Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Police morale suks
()
Date: February 10, 2014 12:56AM
Came across a story on how an officer got screwed by the County because the Department wanted to manipulate it as "this entire matter fell well below the standards of responsible behavior and exercise of discretion that must be expected of a Fairfax County police officer." They can say that about anything they want. The officer really did nothing wrong. But, VA is a right to work state and employees get screwed every time. There were no laws or department policies that this officer broke in 1999. The Department just made something up to get him fired.
Below is the story of an Officer fired for selling his personally owned gun, ammo given to him (since then the Dept. has a General Order saying ammo is Dept owned), to a person who the Department liked. Remember: the officer can not run a criminal record check on the person because that is illegal unless it is a criminal investigation. The person did not have a record by the way.
A former Fairfax County police officer who was fired for selling his privately owned gun.
The Washington Post, November 6, 1999, Saturday, Final Edition
Fairfax Police Sued Over Termination; Department Erred by Taking Action on Legal Gun Sale, Former Officer Says
BYLINE: Brooke A. Masters, Washington Post Staff Writer. SECTION: METRO; Pg. B04
A former Fairfax County police officer who was fired for selling his privately owned gun to a friend sued the department yesterday, alleging the termination violated his constitutional right to choose his acquaintances.
Paulo Freyesleben, with the force for 10 years, said he was told by his commander, Audrey Slyman, that he was dismissed because he sold the gun and some ammunition to "a young man who looked like a gang member," according to a four-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.
Freyesleben's conduct violated police policy and was "unbecoming" for an officer, Police Chief J. Thomas Manger ruled in April 1998, the complaint said.
The gun sale was legal and the gun buyer was not a gang member and did not have a criminal record, said Richard Gardiner, Freyesleben's attorney. He said Freyesleben befriended the young man while providing security at a McDonald's.
Lt. Amy Lubas, a Fairfax police spokeswoman, said, "We have not been notified of this lawsuit and therefore we cannot respond to it."
According to the records of the Fairfax Civil Service Commission, Freyesleben sold the 9mm Smith & Wesson to a man he had met only three or four times and knew only as "Mario." The commission also found that Freyesleben also sold him a box of ammunition issued by the Fairfax County Police Department firing range that was labeled "for law enforcement purposes only." According to the commission, Freyesleben delivered the ammunition to the buyer while on duty, in uniform and driving a police car.
In its four-page report upholding the firing, the commission ruled that "Freyesleben's handling of this entire matter fell well below the standards of responsible behavior and exercise of discretion that must be expected of a Fairfax County police officer."
Gardiner said that the ammunition was not county property and that Freyesleben had gotten to know the gun buyer before the sale. Fairfax learned about the sale when the young man talked about the transaction to another police officer.
"They're punishing him because he chose to associate with someone who looked like a gang member," Gardiner said.
*So the officer gets fired for not having expectations of behavior that the Department views a police officer should have". That is very subjective and they do not uniformly apply it.
So is it acceptable for a Korean Major to personally drive his son for years in his personally issued police car from his house to a private school way across the county. Then pick him up during his employment and drive him back home. Or keep his kid in his office while the kid overhears personal and professional conversations. All the while, County gas is being burned up in the car. Then when a complaint is made, rumor is that IA and higher ups said to "forget about it" and not do a thing. And he continues to do it. I think that is the expectation that a Command Staff officer should not have and should be disciplined. I could go on and on.
Double standards for different people. We all know it. Morale sucks.
Below is the story of an Officer fired for selling his personally owned gun, ammo given to him (since then the Dept. has a General Order saying ammo is Dept owned), to a person who the Department liked. Remember: the officer can not run a criminal record check on the person because that is illegal unless it is a criminal investigation. The person did not have a record by the way.
A former Fairfax County police officer who was fired for selling his privately owned gun.
The Washington Post, November 6, 1999, Saturday, Final Edition
Fairfax Police Sued Over Termination; Department Erred by Taking Action on Legal Gun Sale, Former Officer Says
BYLINE: Brooke A. Masters, Washington Post Staff Writer. SECTION: METRO; Pg. B04
A former Fairfax County police officer who was fired for selling his privately owned gun to a friend sued the department yesterday, alleging the termination violated his constitutional right to choose his acquaintances.
Paulo Freyesleben, with the force for 10 years, said he was told by his commander, Audrey Slyman, that he was dismissed because he sold the gun and some ammunition to "a young man who looked like a gang member," according to a four-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.
Freyesleben's conduct violated police policy and was "unbecoming" for an officer, Police Chief J. Thomas Manger ruled in April 1998, the complaint said.
The gun sale was legal and the gun buyer was not a gang member and did not have a criminal record, said Richard Gardiner, Freyesleben's attorney. He said Freyesleben befriended the young man while providing security at a McDonald's.
Lt. Amy Lubas, a Fairfax police spokeswoman, said, "We have not been notified of this lawsuit and therefore we cannot respond to it."
According to the records of the Fairfax Civil Service Commission, Freyesleben sold the 9mm Smith & Wesson to a man he had met only three or four times and knew only as "Mario." The commission also found that Freyesleben also sold him a box of ammunition issued by the Fairfax County Police Department firing range that was labeled "for law enforcement purposes only." According to the commission, Freyesleben delivered the ammunition to the buyer while on duty, in uniform and driving a police car.
In its four-page report upholding the firing, the commission ruled that "Freyesleben's handling of this entire matter fell well below the standards of responsible behavior and exercise of discretion that must be expected of a Fairfax County police officer."
Gardiner said that the ammunition was not county property and that Freyesleben had gotten to know the gun buyer before the sale. Fairfax learned about the sale when the young man talked about the transaction to another police officer.
"They're punishing him because he chose to associate with someone who looked like a gang member," Gardiner said.
*So the officer gets fired for not having expectations of behavior that the Department views a police officer should have". That is very subjective and they do not uniformly apply it.
