Soul Snatcher, Productions ™ Democracy Wall

Devil or Angel? Seattle officials can’t make up their mind.

Yes, Seattle officials have double reversed themselves. Unlike Bertha, the only gear they seem to have is in reverse.

Seattle police officer John Marion

by Carlos Miller

As we’ve seen so many times in the past, the Seattle Police Department waited until all the media buzz died down before reducing the disciplinary action against a police officer for threatening a citizen for taking pictures of police in public.

But unlike in previous incidents where the local media ignores the decision, the citizen in question was none other than Dominic Holden, editor of the alternative weekly, The Stranger, who raised so much hell through his articles that he got a King County Sheriff’s deputy fired for also threatening him that day.

Dominic Holden

So Holden did what he does best when he learned about the police chief’s decision to discipline Seattle police officer John Marion with “training,” instead of a one-day suspension as was the original action against the officer.

He wrote about it, then bitched about it on Facebook. And that got the attention of the local television and newspaper reporters who made inquiries, including to the mayor.

At first, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray defended interim police chief Harry Bailey’s decision, telling reporters that it was for the better because “training” leads to “changing behavior,” not taking into account that perhaps they should train the officers before they hand them a badge and a gun.

But Holden did not buy into the typical political rhetoric that so many other reporters seem to buy into these days, so he called the mayor out during a press conference on Friday.

According to NBC News:

(Mayor) Murray is defending Interim Police Chief Harry Bailey, who reduced the penalty of Seattle Police Officer John Marion. Marion originally got a one-day suspension for threatening to harass Dominic Holden, who is a reporter and news editor for The Stranger newspaper. The punishment was changed to Marion being required to get more training.

“While this could be perceived as a lesser punishment under the current legal framework, Chief Bailey believes, and I support him, that the framework for this process is reflective of what is most constructive,” said the mayor. “Training. Changing behavior.”

The one-day suspension, Murray says, would not be as effective because Marion, or any other officer who is suspended, could use vacation pay to make up the hours and income he would’ve lost.

Holden says Marion was let off too easy, and argues that the officer could have been ordered to go through more training, in addition to the one-day suspension.

“Training is not a punishment,” said Holden. “Training is what we should be doing no matter what. What police officers do is punish people who do wrong, and we need the same standards for them as they give us.”

Holden also says the interim chief mis-led city officials, including the mayor, by trying to pretend he had not reduced the officer’s punishment.

Like many veteran politicians, Murray figured that by holding a press conference on Friday, the media would report on it and forget all about following up on it by Monday.

But true to his style, Holden wouldn’t let it go, hammering away at the mayor and the chief on The Stranger:

Seattle interim police chief Harry Bailey was clear yesterday when he announced that he reopened a case against an officer found guilty of misconduct: He simply lightened the penalty. Instead of a one-day suspension, which was imposed by the last chief, Bailey gave the cop additional training. Bailey insisted to the Seattle Times, mayor, city council, and me that while this penalty was more gentle for Officer John Marion, he had upheld the misconduct verdict itself.

By keeping that misconduct decision in place, Marion’s record would include a demerit to be considered for any future misconduct cases.

But interviews today reveal that is not what Chief Bailey did—and people at the Seattle Times, SPD, and City Hall suggest that Bailey knew he was misleading city officials. Bailey informed the SPD’s discipline office on Tuesday that he actually eliminated the misconduct verdict, thereby leaving Officer Marion’s record unblemished.

Still, Chief Bailey went on to mislead the mayor and Seattle City Council in a letter last night, which has raised questions about the chief’s honesty and integrity handling 25 other cases (which he is reopening to potentially scotch additional misconduct decisions against officers).

By Monday, the mayor called another press conference, admitting he had screwed up, saying it was all a big misunderstanding.

According to KIRO Radio in Seattle:

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray on Monday called it a mistake to reverse the finding of misconduct against a police officer who got into an argument with a newspaper editor last summer.

