Sheriff Morgan Uses Taxpayer Money for Campaign Billboards?

INTRODUCTION

UPDATE (May 18, 2016, 1049H): The intention of the original article was to focus on car thefts and car burglaries.  However, due to length, I limited the discussion to car thefts.  However, in at least three places I used the word "burglary" which confused readers.  "Motor Vehicle Theft" is a separate category in the Uniform Crime Reporting program.  As I was collecting the ECSO data on dispatches, I differentiated between car burglary and car theft.  There were 159 dispatches for car burglary during the time period of mid-April to mid-May.  That would yield an annual number of 1,908 car burglaries.  However, the FDLE does not maintain a database of car burglaries.  The FDLE database has an umbrella category for "burglary" which makes trend data for car burglaries impossible to calculate.  However, the logic for car burglaries and car thefts is the same:  If there is no alarming spike in car burglaries, then why spend $130,080?  If there is an alarming spike in car burglaries, then why implement the least effective anti-theft police publicity campaign?  In either case we are left questioning the competence of the ECSO leadership and the ulterior motives of Sheriff Morgan.  END.

On April 22, 2016, Jay Camac, a retired Deputy (1994-2012) began a comment thread on the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) Affairs website regarding the "Cost of Lock Your Doors Billboards."  Earlier, Camac had submitted a public records request (April 8, 2016) and subsequently posted the Escambia County Sheriff's Office documentation within the LEO thread.

The documentation revealed that the Sheriff's Office had contracted with the Lamar Companies to spend a total of $130,080, of which $122,400 was for rental space for the signs which have a picture of Sheriff Morgan next to the caption "Lock your doors and keep it yours."  There are three rental periods: March 7, 2016 to May 1, 2016 at 38 locations; May 2, 2016 to June 26, 2016 at 38 locations; and, June 27, 2016 to August 21, 2016 at an undetermined number of locations.  During each rental period, the Sheriff's Office is spending $40,800.

As Jay Camac observed in his original comment, "I'm sure it is only a coincidence that this publicity campaign runs from March 7, 2016 until August 21, 2016. I'm sure it is a only another coincidence that Morgan is featured prominently on these billboards."  An anonymous commenter also suggested that "those billboards...are nothing more than Morgan campaign signs disguised as public service announcements."  Possibly a second anonymous commenter noted, "Simply put he can't raise enough money to run his campaign fund so he goes and does the unthinkable with taxpayers money! Time will tell!"

Thus, we are led to believe that the Sheriff's Office will be successful in reducing car burglaries theft between March and August via these billboards.  We are also led to believe that the expenditure of $130,080 has nothing to do with Sheriff Morgan's re-election campaign.

The purpose of this CJ's Street Report article is to show that while the ostensible purpose of the billboard campaign is to reduce the number of car burglaries, the real purpose is to promote Sheriff Morgan's candidacy.  This argument is based upon empirical research indicating that Sheriff Morgan chose the worst possible type of anti-theft publicity campaign to reduce car burglaries.  That is, the billboard campaign that Sheriff Morgan chose to reduce car burglaries is indicative of his incompetence as sheriff.  While it is certainly plausible that while he may have chosen this type of billboard campaign because he truly is incompetent, it is equally plausible that he chose this billboard campaign as a cover for its real purpose--to promote his inept political campaign.

After all, what kind of sheriff states on the one hand that he has reduced crime, and thus he needs to "keep the momentum" going, and, on the other hand, tells the voting the public that his office is a failure at combating car burglary theft?  And, to add insult to injury, since the target audience is owners of cars, what kind of sheriff essentially tells his potential voters that they are the cause of his failure, and not his lack of leadership and experience?  Well, only an incompetent sheriff does that.

IS THERE A CAR BURGLARY THEFT CRIME WAVE?

The first question to ask is whether or not there is a significant surge or spike in "motor vehicle theft" that would warrant a $130,000 expenditure of taxpayer funds.

The problem with law enforcement data is that it lags behind current events.  From the FDLE, we have data for Escambia County from 2006 through June 2015.  In the chart below, the data for 2015 is a doubling of the reported data for the period of January to June 2015 of 234 thefts.  Judging from the available data, the number of "motor vehicle thefts" is significantly down from 2013.  A public records request has been submitted for data since June 2015.

The data show that in Sheriff Morgan's first year, 2009, there were 753 "motor vehicle thefts," according to FDLE data.  The number declined to 609 in 2010, rose to 726 in 2011, fell to 680 in 2012, rose to 768 in 2013, and fell to 660 in 2014.  The first six months of 2015 had 234 "motor vehicle thefts," which is shown on the line graph as 468--an assumed and arbitrary doubling.  That number would have to increase three times, to 702 to show a significant increase over 2014.  In fact, the 234 figure would have to increase nearly four-and-a-half times to reach the 2006 level of 1,039 "motor vehicle thefts."

In none of these years (2009-2015) did Sheriff Morgan believe that the data warranted the expenditure of $130,000 for billboards to advise car owners to lock their cars.  Again, CJ's Street Report has requested through a public records request the "motor vehicle theft" data since June 2015.

There is some preliminary data suggesting a very steep rise in "motor vehicle thefts."  I did a search of the ECSO's dispatch calls from April 17 to 15 May, 2016.  The ECSO database only allows a search of the last 30 days.

In that time period, there were 118 dispatches for a "vehicle-stolen."  Assuming that each dispatch for a stolen vehicle represents an actual stolen vehicle, that would produce a twelve-month total of 1,416 stolen vehicles--377 vehicles more than the 1,039 stolen vehicles reported in 2006.  In fact, 2006 was the highest year of the data set spanning from 1995 to 2014.

Thus, if 2016 is on a pace to be the year for the highest number of stolen vehicles since 1995--in fact, the all-time worst year on record--then the issue is whether a billboard campaign is the appropriate response by Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Eric Haines.  Was a billboard the best solution that the ECSO brain trust could come up with?

One of the anonymous commenters on the LEO Affairs website asked, "Why not put a Burglary task task force together?  Everybody knows the real reasons why this wasn't done. 1) it makes logical sense 2) Morgan knows nothing about Policing 3) Morgan doesnt [sic] get the Political exposure through real tried and true Policing practices!"  Why not, indeed?

Fortunately, there are some pretty bright people in the field of criminal justice who examine the effectiveness of various types of police responses to crime.  Those studies suggest that a billboard campaign is the weakest response, and, in order for a billboard campaign to be successful, it must be accompanied by intensive planning and operations.

POLICE BEST PRACTICES

Emmanuel Barthe (PhD) literally wrote the book on police responses to car thefts.  He published a short article, "Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns" (2006) for the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing at the State University of New York, Albany.  His much larger study (pdf), "Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns" was supported by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

It is important to note that Barthe's study, as part of the "Response Guide Series" is based on "research findings and police practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia" and that each "guide is informed by a thorough review of the research literature and reported police practice and is anonymously peer-reviewed by line police officers, police executives and researchers prior to publication."