So is it acceptable for a Korean Major to personally drive his son for years in his personally issued police car from his house to a private school way across the county. Then pick him up during his employment and drive him back home. Or keep his kid in his office while the kid overhears personal and professional conversations. All the while, County gas is being burned up in the car. Then when a complaint is made, rumor is that IA and higher ups said to "forget about it" and not do a thing. And he continues to do it. I think that is the expectation that a Command Staff officer should not have and should be disciplined. I could go on and on.
Double standards for different people. We all know it. Morale sucks.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Liberal Logic 005
()
Date: February 10, 2014 01:25AM
Leave it to FCPD to fire an officer for doing nothing illegal while bending over backwards to defends cops that murder civilians.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Party like its 1999...
()
Date: February 10, 2014 02:18AM
This story is older than this site!?!
Chief Thomas Manger went to Monkey Co in MD years ago.
Were you in a DeLorean lately?
I think this story was more about selling the dept ammo than the gun.
Marty McFly
Chief Thomas Manger went to Monkey Co in MD years ago.
Were you in a DeLorean lately?
I think this story was more about selling the dept ammo than the gun.
Marty McFly
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
tks for noticing
()
Date: February 10, 2014 07:27AM
Exactly........shows you how times have not changed in Fairfax County. Manger's little cronies are still around and doing the same things. Rohrer is now Deputy County Executive. They are two peas in a pod. Roesler seems to be Rohrer's pet.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Que?
()
Date: February 10, 2014 08:22AM
First of all, im no apologist. I really dislike most cops i meet.
However, i have no issues with the disciplinary acfion taken in this old ass article.
First, as a cop, youre not military, but youre not quitd civilian either. When it comes safety and security you need to be held to a higher standard. Selling a handgun to a private party that you know nothing about and handing over a box of rounds labeled "FCPD Only" is a completely boneheaded thing to do. That "officer" became a liability for the department as soon as thay transaction was complete.
1) The officer is still the registered owner. Somebody gets shot with the gun and they were shot with a cops gun. Even if he could prove he didnt pull the trigger hes essentially guilty of negligence.
2) That officers gun is used in a shooting. Security footage ID's this kid, his place is searched which turns up a cops gun and a box of "FCPD Ammo". Now the questions fly, FCPD policies and procedures are questioned, a shitstorm ensues. All because you didnt fire the stupid ass in the first place.
Is what he did illegal? Absolutely not. Should he have used much better judgement? Absolutely! If i placed an ad for a gun sale and a gang banger looking dude showed up i simply wouldnt make the sale.
Is his lack of brainpower worthy of being fired? If he worked a desk job or a retail position, absolutely not. As a cop, absolutsly. These people need to lead by example and hold themselvez to higher standard.
However, i have no issues with the disciplinary acfion taken in this old ass article.
First, as a cop, youre not military, but youre not quitd civilian either. When it comes safety and security you need to be held to a higher standard. Selling a handgun to a private party that you know nothing about and handing over a box of rounds labeled "FCPD Only" is a completely boneheaded thing to do. That "officer" became a liability for the department as soon as thay transaction was complete.
1) The officer is still the registered owner. Somebody gets shot with the gun and they were shot with a cops gun. Even if he could prove he didnt pull the trigger hes essentially guilty of negligence.
2) That officers gun is used in a shooting. Security footage ID's this kid, his place is searched which turns up a cops gun and a box of "FCPD Ammo". Now the questions fly, FCPD policies and procedures are questioned, a shitstorm ensues. All because you didnt fire the stupid ass in the first place.
Is what he did illegal? Absolutely not. Should he have used much better judgement? Absolutely! If i placed an ad for a gun sale and a gang banger looking dude showed up i simply wouldnt make the sale.
Is his lack of brainpower worthy of being fired? If he worked a desk job or a retail position, absolutely not. As a cop, absolutsly. These people need to lead by example and hold themselvez to higher standard.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Paulo Freyesleben's appeal
()
Date: February 10, 2014 08:24AM
Freyesleben v. County of Fairfax, et al
Virginia Eastern District Court, Case No. 1:99-cv-01656-LMB
docket://gov.uscourts.vaed.1-99-cv-01656 (What is this?)
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=555306
Paulo Freyesleben, Plaintiff
Represented by Law Offices of Dan M Peterson
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Richard E. Gardiner +1 703 352 7276 +1 703 359 0938 rgardi3717@aol.com
v.
