The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News | A Texas News Source

Prior VIA Police Chief Osborne Appeals Whistleblower Defeat

Prior VIA Police Chief Osborne Appeals Whistleblower Defeat

By

Introducing The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News, your source for engaging and informative Texas news. Our publication focuses on delivering accurate and impactful stories that matter to you, with a primary emphasis on South Texas, including Hays, Bexar, Nueces, Webb, Cameron, and Hidalgo counties. Stay informed about pressing issues and gain a deeper understanding of your government. With a commitment to transparency and accountability, trust us to provide reliable information that holds those in power accountable.


Former VIA Police Chief Osborne attempts to reverse the trial court’s judgment to dismiss his whistleblower claim. He files an appeal within thirty days of the City of Harlingen’s plea to jurisdiction being issued. Our publishing provides portions of Osborne’s transcript from his videotaped deposition. The transcript was provided by Osborne as an exhibit in his initial plea to attempt to overcome the City of Harlingen’s plea to jurisdiction. Does the transcript expose valid reasons for Osborne to have been terminated?


Prior VIA Police Chief Osborne Appeals Whistleblower Defeat

Prior VIA Police Chief Osborne Appeals Whistleblower Defeat

On December 28, 2023, John David Osborne Jr., a self-proclaimed whistleblower, filed a notice of appeal in the 103rd Judicial District of Cameron County. The court initially passing judgement to grant the City of Harlingens’ plea to jurisdiction on November 28, 2023. The court appeared to conclude the City of Harlingen or the Valley International Airport (VIA), which is owned and operated by the City of Harlingen, would have taken an action on Osborne regardless of his whistleblower allegations. 

According to the Texas Government Code 554.002, a state or local governmental entity is not allowed to suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority. This report is considered appropriate if the authority is part of a state or local governmental entity or of the federal government that the employee in good faith believes is authorized to regulate under or enforce the law alleged to be violated in the report, or to investigate or prosecute a violation of criminal law.

It’s important to note that when a public employee alleges a violation of the Texas Government Code 554.002, they may indeed sue the employing state or local governmental entity for the relief provided by that chapter. Additionally, sovereign immunity is waived and abolished to the extent of liability for the relief allowed under that chapter for a violation of that chapter. This provides an avenue for public employees to seek recourse in the event of a violation.

According to the Texas Government Code 554.004, a public employee who sues under that chapter bears the burden of proof, unless the suspension, termination, or adverse personnel action occurs within 90 days of the employee’s report of a violation of law. In such cases, the action is presumed, subject to rebuttal, to be in response to the employee’s report.

Furthermore, it is considered an affirmative defense to a suit under that chapter if the state or local governmental entity can demonstrate that they would have taken the action against the employee based solely on information, observation, or evidence unrelated to the fact that the employee made a protected report of a violation of law.

City of Harlingen Claims They Would Have Taken the Action Unrelated to Whistleblowing

As previously published by us, the City of Harlingen filed a plea to jurisdiction on Osbornes claims. In the plea to jurisdiction, it appears the City of Harlingen identifies aspects of Osbornes conduct which resulted in his separation; as least as the pleadings seem to indicated:

Osborne was terminated because of his dishonesty, misconduct, and conduct subversive to the proper order, discipline, and morale of the Airport Services, because he was found with the 19 year-old daughter of a City Commissioner in a state of undress, without permission to be in her home, during working hours, after having been dishonest to a fellow employee that he was going somewhere else, and after having spent
considerable time on the phone with that 19 year-old during confidential security meetings and working hours, in violation of VIA policies. Osborne has no evidence to establish he was terminated for any other reason.

