We’re not against the police. We’re not against the police department, but we are against police who commit misconduct (and those who help cover it up).

No wonder they’re suing his ass.

We have an update in the Los Angeles Police Department’s version of the Game of Thrones or as I like to refer to it— the LAPD’s Vatican Shuffle.

On Tuesday, Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck promoted Captain Ed Prokop to the rank of Commander. I know, I know.
Screen Shot 2016-05-25 at 10.04.41 AM

 

It’s no secret among insiders in the Department that Prokop is a favorite of Beck’s and that Beck is supposed to be grooming him for higher office. The promotion of Prokop to Commander has kept my phone ringing with angry officers, detectives, sergeants, lieutenants and even Captains who are in utter disbelief. Believe it.

Interesting timing too with the return to the Department of Beck’s former Chief of Staff and Prokop’s former boss and sponsor Rick Jacobs. That part.

As I told you before, it is widely believed that when Beck retires he wants to make sure that the people he knows and trusts are in a position to carry on the rich tradition of the Los Angeles Police Department—with the promotion of Prokop to Commander one can only hope and assume that time is coming very soon. I’ll also note that Prokop’s promotion also follows another one of Beck’s rich traditions of the LAPD, white and male. I think Prokop makes the fifth one this year. I’m just saying–noted and noticed.

But back to Edward J. Prokop who was recently outed by me and his own testimony for his role in the theft of thousands of dollars from a non-profit organization. A theft that resulted in a lawsuit that the City hurried up and settled in late January to try and avoid embarrassment. A lawsuit that caused the City’s Inspector General Alex Bustamante to send an email over to the 10th floor inquiring as to what the hell happened but more importantly how was it able to happen.

Prokop Settlement 1

Click image to read and download entire settlement agreement

Again, as I have pointed out numerous times, it’s so important to pay attention to who is getting promoted to leadership positions in the LAPD. And here’s a perfect example of why. Grab some popcorn, red vines and get into a comfortable reading position.

When last we spoke about the Newtongate scandal, I described in great detail how then a Captain Ed Prokop replaced then Captain Jorge Rodriguez who had been demoted and shipped off to Foothill for his alleged participation in Hoopesgate otherwise known as that little scandal involving Beck’s daughter. Yep, that one.

When Prokop replaced Rodriguez at Newton as the Commanding Officer one of the first things he did was set about to take apart his predecessor’s pet projects, this would include the Newton Division’s Police Activities Leagues also known as PAL.

For those who don’t know, PALs are 501c3 nonprofit organizations that work with the LAPD and usually focus specifically on children in a particular area by providing them with structured activities as well as safe spaces to play with friendly officers watching over.

As a nonprofit, the Newton PAL raised money to give to the Newton Division for specific projects and events. But most important, they are a separate independent organization from the LAPD with their own governing board. It is not common practice for the captain of the division that is associated with a particular PAL to be a member of the board of directors.

At the time we first spoke of Newton’s PAL we detailed for you how one of the first things Prokop did when he replaced Rodriguez was demand to be on the Newton PAL board and a signer on the group’s bank account. The group said no and explained that was a highly unusual request and that his predecessor was never on the board or on the bank account so why should he be. Prokop in turn had his boss Deputy Chief Jose Perez (via his adjutant Lieutenant Elaine Morales now Captain I Elaine Morales) send an email demanding that Prokop be added to the bank account as a signer.

This would be the beginning of a fraught relationship with the all-volunteer PAL board that would eventually culminate with the illegal removal of funds from their bank account by sworn officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.

There was no prior issue with PAL’s bookkeeping, which was even admitted to by the LAPD in one of the emails flying back and forth about this. But when the group still refused to comply with giving Prokop access to the organization’s funds, Deputy Chief Perez called an emergency meeting and told the board to “stand down” until further notice and that the Newton PAL board was going to be reconfigured and that the current members of the board could reapply to be on the board.

This was followed by letter of disassociation but only after the board refused to resign on his orders that they do so.

For the record, Perez was not a member of the board of the Newton PAL, he was just a member of the advisory board who until then according to board member had never had a problem with any of the work that they had done on behalf of the station or the money they’d raised. Legally Perez didn’t have the authority to make the board comply with his orders because it wasn’t his organization. PALs are 501c3 organizations that are separate from the LAPD. The Department is a beneficiary of the work that they do but they are official members of the LAPD.

Fast forward to November 2013 when the Newton PAL board, which had not dissolved and was still operating just not with Newton Division as a partner, voted to use $6,000 of the money it had raised on holiday gifts for local community children in Southeast Los Angeles through projects sponsored by 9th District Councilmember Curren D. Price, Police Commissioner Sandra Figueroa, the nonprofit L.A.U.R.A., and the LAPD’s 77th Street station. It wasn’t until after all of the gifts were purchased that the Newton PAL was made aware by their bank Wells Fargo that the money that they thought they had was no longer in their account.

The money was no longer there because Officer Darius Trugman (now Sergeant) and Officer John Tuason who were assigned to Newton Division at the time, had the money transferred from their account into an account for the newly created LAPD Newton PAAL or Police Athletic and Activities League.

They traveled 13.2 miles from Newton to Wells Fargo in Beverly Hills–passing up at least 12 other Wells Fargo banks along the way to take that money. Why? Because as you will soon read, Trugman had a previous relationship with the bank’s manager. All in all $8,708.09 was removed from the Newton PAL’s bank account on November 7, 2013 by two LAPD police officers using a letter on LAPD letterhead with Chief Charlie Beck’s name on it.

But wait—there’s more. There’s always more where Prokop is concerned.

Before the carefully orchestrated and deliberate theft of almost $9,000 from the Newton PAL bank account was carried out $10,000 went missing. The Wetlands Park (now known as the Jan Perry Wetlands Park) is situated on an old MTA bus yard at the intersection of Slauson and Compton Avenues. It is an urban oasis, education center and passive recreational nature center in the heart of South Los Angeles. I have been there quite a few times and I love it.

