Tek
Stateline,#2
Fri, August 28, 2009
The City of Jacksonville Florida Sheriff's Office announced their new system to allow citizens to report crimes online. This is the same system they deny ever knowing about and stole from Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC. The report is listed here: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/File-your-own-police-reports/PAHFY9taC0OAPNop7HGqkQ.cspx and the story says it is coming out in early Fall. To this date, the City of Jacksonville Florida denies this company even exists and they have made it clear that they will not communicate with Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC. Currently, the City Council has been made aware of this incident and we're waiting to see what happens. The good news is the City Inspector General is now out of a job due to her position being one of irrelevance. They city Mayor has issued a letter stating he needs her in this position as she investigates all issues and illegal activity in the city keeping them transparent and honest. We disagree. Pam Markham, the Inspector General, has had plenty of opportunities to investigate this matter, but chose instead to ignore it and protect everyone involved. Cindy Laquidara, city Deputy Counsel, chooses to ignore Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC and informs them they do not have a case. With evidence clearly against JSO, they still insist on covering up the entire instance and continue to steal the code belonging to Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC. Sheriff Rutherford himself insists this system they are producing is very similar to the one they stole. He also insists he knows nothing about Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC. The entire gang responsible for this by name are the following: Cindy Laquidara, Caroline Layne, James Barnet, Joel Toomey, Carol Miller, Micheal Edwards, Michael Clapsaddle, Dinah Coleman-Mason, Frank Makesy, John Rutherford, John Peyton and Pam Markham. All protecting each other. Do not do business with the City of Jacksonville Florida. They will steal your product and cause you to file a lawsuit to recover your product. The City of Jacksonville Florida is filled with corrupt politicians and city employees protecting themselves and each other.
Ward107
Johnstown,#3Consumer Comment
Wed, July 22, 2009
TEKv, Myself, being an IT professional in training, see this as a nightmare. I am sure you see it as the same. I know the costs that occure in systems development and I see your company took quite a punch. Jacksonville government is a tight nit family and you might have to take it to a state or federal level to see any results. It seems as though they erased all evidence of the project from the records even the database so you could'nt remotely back up the data or copy data proving it was within thier servers. I think you can provide your facts, I wonder why no one has offered to assist you. The Florida Attorney Generals office should review this sight to see what scams and wrongs are performed to protect its businesses and citizens. I know the Ohio Attorney Generals office would take the case if it happened in Ohio. Ill keep up with your posts to see how things are going. Good luck to everyone.
Tek
Stateline,#4Author of original report
Wed, July 22, 2009
Demand for Payment (PAST DUE)? From: Samuel Sent: Wed 7/22/09 8:56 AM To: Michael Clapsaddle 1 attachment JSO Hourl...pdf (45.2 KB) Dear Mr. Clapsaddle, This email is to inform you of our intention to collect on an outstanding debt by your city owed to us. I have sent you several registered mails via USPS and each time you have ignored them and had them returned to us as 'no such person'. Unless you are no longer working for the City of Jacksonville, FL I can see the point, but all mail should be accepted regardless. This is an outright attempt on your part to continue with the cover-up and outright theft of our product and reckless abandonment of your duties to pay us what is due. Rest assured, we will continue until we get paid and if this moves forward to a level of having to go to court, we are expecting to press criminal charges against you personally with a tort claim in order to see that justice is served. It is amazing to me personally that you and everyone else involved with this project have banded together as one to protect your jobs and most importantly, lie about your illegal acts. You have broken the law and I know you as well as others are not exempt. You should be ashamed of yourself by doing what you have done and by hiding the facts from us when we demanded your intervention in this project, yet you ignored every phone call, every email, every message to you, and every letter during this entire time before April 30, 2009. You are supposed to be a Director and in charge, yet you have taken a road that will lead to an exposure of your cover-up. Make no mistake about it, we know what JSO has done and will eventually find out and eventually collect. Aside from outright theft of our product, we have an admission from your department that there were and are no procurement authorizations for all the out-of-scope work performed on the project we completed from Caroline Layne and Director Micheal P. Edwards. We have well documented all acts and all requests and all communications to the minute details to ensure we cover ourselves in case JSO decided to railroad us again, which in fact, they did. This extra work is considered a secondary