Where Do We Draw the Line for Being Too Nice?

preying on you

Have you ever had a friend so generous that they would give you the shirt off of someone else’s back? You know, one of those people who is always happy to help at the expense of another? I have a friend/colleague who is just like that…let’s say his name is “Dan” to protect his identity. Dan and I have known each other for about 15 months or so. It took me a long time to gain any trust for Dan because I felt from the beginning that he was taking advantage of me. It seemed clear the day we signed a lease for an office space for our business, which he agreed to run for us.

Dan is very close with his family, specifically his oldest brother and mother, who all live together. They were all together when my wife and I showed up at the office to meet with the building manager and review the lease. Confused as to why there was a posse of people waiting for us to seal the deal on the office, we rolled with it as best as we could. After signing the documents and handing the check to the property manager, we invited the group to join us for a celebratory lunch for our new venture. We met at a casual tiki bar along the water to sip some wine and enjoy some Caribbean food.

We arrived first with Dan’s group a few minutes behind us. When they sat down I thanked them for joining us, and his mother replied, “Dan was going to take us home but I told him that you invited all of us so we were going!” Don’t get me wrong, she was pleasant and wasn’t trying to be rude, but it made me start to analyze the thought process. The bottom line was that we did invite them and the gesture was certainly sincere, but when you get response that doesn’t feel like gratitude but more of a feeling of “I knew you were paying so of course I was showing up to eat!”, it makes you cock an eyebrow…at least it did for me and my wife. Not to mention that Dan and his brother acknowledged that they don’t normally drink wine but thought they would have some that day since we were already celebrating. Regardless of my mind wondering whether or not I just made a mistake inviting this man to represent our company, the lunch was quite enjoyable and the weather was perfect.

As we finished lunch and continued to enjoy some wine, Dan, holding the menu in his hand called the waitress over to answer a few questions about some specific items. We couldn’t hear the conversation over the music and since the rest of us were in discussion and nobody was paying attention anyway. Then it all started to come together. After pouring some more wine into mine and my wife’s glasses, I put the bottle down on the table and Dan quickly picked it up to examine how much was left. He kind of mumbled something about not being enough wine left, which was confusing to me since he had barely drank anything that was already in his glass. Unable to understand what he was trying to say, I asked him what the problem was and he then notified me that his lady friend, whom we had never met before, was joining us for lunch. Apparently his unexpected guest was also a fan of red wine, so he wanted to be sure there was enough to accommodate her, hence the need to order another bottle. Oh, and that little conversation with the waitress was Dan ordering his girlfriend’s lunch, which was timed perfectly since the food was ready in time for the arrival of our unknown guest.

Despite feeling like I just got mugged in public, I did my best to keep my composure while Dan’s girlfriend finished eating her lunch and drinking her wine. What’s worse is that this woman was not pleasant at all, almost to the point of being rude. I could feel my wife’s energy as she sat next to me, and after 13 years together we can practically read each other’s thoughts in these situations. Except my wife wears her emotions on her sleeve and is still struggling with the concept of the poker face. Actually, as I am writing this I remembered the text messages we exchanged at the table so I pasted it below…LOL!

moocher So, we made it through lunch and had plenty to talk about during our trip home. About a month after renting the office I was approached by the property manager regarding Dan. She informed me about a complaint from one of the receptionist staff, a young female, who felt that Dan had made some inappropriate comments to her. This was certainly not a good representation of our business, and a huge potential liability, especially with Dan being a 41-year old man. To save our reputation in the building I addressed the situation head-on with all parties so it didn’t escalate. Fortunately they acknowledged that the receptionist could have taken things out of context, but we still weren’t convinced that Dan was innocent either. He seemed to be spending more time in the business of the other tenants than actually bringing in clients for our company as he had promised.

In the months ahead I was never bashful about telling Dan what was on my mind. I didn’t feel that his performance was up to speed and I let him know. When I thought he might be using my office for personal business I let him know. When he asked for advances on commissions I reminded him of our investment in him and told him he didn’t deserve it. I beat up Dan whenever I thought he deserved it and that was often. I thought he would have walked out for sure but he had a thick skin. I began to respect him more because he knew I didn’t trust him and I made it clear, but he still wanted to win me over. As we began working together on other projects Dan’s contribution improved. He brought ideas and people to the table that could help us in some other business ventures we began working on. He started to prove his dependability and loyalty, which meant a lot to me. We could always count on Dan to check our mail when we travel, make bank deposits, and handle other helpful tasks for us. He really earned his trust with us after a very rocky start. I consider him to be a good friend.

