Perjury In Official Proceedings
1. Perjury in Official Proceedings
This statute covers making false statements under oath or affirmation in official proceedings, such as a court hearing.
Florida Statute 837.02 – Perjury in official proceedings.
This statute states that whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding concerning a material matter is guilty of perjury in the first degree, a felony.
2. False Official Statements/Declarations
This statute covers intentionally making false statements in written documents or instruments that are required or authorized by law to contain a written declaration under penalty of perjury. This would typically cover affidavits, citations, or declarations signed by the deputies.
Florida Statute 92.525 – Verification of documents; perjury by false written declaration.
This statute makes it a felony offense (or misdemeanor, depending on the context) to willfully include a false declaration or statement in any written document required by law to contain such a declaration under penalty of perjury.
Allegations of Perjury, Constitutional Violations, and Systemic Cover-Up by Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office Deputies
This document summarizes the profound inconsistencies between the sworn testimony of multiple deputies and objective evidence, alleging violations of constitutional rights and a deliberate cover-up by the Professional Standards-Internal Affairs division.
I. Factual Discrepancies: Deputies’ Statements vs. Objective Evidence
The central fact in dispute is whether Mr. Paizes’ vehicle caused a trolley to stop. Video evidence and civilian witnesses confirm the trolley maintained continuous, lawful movement (did not stop).
Deputy Desirae Krouse
Hearing Testimony Claim: "The trolley had to stop because of Mr. Paizes’ vehicle.”
Contradiction: Disproven by video (continuous movement) and witnesses. Her sworn testimony is
disproven by objective evidence.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview Claim:
First said the trolley “slowed but did not stop,” later said it “stopped briefly.”
Contradiction: Multiple, inconsistent versions, none matching the video evidence.
Deputy Natalie Niemann
Hearing Testimony Claim: “The trolley did not stop.” (Later stated in other records that it did stop).
Contradiction: Conflicts with Deputy Desirae Krouse’s testimony and the objective video evidence.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview Claim:
“I don’t recall if the trolley stopped or not.”
Contradiction: Retreats from her own sworn testimony, undermining credibility.
Deputy Demetrios Antoniades
Hearing Testimony Claim: “Yes, the car stopped.” (Implying the trolley did not have to stop due to the car).
Contradiction: Conflicts with video evidence showing no stop.
Professional Standards-Internal
Affairs Interview Claim: “The trolley slowed, but I can’t say it stopped.”
Contradiction: Shifts narrative, contradicting his own prior sworn testimony where he insisted it
stopped.
Deputy Todd Farrell
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview Claim:
“I observed the trolley stop.”
Contradiction: Directly contradicted by the video evidence.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview (Later):
“I may have been mistaken about the trolley stopping.”
Contradiction: Admission of potential error after providing false testimony.
Summary of Contradictions
Deputies offered at least three different, irreconcilable versions of events: it stopped, it did not stop, or they could not recall. Every deputy's sworn testimony or official interview account
conflicts either with the objective trolley video, the witness testimony, or each other. These contradictions are argued to constitute perjury under Florida Statute 837.02 and false declarations
under F. S. 92.525.
II. Constitutional Violations and Retaliatory Motive
The actions of the deputies are alleged to have violated fundamental constitutional rights:
First Amendment (Retaliation):
The traffic stop is alleged to be retaliatory. Mr. Paizes was reportedly targeted after verbally challenging Deputy Desirae Krouse, making the stop an unconstitutional suppression of
protected speech.
Fourth Amendment (Unlawful Seizure): The stop lacked probable cause, as demonstrated by the video evidence. The resulting seizure of Mr. Paizes and his passengers was therefore unlawful, violating the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process): The deputies’ alleged false testimony and Professional Standards-Internal Affairs' subsequent dismissal of the clear evidence are claimed to have undermined procedural fairness and violated Mr. Paizes's due process rights.
Concealment: Deputy Desirae Krouse’s refusal to activate her body-worn camera is cited as an
act of concealment that deprived the court and the public of direct evidence.
III. Systemic Cover-Up
The investigation by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office Professional Standards-Internal Affairs division is accused of ignoring the overwhelming evidence of perjury and dishonesty:
Ignoring Evidence: Professional Standards-Internal Affairs found "no wrongdoing" despite the clear
conflicts between the video, witness statements, and the deputies' sworn accounts.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Involvement: Investigator Master Sergeant Belinda Denbigh allegedly minimized the impact of the existing trolley video, suggesting a deliberate attempt to cover up misconduct and protect the deputies.
Systemic Failure: This cover-up is presented as evidence of a systemic problem where Professional Standards-Internal Affairs cannot be trusted to impartially investigate its own, fostering a culture of impunity.
IV. Judicial Validation and Call for Oversight
Circuit Court Reversal: The Circuit Court, in its appellate capacity, reversed the citation, finding no
probable cause. This judicial action validated the video evidence and the civilian account, confirming that the stop lacked a legal basis and contradicting the deputies’ claims.
Need for External Review:
Due to the internal failure of the Professional Standards-Internal Affairs process, the document calls for immediate external oversight from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Attorney General/State Attorney's Office to
investigate the alleged perjury and cover-up.
