximately an hour, two of the patrol officers got in the patrol car and drove Montelaro away from his house and directly to the U.S. Secret Service offices at 602 Sawyer, Houston, Texas.  (Exhibit “18” at page 2.005)   After waiting in the patrol car for approximately 30 minutes, Montelaro asked one of the patrol officers what they were doing here and again one of the patrol officers stated that he had no idea and that they had never been here before.

Moments later Officer Hesseldahl and Srgt. Gorski arrived.   Officer Hesseldahl opened the door of the patrol car and had one of the patrol officers place shackles on Montelaro’s ankles after which he dismissed the patrol officers and proceeded to escort Montelaro into the building and into an elevator.  When the elevator opened to the Secret Service offices on the 6th floor, a woman standing in the elevator lobby curtly advised Officer Hesseldahl that the offices were closed.  Officer Hesseldahl stated that he was a task force member and was waiting for other agents to arrive.

Montelaro was shackled to a table in a small room and was made to wait for an indeterminate amount of time.  Officer Hesseldahl and Srgt. Gorski eventually came in and Officer Hesseldahl introduced himself for the first time as part of the Secret Service team that had been investigating Montelaro’s fraudulent activity.  Montelaro asked why he had been arrested to which Officer Hesseldahl responded that it all depended on how well Montelaro cooperated.  Montelaro then requested to speak with his attorney after which both officers left the room.

Officer Hesseldahl returned with a nine-page document which he wanted Montelaro to sign stating that this would be the last time for Montelaro to tell his side of the story.  When Montelaro asked to read the document Officer Hesseldahl refused.  Montelaro stated he would not sign anything without being able to read it and again asked for his attorney.

Over the next five and a half hours Montelaro was physically and mentally intimidated by Officer Hesseldahl in his efforts to get Montelaro to sign the statement.  At one point, when Officer Hesseldahl and Srgt. Gorski were both in the room, Montelaro asked why it was so important for Officer Hesseldahl to create fraud out of Montelaro’s actions where none existed when the original mortgage company had committed enough real mortgage fraud to keep the Secret Service busy for years.  Officer Hesseldahl tossed Montelaro one of the folders seized from Montelaro’s home and instructed Montelaro to show him the fraud.

Montelaro walked through the documents in the file demonstrating simultaneous multiple sales and assignments of the loan for he and his partner’s home to different banks.  Montelaro also demonstrated to Officer Hesseldahl where the 189th District Court had denied Freddie Mac possession of the property in final judgment.   Montelaro further explained that the two evictions that Officer Hasseldahl and Bogany were relying on as proof that Montelaro should not be on the property had been procured in Justice Court after the district court’s final judgment.  Accordingly both eviction matters were void as a matter of law as the Justice Court was without subject matter jurisdiction.[17. The Justice Court’s judgment, improperly procured by Freddie Mac, was not final and permitting such an action would allow an impermissible collateral attack on the 189th District Court’s Final Judgment.  Because the justice court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear any matter of possession specific to Montelaro’s home, its judgment in the two eviction matters, relied on by Officer Hesseldahl to justify his arrest of Montelaro and his seizure of Montelaro’s property, was void as a matter of law and it was wholly unnecessary to appeal that void judgment.  Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71, 76 (Tex. 2000), see also Metropolitan Transit Auth. v. Jackson, 212 S.W.3d 797, 802-03 (Tex. App.–Houston {1st Dist.} 2007, no pet.). ]

Officer Hasseldahl stormed out of the room without comment.  Srgt. Gorski took a deep breath and told Montelaro that it looked like he was going to have a really long battle on his hands and that he did not envy his position.  When Srgt. Gorski got up to leave the room Montelaro once again requested to speak with his attorney.