Audrey M. Slyman, Defendant
Represented by fairfaxcounty.gov Law Firm Placeholder
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Ann Gouldin Killalea +1 703 324 2421 Ann.Killalea@fairfaxcounty.gov
County of Fairfax, Defendant
Represented by fairfaxcounty.gov Law Firm Placeholder
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Ann Gouldin Killalea +1 703 324 2421 Ann.Killalea@fairfaxcounty.gov
J. Thomas Manger, Defendant
Represented by fairfaxcounty.gov Law Firm Placeholder
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Ann Gouldin Killalea +1 703 324 2421 Ann.Killalea@fairfaxcounty.gov
Office Alexandria
Filed 11/5/1999
Jury Demand Plaintiff
Demand $600000
Nature of Suit 440 - Civil Rights: Other
Cause 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jurisdiction Federal Question
Disposition Judgment - Motion Before Trial
County Out of State
Terminated 7/21/2000
Origin 1
Reopened None
Lead Case None
Related Case
Other Court Case 00-2025[]
Def Custody Status
Flags CLOSED, JURY
-- Filed: 10/17/2001, Entered: 10/17/2001 Docket Annotation
USCA Letter: A Supreme Court order was filed on 10/1/01 denying certiorari (kjon)
33 Filed: 6/22/2001, Entered: 6/22/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: we have received notice from the supreme court that a petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in this case. (mcke)
32 Filed: 3/28/2001, Entered: 3/29/2001 USCA Judgment
JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) together with unpublished opinion decided 1/26/01 Re: [27-1] appeal. The court affirms the judgment of the District Court. (mcke)
31 Filed: 3/21/2001, Entered: 3/22/2001 USCA Order
USCA Order that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. (stas)
30 Filed: 2/8/2001, Entered: 2/9/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: the mandate in this case will not issue at the scheduled time because: a timely petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc has been filed. (mcke)
29 Filed: 1/30/2001, Entered: 1/31/2001 USCA Mandate
COPY OF Opinion of USCA re: decided 1/26/01 [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben, affirmed (mcke)
-- Filed: 8/29/2000, Entered: 8/29/2000 Certificate of Completion
Certification of completion sent to USCA re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben. Copies of certificate, docket entries and transmittal sent to parties. (jsol)
28 Filed: 8/17/2000, Entered: 8/22/2000 Appeal Transcript
TRANSCRIPT filed [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben for the date of 7/21/00 before LMB (motions) (agil)
-- Filed: 8/10/2000, Entered: 8/14/2000 USCA Case Number
USCA Case Number Re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben CASE MANAGER: Cynthia Carter. USCA NUMBER: 00-2025 (jsol)
27 Filed: 8/2/2000, Entered: 8/3/2000 Notice of Appeal
NOTICE OF APPEAL by Paulo Freyesleben of final judgment dated 7/21/00. FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 138439. Copy of notice, judgment, docket sheet & tranmsmittal sheet mailed to USCA. Copies sent to Paulo Freyesleben, County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
26 Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Judgment
JUDGMENT pursuant to the Order of this Court entered on July 21, 2000 and in accordance with FRCP 58, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of the County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman against Paulo Freyesleben Copies Mailed: 07.21.00 [EOD DATE: 7/21/00] (rtra)
25 Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Order
For the reasons stated in open court, ORDER granting [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 ( signed by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ) Copies Mailed: 07.21.00 [EOD Date: 7/21/00] (rtra)
-- Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Terminated Case
Case closed (rtra)
-- Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Case Assigned/Reassigned
CASE assigned to Judge Leonie M. Brinkema (rtra)
-- Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Motion Hearing
Motion hearing held before Judge Brinkema; Reporter: Thomson; Appearances by counsel for parties re: [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56. Motion Argued and Granted. Order to follow. (rtra)
24 Filed: 6/29/2000, Entered: 6/30/2000 Memorandum in Opposition
OPPOSITION by Paulo Freyesleben to defts' exhibits (mcke)
21 Filed: 6/16/2000, Entered: 6/16/2000 Miscellaneous Document
Reply by County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman to [20-1] opposition memorandum by Paulo Freyesleben (clerk)
23 Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Discovery - Miscellaneous
Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial Disclosure by County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
22 Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Witness List
Witness & exhibit list by Paulo Freyesleben (mcke)
-- Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Jury Trial - Begun
Jury Trial set at 10:00 8/21/00 (mcke)
-- Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Pretrial Conference - Final
Pre-Trial Conference held (CMH) Appearances: Counsel. Case set for trial by JURY on 8/21/00. Pltf's & deft's witness & exhibit lists filed. (mcke)
20 Filed: 6/7/2000, Entered: 6/7/2000 Memorandum in Opposition
OPPOSITION by Paulo Freyesleben to [15-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6) [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
19 Filed: 6/7/2000, Entered: 6/7/2000 Notice of Hearing
AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing Deadline set for 10:00 7/21/00 for [15-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6), set for 10:00 7/21/00 for [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
18 Filed: 6/6/2000, Entered: 6/6/2000, Terminated: 6/7/2000 Motion to Continue
MOTION by Paulo Freyesleben to Continue hearing scheduled for 6/16/00 on defts motions to disiss and for summary judgment to 7/21/00 (counsel will submit an amended notice of hearing) (mcke)
17 Filed: 6/1/2000, Entered: 6/2/2000 Notice of Hearing
NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing Deadline set for 10:00 6/16/00 for [15-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6), set for 10:00 6/16/00 for [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
16 Filed: 6/1/2000, Entered: 6/2/2000 Memorandum in Support
MEMORANDUM by County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman in support of [15-1] motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6) , [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
15 Filed: 6/1/2000, Entered: 6/2/2000 Motion to Dismiss
MOTION by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6) , and by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
14 Filed: 5/30/2000, Entered: 5/31/2000 Response
Response by County of Fairfax to pltf's first set of request for admissions (mcke)
13 Filed: 5/8/2000, Entered: 5/9/2000 Response
Response by Audrey M. Slyman to pltf's second set of interrogatories to defts (mcke)
12 Filed: 2/9/2000, Entered: 2/10/2000 Response
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents filed by County of Fairfax (tog. w/attachments) (agil) Modified on 02/10/2000
11 Filed: 2/9/2000, Entered: 2/10/2000 Response
Response by Defendant Audrey M. Slyman to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant's (agil)
8 Filed: 2/3/2000, Entered: 2/3/2000 Scheduling Order
SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 5/26/00 ; Pretrial Conference for 10:40 6/15/00 ; ( signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (mcke)
10 Filed: 2/1/2000, Entered: 2/7/2000 Request for Admissions
FIRST SET of REQUEST for Admissions by County of Fairfax (mcke)
9 Filed: 2/1/2000, Entered: 2/7/2000 Interrogatories Propounded
INTERROGATORIES propounded by County of Fairfax to Paulo Freyesleben (mcke)
7 Filed: 1/13/2000, Entered: 1/14/2000 Answer to Complaint
ANSWER to Complaint by Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
6 Filed: 1/13/2000, Entered: 1/14/2000 Answer to Complaint
ANSWER to Complaint by J. Thomas Manger (mcke)
5 Filed: 1/13/2000, Entered: 1/14/2000 Order
ORDER granting [2-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger for Enlargement Time to answer until 1/13/00 ( signed by Judge James C. Cacheris ) Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date: 1/14/00] (mcke)
3 Filed: 1/12/2000, Entered: 1/13/2000 Memorandum in Support
BRIEF by J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman in support of [2-1] motion for Enlargement Time to answer until 1/13/00 (mcke)
2 Filed: 1/12/2000, Entered: 1/13/2000, Terminated: 1/13/2000 Motion for Extension
MOTION by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger for Enlargement Time to answer until 1/13/00 (mcke)
4 Filed: 1/7/2000, Entered: 1/13/2000 Answer to Complaint
ANSWER AND GROUNDS OF DEFENSE to Complaint by County of Fairfax (Attorney Ann Gouldin Killalea), (pmil)
1 Filed: 11/5/1999, Entered: 11/5/1999 Complaint
COMPLAINT Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt # 100 132453; jury demand (clerk)
-- Filed: 11/5/1999, Entered: 11/5/1999 Set/Clear Flags
Jury Trial Flag (clerk)
-- Filed: 11/5/1999, Entered: 11/5/1999 NOTICE
NOTICE of Lawsuit and Waiver forms given to atty. for service by mail as to defts. (clerk)
Virginia Eastern District Court, Case No. 1:99-cv-01656-LMB
docket://gov.uscourts.vaed.1-99-cv-01656 (What is this?)
