Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John Monroque's State Lawsuit Against Fraternal Order of Police
John Monroque's State Lawsuit Against Fraternal Order of Police
John Monroque's State Lawsuit Against Fraternal Order of Police
JOHN MONROQUE,
v.
PY
PALM BEACH LODGE NO. TWO,
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
INC.,
CO
Defendants.
____________________________/
D
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
IE
COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOHN MONROQUE, by and through the undersigned
IF
counsel, and sues Defendants, ADAM MYERS, and WEST PALM BEACH LODGE NO. TWO,
RT
2. Plaintiff, JOHN MONROQUE, is a 66-year-old individual who is sui juris and resides in
T
3. Defendant, ADAM MYERS, is an individual over the age of 18 who is sui juris and
N
FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, JOSEPH ABRUZZO, CLERK, 08/22/2023 08:46:50 AM
5. The events which gave rise to this lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach County, which is
6. On November 1, 2019, in the parking lot of the Food Plus grocery store located at
5501 Broadway Avenue in West Palm Beach, Florida, Officer Nicholas Lordi, of the
PY
West Palm Beach Police Department, grabbed Mr. Monroque from behind, pushed
him face first onto the front of his police car, and then took him to the ground where
CO
he placed Mr. Monroque in a head lock.
7. Screenshots below are taken from the surveillance video of the incident which was
D
used by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct an investigation on
surveillance camera.
CE
A
T
O
N
2
9. Officer Lordi, now having Mr. Monroque in a headlock, punched him in the head
PY
CO
D
IE
IF
10. Officer Lordi then rolled Mr. Monroque over onto his back, and continued punching
RT
him in the face with a closed fist approximately five more times.
CE
A
T
O
N
3
11. Officer Lordi did not stop punching Mr. Monroque in the face until a civilian
bystander defended Mr. Monroque by grabbing Officer Lordi to stop his attack. Mr.
PY
CO
D
IE
IF
RT
12. A few minutes later, Mr. Monroque was laying on the pavement in handcuffs when
Officer Lordi continued his assault by forcefully placing his knee, and body weight,
CE
on his head.
A
T
O
N
4
PY
CO
13. Paramedics transported Mr. Monroque to St. Mary’s Hospital where he was
D
diagnosed with a significant head injury, including a suspected skull fracture and
broken nose. IE
IF
14. Officer Lordi arrested and charged Mr. Monroque for the incident.
RT
15. After Officer Lordi arrested Mr. Monroque, video footage of the incident was
16. In the criminal case, the video was authenticated as a true and accurate recording in
17. After the video was disclosed, the State Attorney’s Office dropped all charges
T
against Mr. Monroque, and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement opened an
O
18. On or about February 15, 2022, Officer Lordi was arrested and charged with
5
19. On or about February 16, 2022, Adam Myers, the president of the FRAT released a
statement:
We are extremely disheartened with the decision of the Palm Beach County State
Attorney Dave Aronberg to charge Officer Nicholas Lordi with a crime, simply for
performing his duty. This charge stems from an incident in 2019 in which Officer Lordi
responded to a convenience store and asked to remove an intoxicated suspect. Two
officers were dispatched to the store after the clerk reported the subject being belligerent
and refusing to leave the property. Officer Lordi spent several minutes trying to convince
the intoxicated suspect to leave the store, but he continued to refuse. When the suspect
PY
was told that he would be arrested, he became violent. When the officers attempted to
and cuff him, he reached for one of the officer's gun.
CO
Police officers are trained if someone tries to take your gun, they are trying to kill you. In
202 [sic], 64 police officers were killed by gunfire, more than one officer every week.
Officer Lordi was protecting himself, his partner, and the public; he acted within the law
and within policy. When faced with the subject's acts of aggression, he used restraint and
did not escalate to the use of deadly force. The subject was treated for his injuries and
D
was transported to the county jail. This subject turned a simple call into a deadly force
IE
situation. Had Officer Lordi not been well trained and experienced, this routine call for
service could have ended tragically.
