Gangsters in Blue

On Friday I am commissioning my first ever official “overview” of government misconduct. The presentation will detail my case as to precisely how Keene Circuit Court-District Division Presiding Judge Edward Burke violated state law, the state Constitution, and judicial canons by telling a lie to have someone arrested. A lie that constituted False Reports to Law Enforcement, a crime under state law. A crime that if the exact facts and circumstances were brought before him in a criminal case where you did the same thing, he would find you guilty.

I am quite familiar with the crime as I have arrested people and prepared prosecution cases for it before. Judge Burke should have been arrested by now for what he did… but lucky for him, it appears that his friends in government are protecting him.

The presentation I will be burning to DVD and distributing to Governor John Lynch, the Executive Council, and every member of the New Hampshire General Court. Every mainstream media outlet in New Hampshire will also be receiving a copy.

Judicial Canon #2, the code of conduct for judges, reads as follows:

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL OF THE JUDGE’S ACTIVITIES

I presume that includes impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s interactions with members of the free press who are asking constitutionally protected questions.  Especially when our own Constitution says:

FREE SPEECH AND LIBERTY OF THE PRESS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SECURITY OF FREEDOM IN A STATE: THEY OUGHT, THEREFORE, TO BE INVIOLABLY PRESERVED.

(not taken away in a creative attempt to cover up a criminal offense against CopBlock.org founder Ademo Freeman which clearly resulted in his constitutional rights being violated)

Join the forum discussion on this post

Judge Edward Burke Misconduct Overview To Be Released On Friday is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

By Ian Freeman, blogger at FreeKeene.com:

Back in 2010, on a visit to the NH Attorney Genital’s office, we met “investigator” Dick Tracy. More recently, Copblock’s Ademo and I were in the area so we dropped in again with some more questions, this time meeting “investigator” James Brown. Neither man was interested in speaking on the record and Brown attempted to intimidate us into not recording. We did not stop. Here’s what happened:

Remember, it is supposed to be your right to record government bureaucrats in public places. Though, we know they don’t care about what your rights are, so there’s always a chance you could be aggressed against and caged. Sometimes it can be scary when they threaten you, but if you have backup also willing to not back down, your odds of walking away without being caged increase.

Just say NO – to demands you quit recording them.

Don’t Stop Recording: Meet James Brown is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Recently I was found guilty in my Chalking 8 trial, while highlighting those bogus charges we (Pete and I) met Frank and Mike, who took this video of Manchester Police Officer Murphy. The video went viral and received attention from several news outlets. Instead of taking a serious look at the actions caught on tape the city went into defense mode.

The Police, school and local government officials sought to criminalize Frank, Mike and myself. They expelled Frank from school, charged Mike as an adult (over a teenage fight) and charged me with three counts of wiretapping. Crimes the state says justifies caging me, at your expense, for 21 years.

I’ve been through this before in Greenfield, MA and am confident I can present my case, logically. The problem I face in Manchester that I didn’t have in Greenfield is the personal vendetta those in Manchester seem to have for me. After all, I was given the max sentence (with 10 months of it stayed for 2 years good behavior) for ‘resisting’ my arrest.

With that in mind I’ve thought long and hard about how I’d like to tackle this case. I’ve done all the homework, reading up on New Hampshire’s wiretapping law, talking with lawyers, brainstorming ideas with fellow activist and more and it’s come down to one thing, funding. Which is why I made this video asking for your help.

As stated in the video, I think a lawyer would be beneficial to ensure I have fair pre-trial hearings and ‘proper’ (in their eyes) procedure during trial. Considering this will be an expectation of privacy trial – and that public officials have none – it will be more difficult that my Greenfield trial. Yet, a win here could do wonders for activists in the “Shire” attempting to change coercive government actions.

That being said, I also know, and appreciate, the offensive tactic as well and when done properly, is mightier than the current justice system. In terms of risk, I end up taking more with this tactic, as these actions will be done outside the court room. The best part of this strategy is that the actions the government is trying to distract you from – excessive force, deletion of evidence and criminalization of those who question government – will be front and center. As this issue goes further back than just one phone call, the Manchester police have gotten away with murder (literally) for a while now.

Regardless of how this fund raiser goes, I’ll be in court, speaking the truth and defending my position on filming, recording and monitoring public officials. I would greatly appreciate you donating to either cause as it would help me (and other activists) further the message of police accountability. You can also buy CopBlock.org swag, which help funds our CopBlock activities, or contact me for video intro/outro’s and power post. For those unable to donate, sharing CopBlock.org content and social networks is just as good as FRN’s and I need/appreciate your support as well.