So, let’s fast-forward to last Friday, August 29th, the start of Labor-Day Weekend. Dan called me at around 4:30pm. We speak nearly every day and several times on certain days. We frequently share new ideas or situations that have occurred to see what opportunities can arise from it. He generally brings the people and ideas to the table and I handle the execution. He was so excited when I answered the phone and was talking fast and it took me a second to even comprehend where it all was going…

“Bro, bro…do you have a cape handy? And your shirt with the “S” on the chest, is that folded up and ready to go? I can get it out of the dry cleaners for you!”

Still not sure what the heck this guy was talking about I tried to hear him out. Between being caught off guard and his fast speak, I wasn’t sure what he was asking me to do until I heard him say, “Hey you don’t know if you don’t ask, right?”

He proceeded to tell me a story about his current girlfriend, let’s call her, “Jane”, who we met once a few months earlier. He asked if she could stay with us for a short time because she had to be out of her apartment in 3 days (at the end of the month) and the new apartment won’t be ready by the first because it didn’t pass the requirements for the government subsidized housing. Still trying to wrap my head around his whole Superman analogy and excitement as if I had won the lottery or something, I was speechless. Trying to keep my composure and fully comprehend the request, I said, “Ok, what exactly is the situation with Jane’s apartment?” Dan jumped in, “Let me just put her on 3-way and she can explain it to you.” Now he was pissing me off. “No Dan, don’t put her on the phone. I need to discuss this with my wife first. Give me a little while and I’ll get back to you.” Baffled at the request I just needed to get him off of the phone to sort it all out.

My wife overheard some of the phone conversation and I filled her in on the details. Despite our online presence and marketing for our businesses, we are extremely private people when it comes to our personal life. Outside of our local neighbors, we can count the number of people who know where we live on one hand because our property (houses, vehicles, etc.) are in trusts and we use private mailboxes. That’s just the way we are, we don’t like unexpected visitors and truly enjoy our privacy. Dan is very aware of this, and unfortunately in our experience with Jane we’ve found that she is quite the opposite. She likes to post selfies online at every opportunity and share lots of details about where she is and what she is doing. Not to mention her career-criminal, a 6’3″ 260-lb ex-boyfriend, who she has a restraining order against for calling her over 700 times in one month! Yes, could we please have that drama and nonsense come into our lives? We really appreciate that, Dan!

In speaking with my wife in more detail we just were not comfortable with Jane staying with us. It had nothing to do with her as a person, since my wife and Jane were friendly and kept in touch after meeting that one time. However, that doesn’t mean that we wanted her under our roof! We felt as if we were being put on the spot which made us both anxious. As promised I called Dan back to try and understand the details more clearly and how long it would be for. When I asked for specific details again to make my wife aware, Dan replied, “That’s why I wanted to put Jane on the phone with you earlier to explain everything.” Trying to keep my head from flying off of my body, I barked back, “I know Dan, but I don’t appreciate you putting me on the spot like that! I told you I wanted to speak to my wife, so show some respect!” Despite my frustration I allowed Dan to put Jane on the phone, but the details were still a bit vague since they didn’t have exact dates as to how long the situation would take to resolve. What I took out of the conversation was that it could be a few days but wouldn’t be more than a few weeks!

We reluctantly agreed but didn’t feel good about it at all. We both had a pit in our stomach from this and felt pressured. A few hours later I would receive a call from my friend Egedio…who I just refer to as “G”. G is one of my closest friends and much like a big brother to me. My wife adores G as well and we both respect his opinion highly. He met Dan before and said what many of you are probably thinking…”Why can’t Dan put his girl up in his place?” That would be the obvious question but Jane lives about an hour North of Dan and was much closer to us making it more convenient…for who though?

G went on to say, “Dan’s driving that nice Cadillac with the automatic starter but we can’t spring for a hotel for his girl for a few nights? Listen, you guys are too nice and that’s why you are feeling this way. Just say “no” so you can feel better and get back to your life.” This made all of the sense in the world…none of us should have to do anything we are not comfortable with and I needed him to be our voice of reason. He even offered the same idea that I had which was to pay for her to stay at a hotel for a few nights. I know, it’s not my problem but we were still in the off-season for Florida and the hotel rates were very reasonable. I figured spending a few hundred dollars to save a whole lot of headaches would be money well spent…and G agreed.