The interview detailed in Officer Hasseldahl’s report never occurred and no recording exists to verify the interview. (Exhibit “18” at page 2.005, 2.006) Additionally, Officer Hasseldahl goes to great lengths in attempting to criminalize his discovery a stereo receiver in Montelaro’s home. (Id. at page 2.007) Montelaro accepted delivery of a box for his former neighbor from the carrier at the carrier’s request.  Officer Hesseldahl opened a box addressed to someone else in order to discover and seize the receiver inside.  Officer Hesseldahl notes in his report that he required Montelaro’s neighbor to come to the Secret Service office at 602 Sawyer to pick the receiver up however without a schedule filed on the seized property or any evidence that the receiver was tagged to the property room, there is no way to prove what happened to the receiver or any of the property Officer Hesseldahl and Bogany removed from Montelaro’s home.  (Id. at page 2.009)

Officer Hesseldahl’s actions with the stereo receiver demonstrate his pattern of obstruction of court processes and his complete disregard for state laws.15 Officer Hesseldahl never presented Montelaro with a list of property seized from his home and after forcefully removing Montelaro from his home in custody; he simply handed over Montelaro’s keys to Bogany.  Montelaro’s vehicles, personal property, business inventory, papers and effects have never been recovered.

For nearly six hours Officer Hesseldahl kept Montelaro secreted at the offices of the U.S. Secret Service in athird-degree effort to have Montelaro sign a nine-page typed statement that Montelaro was not allowed to read.  Montelaro’s requests that he be allowed to call his attorney were ignored and when he was finally brought to the city jail he was still not charged with a crime until the following day.  Officer Hesseldahl charged Montelaro with criminal trespass with Bogany acting as the complainant and fraudulently claiming Bogany owned Montelaro’s home.  This charge was identical to the charge that had been dismissed only days earlier. (Exhibit “19”) (See also Exhibit “10”)

In his HPD incident report, Officer Hesseldahl states that Montelaro has “fraudulently filed numerous documents with the Harris County Clerk’s office” yet he never demonstrates a single fraudulent document.[19. Exhibit “18” at page 2.004 – Officer Hesseldahl uses this claim and his claim that Montelaro is the target of an ongoing Secret Service investigation as a means by which he obstructs law enforcement and court orders throughout this matter. ]  Officer Hesseldahl deliberately misstates material facts by stating that when Montelaro was arrested he had nothing more than a “fraudulently filed” eviction notice naming him as owner of the property.  (Id. at page 2.005 – Evictions are processes of possession not title.)  At the time of his arrest, Montelaro had on his person (1) a dismissal order from County Court 8 with a note from the judge stating that Montelaro “was the owner of the property,” (2) a bond granting Montelaro immediate possession of the property, (3) a writ of possession, a copy of which was left on the front door of Montelaro’s home by the constable and (4) a copy of the Final Judgment from the 189th District Court denying Freddie Mac possession of the property.

Officer Hesseldahl falsely pretended to be an employee of the U.S. Secret Service in order to obtain papers and documents of value.[20. 18 USC § 912 ] Additionally, Officer Hesseldahl used this pretended character in concert with other parties to deprive Montelaro of certain secured rights under the color of law, to make false and fictitious claims, to obstruct court orders, to suborn perjury, to obstruct local law enforcement, to seize property and to aid in the theft of property.

Officer Hesseldahl and Bogany acted in concert to seize the following property from Montelaro and his partner; a Mercedes 560SL, a Ford F-Superduty moving box truck with lift gate, personal and business property – none of which have been recovered.16 Neither Officer Hesseldahl nor Bogany has produced a writ or warrant of any kind.  Officer Hesseldahl and Bogany are not entitled to Montelaro’s personal property and vehicles and have exercised unlawful dominion and control over property that does not belong to them.  Their conduct evidences a clear repudiation of Montelaro’s rights.

Officer Hesseldahl conspired with Bogany have Montelaro removed from his home by force and then maintained criminal charges against Montelaro thereby allowing Bogany to list Montelaro’s home for sale.    On December 12, 2006, Bogany improperly filed a suit on behalf of Freddie Mac in the 151st District Court under “Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order” in which Bogany signed a sham affidavit of authority. (Exhibit “20”)  Bogany is not an officer of Freddie Mac and no authorization or limited power of attorney exists to allow him to act as attorney-in-fact and file suit on behalf of Freddie Mac.  There is no record of such authority on file with Harris County and Freddie Mac has no corporate record of ever having granted such authority.  For Bogany, all of these acts, without exception, are specifically prohibited by the Texas Real Estate Act[22. Texas Occupations Code § 1101-654] and under the Texas Occupations Code are considered felonies.

