Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

NYC Cops fabricated evidence to detain RNC protestors

Dirty cops. Dirty videos.What a bunch of typical-scumbag cops.
Will DoJ OPR take the public concerns about police misconduct more seriously; What will be done about the complaints of false arrests or illegal arrests?
Law enforcement wonders why nobody cares when they get sent to and wounded.

Read the whole article about how the tapes were altered. And to think the public was told, "We take those videos for your protection."

Ha! What a crock of baloney from "America's finest." They are not to be trusted. Their own video-editing shows they are a threat to the constitution and to your civil liberties.

Again, the same crew that lied about WMD, also lied about the arrests. Look at the underbelly of the 9-11 aircraft. They've lied about alot of stuff.

  • Why did it take this long to get it out?

  • How many others have been set up this way?

  • Who across the US has been incarcerated?

  • Why should there be "mandatory sentences" when the government will fabricate evidence to impose those sentences?

    This Bush White House is out of control. Why are they allowed to get away with this?


    Here is a link to the video analysis.

    Here is a link to the one alot of people are citing. Each of those who are linking to objective justice have some comments on the issue. I encourage you to share these links with your friends.

    Perjury charges possible in re 1983 claims? Too bad we are told "the officers' car videos are there for our safety; all the while the IT-lab technicians are altering evidence. It is interesting that during the WTO demonstrations in Seattle, law enforcement was targeting people with video cameras. It remains to be understood what direct law enforcement gave to websites to take down information related to the law enforcement harassment of videographers.

    How many of those who plead guilty did so because they didn't have enough money to defend themselves; and should these case be revisited because of the tainted evidence? I think so. There need to be some consequences in court for law enforcement when they fabricate evidence. Generally this has to do with suppressing evidence. Why isn't the testimony of the apparently lying officers suppressed and why isn't the video suppressed; in turn, the original guilty please should be overturned for lack of evidence.

    The law enforcement which behaves in such a way should be treated for what they are: Bullies, unreliable, and willing to cross the line on professional standards.

    Law enforcement shows once again that they are unreliable, willing to intimidate and abuse innocent people, and will openly lie in court to create stories and achieve convictions. When will the courts start imposing some meaningful consequences of law enforcement which lies, gives trumped up charges, and violates the constitution?

    These officers took an oath to uphold that document, not create excuses and lies in courts to do the opposite. Someone needs to come up with a very good reason why the United States in no different than the British Empire which precipitated the crafting of both the Declaration of Independence.

    Recall, it was the abuses of the British officers which was the catalyst for the Bill of Rights. They exist as a shield, not as a flimsy piece of paper which can be cast away.

    A government which cannot control its own officers loses legitimacy. And a citizenry which knows of the abuses, but whose leaders refuse to restrain itself, have few options other than to form a new system which remains subservient to both the constitution and the people.

    We do little to inspire confidence in the United States or Democracy when we treat others this way. This is not an example which the Iraqis should aspire.

    The same officers which commit these abuses are also on the streets of Baghdad. We should not be surprised why the Iraqi insurgents continue to gain support.

    The officers in NYC lied about what happened. So too should the lab technicians' representations and stories be thrown at as unreliable. There is a shield of common protection with law enforcement, and that shield must be either broken, or cast aside.

    Law enforcement shield cannot be greater than the shield of the Bill of Rights. To this end, all citizens should remain alert, vigilant, and mindful that law enforcement has shown they are the enemy of the constitution, unreliable, and never to be trusted.

    Some might argue that the prosecutors have immunity. I do not agree. There is reasonable basis to question whether the prosecutors knowingly were part of this scheme, and recklessly failed to investigate the facts surrounding the evidence, and whether they were part of some larger conspiracy to deprive rights.

    A reasonable basis to closely examine whether the prosecutor engaged in reckless .

    In my view, the incident raises reasonable, substantial, and serious questions about the scope of the arrests made in the department not just in re the RNC demonstrations, but in all incidents where video evidence was used.

    Again, the Prosecutor had an ongoing professional relationship with the officers and the lab members. It remains to be understood to what extent the video=splicing was deliberately, willfully, and recklessly altered; and whether the course of conduct was just isolated or part of a larger practice and conduct within the department.

    To be sure, it remains to be understood through discovery the number of convictions related to video evidence, and whether the video-editing was done under the careful guidance of the prosecutor and or law enforcement.

    it is a serious issue when personnel have access to evidence and create a false impression; but it is far more serious when information is false, cannot be substantiated by any evidence, and information that would otherwise prove important to the defense is not given.

    Bluntly, there has been a problem with the FBI I-drive. The I-drive is where the information related to all the FBI evidence and subpoenas is located. However, the problem the FBI and DOJ have is that they failed to turn this information over to the defense. As you well know, when the government has probative, material evidence that would otherwise mitigate the charges that evidence must be disclosed. This is not voluntary or a favor, but required under the statutes.