Thus, Barthe's observations and conclusions regarding best practices for a police publicity campaign need to be considered carefully.  Barthe's study is referenced in numerous other police works as essentially the definitive study of best practices.

Barthe's first specific caution is that a police publicity campaign to be effective must be part of a planned operational strategy:  "Police agencies should not blindly resort to publicity campaigns or rely on them to replace proper police interventions. While it may be tempting to adopt publicity campaigns to support police efforts, such attempts should incorporate proper planning and adequate implementation."  Prior to starting the publicity campaign law enforcement needs to "carefully analyze the crime problem" in order to determine whether the target audience is potential victims, offenders, or a combination of both.  Thus, "Agencies should therefore undertake a publicity campaign only in the context of a broader response to a problem."

More to the point, Barthe suggested that simple, stand-alone police publicity campaigns aimed at reducing car thefts were very unlikely to be successful:  "Randomly posting signs advising residents to lock their cars is unlikely to reduce a city’s car theft problem.... General publicity campaigns aimed at victims have had limited effectiveness.  A four-month national press and poster campaign tried to educate people about the importance of locking their parked cars, but it failed to change people’s behavior.  Another campaign used posters and television spots to remind people to lock their car doors, but it also proved ineffective.  These studies demonstrate that people often pay little attention to crime prevention messages.... Even with extensive campaign coverage, general publicity attempts show meager results.... General victim campaigns are rarely successful in changing prevention behaviors."

Similar observations were reported by Mike Langenbacher and John Klofas in their 2012 review of the literature (pdf), "Media Campaigns and Crime Prevention" for the Rochester Institute of Technology's Center for Public Safety Initiatives.  They noted that a 2004 study found that "Often times they are the brainchildren of politicians, who often seek to use such programs to show that they are tough on crime or that they have been effective in reducing crime...Perhaps as a result, Atkin and Decker point out that there exists only a limited understanding of the effects of prevention publicity, despite their now widespread use."

Their 2012 literature review also included Poyner's 1989 analysis of the effectiveness of various measures.  Although there was no discussion of Poyner's analysis--suggesting that the study is well known and understood--there was a relevant table regarding "campaigns and publicity."  A tactic could have an effectiveness score between +2, +1, 0, and -1.  Police talks in schools had an effectiveness measure of 1.  The highest, at 1.78, was "doorstep campaigns by the police."  The least effective method of stopping crime was "advertising/publicity to encourage the use of security devices."  That method was even less effective than a police talk at school with a rating of 0.71.

It is impossible to know whether or not Sheriff Morgan has directed an intensive data analysis of the stolen vehicle data to determine the geography of the crimes, the time of day, the vehicles stolen, the methodology of the crimes, and whether there is a pattern to the crimes.  Nor is it known if the Sheriff's Office has formed a Car Theft task force to do intensive hot-spot policing which is more effective than standard policing, according to a 2004 study.

The best practices literature suggests that the approach taken by Sheriff Morgan and his trusty sidekick Deputy Chief Haines is not likely to reduce vehicle thefts.  Stand-alone police publicity campaigns without intensive data analysis, operational planning, and focused patrolling is known not to be effective.

However, there appears to be an effective police publicity campaign that originated in Dallas, Texas, called the "Hide Lock Take" program.  According to program's website, the "Hide Lock Take program throughout the United States and Canada has reduced auto theft and vehicle break-ins by 85%.... We have helped through community awareness signs to reduce 3 out of 4 auto theft and vehicle break-ins throughout Texas including Dallas."  The company noted that the Hide Lock Take program is "most effective" when combined with the formation of "Auto Theft Task Forces."

Essentially, the Hide Lock Take program posts signs in areas advising motorists what to do to prevent their car from being stolen.  The company also sells rearview-mirror hangers and fliers.  Each sign costs $17.50 and there is a minimum order of 50 signs.  An order of 1,000 signs would have cost the ECSO $17,500.

The sign used by the Dallas Police Department looks like this:

The Hide Lock Take program also has a poster for police that explains the system:

And, there is a poster explaining the program for neighborhoods:

CONCLUSION

The available data suggests that Escambia County may be experiencing an unprecedented number of stolen vehicles.  If the data for 17 April to 15 May, 2016, is an accurate reflection of the overall trend data, then 1,416 vehicles will be stolen in 2016.  The police publicity best practices literature indicates that stand-alone police publicity campaigns--apparently like the one initiated by Sheriff Morgan for more than $130,080--is bound to fail.  There is no data to indicate that such a stand-alone publicity campaign will be successful.  Thus, Sheriff Morgan is apparently wasting $130,080 dollars of taxpayer money on a proven ineffective anti-theft publicity campaign.  The Hide Lock Take program appears to be not only cheaper, but also more effective when combined with an anti-vehicle theft task force.  Thus, we are left to conclude that given the almost certain failure of Sheriff Morgan's publicity campaign to stop vehicle thefts, the most plausible reason for the $130,080 worth of advertising from March 7th to August 21st featuring Sheriff Morgan is to promote his political campaign for re-election.  I'm sure his faithful sidekick Deputy Chief Haines will be barking that the expenditures are legal and they will be successful and yada yada yada.  Sure, anything you say.  But, retired deputies and anonymous deputies inside the department who know how to fight crime simply do not believe you.  And neither should the taxpayers who are being ripped off for $130,080 to support Sheriff Morgan's political campaign for an unprecedented third term while the county experiences, perhaps, the highest number of vehicle thefts in its history.

Sheriff Morgan: FREE CHURCH VAN DOWN PAYMENTS AVAILABLE

If you are any kind of religious or spiritual or atheistic entity located in any kind of church, mosque, synagogue, temple, garage, shack, outhouse, trailer, or shed that wants to "fight crime" and get a significant chunk of change for a down payment on a "church van," well hurry on down to Sheriff Morgan's church van finance company, also known as the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, and he'll fix you right up.  Better be quick, funds will definitely run out.  Oh, and its probably strictly based on what have you done or will do for him to get him elected and re-elected.

CJ's Street Report has been posting articles on how Sheriff Morgan uses Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF) monies not only to violate the Florida constitution on the very strict separation of church and state, as well as providing charitable LETF donations to at least one non-profit organization that supports his and other Republican candidacies, namely, the Filipino-American Association of Pensacola, but now Sheriff Morgan is apparently using the flimsiest fig leaf to cover the blatant political use of LETF donations to non-profit organizations in Escambia County.

Case in point is the Brownsville Assembly of God (BAG) over on Mobile Highway.

Back in the 1990s, BAG led the United States in a massive Christian revival based on stories of bogus miracles, shady finances that were uncovered by the Pensacola News Journal and conservative Christians, and a cynical strategy by the pastors to manipulate their followers (and others around the country) into believing something "real" was happening.

Even with apparently new pastors, old habits die hard at the Brownsville Assembly of God.

On March 14, 2015, the BAG applied for a $10,000 donation from Sheriff Morgan's Law Enforcement Trust Fund.  The $10,000, according to the application, was for a "church van."