Montelaro was placed on Deferred Adjudication following a no-contest plea for the trespass charges filed by Officer Hesseldahl.  On June 13, 2007, Freddie Mac filed a non-suit in the civil matter filed by Bogany thereby abandoning their attempt to gain title to Montelaro’s home.  With the filing of the non-suit, the criminal court terminated Montelaro’s Deferred Adjudication and dismissed the entire matter against him.  (Exhibit “21” – Of note is the Court’s amendment striking Bogany as the complainant.)

The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 30 (1963), provides in pertinent part that the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated… .”  As a result of the state action in this case, Montelaro’s home was not only seized, but it literally had all of its doors and windows covered over by sheets of steel while HPD officers who knew that Bogany did not have an eviction order and that his actions were unlawful either stood by allowing Bogany to act or actually took Montelaro into custody to prevent him from interfering.  Being dispossessed of one’s home in the manner which occurred here can not be viewed as anything but a seizure invoking the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 190, 113, (1984). In addition, “at the very core” of the Fourth Amendment “stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961). See also Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 178 -179 (1984); Wyman v. James,400 U.S. 309, 316 (1971); Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 601 (1980).

Here, Officer Hesseldahl, acting under the color of law, physically removed Montelaro from his home and allowed Bogany to cover the doors and windows of Montelaro’s home with sheet metal, an act specifically designed destroy Montelaro’s right to retreat into his own home.  Such a heinous violation of rights is seldom seen in society.

Throughout this entire matter Officer Hesseldahl, acting under color of law, participated in the seizure of Montelaro’s property.  Officer Hesseldahl and all of the officers who stood by knowing Bogany did not have an eviction order and allowed Bogany to act unlawfully to dispossess Montelaro of his home and property, participated directly with Bogany or actually took Montelaro into custody to prevent him from interfering with Bogany have violated their qualified immunity consistent with and directly on point with Soldal v Cook County506 U.S. 56 (1992).  Officer Hesseldahl prevented Montelaro from using reasonable force to protect his home from private action he knew was illegal demonstrating sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between Bognay and Officer Hesseldahl.   See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 152 -161 (1970).  “The constitution’s requirements are as applicable to the police when they chose sides in a dispute among citizens as when they seize evidence for use in criminal prosecutions.” Soldal v. CookCounty, 506 U.S.56 (1991); Guzell v. Hiller,223 F.3d 518 (7th Circuit 2000).

When Montelaro contacted HPD in an effort to recover his property a supervisor in the auto-theft division of HPD told Montelaro that they had been advised by Officer Hasseldahl that Montelaro was under investigation by the HAFTF for filing fraudulent reports and he refused to take a stolen vehicle report from Montelaro.  Montelaro has made a further six attempts, the last being July 2, 2010, and is still being refused.

After County Court 15 terminated Montelaro’s Deferred Adjudication and dismissed the entire matter against him, Montelaro filed a complaint against Officer Hesseldahl with IAD in a continuing effort to recover the property seized from his home.  After filing the complaint, Officer Hesseldahl began parking in front of Montelaro’s business and residence for brief times during the day.  Montelaro contacted IAD regarding this behavior.  For several days IAD stated that they were unable to locate Montelaro’s complaint.

Montelaro also spoke with Srgt. Perret in the Command Division of HPD who suggested that Montelaro’s property may still be at the house.  Montelaro explained that the last two times he had been to the property he had been arrested and that he was uninterested in going back to the property until the civil matter was decided.  After several days of collecting information, Srgt Perret provided Montelaro with a police escort back on to the property and assured him that he would not be arrested.  Montelaro called Srgt. Perret once inside and reported that his items were not present but that other property was.  Exhibit “22” is an HPD Incident Report which details the actual events which occurred on the date that Montelaro returned to the property under police escort.[23. The responding officers were instructed to make no arrests and the District Attorney refused to accept any charges on Montelaro as a result of his being on the property on 6/20/2007. ] On information and belief, particular sections of this report have been altered after the date it was filed, specifically the first statements of Complainant #1 (“Hannah”).

