Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 8

Parry & Smith, PLLC

______________________

Attorneys and Counselors at Law

______________________
Jeffrey R. Parry, Esq. - partner JeffreyParry404@gmail.com

7030 East Genesee Street

Fayetteville, N.Y. 13066
(315) 424-6115
(315)622-4829 – facsimile
- not for service of process -

May 27, 20022

Hon. Andrew Baxter
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
P.O. Box 7396
Syracuse, NY 13261-7396 Via Electronic Filing

Re: Kelly Glover v. The Onondaga County Sheriff’s Dept., et al.

Index No.:

Dear Judge Baxter,

As I reported to you on May 3, and contrary to Ms. Felter’s assertions, the

situation concerning discovery improprieties has darkened to the point where it
now threatens both the continued progress of this case and certainly the integrity of
the Court. I refer both to the unlawful discrediting of my expert witness, Kevin
Murphy (hereinafter “Murphy”), as well as the evidentiary improprieties discussed
upon the occasion of our last conference. Upon an extensive investigation, further
details are now known and are depicted below. These facts are offered in support
of my request for extended discovery dates to allow for further investigation and
preparation.

In proceeding, I ask the Court to be mindful of the fact that none of the delay
tactics and improprieties illustrated below arose as a result of Plaintiff’s actions.
Instead, it is the Plaintiff that suffers here with illegal attacks upon her, the
integrity of the judicial process and continued delays to her day in court.
1
 Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 8

Kevin Murphy and His Role

To understand the significance of the attacks on Plaintiff’s witness, it is

important to consider Murphy’s various roles. In this case, Kevin Murphy is both
an expert and a fact witness and his participation is crucial to the Plaintiff’s case.
However, he is also the key witness in seven other cases either pending or about to
be sued against the very same defendants involved herein. Simply put, without his
involvement all of these cases would fail. His testimony and assistance are literally
indispensable.

As an expert witness, Murphy’s credentials are unimpeachable and that is

the reason he was libeled at DCJS. Murphy has over thirty years of experience as a
police officer, over 28 years of that with the Onondaga County Sheriff’s
Department. Moreover, his experience in nearly unparalleled. He has testified as an
expert in this very Court of various criminal subjects, he was an instructor at the
Onondaga County Police Academy, he literally wrote texts on the use of the
CNYLeads Computer System, he spent 12 years as an investigator within the
Onondaga County jail system, he was an undercover investigator in high profile
investigations including the Hell’s Angels matter, he was a member of several
Federal task forces and worked with both the FBI and the US Attorney’s Office
extensively. His character is beyond scrutiny and his work record beyond reproach.
Based on his extensive knowledge of the workings of the defendant’s operations
alone, he is impossible to replace.

In the face of Murphy’s testimony, defendants are confronted with specter of

their very own, illicit conduct. These are blatant acts, impossible to hide, that
compound the wrongdoing generated in this case. The Court is asked to consider
the following.

1. Defendants destroyed critical records in an attempt to avoid litigation.

This avers to arrest reports and witness statements (the plural is
intended) that were not only critical to this case but, their destruction
constituted a crime as well. Defendants rationalized this destruction as
an act of good faith by Sheriff’s Deputies in an effort to protect Ms.
Glover’s reputation. This is a lie as Murphy can show.
2. Defendants repeatedly denied the existence of computerized records
and defense counsel, until she was exposed in our last conference,
2
Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 8

placed vacuous statements in the record alleging that these records did
not exist. I was personally insulted for months as some sort of
conspiracy theorist because of my continued insistence that these
records be produced (they still remain undisclosed). A “Committee”
was supposedly formed to assure the Court (and I) that nothing
remained to be disclosed in spite of our repeated demands. (The
members of the “Committee” remain undisclosed.) Then, and as you
will recall from our last conference, a document was inadvertently
given to us that proved the existence of the discovery materials we
predicted. Their mistake was their undoing and opposing counsel’s
transparent attempt to excuse years of malfeasance did nothing to
support the cover-up.

The existence of this material would have remained entirely unknown

were it not for Murphy.

3. Multiple witnesses were not disclosed until they were independently

ascertained and exposed. Opposing counsel has not, to the very best of
my knowledge, updated her witness list since the inception of the
case. It was left to the Plaintiff to discover the jail deputies present at
the time Ms. Glover was admitted to the jail and their role in her
incarceration.

The existence of these individuals could not be ascertained without

Murphy.