Well back in January 2013 the Newton PAL was kicking off a capital campaign to raise funds for the retrofitting of one of the buildings on the property of the Wetlands to be used as an office for the group. The Newton PAL, along with the LAPD, City of Los Angeles, and Parks and Recreation were all a part of the campaign’s kickoff. Then Newton Captain Rodriguez was able to get one of his contacts at State Farm to donate $10,000 to the campaign. Unfortunately the kickoff event was postponed several times because of rain and the Christopher Dorner situation. When the check from State Farm was ready to be presented to the Newton PAL, Rodriguez had just been shipped off to Foothill Division courtesy of Hoopesgate and you know who had become the commanding officer over Newton.

Below is an email from one of the Newton PAL board members announcing that State Farm wanted to present the group with the $10,000 check and Prokop’s response.

Going back to when Perez signed that disassociation letter to the Newton PAL on May 10, 2013, the group still didn’t have the $10,000 check from Prokop. At one point Prokop was supposed to bring the check to City Hall when the group was being presented with commendations but never did.

Then there’s the issue of the 20 laptops from USC that were donated to the Newton PAL that were never turned over to the board after the Department separated from them.

Screen Shot 2016-01-30 at 7.32.30 PM

And while I’d like to say that was the extent of the thievery that took place, it wasn’t. Checks worth thousands of dollars that were donated to the Newton PAL also went missing.

Now all of this resulted in a lawsuit. A lawsuit that was recently settled. The settlement comes courtesy of none other than Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer who seemingly hasn’t met a lawsuit against the City he didn’t settle except for the ones filed by Blacks—and that would include Black attorneys, civilians, firefighters and police officers. But I digress.

Settlements oftentimes shield the City from having damaging information come out in court and eventually to the public. Settlements often occur as the result of the city attorney’s office coming to the realization that they will not be able to win in court.

After looking over the testimony given in depositions under oath related to this case, it’s fair to say it was combination of the two.

So let’s take a closer look at some of the testimony given under oath by Deputy Chief Jose Perez, Captain Ed Prokop, Officer Darius Trugman and Officer Dan Reedy.

On the subject of where Captain Prokop got the idea that he should be running the Newton PAL:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Can you tell me where you formed an idea of how the process should be?

CITY ATTORNEY: Calls for improper opinion. You can answer the question if you know.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I can ask it another way.

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: When did I have an opinion?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you want me to ask it another way?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: No. I would imagine going through my masters program, taking some budgeting classes, I would imagine that’s when I kind of at first blush understood the differences in perceptions as to how non-budgetary funds and public officials and that type of issue should be handled would be my assumption.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Well, your assumption is that at the time you had a memory of what you learned in your masters class?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Yeah. You’re asking me where I would have formed that opinion, and I would imagine that through that education process is where I would have learned my background for this.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did the Hollenbeck officers tell you that?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Could have.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So besides the Hollenbeck officers that may have given you an idea of how the process should have been and your education postgraduate level, any other sources where you formed an opinion of how the process should have been?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What other sources?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: I relied pretty extensively on another officer that was well versed in these issues.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who is that?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Officer Darius Trugman, T-r-u-g-m-a-n.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What leads you to believe he was well versed in these issues?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: He was referred to me I believe by Chief Perez as having a firm understanding and a grasp of a competent program, he was an ex-board member for the Hollenbeck PAL who I had just used as a reference, and he was an assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Manhattan, so I think collectively all of those things, I trusted his insight and guidance on these types of issues.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Darius Trugman was an attorney in Manhattan?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: U.S. Attorney.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Is that different than a regular attorney?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: It’s a United States Attorney. I would
 imagine there’s some form of swearing in that’s a
 little different.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. So your understanding is he was a U.S. Attorney in the State of New York?


CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Yes.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Besides your knowledge that he was an
 attorney in New York and what Deputy Chief Perez told you, what else made you think that Darius
 Trugman was well versed in these situations?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: I think that’s sufficient.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ever talk to Officer Trugman
 about his experience?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, overbroad as to time. You can answer the question.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: In or about the beginning half of 2013,
 did you ever have a conversation with Officer
 Trugman about his experience with nonprofits and police interaction?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And did you also have conversations with Officer Trugman about the concerns you had about PAL?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: I did.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And what was his assignment at Newton
 Division in or around, say, April 2013?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: He was brought in to correct this issue.
 He was brought in from Rampart Division to Newton Division to specifically look at, address and give
 me solid guidance to move forward with this
 program.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: He was brought in to correct the PAL
 issue?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: When was that, when was he brought in?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Somewhere around this time frame, so
 January, February of 2013.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ask for him?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: I did.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And who has the ability to reassign him?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: Chief Perez.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ask Chief Perez to reassign him
 to you?

CAPTAIN PROPKOP: I did, yes.

On the subject of whether or not Officer Darius Trugman was a United States Attorney in New York:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Were you ever licensed as an attorney in New York?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I was not.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Have you ever represented yourself as an attorney in New York?


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Have I ever…

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Have you ever told anyone you were a
 lawyer in New York?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No.

On the subject of how Officer Darius Trugman came to be at Newton Division:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What brought you to Newton?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for
 speculation. You can answer if you know.
 

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: There was a career
 opportunity, change in career path.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You were assigned there; right?


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Not always.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: When did you first get assigned there?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: March 2013.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. And how did that come about, did you ask to be transferred there, or were you told that that’s your new assignment?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No, a supervisor of mine approached me with a job opportunity at Newton and wanted to know if I would be interested in it.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who was the person that approached you?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: His name is Lieutenant Joe Vigueras,
 V-i-g-u-e-r-a-s.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What job opportunity did he talk to you
 about?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Working as the complaint coordinator.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Complaints about PAL?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Complaints about any personnel within Newton.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So citizen complaints, stuff like that?