DEFENDANT CITY OF HARLINGEN, TEXAS’ PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION, CAUSE NO. 2022-DCL-00832, Filed October 31, 2023

The City of Harlingen goes on to explain the reason Osborne was separated from employment:

On October 29, 2021, while [Harlingen City Commissioner (at the time) Richard] Uribe was in a VIA Board meeting, Osborne had been on a phone call with Uribe’s 19 year-old daughter Kaitlyn and went to her home without notifying Uribe. During this time, Uribe had been attempting to contact Osborne, but he was not responding. Unbeknownst to Uribe, at approximately 9:44 a.m., Osborne arrived at Uribe’s home and walked down the sidewalk and in the front door. When the Board meeting finished early, Uribe decided to stop by his home.

As Uribe was driving up, he noticed Osborne’s truck parked on the side of his house, facing the wrong direction. He then opened his garage door and drove inside, before entering his home through the garage. As he entered, he saw Osborne grabbing his clothes and going out the front door, as Kaitlyn ran from their living room to her bedroom wearing only her panties while the rest of her body was exposed. He then knocked on Kaitlyn’s door, but she did not respond. She later came out of her room and said Osborne had been asking for his keys because he had left them inside the house. Though Uribe wanted to go outside and kill him, he was able to restrain himself. Once Uribe’s son arrived home a few minutes later, he had him take Osborne’s keys to him. He then contacted his IT assistant, Roger Hernandez, and had him download video recordings from his home camera system.

Osborne agreed that when Uribe walked into his home he found his 19 year-old daughter Kaitlyn in a state of undress, while Osborne, a 50 year-old married man, was leaving through the front door. Because Osborne heard Uribe arriving at his home, Osborne immediately got up and left “with urgency,” his belt undone, his pants hanging down, his shirt rumpled, and holding his jacket, though he claimed he and Kaitlyn were
not having sex. Osborne then walked away through the bushes, rather than on the sidewalk as he had walked in, his shirt hanging outside his pants, again “with urgency.”

Once Osborne reached his truck, however, he realized he had left his keys behind, but did not make an effort to go back inside because he was concerned that Uribe might “jump to conclusions” when he found his daughter in a state of undress while a man 30 years her senior was walking out of his house only partially dressed. Once Uribe’s son got home, he brought Osborne his keys. Osborne’s wife, son, and daughter apparently also may have “jumped to conclusions” because Osborne had to move out of his home.

On November 3, 2021, five days after he was found with Uribe’s 19 year-old daughter in a state of undress, he was terminated for dishonesty, misconduct, and conduct subversive to the proper order, discipline, and morale of the Airport Services. Support for that termination was Osborne’s having been dishonest in telling a fellow employee he was going to Target or the Stitch Gallery, when in fact he was going to see Kaitlyn under
circumstances where they were in a state of undress during working hours, without permission from Uribe to be in their home, which would constitute conduct subversive to the public trust and violate Airport policies.Aviation Director Esterly was particularly concerned because Osborne had confirmed to him that he had been a long-time friend of the family, having known Kaitlyn since she was 10 or 12 years old. While the age difference may not have been illegal, Esterly found it disturbing and disgusting, and while on Airport time violated Airport policies.

In addition, Kaitlyn’s cell phone call log indicated she had been on the phone with Osborne’s personal phone number, [omitted], for over 7,380 minutes during 8:00 to 5:00 hours from October 5 – 29, 2021, including during meetings where security and other matters were discussed, though VIA policies limited him to 15 minutes of personal telephone calls per month. Osborne’s having been on personal calls with Kaitlyn for hours at a time during working hours, especially during confidential security meetings, was in
violation of the Airport’s limit of 15 minutes of personal phone calls per month.

Osborne understood he was an at will employee, terminable for any reason or no reason, so long as it’s not for an illegal reason, including if they did not like how it looked as he was walking out of Uribe’s home or the fact that he spent numerous hours on the phone with Kaitlyn during working hours at the Airport.