4. The fact that Ms. Glover was strip searched, certainly an element of
damages in a case alleging unlawful arrest, was actually denied and
the identity of the individual conducting the strip search was further
denied when we confronted the defense with irrefutable proof to
verify that fact. Further, the names associated with certain numerical
computer entries has not been disclosed. It is impossible to conduct
depositions upon the creation of computer records when you cannot
ascertain who was present.

The facts associated with the strip search could only be ascertained
over defense counsel’s obstructive behavior through Murphy.

3
Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 8

5. Even the existence of training manuals, initially denied, could only be

brought to light through Murphy. We were literally, and inexplicitly,
denied these very fundamental documents.

6. The witnesses that Ms. Felter now puts forth to you, perplexed that
for some unknown reason I will not schedule their testimony, were
only made known through Murphy. In fact, Murphy knew them
personally, was aware of their retirement status and actually worked
with them to one degree or another. You can imagine our chagrin
when opposing counsel voiced the premise that at least one of them
was “her” client based upon his previous employment with the
County. Then, he somehow became something other than an
employee but he retained her nevertheless. Then, and by Ms. Felter’s
letter of May 19th, he became a past contractor of the County but his
contract could be re-established for purposes of access to the County’s
computer system. In other words, he was never a present employee or
contractor but, we are not going to make him one.

This witness, Mr. Lefebvre, a decades old friend of Mr. Murphy who
was initially conversational with Murphy, now takes the position, we
are told, that he will not speak to me without counsel. I put to the
Court that Mr. Lefebvre has clearly been prejudiced and we will
explore to what degree when we depose him.

Nevertheless, the existence of witnesses Debra Kroll, Michael

Lefebvre, Ashley Smith and on and on to the sum of 40 witnesses
were all discovered not through the discovery process but through
Murphy.

7. A uniformed police officer is available to testify that defendant

Albanese admitted to a deal with Sheriff Conway to destroy evidence
in return for his resignation. Also contained in that deal, and as will be
the subject of further testimony, were actions by the OCSD to protect
Albanese’s certification at DCJS as part of the pay back. In other
words, they manipulated DCJS records in Albanese’s favor in the
same manor in which they sought to discredit Murphy. Defendant’s
actions are at least consistent.

4
 Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 5 of 8

I could easily go on for hours but, I think the Court and any interested reader
can readily understand the fact that defendants are attempting to “defend”
themselves by illegal obstruction, disregard of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the use of underhanded methods. As I have expressed to opposing counsel, this
case was brought to vindicate an affront to Kelly Glover’s rights and that affront
continues within the bounds of this Court’s jurisdiction.

The Present Attack on Murphy

Upon leaving the Sheriff’s Department, Murphy became employed by

Onondaga Community College as the second-in-command of their campus security
department. Murphy was discharged from that position for two reasons. First,
because he refused to arrest a student and confine him simply because he had
covid-19. (Absent probable cause that a crime had been committed, Murphy
simply could not do so.) As well, and very importantly, very reliable testimony
will be forthcoming that Murphy was discharged because he had sued Onondaga
County and, in particular, several high ranking members of County government.
The County, as the Court may be aware, is the largest source of funds for OCC and
County officials, very apparently, have very special status.

Murphy, along with his former boss and the student that was wrongly
incarcerated, sued. That case is in its beginning stages. However, and crucial for
the Courts consideration, at no time did anyone at OCC even infer that Murphy had
behaved improperly.

Nevertheless, after Murphy left, someone contacted DCJS and indicated that
Murphy had left after committing inappropriate and illegal acts. As such, Murphy’s
certification as a peace officer was revoked. He was not contacted or given notice
in any way and only became aware of this fact during the course of an unrelated
investigation.

As of today’s date, we have acquired DCJS information that has led us

closer to the perpetrator of this crime. With time, several judicial subpoenas and
several time consuming and expensive depositions, we expect to be able to
ascertain with certainty exactly who did this and when. However, counsel for OCC
has been very cooperative and has admitted that there were never any allegations
of wrongdoing by Murphy. Obviously, it is in his client’s best interest to clear this
up without incurring additional damages. As such, we fully expect to identify the
5
 Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 6 of 8

individuals involved in due course.

However, as we have narrowed the number of possible suspects to a

significant degree, we can say unequivocally that there are binding ties,
professional and personal relationships, that connect all of those involved to
ranking members of County government and specific defendants in all of the cases
Murphy is involved in. The Glover case is to be specifically included in that
statement.

The Motivation Behind the Murphy Attack

We know for a fact at this point that the report to DCJS was deliberate.
There is simply no question about that. As well, we have identified a group of very
likely participants with relevant ties to County government. As well, the motive is
clear; do away with Murphy’s credibility and you do away with all of your
problems.

This final point requires little imagination. Very simply, upon his testimony
concerning his expert qualifications opposing counsel on voir dire would be able to
impeach him, by surprise, by introducing evidence as to his discreditation. Murphy
would be left red faced before the jury and the Plaintiff’s case entirely destroyed.
Moreover, whatever testimony he did put forth would be rendered useless both as
an expert and a fact witness. No other motive is even possible.

As well, it should be mentioned that the effort to decertify Murphy was an

attempt at more than character assassination, it was an effort to destroy him
financially. A family man with several children, Murphy will not long survive
unless this is cleared from his record. In other words, this was an unbridled attempt
to tamper with a federal witness through both slander and financial ruin.

Therefore, the attack upon Murphy’s credibility via his DCJS certification is
not just important to the Glover case, it is crucial to the Glover case.

Unprofessional Position of Opposing Counsel

I am frankly weary of opposing counsel misleading the Court. Murphy is a

good man engaged in a good cause, a servant of this community. His involvement
in all of these cases stems from a strong sense of right and wrong and not from
6
 Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 7 of 8

some need for monetary gain.

Nevertheless, the attempted destruction of this man, and plaintiff’s key

witness, is deemed to be irrelevant by opposing counsel. This flies in the face of
whatever dignity is left in the legal profession. In fact, and as mentioned above,
even counsel for OCC has been engaged in setting this matter right. However,
defendant’s attorney can’t understand how this should at all interfere with the rapid
conclusion of this case.

Let me be clear. That the Plaintiff’s case has been the subject of intentional
and illegal harm is beyond dispute. To say that it is the subject of some other case
or to infer that it is some side show not worthy of consideration is a falsehood,
misleading to the Court and an encroachment of justice. Frankly, it defies polite
description. To be sure, the situation can be remedied and we are about that.
However, to say that it doesn’t matter is simply wrong.

The Current State of Discovery

In spite of the revelations at the last conference with the Court, no other
materials have been forthcoming. I do not believe that defendants have any real
intention to comply. To be clear, Plaintiff has made four discovery demands of
considerable depth. We have received little and now Counsel continues to press for
depositions in the absence of physical evidence. She wants me to go in blind.

As a consequence, I plan to proceed by subpoena, gathering the materials

that should have been disclosed as a matter of course. This, however, requires time.
In the presence of an overtly uncooperative opponent, it is simply not realistic to
attempt to abide by the dates presented by counsel.

I therefore present the following dates, each offered after much

consideration and with thoughts of my client’s desire to move this to a conclusion.

1) End Date for Fact Discovery – December 31, 2022

2) End Date for Expert Discovery – February 1, 2023
3) Defendant’s Expert Discovery – March 1, 2023
4) Plaintiff’s Rebuttal Expert Disclosure – March 15, 2023
5) Dispositive Motions – April 15, 2023

7
 Case 5:18-cv-00837-GLS-ATB Document 94 Filed 05/27/22 Page 8 of 8

By adding the additional time, I believe the Murphy situation may be

resolved. However, and very obviously, I cannot promise this. As well, it may be
necessary to seek protective orders and other vehicles to protect my client’s rights.
These steps, of course, take further time.

Additional Discovery Matters

Defense Counsel raises other issues that, frankly, pale in comparison to the
aforementioned crimes. In response however, I wish to make it clear to the Court
that, for the last few weeks this office has done little else beside work on this and
related cases in light of the illegal DCJS disclosure. It has literally thrown my
entire practice into a turmoil. So, if that was Defendant’s intent, at least in part,
they were successful.

However, it is surely obvious that some control over this matter must be in
place before Murphy can be deposed. Again, this will take some time and, of
course, that is the purpose of this letter. I do not find my scheduling request terribly
burdensome given the unusual circumstances presented. In point of fact, it is he
Plaintiff that is prejudiced here, not the defendants.

Finally, I expect to address the other matters presented by counsel in due

course. The protective order as it pertains to Albanese, citing only one example,
will surely be resolved. In fact, we are eager to get by this. Moreover, there are
other depositions not listed by Counsel, that need to be attended to before Murphy
can be deposed. Nevertheless, none of these can be accomplished until I am sure
that I have a viable expert upon which I can rely on at trial.

Judge, I am sure that you have noticed that I do not like excuses and I do not
play games. I sincerely hope that this matter is handled as an affront to the Court
because, very plainly, it is. I only ask that you don’t compound the illegality by
further compromising the position of my client.

Thank you for your anticipated understanding and cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Jeffrey Parry
8