Thanks in advance.

—–

Ademo’s First Hearing (video) – CopBlock.org
CopBlock Founder faces 20 years – Photography Is NOT a Crime
Ademo Responds to Charges by CopBlock
Manchester’s Chalking 8 by Cop Block
High School Student Catches Excessive Force on Video by Cop Block
Video shows West High student’s arrest by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
West High student arrest video goes viral by Kathryn Marchocki in the Union Leader
Teen on school arrest: ‘I was goofing around’ by Mark Hayward in the Union Leader
Manchester students say videotape of arrest was not planned by Shawne Wickham in the Union

Defensive or Offensive? That is the Question… is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

Imagine a man threatened to burn your house down with your kids and disabled, elderly mother inside. You call 911, and attempt to continue to the store you were heading for. Less than 2 minutes after the threat, you are being viciously assaulted, kicked, punched, thrown to the ground, hair ripped from the scalp, by the man’s girlfriend, and her friend. Then, just when you finally think all will be well, the cops are there dealing with it, the officer comes over to talk to you, he opens his mouth, and says, “Ok, I’ve talked to my Corporal, and this is what she said we’re doing. You’re being charged with Battery. You’ll receive a notice in the mail to appear for arraignment.” Um, EXCUSE ME?!

Fact is, it happened. It happened to a disabled woman and her husband, Jason, and Geneva Robinson, on a ‘good’ day for her, one where she was walking, and not forced by pain into her wheelchair. The girlfriend mentioned above, Tina Jones, was quite aware of her disability, as she happened to be the assistant manager of the Dollar General store the couple was walking, to purchase food for their 5 young children. So how is it that a disabled woman can be brutalized in such a manner and the police choose to overlook the obvious facts? Quite frankly the answer is found in the officer’s statement, “…talked to my corporal…”.

Back in January, during a different incident, the woman was sexually assaulted (assault: any unwanted, unsolicited touch or strike) by an officer, Officer Procter, under the command of Corporal Melanie Law. When Mrs. Robinson requested of Corporal Law to file a report, and wanted to press charges on the Officer Procter for his actions, Corporal Law outright refused, and ignored Mrs. Robinson’s requests, finally telling her to just ‘file a complaint’ at the department, Panama City Police Department (Panama City, Florida), which she did. There was some harassment from the PCPD after the complaint was made, from bogus traffic stops to code enforcement (commonly called lawn nazi’s). The assault was the first time, however, that Corporal Law had run across Mrs. Robinson herself.

On the scene of the assault, while sitting holding her ribs, mouth bleeding, and clumps of hair in her hand, Mrs. Robinson, after being informed she was to be charged with Battery, repeatedly requested to file a report, as well as victim statements. Under the direction of Corporal Law, per his own statements, the officer refused, and ignored the requests, sending the Robinson’s to walk home.

SEE PICS OF THE EXTENSIVE BRUISING FROM THE ASSAULT

Currently, Mrs. Robinson has been speaking with Corporal Law’s Lieutenant, Lt. Clayton, and Officer McMillan, the ‘investigative officer’ on the case. At first, they tried to pander around and avoid answering questions. After speaking twice with the local prosecutor’s office, and being told to , “go to PCPD, and get in their faces until they let you file the victim statement”, 5 days after the attack, the Robinsons were finally allowed to file their statements. What hasn’t been answered satisfactorily, is why they were refused on the scene, and had to go to such extremes just to be allowed their basic right. At present, PCPD has still not allowed a report to be filed on the initial verbal threats, which were made by Mr. Jimmy F Bailey, the son, and worker, of his parents’ gas station, Bailey’s Gas Station, from which he was yelling the threats. In fact, during the most recent, and voice recorded, phone conversation with Officer McMillan, Mrs. Robinson was asked, “why haven’t you filed a report on the threats of his burning down your house?”. Point in fact, she made the initial 911 call due to those threats, the assault was a secondary issue that occurred after the 911 call was placed.

NOW AVAILABLE!!