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/index.html?id=555306
Paulo Freyesleben, Plaintiff
Represented by Law Offices of Dan M Peterson
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Richard E. Gardiner +1 703 352 7276 +1 703 359 0938 rgardi3717@aol.com
v.
Audrey M. Slyman, Defendant
Represented by fairfaxcounty.gov Law Firm Placeholder
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Ann Gouldin Killalea +1 703 324 2421 Ann.Killalea@fairfaxcounty.gov
County of Fairfax, Defendant
Represented by fairfaxcounty.gov Law Firm Placeholder
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Ann Gouldin Killalea +1 703 324 2421 Ann.Killalea@fairfaxcounty.gov
J. Thomas Manger, Defendant
Represented by fairfaxcounty.gov Law Firm Placeholder
Name Phone Fax E-Mail
Ann Gouldin Killalea +1 703 324 2421 Ann.Killalea@fairfaxcounty.gov
Office Alexandria
Filed 11/5/1999
Jury Demand Plaintiff
Demand $600000
Nature of Suit 440 - Civil Rights: Other
Cause 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jurisdiction Federal Question
Disposition Judgment - Motion Before Trial
County Out of State
Terminated 7/21/2000
Origin 1
Reopened None
Lead Case None
Related Case
Other Court Case 00-2025[]
Def Custody Status
Flags CLOSED, JURY
-- Filed: 10/17/2001, Entered: 10/17/2001 Docket Annotation
USCA Letter: A Supreme Court order was filed on 10/1/01 denying certiorari (kjon)
33 Filed: 6/22/2001, Entered: 6/22/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: we have received notice from the supreme court that a petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in this case. (mcke)
32 Filed: 3/28/2001, Entered: 3/29/2001 USCA Judgment
JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) together with unpublished opinion decided 1/26/01 Re: [27-1] appeal. The court affirms the judgment of the District Court. (mcke)
31 Filed: 3/21/2001, Entered: 3/22/2001 USCA Order
USCA Order that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. (stas)
30 Filed: 2/8/2001, Entered: 2/9/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: the mandate in this case will not issue at the scheduled time because: a timely petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc has been filed. (mcke)
29 Filed: 1/30/2001, Entered: 1/31/2001 USCA Mandate
COPY OF Opinion of USCA re: decided 1/26/01 [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben, affirmed (mcke)
-- Filed: 8/29/2000, Entered: 8/29/2000 Certificate of Completion
Certification of completion sent to USCA re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben. Copies of certificate, docket entries and transmittal sent to parties. (jsol)
28 Filed: 8/17/2000, Entered: 8/22/2000 Appeal Transcript
TRANSCRIPT filed [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben for the date of 7/21/00 before LMB (motions) (agil)
-- Filed: 8/10/2000, Entered: 8/14/2000 USCA Case Number
USCA Case Number Re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben CASE MANAGER: Cynthia Carter. USCA NUMBER: 00-2025 (jsol)
27 Filed: 8/2/2000, Entered: 8/3/2000 Notice of Appeal
NOTICE OF APPEAL by Paulo Freyesleben of final judgment dated 7/21/00. FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 138439. Copy of notice, judgment, docket sheet & tranmsmittal sheet mailed to USCA. Copies sent to Paulo Freyesleben, County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
26 Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Judgment
JUDGMENT pursuant to the Order of this Court entered on July 21, 2000 and in accordance with FRCP 58, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of the County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman against Paulo Freyesleben Copies Mailed: 07.21.00 [EOD DATE: 7/21/00] (rtra)
25 Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Order
For the reasons stated in open court, ORDER granting [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 ( signed by Judge Leonie M. Brinkema ) Copies Mailed: 07.21.00 [EOD Date: 7/21/00] (rtra)
-- Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Terminated Case
Case closed (rtra)
-- Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Case Assigned/Reassigned
CASE assigned to Judge Leonie M. Brinkema (rtra)
-- Filed: 7/21/2000, Entered: 7/21/2000 Motion Hearing
Motion hearing held before Judge Brinkema; Reporter: Thomson; Appearances by counsel for parties re: [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56. Motion Argued and Granted. Order to follow. (rtra)
24 Filed: 6/29/2000, Entered: 6/30/2000 Memorandum in Opposition
OPPOSITION by Paulo Freyesleben to defts' exhibits (mcke)
21 Filed: 6/16/2000, Entered: 6/16/2000 Miscellaneous Document
Reply by County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman to [20-1] opposition memorandum by Paulo Freyesleben (clerk)
23 Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Discovery - Miscellaneous
Rule 26(a)(3) pretrial Disclosure by County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
22 Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Witness List
Witness & exhibit list by Paulo Freyesleben (mcke)
-- Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Jury Trial - Begun
Jury Trial set at 10:00 8/21/00 (mcke)
-- Filed: 6/15/2000, Entered: 6/19/2000 Pretrial Conference - Final
Pre-Trial Conference held (CMH) Appearances: Counsel. Case set for trial by JURY on 8/21/00. Pltf's & deft's witness & exhibit lists filed. (mcke)
20 Filed: 6/7/2000, Entered: 6/7/2000 Memorandum in Opposition
OPPOSITION by Paulo Freyesleben to [15-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6) [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