The admission comes after days of back-and-forth about what an appropriate punishment for Officer John Marion should be.

Officer Marion had been ordered to serve a one-day suspension for an incident involving The Stranger’s Dominic Holden, during which he was caught on tape telling Holden he would come to his place of work to bother him. The discipline came with a finding of misconduct that would have gone on Marion’s personnel file.

Last week, the department came under fire after it was reported that newly-appointed Interim Police Chief Harry Bailey had reversed the finding of misconduct against Marion, instead ordering him to undergo additional training to help change his behavior.

Holden summed up it nicely in his piece Monday morning:

This flip-flop sends a broader message. When Officer Marion and the police union first wanted this misconduct finding reversed last week, they got it. Yet when, in response, the public, politicians, and media kicked up dirt about this individual case, the officer got in trouble again. But the public doesn’t hear about most cases, and in those instances, apparently the police union can steamroll the process, get the mayor and chief to cave, and reverse punishment. That’s a backward precedent. It suggests that political winds and subjective whims trump actual rules for misconduct. That leads victims to believe their complaints won’t get a fair shake and for the public to believe, the in the mayor’s own words, we have “the opposite of reform.”

Without a doubt, the media played a huge role in this reversal but even more so, the people who not only read and commented on his columns, but shared them through social media sites to the point where it just became way too embarrassing for the mayor and chief.

Good job, Dominic!

Check out the initial press conference where he is more upset about the “leak” that allowed the media to know how they tried to mislead the people. And also note how the reporters made him squirm. Great stuff!

Yet another LEO with testosterone poisoning assaults a citizen photojournalist for daring to exercise his 1st Amendment rights, telling him he has none, that he ‘lost’ them!

“I was just trying to film, didn’t think i was breaking any laws.” -Gootz-

by Carlos Miller

Baltimore, MD — In a chaotic video out of Maryland, a horde of cops were struggling to arrest two suspects in the middle of a road for unknown reasons when an officer storms up to the videographer standing on the side of the road and tells him, “Get out of my face.”

The videographer asserts his rights to record, so a police sergeant then storms up to him and starts shoving him, telling him to “Get the hell out of here,” and “Leave”…accusing him of “diverting my attention” (from piling on the two suspects who were not resisting) – even though there were countless other people standing around watching. None were, however, holding a camera.

The videographer starts walking away, but keeps pointing out he had not broken any law, which prompts the angry sergeant to charge him again, saying:

“Look at me, do you see the police presence here? Do you see us all. We’re not fucking around, do you understand? Do not, do not disrespect us. Do not, not listen to us. Walk away and shut your fucking mouth or you’re going to jail. Do you understand.”

The sergeant walks away and the videographer asks if he had committed a crime. The sergeant then stomped back, grabbed his arm and twisted it behind his back.

“Don’t open your mouth,” the cop barks.

“I thought I had freedom of speech,” the photographer pleads.

“You don’t, you just lost it,” the cop sneers.

Of course, the sergeant was wrong–egregiously so. Yes, we do have freedom of speech, and it includes the right to photograph, to petition the government for redress of grievances – especially when the video clearly shows the LEO singling out a single citizen from a crowd, solely on the basis the man was recording police activity in public.

UPDATE: At first, it was believed the sergeant was from the Towson University Police Department. But, it now appears as if he is from the Baltimore County Police Department, (410) 887-2361.

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor
City Hall, Room 250
100 N. Holliday Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone (410) 396-3835
Fax (410) 576-9425

http://www.baltimorecity.gov/OfficeoftheMayor.aspx
https://www.facebook.com/BaltimoreCountyPoliceandFire

Elise Armacost, earmacost@baltimorecountymd.gov, is the Director of the Office of Media and Communications, Public Safety. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The office telephone number is 410-887-2210.