    Thus, given the pervasive information management problem within the FBI I-Drive, combined with the flagrant lying that occurred in re the RNC court, I think there is a reasonable basis to take a broader view of the issue, inter alia:

  • To what extent is law enforcement knowingly not ensuring that all evidence is properly provided to defendants;

  • To what extent is this a pattern of conduct and the reasonable person would have the realistic prospect of facing similarly abusive, perjured, and falsified evidence;

  • To what extent have management been aware of this conduct and failed to act;

  • To what extent have members of the public, the NY State Bar and others brought their concerns forward to civilian oversight board;

  • Were the investigations of past abuses, misconduct, and perjured testimony reasonable, adequate, and were senior managers actively involved in developing training course to mitigate these risks;

  • To what extent were allegations of misconduct not effectively investigated; and were midlevel managers who were in a position to supervise unwilling to take an active role in ensuring effective police training occurred;

  • To what extent were Field Training Officers [FTOs] actively teaching new recruits methods to avoid 1983 claims by using falsified evidence, or making up pre-textual reasons for stopping people, detaining them;

  • To what extent were officers coached on giving false, misleading, and inappropriate guidance to the public in order to crate a ruse, trap, or nexus to entrap, harass, intimidate, and shut down public discussion of substantial public issues;

  • Was management aware of FBI and/or JTTF directions to intimidate the protestors, take actions to send signals, and otherwise allow themselves to be part of a wider conspiracy to deprive people of their federally protected rights to speak out on legitimate public issues;

  • To what extent law enforcement at both the local and federal level were told not to investigate 1983 claims;

  • To what extent officers at both the local and Federal level engage in a course of conduct that unreasonably burdens the public with inappropriate demands for evidence when law enforcement has no intention of providing that evidence to the prosecutor;

  • Extent that the prosecutor knew, or should have known, that law enforcement was engaging in conduct contrary to public police and providing information, statements, and court testimony that was not simply misleading but false, perjured, unsubstantiated, and wholly disconnected from reality;

  • Extent which the prosecutor knew, or should have known and failed to fully investigate, the scope of the video splicing problems;

  • Extent that other members in the community, police department, prosecutor's office failed to swiftly investigate complaints given through IAD, internal affairs, or the state auditor's office [POST] in re officer misconduct, fabricated evidence, or allegations that the court testimony did not match reality.

    It is troubling that despite the high profile of the RNC demonstrations, this late in the game the prosecutor apparently wants to enjoy absolute immunity.

    Yet, why would anyone who supposedly is an esteemed professional and member of the bar, want to put themselves above the scrutiny of the court?

    Indeed, we do not question the motives of the officers. Those motives, by their own admission which contradicted the evidence, is on the face of it nothing less than a reckless disregard for reality.

    In turn, this creates a causal link between what the officers did on the ground, and the standard responsibility that supervisors should be held to in the office.

    Recall, the officers like to say that they were in the moment, that the situation was tense, that things were uncertain. Yet, the facts later show that the officers were not in any danger, nor were their actions related to public safety. Rather, these actions were related to one objective: Public intimidation.

    Yet, how long did it take for the prosecutor to finally look into things? It wasn't as though the prosecutor had a strong case. Rather, it appears on the face of it that the officer blindly took the word of the now-proven-unreliable officers, and failed to investigate the full chain of events which brought the video to the court.

    The prosecutor doesn't command absolute immunity when they are part of a course of conduct which tends to mislead the court. It remains to be understood through cross examination whether the lab technician and others were under any pressure to create a false impression; and what methods they were trained to provide evidence.

    But let's not stop there. Recall the interesting tale of video evidence. Recall the statements which the US Solicitor General made before the Supreme Court. Even the US Solicitor, despite the video evidence in , Afghanistan, and , apparently made misleading statements before the US Supreme Court.

    There is a pattern of arrogance. A pattern of deception. And a pattern of reckless disregard for reality.

    In New York City, we have seen what will happen to those who are supposedly protected by the Constitution. That constitution is shoved into their mouth, and the public is told to gag on that document is if they were nothing more than a dog force fed the most awful gruel.

    And this is the arrogance to which this nation's leadership continues. They arrogantly lie before the courts. Their officers continue to point to the open skyline in NYC as the proximate "justification" for this abuse.

    Yet, at each turn, we find that those who might otherwise support law and order are now asked to make a choice.

    Do you believe in the constitution?

    Or do you believe in the rule of law?

    For the two are not the same in the United States. There is a divergence.

    One one hand, the people. And the constitution.

    On the other, the rule by law, arrogance, and deception.

    It is clear that in the wake of 9-11 and the that the officers have been given too much deference. And there has been little done to inspire confidence that the system of checks and balances is working.

    Rather, it is only through 1983 claims that the system might approach something to which the Iraqis might aspire. Something to which the world might look to as an inspiration of hope.

    These are professional trained officers. They have an annual retraining requirement. And so too does the Prosecutor have a professional responsibility under his Bar license to ensure that the law is upheld, that evidence is real, and there is link between what happened in real life and what information is presented before the court.

    There is no question the prosecutor is a busy person. But the reason the prosecutor is in an office, off the streets is so that they can make informed, wise, and considered decisions away from the heat of the street.

    But this prosecutor now wants to use the heat of the street confrontation as the proximate excuse to defend his actions. That is not wise. Nor does it cast the prosecutor in a favorable light.