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Everything. Citizen complaints, other
 employees.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ever have the understanding that
 you were assigned to Newton Division to help what was going on with PAL at that time?


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No, that wasn’t the —

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, speculation, lack of foundation. You can answer if you know.

THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don’t think that
 was the premise in bringing me over.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. At one point did you become
 involved in what was becoming, maybe we can call it, a strained relationship with my clients?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And how soon after you went to Newton
 Division did you start in that interaction?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Immediately.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.  And why? Why did you immediately become involved in that?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for
 speculation, lack of foundation.  Answer the
 question if you know.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yeah. Captain Prokop had approached me that he was becoming the area
 commanding officer having been promoted from being the patrol commanding officer.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: And that there were certain things under
 his command that he lacked some familiarity with,
 namely, charitable organizations running under,
 you know, what he was responsible for, and what, you know, what kind of things he needed to be
 informed on.

On the subject of LAPD having control over the Newton PAL according to Captain Prokop:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So did you believe that the LAPD had the authority of dictating the organizational makeup of PAL?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for
 legal conclusion, improper opinion. You can
 answer if you know.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I just want your belief, not an opinion.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: And a belief — do I believe that the
 organization that represents or whose name is on an independent 501(c)(3) should have a say-so in the day-to-day operations and oversight of the
 program?  My belief as an LAPD captain is yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And I don’t think you said it the way I
 said it, and you may have said it better than I
 did, but I’ll try to say it my way.
 Do you believe that the LAPD has the
 authority to dictate the organizational structure
 of the 501(c)(3) corporation that is my client?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for legal conclusion, improper opinion. You can
 answer the question if you understand and know.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I understand. In my
 opinion I would say yes because we are in
 partnership, and ultimately it’s the Los Angeles Police Department that would be held accountable or any issues that arose, so yes, I do believe that.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Why do you think the LAPD would be
 ultimately responsible?

CITY ATTORNEY: Same objection, calls for legal conclusion, improper opinion, but you
 can answer.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Again, it’s an opinion, and I thought I told you that, you know, the first two
 words in there is ours. The LAPD Newton, that
 belongs to us.

On the subject of Captain Prokop’s vague memory throughout the deposition as it relates to the names of the officers he spoke to at Hollenbeck who he repeatedly testified advised him:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Oh, I see. And I’m assuming Officer
 Trugman helped you?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Anyone else help you besides Officer
 Trugman?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Chief Perez.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Anyone else?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Commander Sherman.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Anyone else?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: A couple of those officers from Hollenbeck PAL that I mentioned.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Whose names you don’t remember?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: How sure are you that they were
 Hollenbeck officers?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I know that for sure.

On the subject of the money being taken from the Wells Fargo Bank account:

CAPTAIN ED PROKOP

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you know that there’s an allegation by
 my client that money was taken out of their bank
 account by the LAPD?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And do you understand that they’re only alleging it happened once, that the money was taken out once?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And do you have an understanding that it happened in or about November 2013?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

CITY ATTORNEY: You’re referring to the allegation?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Yeah, the allegation that that one incident happened November 2013.
 Right?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Okay. As written, yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And do you know how it was that that
 money was taken out of that account at that time?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation as to even if
 money was taken out at all. You can answer the question if you understand and you know.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I think you’d be — as far as the dynamics of how it occurred, you’re
 probably better served getting the details from
 Officer Trugman.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I want to know what you know about it. If you don’t know anything about it, just tell me you don’t know anything about it.


CAPTAIN PROKOP: What I know is that a letter of
 disassociation was generated on behalf of the
 Police Department. I know that a letter was
 authored in support of some form of transaction
 between Wells Fargo from separate accounts, from the new PAAL and the old PAL, and that money was  transferred from, I believe, the old PAL to the
 new PAAL.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: And then I was also made aware that that
 money was apparently held by Wells Fargo and then returned to the old PAL is my understanding of how that occurred or timeline.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What is your understanding of Officer
 Trugman’s involvement in that incident?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection as to
 “incident,” whether you’re referring to the
 allegation or something more. You can answer the question.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I’m not putting words in your mouth. You
 just told me what you understood, and you
 mentioned Trugman’s name before; right?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Right.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So I just want to know what you know his
 involvement was in what you just testified about?


CAPTAIN PROKOP: He was a board member of the new PAAL and acting in course and scope of that authority when this occurred.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Was anyone with him, if you know?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t know. I don’t know, no.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And did you in any way authorize that?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You know who Officer Reedy is?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Reedy, Dan Reedy, yes. I actually just
 saw him today.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Right. Did you ever have a meeting at
 Newton Division Station where you announced that you were going to freeze PAL’s monies?

CITY ATTORNEY: Overbroad as to time, vague, but if you know, you can answer.

CAPTAIN PROKOP:. I had many meetings with
 the folks that worked for me keeping them up to
 speed with what occurred. Did I freeze money, no, but what I ordered is that no one is going to
 spend any money from this account until I get a
 comfort level and an understanding of the process.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you use words to the effect that you have the authority to freeze the account?


CAPTAIN PROKOP: I could have. I might have. I don’t
 remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you use words to the effect that
 Deputy Chief Perez said you had the authority to do something like that?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I could have. I mean, there was no
 question that I informed my folks that I did have
 discussion and acting in concert with my bureau
 chief, yes.

OFFICER DAN REEDY

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Did you ever come to the understanding that Captain Prokop had concerns with the way the PAL was being run?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Yes.

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, vague as to what qualifies as a concern. You answered the question.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: How did you come to that understanding?

CITY ATTORNEY: If you understand the question.