The LETF monies, by Florida statute, "shall be used for school resource officer, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, drug abuse education and prevention programs, or for other law enforcement purposes, which include defraying the cost of protracted or complex investigations, providing additional equipment or expertise, purchasing automated external defibrillators for use in law enforcement vehicles, and providing matching funds to obtain federal grants."

Florida's Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 3 on religious freedom reads, in part, "No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." (h/t Maren's Blog)

The Brownsville Assembly of God justified their request for a "church van" thusly:

"We are asking for funding for a church van to pick up neighborhood children and youth who do not have a way to the children & youth programs of the church.  These programs instill moral and ethical values into a young person that will contribute to crime & drug prevention as well as drug education and neighborhood safety" [emphasis added].

Sheriff Morgan generously gave the Brownsville Assembly of God church a check (#10015504) on July 10, 2015, as a down payment on a church van that provides direct support to a sectarian church in violation of the Florida Constitution and apparently outside the bounds of a reasonable reading of the Florida statute governing the LETF.

What will that get him?  No doubt, plenty of goodwill from the ministers of the Brownsville Assembly of God who will in all likelihood invite Sheriff Morgan to come to the church to be recognized for his good work and thank him for the van money.  Oh, and will he mention its an election year coming up?  Will the BAG pastors be sure to mention that church members should vote for godly men and women for local office and look at the Sheriff with a gleam in their eye?

This is just blatant electioneering and political preening by Sheriff Morgan.

But, hey, all you mosques, synagogues, churches, temples, huts, garages, shacks, atheists, spiritualists, pastafarians, Satanists, and whatnot who will transport children and youth to any kind of program that has anything remotely to do with instilling values that assist crime prevention or drug education or a safe neighborhood, apply for your down payment money from Sheriff Morgan's church van finance company, better known as the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.

Sheriff Morgan Campaign: LETF Out, Donations In

Sheriff Morgan uses the Law Enforcement Trust Funds for many reasons.  He apparently provides funds for deserving organizations, like the $50,000 he provided to Gulf Coast Kids House, which cares for abused children, to expand the facilities because they were operating at twice their operational capacity.

Or, sometimes he gives money to the haves so that they have more, like the AFCEA Blue Angels that received $20,000, on March 3, 2015, according to the Law Enforcement Trust Fund expenditures given to CJ's Street Report's public records request.  Or, the $15,000 Sheriff Morgan gave to the National Flight Academy after he gave he speech there.  The donation was made on March 25, 2014.

Or, he gives money to his ideological allies in the Christian Right in Pensacola.

Like the $10,500 he gave to the Assembly of God's Teen Challenge, also known as the Pensacola Men's Center, for "drug treatment" that is a cover for outright Christian proselytizing.

Like the $5,000 he gave to the Men's Barn Meeting which functions as a networking hub linking Baptist churches in the local area to Southern Baptist Convention leaders in the Christian Right.

Like the $7,000 he gave to the Alabama-based Youth Reach Gulf Coast, despite the organization not having provided any services to any youth or young man from Escambia County, Florida.

When advised by Americans United for Separation of Church & State that these specific donations violated the U.S. and Florida constitutions, the response of the Sheriff's Office was that they were not going to respond to the Americans United's legal inquiry.

Or, he gives money to worthwhile causes and the person receiving the Law Enforcement Trust Funds then later makes a donation to Sheriff Morgan's re-election campaign, as happened when Sheriff Morgan authorized a rapid donation of $1,000 for the non-existent Light the Night Foundation (in reality the Alabama-based Leukemia & Lymphoma Society with no business license in Florida) that was delivered to Pete Moore.  Pete Moore and his wife later made two $500 donations to Sheriff Morgan's campaign.  Pete Moore gives to Republican sheriffs and candidates, so the $1,000 donated from the Sheriff's Office is not a factor.  But, it does not look good.  While there is no quid-pro-quo here, it is amazing the Sheriff can write a donation check to a non-existent foundation.

And, now we have Sheriff Morgan's re-election campaign using the property owned by the Filipino-American Association of Pensacola, Inc., a 501(c)3 organization for his fundraising event on September 26, 2015.

Not only is the Filipino-American Association a 501(c)3 organization that is prohibited from engaging in politics, but in 2014 it received $7,000 in two donations:  $2,000 on May 28, 2014 (reference V10719) and $5,000 on August 26, 2014 (reference V11991).  CJ's Street Report has a public records request for all the documentation, plus any donations made to the Filipino-American Association since October 1, 2014.

Again, while there is no quid pro quid, we find the same pattern of Law Enforcement Trust Funds going to an organization that, in turn, provides a venue for a fundraising event tapping its own members for donations.

Thus, while there is no doubt that the Filipino-American Association does fine work in the community and has been recognized by the county and state officials for their good works--as evidenced by the plaques expressing support on one of the walls of the hall--the fact is the organization is prohibited from engaging in political activity.

Here is the Internal Revenue Service's guidance on political activity:  

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

Thus, a 501(3) organization is "absolutely prohibited" from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign."  There really isn't much wiggle room to "absolutely prohibited" and "directly or indirectly."  How Sheriff Morgan convinced them Filipino-American Association to violate this IRS guidance is a mystery.

CJ's Street Report attended the fundraising event for a very short time.  Upon my third entrance, Deputy Chief Haines congratulated me for my "valiant attempt" to attend the fundraising event, but I was informed it was a "private function" and I was not welcome.  However, before being graciously and humorously turned away, I did manage to take photographs of the event and keep my receipt.

The sign outside the front door.

The inner door decorated with "Re-elect Sheriff Morgan."  Once inside the door, you gave your donation via check and received a receipt.

Although my check was returned, I kept the receipt.  The receipt reads, in part:  "You are cordially invited to a candidate Fundraiser to re-elect David Morgan For Escambia County Sheriff....Hosted by Virgil Domingo and Friends AT the FilAm Center, 234 Oakfield Rd, Pensacola, Fl."

Stage and dais where Sheriff Morgan was to speak at the event.

Long view of the stage with more "Re-elect Sheriff Morgan" signs.

Sheriff Morgan's website invitation to the event begins, "Back by popular demand...Karaoke fundraiser on September 26th.  Besides Karaoke, there will be dancing, socializing, and Filipino Food."

Now, Karaoke night just happens to be one of the Filipino-American Association's fundraisers, according to Form 990s filed with the Internal Revenue Service.  In 2011, Karaoke brought in a net of $2,193.05.  In 2012, the Filipino-American Association spent $3,100.95 on Karaoke equipment and tables, and brought in a net of $2,144.06.  In 2013, Karaoke night brought in a net of $1,084.25.

Thus, when Sheriff Morgan's invitation exclaimed, "Back by popular demand...Karaoke fundraiser," he was clearly referencing an annual fundraising event put on by the Filipino-American Association that over the past three years had netted the organization $5,421.36 or an average of $1,807.12 per year.  Except this year, checks were to be made payable to the "Re-elect Morgan Campaign."