    More troubling is it when the scope of the abuses is so high, that the prosecutor apparently will use that confusion, abuse, and misconduct at the excuse to feign ignorance.

    I ask you: Who is actually in charge in the prosecutors office, do they intend to rely on the rules of evidence, and why must a random video from a brave citizen be the only thing which appears to command any sort of check on this reckless police misconduct?

    Surely, we have something called oversight and performance feedback for the officers. Surely, the prosecutor is subject to some sort of oversight.

    Yet, it appears that just as the US Solicitor can make outrageous statements about there being "no torture," so too can the NYC prosecutor feign ignorance about something which surely cannot be isolated.

    "To present the information most favorable" is a song and dance from the FBI I-drive. Yet, now we find out that the FBI knew about something, but failed to inform the oversight committees.

    It remains to be understood to what extent there are e-mails, message traffic, and other notes which would outline this course of conduct.

    Has the question ever been asked?

    Does the public have information about complaints in re videos?

    Or are we saying that once someone is falsely convicted, that they then lose their rights, and are forever banished to the dark cells of a prison?

    For if that is the case, then the US is no better than Iraq under Saddam Hussein. To that end, what did the United States actually go to Iraq to fight for?

  • The right to commit perjury, so they can have unchecked ?

  • The right to doctor evidence?

  • The right to directly abuse and torture?

    It appears as though the United States, in the wake of the ebbing Cold War, has now unleashed the pent-up forces upon its own citizenry.

    The Cold War. We might look back on it with fondness. Because it was a time when the enemy was "out there."

    Today, lacking a clear enemy, the United States, its officers, and public prosecutors, have now turned their attention upon those they have been sworn to serve: The American public.

    America, you should be proud of your legacy. Proud of the example you share. And proud of the evidence your law enforcement doctors. Because with each turn, with each passing hour it is only more obvious that the problem isn't "out there."

    The problem is with a government that will not assent to a document to which it swears an oath to defend.

    America! All you have to do is put into practice the standards to which you hold other nations.

    And the lovely example from NYC is that the double standards is alive and well. There should be no confusion as to what forces continue to inspire the Iraqi insurgency: They dare to stand up to arrogance, while the weak and docile Americans assent to this reckless disregard for their own constitution.

    Continue your arrogance and you should not be surprised why the lessons of the RNC demonstration merely fuels the forces which will dare to stand up to those who abuse their power, their office, and their now tenuous grasp on power.

    Going forward

    We have seen too many videos from New York show another story. DoJ IG at the US prisons found that there was unlawful abuse of prisoners after 9-11. It appears despite Congress, DoJ IG, and the media looking into these abuses that New York continues to be a cess pool for official misconduct toward private individuals. It appears as though but for an injunction, the conduct would reasonably be expected to continue.

    Despite the 9-11 commission review and the Congressional cursory investigation into the intelligence failures, it appears that but for a massive overhaul of law enforcement, the public should have every reason to believe, expect, anticipate, and be unwise to believe otherwise, that their rights will be violated in order for the government to achieve illegitimate and unlawful purposes.

    Despite the outside voice of the UN and other pressure that might otherwise the United States of the rule of law in re and treatment of prisoners, that the United States officers at both the federal and local level remain out of control, poorly managed, and continue to get a green light to commit abuses, perjury, and official misconduct contrary to law.

    In turn, it appears that all reasonable efforts have been exhausted to bring about a peaceful resolution to the problem. Thus, I encourage all the come forward with evidence about official misconduct within the New York City Police Department.

    Review with counsel the whistleblower statutes. And know that these will probably be ignored and you may be threatened. But in the end, unless the officials within the New York City police department are reminded what their freely chosen professional standards are, and are forced to account for this misconduct, nothing will be done.

    Therefore, I encourage all to come forward, bring your evidence to the media and show the scope of the police misconduct. At that point, perhaps the Federal government will have no other option but to put New York City's police department under Federal oversight with close civilian control and an aggressive program which reminds the prosecutor, city officials, and law enforcement what the rules are.

    I see no other option. I see nothing else that would remind law enforcement that the games need to end. I see no end to the abuses unless these drastic measures are imposed.

    The sad story is that this is all contained in the constitution. Clearly promulgated. For all the study. Yet, apparently the prosecutor slept through that CPE courses. Apparently still passed the bar despite not understanding what the constitution is all about.

    It's all in the constitution. Yet, each day it is a constant battle to remind the officers what they already swore an oath to defend. No their job. Not their livelihood. But the constitution.

    The constitution will survive. It will prevail. And in the end, it will suffocate all those who dart to use the force of law and the courts to intimidate those who know of the abuses and dare to speak out.

    The events in NYC of late and the revelations of the videos have merely fueled greater faith that ultimately, the constitution will be the sword to which arrogant public officials are held to account. And to which they shall ultimately serve or be forced from office.

    The choice is clear. Either you're with the constitution or you're for lawlessness.

    Either you for a civil society or you're for the forces of recklessness.

    It is time to choose. Choose wisely. For if you choose anything but the constitution, you will in the end wish you had made a far wiser choice.

    Hoc voluerunt!