This statute covers making false statements under oath or affirmation in official proceedings, such as a court hearing.
Florida Statute 837.02 – Perjury in official proceedings.
This statute states that whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding concerning a material matter is guilty of perjury in the first degree, a felony.
2. False Official Statements/Declarations
This statute covers intentionally making false statements in written documents or instruments that are required or authorized by law to contain a written declaration under penalty of perjury. This would typically cover affidavits, citations, or declarations signed by the deputies.
Florida Statute 92.525 – Verification of documents; perjury by false written declaration.
This statute makes it a felony offense (or misdemeanor, depending on the context) to willfully include a false declaration or statement in any written document required by law to contain such a declaration under penalty of perjury.
Allegations of Perjury, Constitutional Violations, and Systemic Cover-Up by Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office Deputies
This document summarizes the profound inconsistencies between the sworn testimony of multiple deputies and objective evidence, alleging violations of constitutional rights and a deliberate cover-up by the Professional Standards-Internal Affairs division.
I. Factual Discrepancies: Deputies’ Statements vs. Objective Evidence
The central fact in dispute is whether Mr. Paizes’ vehicle caused a trolley to stop. Video evidence and civilian witnesses confirm the trolley maintained continuous, lawful movement (did not stop).
Deputy Desirae Krouse
Hearing Testimony Claim: "The trolley had to stop because of Mr. Paizes’ vehicle.”
Contradiction: Disproven by video (continuous movement) and witnesses. Her sworn testimony is
disproven by objective evidence.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview Claim:
First said the trolley “slowed but did not stop,” later said it “stopped briefly.”
Contradiction: Multiple, inconsistent versions, none matching the video evidence.
Deputy Natalie Niemann
Hearing Testimony Claim: “The trolley did not stop.” (Later stated in other records that it did stop).
Contradiction: Conflicts with Deputy Desirae Krouse’s testimony and the objective video evidence.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview Claim:
“I don’t recall if the trolley stopped or not.”
Contradiction: Retreats from her own sworn testimony, undermining credibility.
Deputy Demetrios Antoniades
Hearing Testimony Claim: “Yes, the car stopped.” (Implying the trolley did not have to stop due to the car).
Contradiction: Conflicts with video evidence showing no stop.
Professional Standards-Internal
Affairs Interview Claim: “The trolley slowed, but I can’t say it stopped.”
Contradiction: Shifts narrative, contradicting his own prior sworn testimony where he insisted it
stopped.
Deputy Todd Farrell
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview Claim:
“I observed the trolley stop.”
Contradiction: Directly contradicted by the video evidence.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Interview (Later):
“I may have been mistaken about the trolley stopping.”
Contradiction: Admission of potential error after providing false testimony.
Summary of Contradictions
Deputies offered at least three different, irreconcilable versions of events: it stopped, it did not stop, or they could not recall. Every deputy's sworn testimony or official interview account
conflicts either with the objective trolley video, the witness testimony, or each other. These contradictions are argued to constitute perjury under Florida Statute 837.02 and false declarations
under F. S. 92.525.
II. Constitutional Violations and Retaliatory Motive
The actions of the deputies are alleged to have violated fundamental constitutional rights:
First Amendment (Retaliation):
The traffic stop is alleged to be retaliatory. Mr. Paizes was reportedly targeted after verbally challenging Deputy Desirae Krouse, making the stop an unconstitutional suppression of
protected speech.
Fourth Amendment (Unlawful Seizure): The stop lacked probable cause, as demonstrated by the video evidence. The resulting seizure of Mr. Paizes and his passengers was therefore unlawful, violating the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (Due Process): The deputies’ alleged false testimony and Professional Standards-Internal Affairs' subsequent dismissal of the clear evidence are claimed to have undermined procedural fairness and violated Mr. Paizes's due process rights.
Concealment: Deputy Desirae Krouse’s refusal to activate her body-worn camera is cited as an
act of concealment that deprived the court and the public of direct evidence.
III. Systemic Cover-Up
The investigation by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office Professional Standards-Internal Affairs division is accused of ignoring the overwhelming evidence of perjury and dishonesty:
Ignoring Evidence: Professional Standards-Internal Affairs found "no wrongdoing" despite the clear
conflicts between the video, witness statements, and the deputies' sworn accounts.
Professional Standards-Internal Affairs Involvement: Investigator Master Sergeant Belinda Denbigh allegedly minimized the impact of the existing trolley video, suggesting a deliberate attempt to cover up misconduct and protect the deputies.
Systemic Failure: This cover-up is presented as evidence of a systemic problem where Professional Standards-Internal Affairs cannot be trusted to impartially investigate its own, fostering a culture of impunity.
IV. Judicial Validation and Call for Oversight
Circuit Court Reversal: The Circuit Court, in its appellate capacity, reversed the citation, finding no
probable cause. This judicial action validated the video evidence and the civilian account, confirming that the stop lacked a legal basis and contradicting the deputies’ claims.
Need for External Review:
Due to the internal failure of the Professional Standards-Internal Affairs process, the document calls for immediate external oversight from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Attorney General/State Attorney's Office to
investigate the alleged perjury and cover-up.
