Mo Molfino False Statements on Police Application:
To: Sour Lake Police Department
From: Michael David Bellow Jr
Marcelo Molfino applied to the City of Sour Lake, TX in July 2024 to be a police officer. His application is riddled with False Statements and False Statements by omission. Among the worst violations, is that Molfino knowingly omitted/falsified major portions of his history which he was required to list. The reason for this falsification was to deceive the investigator looking into his background, and the City of Sour Lake, by hiding key bad actions and illegal or improper activities from previous employment. The falsification of his application worked, as clearly the background investigator hiring report shows the investigator did not even look into or investigate key portions of his background and previous activities. The investigator wouldn’t know to look into illegal or improper actions involving Molfino, if Molfino completely omitted any reference or listing of the previous employment and previous activities from his application.
His application questionnaire clearly warns that everything
must be listed and mistakes in the past do not automatically disqualify you,
but that lying about the past and lies of omission by not listing them is
grounds for disqualification and that this is a government record so being
untruthful can have criminal consequences. Not only is lying on a police
application a criminal offense of Tampering with a Government Record, but it
was also notarized which means it is sworn to in front of a notary as both true
and complete answers, which is perjury or aggravated perjury. It is
imperative for a government looking to hire an officer to have the full view of
previous employment and actions of the potential new hire officer. No one is
perfect and previous negative info wouldn’t even prohibit employment in many
cases, but lying about it is and should always be grounds for termination, and
prosecution, because no officer could or should ever be trusted in the judicial
system if they are intentionally and substantially lying in order to deceive.
The following are the Lies and Omissions of Marcelo
Molfino on his City of Sour Lake Police Officer July 2024 Application:
In the Job Experience application section, it states to list ALL job in past ten years with ALL in caps, and states this means any employment whether self-employment, part time, temporary, or voluntary.
1)
Marcelo Molfino Does not mention many recent
major jobs he worked at and owned, including his employment and involvement
with Cell Forensics LLC, Molfino’s Catering LLC, SETX Powerwashing, and others.
Mo Molfino intentionally omitted those long standing jobs
because many of them were riddled with fraud or illegal activity or controversy.
Molfino’s Catering, LLC: This is/was Marcelo
Molfino’s side business which clearly falls within the past 10 years and was
required to be listed on his application. So why not list it on the
application? A Beaumont Enterprise news article revealed a recent controversy
of the city having to pay a 20k penalty by having Molfino do some catering which
was a violation of the legal contract process in place with a different
catering company. https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Documents-Port-Arthur-paid-20K-fee-to-change-15842800.php
These backdoor deals with paid side work even played a part
in his termination recommendation at the Jefferson County District Attorney
because, according to an official disciplinary recommendation dated February
23, 2021, Marcelo Molfino was found to have violated county policies by being
paid by the City of Port Arthur for catering services while also being paid by
Jefferson County for the same time claiming he was on the clock working for the
DA at the same time that he was doing his paid side work.
The letter also states that conflicting statements were made
about dates and services provided, and that those inconsistencies led county
leadership decided he wasn't qualified to serve his capacity of an officer of
the court, stating that the conduct was intentionally untruthful.
Cell Forensics, LLC: This is/was Marcelo Molfino’s
side business which clearly falls within the past 10 years and was required to
be listed on his application. So why not list it on the application? Had he
listed this previous employment, you would have found that Texas DPS previously
determined that Marcelo Molfino was practicing without a license doing private
investigation work with Cell Forensics. It was a class A misdemeanor but they
allowed him to just apply for a license instead of getting criminal charges, as
the Jefferson County DA, his boss, did not want to prosecute Molfino.
But that was only the tip of the iceberg of illegal and
unethical activity involving Cell Forensics. Molfino would bill Jefferson
County DA’s office for hours on the clock for Jefferson County DA, while he
would spend the whole day in other courts such as Hardin County civil court,
doing private paid side work for Cell Forensics. Multiple people, including
Nikki Smith, have accuse him of taking money in civil cases by someone, only to
turn around and put on his badge and charge the ex spouse of the person paying
them with false charges. In one case, a licensed forensics company out of
Houston area. Red Forensics, found that Molfino intentionally lied on his PI
reports that he submitted to his clients, all while practicing without a
license. Molfino and Cell Forensics are even being sued for malicious
prosecution. Molfino even responded and filed a motion in district court on
behalf of Cell Forensics LLC, which is a violation of law and a criminal
offense to practice law without a license or act as an attorney. Someone
working for an LLC company cannot represent it in a district court action
unless they are a licensed attorney.