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Oh, I was waiting for you to object. He called a squad meeting with all the SLOs and we all went in his office, and he flat out told us he was going to seize the funds, he was going to change the board, and he could do whatever he wants because Chief Perez told him he could do whatever he wants.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So I’m assuming this was in April after you came back?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Correct.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So to tie that loose end, he was a Captain III when he held the squad meeting?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Correct.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And I’m using the word “squad meeting” because you did, but was it just the SLO officers?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

OFFICER DAN REEDY: I misspoke. It was the Senior Lead Officers, it was a couple of the PAL officers that are working PAL that work with the young people, and it was — there were two supervisors in there, and that’s about it.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

OFFICER DAN REEDY: But it was the Community Relations Office, majority of us at the Community Relations, which is all the titles, the YSOs which is the Youth Service Officers, and the Senior Lead Officers altogether.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. And this was in April 2013; right?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Approximately, yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: This meeting was in April 2013; correct?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Correct.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Thank you. I repeat things so there’s a clear record, not because I didn’t hear you or I’m trying to beat you. So what I wanted to figure out was in this particular April 2013 meeting, did you hear from Captain Prokop why he felt that he could do these things?Because I know what he said; right?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, vague as to what “he could do these things” means.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I know what he said. I know he said words to the effect, the gist and substance are, I can take the funds, I’m going to change the board, and Deputy Chief Perez said I can do this; right?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Correct.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did he say anything else to explain why he was saying these things?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Well, first he said he wasn’t happy with the board the way the board was being ran, and then he said I can do whatever I want because it’s my division and Captain Perez says I can do whatever I want.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Captain Prokop said Captain Prokop was unhappy; right?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Prokop said he didn’t like the board. He wanted to change the board.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ever come to the understanding during that meeting that what Captain Prokop was saying concerns were, were they Deputy Chief Perez’s concerns or his own concerns?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Prokop made a statement that he did have a conversation with Deputy Chief Perez.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did he elaborate on that conversation with Deputy Chief Perez during this meeting?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: He didn’t elaborate about what they spoke about. He just elaborated that he can do whatever he wants.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Did anyone react to that?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: I did.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And what did you say?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: I asked him if he was crazy because he was talking about freezing funds. We have a golf tournament assigned in it probably would have been May. They used my country club, they had monies that they still owed them, and he was going to freeze the assets, and he told me not the worry about the golf tournament because I’m not putting it on, but I’m using my people, you know, my country club, I’m using my friends, my connections.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Right. And did Captain Prokop respond to you when you said this?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: “I can do whatever I want, and that’s what I’m going to do. I’m the captain of this division.”

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And did you follow-up with anything else when he responded to you in that way?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: I wanted to.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

OFFICER DAN REEDY: But no.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You thought — okay. Did anyone else say anything besides you and Captain Prokop?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Actually no.  I don’t think my peers understood what the repercussions of Prokop’s actions. I know a little bit about money, okay, how things work, and I don’t — they didn’t understand the repercussions, that he was telling us basically that the golf tournament is doomed.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ever cause money from my client’s Wells Fargo account to be transferred over to the new PAAL’s account?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, lack of
 foundation, calls for speculation as to whether
 money was transferred and to who caused it, but you can answer the question if you know.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: So just to clarify, the use
 of the word “caused”

CITY ATTORNEY: If you don’t understand, you can ask him your question.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I’m not too proud.


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Okay. So the use of the word “caused,”
are you asking me if I played a role in — I mean,
 it’s semantics here, but taking the money, or
approaching Wells Fargo to

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: To what?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Discuss the money or

CITY ATTORNEY: Are you asking for
 clarification of the question?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay, you can ask me that.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: So when you say “caused the money to be transferred

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You want to know what I mean?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. I mean did you start a process by which money was taken out of my client’s account and transferred into the new PAAL’s account?

CITY ATTORNEY: Same objection.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I want to talk about that. Did you walk
 into a Wells Fargo branch to do that?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Which branch did you walk into?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Beverly Hills.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And why did you pick that branch?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Because I had dealings with employees there that had explained the process to me, prior relationships.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What process did you need explained?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: The process of attempting to transfer
 money from one charitable organization to
 another —

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who were those people?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: — charitable organization.
 I don’t know her last name, but Farzaneh.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you know how to spell her name?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I’ll try my best. I believe it’s
 F-a-r-z-a-n-e-h.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And you don’t know her last name;
 correct?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I don’t.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Anyone else?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: And then Omid Noori.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And prior to this particular interaction,
 you had already had previous interactions with
 them?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And was that in your capacity as an LAPD officer?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What was that capacity? In what capacity did you approach them before?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Had I dealt with them unrelated to this
 subject before?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Yes. It seems like you had a
 relationship with them in a business relationship?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes, yes, I did.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I just want to know where that’s from if
 it’s not from the point of view of an LAPD
 officer?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No, through business.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Your own personal business?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you own a business?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I do.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: How many businesses?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: One.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So your memory is Farzaneh and Omid had a conversation with you or gave you information about how to move money from one charitable organization to another; correct?


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Correct.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And tell me the gist and substance of
 what they told you.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Can I ask you — basically it was after
 we received our orders. I mean, can I speak
 freely and ask you the question, like what I need to know, if I can answer it?

CITY ATTORNEY: Well, I don’t understand your question. To the extent — he’s asking you
 if you had conversations, the gist of your
 conversations that you disclosed with Omid and with Farzaneh.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Right.