With Egedio’s advice resonating well with me, I called Dan and explained that we couldn’t help out but offered the hotel idea. It turned out not to be necessary, and while Dan seemed fine with everything I still have the feeling that he just doesn’t get it. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t care if he truly understands or not, but the question I have is…

In your opinion, do I still keep Dan around or is he someone I should keep at a distance or consider editing from my life?

“Federal Civil rights Action Against NY FBI, Goshen Police and FL State Attorney” #FBICIVILRIGHTS #CIVILRIGHTSVIOLATONS #FBICORRUPTION #FBICONSPIRACY #NYCORRUPTION #POLICECORRUPTION

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

————————————————————–X

                                                                                            Case No.: 16CV6916

RANDAL ROSADO,                                               

 

                        Plaintiff,

                                                                                                JURY TRIAL

            -against-                                                                      DEMANDED

 

 

VILLAGE OF GOSHEN, RYAN W. RICH,

KEN KELLEMAN, ROBERT NICHOLS,

ROBERT FOLEY, MICHAEL HOWARD,

JILLIAN GUERRERA, MICHAEL CASTNER,

AND JOHN FARELL,

                         Defendants.

————————————————————–X

 

 

Plaintiff, RANDAL ROSADO, as and for his Amended Complaint, respectfully alleges upon information and belief:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

  1. Plaintiff brings this action for compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of his civil rights, as said rights are secured by said statutes and the Constitution of the United States of America.

JURISDICTION

  1. Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, state or local officials can be sued for the “deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and federal laws”. Under Bivens v Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), claims can be filed against federal officials for the violation of certain constitutional rights.
  2. Section 1983 allows defendants to be found liable when they have acted “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any state or territory or the District of Columbia.
  3. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
  4. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1343 and 1367.

VENUE

  1. Venue is properly laid in the Southern District of New York under U.S.C. Section 1391(b), in that this is the District in which the claim arose.
  2. Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury of all issues in this matter pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.38(b).
  3. Plaintiff, RANDAL ROSADO, was resident of the Village of Goshen and the State of New York on June 28, 2016.
  4. Defendant, VILLAGE OF GOSHEN, was and is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the law of the State of New York.
  5. Defendant, VILLAGE OF GOSHEN, maintains the Village of Goshen Police Department, a duly authorized public authority and/or police department, authorized to perform all functions of a police department as per the applicable sections of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law, acting under the direction and supervision of the aforementioned municipal corporation, VILLAGE OF GOSHEN.
  6. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named Defendant RYAN W. RICH, was a duly sworn member of said department and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to his official duties. Defendant RYAN W. RICH is sued herein in his official and individual capacities.
  7. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named Defendant KEN KELEMAN, was a sworn member of said department and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to his official duties. Defendant KEN KELEMAN is sued herein in his official and individual capacities.
  8. Each and all of the acts of the Defendants, RYAN W. RICH and KEN KELEMAN were done by said defendants while acting within the scope of their employment by Defendant VILLAGE OF GOSHEN.
  9. Each and all of the acts of Defendants, RYAN W. RICH and KEN KELEMAN alleged herein were done by said defendants while acting in furtherance of their employment by Defendant VILLAGE OF GOSHEN.
  10. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named Defendant, ROBERT NICHOLS was a duly sworn member of Lee County State Attorney’s Office, and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to his official duties. Defendant ROBERT NICHOLS is sued herein in his official and individual capacities.
  11. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named Defendant, ROBERT FOLEY, as a duly sworn member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to his official duties. Defendant ROBERT FOLEY is sued herein in his individual capacity.
  12. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named Defendant, MICHAEL HOWARD, was a duly sworn member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to his official duties. Defendant MICHAEL HOWARD is sued herein in his individual capacity.
  13. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named Defendant, JILLIAN

GUERRERA was a duly sworn member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to her official duties. Defendant JILLIAN GUERRERA is sued herein in her individual capacity.

  1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendant, MICHAEL CASTNER was a duly sworn member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to his official duties. Defendant MICHAEL CASTNER is sued herein in his individual capacity.
  2. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the individually named defendant, JOHN FARELL was a duly sworn member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was acting under the supervision of said department and according to his official duties. Defendant JOHN FARELL is sued herein in his individual capacity.