Why would Sheriff Morgan not do his due diligence and recognize that giving at least $7,000 to a non-profit corporation and then having them host via their own venue a campaign fundraiser would not raise questions, and, why would he not consider what effect, if any, that campaign fundraiser would have the Filipino-American Association's tax-exempt status?

One possible answer is that Sir David Morgan simply does not believe that the U.S. Constitution, the Florida constitution, and Internal Revenue Service regulations apply in Pensacola.

Another possible answer is that the officers and board members of the Filipino-American Association (as reported on the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Form 990s) have personally donated to Sheriff Morgan $1,740.  Thus, he may have deliberately targeted the Filipino-American Association's board and officers for the fundraiser knowing that they personally support his candidacy and might not consider the possible ramifications.

One last observation, apparently, this hyphenated name, Filipino-American, does not upset Sheriff Morgan as the term "African-American" to him is dysfunctional and "divisive."

NOTE: Ms. Jimmie Staley co-authored this report.

Sheriff Morgan Funds Alabama-based Christian Camp, But Why?

Introduction

As previously discussed, the Escambia County Law Enforcement Trust Fund administered by Sheriff Morgan must conform to Florida statute.  The applicable Florida statute mandates that "any local law enforcement agency that acquires at least $15,000 pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act within a fiscal year must expend or donate no less than 15 percent of such proceeds for the support or operation of any drug treatment, drug abuse education, drug prevention, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, or school resource officer program(s). The local law enforcement agency has the discretion to determine which program(s) will receive the designated proceeds."  Of course, the statute also provides that the local sheriff can expend more than 15 percent and the local law enforcement can spread the payments out, if they exceed their trust fund budget.

While the Florida statute is not specific, the legislature's apparent intent, by specifying "drug treatment, drug abuse education, drug prevention, crime prevention, safe neighborhood, or school resource officer program(s)," implicitly assumes that those funds will be expended within the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency for the sole benefit of residents living within that jurisdiction.  Otherwise, the statute would not really make sense.

So, why did Sheriff Morgan's Law Enforcement Trust Fund make three donations totalling $7,000 to the Alabama-based Youth Reach Gulf Coast?

The evidence presented below suggests that this payment was a reward or "payback" to the Liberty Church in Pensacola for its personal support for Sheriff Morgan in getting him elected.  

Youth Reach Gulf Coast is a sectarian Christian organization that believes that human reason is not to be trusted and should defer to God, any scientific theory that contradicts the Bible should be discarded, and that all scientific "'facts'" need to be interpreted in light of the infallible Bible.

Thus, Sheriff Morgan's donations to Youth Reach Gulf Coast appear to be violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which forms the basis for the separation of church and state.

Moreover, the documented evidence will show that the first donation from Sheriff Morgan's Law Enforcement Trust Fund in April 2010 was issued a full 14 days before Youth Reach Gulf Coast was formed in the state of Alabama.

Youth Reach Gulf Coast is not authorized to conduct business in the state of Florida.

And, a contextual analysis of the documents and statements from Youth Reach Gulf Coast will establish that the organization has provided no residential services to any youth from Escambia County, Florida.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."  When government agencies fund religious institutions, especially churches or ministries, they are in fact endorsing and establishing a religion, especially when one religion is favored.

Steven K. Green, the former legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and law professor at Willamette University in Oregon, wrote "for more than sixty years, the dominant legal/historical interpretation of the nation’s constitutional founding has been that the Founders intended to establish a high wall of separation between church and state....The scholarly historical canon maintains that the Founders relied primarily on Enlightenment principles, not religious ones, when fashioning the nation’s governing norms."

Green pointed out that the "popularity of the Christian nation maxim is also due, in no small part, to the efforts of evangelical revisionist historians who have produced a host of popular works asserting America’s Christian nationhood."

The idea that the separation of church and state is a myth, part of the Christian Right's own mythology of America as a Christian nation, is pushed by the Southern Baptist Convention, contrary to their own long history of supporting the separation of church and state dating back to the 17th century and long after ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1789; this Christian Right myth is incorporated into the platform of the Texas Republican Party, in no small measure due to the influence of its former vice chairman and pseudo-historian David Barton; and, this separation myth is pushed by the pseudo-official Colorado-based National Day of Prayer Task Force linked to the anti-LGBTQ Focus on the Family para-church group which also promotes Barton's false claims.

Local activist David Suhor, who strongly supports the separation of church and state, has pointed out that the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners and the Escambia County School Board (and other boards) begin meetings with "prayers [that] run 95-100% Christian," despite the fact that 46.8 percent ("Unclaimed") of the residents of Escambia County in 2010 were not adherents of the main religious traditions in the county: evangelical Protestant (95,418), mainline Protestant (24,082), Catholic (18,032), Black Protestant (12,144), Other (7,735 in 29 religious groups), and Orthodox (674).  The "Unclaimed" category meant that the adherents did not fit into 236 religious groups included in the 2010 Religious Congregation and Membership Study provided by the Association of Religion Data Archives.  The "Unclaimed" category does not mean that they are atheists or secular.

Suhor also provided a second data link to the Escambia County religion statistics profile showing that 22 percent of the residents could not be classified as Southern Baptist Convention (43 percent), Catholic Church (18 percent), United Methodist Church (11 percent), or Assemblies of God (7 percent).

Sheriff Morgan's violations of the separation of church and state regarding funding conservative Christian groups is consistent with county boards violating the same issue with regards to sectarian prayers before public meetings.  And, these twin violations of the First Amendment are entirely consistent with the Christian Right's erroneous ideology that the separation of church and state is a myth.

Thus, Sheriff Morgan's apparent violations of the Establishment Clause appear to be ideologically driven violations that put many Christian, Catholic, other denominations, and secular groups in a disadvantageous position in the county.

Sheriff Morgan's Previous Breaches of the Establishment Clause

This is not Sheriff Morgan's first time apparently violating this section of the First Amendment.

Law Enforcement Trust Fund (LETF) donations went to the Assembly of God's mission, Pensacola Men's Center, a franchisee of Teen Challenge USA, Inc; a CJ's Street Report article demonstrated that the Pensacola Men's Center was first and foremost a recruiting tool of the Assembly of God with no independently substantiated record of successfully treating anyone, youth or adult, for substance abuse.

Two LETF donations totaling $5,000 went to the Baptist-dominated Men's Barn Meeting, apparently due to the fact that Sheriff Morgan liked the free steak dinner and the Christian fellowship.  Men's Barn Meeting has nothing to do with crime prevention, drug prevention, or safe neighborhoods, according to the CJ's Street Report analysis.

Youth Reach Gulf Coast--Money for Nothing

Youth Reach Gulf Coast is based in Summerdale, Alabama, and was established on April 21, 2010.  According to business records filed with the Alabama Secretary of State, its registered agent was Mr. Curt Williams.  According to the Alabama records, Youth Reach Gulf Coast is a "ministry."  Unfortunately, the ministry's Articles of Incorporation on file with the Alabama Secretary of State can apparently only be purchased by a business entity registered in Alabama.

In response to my own request for information regarding how funds from the Escambia County Law Enforcement Trust Fund were used to support youth from Escambia County, Mr. Williams, the overall executive director of Youth Reach, Inc., responded with an email.