Police Report with the Obvious Inconsistencies

911 Call Log Showing ROBINSON Number as the \’Initiating Call\’

MEDICAL DX FROM THE ASSAULT

Prior Report For BATTERY On Initial Attacker, Katherine Ashton

There remain many questions, and few good answers. It seems as though the longer it goes, the harder the questions PCPD has to answer to the Robinsons. This isn’t just a 3rd hand knowledge issue, either. I, the author, personally witnessed it. More than just witnessing, I am Geneva (Eva) Robinson. My hair was ripped out, I was repeatedly kicked, hit, scratched, and thrown to the ground by 2 women, Tina Jones, and Katherine Ashton. My husband and I were verbally assaulted by Ms. Jones’ boyfriend, Jimmy Bailey. Please, I invite you, look at the ‘witness’ statements (2 alleged witnesses were employees of Ms. Jones, the third was her own boyfriend, Mr. Bailey!), the ‘victim’ statements by Ms. Jones, and Ms. Ashton, and the intrepid Officer McMillan’s ‘Investigative Summary’. I will publish a list of various inconsistencies, though it’s hardly necessary, as even my own 10 yr old daughter can see them immediately. Form your opinion, and please, let me know what you think, and how you feel! I will post a separate post with a more detailed account of all that transpired, as well as an account of the initial incident involving Cpl. Law, and her sexual assaulting Officer Procter. I’m far from alone, this is epidemic everywhere. Let’s work together, and stop this from occurring!

To voice your opinion, and ask WHY this incident was handled in such a manner, please call PCPD at (850) 872-3112.

Molon Labe!

Disabled Woman Assaulted, and They’re Charging WHO With Battery?! is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

In September of 2010, I was arrested. Several months later, I was tried, convicted, and sentenced.

My crime? Resisting arrest.

Here’s the story.

I had recently quit smoking, was irritable, and needed to do something. After drinking a full bottle of ginger-flavored brandy by 9:00pm on this Friday night, I decided to walk to the local bar to get a beer or two. I went in, legally purchased a 12 oz bottle of Samuel Adams, and walked through the room.

The bar was noisy, crowded, and filled with assholes. I felt uncomfortable, even with my buzz, and decided to walk out of the door.

A few seconds after I walked out, I heard noises behind me, which I ignored and walked away. A few seconds later, somebody yanked my beer out of my hand, which I was still apparently carrying in the public parking lot. OK, I thought – no harm done. They took my beer, which I didn’t even have a sip of, but no big deal. I realized I felt more tired than I had originally thought and I continued to walk home; until I met up with officer Jaime Branch of the Manchester Police Department.

“Hey, you!”, he yelled at me. I figured out pretty soon that he was talking to me and I asked him, “Am I being detained?” or “Am I free to go?”.  He said that I was being detained.  I asked him why and he refused to answer. He spoke with the person that had stolen my beer and another employee at the bar, asking them a few questions, investigating why I was being detained. We were both curious, apparently.

The officer asked to see my identification. I told the him that I knew my 4th Amendment rights and told him that I didn’t need to show him my identification as I was not driving a car. I also informed him that he did not have probable cause that I had committed a crime. I asked him for “articulable facts” that I was committing a crime, as well.

He said that he DID have probable cause that I had engaged in, “possessing an open alcohol container”; which is not actually illegal in the state of NH and the closest ordinance it comes to is “public drinking”, an ordinance violation that prohibits CONSUMING alcoholic beverages in a public place. I asked him again if I was being detained or if I was free to go, and he said I was being detained. I exercised my right to remain silent and he continued in his investigation. He talked to the employees (who I believed were cooperating out of fear that they would get in trouble), looked at the bottle (which was technically stolen evidence), and found that it was full. All of them agreeing that I had not consumed any.

He started asking me more questions, and I exercised my right to remain silent. He decided to write me out a ticket for “possessing an open alcohol container”, which I gladly accepted but he insisted that I showed him identification. I asserted my 4th Amendment rights and refused to show him my “papers”. He then asked for a name. I gave him one but it wasn’t good enough for him.

He then stated that if I didn’t show identification, I would be placed under arrest. I believed this to be a clear violation of the 4th Amendment and proceeded to have a half-hour long conversation about the 4th Amendment with the officer, including me giving him a full etymological history of the phrase “probable cause”. During this discussion I found out that the officer; 1) didn’t know what the 4th Amendment was and could not recite it, and 2) told me that the 4th Amendment, in his own words, “doesn’t apply to my job” – which was repeated multiple times, by multiple officers that night.

The officer asked me other questions such as, what my social security number was; to which I replied, “do I have the right to remain silent?”  He said, clearly and emphatically, that I did NOT have that right and that if I didn’t answer the questions, I would be placed under arrest. At this point, I started wondering if he was even a “real” cop.