Hannah’s statement that he was “unaware of any type of civil dispute in regards to the ownership of this residence” can not be supported as anything other than a fabrication.  Officer Hesseldahl was aware that Montelaro had filed a Notice of Lis Pendens in the county records on September 19, 2006.  As such, Hannah was on constructive notice of the litigation underway regarding title to the property he just purchased.  Therefore it would have been impossible for Hannah to get financing to purchase the property without conspiring with Bogany to defraud Bank of America by not disclosing the Lis Pendens.  Officer Hesseldahl was in possession of Hannah’s closing documents and was aware that Bogany and Hannah acted with intent when they hid the pending litigation from Bank of America.

Of further note is the particular attention placed on the Hannah’s efforts to access the property.  He specifically states that he “found that his front door was locked from the inside.”  He then states that the garage door and the rear door were also locked.  Hannah stated that he had to climb up to the second floor and make entry “into the residence from the kitchen.”  Once inside the residence, Hannah stated that “he heard someone coming in though the front door” and goes on to detail an assault by Montelaro which ended as he was finally able to push Montelaro out of the residence just as police arrived.

The entire altercation with Montelaro is based on Montelaro “coming through the [same] front door” that Hannah had very specifically stated was “locked from the inside.” Officer Hesseldahl’s need to alter the report with such an obvious fabrication becomes immediately clear.

Several days later, despite assurances by IAD that there would be no retribution for filing a complaint, Officer Hasseldahl created a fraudulent HPD Incident Report # 098164307-U in which he falsely states that at 13:30 hours on July 3, 2007, Montelaro and his partner “who are involved in a criminal enterprise,” (Exhibit “23” – HPD Incident Report #098164307U page 1.002) forced entry to the complainant’s residence where Montelaro then assaulted the complainant while inside the residence.  Officer Hesseldahl filed this fraudulent report and used it to have Montelaro and his partner criminally charged.  Officer Hesseldahl falsely states in his report that there is an “on-going investigation” of Montelaro by the United States Secret Service “into the organized criminal enterprise involved in the forgery of government documents, burglary of habitation and trespassing.[24. Id. at page 2.004 – Officer Hesseldahl’s statement that there is a Secret Service investigation into an on-going criminal enterprise involved in trespassing is in itself enough to demonstrate that no such investigation exists. ]  His of fabrications continue as Officer Hesseldahl states that Montelaro “plead guilty to criminal trespassing” on April 10, 2007.[25. Id. – The matter against Montelaro was dismissed on 06/13/07 without a guilty plea. ]

Pages 2.004 – 2.005 of this report makes it clear to the reader that Officer Hesseldahl was able to side-step Srgt. Perret’s prohibition regarding Montelaro’s arrest for being on the property on 6/20/2007 through his fraudulent disclosure of a Secret Service investigation into a criminal enterprise involving Montelaro when he “contacted Srgt. Perret…and advised him of the various incidents of forgery/fraud committed by the suspects.”Id. Further, by falsely claiming a forceful entry and assault though a door locked from the inside, Officer Hassaldahl is able to secure a warrant and a $20,000 bond on Montelaro for criminal trespass. Id.

On July 3, 2007, Officer Hasseldahl, Srgt. Gorski and another HAFTF member attempted to execute a pocket warrant at Montelaro’s address.  The narrative on page 2.005 of Exhibit “23” is a complete fabrication as it relates to Montelaro.17 Further, Officer Hesseldahl’s narrative details the pursuit of another suspect not even part of the 06/20/07 incident.  Officer Hesseldahl needs this individual to complete the criminal enterprise he is trying to create.  Oblivious to the criminal actions admitted to in his own words, he simply creates of an individual a new suspect.  His behavior is disturbing and more than any other action by Officer Hesseldahl in this matter, this is perhaps the most heinous.  Officer Hesseldahl details pursuing this suspect across Houston, he admits to a warrantless stop and to an unprovoked assault when he pulls him from his car to the ground and handcuffs him.  After a search of his vehicle he releases the individual.  As with Montelaro, this individual had filed an IAD complaint against Officer Hesseldahl.