DEFENDANT CITY OF HARLINGEN, TEXAS’ PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION, CAUSE NO. 2022-DCL-00832, Filed October 31, 2023

Osborne Releases Transcript of Videotaped Deposition

Osborne, in response to the City of Harlingen’s plea to jurisdiction, elected to file various pieces of information for public disclosure. Much of the information seems rather private and Osborne has elected, in what appears, to waive any privacy to the information. However, of importance is the transcript showing connection to the reason the City of Harlingen claims they separated Osborne. The transcript provided in this publishing, is not the full transcript, but parts which seem relevant to the conduct issue presented in the City of Harlingen’s pleading:

—- Deposition identifies Osborne to be a parent to those older than Richard Uribe’s daughter.

Q. What’s your current address? A. [omitted]

Q. How long have you been there?  A. Over 20 years.

Q. Who do you live there with? A. I live there with my wife. A. My daughter – 23 years old A. My son – 21 years old

—- Deposition shows a word choice about military deployment, but no reference to an actual deployment.

Q. What year did you graduate? A. 1989.

Q. After that, did you join the military or go to school? A. After that, I went to school. 

Q. Where? A. To TSTC.

Q. When? A. Right after — probably the summer of ’89 I started, and I went on and off for about a year or so.

Q. And then what? A. And then in 1990- end of’91, I talked about going to the military. I was delayed entry. I actually went to the military for — signed up for the Gulf War. I went –I ended up getting deployed in 1992 to the military. That’s when I went in.

—- Deposition points to Osborne being the supervisor of CID at a key period of time in our previous publishings.

Q. So you moved over to CID in about 2018, and during that time, you also did support services?  A. I got transferred to support services.

Q. You got transferred? A. Yes, sir.

—— Deposition provides information related to the relationship Osborne had with Uribe’s 19 year old daughter.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you about the incident at Uribe’s home on October 29, 2021. Do you remember that incident? A. Yes.

 Q. You were 50 years old at the time, right? A. Yes.

Q. Uribe came home at a time when you had been with his daughter Kaitlyn, correct? A. Yes.

Q. She was 19years old at the time, right? A. Yes.

Q. Now, you said you’ve known Richard since 2019, so that would have been about a couple of years? A. The end of 2019 when he became — he went to a board — he went to a staff meeting that we had, and he was assigned to ride with me, yes sir.

Q. So you’ve known Kaitlyn all that time as well? A. No.

Q. When did you first meet Kaitlyn? A. Possibly at the restaurant one time right before I left the department.

Q. Which was when? A. I can’t think of the exact date.

Q. So around the end of2019? A. Maybe, yes, sir.

Q. Where did you meet her? A. At the restaurant.

Q. There were different times when you would take — she had a brother, right? A. She had two brothers.

Q. Two brothers. When you would take her and her two brothers to the movies and things like that, right? A. That’s correct. I think we did that once or twice.

Q. So in 2021, were you having a relationship with her? A. This is while I was at the airport. We were friends.

Q. Well, 2021 is when the incident happened, October of 2021. A. Okay.

Q. So at some time in 2021, you were having a relationship with her, right? A. Yes. We were friends.

Q. When did — was it more than friends? A. We were friends. That was it.

Q. I’m asking if it was more than friends. A. We were good friends, but not more — not – we were not–

Q. Were you intimate? A. No.

Q. Did you have a physical relationship with her?  A. No.

Q. Did you have a sexual relationship with her? A. I did not.

Q. So what was your purpose for being at her home on October 29? A. I took a break, and I went to visit her.

A. And what were you doing there? A. Visiting her, talking.

Q. Just talking? Any reason you needed to remove your clothes to talk? A. I didn’t — I didn’t remove my clothes.

Q. Any reason she needed to remove her cloths to talk?A. She didn’t remove her clothes.

—— Deposition shows Osborne’s termination from VIA – It should be noted that Osborne received two trespass warnings related to Uribe’s house and restaurant.

Q. Before we took a break, I was asking you about. your separation from the airport after you were terminated. You got I think what we referred to as Exhibit 15, the termination notice, right? A. That’s correct.