FACTS

  1. On June 28, 2016, at approximately 6:00 a.m., Plaintiff RANDAL ROSADO was present and asleep inside of his residence located at 129 W. Main Street, in the Village of Goshen, County of Orange and the State of New York.
  2. At that time and place, Defendants, MICHAEL HOWARD, JILLIAN GUERRERA, MICHAEL CASTNER and JOHN FARELL arrived on duty armed and dressed in SWAT team gear. Defendants, RYAN W. RICH, ROBERT NICHOLS and ROBERT FOLEY arrived in plain clothes.
  3. While Plaintiff and his wife were asleep, the Defendants made a nonconsensual, warrantless entry into their residence for purposes of making a felony arrest and to execute a warrantless search and seizure. This operation is confirmed by a sworn affidavit from Defendant ROBERT NICHOLS on November 6, 2017, and referred to as a “knock, announce and arrest.”
  4. Defendants MICHAEL HOWARD, JILLIAN GUERRERA, MICHAEL CASTNER, JOHN FARELL and RYAN W. RICH had their weapons drawn on Plaintiff upon entering, and Plaintiff was awakened and startled by the commotion. Plaintiff was handcuffed and taken into custody.
  5. Plaintiff was asleep and not engaged in any violent or threatening behavior. No exigent circumstances existed.
  6. The FBI Defendants (HOWARD, GUERRERA, FARELL and CASTNER) removed Plaintiff from his 2nd floor apartment and led him to the street level on Main Street, where he was transferred from FBI custody to Defendants KEN KELEMAN and VILLAGE OF GOSHEN. Defendant KEN KELEMAN transported Plaintiff across the street to the Village of Goshen Police Department for booking.
  7. Defendants MICHAEL HOWARD, JILLIAN GUERRERA, MICHAEL CASTNER, and JOHN FARELL remained inside Plaintiff’s residence to execute the search. Defendants ROBERT NICHOLS and ROBERT FOLEY also remained in Plaintiff’s residence to participate in the search prior to the recorded interrogation of Plaintiff’s wife, Michelle Rosado.
  8. Plaintiff’s wife was unlawfully placed under arrest, and then un-arrested moments later and removed from the residence. This is confirmed in the transcript of the unlawful interrogation of Michelle Rosado in violation of her Fifth Amendment constitutional rights (page 8), as conducted by Defendants ROBERT NICHOLS, ROBERT FOLEY and RYAN W. RICH. The interrogation was video recorded by Defendants RYAN W. RICH and VILLAGE OF GOSHEN between 7:00 a.m. and 8:20 a.m. on June 28, 2016.
  9. In his sworn affidavit on November 6, 2017 (page 6, paragraph 16), Defendant ROBERT NICHOLS states that he and Defendant ROBERT FOLEY never entered Plaintiff’s residence due to lack of authority and jurisdiction, but on pages 42 and 43 of a sworn deposition taken on May 26, 2017, NICHOLS acknowledges participating in the execution of the search. During his video interrogation of Michelle Rosado, NICHOLS also confirms entering Plaintiff’s home and participating in the arrest and search, as seen on page 66 of the transcript. “You were disappointed that you’re living your life here in — in New York, and you’re doing your thing, and we, the law enforcement, are coming in and we’re invading your house during a search warrant, and arresting your husband.”
  10. Further evidence that no search warrant existed when the defendants entered Plaintiff’s home, arrested him, and began executing a search and seizure is also found in ROBERT NCHOLS’ sworn affidavit from November 6, 2017. on page 6, paragraph 17 he states that task force teams “were acquiring a search warrant to execute that same day.” On page 6, paragraph 19 he states they “instructed Ms. Rosado to leave the apartment while they conducted a search later that morning upon receipt of a pending search warrant.” On page 6 paragraph 20 he wrote, “Nothing was seized at this point, but the premises were secured pending receipt of the search warrant.” However, in the video recording by NICHOLS, FOLEY, RICH and VILLAGE OF GOSHEN, NICHOLS says, “They’re executing the search warrant over there. I know that when you were placed under arrest, and you were standing there talking, you wanted to use the bathroom and everything, I mean, I just happened to notice that there’s a computer sitting in the room.” Not only does this contradict sworn statements by Defendant NICHOLS on November 6, 2017 and May 26, 2017, it also provides evidence of the unlawful arrest of Plaintiff and his wife, and the unlawful search and seizure of their home.
  11. The transcript of the video interrogation of Michelle Rosado following Plaintiff’s arrest and the removal of Mrs. Rosado from her home, confirms that the personal items of Plaintiff and Mrs. Rosado were seized without a warrant. Pages 81, 82 and 88 of the transcript verify that their computers, phones and other personal items were already taken. Defendants NICHOLS, FOLEY and RICH are on video seeking password information and personal details from Mrs. Rosado. An exhibit from Leon County civil case 2016-CA-1546 provides photos of Mrs. Rosado’s identification, social security card, voter registration, credit card, banking information and other personal items. Mrs. Rosado was not even a party to the search warrant eventually produced after the search was executed.
  12. The property belonging to Plaintiff and Mrs. Rosado seized during the unlawful search of their home is in possession of the Lee County State Attorney’s Office. No chain of custody has been provided from Defendant MICHAEL HOWARD, whom signed the sized inventory list left on site following the search.
  13. Copies of the video interrogation of Michelle Rosado from June 28, 2016 is in possession of Defendants, ROBERT NICHOLS, ROBERT FOLEY, RYAN W. RICH and VILLAGE OF GOSHEN. On video Defendant RYAN W. RICH promises to make a copy of the video for Defendants NICHOLS and FOLEY prior to their departure from New York back to Florida. No chain of custody has been provided.
  14. On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff’s wife and power of attorney, Michelle Rosado, attempted to obtain a copy of the arrest report and affidavit for search warrant from June 28, 2016. She was informed by officers at the Village of Goshen Police Department that she could obtain a copy from DEFENDANT VILLAGE OF GOSHEN through the Village Hall. Mrs. Rosado went to VILLAGE OF GOSHEN and completed a Freedom of Information Act request as they required from her. Several days later on July 12, 2016, she was denied a copy of the requested information.
  15. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff RANDAL ROSADO, has suffered permanent damage to his professional career and private life. Defendant ROBERT NICHOLS has made numerous false and contradictory statements under oath and has used his resources, including his former employer, Florida Office of Financial Regulation, to spread lies and fabricated stories in reports broadcasted on the internet and repeated by major news outlets on a worldwide scale.
  16. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff RANDAL ROSADO, sustained inter alia, mental anguish, shock, fright, apprehension, humiliation, and deprivation of his constitutional rights.
  17. All of the aforementioned acts of the Defendants, their agents, servants and employees were carried out under color of state law.
  18. All of the aforementioned acts deprived Plaintiff of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to citizens of the United States by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, and were therefore in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
  19. Defendants, collectively and individually, while acting under color of state law, engaged in conduct which constituted custom, usage, practice, procedure rule of respect municipality/authority, which is forbidden by the Constitution of the United States.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE OF

CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 43 U.S.C. SECTION 1983

  1. Plaintiff, RANDAL ROSADO, repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein at length.
  2. Defendants, as verified in their own sworn statements, video evidence and documentation, have collectively and individually conspired, while acting under the color of state law, were directly and actively involved in violating the constitutional rights of Plaintiff.
  3. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual Defendants in their capacities as police officers and officials, with all actual and/or apparent authority attendant thereto.
  4. All of the foregoing acts by Defendants deprived Plaintiff of federally protected constitutional rights, particularly his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful arrest and illegal search and seizure.
  5. In a civil rights conspiracy action, the defendants’ liability arises from membership in conspiracy and from traditional notions that the conspirator is vicariously liable for act of his coconspirators, and liability does not arise solely because of the individual’s own conduct.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FOR MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

UNDER 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983

  1. Plaintiff, repeats, reiterates, and realleges each and every allegation set forth above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein and at length.
  2. The acts complained of were carried out by the aforementioned individual Defendants in their capacities as police officers and officials pursuant to the customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures, and rules of Federal Bureau of Investigation, VILLAGE OF GOSHEN and the Village of Goshen Police Department, all under the supervision of ranking officers and said departments.
  3. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of Federal Bureau of Investigation, VILLAGE OF GOSHEN and the Village of Goshen Police Department constitute a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiff RANDAL ROSADO.
  4. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of Federal Bureau of Investigation, VILLAGE OF GOSHEN and the Village of Goshen Police Department were the direct and proximate cause of the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiff as alleged herein.
  5. The foregoing customs, policies, usages, practices, procedures and rules of Federal Bureau of Investigation, VILLAGE OF GOSHEN and the Village of Goshen Police Department were the moving force behind the constitutional violations suffered by Plaintiff as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendants individually and/or collectively on each of the foregoing causes, the unlawful incarceration, and permanent loss of income due to the irreparable damage to Plaintiff’s reputation, in the amount of Seven Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($7,500,000.00).

Dated:  Fort Myers, Florida

January 4, 2018

January

Respectfully submitted,

 

______________________________

By:/s/Randal Rosado, Plaintiff

2501 Ortiz Avenue

Fort Myers, Florida 33905