purchase from us and is not part of any contract, which we insist was breached by JSO several times and several weeks prior to the completion of the project. All of my several messages to Dinah and all of you were in fact, "how are you going to pay for this?". Each time, you never responded, yet Dinah Coleman-Mason on April 22, 2009 sends me a direct email message stating that both sides MUST have documented procurement authorization from YOUR department. This is where I turned on the heat the last ten days to get an answer from you. You failed to answer and you did it on purpose because you knew that JSO was going to steal our product and all you had to do was wait it out, yet during this time you had them continue to purchase out-of-scope services from us in order make the project system even better before your theft. I'm going to prove this easily against you and I intend to press charges against you and everyone else because a crime is a crime and you are not above the law. The fact is, you have damaged this company and caused great harm against it. That being said, the hours of work at our hourly rate and all those included in it with penalties and interest are now due. You owe us money. We demand our payment for those hours. This does not include the bid amount. These are all out-of-scope hours. They are now past due and each day that goes by is a day that increases in the overall amount. I am forwarding you a letter that went to the General Counsel's Office. This letter explains our position and shows the exact information proving our position. We demand payment at once and if you wish to discuss this with me personally, please feel free to contact me. Failure to make payment or outright ignoring this communication will result in taking this to the next step and even suing you personally in Nevada Court and bring a judgment against you. Please take this seriously and I strongly urge you to do the right thing. Sincerely, Samuel (?????????) Managing Partner Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC --------------------------------------------- See Letter Below: --------------------------------------------- Office of the General Council July 20, 2009 117 West Duval Street Suite 480 Jacksonville, FL 32202 RE: Demand for payment of all out-of-scope work (PAST DUE) Dear Cindy Laquidara, After careful research and admission by the City of Jacksonville of our requests for you to produce procurement documentation signed and approved by the Director of Procurement for all out-of-scope work performed on the RFQ of PO812047, the response from the Director of Communications, Misty Skipper, was: see below. Sent: Mon 7/13/09 11:44 AM To: Samuel Cc: Laquidara, Cindy Mr. Anderson- I have made inquiries and have been informed that no documents exist that meet the criteria for your public records request listed below. Thank you. Misty Misty J. Skipper Director of Communications Office of the Mayor 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-630-7377 Fax: 904-630-2391 As you can see from this response to my specific request and from an email correspondence from Dinah Coleman-Mason, Ombudsman for the City of Jacksonville, none exists and this includes prior and current phases of work. For your records, please see the exact communications below, again. After much exhaustion from us on daily phone calls and pleas for communications from Dinah and her office, Dinah Coleman-Mason stated in an email to me April 22, 2009, a week before the end of testing that we (Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC) must have written authorization from Director Edwards for ANY modifications, changes or additions to the program and vise verse. Since then she failed in sending me this information because she knew none existed and did not wish to say otherwise, (See copy of email paragraph below from Dinah Coleman-Mason) With respect to the RFQ and TEKbrokers any cost incurred by TEKbrokers is "only" related to the fulfillment of the obligation of the RFQ. Any additional cost TEKbrokers may have incurred in relation to the RFQ without prior written approval through the City of Jacksonville's Procurement process is not authorized. Further review of your letter addresses the Foreign Language as a feature not in the RFQ; however the Foreign Language feature is addressed in the RFQ and has been addressed by TEKbrokers and JSO. Through conversation and e-mail, TEKbrokers agreed to further enhance the requested feature after clarification by JSO. Dinah Coleman-Mason also stated in the same email that we had agreed to previous conversations (pertaining to first time around RFQ and conversations) to the foreign language features. We disagree and have always stated so. Our email had stated that we give you this feature for an additional 30 days or extra payment of $1,000.00 and that we had no problem in doing this work because we could do it. JSO had not responded. They did not respond because they (JSO) knew that there must be an authorized request. Dinah Coleman-Mason knew of this, too because we had informed her, yet she ignored all our demands to produce documentation. It was intentional. JSO had breached the contract, several times in fact, and therefore we head back to our Tekbrokers Agreement which is dealt with by our hourly rates. Failure to make payments on time will result in heavy penalties and interest accrued. It is our intention to possibly have this move to a Nevada court since JSO and COJ conducted their shopping on