19 Filed: 6/7/2000, Entered: 6/7/2000 Notice of Hearing
AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing Deadline set for 10:00 7/21/00 for [15-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6), set for 10:00 7/21/00 for [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
18 Filed: 6/6/2000, Entered: 6/6/2000, Terminated: 6/7/2000 Motion to Continue
MOTION by Paulo Freyesleben to Continue hearing scheduled for 6/16/00 on defts motions to disiss and for summary judgment to 7/21/00 (counsel will submit an amended notice of hearing) (mcke)
17 Filed: 6/1/2000, Entered: 6/2/2000 Notice of Hearing
NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing Deadline set for 10:00 6/16/00 for [15-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6), set for 10:00 6/16/00 for [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
16 Filed: 6/1/2000, Entered: 6/2/2000 Memorandum in Support
MEMORANDUM by County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman in support of [15-1] motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6) , [15-2] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
15 Filed: 6/1/2000, Entered: 6/2/2000 Motion to Dismiss
MOTION by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (1) and (6) , and by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger, County of Fairfax for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56 (mcke)
14 Filed: 5/30/2000, Entered: 5/31/2000 Response
Response by County of Fairfax to pltf's first set of request for admissions (mcke)
13 Filed: 5/8/2000, Entered: 5/9/2000 Response
Response by Audrey M. Slyman to pltf's second set of interrogatories to defts (mcke)
12 Filed: 2/9/2000, Entered: 2/10/2000 Response
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents filed by County of Fairfax (tog. w/attachments) (agil) Modified on 02/10/2000
11 Filed: 2/9/2000, Entered: 2/10/2000 Response
Response by Defendant Audrey M. Slyman to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant's (agil)
8 Filed: 2/3/2000, Entered: 2/3/2000 Scheduling Order
SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 5/26/00 ; Pretrial Conference for 10:40 6/15/00 ; ( signed by Judge Claude M. Hilton ) Copies Mailed: yes (mcke)
10 Filed: 2/1/2000, Entered: 2/7/2000 Request for Admissions
FIRST SET of REQUEST for Admissions by County of Fairfax (mcke)
9 Filed: 2/1/2000, Entered: 2/7/2000 Interrogatories Propounded
INTERROGATORIES propounded by County of Fairfax to Paulo Freyesleben (mcke)
7 Filed: 1/13/2000, Entered: 1/14/2000 Answer to Complaint
ANSWER to Complaint by Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
6 Filed: 1/13/2000, Entered: 1/14/2000 Answer to Complaint
ANSWER to Complaint by J. Thomas Manger (mcke)
5 Filed: 1/13/2000, Entered: 1/14/2000 Order
ORDER granting [2-1] motion by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger for Enlargement Time to answer until 1/13/00 ( signed by Judge James C. Cacheris ) Copies Mailed: yes [EOD Date: 1/14/00] (mcke)
3 Filed: 1/12/2000, Entered: 1/13/2000 Memorandum in Support
BRIEF by J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman in support of [2-1] motion for Enlargement Time to answer until 1/13/00 (mcke)
2 Filed: 1/12/2000, Entered: 1/13/2000, Terminated: 1/13/2000 Motion for Extension
MOTION by Audrey M. Slyman, J. Thomas Manger for Enlargement Time to answer until 1/13/00 (mcke)
4 Filed: 1/7/2000, Entered: 1/13/2000 Answer to Complaint
ANSWER AND GROUNDS OF DEFENSE to Complaint by County of Fairfax (Attorney Ann Gouldin Killalea), (pmil)
1 Filed: 11/5/1999, Entered: 11/5/1999 Complaint
COMPLAINT Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt # 100 132453; jury demand (clerk)
-- Filed: 11/5/1999, Entered: 11/5/1999 Set/Clear Flags
Jury Trial Flag (clerk)
-- Filed: 11/5/1999, Entered: 11/5/1999 NOTICE
NOTICE of Lawsuit and Waiver forms given to atty. for service by mail as to defts. (clerk)
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Still no Job?
()
Date: February 10, 2014 10:00AM
Hi Brian
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
And yet...
()
Date: February 10, 2014 10:13AM
So much more to this then what the OP wrote.
1st-This was not Freyesleben's first dumb ass thing he did. He had a history of doing stupid shit. Been in trouble several times due to his poor decision making.
2nd-If you noticed, the whole thing came out due to the gun buyer talking with another officer. Anybody question why this guy was talking with another officer? BECAUSE he was a problem child. Just because the guy had not been convicted YET of a crime or was not a gang member does not mean this guy was not having run ins with the police. Any officer with any common sense would not have sold this guy a gun to start with.
And most important--Freyesleben lost his law suit.
1st-This was not Freyesleben's first dumb ass thing he did. He had a history of doing stupid shit. Been in trouble several times due to his poor decision making.
2nd-If you noticed, the whole thing came out due to the gun buyer talking with another officer. Anybody question why this guy was talking with another officer? BECAUSE he was a problem child. Just because the guy had not been convicted YET of a crime or was not a gang member does not mean this guy was not having run ins with the police. Any officer with any common sense would not have sold this guy a gun to start with.
And most important--Freyesleben lost his law suit.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Facts check
()
Date: February 10, 2014 10:33AM
And yet... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So much more to this then what the OP wrote.