 Q. Remember we were talking about that? A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Okay. After that –how did you get that? A. It was given to me in person the day I was terminated. 

Q. You came in, met at the door. They took your equipment, your weapon, all those things, brought you into Mr. Esterly’s office, and he handed it to you, or was there more to it than that? A. More to it than that.

Q. What else? A. When I arrived at the police –at the Valley International Airport! I was greeted by several Harlingen police officers who I used to –who used to work for me to make sure I had no weapons on me. I was told later on that there was a SWAT team on standby in –in the parking lot because Mr. Uribe expressed that I was a threat. And so based on his allegations, the chief of police, knowing better, sent the SWAT team on a standby team, a team that I used to supervise, had probably no less than eight Harlingen police officers there with my airport staff, airport police officers. They were called in, extra –extra officers. I was escorted up to Mr. –Marv’s office. And that’s where I sat down with him, Mr. Wren, and their attorney. 

Q. Who? Which attorney? A. Gene. 

Q. McCullough? A. McCullough. Thank you, the last name. 

Q. And then what happened? A. Mr. Esterly said, “I’m just going to rip the Band-Aid off. You’re being terminated effective immediately,” and gave me this notification. Q. Anything else? A. I asked him what does this –what does he mean by dishonesty and misconduct and the conduct subversive. I asked for any explanation. He said, “No questions will be asked, and no questions will be answered.” And I asked him again, “You put dishonesty down. What was I dishonest about?” He didn’t ask me a single question, and he said once again, “No questions will be asked. No questions wi II be answered. You can leave, and Sergeant Mata will escort you out.” So I went downstairs with the sergeant.

—— Deposition exposes allegations made by Uribe about Osborne.

Q. So now your wife believes that y’all did not have a sexual or physical relationship. Is that what you’re telling me? A. Yes. In fact, Mr. Uribe took his daughter to the hospital that same day to have a sexual assault kit done and called the Texas Rangers saying that I had raped his daughter. The sexual assault kit came back that there was no evidence of any sexual contact, and the Texas Rangers dismissed the case with the district attorney’s office saying there was no such –it was completely baseless. And that phone call was –was I believe possibly the day I was terminated or right around that time frame. I had the Ranger on speakerphone with my wife at the time.

Q. So why are you not living with your wife now? A. My wife and I. A. My wife and I get along. We’re friendly with each other. My daughter was to the point of –she’s in her last year of college, and me being there and her being there would have caused additional stress possibly for her. She was –didn’t talk to me for months. And my goal was to not disrupt the continuity of the family as much as possible. And I stayed out of the home for the benefit of my daughter to cope, to be supportive of her, and to give her space, time to process.

—— Deposition shows Osborne hasn’t applied to law enforcement jobs.

Q. Okay. After this, did you go apply anywhere else to work as a police officer? A. I made inquiries.

Q. Where? A. I—I talked to — I talked to the availability for — for examples Donna ISD Police

Q. Donna ISD? A. I didn’t apply. I talked to their officers there through my business dealings to see, and they had all heard about me. They had seen it in the paper. I had police officers that I was talking to saying that my allegations were all the way through Pharr and McAllen. People across law enforcement — it’s a small knit — close-knit community, and a lot of people knew me, and so my name was — was mud.

Q. Okay. So you talked to other cops you knew. Is that what you’re saying? A. That’s correct.

Q: Did you apply at any other police departments? A. No

Q. Why not? A. Because l was waiting for this. l never even saw my F-5, and I didn’t know what status I had. And as far as going to be a police officer, I had been through 20 years of law enforcement. Going back as a regular patrol officer was something that I was — you know, 50 — 51 years old going back as a regular patrol officer, I didn’t qualify for some departments at that level. Some of them have an age requirement. Other ones, you look for a chief position somewhere: but those are far and few between.