our terms and conditions. In fact, you can say, JSO conducted an out-of-scope request on their own to purchase from us. Payment is seriously past due and has significantly increased due to non-payment and failure to comply with our demands for payment. JSO should not have purchased these extra items if it did not intend to pay for it. Payment is due at once; please remit payment upon receipt of this letter. It contains our hourly rates which includes all who worked on this project and hidden costs associated with it including hours having to work, research, and continue to demand payment which you seem to ignore. JSO and COJ have caused significant damages to our company and employees because of your actions. Amount Due: $540,790.43 Sincerely, Samuel Managing Partner Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC CC: TekV Misty Skipper Director of Communications, Mayor's Office COJ Richard A. Mullaney General Counsel Cindy A. Laquidara Chief Deputy General Counsel IA CCU Case Management Director DPD
Tek
Stateline,#5Author of original report
Tue, July 21, 2009
Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC yesterday served the City of Jacksonville with a demand letter for payment for services provided that are considered 'out-of-scope' from the original RFQ. What does this mean? It means that aside from any contract for payment for the agreed upon work, any other items not in the contract and/or RFQ are considered out-of-scope, or extra and according to the rules governed by the city's charter, all out-of-scope work must be approved by the procurement director Michael Clapsaddle which it had not. This is similar to going into your store and purchasing items and having to pay for them. However, as we all know, the City of Jacksonville Florida and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office had ordered the extra work and deceitfully intended to not pay for it. After the City of Jacksonville Florida's Director of Communications Misty Skipper informed Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC that no documentation exists for any and all out-of-scope work, the city is now obligated to make payment on all the hours of all persons on this project. Below is the letter that was sent. ------------------------------------------------------------ Office of the General Council July 20, 2009 117 West Duval Street Suite 480 Jacksonville, FL 32202 RE: Demand for payment of all out-of-scope work (PAST DUE) Dear Cindy Laquidara, After careful research and admission by the City of Jacksonville of our requests for you to produce procurement documentation signed and approved by the Director of Procurement for all out-of-scope work performed on the RFQ of PO912047, the response from the Director of Communications, Misty Skipper, was: see below. Sent: Mon 7/13/09 11:44 AM Skipper, Misty To: Samuel Anderson Cc: Laquidara, Cindy Mr. Anderson- I have made inquiries and have been informed that no documents exist that meet the criteria for your public records request listed below. Thank you. Misty Misty J. Skipper Director of Communications Office of the Mayor 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-630-7377 Fax: 904-630-2391 As you can see from this response to my specific request and from an email correspondence from Dinah Coleman-Mason, Ombudsman for the City of Jacksonville, none exists and this includes prior and current phases of work. For your records, please see the exact communications below, again. After much exhaustion from us on daily phone calls and pleas for communications from Dinah and her office, Dinah Coleman-Mason stated in an email to me April 22, 2009, a week before the end of testing that we (Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC) must have written authorization from Director Edwards for ANY modifications, changes or additions to the program and vise verse. Since then she failed in sending me this information because she knew none existed and did not wish to say otherwise, (See copy of email paragraph below from Dinah Coleman-Mason) With respect to the RFQ and TEKbrokers any cost incurred by TEKbrokers is "only" related to the fulfillment of the obligation of the RFQ. Any additional cost TEKbrokers may have incurred in relation to the RFQ without prior written approval through the City of Jacksonville's Procurement process is not authorized. Further review of your letter addresses the Foreign Language as a feature not in the RFQ; however the Foreign Language feature is addressed in the RFQ and has been addressed by TEKbrokers and JSO. Through conversation and e-mail, TEKbrokers agreed to further enhance the requested feature after clarification by JSO. Dinah Coleman-Mason also stated in the same email that we had agreed to previous conversations (pertaining to first time around RFQ and conversations) to the foreign language features. We disagree and have always stated so. Our email had stated that we give you this feature for an additional 30 days or extra payment of $1,000.00 and that we had no problem in doing this work because we could do it. JSO had not responded. They did not respond because they (JSO) knew that there must be an authorized request. Dinah Coleman-Mason knew of this, too because we had informed her, yet she ignored all our demands to produce documentation. It was intentional. JSO had breached the contract, several times in fact, and therefore we head back to our Tekbrokers Agreement which is dealt with by our hourly rates. Failure to make