CITY ATTORNEY: And maybe it would
 help — do you need clarification as to when he’s
 talking about?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Well, so I’m just wanting
 to clarify that these conversations took place
 once we received our orders from the deputy chief. So I went into the bank
 after the — sometime after the disassociation
 letter was issued by Chief Perez, and so I went into the bank to inquire as to what process the
 bank had in place to transfer funds from the old PAL account into the new PAAL account.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And what did they tell you?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: They told me that I had to produce
 certain documents that supported the request, and I can’t remember each of the documents, but I
 remember some of them, some of which were the disassociation letter, Articles of Incorporation
 for the new PAAL, and then the new tax stuff, or I
 shouldn’t say “new tax stuff,” but tax stuff for
 the new PAAL.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Any other documents besides the
 disassociation letter, the Articles of
 Incorporation for the new PAAL and the tax
 documents for the new PAAL?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: There could have been, but these are the
 ones that I remember offhand.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you talk to anyone else whether at
 Wells Fargo or outside of Wells Fargo besides
 Farzaneh and Omid about how to transfer money from one charitable organization to another?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, overbroad,
 but you can answer the question.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No, I didn’t.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And did you give those documents to
 Farzaneh or Omid or both?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I think Farzaneh was the main point of
 contact with that.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you know what her position was at
 Wells Fargo?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I don’t offhand.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you know what Omid’s position was at Wells Fargo?


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Omid at the time was the branch manager.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Was the branch manager?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: He was at the time.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So Farzaneh was to your memory a
 subordinate or superior to Omid?


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Subordinate.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did anyone from the LAPD tell you to go
 transfer those funds?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Was there a board meeting for the new
 PAAL where transferring of funds was discussed?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, overbroad as to time. Answer if you understand.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: We discussed it amongst the board members. I don’t know if it was during the course of a formal board meeting or not.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who are the board members that you
 discussed it with?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: It was at a meeting, and I’m not sure who
 was present at that meeting. I remember Jaleh
 Gularte.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Can you spell the name, please?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I believe J-a-l-e-h, and last name
 G-u-l-a-r-t-e.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Thank you. Who else?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Who else was there? Helen Wilkins.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: How do you spell Ms. Wilkins’ name, last name?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Common spelling, W-i-l-k-i-n-s.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Oh, Wilkins, sorry.
 Anyone else?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: The last few I’m not sure if they were at that meeting or not.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who were those that you —

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Liz Greenwood.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: And Stephen, with a p-h, Factor.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: P-h-a-f?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No, instead of Steven with a v, Stephen with a p-h Factor.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Oh, thank you.
 Were all of these LAPD officers?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: None of them are.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Were you the only LAPD officer that was on the board?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: On the board, yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did Captain Prokop have any seat on the board?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did he have a vote as if he were a board
 member as to what the new PAAL could do or not do? 

CITY ATTORNEY: Vague as to “vote.” You can answer the question if you understand.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No, I don’t believe it’s
 written or the bylaws are written that the CEO has
 a vote, but under the new PAAL they are the
 ultimate authority in, you know, issues that may
 arise outside of the board’s scope.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What is your understanding of John
 Tuason’s involvement in this transfer of funds?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I don’t know. Tuason was at the bank
 with me.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Is he an officer of the new PAAL?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.  Why didn’t you sign this then?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: He’s a police officer, and his primary
 function was as the executive director to PAL. So he kept all the bookkeeping. The board does not keep the books and transfer the funds. It merely acts as an agent to help facilitate that,
 budget-wise, deposits. So you won’t see any
 deposits with my writing. You won’t see any withdrawals with my writing. Everything would
 have been done and continues to be done by the
 LAPD officers who are assigned to PAL by their
 respective commanding officer.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So did John Tuason cause the transfer of
 funds or you did?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for
 improper opinion and calls for speculation, lacks
 foundation as to whether there was a transfer of
 funds caused. You can answer the question if you know and understand.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: We went in there together
 to the bank and we sat with Farzaneh and Omid, and based on the prior conversations with them,
 facilitated the documents that they requested for
 the bank to make a decision as to whether or not to transfer those funds. So, I mean, each of us
 played a role in that visit to the bank.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: The visit to the bank that caused the transfer? I mean, it says “transfer”; right?

CITY ATTORNEY: Same objection as to
 whether a transfer was ever consummated, calls for speculation, lack of foundation. You can answer
 f you know.


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I see it does say
 “transfer.”

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I’m not using “transfer” to put words in
 your mouth. It’s just what the bank is calling it. It’s transferred from one account to the
 other. And I just want to know that the two of
 you caused the transfer?

CITY ATTORNEY: Same objection. Where does it say “transfer”?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: It’s in the paragraph of
 handwritten.

CITY ATTORNEY: Oh.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Handwritten writing.
 That’s my English for today So I’ll repeat my question. I think
 you’ve said this implicitly, but I don’t want to
 put words in your mouth. Did you and Officer
 Tuason have an equal part in causing the transfer of funds?

CITY ATTORNEY: Same objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation, one, whether
 a transfer of funds was consummated, and what the percentage of a particular person’s role might have been in that. Answer the question if you
 know, and vague.
 Just what you understand.


OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: Yeah, we were each there, and we each had a role to play. He as a PAL officer was with me
 at that meeting.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: When you went into the bank, what hat
 were you wearing?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for
 legal conclusion, improper opinion, vague. You
 can answer the question if you understand and you know.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I don’t remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Well, not what hat, what physical hat. I
 guess what I’m asking, and I apologize for being
 whatever I was being, did you go in as a police
 officer, or as the president of the new PAAL?

CITY ATTORNEY: Same objection. You can answer if you know and understand.

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I couldn’t draw the
 distinction.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Did you go in with a uniform?
 Were you in uniform when you went in?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I don’t remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Was Officer Tuason in uniform?

OFFICER DARIUS TRUGMAN: I don’t think so.