He then continued his investigation, during which time I continued to ask if I was free to go. At one point, he said “yes, yes, yes”, and motioned for me to leave. I stared walking away and seconds later I was being man-handled by the guy with one hand in handcuffs.

I asked him why violence was necessary. He denied that he was using violence. I thought a demonstration was in order and I moved my free hand to the right side of my body. He told me to move it down behind my back, and I disobeyed his commands. He then yanked my hand down to tie it, at which point I asked a simple question:

“If I did to you what you just did to me, would I be charged with ASSAULTING a police officer?”, simply to show the officer that he was, in fact, using violence.

The question startled him for a second. He said, “yes, but….”, and stood there speechless before he continued his “assault”.  I was sent to Manchester police station where I had some laughably painful conversations, then proceeded to county jail.

When I got there, there was a man I knew only as “Wolfy” who was the most disgusting, depraved human being I’ve ever met in my life. He forced me to answer all kinds of questions, promising that I would be able to sleep in my “nice warm bed” if I did. He asked me what my sexual orientation was, what my religion was, what my political affiliations were, all under the understanding that non-cooperation would be punished with violence. He then forced me to strip naked and checked me for drugs, after which I put on an orange jump suit. He then escorted me to my cell. He and a couple other guys decided to play a joke on me and make it look like I was going to get beaten and raped by a particularly insane inmate. I know, that’s hilarious, isn’t it?

I didn’t sleep or eat for those three days. During “free time”, which lasts about an hour each day, I tried to make a phone call, but they made it difficult to the point of being psychological torture. You need to use your inmate number to make a call, and mine didn’t work ( I think that was deliberate, but I can’t prove anything), so I had to violate the rules and use somebody else’s. You can only call land lines (no cell phones) no more than once, and there is a message being played for the majority of the call, leaving you only 10 seconds out of about a minute and a half to actually say something.

I spent 3 days in jail with my cell mate, who was a heroine addict. He told me how easy it is to get his fix “inside” and how many people who “used to be straight” become heroine addicts after doing some time because it’s easily accessible and there’s nothing else to do. He also told me how most people who meet inside hook up later to hang out, do drugs, and get into other criminal activity.

At the bail hearing (after 3 days without food or sleep), Judge William H. Lyons felt that I was too dangerous to let go on my own reconnaissance, so I was forced to stay there until my “speedy” trial 3 months later. Luckily, I was bailed out.

I had apparently signed up for a public defender when I was scared shitless and had gone without food and sleep for 3 days. Her name was Donna Esposito. She didn’t return my phone calls, didn’t return my emails, and didn’t even bother reading the arrest report. Her incompetence was so great that I got the distinct impression that she was working with the state in an attempt to get a conviction. I called other lawyers, who basically said that I didn’t have a chance; not because of the evidence of the case, but because of the “conservative judges” who would find me guilty regardless of the facts of my case. I soon learned why they said that.

The charges were changed several times, the final change right before the trial. The original charge was “possessing an open alcohol container in a public place”, which was dropped because there wasn’t actually a law against that – the cop either made it up or got the law completely wrong (I found out that the cops around here use a “cheat sheet” that has a mistake on it).

The original charge of “resisting arrest” was changed as well. It was originally because I had lifted my hand up to the side during the arrest, making the officer push it down. In the arrest report it stated that I “struggled” with him as he attempted to handcuff me. That was changed to me walking away when I “wasn’t supposed to” (because I thought I was free to go). The reason for the change was obvious; it is circular reasoning to be arrested for resiting that very same arrest, so they had to arrest me for something else.

During the trial, both the cop and I testified. We gave our stories, which matched perfectly except for a couple of things. According to him, 1) I never asked if I was being detained and he never stated that I was, 2) I never even mentioned the 4th Amendment, 3) He never threatened to arrest me for not showing ID, and 4) He saw me “in violation” BEFORE he detained me, rather than the truth that he had detained me before he even started to investigate what was going on. All four of these statements were lies, made under oath. This means he committed perjury, which is a felony.

The reason why he lied is simple: if he DID threaten to arrest me for not showing ID, it COULD have been considered a violation of the 4th Amendment. If he detained me prior to his investigation, it COULD have been argued that it was an illegal detainment. If I mentioned the 4th Amendment and didn’t like his answer, It COULD have been argued that I did not “recognized him as a law enforcement official”.