payments on time will result in heavy penalties and interest accrued. It is our intention to possibly have this move to a Nevada court since JSO and COJ conducted their shopping on our terms and conditions. In fact, you can say, JSO conducted an out-of-scope request on their own to purchase from us. Payment is seriously past due and has significantly increased due to non-payment and failure to comply with our demands for payment. JSO should not have purchased these extra items if it did not intend to pay for it. Payment is due at once; please remit payment upon receipt of this letter. It contains our hourly rates which includes all who worked on this project and hidden costs associated with it including hours having to work, research, and continue to demand payment which you seem to ignore. JSO and COJ have caused significant damages to our company and employees because of your actions. Amount Due: $540,790.43 Sincerely, Samuel Anderson Managing Partner Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC CC: TekV Misty Skipper Director of Communications, Mayor's Office COJ Richard A. Mullaney General Counsel Cindy A. Laquidara Chief Deputy General Counsel IA CCU Case Management Director DPD
Tek
Stateline,#6Author of original report
Sat, July 18, 2009
After being told by Cindy Laquidara that she will be investigating the file of this case and then set a scheduled appointment, Tekbrokers had a few hick-ups along the way. Jacksonville Sheriff hired a private investigator who is a deputy to contact us and this deputy started asking questions. Anonymous phone calls and several hangups during a two week period. Constant harassing and several attempts on a daily basis. After constant calls into Cindy's office she finally had her secretary to set up an appointment with Tekbrokers. It was scheduled for Thursday morning July 16, 2009. On the afternoon of July 15, her secretary contacted Tekbrokers via email to inform them that Cindy's father had passed away and she would not be able to continue the scheduled meeting. Tekbrokers was not too happy, but did offer condolences and asked City of Jacksonville one question. Do you wish to settle? The response from the secretary was: Please be advised that our office in not in a position to provide legal counsel. In the event that you need legal counsel, you can contact the Jacksonville Bar Association, phone number (904) 399-4486, and they can provide an attorney referral service. Lynn Davis Legal Assistant to Cindy A. Laquidara, Chief Deputy General Counsel Office of General Counsel 117 West Duval Street, Suite 480 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Goes to show you how brilliant these employees are, they could not answer a direct question and instead look at it as legal advise thinking that Tekbrokers needs an attorney referral service. Below is a public records request that we sent in and only partially answered. The first question is a request to see any and all orders from Jacksonville Sheriffs Office pertaining to any and all procurement requests for any and all out-of-scope work orders that were not in the original orders. The email is below. One thing to keep in mind is this request was sent to every person on this request and ignored entirely. It finally went to Misty Skipper, Director of Communications for the Mayor. ------------------------------------------------------------- Records Request PO-812047 InReports Database? From: Samuel Anderson Sent: Mon 7/06/09 8:11 AM To: Dinah Mason Cc: Cindy Laquidara; Richard Mullaney; Michael Clapsaddle Dear Dinah, (some portions to Michael Clapsaddle) This email is to serve as a public records request. Your office was responsible for the communications between JSO and Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC. It was also brought to your attention that Caroline Layne purposefully and intentionally entered into our database during a live test and tampered with it while she turned off all the logs to the JSO SQL server to hide her steps. She eventually lied to us about not doing this act, but after we proved otherwise, she admitted to it. Please see my email to you dated below regarding this vital and extremely important communications which you never called me or even wrote back to me with. Instead, you ignored this the entire time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Update on JSO? From: Samuel Anderson Sent: Wed 4/29/09 11:16 PM To: Dinah Mason; David Coffman Dear Dinah and David, During the past nine (9) days TEKBROKERS has been working with JSO and doing what we need to do in order to provide the product as required, per the RFQ. I would like to draw light to this as it is the basis for (1) the product JSO wished to have delivered and (2) the product TEKBROKERS has made every attempt both in letter of the RFQ and in the spirit of completing this project to the benefit of JSO. When issues are brought up in reference to the RFQ and those items that are not in scope, they are downplayed and dismissed. The intent is that the RFQ is followed (without change unless agreed to by both parties) and as the official document (document of record) for the work being accomplished. This provides mutual benefit of JSO and TEKBROKERS. Best practices dictate this sort of action. This tenor has been repeated by JSO. During this process, changes in writing, it appears that TEKBROKERS is labeled uncooperative. The further intent of an RFQ is to minimize deliverable ambiguity. Although, even after several attempts, no