>
> 1st-This was not Freyesleben's first dumb ass
> thing he did. He had a history of doing stupid
> shit. Been in trouble several times due to his
> poor decision making.
>
> 2nd-If you noticed, the whole thing came out due
> to the gun buyer talking with another officer.
> Anybody question why this guy was talking with
> another officer? BECAUSE he was a problem child.
> Just because the guy had not been convicted YET of
> a crime or was not a gang member does not mean
> this guy was not having run ins with the police.
> Any officer with any common sense would not have
> sold this guy a gun to start with.
>
> And most important--Freyesleben lost his law suit.
Do we know for sure that he lost the case and the county did not settle.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So much more to this then what the OP wrote.
>
> 1st-This was not Freyesleben's first dumb ass
> thing he did. He had a history of doing stupid
> shit. Been in trouble several times due to his
> poor decision making.
>
> 2nd-If you noticed, the whole thing came out due
> to the gun buyer talking with another officer.
> Anybody question why this guy was talking with
> another officer? BECAUSE he was a problem child.
> Just because the guy had not been convicted YET of
> a crime or was not a gang member does not mean
> this guy was not having run ins with the police.
> Any officer with any common sense would not have
> sold this guy a gun to start with.
>
> And most important--Freyesleben lost his law suit.
Do we know for sure that he lost the case and the county did not settle.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Go read it..
()
Date: February 10, 2014 11:56AM
Facts check Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > And most important--Freyesleben lost his law
> suit.
>
>
> Do we know for sure that he lost the case and the
> county did not settle.
Well from what another poster posted above---
-- Filed: 10/17/2001, Entered: 10/17/2001 Docket Annotation
USCA Letter: A Supreme Court order was filed on 10/1/01 denying certiorari (kjon)
33 Filed: 6/22/2001, Entered: 6/22/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: we have received notice from the supreme court that a petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in this case. (mcke)
32 Filed: 3/28/2001, Entered: 3/29/2001 USCA Judgment
JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) together with unpublished opinion decided 1/26/01 Re: [27-1] appeal. The court affirms the judgment of the District Court. (mcke)
31 Filed: 3/21/2001, Entered: 3/22/2001 USCA Order
USCA Order that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. (stas)
30 Filed: 2/8/2001, Entered: 2/9/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: the mandate in this case will not issue at the scheduled time because: a timely petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc has been filed. (mcke)
29 Filed: 1/30/2001, Entered: 1/31/2001 USCA Mandate
COPY OF Opinion of USCA re: decided 1/26/01 [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben, affirmed (mcke)
-- Filed: 8/29/2000, Entered: 8/29/2000 Certificate of Completion
Certification of completion sent to USCA re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben. Copies of certificate, docket entries and transmittal sent to parties. (jsol)
28 Filed: 8/17/2000, Entered: 8/22/2000 Appeal Transcript
TRANSCRIPT filed [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben for the date of 7/21/00 before LMB (motions) (agil)
-- Filed: 8/10/2000, Entered: 8/14/2000 USCA Case Number
USCA Case Number Re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben CASE MANAGER: Cynthia Carter. USCA NUMBER: 00-2025 (jsol)
27 Filed: 8/2/2000, Entered: 8/3/2000 Notice of Appeal
NOTICE OF APPEAL by Paulo Freyesleben of final judgment dated 7/21/00. FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 138439. Copy of notice, judgment, docket sheet & tranmsmittal sheet mailed to USCA. Copies sent to Paulo Freyesleben, County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
I would say he lost. A person does not appeal a court judgment if you won or they settled. From what this looks like...he lost in one way or another through the courts. Freyesleben appears to have tired to take his appeal all the way to the VA Supreme Court but his appeal was denied.
If you are still in doubt...go read the case. Its a public court record.
-------------------------------------------------------
> And yet... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > And most important--Freyesleben lost his law
> suit.
>
>
> Do we know for sure that he lost the case and the
> county did not settle.
Well from what another poster posted above---
-- Filed: 10/17/2001, Entered: 10/17/2001 Docket Annotation
USCA Letter: A Supreme Court order was filed on 10/1/01 denying certiorari (kjon)
33 Filed: 6/22/2001, Entered: 6/22/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: we have received notice from the supreme court that a petition for writ of certiorari has been filed in this case. (mcke)
32 Filed: 3/28/2001, Entered: 3/29/2001 USCA Judgment
JUDGMENT OF USCA (certified copy) together with unpublished opinion decided 1/26/01 Re: [27-1] appeal. The court affirms the judgment of the District Court. (mcke)
31 Filed: 3/21/2001, Entered: 3/22/2001 USCA Order
USCA Order that the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied. (stas)
30 Filed: 2/8/2001, Entered: 2/9/2001 Letter
Letter to court from USCA re: the mandate in this case will not issue at the scheduled time because: a timely petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc has been filed. (mcke)
29 Filed: 1/30/2001, Entered: 1/31/2001 USCA Mandate
COPY OF Opinion of USCA re: decided 1/26/01 [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben, affirmed (mcke)
-- Filed: 8/29/2000, Entered: 8/29/2000 Certificate of Completion
Certification of completion sent to USCA re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben. Copies of certificate, docket entries and transmittal sent to parties. (jsol)
28 Filed: 8/17/2000, Entered: 8/22/2000 Appeal Transcript
TRANSCRIPT filed [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben for the date of 7/21/00 before LMB (motions) (agil)
-- Filed: 8/10/2000, Entered: 8/14/2000 USCA Case Number
USCA Case Number Re: [27-1] appeal by Paulo Freyesleben CASE MANAGER: Cynthia Carter. USCA NUMBER: 00-2025 (jsol)
27 Filed: 8/2/2000, Entered: 8/3/2000 Notice of Appeal
NOTICE OF APPEAL by Paulo Freyesleben of final judgment dated 7/21/00. FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 138439. Copy of notice, judgment, docket sheet & tranmsmittal sheet mailed to USCA. Copies sent to Paulo Freyesleben, County of Fairfax, J. Thomas Manger, Audrey M. Slyman (mcke)
I would say he lost. A person does not appeal a court judgment if you won or they settled. From what this looks like...he lost in one way or another through the courts. Freyesleben appears to have tired to take his appeal all the way to the VA Supreme Court but his appeal was denied.