Still, this shouldn’t have changed anything, as the only thing left I was charged with was the “resisting arrest” charge; and in order to prove that “beyond a reasonable doubt”, they have to show that I “recognized him as a law enforcement official” (which wasn’t actually true, as I recognized that he was breaking the law). They also had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I “willfully and knowingly interfered” with him, which I didn’t as I thought I was free to go at the time.

Since both of these things are describing activity IN MY OWN HEAD rather than what was going on objectively, it makes no sense whatsoever to take the cops word over my own.  While the cop may be a more reliable witness to what was going on around me, he can’t possibly be a better witness to what was going on in my head, can he?

The judge (William H. Lyons) decided that I was guilty. That’s right, the judge said that the cop was a “more credible witness” to what was going on in my own head. The judge said that this was not an illegal detention because, as he stated in his court order, “Where a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is being, or is about to commit a crime, he is permitted by the forth amendment to seize or detain an individual”. He later defines crime as, “an offense punishable by a jail sentence”, even though the ordinance violation doesn’t qualify, especially given the fact that the ordinance violation didn’t exist. He was grasping at straws for reasons to convict me. He WANTED to convict me. He was committed to BREAKING the law, not enforcing it.

A couple months after I was sentenced, I received a note that explained that walking out of a bar with a beer is a misdemeanor. It would have been nice to actually be told what crime I was committing BEFORE I was arrested, or at least before the trial or, at the very least, before I was sentenced. Apparently that is too much to ask.

So, in short, I was illegally detained, threatened with an unconstitutional arrest, unlawfully arrested, and sentenced because the judge re-defined the word “crime” so that I would qualify as a criminal.

At that point, I realized a few things.

The first thing I realized is, despite the massive tome of words that is commonly called “the law”, there is really only one law – OBEY THE COMMANDS OF THE STATE. You do what you’re fucking told, or else violence will be used against you. You want a fair trial? Tough shit. You think the constitution protects you? You thought wrong. The constitution is a worthless scrap of paper with meaningless scribbles on it. The people who interpret the law can interpret it any way they like. They can even re-define the word “crime” in order to turn you into a criminal.

I also realized that Judge William H Lyons, Officer Jaime D Branch, and the Manchester Police Department didn’t care about the law they are supposed to enforce or the constitution they were sworn to protect. These people are criminals and should be viewed as such.

That day, something died in me – any hope or faith that I had in my country.

Fuck you, Officer Branch.
Fuck you, Judge Lyons.
Fuck you, Manchester Police Department.

Fuck you for destroying my faith in my country and in the constitution.

Fuck you.
Joshua Jacob Albert Freeman

Judge William H. Lyons re-defined the word “crime” to turn me into a criminal. is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

This post was sent to us via CopBlock.org’s Submit Tab.

The police are not there to protect you.

Now, at first glance, the notion seems preposterous.  These fine men and women put their lives on the line to protect us, right?  Certainly one would think so if you follow the principles of Bastiat that says; law is a common force and a substitution of individual force, and the common force can only do what the individual force can naturally and lawfully do (meaning no one is above the law and no one can legally do what another cannot, regardless of position). Is it not noble for one to take on the thankless job of being the “mediator” of disputes and defender of liberties?

Many of those who say the police provide a role in protecting the people, are those who are either living off the government paycheck. There are also those who have yet come to realize that this formerly noble profession, is now no longer required to do the job we entrust and fund them to do.  The blind ignorance can be equally attributed to Hollywood and prime-time TV, who glamorize those in uniform and yet turn a blind eye to the fundamental errors of the modern-day law enforcement as compared to their role not too long ago.

If we look at a few court opinions, we can see that the premise of what we know as the police’s function in society has seriously eroded from what it was originally intended for.  For example, the recent SCOTUS case, Kentucky vs. King, ruling allows police to break into your home if they “think” you are destroying or hiding evidence, of course, without a warrant.  The vague, looseness of this ruling sets the legal precedence for police to gain entry to your home by force, violate your Fourth Amendment right, and search your premises and detain you with no warrant.

Question: If the police can circumvent your Constitutional right because they “think” something might be happening, then what is the point of the Fourth Amendment? What is the point of the Constitution if your rights are easily trampled on by the police at their whim?

A quick look into Warren vs. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981), we see that the Appeals Court stated that, “official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for a failure to provide adequate police protection.”  This calls into question a few general points.