one will answer our question on who created this RFQ, in fact, 15 times in the last ten days alone. Is it that difficult? In order to bring this project in and within guidelines, out-of-scope items must be attenuated if the project is to completed. Unless, as part of best practices and in the letter and spirit of the RFQ, JSO wishes to renegotiate the terms and incur all charges legitimately tied to out-of-scope requests and efforts. I presented an email to Director Edwards on April 28, 2009: "Dear Director Edwards, This item that you requested is not stated in the RFQ and is an added request by you. I need for you to respond to this email that we agree to go out of scope on this and have Derrick complete the request by you and because of it, it will not delay final sign-off on Thursday April 30, 2009. This is a courtesy for JSO and your overall success as you have stated. This project has many extra out-of-scope items in order to make it better, we've given them to you and with many of your requests without being paid extra. Please confirm this email to agree to move forward. Thank you." TEKBROKERS did indeed complete the latest out-of-scope request by Wednesday morning as requested. This was deemed completed by it being removed from the active issue list; while this is goes against best practices of leaving items on the issue list but identified by a completion date or moved to a different tab. This is how all parties can review the completed tasks and the resolution as it serves as an official document for the purpose of QA/UAT. Since it was completely removed it is deemed agreed to and complete. TEKBROKERS has some concern with the continual changes and out-of-scope requests. As you can imagine it is difficult to hit a moving target; and as scope is in continual flux, the unintended consequence is system integrity, and making other functionality fail. This is a concern of TEKBROKERS and should be of JSO as well. To that, a meeting has been scheduled for April 30, 2009 at 10:30 EDT. A reminder has been sent. The intent is to review the entire system and functionality on Thursday. In order to put this project back on a normative course, new and out-of-scope requests will be placed on a future enhancement list, categorized, prioritized and assigned a point release based upon TEKBROKERS product roadmap. These requests may require a PO in order to complete, depending on the enhancement requested. Current requests, that do not have mutual sign-off and agreement, will no longer be entertained. Again, this keeps in play the RFQ as it was written; and provides for the best practices to be followed. We, TEKBROKERS, have continually performed and stretched beyond in the spirit of working with JSO in completing this project, and not to enter into a breach of contract through the act of omission or exclusion. It is our intent to receive project sign-off as discussed and agreed to for Thursday. In addition, as of Wednesday 28 April 2009, it was discovered that server logs have been turned off and changes made that resulted in the deletion of a number of records. This has created a data consistency violation. This is not considered a best practice while undergoing any QA or UAT activity. It was further discovered that indeed someone at JSO had entered the database; it is our contention that this activity was causal to the errors reported during JSO testing on 28 April 2009. This action has seemingly caused a potential delay in testing given that additional database work will be required. If you wish, please call me. Sincerely, Samuel Anderson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC specifically wants to see all documentation you had with Director Edwards and Caroline Layne with regards to our charges against them and their cover-up of this specific action while our systems were in the completion of a test mode. JSO deliberately tampered with the InReports database while in the middle of testing and you were aware of this. We brought it to your attention. What efforts did you take to address this important issue that we never got any response from you? We would like to see this information and what you did with regards to in-person meetings, emails, letters or any other with regards to tampering with the InReports database while it was in official testing mode. You were also made aware of all out-of-scope work requested by Director Edwards and with his non-response to us as per his usual ignorance. I would like to see what communications he had with you pertaining his requests to us including when we all had the online meeting and Director Edwards himself requested an out-of-scope work to be done and I requested to you for approval and you did not respond. I need to see this request from Director Edwards himself signed by the procurement office. As you see in all our emails and communications, Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC has always requested extra funds and who is going to authorize it. For some reason, JSO and you never responded to this, not even McCain, Toomey, Markham, etc... I would also like to see all information sent to you by JSO with regards to testing. In our meeting that had 'approved' the system by Director Edwards I had demanded ISO standards in testing and you agreed. I need to see how JSO tested this system and list all the names of persons assigned to it to test the system. I need to see specifically any and all information pertaining to why Caroline Layne tampered with the InReports