2)
On question 27, Molfino checks NO to the
question regarding whether he has released or sold criminal case information.
This is false.
In fact, Marcelo Molfino was in previous controversy for
selling/releasing information to civil plaintiff’s attorneys from criminal
cases he worked on, in addition to releasing information and documents from
criminal cases to blogger Philip Klein, all without going through the normal
legal process for release of government records. One instance in particular
involved selling or releasing information from a criminal investigation in
Orange County involving a car accident to a plaintiff’s attorney who wanted the
information and documents to sue the driver.
3)
On questions 18, 19, 22, 24, Molfino checked
YES. He checked yes to these questions which asked if he has been disciplined,
fired, resigned in lieu of termination, received complaints against him, etc.
In his required explanation of these yes answers, he intentionally omitted
answers and information, and also misrepresented and made false statements.
Under these questions, Molfino is specifically asked to
explain all of the previous YES check boxes. He is asked to be specific and
list the dates and times and circumstances and which questions the explanations
correlate to. In this answer section, Molfino intentionally omitted pertinent
factual information, and also made misrepresentations and false statements.
Molfino ONLY stated that he was in a heated political issue while working for
the DA and he just decided to part ways and it had nothing to do with his job
performance.
Molfino only referenced, with no specificity, his leaving
the DA’s office. Molfino intentionally omitted explanation of all of the yes
boxes that he checked, including his previous work related disciplinary actions
and complaints involving improper use of comp time with the DA years before he
“resigned”. He also failed to list the complaints involving his work as an
unlicensed PI for cell forensics (which resulted in the Texas DPS determining
he was in violation), and the complaints involving his catering and the city
contracts controversy. Molfino was even disciplined for illegal use of his
notary stamp that he had when doing work in the DA’s office.
The worst part though is his misrepresentation of false
statement involving his resignation from the DA’s office. He did check off that
yes he resigned in lieu of termination, but then in the explanation area,
Molfino simply states it was a political issue and that he just decided to part
ways. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In reality, Molfino was caught
falsifying his time cards claiming to work hours he didn’t while he was doing
side paid work, and also improperly using comp time which is something he had
previously been disciplined on before. He then deceived the DA leadership and
was not honest with them about it. After an investigation by the DA leadership over
Molfino, the leadership department recommended hi be terminated. There was a
termination memo SIGNED by the Leadership and Heads of Departments of the
Jefferson County District Attorney Office. This memo details the disciplinary
investigation by the DA’s office. It details the lying and stealing by Molfino
which led to the DA’s office recommending him for Immediate Termination. They
even stated that he was unfit to be an Officer of the Court, and they had to
send out a Brady Notice to defendants letting them know that there could be
potential issues with cases that involved Molfino’s credibility.
Molfino completely omitted this vital information from his
police application regarding the facts and circumstances of his resigning in
lieu of termination from the DA’s office, and he even went as far as to falsely
misrepresent it as just a political disagreement and so he just decided to
resign. This was intentional and meant to hide previous issue from being
detected and investigated during his new employment background investigations.
4)
On question 8, Molfino was asked if he was
ever party to a civil suit. He is asked to further explain his yes answer.
While the answer is blocked out in the records request, it is only one line.
This leads me to believe that he omitted and did not list all of the civil
lawsuits he has been a party to. I assume he listed that he was suing me,
David Bellow, because Molfino claimed that I lied about him resigning in lieu
of termination. That lawsuit he thought would favor him so he told y’all about
that one I’m sure. (on a side note, Molfino lost that lawsuit against me and I
won because I provided to the court the proof that is was TRUE that Molfino
resigned in lieu of termination, and therefore it is not defamation if it is
true, and so I won summary judgement and Molfino had to pay my Attorney fees.
It is interesting that he swore to a judge that he did not resign in lieu of
termination, but on this police application he actually checked yes that he did
resign in lieu of termination).