If the police are not liable or can not be held responsible for a lack of duty or not providing protection, then who is responsible to provide protection?

If it is their job to “serve and protect”, why are the courts saying that they are not responsible for protection of the citizenry, in as much as not being held responsible for failing to provide protection?

It is with this ruling, the argument, “to serve and protect”, is made null and void.  In the real world if a doctor fails to render aid to someone in need of care, they can be charged with criminal neglect and loose their license and career; however, in law enforcement there is no level of repercussions that come from a failure to do one’s job or uphold an oath once taken.  Nice work if this makes sense to you.

Another look into another court opinion, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y. 2d (1968), brings forth a major question in regards to the police and their ability to be held responsible for neglectful actions.

“Is a municipality liable for failure to provide special police protection to a member of the public who was repeatedly threatened with personal harm and eventually suffered injuries for lack of protection? ”

Of course, the courts stated “No” and upheld the appeals court ruling on the matter.  Here we can see, that again the courts affirmed, that the people have no “right” to be protected.  The dissenting opinion on this case brought up a very valid point that, “…officials can either improve public administration or accept the cost of paying damages to injured people”.  However, the courts ruled against this concept, thus allowing ineptitude of public officials to be able to exist unchecked in a court of law.  In essence, the police can fail to protect you and continue to fail with no repercussions.

It is also fair to note that both the Warren and Riss cases took place in municipalities that prohibit or restrict handgun ownership.  So this then draws into question another point, made by the dissenting justice in the Riss v. NYC case:

“What makes the city’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her. “

Here we see that even the judge noticed the fallacy and breakdown of a government responsibility that prevents her from possessing a weapon for self-defense, yet isn’t responsible to provide her protection.  This only provides more proof that there is a massive misappropriation of power the “state” has taken from the individual.

Lastly, we look at the horrendous case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).  I end on this because the case involved a law abiding citizen doing as the court ordered her to do; call the police when there was a violation of a restraining order by her abusive ex-husband.  Because of police lack of action and refusal to uphold the court order for protection, the ex-husband kidnapped their three children, murdered them, and commenced to have a shoot out with police when he walked into the police station. (If there has ever been a more tragic case involving police neglect and apathy, I have not seen it.)

Here, the SCOTUS upheld the original dismissal of the case, thus overturning the appeals court ruling. In this event, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to protect your right to due process (Fifth Amendment) by enforcing existing restraining orders and that the court order did not provide her special treatment under the law.  This premises states that only people in custody of the government or in mental institutions are afforded unquestionable protection from law enforcement personnel.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld that the police officers that did not provide her court ordered protection were protected from prosecution for violating her Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine that removes personal liability of government officials for violations of other’s Constitutional rights.

Let me state this again.

The police officers could not be individually prosecuted under civil or criminal law because police officers are given immunity from acts that violate one’s Constitutional rights under the “qualified immunity” doctrine.

Time after time, the state and federal courts have ruled in favor of the police and have allowed law enforcement agencies a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card when it comes to being responsible for the protection of the citizenry.  Be it the badge, or the car, or the trite oaths taken “To Serve And Protect”, we see that these are just words with no apparent legal meaning.

So, if the police, that we entrust for our protection of body and property, are no longer responsible for protecting us, we must question their purpose and role in our society.  What purpose do they serve on the backs of the tax payer? What has once be heralded as a truly selfless calling, has been trivialized to simple thuggery protected by the legislation and the courts.  Now we have seen an evolution from selfless service to what they are now; a revenue stream for local, state, and federal governments. It is now safe to dispose of, “To Serve and Protect”, and call it what it really is.

“To Enforce and Collect” seems much more fitting.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://www.4lawnotes.com/showthread.php/116-Riss-v.-City-of-New-York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

Luke K

To “Protect and Serve” or “Enforce and Collect”? is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/28/nypd-officers-surrender-i_n_1063515.html?ir=Crime

An anonymous tip about a crooked cop grew during the past three years into a sweeping internal corruption probe on the under-the-table practice of fixing tickets, with dozens of wiretaps, 10,000 intercepted calls and an officer undercover as a barber in a sting, authorities said.

Thirteen New York Police Department officers, two sergeants and a lieutenant were slapped with criminal charges Friday, just three days after the embarrassing arrests of five officers in a separate gun-running probe.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said it was “difficult” to have to announce for the second time in a week that his officers had been arrested for misconduct.