In 2010,  Youth Reach Gulf Coast received a $1,000 donation from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, according to documents provided to the CJ's Street Report's public records request.  According to a post-it note on a two-page business profile possibly faxed to the Sheriff's Office, there was a request from Sheriff Morgan to his subordinate to write the check.  There was no enclosed documentation regarding who had initiated the request for funds, why the request for funds had been initiated, or what the legal basis for approving the funds were.

In 2013, Youth Reach Gulf Coast received another $1,000 donation from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund, according to documents provided CJ's Street Report in response to a public records request.  All the quotes below are taken from the documents provided to the CJ's Street Report.

This time (2013), however, doubts were raised by Ms. Judy-Ann Stanley of the Escambia County Clerk's Accounts Payable office regarding the propriety of the donation.  Ms. Stanley's March 25, 2013, email to Ms. Katie Hoard and Mr. Henrique Dias, the latter definitely a subordinate of Sheriff Morgan, asked:  "Youth Reach Gulf Coast received a $1000 donation from the ECSO yet it lists its address as Summerdale, Alabama and the charity operates homes in Houston, Texas and will open homes in Alabama.  I do not understand how this non-profit agency operates community-based programs in Escambia County, Florida.  Please advise."

On April 25, 2013, Mr. Dias, the Chief Financial Officer for the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, responded that "Community Services Commander Tharp he informed [sic] that yes the Youth Reach Gulf Coast does in fact house Escambia County youth.  It is the only facility within the Gulf Coast area to provide this service.  The Escambia County Sheriff's Office does refer young men to the Youth Reach Gulf Coast organization, if the need arises.  This being the case, the request from Youth Reach Gulf Coast does qualify for the LET donation criteria."

The data provided by Youth Reach Gulf Coast in support of its donation is rather vague as to its ability to "house Escambia County youth" as the Sheriff's Office claimed.

In its supporting documentation, Youth Reach Gulf Coast stated under "Program Overview":  "...and is soon to open homes in Summerdale as well."  It also stated that the youth served were "ages 12 to 21."  Youth Reach Gulf Coast also included what appears to be its own newsletter dated March 2013 in which Mr. Williams revealed that Mr. Richard Crawford was now the director of Youth Reach Gulf Coast in Alabama.  The newsletter also made an appeal for one or two volunteers.

Quite frankly, it is difficult to believe that in March-April 2013, that Youth Reach Gulf Coast was the "only facility within the Gulf Coast area to provide this service."  Does Mr. Dias want us to believe that there was no other service in entire state of Florida that met Sheriff Morgan's needs?

What service?  According to its "Program Overview" it "operates a series of Christian foster group homes."  Was Mr. Dias suggesting that there are no "Christian" foster group homes or no "foster group homes" in the Northwest Florida region that serve young men aged 12 to 21?  What service is not provided, Mr. Dias?

It is important to note and emphasize that there is nothing in the documentation up to 2013 provided to the Escambia County Sheriff's Office by Youth Reach Gulf Coast indicating that the organization services or has taken in any youth from Escambia County, Florida.  They do not claim that they are requesting funds because they have taken in youth from Escambia County, Florida.  They do not claim that they service Escambia County, Florida.

There is only the assertion by Mr. Dias that this is "the only facility within the Gulf Coast area to provide this service" and that the "Escambia County Sheriff's Office does refer young men to the Youth Reach Gulf Coast organzation, if the need arises."

Mr. Dias of the Sheriff's Office wants us to believe that there are no "foster group homes" or there is no "Christian foster group homes" located near Escambia County, Florida, or elsewhere in Florida that met Sheriff Morgan's needs.

In other words, the Sheriff's Offices in the three other Northwest Florida counties also had no place to send troubled youth aged 12 to 21 in 2013?

But, what about 2010, when Sheriff Morgan gave the organization $1,000?  According to Alabama's Secretary of State business records, Youth Reach Gulf Coast, Inc., was formed on April 21, 2010.  Stranger still, Sheriff Morgan wrote that $1000 check to Youth Reach Gulf Coast 14 days before the organization had been formed in Alabama.

We know from Form 990 that Youth Reach Gulf Coast sent to the federal Internal Revenue Service for calendar year 2012, that it spent only $3,391 on "food for residents" (see Schedule O).

We also know from Form 990 that Youth Reach sent to the IRS for calendar year 2013, that it spent $26,407 for "resident food and clothing" (see Part IX, Line 24b) for "19 young men" (see Part III, Line 4a).

The only available Form 990s are not comparable to each other.  The 2012 form has a Schedule O, while the 2013 form has a Part IX.  In 2012, there was no expense for "occupancy."  In 2013, the expense for "occupancy" (Part IX, Line 16) is $50,985, which is among the "program service expenses."

Why?  Well, if we take the only roughly comparable part of the Form 990, what was spent for "food" or "food and clothing," it suggests that in calendar year 2012, Youth Reach Gulf Coast only had 2.4 residents.  We know that for calendar year 2013 it had "19 young men" which cost $26,407 for "food and clothing."  Dividing $26,407 by 19 yields a cost per resident of $1,389.84.  Assuming costs are constant, that yields 2.4 residents in 2012.

We also know from Mr. Williams' email that the Alabama facility only started taking youth from "NW Florida," "Just since our Director, Richard Crawford, stepped in three years ago..."  We also know from the executive director's email that "young men ages 18-21 are transported to our 81-acre campus in Summerdale."

Thus, the claim by Mr. Dias of the Sheriff's Office is apparently contradicted by Mr. Williams.  According to Mr. Williams, youth aged 18 to 21 were not transported to Summerdale, Alabama, until March 2013 (or slightly just before, when they hired Mr. Crawford), just one month before they requested money from the Escambia County Sheriff's Office.  And, we have reason to believe that in all of 2012, there were probably only two or possibly three young male residents at the facility in Alabama.  These two or three youth probably may or may not have come from "NW Florida" but they almost certainly did not come from Escambia County, Florida.

And, that also calls into question why Sheriff Morgan requested and authorized a $1,000.00 donation in 2010, when there was (a) no documentation accompanying the Law Enforcement Trust Fund check and (b) we now know that Youth Reach Gulf Coast did not even start accepting youth from "NW Florida" until March 2013, and (c) Sheriff Morgan's check was written 14 days before the organization was formed in Alabama.

Thus, the assertion by Mr. Dias that "Youth Reach Gulf Coast does in fact house Escambia County youth" is apparently a false statement, though the falsity of that statement can apparently be attributed to "Community Services Commander Tharp."  Commander Tharp now controls all the "Operation Clean Sweep" programs for the Escambia County Sheriff's Office.

And, we also know from Mr. Williams' email that when I asked specifically and unequivocally, "how many youths from Escambia County, Florida, did your organization service," he responded with "six boys" from "NW Florida."

But, excuse me, Northwest Florida is a larger geographical area than Escambia County, Florida.  In other words, when asked to account for the money in terms of providing a service, which by Florida law he must account for, how many young people from this county has his organization serviced, the answer was essentially--NONE.