IF
In 2019 this entire incident was reviewed internally by the West Palm Beach Police
Department. Officer Lordi’s actions were determined to be a justifiable use of force, and
RT
within policy. Based on a doctored video of the incident which began to circulate social
media, Chief Frank Adderley requested the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to
conduct an outside investigation. Since this incident occurred, Officer Lordi has
CE
The Fraternal Order of Police stands firmly behind Officer Lordi. The actions he took in
2019 were fully justified. Officer Lordi feared for the life and safety of himself, his
A
partner, and the public as a violent felon was trying to take an officer's weapon. It is a
sad day when a police officer is arrested for protecting his life and the lives of others
during his duty. At the conclusion of the legal process, we are confident Officer Lordi
T
20. This press release was published in full, and subsequently quoted by multiple news
N
media, including WBPF (channel 25) news, WTVX (channel 34) news, NBC news,
6
21. However, Mr. Monroque was neither violent—in his life or during the incident
22. Furthermore, the video that prompted Chief Frank Adderley to request the Florida
misconduct was not “doctored,” and, in fact, had previously been authenticated as a
PY
23. On July 28, 2023, Plaintiff served written notice via certified mail on both
CO
Defendants with this complaint in attachment, which specifies the false and
D
COUNT I – DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST ADAM MYERS AND THE FRAT
IE
24. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 6 through 22 as if fully set forth herein.
IF
25. Defendants’ statements were communicated to the public verbally and in writing. Exhibit A
RT
is one example of a news media outlet reprinting the FRAT’s statements one day after the
26. Defendants’ statement that called Mr. Monroque a violent felon was factually false,
as Mr. Monroque was a 65-year-old man who was not violent, and who is not a
A
felon.
T
27. The fact that Mr. Monroque has never been convicted of a felony makes Defendants’
O
false public statement in their press release defamation per se. See Madsen v. Buie,
N
454 So. 2d 727, 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (“Under Florida law, a publication is
felony…”); see also Smolla, Law of Defamation § 7:12 (2d ed. 2023) (“The
7
statement that ‘John is a felon’ . . . is actionable as slander per se.”).
28. Moreover, Mr. Monroque never tried to take any officer’s weapon.
29. Further, the video of officer Nicholas Lordi attacking Mr. Monroque from behind
and punching him repeatedly in the head was not doctored but an authentic
30. Defendants made the false statements in their press release with malice and/or intent
PY
to harm Mr. Monroque.
CO
31. Defendants had a duty to verify their claims before stating false facts about a private
citizen publicly.
32. Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that the statements they issued to the
D
IE
press were false even before they issued these statements because, among other
reasons:
IF
a. Defendants lacked any evidence suggesting that Mr. Monroque was a felon;
RT
b. Defendants, being police officers, had free, easy and quick access to various
CE
records;
A
person;
T
O
d. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that the video seen by Police Chief
N
Adderley was doctored, but had access to police forensic experts who could
confirm the authenticity of the video; and moreover, with even minimal due
diligence, would have known the video had already been authenticated as a
8
e. Defendants had no evidence that Mr. Monroque tried to take any officer’s
weapon;
f. Defendants, with even minimal due diligence, would have determined the
truth which was contrary to the false statements in their press release.
33. By publicly issuing false statements about Mr. Monroque, Defendants acted with
actual malice and/or reckless disregard, and at least negligence in breaching their
PY
duty to verify their claims.
CO
34. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its
widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in
D
IE
35. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm, emotional distress,
CE
9
COUNT II – DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST ADAM MYERS AND THE FRAT
38. Florida Statutes 836.01 states: “Any person convicted of the publication of a libel
775.082 or s. 775.083.”
39. This statute was enacted precisely to protect Florida citizens from defamatory
PY
statements such as the ones Defendants publicly issued about Mr. Monroque.
CO
40. Defendants’ statements were communicated to the public verbally and in writing.
41. Defendants’ statement that called Mr. Monroque a violent felon was factually false,
D
as Mr. Monroque was a 65-year-old man who was not violent, and who is not a
IE
felon. Mr. Monroque has ever been convicted of a felony.