Relying on their shields, their guns, their uniforms and sworn oath to uphold the law, the Bloomfield, New Jersey law enforcement officers shown in the video below blatantly terrorize and lie in their attempt to set up an innocent motorist for murder under false pretenses. The American public is only now becoming aware through the miracle of modern communication technology just how common such corruption among those selected to protect and to serve has become.

Bloomfield, NJ — Evidence from a dashboard camera on a police cruiser ended a nightmare for a New Jersey man facing false charges of eluding police, resisting arrest and assault.

Prosecutors dismissed all the criminal charges against Marcus Jeter, 30, of Bloomfield, N.J. and instead indicted two Bloomfield police officers for falsifying reports and one of them for assault after the recording surfaced showing police officers beating Jeter during a traffic stop, according to WABC of New York. A third has pleaded guilty to tampering.

Jeter’s defense attorney requested all recorded evidence, but the police failed to hand over a second tape until additional evidence surfaced of a 2nd police car [which swerved across a center divider to ram Jeter’s car parked at the side of the road] at the scene. The tape showed Jeter complying with police, even as one punched him in the head repeatedly.

Without the tape, prosecutors had been demanding a five-year prison sentence.

Do they teach LEO’s how to trump up fictitious charges in Cop 101 to intimidate citizens who lawfully assert their rights? It’s anyone’s guess just how often this happens across the nation, but the following video documents exactly that in Chicago

By Carlos Miller of PINAC

Chicago, IL —  A Chicago police officer slapped a man’s camera then threatened to arrest him for disorderly conduct because he had video recorded her car after she parked on the side of a road in what appears to be a bustling commercial area of the city.

The officer was in full uniform, but the car she was driving appeared to be her personal vehicle instead of a department-issued one. She had a couple of shirts strewn about the dashboard, prompting the man to ask about them.

She instructed him he was not allowed to record her car, telling him it was “illegal.” When he stood up for his rights, telling her it was not illegal, she slapped the camera, a move that would have gotten any ordinary citizen killed had they behaved in the same fashion toward her.

She ordered the photographer to cross the street, to “go on about your business,” telling him she would arrest him for disorderly conduct, which is your usual ‘contempt-of-cop’ pretext/cover-up.

It is not clear when the incident took place. It appears to be spring or summer. The clip was uploaded a few days ago to a Youtube channel called PoliceBrutalityDOTus, which uploads these types of videos. It could have been posted elsewhere earlier.

The incident may have taken place after December 2012, when a court order forbade Chicago police the use of the state’s eavesdropping law to arrest people who record them in public, else the LEO likely would have seized that pretext instead of ‘disorderly conduct’.

The Mason County Sheriff has a tank. Why? Just how far will the police go in abrogating Americans’ civil rights? Although those who want additional restrictions placed on the right to own firearms argue this will never lead to confiscations, the following video produced by the NRA belies those claims.

Martial Law in Boston and Gun confiscation in New Orleans? It’s happened before and will happen again!

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, local authorities in New Orleans set out to confiscate all firearms in the region. By doing so they created “gun free zones” where only criminals & law enforcement were armed. These officials seemed oblivious to the principle that, “gun laws only take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens”. Criminals don’t obey the law. Criminals take advantage of situations where people are unable to defend themselves.

One of the most emotional celebrations in years was held on the streets of Kiev as former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko, recently released from a penitentiary hospital after the current President Viktor F. Yanukovych fled Kiev on Saturday, addressed the crowd from her wheelchair.

by Andrew HIGGINS and Andrew E. Kramer, FEB. 22, 2014

Reporting was contributed by David M. Herszenhorn and Oksana Lyachynska from Kiev, Steven Lee Myers from Moscow, and Stephen Castle from London.

KIEV, Ukraine — Abandoned by his own guards and reviled across the Ukrainian capital but still determined to recover his shredded authority, President Viktor F. Yanukovych fled Kiev on Saturday to denounce what he called a violent coup, as his official residence, his vast, colonnaded office complex and other once impregnable centers of power fell without a fight to throngs of joyous citizens stunned by their triumph.