I assume Mr. Williams is no dummy and he knows very well the difference between "Escambia County, Florida" (the area in question) and "NW Florida (the irrelevant area) that evades the question.  All boys from Escambia County are also from Northwest Florida, but not all boys from Northwest Florida are also from Escambia County.  They could come from Okaloosa County, Santa Rosa County, or Walton County.  These four counties, constituting Northwest Florida, also correspond to how Florida divides its circuit courts.

In May 2014, a little over one year later, Sheriff Morgan authorized a $5,000 donation to Youth Reach Gulf Coast, according to documents acquired via a public records request.

To acquire this donation, Mr. Williams put on the application that Youth Reach Gulf Coast's "service area is Mobile, Baldwin (Alabama) and Escambia County (Florida) region, though we have worked with kids from all over the U.S." (see the "Justification for Funding").  According to Mr. Williams, "Funds are being sought from the Escambia County Law Enforcement Trust Fund to provide program services to the young men currently in our care."

However, when I asked Mr. Williams in an email how the Law Enforcement Trust Fund money was used, he replied by email:  "They were used for operating expenses for our overall work and services."

Well, there is a distinction between "program services" and "operating expenses."  Mr. Williams told the Sheriff's Office the money was for "program services" and told me the money was used for "operating expenses."

Again, Mr. Williams is no dummy.

In 2012 and 2013 he signed the Form 990s sent to the federal Internal Revenue Service which also makes a distinction between operating expenses and program services.  On Form 990 for 2013, lines 13 through 19 are for expenses.  Line 17 is for "Other expenses" and points towards Part IX for the explanation; however, only lines 11f through 24e are program expenses.  Thus, while Youth Reach Gulf Coast had total expenses of $315,719 (Line 25, column A), Fundraising Expenses of $47,215, its program expenses were $177,099, while non-program expenses (everything above 11e) was $91,405.

Thus, if Mr. Williams told me the truth in the email, the donation from the Escambia Law Enforcement Trust Fund went to salaries and wages (Line 7), payroll taxes (Line 10), and accounting costs (Line 11c).  Of course, the Form 990 we are looking at is for 2013.  While the figures would change for 2014, the line numbers would not.

The implication that the $1,000 LETF donation made in 2013 and the $5,000 LETF donation made in 2014 were used for "operating expenses," according to Mr. Williams's email to me, suggests that there were no youth from Escambia County, Florida, serviced by Youth Reach Gulf Coast.  This inference is consistent with Mr. Williams' email statement that Youth Reach Gulf Coast "has cared for six boys in our residential program who are from NW Florida."  And, it is consistent with the statement provided to Sheriff Morgan on the 2014 application that the "service area" includes "Escambia County (Florida) region."  It would have been sufficient to merely state "Escambia County (Florida)."  The word "region" broadens that to suggest Northwest Florida.

Thus, the textual analysis of all the documents suggests that Youth Reach Gulf Coast has not, in fact, serviced young men from Escambia County, Florida.

If any young men aged 18 to 21 were sent by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to Youth Reach Gulf Coast between 2010, when Sheriff Morgan gave the first $1,000.00 donation, to 2014, when Sheriff Morgan made an additional $5,000.00 donation, then "Sir David, Knight of Grace," provide the news media and the Board of Commissioners written proof.  All these young men are 18 or older and there is no reason why their records should be withheld.  Where are the court documents sentencing them to Youth Reach Gulf Coast?

There are three additional points to be made.

One, if Mr. Williams' email response to me is correct and true, then he may have made false statements to the Sheriff's Office.

Two, the simple inclusion of the wording that their service area includes "Escambia County (Florida) region" and the subsequent approval by Sheriff Morgan suggests that any non-profit that includes those magic words is eligible for donations from Sheriff Morgan.  How many non-profits across the United States do deserving organizations in Escambia County have to compete with for scarce Law Enforcement Trust Funds?

Three, Youth Reach Gulf Coast is not licensed to do business in Florida.  I have searched Florida's Secretary of State website and there is no listing for Youth Reach Gulf Coast.  Not ever.

Which is funny because in June 2011, Sheriff Morgan authorized a payment of $1,000.00 to the University of California at Los Angeles Foundation.  The donation on the records received from the public records office reads "UCLA Foundat" for $1000 on 6/28/2011, reference 10072752.

The really funny thing is, the really smart guys at UCLA registered their foundation with Florida's Secretary of State.  On the document they submitted they stated that the application and "Certificate of Existence" and a check "are submitted to register the above referenced not for profit corporation to conduct its affairs in Florida."  On Line 6 of their "Application by Foreign Not for Profit Corporation for Authorization to Conduct its Affairs in the State of Florida," the smart guys wrote:  "The UCLA Foundation to commence conducting business in Florida upon certification."

Now, if the UCLA Foundation's lawyers knew they had to register with Florida's Secretary of State in 2005, why did Youth Reach Gulf Coast's lawyers not know in 2010, 2013, and 2014?  And, why did the Escambia County Sheriff's Office legal counsel not ask to see their business papers for Florida?

The only person who even questioned a donation was located in the Clerk of the Court's office, but she deferred judgment to Mr. Dias in 2013.  Having bullied their way past the Accounts Payable clerk, they went large in 2014, going for $5,000.

What really appealed to Sheriff Morgan and his immediate top level subordinates?  Well, Youth Reach Gulf Coast is a real right-wing Christian nationalist outfit that apparently matches or approximates Sheriff Morgan's worldview.

Youth Reach Gulf Coast--Christian Nationalism Selling Point

Let us return to the "service" that Youth Reach Gulf Coast said it provided in 2013.  What was their really big selling point that would have appealed to Sheriff Morgan?

In the 2013 "Program Overview" they state that they operate "Christian foster group homes" and they are a "member of The Evangelical Counsel [sic] for Financial Accountability."  Unfortunately, the word is "council" not "counsel."

In its 2013 application, Youth Reach Gulf Coast provided Sheriff Morgan its "Statement of Faith."  According to this statement, "We believe the Holy Bible, in its original form, to be the infallible Word of the living God."  They also believe that, among other things, "an abundant life on earth are possible only through a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.  This relationship cannot be purchased or earned, but must be accepted through God's grace following repentance from a life of sin."

You do not have to be a free thinker to see that many Catholics and Christians, and people of other faiths would take serious exception to those two statements.  Youth Reach Gulf Coast is not an ecumenical, inclusive religious group.  Oh no.

Any youth sentenced to Youth Reach is going to be bombarded with this Christian message.  Its "Statement of Faith" declares:  "We believe in the strict adherence of the Great Commission given by our Lord Jesus before his Ascension.  We believe sharing our faith and leading others to our Savior to be of supreme importance.  Any less is disobedience." [emphasis added]

In other words, fearing they would disobey God, youth sentenced to Youth Reach are to be subjected to right-wing Christian propaganda in the hope that they will come to Jesus and then, and only then, will they be able to have "an abundant life on earth."