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Did you become aware that someone from the new Newton PAAL went to the Wells Fargo Bank to have the old Newton PAL money transferred to the new Newton PAAL account?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I knew somebody went to the bank relative
to the money. I didn’t know that that’s what they 
were attempting to do.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who told you that?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I think Ed Prokop gave me a phone call to
tell me that this had happened.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So it had already happened; right?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: Correct.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What did Captain Prokop tell you?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I believe what he said was unbeknownst to him, I believe it was Darius Trugman who went out there, and Wells Fargo, I believe it is, said that
 they had a question over the ability to do that,
so that they put a freeze on the money, and I
 said, “Ed, let them keep the money. I’m just
 walking away from it. I don’t care anything about
 that money.” And he said, “Yeah.” He agreed. He goes, “That’s what we’re going to do,” and he was advising me. I said, “Okay. Well, you know,
 we’re already moving forward. I don’t care
 anything about that money. That’s up to Tammy and them to figure out what they’re going to do with
 it,” everything I’ve already told you before.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did Captain Prokop tell you that he had
 told Trugman not to mess with the money from the old PAL?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I’m not sure. He may have. I’m not 
really sure.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did Trugman talk to you at all about the
 money situation that we’ve been talking about, did you ever have a conversation with Trugman about what happened?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: No.

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, vague. You answered the question.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: After Prokop told you that Trugman had
 went to the bank, was there another conversation about the old PAL’s money?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, vague,
 overbroad.

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: About?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: About anything related to that account.
 Did you get any updates, were you told what had happened after the conversation with Captain
 Prokop?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, vague, overbroad compound.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I’m giving you examples obviously, but
 that’s what I’m trying to —

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: The only next conversation I recall is
 that Tammy had went to get some of the money out or wrote a check, and the Wells Fargo had frozen
 the money until they could establish who had the
 money, and at that point I can’t remember who I
 spoke with, but as soon as they gave me the
 notification, I said we’re not holding onto that
 money. We said — you know, I think the term I
 used was we pay Pontius Pilate with that money. We wash our hands of that money. We don’t have a hold on that money.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Was Captain Prokop still the captain over
 at Newton when the second conversation occurred that you’re referring to?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: You know, I don’t remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: How did it come up, this second
 conversation about the money that you just
 described to me, how did it come up?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: Somebody called me.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. And what did they tell you? What
 did they tell you other than that Tammy had tried to write a check and the money was frozen?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: That was it.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did they talk to you about what should be done next?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I just said, “Hey, let Wells Fargo know
we’re not laying any claim to any of that money.
 We never laid any claim to that money. That’s the old PAL’s money, and we really don’t care about 9 it.”

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So correct me if I’m wrong, but did you
 tell the person on the phone to tell Wells Fargo that it’s not old Newton PAL’s money?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I told them — I didn’t say Wells Fargo,
14 but I just said, “Tell them,” referring to whoever he had to tell or whoever that was involved in
 this, we’re, you know, we’re done with that money. We were done with that money.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. So you told whoever it was that
 you spoke to that they needed to tell them, “them” being probably the bank, that it wasn’t old Newton PAL’s money; correct?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, misstates testimony.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Well, who is “them”?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: “Them” being the bank, whoever, but I think you said old, new, so…
 We were done with the money. Whoever wanted it, that that was that 501 — that was old
Newton PAL’s money.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: But you specifically remember telling the person who you spoke to that they needed to tell them that it was not new PAAL’s money?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: Right.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. So what happens next?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: What do you mean?

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Well, what’s the thing that happens with regard to this money issue?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, overbroad, calls for a narrative, vague.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: We’re not in trial, so you can do
 narratives.

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I don’t know anything else about it until
 it pops up on Jasmyne’s blog.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So then the last thing that you did in
 relation to this money at the bank was order whoever it was that you told to tell them that it’s not new Newton PAAL’s money; correct?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, misstates testimony.

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: That it’s old PAL’s money.
 We have no claim — that Newton Los Angeles Police Department, we have no claim to that money. We have no interest in it, so tell them it’s not our
 money. We don’t care about it.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: That’s the last that thing you did?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: Right.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ask the person to provide you
 some type of follow-up so that you could be
 plugged in on what was going on?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Why not?

DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ: I assumed that if there was an issue, I
 would be contacted. I didn’t see anything that
 required me to be recontacted to know that we did what you told us to do.

Regarding the missing laptops:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you see that this email references
laptops?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And did you ever give them to this John person? Is John Captain Incontro?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I believe he is, yes. His name is John
 Incontro.

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, lack of
 foundation as to whether Captain Prokop ever had possession of laptops.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you ever have possession of the
 laptops?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: So again, you’ve got to — did I
 physically as a person have control of the
 laptops, no. But I was the commanding officer in charge of a program that was using these laptops, so yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: When did the laptops come in?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I have no idea.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: When did you find out that they were
 there?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I believe after this email.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So you weren’t aware of the existence of
laptops in Newton Area’s possession until this
email?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I mean, that’s not fair. I mean, we’ve
had numerous equipment and things that belong to the program. Where they came from prior to me coming there, I was not aware.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: But after this email at least it prompted
 the idea that these came from —

CAPTAIN PROKOP: John at USC or Chris from USC, yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Right. So what did you do after you got
 this email?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I believe I talked to one of the officers
 to find out what the request was, where are these things, do we have them, are they around.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who did you talk to?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t remember. I would imagine I
 probably talked to James Townsend or one of the officers, John Tuason. I think I talked to John
 Tuason.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And what did either of them or both of
 them tell you about these specific laptops?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: He said yes, we have them, we’ve
 installed some software, and the kids are using them.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And did you inform Ms. Santangelo of that or Captain Incontro?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I did not.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Why not?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I think because of Exhibit 3 or 2 that
you sent that says all communications going
through the bureau.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You can go to that.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I think this was after that obviously.
 It was June.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: If it’s a document that I’ve showed you,
 I’d really appreciate if you can just tell me
 which one it is. There’s one more there, too.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yeah, this one, Exhibit 2. “Lieutenant
16 Elaine Morales will be the coordinator and contact person and will handle all matters, questions,
 et cetera,” so I deferred this to her.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So you deferred the issue of the laptops to Ms. Morales?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I believe