“These misdeeds tarnish the good name and reputation of the vast majority of police officers who perform their duties honestly,” he said.

Kelly said the probe included 300 cases that are being handled internally. Bronx District Attorney Robert Johnson said he hoped the criminal charges send a message that corruption would not be tolerated. The city lost about $2 million in killed-off tickets, he said.

The majority of the arrested are officials with the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, arguably the most powerful law enforcement union in the nation, with 23,000 members. Union leaders say the practice of making a ticket disappear for a friend or family member was not only sanctioned, it was condoned at the highest levels of the nation’s biggest police department.

Union President Patrick Lynch vowed that when the dust settled, they’d prove it.

“Taking care of your family, taking care of your friends is not a crime,” he said. “To take a courtesy and turn it into a crime is wrong.”

Hundreds of union members went to support the officers, some in suits, others dressed in jeans and sweat shirts, clogging the street near the Bronx courthouse, filling the hallways and applauding in court after the officers left. Detective Steven McDonald, a city hero paralyzed decades ago, was in the courtroom in a wheelchair, with an American flag on this lap.

The officers pleaded not guilty to hundreds of charges including misconduct, grand larceny, records tampering and obstructing governmental administration. Among those charged was Jennara Cobb, an internal affairs bureau lieutenant who pleaded not guilty to charges she leaked information to union officials about the probe.

As a result of her meeting, word quickly spread and union delegates started to alter the way they fixed tickets, prosecutor Jonathan Ortiz said.

“The investigation was significantly compromised because of her actions,” he said.

Her attorney, Philip Karasyk, said she had been unfairly singled out.

“That wiretap was leaking like a sieve,” he said.

The case started with an anonymous tip in 2009 that a 40th Precinct officer, Jose Ramos, was selling drugs in his barbershop. An undercover officer hired as a barber monitored Ramos, who also was accused of shuttling drugs while in his police uniform.

“He sold his shield, he violated his oath,” Assistant District Attorney Omer Wiceyk said.

Ramos was recorded saying he “stopped caring about the law a long time ago,” the prosecutor said.

Ramos pleaded not guilty to drug and other charges. His attorney, John Sandleitner, said the charges were ridiculous.

“The DA’s office basically made a circus of this,” he said.

While officers were listening to Ramos on a wiretap, they caught calls from people seeing if Ramos could fix tickets for them, prosecutors said. The conversations led to more wiretaps that produced evidence of additional officers across the borough having similar conversations, they said.

There are generally three ways the citations are fixed: They are voided by a ranking official, a copy is ripped up before it reaches court or the officer doesn’t appear on the day of the summons.

Kelly said the case exposed departmental weaknesses that were swiftly addressed. The NYPD installed a new computer system that tracks tickets and makes it much more difficult to tamper with the paper trail. Kelly also created a new unit to sit in on traffic court testimony and comb through paperwork to ensure none of the methods is being wrongly employed.

He said the practice was wrong and can’t be glossed over as “courtesies” or as part of an acceptable culture.

“Members of the public don’t accept favoritism,” he said. “They resent it, as well they should.”

Earlier this week, federal prosecutors in Manhattan brought conspiracy and other charges against five current and three former officers, alleging they were part of a gun-running ring. In two other recent unrelated federal cases, one officer was charged with arresting a black man without cause and using a racial slur to describe the suspect and another was charged with using a law enforcement database to try to trump up charges against an innocent man.

Longtime police historian Thomas Reppetto said it’s “not the best time for the department.”

“Does it rise to the level of the great scandals that have occurred in the past? No,” he said. “Ticket fixing is not on the same level as drug dealing.”

Kelly said the cases could undermine morale, “But I look at the work done every day and it’s outstanding.”

The highest-ranking union members charged in the probe were Joseph Anthony, Michael Hernandez and Brian McGuckin.

The other officers were union representatives, and all were stationed in Bronx precincts: Virgilio Bencosme, Luis R. Rodriguez, Jaime Payan, Eugene P. O’Reilly, Christopher Manzi and Jason Cenizal.

Ramos’ supervisor, sergeant Jacob G. Solorzano, also was charged.

The officers pleaded not guilty and were released.

While on the wiretap, investigators also uncovered that three other officers and a sergeant covered up an assault for a friend, prosecutors said. Sergeant Marc Manara and Officers Ruben Peralta, Jeffrey Regan and Christopher Scott, all from the same precinct, were arrested as well. The friend was arrested on the initial assault charge, prosecutors said. The officers pleaded not guilty.