If you are still in doubt...go read the case. Its a public court record.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
REAL FACTS
()
Date: February 10, 2014 12:55PM
Of course he lost. In Virginia, you have very little protection when it comes to your job. Unless you have an employment contract that defines how you can be fired, under Virginia law, you can be fired for any reason other than your race, age, gender or religious beliefs.
Virginia is also an “at will” employment state which means employers (unless you have a contract that states otherwise) can let go of employees at will, without reason or notice.
If your boss doesn’t like your socks, they can fire you. If your boss is having a bad day, she can fire you. You have almost no legal protection or rights to your current job.
So that is how the court's rule in VA if you decide to fight it. Doesn't mean the person is a bad person or did anything wrong. That is just the law in Virginia. You have zero protection. That is how companies and agencies hide behind things and can actually get rid of great employees for whatever reason they want.
Some companies will be selective and get rid of employees not in the "circle" but keep their "circle of friends" employed. Not fair. But favoritism is not grounds for court action if you do lose your jobs.
Unfortunately, most States have now enacted laws such as Virginia. So if somebody doesn't like you or has it out for you, YOU ARE SCREWED.
And yes....when the County is at fault. Most of the time they quietly settle out of court and make you sign a "gag" order so you cant talk about it. They throw you cash in exchange for you dropping the case. Then you never hear a thing about it again.
From the above case, it looks like the county hid behind "summary Judgment" which is the route that all government agencies go behind. Even though there was no specific laws that he broke, there was no specific laws that the County broke. Whether fair or not, there are really no laws of job protection in VA.
The comments Posted by: Que? ,Date: February 10, 2014 08:22AM are incorrect. He wrote:
1) The officer is still the registered owner. Somebody gets shot with the gun and they were shot with a cops gun. Even if he could prove he didnt pull the trigger hes essentially guilty of negligence.
(THIS IS PARTLY CORRECT. THE GUN STILL WOULD REGISTERED ON THE FEDERAL FORMS TO THE INITIAL BUYER IF YOU SELL TO A PRIVATE PARTY. BUT THIS IS LEGAL IN VIRGINIA. ONLY A FIREARMS DEALER IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE GUN PAPERWORK. NORMAL CITIZENS ARE NOT REQUIRED. THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE DO AT GUN SHOWS AND ALLOW THEM TO SELL ON THE INTERNET. YOU CAN SELL TO YOUR NEIGHBOR WITHOUT COMPLETING ANY GUN PAPERWORK. A SMART PERSON WOULD SIMPLY TYPE UP A PIECE OF PAPER SAYING THAT THIS GUN, WAS SOLD TO, ON THIS DATE, AND HAVE THEM SIGN IT. THAT PIECE OF PAPER FOR THE SALE IS ALL YOU NEED IN VA. SO YOUR ASSERTION THAT HE WOULD BE GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE IS INCORRECT. UNTIL THE LAW IN VA CHANGES
2) That officers gun is used in a shooting. Security footage ID's this kid, his place is searched which turns up a cops gun and a box of "FCPD Ammo". Now the questions fly, FCPD policies and procedures are questioned, a shitstorm ensues. All because you didnt fire the stupid ass in the first place.
(THE AMMO WAS NOT LABELED FCPD AMMO IN 1999. OFFICERS WERE GIVEN AS MUCH AMMO THEY WANTED. THERE WAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT. IT BECAME THE OFFICERS AMMO AND THEREFORE THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY. THINGS HAVE SINCE CHANGED SINCE 1999)
Virginia is also an “at will” employment state which means employers (unless you have a contract that states otherwise) can let go of employees at will, without reason or notice.
If your boss doesn’t like your socks, they can fire you. If your boss is having a bad day, she can fire you. You have almost no legal protection or rights to your current job.
So that is how the court's rule in VA if you decide to fight it. Doesn't mean the person is a bad person or did anything wrong. That is just the law in Virginia. You have zero protection. That is how companies and agencies hide behind things and can actually get rid of great employees for whatever reason they want.
Some companies will be selective and get rid of employees not in the "circle" but keep their "circle of friends" employed. Not fair. But favoritism is not grounds for court action if you do lose your jobs.
Unfortunately, most States have now enacted laws such as Virginia. So if somebody doesn't like you or has it out for you, YOU ARE SCREWED.
And yes....when the County is at fault. Most of the time they quietly settle out of court and make you sign a "gag" order so you cant talk about it. They throw you cash in exchange for you dropping the case. Then you never hear a thing about it again.
From the above case, it looks like the county hid behind "summary Judgment" which is the route that all government agencies go behind. Even though there was no specific laws that he broke, there was no specific laws that the County broke. Whether fair or not, there are really no laws of job protection in VA.
The comments Posted by: Que? ,Date: February 10, 2014 08:22AM are incorrect. He wrote:
1) The officer is still the registered owner. Somebody gets shot with the gun and they were shot with a cops gun. Even if he could prove he didnt pull the trigger hes essentially guilty of negligence.