The probable cause document filed in this matter is improper; it does not include a proper jurat, it has no bar number for the illegible Assistant DA signature, it contains a questionable judge’s signature and relies again on the impossibility of Montelaro entering through a door “locked from the inside.” (Exhibit “23” – last page)

On his return from Louisiana, Montelaro posted a non-arrest bond on July 12, 2007.  However, the Department of Public Safety states that Montelaro was arrested on a July 21, 2007 charge.  It is this particular issue in addition to the documents detailing this arrest fraudulently concealed from Montelaro and discovered in the documents the property room released to Montelaro on June 10, 2010, on which Montelaro intends to file a civil action.

Officer Hesseldahl creates a supplement to his fraudulent report in which he states that on July 6, 2010, he had several Grand Jury subpoenas issued, clearly oblivious to the flagrancy of his official misconduct. Id.It is an absolute abuse of the grand jury subpoena power in Texas when subpoenas are issued at the sole request of investigators.  The Texas Legislature has not chosen to vest police officers with subpoena power, and it would circumvent that legislative judgment to allow the police to make use of the grand jury process in order to do indirectly what they can not do directly.

The sole purpose of Officer Hesseldahl’s grand jury subpoenas was not an on-going United States Secret Service investigation but to further an HPD investigation into the fabricated incident report created by Hesseldahl on July 3, 2007.18 None of these documents were ever delivered to the grand jury.  Officer Hesseldahl instead went to the HPD Property Room and had all of Montelaro’s property released to his division.  He then filled the box that had contained Montelaro’s property with the original certified copies that had been produced in response to his forged subpoenas in addition to hundreds of other documents including his investigation notes as late as April 10, 2010.

The sole purpose of the grand jury subpoenas was to collect documents for his use and not to bring documents before the grand jury as part of a Secret Service investigation.  Officer Hesseldahl again succeeded in using his position as a member of the HAFTF to shield his actions from questions transforming a court process into his own function and use.  Additionally, based on the proper form of grand jury subpoenas, these subpoenas appear to be forgeries.  Further, the volume of certified documents the Harris County Clerk’s office was required to produce in response to Officer Hasseldahl’s forged subpoenas cost the Harris County tax payers over $5,000.

Not finding his property in the property room, Montelaro then went to Financial Crimes based on the property room’s chain-of-custody report stating that Montelaro’s property had been released to the division.  Montelaro met with Lt. Robert Manzo but after three weeks was told that (1) Montelaro had signed that he had received all the property listed in the motion signed by Judge Karahan; (2) that as proof of this a copy of Montelaro’s driver’s license had been taken and (3) that Lt. Manzo would not allow Montelaro to copy the documents from the property room he was relying on, he would not put his opinion in writing and he was placing the documents from the property room in the case file which he also refused to allow Montelaro to copy.  (Exhibit “24”)  Montelaro did not receive any of his property.

Lt. Manzo’s position does not account for the cash seized from Montelaro or property and documents never tagged into the property room, nor does it account for the vehicles and other personal and business property seized from Montelaro on October 6, 2006.

In December of 2008, all parties in the civil suit with any claim to title of the property, agreed to settle the issue of title among themselves.  Freddie Mac and Shadrick Bogany, the complainant with which Offer Hesseldahl worked so closely, were not part of the settlement agreement in that they had no interest in title to the property.

Through the settlement agreement, made final by the 151st District Court in July of 2009, Montelaro and his partner were compensated for the equity lost in the property when Citimortgage, successor to Principal Residential Mortgage, wrongfully foreclosed on the property without a secured interest.  Citimortgage also agreed to settle for an amount that Montelaro and his partner felt compensated them for Citimortgage’s behavior.  Citimortgage also agreed to remove any reference to the foreclosure from Montelaro’s partner’s credit file.