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Lieutenant Morales, excuse me

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes, or Darius, one or the other, Darius
 Trugman.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So you had an understanding that either Officer Trugman or Lieutenant Morales was going to respond to Ms. Santangelo with her request to get the laptops back?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, misstates testimony. You can answer the question.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yeah, that’s not what I said. I said that I was aware that we have 20 laptops and that the program is using them.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Who was going to tell Tammy that?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: That was not my responsibility.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Whose responsibility was it?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: The bureau, the bureau chief who was managing the transition.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And who was that at the time?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Chief Perez.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And do you know whether or not he did
 that?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I do not know.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: When you were mentioning Tuason and
 Morales in this context of responding or finding
 out things, I was under the impression that they
 were supposed to do something to communicate with Tammy. Was I incorrect in that?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I believe you were.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Did it concern you that she may file a police report as stated here in Exhibit 4?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Why not?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: The only concern was did we have these
alleged 20 laptops, and since we had them and they were in our dominion and control and we were using them, I had no concern with a police report from the sheriff’s department.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: But it never crossed your mind that they
 may have not belonged to anyone but the old PAL?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: No. My understanding is they were given to the kids, to the program, and the kids were
 using them, so I didn’t give it much more
 attention than that.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Fair enough. What is your knowledge of
 how they got to the kids?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t know. The old — from the
discussions with Tuason that took place
 momentarily, someone from the old board, and I’m assuming Chris because it’s listed here, had some connection, they were donated to the program, and they were in use and accounted for. My only
 concern was is this allegation handled, are these accounted for. The answer was yes. I went on to other things.

On the issue of the missing $10,000 State Farm check:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: All right. So do you have a memory of a 10,000 check from State Farm coming in?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And do you have a memory of to whom that check was made out to?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Were you the Captain III, the Acting
Captain III, as that $10,000 check was delivered?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What happened to that check?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: What happened to that check?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, lack of
 foundation, speculation. You can answer if you know.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I believe we held it, meaning we did not deposit it, and my
 understanding is one of the — I forget the lady.
 I wish I knew her name. The lady that replaced the donor from State Farm was asked, I believe, to recreate the check in the new Newton PAAL name versus the old one. I believe that was how it was disposed.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You said, “We didn’t deposit it.” Who
 else besides you didn’t deposit it?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: We as the police department.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did anyone besides you interact with State Farm in order to get the new check?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for
speculation, lack of foundation, overbroad, but
you can answer the question if you know.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t know.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Did you interact with State Farm to get
the new check?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And when did you receive this check?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: This initial check?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Was it before or after LAPD disassociated itself from the old PAL?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I don’t remember.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you have a memory of the initial PAL check being written out to my client, the old PAL?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: It could have been.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And in that situation why didn’t you
 forward it to them

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Well, I think that we were holding onto
 all checks that were coming in until I got a
 comfort level of the issues we described in the last hour.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What authority did you have to withhold
checks that were made out to my client?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, calls for
opinion, improper opinion. You can answer the
question if you know.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Again, the opinion is, and
I think I discussed it, that the LAPD is in
 partnership and essentially in control of where
 this organization goes with our name and what they do.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Were you on the board?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: No.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You were in any way able to dictate how
 PAL’s inner organization worked?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I believe that’s part of the
 dysfunctional relationship that you brought up
 earlier, yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I never called it dysfunctional.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: You said there was some strain with
 regards to the interactions of the board and the
 police department.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Right, but the board is separate from the
 police department, right, we agree to that?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: That board was, yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. So what dysfunction within the
 board? And if that’s not what you meant, let me
know. Was there dysfunction on the board within
itself?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: No, the dysfunction was lack of
communication and accountability with LAPD with all those issues I described.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Do you have a memory of any other checks being withheld?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Specifically, no, but I know that we
 did, yes.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And do you have a memory of whether those checks were made out to PAL?

CAPTAIN PROKOP: I’m sure they were.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: And again, just so that I cover my base,
 bases, you at that time, or maybe you still have
 it now, you were of the opinion you had the
 authority to withhold those checks made out to my client because of what you felt was a dysfunction between the PAL and LAPD; correct?

CITY ATTORNEY: Objection,
 mischaracterizes testimony and calls for improper opinion and legal conclusion, but you can answer the question.

CAPTAIN PROKOP: Absolutely.

Below is a copy of the deposit slip signed by Officer John Tuason while with Officer Darius Trugman at the Beverly Hills Wells Fargo branch.  This is the slip that was used to take the money out of the Newton PAL account and put into the Newton PAAL account that previous testimony has confirmed Captain Ed Prokop was going to do.  I believe the words used in the testimony were “seize the funds.” The only thing I blacked out were the routing and account numbers and if you read it closely you will see the reference to the disassociation letter that was used to orchestrate all of this.

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Oh, I was waiting for you to object. He called a squad meeting with all the SLOs and we all went in his office, and he flat out told us he was going to seize the funds, he was going to change the board, and he could do whatever he wants because Chief Perez told him he could do whatever he wants.

Below the deposit slip is even more testimony under oath from Officer Darius Trugman related to said deposit slip. I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the part you should be most concerned about.

Wells Fargo Bank withdrawal slip showing deposit of funds into PAAL account November 7, 2013.

Wells Fargo Bank withdrawal slip showing deposit of funds into PAAL account November 7, 2013.

329984 Trugman.Officer Darius 052615.miniprint

Officer Darius Trugman’s testimony under oath

I could go on but I won’t. But if you have about 200 sheets of blank paper lying around inside of a printer and some free time, I highly suggest that you print out each and every one of their depositions. Just from the snippets that I posted above gives you a clear understanding of why the City Attorney is settling this case. And let’s talk about that for a moment.

