FALSE STATEMENTS OF DEPOUTY HAIMES FROM PCSO REPORT NUMBER SO20-60478

On 02-24-20 at approximately 1100 hours while working in the Pinellas County Justice Center (PCJC) at
14250 49th Street North, a call came out on the radio for Deputies to respond to an upset white male (1)
(later identified as James McLynas 11-14-58) on the second floor in the Digital Court Reporter's Office
(DCRO) refusing to leave(2).

Upon my arrival at approximately 1103 hours, I spoke with Deputy Garcia who was already on scene.
Deputy Garcia explained to me that she spoke with Christine Hawthorne, who is a Digital Court Reporter
for the DCRO. James was requesting a copy of an audio proceeding(3). When he was informed that the
fee was $25.00, he then stated he did not need to pay the fee but was legally allowed to listen to the
audio in the (DCRO)(4). It was explained to him that the (DCRO) did not have a facility to accommodate
that and it was not in their policy to allow for the listening of any proceeding in the (DCRO) or allow
public citizens into the secure area of the (DCRO). He began to argue and bang on the window and the
service bell requesting that his legal rights be supported.(5) Due to his aggressive behavior, inability to
follow directions and disruptive behavior in the lobby of the (DCRO)(6), Building Security was notified
and Deputies were requested to respond. Christine wrote a statement of the events and a copy of that
statement is attached to this ACISS report for reference. After being informed of the situation with
Deputy Garcia, I spoke directly with James. It should be noted that during this entire event he was
holding his phone up with his right hand, making a video recording. I explained to James in case there
was any misunderstanding that his request to listen or view audio inside the (DCRO) secure area(7) was
not allowable. James then began arguing that it was his legal right according to "Title 10" that he be
allowed to audio inside the (DCRO)(8). I once again clarified that they do not allow for that and
specifically that he was not authorized personnel allowed to enter the (DCRO) back area. He continued
arguing about his "Title 10" legal right to do so.(9) I explained to James that he could pay $25.00 and
receive a copy of the audio he wanted to listen to and listen to it at his convenience. He continued to
explain to me that "Title 10" authorizes him to listen to the audio on location when requested. Corporal
VanAllen intervened and told me she was going to handle the situation and told me I was no longer
needed to stand by. I began to leave the area and was called back approximately two minutes later and
told that he was going to be given a trespass warning. Upon my return I spoke with James who was still
recording video and explained to him that I needed him to stand by a minute. This was to give Christine
a moment to arrive and verbally trespass James from the (DCRO). James attempted to leave the area
and enter another office unrelated to this event(10), at which point I stopped him(11) and explained to
him that he was not free to leave. He asked if I was detaining him, and I explained that I was going to be
issuing him a trespass warning and he was not free to leave at that time. Christine arrived a minute later
and verbally told James, "You are being trespassed from the Digital Court Reporter's Office.”(12) I then
asked for his name and date of birth which I had not been able to get up to that point and Sergeant
Hartigan informed me that he had his information and it was not needed. I told him that he is allowed to
conduct any business he needed to at the courthouse but would not be allowed to enter the (DCRO)
from this point on. Any further business would need to be conducted by telephone, mail, or internet. A
photograph of James from a previous booking at the Pinellas County Jail listed on SOPICS was used to
further verify his identity.

SPECIFIC LIES TOLD BY PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPUTY IAN HAIMES

1. “An upset white male”
This is either a lie on the part of Deputy Haimes or a false report by Christine Hawthorne. As the video
shows, there is no time during this entire event that James McLynas is not calm, reasonable and never
shows any signs of being “upset”, before during or after this event.

2. “refusing to leave”
At no point during this entire encounter did James McLynas refuse to leave. Mr. McLynas was NEVER
asked to leave by ANYONE, so it would be impossible for him to have refused a command that was
never given to him. At one point, Deputy Garcia gives James McLynas an unlawful order to “step out into
the hallway” so that she can have a “private” conversation with Hawthorne, but he is never asked to
leave. In fact as McLynas is leaving, Deputy Garcia states “you an talk to her in a minute”, again clearly
evidencing that McLynas was not only NOT asked to leave, he was invited back to “talk to her in a
minute” by Deputy Garcia. McLynas has a legal and first amendment protected right to video public
officials in their duties as a journalist and a citizen and further has a legal right to document the refusal
of the agency to abide Title X, Chapter 119 to preserve evidence for a civil action under that statute.
Either Deputy Haimes filed this false report, or he did so based on a false report filed by Christine
Hawthorne. If Haimes made the false statement, he should be held accountable. If Hawthorne made the
false statement, she should be charged with making a false report.

3. ”James was requesting a copy of an audio proceeding”

This is again a complete lie. At no point in time did Mr. McLynas ask Christine Hawthorne for a “copy” of
anything and the video clearly shows he consistently asked to “view, inspect and copy” the hearing
video and audio which is his legal right under Title X, Chapter 119 and specifically detailed as his right by
Attorney General Ashley Moody’s own website at the following link that states;

http://www.myflsunshine.com/pages.nsf/Main/321B47083D80C4CD8525791B006A54E3#23

What agency can prosecute violators of Title X, Chapter 119 Florida Open Records laws?
The local state attorney has the statutory authority to prosecute alleged criminal violations of the
open meetings and public records law. Certain civil remedies are also available.