IF
42. Moreover, Mr. Monroque never tried to take any officer’s weapon.
43. Further, the video of officer Nicholas Lordi attacking Mr. Monroque from behind
RT
and punching him repeatedly in the head was not doctored but an authentic
CE
44. Defendants made the false statements in their press release with malice and/or intent
A
45. Defendant Myers and the FRAT had a duty to verify their claims before stating false
O
46. Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that the statements they issued to the
press were false even before they issued these statements because, among other
reasons:
a. Defendants lacked any evidence suggesting that Mr. Monroque was a felon;
10
b. Defendants, being police officers, had free, easy and quick access to various
databases so they could check Mr. Monroque’s background for criminal records;
c. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that Mr. Monroque was a violent person;
d. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that the video seen by Police Chief
Adderley was doctored, but had access to police forensic experts who could
confirm the authenticity of the video; and moreover, with even minimal due
PY
diligence, would have known the video had already been authenticated as a true
CO
and accurate recording in court, and entered into evidence;
e. Defendants had no evidence that Mr. Monroque tried to take any officer’s
weapon;
D
IE
f. Defendants, with even minimal due diligence, would have determined the truth
actual malice and/or reckless disregard, and at least negligence in breaching their
CE
48. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its
A
widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in
49. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
N
51. Defendants’ violation of Fla. Stat. 836.01 directly and proximately caused actual
damages to Mr. Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm,
11
emotional distress, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.
COUNT III – DEFAMATION PER QUOD AGAINST ADAM MYERS AND THE FRAT
53. Defendants’ statements were communicated to the public verbally and in writing.
Exhibit A is one example of a news media outlet reprinting the FRAT’s statements
PY
one day after the press release was issued by Defendant Myers.
54. Defendants’ statement that called Mr. Monroque a violent felon was factually false,
CO
as Mr. Monroque was a 65-year-old man who was not violent, and who is not a
D
55. Moreover, Mr. Monroque never tried to take any officer’s weapon.
IE
56. Further, the video of officer Nicholas Lordi attacking Mr. Monroque from behind
IF
and punching him repeatedly in the head was not doctored but an authentic
RT
57. Defendants made the false statements in their press release with malice and/or intent
CE
58. Defendants had a duty to verify their claims before stating false facts about a private
A
citizen publicly.
T
59. Defendants knew and/or had reason to know that the statements they issued to the
O
press were false even before they issued these statements because, among other
N
reasons:
a. Defendants lacked any evidence suggesting that Mr. Monroque was a felon;
12
b. Defendants, being police officers, had free, easy and quick access to various
databases so they could check Mr. Monroque’s background for criminal records;
c. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that Mr. Monroque was a violent person;
d. Defendants had no evidence to indicate that the video seen by Police Chief
Adderley was doctored, but had access to police forensic experts who could
confirm the authenticity of the video; and moreover, with even minimal due
PY
diligence, would have known the video had already been authenticated as a true
CO
and accurate recording in court, and entered into evidence;
e. Defendants had no evidence that Mr. Monroque tried to take any officer’s
weapon;
D
IE
f. Defendants, with even minimal due diligence, would have determined the truth
actual malice and/or reckless disregard, and at least negligence in breaching their
CE
61. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its
A
widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in
62. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
N
63. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused actual damages to Mr.
Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm, emotional distress,
13
COUNT IV – DEFAMATION PER SE AGAINST THE FRAT (VICARIOUS LIABILITY)
65. Defendant Adam Myers was and still is the President of the FRAT during all time
66. Defendant Adam Myers publicly issued the abovementioned false statements about
PY
67. Defendant Adam Myers publicly issued the abovementioned false statements about
CO
Mr. Monroque during the time he performed duties for the benefit and purpose of
the FRAT.
D
68. Issuing public statements on behalf of the FRAT was an activity Defendant Myers
IE
was hired, paid, or elected to perform for the FRAT.