database and who authorized her to do so. What this a one-person decision or was an order given by a superior? I want to see exactly why she did this to our system without our permission while it was being tested. Please send all documentation to the following below: Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC P.O. Box 7172 Suite 319 Stateline, NV 89449-7172 Samuel Anderson Managing Partner --------------------------------------- Here is the response from Misty Skipper. RE: Records Request PO-812047 InReports Database? From: Skipper, Misty Sent: Mon 7/13/09 11:44 AM To: Samuel Anderson Cc: Laquidara, Cindy Mr. Anderson- I have made inquiries and have been informed that no documents exist that meet the criteria for your public records request listed below. Thank you. Misty Misty J. Skipper Director of Communications Office of the Mayor 117 West Duval Street, Suite 400 Jacksonville, FL 32202 ---------------------------------------------- This portion alone proves that Jacksonville owes Tekbrokers money on the hours involved with all the extra out-of-scope work. This letter came the day before the cancellation of the scheduled meeting. The other request has not yet been answered. Who authorized tampering with the database and what standards did and does Jacksonville Sheriff conduct on technical testing and how long they have had this implemented, etc... Tekbrokers understands they have none and when responded to Cindy Laquidara here is the auto-response from her email. It suggests that she was already out of the office and had no intention of calling. Tekbrokers does not know for sure if her father had died, which is awful, it's terrible when a close family member dies, but to request to reschedule the meeting for "sometime in August" is not a something that goes over well with anyone. However, the next invoice will have more interest and penalties for this. See below the auto-response. -------------------------- Out of the Office? From: Laquidara, Cindy Sent: Wed 7/15/09 12:58 PM To: Samuel Anderson I will be unavailable due to working on a deadline. I will be unable to check and respond to my e-mails during this time and will unavailable by phone as well. Should you have any questions regarding the below issues, please contact one of the following: ------------------------------------------ From the appearance of the auto reply, this message already suggests strongly that Cindy 'will be unable' by phone as well. The City of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Sheriff's Department are doing their best to ignore Tekbrokers and remain in stupid mode to not make payment. Tekbrokers has been patient and has done everything possible to get to a conclusion of this entire theft of property and violation of rights. Fraud, deceit, negligence, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith, quantum meruit, breach of economic advantage, statutory violations all part of a tort claim. The bottom line here everyone, do not conduct business with Jacksonville Sheriff's Office or the City of Jacksonville. They will rip you off and lie and cheat and steal your products and cause you to waste your time with services. Jacksonville abuses their procurement system to steal and get away with what they do.
Tek
Stateline,#7Author of original report
Thu, July 02, 2009
Last week we were contacted by the Chief General Counsel Cindy Laquidara from the City of Jacksonville Attorneys Office. She explained to us that she was concerned about this case and had no knowledge of it. It apparently stayed within the chain of good-ole boys club which includes Joel Toomey, a COJ Attorney. We had received 3 written letters from Joel Toomey typed and signed by him informing our company that Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has and had no intentions of "ever" paying Tekbrokers VENTURES, LLC 'past, current or future'. That's a bold statement. Joel Toomey also stated that we need to stop sending our letters and invoices because they are just going to ignore them and they consider this matter closed and for us to just go away. He also says in the same letter, "however, if you feel you need to communicate with us in any way, please feel free to contact me or send directly to me your concerns." Do you see the double standards and how they operate? Obviously my letters were not getting through and were ending up at his desk and I'm sure he was being told by Director Edwards to ignore our letters. Why weren't they sent to the General Counsel or even the Deputy Chief Counsel? I suspect a cover-up! It is typical of JSO and their corrupt police agency. I was promised by Cindy Laquidara that she will interview everyone and find the facts of the 'file' and then get back with me. We're very curious as to how far this will go. We've already informed JSO/COJ that if this does not go anywhere, an 'Intent to Sue' letter will follow shortly. JSO continues to ignore outright our letters and demands. They refuse to listen and send us letters to stop contacting them and in the same letters, feel free to contact them if we 'feel' the need to do so. NEED TO DO SO? This is a huge magnitude of criminal conduct, conduct unbecoming of an officer, criminal intent and outright theft of intellectual property and much more. There is a chain of command here with top brass doing a cover-up. We just want our money and we'll go away. If they continue on this route, it will continue to move its way into court. We'll see how Cindy Laquidara works out.