(THIS IS PARTLY CORRECT. THE GUN STILL WOULD REGISTERED ON THE FEDERAL FORMS TO THE INITIAL BUYER IF YOU SELL TO A PRIVATE PARTY. BUT THIS IS LEGAL IN VIRGINIA. ONLY A FIREARMS DEALER IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE GUN PAPERWORK. NORMAL CITIZENS ARE NOT REQUIRED. THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE DO AT GUN SHOWS AND ALLOW THEM TO SELL ON THE INTERNET. YOU CAN SELL TO YOUR NEIGHBOR WITHOUT COMPLETING ANY GUN PAPERWORK. A SMART PERSON WOULD SIMPLY TYPE UP A PIECE OF PAPER SAYING THAT THIS GUN, WAS SOLD TO, ON THIS DATE, AND HAVE THEM SIGN IT. THAT PIECE OF PAPER FOR THE SALE IS ALL YOU NEED IN VA. SO YOUR ASSERTION THAT HE WOULD BE GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE IS INCORRECT. UNTIL THE LAW IN VA CHANGES
2) That officers gun is used in a shooting. Security footage ID's this kid, his place is searched which turns up a cops gun and a box of "FCPD Ammo". Now the questions fly, FCPD policies and procedures are questioned, a shitstorm ensues. All because you didnt fire the stupid ass in the first place.
(THE AMMO WAS NOT LABELED FCPD AMMO IN 1999. OFFICERS WERE GIVEN AS MUCH AMMO THEY WANTED. THERE WAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT. IT BECAME THE OFFICERS AMMO AND THEREFORE THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY. THINGS HAVE SINCE CHANGED SINCE 1999)
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
ReadThis
()
Date: February 10, 2014 01:28PM
Freyesleben also sold him a box of ammunition issued by the Fairfax County Police Department firing range that was labeled "for law enforcement purposes only." According to the commission, Freyesleben delivered the ammunition to the buyer while on duty, in uniform and driving a police car.
^THIS is why he got fired.
^THIS is why he got fired.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
ReadThis2
()
Date: February 10, 2014 02:38PM
Dumb ass. That is printed by the manufacturer. Once it was given to you in 1999 it was yours to do as you want.
So if there is a box of ammo labeled "for dumb asses only", does that mean only you can use it.
Get real. There is no law that says the ammo was for law enforcement purposes only in 1999. There was no Fairfax County Police General Order saying what you can and cant do with ammo in 1999. The ammo was freely given out with no accountability to anybody asking for it in 1999.
So if there is a box of ammo labeled "for dumb asses only", does that mean only you can use it.
Get real. There is no law that says the ammo was for law enforcement purposes only in 1999. There was no Fairfax County Police General Order saying what you can and cant do with ammo in 1999. The ammo was freely given out with no accountability to anybody asking for it in 1999.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Or a different view..
()
Date: February 10, 2014 03:06PM
ReadThis2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumb ass. That is printed by the manufacturer.
> Once it was given to you in 1999 it was yours to
> do as you want.
>
> So if there is a box of ammo labeled "for dumb
> asses only", does that mean only you can use it.
>
>
> Get real. There is no law that says the ammo was
> for law enforcement purposes only in 1999. There
> was no Fairfax County Police General Order saying
> what you can and cant do with ammo in 1999. The
> ammo was freely given out with no accountability
> to anybody asking for it in 1999.
Was it illegal for this guy to sell ammo marked "law enforcement only"? No its not. What is written on the box means nothing about who can have the ammo.
The issue about the department giving away ammo is over simplified by the poster to try and prove his point. In 1999, could an officer go to the range and ask for ammo? Yes. The reason they did this was so officers good use the ammo and practice shooting on their own time to improve their skills. There was no written policy per say and everybody understood this. The range would never have given anybody any ammo if they had reason to think an officer would do anything but use it for practice. This is a totally different issue then what the fired officer did.
And just because an employer gave an employee supplies believing the employee was going to use it for work purposes, such as improving a job required skill, does not mean the employee could do whatever they wanted to with the property. Example would be an accountant being allowed to take office supplies home to do work. Doesn't mean the accountant's employer gave him the stuff to sell or give away.
NOBODY HERE CARES IF A COP GETS FIRED. They only care when they don't get fired.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumb ass. That is printed by the manufacturer.
> Once it was given to you in 1999 it was yours to
> do as you want.
>
> So if there is a box of ammo labeled "for dumb
> asses only", does that mean only you can use it.
>
>
> Get real. There is no law that says the ammo was
> for law enforcement purposes only in 1999. There
> was no Fairfax County Police General Order saying
> what you can and cant do with ammo in 1999. The
> ammo was freely given out with no accountability
> to anybody asking for it in 1999.
Was it illegal for this guy to sell ammo marked "law enforcement only"? No its not. What is written on the box means nothing about who can have the ammo.
The issue about the department giving away ammo is over simplified by the poster to try and prove his point. In 1999, could an officer go to the range and ask for ammo? Yes. The reason they did this was so officers good use the ammo and practice shooting on their own time to improve their skills. There was no written policy per say and everybody understood this. The range would never have given anybody any ammo if they had reason to think an officer would do anything but use it for practice. This is a totally different issue then what the fired officer did.
And just because an employer gave an employee supplies believing the employee was going to use it for work purposes, such as improving a job required skill, does not mean the employee could do whatever they wanted to with the property. Example would be an accountant being allowed to take office supplies home to do work. Doesn't mean the accountant's employer gave him the stuff to sell or give away.
NOBODY HERE CARES IF A COP GETS FIRED. They only care when they don't get fired.
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
E4PUX
()
Date: February 10, 2014 08:07PM
If he hadn't been fired,he would qualify for retirement by now.I wonder who tipped off fcpd?Its not illegal to have ammo labeled leo.I have some Federal 9x19 Luger 115gr. BPLE +P+.Great stuff.I bought it at a gun show. 8-)
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
Readthis2
()
Date: February 11, 2014 02:55PM
He wasn't part of the "in" crowd or a "white shirt". That is why he got fired. If you only knew the many things that certain Command Staff Officers have done...AND NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED OR DISCIPLINED FOR......
Re: Fairfax Officer terminated
Posted by:
The Bottom Line....
()
Date: February 12, 2014 08:29AM
Cops should not be in the business of buying or selling firarms while on the job, which by all accounts FROM BOTH SIDES is what he was doing. This is why he was fired, and lost all his appeals.