I suspect that Molfino failed to list his other civil
lawsuits that he is or has been involved in as a party. In fact, as an officer,
Molfino has sued his previous employer The City of Port Arthur, literally filed
a lawsuit against the city but I’m sure he left that out of his application for
police officer with Sour Lake. He has also sued an insurance company. He even
threatened to sue Buna ISD for refusing to hire him. Lastly, he is currently
being sued in Jefferson County District Court for Malicious Prosecution. I have
a feeling he left out at least one of these lawsuits in his one line answer.
5)
On question 13, Molfino was asked if he ever
received fraudulent compensation. He checked NO, but this is not true because the
DA’s office had previously found that he had gotten improper compensation, and
he had to pay it back as part of the disciplinary.
6)
On Question 6 of undetected acts, he checked
NO on the question regarding whether he has ever falsified any documents or
license Also on question 46 he checked NO on the question of if he ever
committed perjury. This is False. Not including the falsifications of
records and licenses involving his illegal Private Investigation work, and not
including his falsifications involving his time and pay records with the DA,
Molfino has previously gotten disciplined for falsification involving his
notary stamp, and he committed perjury in testimony he provided on the stand.
The State of Texas determined he was in violation of the
notary laws and told him he would have to do remedial training, but Molfino
didn’t want to have to do disciplinary training so he just turned in his
license instead. Search warrant returns have to be notarized. In order to cover
for his mishandling of a previous search warrant, Molfino Notarized his own
signature on his own search warrant return, he swore to himself! The Texas SOS
notary department agreed with the complaint against him and determined he was
in violation by notarizing his own signature.
The Texas Rangers and a special prosecutor also previously
investigated Molfino for Perjury. He was never charged and I believe it was due
to it being outside of the statute of limitations, but the evidence was very
clear they he lied under oath during a criminal trial. Molfino had a conflict
of interest in the criminal case. Molfino swore up and down under oath that he
was not involved in the investigation. Molfino claimed he never collected
evidence or interviewed any witnesses. Molfino claimed the Texas DPS never
found that his unlicensed PI work was a class A misdemeanor. Well, the facts of
the trial showed that Molfino actually interviewed witnesses and notarized
statements in the case, he wrote and signed a search warrant in the case, he
wrote and signed the arrest warrant in the case. Molfino even admitted to
getting paid over $1000 cash from one of the parties in the criminal case. He
clearly lied under oath about not being involved in the criminal case, but he
was never charged with perjury although the facts speak for themselves.
The false statements, lies of omission, and
misrepresentations of Marcelo Mo Molfino in his Sour Lake, TX Police Officer
application and history questionnaire are criminal acts as the application is a
government record, and further Molfino swore to the answers being true and
complete, and lying in a sworn statement is perjury.
Therefore, I am submitting this criminal complaint
against Marcelo Molfino for the above criminal violations involving the false
statements on his police application.
Further, these actions call into question his honesty and
integrity as an officer of Sour Lake and should disqualify him from employment,
and the Hardin County District Attorney and any other prosecutor should inform
defendants of his honesty and integrity issues in a Brady Notice, which the
Jefferson County District Attorney has already previously issued against
Molfino.
These false statements and omissions had the intent to
deceive the background investigation, and it is clear that the false statements
DID in fact have a material and substantial effect on the outcome of the
background investigation. The false statements, misrepresentations, and lies of
omission prevented the background investigator from knowing and being able to
investigate, and clear or confirm, any potential derogatory information, or and
issues involving his credibility as a witness in a court of law. Therefore, the
background investigator stated that there was no issues involving his
credibility, when there were, and in fact his previous employer with the
Jefferson County District Attorney had specifically found him, in a termination
recommendation memo, not credible as a witness in a court of law and even
issued a brady notice to defendants regarding issues with his credibility as a
witness in a court of law.
Whatever I need to sign, or bring, or do an interview
about in order to follow the steps and procedures to properly initiate and file
this criminal complaint and city employee misconduct complaint against Marcelo
Molfino, please let me know.
Please see attached evidence and documents referenced in
the above complaint, and I can find or bring any other available documents and
evidence that might be needed if I have it.
No comments:
Post a Comment