Because Hannah’s claim to title was based on a fraudulent foreclosure, the title he acquired from Shadrick Bogany was not marketable.  As part of the final settlement, Montelaro and his partner agreed to deed their interests in the property to Hannah in exchange for his payment to them for the equity lost in the property.  Hannah’s attorney recorded the instrument in the Harris County property records thus clearing his title.

Montelaro and his partner were clearly victims of mortgage fraud.  The documents released to Montelaro by the property room demonstrate that Officer Hesseldahl chose to ignore the evidence of mortgage fraud and instead go to unbelievable lengths to fabricate evidence against Montelaro.

In addition to the evidence of mortgage fraud included in the introduction of this report, additional evidence of mortgage fraud committed by Memorial Park Mortgage and ignored by Officer Hesseldahl included the following:

  1. Evidence that Memorial Park Mortgage used Montelaro’s partner’s Social Security Number pared with the name “Ann Dunn” to create a fictional identity through which they obtained fraudulent loans.19
  2. Executed and blank assignment of Deed of Trust;
  3. Executed and blank “Affidavit of Assignment Recorded in Error.”
  4. Evidence demonstrating several fraudulent loans for Montelaro’s home obtained by Memorial Park Mortgage on parcels that did not exist at the time and for loan amounts greater than the purchase amount of the property.20
  5. Evidence that Shad Bogany’s mortgage company and Memorial Park Mortgage were owned by the same parent company.

Montelaro and his partner have a great deal more evidence supporting the criminal allegations reported herein and are willing to assist in an investigation but are unwilling to be subject to the same retribution experienced following the last IAD complaint.  None of the property or vehicles seized on October 6, 2006 and October 20, 2006 has ever been recovered even after the charges against Montelaro were dismissed on October 27, 2006.  Although Montelaro can produce titles for the vehicles free of liens, he has been prohibited from filing stolen vehicle reports as late July 2, 2010.  Officer Hesseldahl deliberately placed Montelaro’s transactions in a false light acting with the specific intent of dispossessing Montelaro of his home, property, papers and effects and, by fraudulently concealing his actions from Montelaro, oppressed Montelaro’s ability to mitigate his losses or have knowledge that claims existed.

CONCLUSION

Bogany filed a sworn statement in the civil matter stating that he was aware that Montelaro was living in his home and that he went to the police department in order to have Montelaro removed.  With Officer Hesseldahl leading the way, police officers stood by and allowed Bogany to unlawfully seize Montelaro’s home, property papers and effects.  By assisting in an illegal eviction and restraining Montelaro, the officers took “state action” that made them and the police department liable to suit.  As a result, Montelaro’s home was not only seized, it had every door and window completely sealed over with sheet metal, an act designed specifically to deprive Montelaro of his most fundamental Fourth Amendment Right to retreat into the security of his home.  “The constitution’s requirements are as applicable to the police when they chose sides in a dispute among citizens as when they seize evidence for use in criminal prosecutions.” Soldal v. CookCounty, 506 U.S.56 (1991);Guzell v. Hiller, 223 F.3d 518 (7th Circuit 2000).

When Officer Hesseldahl chose sides in Montelaro’s title dispute, he necessarily imposed his will over that of the judgment of the District Court, two county criminal courts and even the Legislature by abusing the grand jury process turning the subpoena process to his own use.  In an act of retribution he fabricated evidence, had Montelaro arrested on false charges and subverted the court in order to maintain the charges concealing exculpatory evidence in the process.

 

_/s// Gregory Montelaro_
Gregory J. Montelaro
1499 N Post Oak Rd.
Suite 119
Houston, TX  77055
(832) 343-0928 – phone

 

This document supplements the Report Regarding the Failure of Internal Affairs in Preventing Officer Retribution hand delivered on August 19, 2010.