4. ”he then stated he did not need to pay the fee but was legally allowed to listen to the audio in the
(DCRO)”

This is again a complete lie by Deputy Haimes as evidenced by the video of the event. In the video,
McLynas can be very clearly sating to Haimes after Haimes wrongly accuses McLynas of trying to get
back inside the secure area that “I didn’t ask to go back there” at 10:16. Again, at 10:19 McLynas again
states “I didn’t ask to go back there and view it”. Haimes then asks James “so you want to view it
where, in the lobby?” and McLynas again states at 10:23 “wherever they want to show me”. The video
also clearly evidences the interaction between Hawthorne and McLynas and again, at no point in time
does McLynas ask to go into a secure area and view the video. Even in Hawthorne’s hand written
statement she does not state or claim that at anytime did Mr. McLynas ask, request or demand to go
into any secure area and inspect any records. The entire position stated by Haines is a complete
fabrication.

5. ”He began to argue and bang on the window and the service bell requesting that his legal rights be
supported”

Again, Haimes includes three lies in this one sentence of his report. There was no arguing after McLynas
was told “no”. He merely asked for additional records. There was no “banging” on the service bell OR
widow. The bell was rung in the normal way that those bells are wrung just twice with a single ring. The
window was not “banged” on, it was gently knocked on and McLynas even discusses how he did not
want to violate the rules by knocking on the door. Again, either Haimes made up these lies to fabricate a
false reason to issue a trespass, or Hawthorne issued a false statement and report to police which is a
crime.

6. ”Due to his aggressive behavior, inability to follow directions and disruptive behavior in the lobby of
the (DCRO)”

This statement by Haimes in his report also includes three blatant lies in order to falsely justify an
unlawful trespass. During the entire event, as proven by the video, there was first, never any “aggressive
behavior” by McLynas. Secondly, at no point did McLynas refuse to or fail to “follow directions” other
than to momentarily assert his legal and constitutional right to video tape his encounter while
attempting to obtain public records in the public lobby of the DCRO. And thirdly, at no point was
McLynas in any way “disruptive” in the lobby of the DCRO other than to calmly ask for public records,
which is literally what that office and that window is supposed to be used for. Again, Haimes either
made up these lies to support an unlawful trespass and to potentially create an arrestable offense and
to disparage a candidate for Sheriff, or Hawthorne lied and filed a false report which is a crime. At no
point did Haimes or any other officer bother to ask to see the video to find out what actually occurred.

7. ” his request to listen or view audio inside the (DCRO) secure area”

Again, it is clear that McLynas never asked to listen or view audio inside the DCRO secure area. In fact
the conversation between McLynas and Hawthorne never even reached the stage of where he would
view or listen to the hearing tapes because Hawthorne was adamant that she was going to intentionally
violate Title X, Chapter 119 and not allow him to see the tapes unless he paid the illegal $25 fee.

8. ”James then began arguing that it was his legal right according to "Title 10" that he be allowed to
audio inside the (DCRO)”

Again, this is well established by the video that McLynas NEVER asked to go “inside” the DCRO and
McLynas specifically stated he would view the records “anywhere they want to show it to me”. Haimes
himself was personally told this on multiple occasions so his repeated lies in this regard are willful,
intentional and designed to cause harm to Mr. McLynas.

9. “I once again clarified that they do not allow for that and specifically that he was not authorized
personnel allowed to enter the (DCRO) back area. He continued arguing about his "Title 10" legal right to
do so.

Haimes now reiterates and reinforces the same blatant lie for the FOURTH time and again claims that
James was arguing a point that he never in fact argued even once and clarified three times already to
Haimes by this point in Haimes’ fictional account of these events.

10. Upon my return I spoke with James who was still recording video and explained to him that I needed
him to stand by a minute. This was to give Christine a moment to arrive and verbally trespass James
from the (DCRO). ”James attempted to leave the area and enter another office unrelated to this event”

Once again, Deputy Haimes flat out lies his report to again make is seem like McLynas is being
uncooperative or refusing to follow lawful commands. McLynas never attempted to go anywhere from
the entire time Deputy Haimes re-contacted Mr. McLynas outside the “HR” department where he was
again attempting to legally obtain public records and again he was criminally denied his right to do so by
Deputy Haimes.

11. “James attempted to leave the area and enter another office unrelated to this event(10), at which
point I stopped him”

Deputy Haimes once again lies and claims that he “stopped” McLynas from leaving. Mr. McLynas NEVER
attempted to leave, and therefore, Haimes could not have “stopped” him trying to Make it look like he
was escaping.

12. Christine arrived a minute later and verbally told James, "You are being trespassed from the Digital
Court Reporter's Office.”

Here Haimes writes in his report that Christine Hawthorne gave McLynas a valid criminal trespass
warning which a) she does not have the legal right to do, b) does not have the authority over the county
building to issue such a trespass and c) unlawfully and illegally attempted to trespass Mr. McLynas
without his violating any law, rule or policy. Which is not a valid trespass (see No. 4D12–515. 2013-02-
20 K.J., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee) Besides these points, Haines again claims that
Hawthorne made a statement that she never made. He even puts her statement in quotations to add
credibility to the false statement. What Hawthorne stated as seen in the video is “Sir, you’re not
welcome back here anymore”. Which is not a legal trespass and invalid as shown in the above case cite.

It is apparent from the dozen clear and blatant lies told by Deputy Haimes that his intent was to slander,
libel, defame and disparage Mr. McLynas in an official Pinellas County Sheriff’s Report in order to
facilitate an unlawful trespass. It van also be surmised that he was doing so to a) retaliate against
McLynas because he knew who he was, and b) was preventing Mr. McLynas from obtaining the records
he was seeking, which was the first appearance hearing video of Jill Wentz, the daughter of Pinellas
County Sheriff’s Captain Wentz and the daughter of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Lt. Wentz. These knowingly
false statements, intentionally placed into this report by Haimes can be construed as an attempt to
retaliate against McLynas for daring to seek public records of a PCSO family member. This is an abuse of
power and criminal act under the color of law.