Crimes were committed. Crimes that if committed by civilians, criminal charges would most certainly be imminent. The City Attorney would not be trying to strike a deal with the victim on our behalf to hide what happened and protect the suspects. But that’s exactly what is happening with this situation. City Attorney Mike Feuer is aiding and abetting the cover-up of a litany of crimes committed by sworn officers of the Los Angeles Police Department.

These crimes I speak of fall under the category of felony and as we all know Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey files felony charges in Los Angeles. And while Chief Beck is busy bending Lacey’s ear on his desire to see charges filed against certain officers, let me tell you—Beck knew all about this and my guess is that he didn’t pick up the phone to call Lacey on this. Let me help them both out—grand theft, fraud and conspiracy to name a few are the felonies that have been committed in this caper and all under the color of authority. There is no way on Earth Captain Prokop should ever be promoting to the position of Commander. In fact, from where I sit he, right along with Perez and Trugman need to be headed to a Board of Rights hearing to be fired.

In fact if I were to go by the LAPD’s on manual I’d say internal charges should look a little something like this:

  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee inappropriately used a city owned vehicle.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee testified at civil lawsuit deposition stated false and misleading statements.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee knowingly testified at civil lawsuit deposition and stated false and misleading statements.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee repeatedly and knowingly testified at civil lawsuit deposition and stated false and misleading statements.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee knowingly committed fraud.
  •  On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee knowingly committed fraud and attempted to hide the facts.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee knowingly conspired to commit fraud.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee conducted personal business while on duty.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] and outside the city limits employee conducted personal business without permission.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee falsified documents.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee inaccurately signed legal documents.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee falsified department document.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee caused to be improperly compensated for un-worked hours.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee caused embarrassment to the department.
  • On various occasions ranging from [insert date] to [insert date] employee sought and received compensation in which was he was not entitled to.

Add to that multiple counts of conduct unbecoming,  neglect of duty, dishonesty, and discourtesy–which I’m sure Sgt. Jim Parker might have a thing or two say about.  But again, I don’t work for the Department but I’d imagine I can’t be too far off here.

Beck is trying to set the table one last time before he makes his highly anticipated departure and he’s got a special seat for Prokop. The thing is, Los Angeles doesn’t need someone like Prokop leading the LAPD because he is part of the problem.

Anyone who is at the rank of Captain III and honestly believes that a former U.S. Attorney would become a LAPD officer or that the only difference between a U.S. Attorney and a regular attorney is “there’s some form of swearing in that’s a little different” clearly doesn’t have command of the good or common sense God gave him or a firm grasp on reality. Anytime you have a Captain III who really believes that because the first two words of an organization’s name are LAPD Newton that he has control over that group doesn’t need to be in a position of leadership or power. Add to that if you just count up the times Perez, Trugman, and Prokop conveniently couldn’t remember something when questioned during their depositions one might come to the conclusion that they shouldn’t even be in the business of policing if their memory is so shoddy.

I mean when civilians are being interrogated by the police and try to come with the I don’t remember, I don’t recall routine cops look at us with the side eye and that’s the same look I’m giving these fools. GTFOH with that.

This is definitely a case for the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit not to mention the City’s Ethics Commission and the Los Angeles office of the FBI’s bank robbery division. How long do you think it would take them to file charges on you or me? Exactly.

Before I get out of here, two of my favorite excerpts from Officer Dan Reedy and Deputy Chief Jose Perez’s deposition:

OFFICER DAN REEDY

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay. Can you tell me what you heard
 about that incident at that time?


OFFICER DAN REEDY: Well, the problem is that my mind keeps
 thinking about that Jasmyne lady that wrote about how that occurred. I heard that there was a
 disassociation letter written. Trugman, my
 understanding — I don’t know. This is what I
 heard from the SLOs at Newton, that Trugman went to a bank in Beverly Hills and gave the letter,
 the disassociation letter, and they removed the
 monies and put it into a different account.
 That’s all I know.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: You said you heard this from the SLOs at Newton?


OFFICER DAN REEDY: Yes.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Was it Mr. Carillo?


OFFICER DAN REEDY: I don’t recall if it was Carillo, if it
 was Madrigal, if it was Highland. I don’t recall
 which SLO it was, but it was a SLO. It was during some event, we were there, and everybody was talking about it.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: What event?


OFFICER DAN REEDY: It was something we had going on. Maybe it was something at L.A. Live they went by and they happened to know I’m there. I really don’t recall where I was when I heard that, but I have heard it also before, something about a
 disassociation letter and Trugman went to his bank, and so…

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Okay.


OFFICER DAN REEDY: Rumors go out throughout our department very quickly.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: I bet.


OFFICER DAN REEDY: So to me I just took it as — I probably
 thought it was just a big rumor.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: In your testimony earlier today you
 mentioned a Jasmyne lady. Who are you referring to?

OFFICER DAN REEDY: Jasmyne, the lady that writes the blog
 about LAPD.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you know who Jasmyne is other than being familiar with her blog?


OFFICER DAN REEDY: No.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Have you ever had any conversations with
 her?


OFFICER DAN REEDY: No.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Do you know what is the source of her
 information that’s on the blog?


OFFICER DAN REEDY: No.


DEPUTY CHIEF JOSE PEREZ

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Well, what’s the thing that happens with regard to this money issue?


CITY ATTORNEY: Objection, overbroad, calls for a narrative, vague.


PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: We’re not in trial, so you can do
 narratives.


DEPUTY JOSE PEREZ: I don’t know anything else about it until
 it pops up on Jasmyne’s blog.


 😉

REQUIRED READING…

Below are links to the complete depositions for Deputy Chief Jose Perez, Captain Ed Prokop, Officer Darius Trugman and Officer Dan Reedy as it relates to Newtongate.  Make sure that your printer is full of paper, you have a nice cup of your favorite drink and a comfy reading spot because once you start reading, you won’t want to stop.