And if a youth's philosophical outlook does not match Youth Reach Gulf Coast's "Statement of Faith," well, that youth could himself being psychologically tortured.

In language that can only be considered double-speak, under the "Defining Characteristics of Youth Reach," the organization claims that "First and foremost we are a Christian ministry built on the foundation of God's Word.  We are not religious..."

Excuse me, but you are a "Christian ministry" built on the "foundation of God's Word" and you "are not religious"?  How is that even possible?  Who can believe this nonsensical writing?  That is like the Department of the Army claiming that it is built on the "foundation of the spirit of the bayonet" but we "are not violent."  Good luck trying to find a grunt who believes that.

On their website, describing what they are about, they state that they come from a "Biblical perspective."  And, Youth Reach includes the statement above that "we are a Christian ministry" (bolded on the website).

Youth Reach Gulf Coast also touted their use of "the accredited PACES program from The School of Tomorrow" in their 2013 application.

What exactly is this "accredited program"?  According to the ChristianBook.com website, it is a program ranging from Grade K to Grade 12 and is produced by the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) PACEs from School of Tomorrow.  It is a set of books for Christian home schoolers.

PACE actually stands for Packets of Accelerated Christian Education and is produced by Accelerated Christian Education and promoted by the School of Tomorrow.  The PACE system is sold in the United Kingdom and the United States and the publications of ACE have been criticized both there and in the United States.

A youth sentenced to this "Jesus Gulag" would learn the following key points related to science, according to the UK-based Jonny Scaramanga writing at the Patheos blog "Leaving Fundamentalism: The Escape From Ignorance."  Scaramanga was "raised on the ACE curriculum."

According to Scaramanga's analysis (2012) based on the PACE books and conversations with high-level ACE officials to verify that the older materials were still in use, the PACE scientific curriculum is based on the idea that human reason is not to be trusted and scientific findings cannot contradict the Bible:

"'Man should never trust his own reasoning--his reasoning may be incorrect because man's reasoning is not God's reasoning.'"

"'If a scientific theory contradicts the Bible, then the theory is wrong and must be discarded.'"

"'All scientific 'facts' must be interpreted on the basis of God's word, the infallible source of knowledge.'"

In fact, Sheriff Morgan's own religious beliefs can be correlated to the PACE curriculum, especially about "Man should never trust his own reasoning."

At the April 3, 2009, "Pray for Pensacola" event, Sheriff Morgan stated the following:  "Never let us forget oh Lord, that it is never ever about us but, about you, Heavenly Father; that we are obedient to your Will; that in times of crisis, economic and personal, that the answers are there; that you have provided to us your Word; and, that as a nation we must only once again turn and seek your Face and your Word and your Wisdom, and never ever rely upon our own."

Sheriff Morgan, "Pray for Pensacola," excerpt

 According to Scaramanga's analysis, the "Top 5 Lies" and "5 Even Worse Lies" in the science program are:

Top Five:

"'Humans and Dinosaurs Co-existed'"
"'Evolution Has Been Disproved'"
"'A Japanese Whaling Boat Found a Dinosaur'"
"'Solar Fusion is a Myth'"
"'The Loch Ness Monster Disproves Evolution'"

Five Even Worse

"'Science Proves Homosexuality is a Learned Behavior'"
"'Scientists Believe the 'Hopeful Monster' Theory'"
"'No Transitional Fossils Exist'"
"'Mark's Gospel Was Written in 50 AD'"
"'The Second Law of Thermodynamics Disproves Evolution'"


Scaramanga also observed that the PACE curriculum was openly racist and promoted segregation.  He noted, in the "educational cartoons that occur throughout each PACE, students of each race attend different, segregated schools."  Even five years after the fall of apartheid in South Africa, Scaramanga noted that in the PACE curriculum "apartheid was beneficial after all.  And that’s not all.  Native Africans have no concept of wisdom, says ACE founder Donald Howard, because they do not know God."  Scaramanga quoted Howard from his 1995 teacher training manual:  "'It’s interesting that in the African primitive languages there is no word for wisdom.  We in the West find that surprising, but you see, the idea of wisdom came through the Biblical channels of the Judaeo-Christian religion and filtered into all of western culture and society.'"

Rachel Tabachnick, a close observer of the Christian Right at the Talk to Action website and the Boston-based Political Research Associates, quoted from a study by Dr. Frances Paterson who analyzed the PACE curriculum materials.  PACE's own treatment of Social Security asserts that "'Scripture plainly teaches that widows, the needy, and others who cannot provide for themselves are to have their needs met [but] God's plan is for these needs to be met first by family members and then by local churches, but not by government.'"

On poverty, Dr. Paterson noted, "'In quasi-economic discussions related to poverty and its amelioration, providentialism predominates fatalism. The authors present poverty as rooted in personal weakness and tend to ignore or downplay possible structural causes. Organized efforts to end poverty are characterized as contrary to God's plan for humanity, injurious to good government, or both.'"

In other words, Youth Reach Gulf Coast uses teaching materials based on an infallible Bible that not only contradicts science, but is racist, homophobic, and promotes an extreme right-wing libertarian economic philosophy.  Again, that is highly sectarian and not consistent with the variety of viewpoints held by residents of Escambia County.

The Triangular Relation Between Youth Reach and Sheriff Morgan

At least as early as 2013, if not before, Youth Reach Gulf Coast was linked to the Pentecostal Liberty Church in Pensacola as a "sponsoring church," according to the 2013 application which included the March 2013 newsletter.

In September 2008, Mr. Joe Miller, the organizer and promoter of "Pray for Pensacola," in article titled, "40 days for the election," wrote that "elections more than ever before are becoming a place of Spiritual warfare."  The elections were important because the proper Christians had to combat an atheistic, secular government that supported abortion and gay rights.  According to Mr. Miller (with his misspellings):  "The last generation that was in the same place we are today allowed an athiest agenda to be pushed and allowed a lie (the seperation of church and state) to be propigated.  The end result is we now do not have prayer in schools.  We allow the killing of the unborn for convenience.  We think same-sex marriage would be a great step forward for our country. etc. That is why more than ever before we must pray and fast for the elections and for our country."

Clearly, when a scant seven months later, in April 2009, just a couple of months after taking office, when Sheriff Morgan was openly praying at the "Pray for Pensacola" to demonstrate the affinity of his faith with the coalition, he knew exactly what the group stood for.

In September 2009, just five months after the "Pray for Pensacola" event, Mr. Miller noted that Sheriff Morgan had a close relationship with Liberty Church.  According to Mr. Miller, "Today I was at Liberty to create awareness about our ministry.  They have an annual ‘God of the City’ service and invite different local ministries as well as local government officials.  It was good to see the regulars.  Those leaders that live a life of faith.  Dave Morgan, Malcolm Thomas and Wilson Robertson."