In addition, three others were charged along with Ramos with insurance fraud and other crimes.

The last serious corruption scandal for the NYPD was the so-called Dirty 30 case from the early 1990s. More than 33 officers from Harlem’s 30th Precinct were implicated in the probe, with most pleading guilty to charges including stealing cash from drug dealers, taking bribes, beating suspects and lying under oath to cover their tracks.

merlin10
Submitted using CopBlock.org’s submit tab.

NYPD Officers Surrender in Corruption Probe is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

The headline “Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers Up Sharply” was recently featured on Drudge Report.  Once again the media gets it wrong and only tells half the story.  MyFox out of New York recently reported that:

The number of law enforcement officers who were killed nationwide has jumped nearly 17 percent.

Newly released statistics from the FBI show that 56 officers were murdered in the line of duty last year. That is a jump from 48 in the previous year.

This is pretty shoddy reporting.  The number of officers killed due to violence is only up sharply if you compare it with 2008 and 2009, which were both two of the safest years on record for police officers.  The fact is that officer murders have been on a steady trend downward over the last 25 years.

On the other hand officer deaths due to car accidents on a steady upward trend.  Studies have shown that 40% of officers involved in fatal accidents were not wearing their seatbelts.  Police officers will justify all kinds of excessive force and rights violations claiming it is necessary for officer safety, but they will not do something as simple as buckling their seatbelt, when that is much more likely to save their lives.

Media Only Tells Half the Story is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

My brother has been calling me the past two months about traffic stops from the Wilmington Police Department. He calls me every time he is stopped, which has been about 6 times up to this date.

The main problem is the officer’s continuous unconstitutional searches of his vehicle and his person. The first starting with an officer pulling him over for running a stop sign, in which he attempted to dig his hands into my brother’s pants to search for drugs. When my brother refused, he contacted a K-9 unit to search his vehicle and found nothing. They then escorted him downtown to the police station to strip search him (Yes for the running of a stop sign). I must admit that my brother has had a few run-ins with LEOs but this is too much!! They then let him go with just a warning ticket.

He has filed plenty complaints with WPD and none have been investigated at all. The is some serious ethics violations here!!

Another time he was pulled over for the same thing, this time having a friend with him. The officers demanded the two step out of the car, without notifying them of their violations. They began to search his friend, digging their hands into the back of his pants, discovering a bag of weed he was hiding. My brother was taken to be searched again due to this discovery. When my brother advised them of wanting to have his lawyer present, they forced him into the search. Thy found nothing and found out later that his car had been towed.

On another occasion, they pulled him for no reason, held him downtown claiming he was drunk, yet failed to give him a breathalyzer. Luckily he called me and I told him to demand a breathalyzer before they decided to write him up for a will refusal without notifying him of his rights.

They have detained him numerous times without reading any rights or informing him of his alleged crimes. They are using their power to terrorize and harass him. He has come a long way in the 2 years since he did 4 months for a petty drug charge. It seems police have a new tactic of provoking people into fits of anger by degrading them to make them feel less than human. I have overheard outrageous statements by an officer over the phone, so I have advised my brother to make sure he records everything. There has been little effort by WPD to keep the peace. Even while there have been 6 murders in the city, they spend most of their time harassing citizens…

Wilmington NC PD is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights

There’s been a back and forth going on in the Keene court system. The state pushes activists (with aggression)  and the activists push back (peacefully). The activists were doing rather well until the courts BANNED cameras from the buildings/courtrooms. Since then several acts of violence haven’t made YouTube but I thought that changed when the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled on Gilk v. Commonwealth of MA.

That ruling states that ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS can be filmed while in the course of their duties, in public space. So I decided to head down to Superior Court in Keene, NH to notify the bailiff’s there of the ruling. My goal was to get them to understand that taking people’s cameras at the gate is now illegal, no matter what the judge’s ruling on the wall says (the 1st district court of appeals overrides it).

This is how it went…

After the video ended I went back into the building gave the ruling to a sheriff and said, “the next time I come here you’ll have a choice to make and I will sue you if you arrest me. The choice is yours.” I’m not sure when I’ll be back in Keene but when I am, I’ll be stopping by the courthouse with several cameras.

*It should be noted that the whole building seen in this video is under surveillance and all those inside are already being recorded*

Keene Bailiff Doesn’t Care About Your Rights is a post from Cop Block - Badges Don't Grant Extra Rights