Q. Why didn’t you apply anyway? In other words, I know you’re saying you didn’t think you would get the patrol or the captain or the chief position. If you needed a job, why didn’t you just apply anyway to see if you could get those jobs as a patrol or any other position? A. The locality ofmy family’s home here in Harlingen, the majority of jobs that may have been available or possibly to apply were mainly out of the –out of the area, which would –which could force me to have to relocate completely. I talked to my wife about it, and we began to look at opportunities that were closer to home. And I am still looking at those opportunities. I am still searching for those opportunities. Some of those positions require a college degree. Some of those positions require to move within a certain locale of that jurisdiction. And that’s not –that’s not an easy decision to make. You have to discuss that with your family. It’s called uprooting your whole family.

—— Deposition shows conduct related to the trespass warnings issued to Osborne.

Q. Do you recall when police showed up to Muniz Pharmacy when you were parked across the street from Richard’s Restaurant? A. This is well after my –my removal from the – Q. Yes. A. —airport. Q. Yes.

Q. You recall that? A. I do remember that. 

Q. Why were you parked there? A. Because I saw that my friend was there, and I was hoping to get a glimpse of her and talk –and see her.

Q. Now, part of the concern that was shown apparently in the pharmacy’s cameras was that –that you had been parked there for an extended period of time. Do you remember the police talking to you about that? A. No. 

Q. Do you remember them talking to you about your recording –video-recording Richard’s Restaurant? A. No, I never recorded his restaurant.

Q. Are you saying you weren’t recording -A. No. Q. -across the street his restaurant? A. Absolutely not.

Q. Do you remember how long you were parked? Because it was more than just one day, right? A. There were different days that I would go. 

Q. Why would you go there on different days to park across the street from Richard’s Restaurant?  A. Like I said, it was for personal reasons to -just to see if everything was okay. I was worried –I was worried. 

Q. You were what? A. I was worried. 

Q. About what? A. About the young lady. 

Q. So you were parked across the street to look at the restaurant to check on Kaitlyn? A. To –I knew –I parked on the days I figured that she was there. 

Q. Why? A. To see her. 

Q. Why? You’re married. Why would you need to see her? A. That’s my  A. That’s a personal reason. Q. Well, I’m asking you what that personal reason is. A. Because I care for her.

ORAL AND VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JOHN DAVID OSBORNE, JR. DECEMBER 15, 2022, Plaintiff Exhibit D (in part), filed November 21, 2023

Osborne Continues to Claim He is a Whistleblower

John David Osborne Jr., a self-proclaimed whistleblower, filed a notice of appeal in response to the court’s initial judgment granting the city’s plea to jurisdiction. The case revolves around allegations made under the Texas Government Code 554.002, which protects public employees who report violations of the law by governmental entities. The city claims that Osborne’s termination was unrelated to whistleblowing, citing instances of alleged misconduct and dishonesty.

However, Osborne disputes this claim and released a videotaped deposition to refute the city’s allegations. The deposition delves into Osborne’s personal and professional life, addressing his military background, role at the airport, and the incident involving a City Commissioner’s daughter. Additionally, he discusses his termination from the VIA, allegations made by Uribe, and his employment prospects post-termination.

Osborne vehemently maintains his status as a whistleblower despite the city’s assertions, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle.

Disclaimer

The content provided in this publishing is based on publicly available information and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The details presented here are not a comprehensive account of the events and should not be construed as a substitute for professional legal advice or a complete representation of the involved parties’ positions. The content reflects the information available at the time of publishing. Readers are advised to seek legal counsel for specific legal questions and to consider all relevant sources of information before forming any opinions or conclusions. The accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of the information presented cannot be guaranteed.


A Couple of Our Other Reads

You may be interested in our publishing on two State Board of Pharmacy officers resigning to avoid termination.

Or you may find our publishing about a TABC officer resigning to avoid termination, of interest.


Follow Us on Social Media

If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.

FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *