Date of Incident: spring-October, 16,14 Individuals Involved: John Velleca (chief), Jennifer Posteraro (assistant) Outfit: Weare, NH Police Department Phone:(603) 529-7755
John Velleca became chief of police of Weare, NH in October, 2013 – within a year he resigned, after his inconsistencies about treatment of a female colleague became known.
Velleca quit on October 16,2014, the same day the NH attorney general’s office said there was not enough to pursue a simple assault and falsifying physical evidence charges, apparently he was romantically involved with a Jennifer Posteraro, a part-time records clerk that was promoted to a full-time assistant.
After Posteraro threatened to tell Velleca’s wife of the affair, he went to her home in Hillsboro, NH and allegedly pushed her to the ground twice, then tried to take her department issued cell phone to censor information about his affair. Postararo then called the nearby Hillsboro police, who took the phone, placed it in an evidence bag, and returned it to the Weare Police . Velleca then opened the evidence bag, took the phone to an Apple store in Nashua, and had all documentation wiped out of the phone.
Posteraro claimed that Velleca arrived unannounced at her home in Hillsboro on Sept. 11 and pushed her to the ground twice as she tried to stop him from taking her department-issued cell phone, which she said contained evidence of a brief sexual affair.
If a normal citizen did this they would face the domestic simple assault charges, plus the felony of falsifying evidence. In the last several years the Weare police department has been plagued by corruption, an unjust shooting, and brutality among other issues [including being sued for denying the ability of Carla Gericke to film their actions in public].
The seven-page report from those employed at the NH Attorney General’s office concluded that there exist “significant concerns regarding Velleca’s credibility” yet Velleca’s attorney Benjamin King said that he “stands ready and able to return to work”- would you hire someone with such questionable integrity to safeguard you and your family?
The Weare police outfit website – almost void of content – still lists Velleca as chief. I’m guessing, in an effort to try to shore-up whatever legitimacy people still grant that institution, that information will soon be updated.
The information below was shared via CopBlock.org/Submit by someone who wished to remain anonymous.
Date of Incident: 09/14/2014 Individual Responsible: William Grimmich Outfit: Sebastian Police Department Phone: (772) 589-5233
I saw this story online, and it’s a good story of police arresting one of their own.
Sebastian Police (Florida) Sgt. William Grimmich arrested and charged with Trafficking Oxycodone $100,000 bond, Felony Tamper or Destroy Evidence $50,000 bond. He is still in jail to this date. Below is a link to the arrest affadavit, and the news story.
Sebastian Police Chief Michelle Morris stated that, “routine accounting and auditing procedures earlier this year revealed discrepancies in submission of controlled substances placed into the evidence room.”
The Chief requested an investigation following this discovery by an outside agency.
In 1963, the murder conviction of John Brady was overturned by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that that prosecutors had not disclosed all known facts pertinent to the case.
Specifically – that Brady didn’t commit murder. Prosecutors – eager to get yet another conviction – had decided not to share with Brady and his lawyers, a letter written by another man who took sole responsibility for the act.
Since then, the “Brady Rule” has required prosecutors to pass along material related to guilt or to punishment, known as “exculpatory evidence,” to defendants before a plea is entered.
Failure to do so is said to be a violation of due process.
Less than a decade later another case – Giglio v. United States – strengthened the Brady Rule by mandating that defendants and their lawyers had to be told about information that casts doubt on the credibility of government witnesses involved in the case.
Police employees – being political actors – who have questionable integrity, are supposed to be kept on a Brady List.
Qualifications for inclusion include lying under oath – what’s known as testilying, or other misdeeds done when “in an official capacity,” which in plain English means that when a person has on a police costume.
So where are those Brady Lists?
They’re certainly not readily available on the website of your local cop shop or district attorney’s office.
The simple truth is that there is no set process on how this information is to be shared, thus the norm is censorship on behalf of those who keep those lists.
And even though prosecutors are tasked with informing the defendant that a police employee set to testify is indeed, included on a Brady List, that doesn’t always happen. It’s ultimately contingent on the decision reached by a handful of senior prosecutors.
Regardless of the lip service given to “justice” and to transparency, the injustice system and its actors rest filmy on double-standards and censorship.
As said Mary Ellen Reimund, a Washington-based lawyer, “Although the case is 50 years old, how prosecutors and police are complying with Brady in regard to dishonesty and police officers is in its infancy.”
In LA, a process to comply with the Brady List was created only after a massive police scandal – dozens and dozens of police employees active with the Rampart CRASH unit, planting evidence, testilying, dealing drugs, beatings and shooting, and bank robbery, which cost area taxpayers 125 million federal reserve notes for settlements.
Within five years that process had been adopted by a handful of other police outfits in SoCal.
In San Diego, Jeff McDonald of the San Diego Union-Tribune solicited the Brady List from the local attorney.
Since the DA claims to be “dedicated to the pursuit of truth and justice” and to strive for “open and forthright communication,” one would think that the request would quickly be granted, right?
The response received said that “Any information that may lead to the identification of the officers… is confidential.”
As opined Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, from the San Diego ACLU, “If officers are unreliable in court, are they reliable in our communities?”
This default to protect the identities of police employees who have questionable integrity is not surprising.
After all, we’re talking about an institution that does not have to respond to market signals.
All police employees, and their outfits, rely on a claimed legitimate right to extort you to then protect you.
And prosecutors, who are supposed to maintain the Brady Lists, tend to rely on donations and support from police unions to get elected.
Many, therefore, are hesitate to rock the boat, and call into question hundreds or thousands of convictions that relied on testimony from someone known to lie.
Such is the norm when justice is said to be provided by a coercive monopoly. That institution and its actors are inherently unaccountable.
Yet according to Richard Bradley, the president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association, had the audacity to claim, that “in 27 years on the Boston force he had never encountered the practice” of testilying. Sure.
Honesty among police employees in legaland is not absolute. Anyone truthful – including some police employees – readily acknowledges that fact.
Joseph D. McNamara – when head of San Jose Police Outfit, stated, “as someone who spent 35 years wearing a police uniform, I’ve come to believe that hundreds of thousands of law-enforcement officers commit felony perjury every year testifying about drug arrests.”
In fact, during the legaland venture Ademo Freeman and I had a few years ago in Greenfield, Mass., it was a lie by a police employee on the stand that one juror cited as the reason he determined that Ademo and I were “not guilty.”
That police employee – Todd M. Dodge – had been asked by Ademo if he’d ever broken the law. Dodge replied “No.”
There exists thousands of pages of legalese conflated to be law, much of which is contradictory. The average person “violates” a handful of felonies each day, and Dodge claims he’s never broken a law?
Dodge should be included on the Brady List, and maybe he already is – but good luck finding out that information.
As Richard Lisko, a Baltimore Police employee noted in Police Chief Magazine – “Even though the Brady decision is nearly 50 years old, law enforcement agencies across the country are reluctant, if not defiant, to disclose potentially damaging information about police officers within their ranks.”
Earlier this week I called the Attorney General offices for Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York.
For the most part, that communication was fruitless. Despite the passage of almost a week, I’ve yet to hear back from anybody, about how the Brady List kept could be obtained.
Even the one time I was told that I could file a FOIA request, that was quickly followed-up with the statement that it was not-likely to be fulfilled.
Had others experienced more success? I scoured the web, and found only a handful of examples when Brady Lists that were sought, were provided:
In Florida, the Brady List was provided to The Sun Sentinel earlier this year, which listed police employees convicted of crimes, those under criminal investigation, and those being investigated for discharging their firearm.
In 2010, the writers at the Phoenix New Times obtained the Brady list for Maricopa County, which listed hundreds of police employees, including Jeffeory Hynes, then the head of the Phoenix Police Outfit’s internal affairs department, who now teaches about Police Management at nearby Arizona State University.
In The Shire, where I now reside, the Brady List is referred to as the Laurie List.
In 2013 Elizabeth Dinan of the Portsmouth Herald and the Seacoast Media Group filed Right to Know Requests – New Hampshire’s version of the FOIA – with each county’s head prosecutor to obtain the Laurie Lists.
Though much of the information received was redacted, it was learned that more than 60 police employees were included. Said Dinan: “the process tracking them is so secretive it is virtually impossible to identify them or even say for sure exactly how many there are.”
Thanks to a submission made to Cop Block – the identities of a few of those police employees are known – Matthew Jajuga, Micheal Buckley, and Jonathon Duchesne – who all partook in the unjust beating Chris Micklovich (a name that may be familiar to you, if you’re aware with the Chalking 8 incident).
That trio attempted recently to get their names removed from the Laurie List, but their request was denied.
So, with lack of rigor surrounding Brady Lists, and the less-than-willing disposition of prosecutors to share them, why was it thought worthwhile to address this topic?
Because it acts as yet another data point to underscore the failure of a centralized, coercive monopoly to provide safety or accountability or any such idealistic goal.
If a police employee is known to be of such questionable character, shouldn’t that information be made public? Would you choose to hire a known liars and predators to protect you?
Anthony Arevalos who, despite being named in a dozen lawsuits that cost area taxpayers millions of federal reserve notes, was still employed as a San Diego police employee when he sexually molested a woman in the bathroom of a 711.
And, just a couple hours to the north, Vince Mater – who worked for the Fullerton Police, the same outfit where the killers of Kelly Thomas are employed – who’s inclusion on the Brady List wasn’t made public until he was quietly dismissed after he destroyed crucial evidence – his department issued audio recorder and the chip that had captured his exchanges with Dean Gochenour, who was shortly afterwards said to have committed suicide in his cage.
Would you choose to employ a person of such disrepute?
That’s what this conversation is ultimately about – choice.
Today, with the failed “injustice system” there is no choice. There is no accountability. And there never will be, as that institution is based on a double-standard – that some people have the “right” to extort others.
It’s been over 50 years since the Brady List was kicked-off, it’s failed to curtail the very real, and very negative actions done by dishonest police employees.
If you know of a dishonest police employee, let others know. And that includes you too, current police employees. Your silence is acceptance.
To bring about real change, shed any vestiges of legitimacy you grant to that corrupt institution, and to the bankrupt idea that positions some as rulers, and others as ruled.
Rob Hustle shared this post via CopBlock.org’s submit page.
Police Employees Involved: Corrupt Cops from Around the World
I’m a hip hop artist, and I wanted to share my latest track, Call the Cops.
Increasing militarization of police in our country is becoming a threat to life and liberty. Laws are supposed to help and protect people. But when those laws – and the people that enforce them – become the danger, then someone must raise their voice. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchers? Me, you and other artists who care.
I’m a fan of the site, and I hope that you will help spread the message.
Proceeds from this song will be donated to Baby Bou Bou, whose face was blown up by a police stun grenade.
Pete, of CopBlock.Org, said: “It’s great to connect and collaborate. More folks are waking up and standing on their principle…I think readers will be excited to learn of your efforts, some of whom hopefully get involved…” He will also receive all recordings submitted by bikers and motorcyclists which will be posted on their site, provide pamphlets and various resources at the site covering the DUPA-NYCopBlock project and will brain storm with us in the coming weeks to perfect the creative police accountability project . CopBlock.Org provides educational resources and instruction for filming corrupt police at their website.
Meanwhile, Jon, of FilmingCops.Com, has vowed to post all films documenting police corruption received from bikers and motorcyclists, has set up alerts to send notifications of any documented encounters between police and bikers to DUPA-NYCOPBlock and will be releasing a special page at their site in May, 2014 called “Filming Cops 101″, which will help educate the public and motorcyclists on your rights to film police and the “how to’s”.
The collaborative project,” D.U.P.A.-NYCopBlock“, is a centralized Facebook page, monitored by B.A.D. , that will give filming instruction and information to bikers on their rights to record police, as well as, networking resources for bikers and the public across the nation and abroad for reporting and posting unjust incidents with police.
“These two sites, in conjunction with DUPA-NYCopBlock and our B.A.D. seminars will provide an opportunity for the American Biker Culture to freely post and report pertinent law enforcement aggression and corruption against the biker culture. This massive strategy plan will provide us the kind of centralized data we need to defend our rights while enforcing accountability”, McGrath said.
B.A.D. is planning seminar events throughout the State of New York in 2014 to help prepare bikers and motorcyclists in documenting unjust police aggression and corruption.
“The DUPA-NYCopBlock project makes it possible for ALL BIKERS and citizens who witness bikers and motorcyclists being harassed and denied their civil and constitutional rights to be able to immediately forward their tapes and video/audio evidence to the secure online archives of CopBlock.Org and FilmingCops.Com for immediate release and worldwide coverage in the same fashion as large scale news sources provide”, McGrath said.
Upon notice of any biker submitted film release at either site a “B.A.D. Alert” logo will be posted on DUPA-NYCopBlock with the link and story on the specific news.
This would also provide lawyers, rights advocates, motorcycle clubs, biker groups and associations access to EVIDENCE of blanket bias, unjust profiling and discrimination against those in the biker culture by government agencies and law enforcement.
“With their principled format (nonviolent recording of police agency corruption in a non-cop-hating,professional manner while seeking law enforcement accountability and transparency), solidly established resources, mass amount of volunteers across the US and abroad and easy availability for those immediately needing to document and get the word out – Makes this a “WIN-WIN” power move in the defense of biker rights”, McGrath said.
Please Join us in this project by “liking” DUPA-NYCopBlock on Facebook! We ALL share in defense of the same rights.
ALL BIKER RIGHTS GROUPS and advocates across the nation and abroad are asked for their support in this important rights project. SPREAD THE WORD!
Both CopBlock.Org and FilmingCops.Com will be credited in coverage on this collaborative rights project in the upcoming 2014 release of the local film documentary: “The American Biker Culture”, featuring a raw look at the actual unjust profiling, bias and discrimination against bikers and motorcyclists – produced by Harold Bryant and Hank McGrath. The documentary gives a honest view into the life of bikers, motorcyclists, their families and friends – contrary to what government agencies and big media attempt to wrongfully portray to the public for sensationalism = ratings!
Both will also assist in promoting the film documentary when it is released. A preview of which is below:
“Crowdfunding” will be implemented to commence with the D.U.P.A. seminars and the completion of the film documentary. B.A.D. and the American Biker Culture Center asks All CITIZENS , all CopBlock.org groups/volunteers and all FilmingCops.com volunteers across the nation and abroad to be proactive in filming any/all events of police misconduct against bikers and motorcyclists and to help in the defense of biker rights (the right to live within that culture, of no harm to anyone) – deserving the same freedom’s and liberties as any other citizen – WITHOUT unjust profiling, bias, discrimination and corruption against the culture.
This post was shared anonymously via CopBlock.org’s submit page.
In Woodstock, Illinois, a 24 year veteran of the police force has been given a slap on the wrist for texting a 12 year old girl asking for “sexy pictures.”
According to copies of the messages obtained by the Tribune from the 12 year old daughter of Sgt. Charles “Chip” Amati’s girlfriend, Amati said to “send me some sexy pictures” and it’s safe to say the girl’s mother and father are irate.
“He’s no better than who he’s arrested,” the father said.
When the parents alerted authorities, Illinois State Police investigators discovered something else – that Amati had used a taxpayer-funded law enforcement database to research his girlfriend’s criminal record, a police report shows.
Officers who use the database for personal reasons can be charged with official misconduct, a felony, state police said.
But McHenry County State’s Attorney Louis Bianchi has not charged Amati with anything at all.
After a departmental inquiry, Amati, one of the city’s highest-paid employees, was suspended without pay for 30 days. But he can take them one at a time at the department’s discretion within a year, police Chief Robert Lowen said.
When the internet got word of this information, the storm started brewing. From a few initial tweets with the hashtag #CharlesAmati, the collective gathered as much information about Amati as they could.
Perhaps the biggest revelations through the research into Amati comes from Twitter user @bpsyops, who detailed his findings in a report published to pastebin: http://pastebin.com/J7QFxn2A
“When doing my research for Charles Amati, I came across a profile on a mincraft forum that lists their location as “Woodstock, IL” and their xbox gamertag as “camati”, which is the username Charles uses on various other profiles around the web. This profile is showing that he’s a teenage girl.”
For people who have studied pedophiles for any amount of time, this should come as a huge red flag.
For the McHenry County sheriffs, this info doesn’t seem to matter too much because they are regularly deflecting all tweets from people asking questions to the Woodstock police department and blocking those who persist that they do an investigation.
Experts said a mental health assessment would be key to determining whether the message was an isolated act or part of a larger problem, but Chief Lowen said that Amati wouldn’t be required for any of it.
With the revelations that Charles Amati is online posing as children and interacting with other kids, as well as sending texts asking a 12 year old girl to “send some sexy pictures,” we are collectively asking that a thorough evaluation is done on Amati’s mental state as well as seizing all of his electronic devices while the investigation continues.
Over a year has passed since Jeffrey Weinhaus was shot four times in a central Missouri gas station parking lot at a pre-arranged meeting. Weinhaus was rightly concerned about his safety due to the ongoing harassment faced by Folsom and his ilk and thus arrived with his spywatch recording. Previously only a short excerpt of that recording been shared, yesterday the full video was posted by YouTube.com/MrWoundWeaver
Weinhaus was told by Folsom that he was to receive back his computers. Even Folsom admits as much in his own report. Yet Robert E. Parks, the prosecutor (636.583.6370), claimed that Weinhaus should have known that Folsom was seeking to arrest him, thus Weinhaus was guilty of resisting/interfering with the arrest at a felony level. Parks lied in his indictment. Why has he not been held liable? http://copblock.org/28700/proof-of-perjury-henry-folsom-jeffrey-weinhaus-shooter-caught-in-lie
These are just a few of the many discrepancies that exist due to the inaccurate recount of events from Folsom and his crew.
He’s slated to be sentenced on November 25, 2013 by Keith M. Sutherland (636.583.7365).
Stay tuned for a much more thorough recount of this situation. And by all means – if you’re so motivated to dig into this situation to help the truth emerge, that’d be welcomed. As we each look after each other we’re all safer. If you have any specific insight that you believe needs to be made public let the world know via http://copblock.org/submit or share it with me via firstname.lastname@example.org
Further, why was Folsom operating in St. Clair, an area outside his jurisdiction? Folsom works out of MO State Highway Patrol Troop I. St. Clair is said to be serviced by MO State Highway Patrol Troop C. Though working in neighboring areas does happen – a MO statute 43.200, dictates that the county sheriff has to be notified, yet Gary F. Toelke, the sheriff of Franklin County, stated that he and his colleagues were never made aware by Folsom of his pending actions. More on that fact: http://scribd.com/doc/128194067/Letter-from-Franklin-Co-Sheriff-Gary-F-Toelke-to-Jeffrey-Weinhaus
Even prior to the 2012.09.11 shooting of Weinhaus the actions of the “authorities” involved is not without question. Why were “multiple” judges visited before one was found that would sign off on a warrant sought by Folsom to enter Weinhaus’ dwelling? And how did this investigation into Weinhaus even begin? At a 2013.02.21 hearing prosecutor Parks stated that the 2012.08.16 video by Weinhaus caused the caused governor’s office to call a MO State Highway Patrol colonel and request an investigation, yet the only colonel employed at that outfit – Ronald K Replogle (573-751-3313) – denies any recollection of such a call.
Weinhaus was shot four times by those who claim to “serve and protect”. He was helivaced to a St. Louis hospital and was released a month later. He continued recovery at his brother’s house then, when attending a related hearing a month after that, was snatched up by MO St Hgy Patrol employees, was caged for a year, then had jury trial in Oct. of 2013. MORE CopBlock.org/JeffreyWeinhaus
Two weeks back in central Missouri, Jeffrey Weinhaus – Inmate #2012-4030 at the Franklin County Jail – was transported to the Franklin County Court. After three days in legaland a group of people there said that Weinhaus was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the allegations made against him, and suggested that he be caged for over six decades. It was a scenario – the theft of Weinhaus’s computers, the shooting, and the levying of charges against Weinhaus – that never should have happened.
Though billed as a “public hearing”, cameras were banned by “judge” Keith M. Sutherland
Sutherland also claimed that phones were prohibited, though allowed Folsom to text throughout
One gentleman present to support Weinhaus was asked to leave for what he notes was just looking at Folsom the same way Folsom as looking at him
After the second day in legaland, once the jurors had existed, Sutherland told the lawyers involved that he was going to throw out a couple few threats levied at Weinhaus – those related to Mertens and tampering with a judicial officer. As it was the latter cited by Folsom for having visiting the residence of Weinhaus and the stealing of his computers weeks before he shot Weinhaus, does it not call into question the subsequent actions?
Mertens testified that on Sept. 11, 2012, after Folsom had shot Weinhaus, he initially didn’t know if he fired his pistol. Upon his own visual inspection he concluded that he’d shot once – a number later changed to twice based on inspection of his firearm by others. Audio of the Sept. 11, 2012 exchange calls into question when Mertens fired – as a gunshot is heard minutes after the initial hail of gunfire, raising questions of whether Mertens purposesfully discharged his firearm only after conspiring with Folsom and others.
The clerk working at the MFA gas station testified about the presence of unmarked police cars well before the arrival of Weinhaus. She also stated that Weinahus had his hands raised when he was shot.
Folsom and Mertens disagreed on the stance of Weinhaus when he was shot. Folsom claimed that Weinhaus had a bladed stance – with one foot forward of the other – but Mertens disagreed. If Folsom is to be believed it would have meant that Mertens could not see Weinhaus’s side on which he was open carrying.
During legaland recess Mertens wrecked his police cruiser, which he attributed to being upset due to the situation
Folsom took the stand again and said that his life was ruined due to Cop Block. He admitted that days after the Sept. 11, 2012 incident, he was disallowed from wearing his custom and when on the stand, eluded to the may soon no longer be employed in such a capacity.
Mertens refused to take the stand due to stress/anguish
The jurors said Weinhaus was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of assault on a police officer, possession of substances claimed illicit and recommended he be caged 63-years
At 9am on November 25th, 2013 Suderland is to make his decree about the time he believes Weinhaus should be caged
Suderland reserved for himself the right to decide if the trial can be retried
Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney Robert Parks called Folsom to the stand one last time to testify how the shooting had devastated his life, family and career.
“I bear no ill feelings for Mr. Weinhaus, his family and his friends,” Folsom said. “But I, myself, have been changed forever. My wife is four months pregnant and stressed really bad. My family life is devastated because of this.”
[It's not too surprising that the incident hasn't sat well for Folsom, who after all, was in the wrong for shooting Weinhau.s]
Parks told the jury that he felt Weinhaus had “no remorse” for what he had done and was a danger to society.
“He has no respect for the law and for no one but himself,” Parks said. “He would have shot those two officers down, all because he has no respect for the law. He does not deserve to be in our society. He needs to be locked up.”
[There is no basis for these claims by Parks - Weinhaus went to the pre-arranged meeting believing he was to receive back his computers. Parks knowingly based his claims on fiction in an attempt to hoodwink the jurors.]
Hugh Eastwood, Weinhaus’ attorney, said Weinhaus has been blogging and writing about government officials for years and although his speech is at times controversial and extreme, Weinhaus never hurt anyone.
“The violence was out of character,” he said.
[Why was Eastwood on the defensive? Weinahus didn't act violent. By accepting the framing by Parks, rather than make clear it was Folsom who was violent, he did a disservice to justice.]
Parks said he had asked Mertens to take the stand, but Mertens declined because he was too emotional after testifying earlier in the trial.
Weinhaus also was charged with armed criminal action and assault on a law enforcement officer in reference to Mertens, but the jury found him not guilty on both those counts.
[Understandable, as Weinhaus had not wronged Mertens.]
Weinhaus, 47, received guilty verdicts on one count of assault on a law enforcement officer and one count of armed criminal action.
[Huh? How did Weinhaus assault or commit armed criminal action on anyone? He was within his rights to open carry. He didn't violate anyone's rights. At most, he's guilty of providing a (factual) recount of the incident that differs from that given by someone wearing a badge.]
The jury also found Weinhaus guilty and recommended two years in the state penitentiary for possession of a controlled substance, and one year in the county jail for possession of marijuana.
[Where's the victim? Also, the emphasis by Parks on these substances said to be illicit was part of his concerted effort to demonize Weinhaus, to paint him as a druggie, when in fact that was not true. The "controlled substance" cited was never fingerprinted - merely found in the home - there was no supporting evidence to tie it to Weinhaus.]
There are many holes in the “official story”, some of which are touched on in this Oct. 08 Bambuser update:
Even a short, seeming neutral overview of Weinhaus’s legaland journey from area coverage falls short. Consider the write-up below (interspersed with some of my own thoughts), Weinhaus Trial Began Tuesday, by Sarah Johnson:
The trial began Tuesday afternoon of controversial Internet blogger Jeffrey R. Weinhaus, 47, who is facing multiple charges after a confrontation with police last year.
[why not name the 'police officer? why believe that it was a 'confrontation' and not an ambush?]
Weinhaus is charged with interfering with a judicial official, felony possession of a controlled substance as well as resisting arrest and assault of law enforcement officers who were attempting to serve an arrest warrant on the man Sept. 11, 2012.
[why refer to some people as 'official'? why perpetuate the idea that a stranger has the right to control someone else?]
Folsom testified during the trial that he fired his gun after Weinhaus allegedly reached for a pistol that was in a holster at his side. [why give this recount - a police employee's word against a non-police employee - rather than the inverse - that Weinhaus claims to have never drawn his firearm and that Folsom shot him unjustly? Keep in mind that the holster used by Weinhaus was paratrooper style, which is made to prevent a pistol from being easily dislodged, thus it's considerably more time-consuming to draw from, as compared to other holster styles]
The video, which was on his wrist so it didn’t give a clear visual perspective of the scene, contained audio of Folsom telling Weinhaus to get on the ground.
[yes the pictures aren't too easy to discern but when analyzed it does become clear that Weinhaus was not reaching for his firearm]
Prosecutor Robert E. Parks 636.583.6370
Folsom was in the wrong for firing his weapon at Weinhaus. Just as clear is the fact that the pre-arranged meeting should never have been needed as Weinhaus’s computers should never have been stolen from his residence weeks prior by Folsom and his accomplices. Folsom admitted on his own reports that he had told Weinhaus that he was to receive back his computers at that meeting. In fact, he said that was communicated after consultation with two individuals employed at the Federal Bureau of Investigation – Mike Maruschak, Patrick Cunningham.
I have found it very curious that Mr. Maruschak and Mr. Cunningham have remained unmentioned by lamestream coverage of this incident. Why haven’t their incident reports been made public? Why were Maruschak and Cunningham not made to testify?
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2011 incident a post made in a forum by a claimed eyewitness. Eager to bring more insight about the incident, especially one not sanitized via a lainstream media editor or talking head, I cross-posted it to CopBlock.org. Yet, the text soon netted feedback from many who thought it a stretch – that it didn’t meet the editorial integrity the site should maintain, and who recommended that it be pulled from the site.
I also believed the post to contain two major points of divergence. First, that Weinhaus wasn’t carrying a firearm, yet all others familiar say otherwise. And second, that the triggerman was not an employee of the Missouri State Highway Patrol but of a federal outfit (as identified by a badge and a jacked emblazoned with “FBI” on the back) – which I thought untrue as no other source had mentioned yet alone substantiated that claim. Based on those discrepancies and the input that had been received, I pulled the editorial.
Honestly I hadn’t thought of it much until recently when I saw the link from BeforeItsNews.com – after rereading the claimed eyewitness account I now wonder just how far base it is from what actually went down. We now know, based on a report filed by Folsom,that there in fact were two employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation present. On the issue of whether Weinhaus was open carrying – perhaps the writer merely meant that Weinhaus had never brandished a firearm.
As we rounded the corner I heard , “Pop, pop, pop, pop” real rapid. At first I thought it was a the guys putting up the guttering using an air nailer, then I saw about 30 yards away a fella fall over on the parking lot, and was bleeding from the chest and shoulder and there was a man standing over him pointing a gun at him. A second man run out from the car that I had been forced to drive around with a gun drawn and at the same time the clerk in side started screaming. I then noticed that both men with guns were wearing brown kevlar vests with big bold letters FBI on the back. I also did not see a gun in the man’s hand, on the ground, or see the agent pick up a weapon of any kind off the ground. I spent a good 30 seconds counting weapons and assessing the situation as was my friend. With there being two armed federal agents and a wounded man on the parking lot I knew there was nothing I could do out there, so I headed in to the store to check on the clerk [who noted of Weinhaus] “he is in here all the time and is a very peaceful man, he was excited that he FBI was going to give him his computers back.”
I smelled a Rat, and a big one at that. I knew the guy they had just shot, not that we were good friends but I had spoken with him on many occasions in that very store. He was a great deal like Mel Gibson’s character in the movie “Conspiracy Theory.” A bit paranoid, a bit off, but completely harmless. He was convinced that his phone was tapped and the Gov was reading his emails, all because he published a little news letter in the local community. I always blew most of his rantings off as delusional paranoia, until today.
I finally saw their badges on their belts, and got a close look at one. On the top it had Federal Bureau of Investigations, in the middle it had the Justice Department seal, and on the bottom it had Department of Homeland Security.
one of the county deputies came up and ask the Trooper if the media could come in, and he nodded his head toward the two Feds and said, “It is not my call.” A few hours later on some of the local news sights it was being reported as the man being shot by the State Troopers, and no reference to the Feds.
A few hours later on some of the local news sights it was being reported as the man being shot by the State Troopers, and no reference to the Feds. On the tele Fox news was reporting it as being the Highway Patrol Drug task force who shot him, and had a spokesman for the State Troopers saying how the man had a gun the troopers told him to put the gun down and when he didn’t comply they had to fire on him . . . there was no, “Put the gun down, ” told to the man like the Highway patrol spokesman said. [This is now known to be factual per the audio documentation of the incident, from the cell phone and wrist watch camera of Weinhaus.
This man was unarmed, period. There are too many people who saw the whole thing go down.
Lastly what do I do with all of this information that I have and know? The few folks that were there, the clerk, and the two carpenters will probably be convinced that it was the Highway Patrol who shot that man just like everyone else who watches the evening news or reads the news paper. Mr X and myself both know better. We know the shooters were FBI from the DOJ, and we know the man was unarmed, and we know there was no warrant being served as the news also stated. That mans children are going to grow up thinking their father tried to kill a state trooper, who was trying to serve a warrant to him on a drug charge. The man was not a doper, or a pot head period. I feel I owe it to his wife and kids to tell them the truth. The man was a nut case, or maybe he wasn’t, but he most certainly is not a cop killer and a drug abuser, and he was shot in cold blood by a couple of thugs with guns and a badge that read FBI and DHS.
We are loosing our country fellas. As I pieced together what the clerk told me and what I saw play out here is some of what I figure happened. The feds took his computers that he was told to meet them there so he could get his computers back. He walked out of the store and the one waved him over. They started talking, and I am sure he realized that he was not going to get his computers back, he had his hands visible and there was no gun. The feds wanted him dead or incapacitated spot on, so they shot him in the chest. There is no reason to have shot this man other than it was politically motivated, and why is the Feds making the highway patrol take the blame for the shooting when it was those two FBI/DHS agents who were the ones who did it.
Weinhaus was outspoken about the corruption and double-standards he saw from the very people who swore an oath or who take a salary under the guise of justice. He did not harm anyone yet he was repeated shot, was caged for over a year, and who may now may be caged for decades. Unfortunately his situation isn't atypical, which is why it's important to bring attention to it in the hopes of greater accountability - both to help him and to deter future rights-violations.
Over the past month in Cape Town, South Africa, countless people have referenced the prevalence of violence, the impact of gangsterism, and their own distrust of police employees, but very few have mentioned drug policy* as the lynchpin between the three. Yet if one is serious about bringing-about a better reality here on the ground, it is a conversation that must be had.
Merely dictating that a good or service in demand is prohibited will not cease its supply but will drive it underground, which is sure to be accompanied by a host of negative unintended consequences. Violence, to control distribution or to settle disputes, is perhaps the most visible. Corruption, of those tasked with enforcing the proclaimed prohibition, is commonplace.
Also, unless there are two classes of people (masters and slaves) it’s important to recognize that such claims – a stranger acting as if s/he and their friends have the right to tell you how you can allocate your scarce resources and what you can do with your own body – are without merit.
Tait notes that, due to the prevalence of corruption, ineffective training, failure of internal disciplinary mechanisms, and other factors, the situation is now at a crossroads, with the bulk of inhabitants distrusting those who claim to serve and protect them.
Video documentation of abuse whetted out by police employees captured by bystanders has helped to make others aware of the systemic problem. Might the continued filming of police actions be a game-changer?