IF
69. Defendant Myers publicly issued the abovementioned false statements during the
70. All claims in the above paragraphs are incorporated here, since they apply equally to
CE
71. Defendants’ false statements were defamatory on their face and, because of its
A
widespread reach on broadcast news and the internet, prejudiced Mr. Monroque in
T
72. Defendants’ false statements subjected Mr. Monroque to hatred, distrust, ridicule,
N
73. Defendants’ false statements directly and proximately caused actual damages to Mr.
Monroque, including but not limited to, reputational harm, emotional distress,
14
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendants ADAM MYERS and
i. Requiring Defendants to make a public retraction of the false statements and publicly
ii. Awarding Plaintiff all compensatory damages, including consequential and incidental
PY
damages, as a result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, in an amount to be determined at
CO
trial;
D
iv. Awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs;
v. IE
Such further relief this Court deems just and proper.
IF
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
RT
The Plaintiff in the above styled cause hereby demands a trial by jury of all of the issues
triable by right.
CE
Kelley | Uustal
A
shp@kulaw.com
15
FLI/bf
N
O
T
A
CE
16
RT
IF
IE
D
CO
PY
>"0œ{7œ¾>ÿ?œKÞœo´¶¬°œ º» æ úľ*œÅ7ĪŀĈœ «œėœ ¼œÆ):Đ>œ Őœ
Exhibit A
Ùpãpï4Ì
I`Ŀ
œý2%>œ#!œ
a2
œ%ķœTœ*2Ń
œ
Ā<*
œđ
0!œ
%œĉ0
œ
!œ
)
œ
PY
<&#A(&I
III)%II
I
C
^)œĊ GœÓIög!œ
İ
ĸ2%
œ Ü+ċ
œC^Gb*œÐ7
%œ
!U!ı
%
%œœ
C00
œ~+
!
CO
C!0
œ |
ĭ;œßēœŒœ |QĘœèĞQœ
őœ Ŏœ
w+œþ
F+
œ
ij<
ĹT
_œ`œ
%
%bœ)2T¤%ō
<+œād!)œ+œ
!0œ
D
çī*œ¿
^)œ
2
C
ĂĬ*Fň
_œ
x<2G+œKœGŁœ
2,2
IE
IF
K/%!œ+>#œĒ/œ
RT
ăœb#œĦ#œ 2ħœ
-2
!
CE
x
#!œ]œÇ œÝU/œ
";E>I8$15I''?+@@I
"
A
K>#Gğ!œ!
0œ`œ
)'2-2w**œ
ø
**2+aœ' 2
± · l
l*_œ
!
%œ $ !WW'#(W?,W¥ ñœÔ
œÍ$.œœu#œÑ6 8œ&œœMœé
œ
T
IĢ
œIĠ
ĵœ ÕÎYqœ#œœœyNœ
W(5=cœO#(œy D
œv hœ-œę5œœ-œR5 §
# 2,'2!
1($2ĺT¦œ02 ó-œĚ.FœOœ(œà'œ
W
È<+œœČ<%œ
N
*2
a)
-58"#&!78
#8#17&78'#!8
8873*8
"
œœO,œ,(f&A
ÁĔœĻûQœĮĨœõQĥ<
'4/GBB5C152W
WDW0HDPK=.TP=IDNWB+36WQIWB+VIKNW0+BJ+>9EWB+C+96LNW%W+:6+2WI8W*6NQW
&,@BW4,/;W",M=F,WUGR4W
ÚRœ 'kœá@œð
3@SœSœœPœ
œœĜœ#œ,3 ʼn,jœ'@œZ RœœN3œœ$
œ
į ĴœRņœ';kœńœ#œ =;ļœW+œX1@œœœ²
W;'œ(œ7œWœì
œJ)œÊ=3'¨œ
WN(©œ
ARÀERÀTµ£SR·ÀOp oTE£RROÀ³q¢oÀ¢oTÀOTKp qÀXÀ¢oTÀ8EÀ(REHoÀ*«£·À<¢E£TÀ&¥¥R·À,ERÀ&FRkÀ
¢À IoEkRÀ7WfIRÀ6pIoE À4PrÀ´p£oÀEÀIR
À p·ÀXÀTXkÀop ÀO«¢ºÀ>#$ ÀIoElTÀ £T ÀXÀEÀ
qIsOR£ÀÀ
À³oqHoÀ7XeIRÀ4OrÀR OROÀ£ÀEÀI°pRIRÀ ¢RÀ EOÀE ROÀ£ÀRRÀEÀ q£µsIE¢ROÀ
« RJ£À >´ÀXfIR À³RRÀOs E¢IoROÀ£À£oRÀ £RÀEX¢RÀ¢oRÀJRÀR¢ROÀ¢oRÀ «F|RI£ÀFRqmÀFRsmRR£ÀEOÀ
RX« smÀ£ÀRERÀ£oRÀR£¼À7XfJRÀ4OpÀ R£À RREÀs«¢R À¢·smÀ£ÀI®sIRÀ¢oRÀs¢¶sIE¢SOÀ « RI£À
¢ÀRE±À£oTÀ ¢SÀF«£ÀoTÀN£s«TOÀ£ÀSX« TÀBoTÀ¢oTÀ « RJ£À´E À£OÀ¢oE£ÀoRÀ³«OÀGTÀE £TOÀoTÀ
PY
FRJETÀsT£À BoTÀ£oTÀXfJT ÀE£¨T£TOÀ¢ÀoEOJ«cÀop
ÀoTÀTEIoTOÀXÀTÀXÀ¢oTÀXXtJTÀm«À
CO
EmmS tÀoTÀ« TOÀT ¢Er¢ÀEOÀOtOÀ£ÀT JEE¢TÀ¢À¢oTÀ« TÀXÀOTEO·ÀXMTÀ?oTÀ «F~TJ£À´E À£TE£TOÀXÀos À
s«sT ÀEOÀ ´E À£E £TOÀ¢À¢oTÀI«£·ÀEyÀ ?os À «F~TJ£À£«TOÀEÀ s¤TÀJEÀs£ÀEÀOTEO·ÀXJTÀ s£«E¢sÀ
0EOÀ7_`xITÀ4OsÀ£ÀFTTÀ³T
À£EsTOÀEOÀT¶TsTJTOÀ£op À«£sUÀJE
ÀXÀ T®uJTÀJ«OÀoETÀTOTOÀ
¢EkqJE·À
D
1À
¢ov ÀR¢sRÀpJpOT£À´E ÀRsR³ROÀp¢RE¹ÀF·À£oRÀCR £À9E!À)REJoÀ9¦JRÀ-RE£R§À7dIRÀ
4OtÀEI¢s À¿¯TTÀOTªsTOÀ£ÀFTÀEÀ~« £shEFTÀ« TÀXÀXJRÀEOÀ³q¢osÀtI·À)E TOÀÀEÀOJ¢TOÀ sOTÀ
XÀ£oTÀsJsOT£À´opJoÀFTmEÀ¢ÀJrJ«E¢TÀ JtEÀUOsEÀ+osTXÀ/EÀ&OOTT·ÀS«T £TOÀ£oTÀ/pOEÀ
IE
-TE£T£ÀXÀ4E³À.XJTT£À£ÀJO«I£ÀEÀ«£ sOTÀp² £pkE¢pÀ=sJTÀ£os ÀsJsOT¥ÀJI«TO
À7[iJTÀ
5OsÀoE ÀK£p«TOÀ³pkÀ£À£TL¢À¢oRÀIp£s½R ÀXÀBT £À:EÀ(TEIoÀ
IF
@oRÀ/E¢REÀ7ORÀXÀ9tJRÀ ¢EO ÀXs·ÀFRoqOÀ7cwIRÀ4OpÀ @oRÀEJ¢t ÀoTÀ ¢ÀsÀ
³RRÀX«·À
}« ¢sXsTOÀ7\iITÀ4OrÀXTETOÀXÀ£oRÀpXTÀEOÀ Eb¢·ÀXÀop" T^Àos ÀE£TÀEOÀ¢oRÀ«FsIÀE ÀEÀsT£ÀXTÀ
³E À¢º{mÀ¢ À¢ETÀEÀXXtJTÀ´TEÀ 2¢Às ÀEÀ EOÀOE·À³oTÀEÀsJTÀ]fJTÀs ÀET ¢TOÀjÀ£TJ¢pmÀop ÀzXTÀ
RT
2À.78"+8,72'8/+80+78%'0/#")68$$4"8.8'$878 8$#8(+!"8
7'" "87".'8
CE
A
T