The first $1,000.00 donation to Youth Reach Gulf Coast, which has no substantiating documentation as to who initiated the request for the donation, no documentation explaining what Youth Reach Gulf Coast did, and no explanation as to why an Alabama-based non-profit was entitled to receive Law Enforcement Trust Fund money was made on April 7, 2010, a mere seven months after Mr. Miller, head of "Pray for Pensacola" reported that Sheriff Morgan was a "regular" at Liberty Church, presumably a "sponsoring church" of Youth Reach Gulf Coast from 2010 when it was established in Alabama.  While the date on the check is washed out, the check number and the date can be clearly seen on the "Voucher" dated "4/26/2010."

It is worth pointing out, that according to Alabama Secretary of State business records for Youth Reach Gulf Coast, that organization with ID Number 571-497 had a "Formation Date" of "4-21-2010."

In other words, Sheriff Morgan wrote a $1,000 check to Youth Reach Gulf Coast on April 7, 2010, fourteen days before Youth Reach was even a registered non-profit in Alabama.

How is that even possible, unless someone from Liberty Church or some other organization advised Sheriff Morgan that it would be a swell idea to write a check to an organization that did not legally exist in Alabama, and, certainly was not authorized to do business in Florida?

UPDATE (6/23/15):  A closer examination of the apparent fax sent from Youth Reach to the Sheriff's Office is dated April 7, 2010, based on the date of the myManta business data date.  The post-it note is dated the same day with the notation, "Mr. Dias: Need a contribution check for Youth Reach Gulf Coast."  In other words, an Alabama-based non-profit is approved for a $1,000 donation on the same day the apparent fax request is received and no one asks why or what for.  That can only mean that Sheriff Morgan or one of his high-level subordinates had already coordinated this donation and somebody outside the Sheriff's Office and Youth Reach had vouched for Youth Reach.  This finding strengthens the case that someone from Youth Reach's Pensacola partner, Liberty Church, had vouched for Youth Reach.

Concluding Observation

The documented evidence and analysis of the supplementary email from Mr. Crawford, founder and executive director of Youth Reach, Inc., the parent company of Youth Reach Gulf Coast, Inc., has established the following findings:

1.  Sheriff Morgan authorized a Law Enforcement Trust Fund donation of $1,000.00 for Youth Reach Gulf Coast on April 7, 2010, a full 14 days (April 21, 2010) before Youth Reach Gulf Coast had been formed in the state of Alabama, according to Alabama Secretary of State business records.

2.  The Escambia County Sheriff's Office provided no documentation substantiating who initiated this 2010 donation and why Youth Reach Gulf Coast was authorized to receive this money.

3.  At no time between April 7, 2010, and June 17, 2015, has Youth Reach Gulf Coast, Inc. been registered as a foreign corporation legally able to conduct business in the state of Florida, according to a search of the Secretary of State website.

4.  Based on analysis of Youth Reach Gulf Coast's submissions to the Escambia County Sheriff's Office in 2013 and 2014, plus the email from Mr. Curt Williams, founder and executive director of Youth Reach, Inc., Youth Reach Gulf Coast has not provided residential services to any youth from Escambia County, Florida.

5.  Moreover, based on the email from Mr. Williams, while Mr. Williams submitted to the Sheriff's Office a document stating the Law Enforcement Trust Fund donation would be used for "program expenses," in fact, the money was used for "operating expenses."

6.  Based on Youth Reach Gulf Coast "Statement of Faith" that the Bible is the "infallible Word of the living God" and that "only through a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ" can a person live "an abundant life on earth," it is clear that funding for Youth Reach Gulf Coast probably is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

7.  Youth Reach Gulf Coast touts its use of the Packets of Accelerated Christian Education (PACE) produced by Accelerated Christian Education and promoted by The School of Tomorrow

8.  A separate analysis of PACE course materials revealed that the PACE curriculum believes that human reason is not to be trusted, any scientific theory that contradicts the Bible is wrong and should be discarded, and that all scientific "'facts'" need to be interpreted in the light of the infallible Bible.

9.  There is moderately strong circumstantial evidence that the origin of the mysterious 2010 donation to Youth Reach Gulf Coast is the result of a triangular relationship between Youth Reach Gulf Coast and Sheriff Morgan mediated by the Pensacola-based Liberty Church, a "sponsoring church" of Youth Reach Gulf Coast.

10.  There is direct evidence provided by Mr. Joe Miller, founder and organizer of "Pray for Pensacola," that Sheriff Morgan was a "regular" at the Liberty Church.

11.  There is circumstantial evidence that Liberty Church, a supporter of "Pray for Pensacola" since its inception in 2008, was part of a group of churches that believed, according to "Pray for Pensacola" founder Mr. Miller, that the upcoming November 2008 election amounted to "Spiritual warfare" and the need to elect godly officials who opposed abortion and same-sex marriage.

Thus, the origin of the original 2010 donation to Youth Reach Gulf Coast was probably mediated by Liberty Church and approved by Sheriff Morgan because Liberty Church was one church in a loose, informal coalition of churches in "Pray for Pensacola" that helped elect Mr. David Morgan Sheriff in November 2008.

Sheriff Morgan TigerBay Club: Truth in Advertising

The Panhandle TigerBay Club will host a luncheon on Friday, June 19, 2015, featuring "Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan, Pensacola City Chief of Police Chip Simmon, and Reverend LuTimothy May," according to a Rick's Blog posting of the TigerBay Club press release.

According to the TigerBay press release, the purpose of the luncheon is to afford the three speakers an opportunity to "examine the issue of law enforcement and race relations in the context of recent events in Ferguson and Baltimore, as well as consider how the issue of race and law enforcement relations impact our area."

The TigerBay Club's press release gives the impression or could give the impression that at least two of the speakers, Sheriff David Morgan and Reverend May, are independent of each other.

But, that is not the case.  Sheriff Morgan and Reverend May have a financial relationship due to donations sought from Sheriff Morgan's Law Enforcement Trust Fund by Reverend May's Dixon School of the Arts, Inc., formerly known as the Escambia Charter School of Excellence, Inc.

However, in the public interest, this financial relationship between at least two of the speakers, Sheriff David Morgan and Reverend May, needs to be disclosed.

In January 2012, the Dixon School of the Arts received $1,000, reference number 10082223, according to Law Enforcement Trust Fund records obtained via a Public Records request.

In 2013, the Dixon School of the Arts received $1000 (Voucher 5150, January) and $10,000 (Voucher 7611, September).  Reverend May's Friendship Missionary Baptist Church probably also received a $2000 donation from the LETF in August 2013 (Voucher 7307).

In 2014, the Dixon School of the Arts received $750 (Voucher 11991, August).

And, in 2015, the Dixon School of the Arts received $1000 (Voucher 14089, January).

The amounts contributed by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office Law Enforcement Trust Funds relative to all contributions received by the Dixon School of the Arts, according to Form 990 filings with the federal Internal Revenue Service, are miniscule.  Contributions are separate from FTE funds received per student attending school.

For tax year (July to June) 2010-2011, Dixon received $268,769 in contributions; for tax year 2011-2012, Dixon received $116,319; for tax year 2012-2013, Dixon received $30,402; and, for tax year 2013-2014, Dixon received $509,343 in contributions.