 

SUPPLEMENT

Complaint Tracking  2007-29741

After signing a sworn statement in support of a complaint21 with Internal Affairs (“IAD”) on May 17, 2007, the Complainant (“Montelaro”) attempted to contact IAD in order to bring in additional documents in support of his complaint.  For nearly a month, Montelaro was told by Srgt. D.P. Follis22 that he should hold the documents until IAD was ready for them.  On June 14, 2007, after being told by another IAD officer that his complaint could not be found in the system, Montelaro met with Srgt. Follis in the IAD offices at 1200 Travis in an effort to discover what had happened to the complaint he had filed.  Additionally, despite dismissals from both arrests,23 Montelaro was still being denied the ability to file a stolen vehicle report or to collect his property.   Sgt. Follis explained that Srgt. Parrett with Criminal Investigations Command had been assigned Montelaro’s IAD complaint and that he could be contacted at 713-308-1566.24

Property Room

On June 19, 2007, Srgt. Parrett appears to have gone to the property room and along with one of the property room officers, opened the box containing Montelaro’s property to examine the contents.25  The box released by the property room to Montelaro in June of this year contained only documents placed there by Officer Hesseldahl dated after July 6, 2007.  The documents and other property previously held had been “released to the division” by officer Hesseldahl.  Further, as demonstrated by Exhibit “27”, Officer Hesseldahl continued to access these documents through April 30th of this year.

No Authority to Act – Illegal Seizure

On or about December 14, 2006, Montelaro and his partner met for a telephone conference at the First Court of Appeals with Chief Justice Radack and Freddie Mac’s attorneys to discuss several matters regarding the pending appeal.  Freddie Mac stated that they were unaware of any criminal issues involving Montelaro’s home and believed that Montelaro and his partner were still living in the property.  Freddie Mac continued to serve Montelaro and his partner at Montelaro’s home.26

Freddie Mac stated that the only document or communication authorizing Bogany to act on its behalf was a 2007 contract which specifically states that he shall act as an agent “but not attorney-in-fact” for Freddie Mac.27 Accordingly, Bogany had no authority to act in any capacity for Freddie Mac in 2006.  The October 6, 2006, affidavit of trespass Officer Hesseldahl advised Bogany to fill out and file was a sham affidavit.  The seizure of property incident to the affidavit and Montelaro’s arrests demonstrate nothing more than a criminal facilitation by Officer Hesseldahl.

In May of 2009, Freddie Mac restated its position relative to the 2007 contract and when pressed regarding Montelaro’s vehicles and property removed from his home in 2006.  Freddie Mac speculated that [the vehicles and property] “may have been removed by officer(s) of the Houston Police Department incident” to Montelaro’s arrest.  Freddie Mac went on to state that they “had no involvement with or control over the removal or disposition of any personal property located on the real property at issue at any time.”28

Commenting on the 2006 arrests and property seizures, Freddie Mac stated that although “records previously produced makes reference to [Bogany] ‘having a wrecker tow the car in the garage and the truck blocking the doorway to the impound lot’; neither of these actions were taken [ ] under the authorization or direction of [Freddie Mac], either expressly or impliedly” again referencing the 2007 contract. Id.

On April 30, 2008, Freddie Mac affirmatively stated that they did not act in any way to procure or instigate any detention of Montelaro. In fact, when asked to produce any communication or document authorizing Bogany to act in any capacity on their behalf from 2004 to 2008, Freddie Mac produced only a 2007 contract.

_/s// Gregory Montelaro_
Gregory J. Montelaro
1499 N Post Oak Rd.
Suite 119
Houston, TX  77055
(832) 343-0928 – phone

  1. Exhibit “1” illustrates a business card created by Officer Hesseldahl in an effort to present himself as an agent of the United States Secret Service.
  2. In Texas, impersonating “a public servant with intent to induce another to submit to his pretended official authority or to rely on his pretended official acts” is a crime (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 37.11 {West 1996}). 
  3. See 18 USC § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law.
  4. Montelaro was never contacted by IAD regarding the dispensation of the complaint he filed.
  5. Summary of the civil dispute from which Officer Hesseldahl drew claims of fraud and forgery.
  6. Exhibit “4” – Including the two banks in Exhibit “2”, this exhibit demonstrates a third bank.
  7. Officer Hesseldahl’s investigation reports and documents contained both evidence of the entire mortgage fraud scheme as well as evidence that he intentionally chose to ignore it. 
  8. Exhibit “7” – At some point Principal Residential filed a sham affidavit in the county records in which they claimed that the original mortgage company, Memorial Park Mortgage, had made an error in assigning ownership of the loan to ABN AMRO Mortgage Group.  However, this instrument was filed after the sale to Freddie Mac, it details a different loan of a different amount and fails to attach a copy of the original note endorsed to Principal Residential which the face of the document relies on to evidence its authenticity. 
  9. Harrington v Harrington, 742 S.W.2d 722 (Tex. App. – Houston {1st Dist.}1987, no writ). 
  10. Texas Property Code § 53.124 
  11. SteveDekker v. Principal Residential Mortgage, Inc., Cause No. 2005-04818, 189th Civil District Court, Harris County, Houston, filed 01/21/2005.  On 4/28/2005, Freddie Mac filed a counter claim for possession of 915 D Knox, the property at issue.  On or about 10/31/2005, Principal Residential Mortgage filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment which was granted on 12/05/2005 stating in part that “[t
  12. Justice court would be without subject matter jurisdiction as any final judgment would be an impermissible collateral attack on the 189th District Court’s Final Judgment and therefore void as a matter of law.
  13. See Alces & Dorr, “A Critical Analysis of the New Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,” 1985 U. Ill. L. Rev. 527, 529; see also UFCA §§ 9, 10; UFTA § 7. 
  14. Exhibit “10” – The property room was unable to locate the files seized by Officer Lindquist. After a series of calls Montelaro was informed by Srgt. Hicks that Officer Lindquist had delivered the files directly to Officer Hesseldahl. 
  15. Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 47.03, “{w}hen an officer seizes property alleged to have been stolen, he shall immediately file a schedule of the same, and its value, with the court having jurisdiction of the case, certifying that the property has been seized by him, and the reason therefor.  The officer shall notify the court of the names and addresses of each party known to the officer who has a claim to possession of the seized property.”  Officer Hesseldahl filed no such schedule. 
  16. Officer Hesseldahl and Bogany have claimed in various documents that this property was seized by the constable’s office pursuant to a writ of possession.  This deliberate misstatement attempts to obscure the fact that this property was seized on or after October 6, 2006 – nearly 30-days after any official court process and is inconsistent with his own and other HPD incident reports. 
  17. Montelaro was in Louisiana with his children for the 4th of July weekend. 
  18. Exhibit “11” – The subpoenas reference the fraudulent report filed by Hesseldahl as an HPD investigation #098164307-U.
  19. Exhibit “25” AutotrackXP created by Hesseldahl at page 2
  20. Exhibit “25” – AutoTrackXp created by Hesseldahl at page 7
  21. Issue (Complaint) Tracking Number 2007-29741 
  22. Sgt. D.P. Follis was the intake officer with whom Montelaro originally filed the complaint. 
  23. See Exhibit “10” and Exhibit “19” of original report. 
  24. Exhibit “26” – Copy of facsimile transmission to Srgt. D.P. Follis in IAD on June 14, 2007.
  25. Both officers are noted as being present by signature including their employee numbers 94103 and 63048. 
  26. Exhibit “28” – See Certificate of Service, page 2.  A Brief regarding Certificates of Service as statements under oath made to the Court is available on request.
  27. Exhibit “29” – This would include filing criminal charges, affidavits and suits.
  28. Freddie Mac, May 20, 2009, Interrogatory Responses, Freddie Mac v. Gregory Montelaro, Cause 2006-78064, 151st District Court Harris County.

One Response to “Report Regarding the Failure of HPD Internal Affairs in Preventing Officer Retribution”

  1. […] Report Regarding the Failure of IAD in Preventing Officer Retribution offers frighting insight into police retaliation against citizens of Houston for filing complaints […]

Leave a Reply