Deputies entered the Parliament building in Kiev. President Viktor F. Yanukovych fled the capital, taking with him any trace of a peace deal that had sought to freeze Ukraine’s tumult.News Analysis: With President’s Departure, Ukraine Looks Toward a Murky Future.

Demonstrators rode a military vehicle to Independence Square in central Kiev. Protesters claimed control of the city’s security.

Protesters in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, where growing numbers of right-wing street groups have clashed with the police.

While Mr. Yanukovych’s nemesis, former Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko, was released from a penitentiary hospital, Parliament found the president unable to fulfill his duties and exercised its constitutional powers to set an election for May 25 to select his replacement. But with both Mr. Yanukovych and his Russian patrons speaking of a “coup” carried out by “bandits” and “hooligans,” it was far from clear that the day’s lightning-quick events would be the last act in a struggle that has not just convulsed Ukraine but expanded into an East-West confrontation reminiscent of the Cold War.

Yulia Tymoshenko (photo: Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times)

Ms. Tymoshenko, who was jailed by Mr. Yanukovych after losing the presidential election in 2010, was released Saturday evening from the hospital in eastern Ukraine where she had been held, her representatives said. Many Ukrainians — and virtually all of the pro-Western protesters — believe her conviction was politically motivated and regard her as something of a martyr to their cause. Late Saturday she appeared on the stage in the Maidan square in a wheelchair and delivered a speech that was greeted by cheers and chants of “Yulia! Yulia!”

Viktor Yanukovych

She addressed her audience as “heroes,” and told them, “I was dreaming to see your eyes. I was dreaming to feel the power that changed everything.”

Though obviously in poor health, Ms. Tymoshenko is widely expected to run for president in the coming election, if it comes off as scheduled.

At the presidential residence a short distance from the capital, protesters carrying clubs and some wearing masks were in control of the entryways Saturday morning and watched as thousands of citizens strolled through the grounds in wonder. “This commences a new life for Ukraine,” said Roman Dakus, a protester-turned-guard, who was wearing a ski helmet and carrying a length of pipe as he blocked a doorway at the compound. “This is only a start,” he added. “We need now to make a new structure and a new system, a foundation for our future, with rights for everybody, and we need to investigate who ordered the violence.”

With the riot police they battled for days having disappeared, the protesters claimed to be in charge of security for the city. There was no sign of looting, either in the city proper or in the presidential compound.

Kieve Protesters (photo by Louisa Gouliamaki)

Kiev Deputies (photo by Sergey Ponomarev for the NY Times)

Kiev Funeral Service (photo by Uriel Sinai for the NY Times)

Kiev Funeral. (photo by Sergey Ponomarev for NY Times)

Kiev Mourners (photo by Uriel Sinai for NY Times)

Kiev Palace (photo by Sergey Ponomarev for NY Times)

Ukrainian Patriots in Kiev (photo by Sergey Ponomarev for NY Times)

Declaring Victory in Kiev:

 After months of protests and a week of bloody mayhem, demonstrators in Independence Square celebrated the departure of President Viktor F. Yanukovych.

A pugnacious Mr. Yanukovych appeared on television Saturday afternoon, apparently from the eastern city of Kharkiv, near Ukraine’s eastern border with Russia, saying he had been forced to leave the capital because of a “coup,” and that he had not resigned, and had no plans to. He said indignantly that his car had been fired upon as he drove away.

“I don’t plan to leave the country. I don’t plan to resign,” he said, speaking in Russian rather than Ukrainian, the country’s official language. “I am a legitimately elected president.” He added: “What is happening today, mostly, it is vandalism, banditism and a coup d’état. This is my assessment and I am deeply convinced of this. I will remain on the territory of Ukraine.” He also complained of “traitors” among his own former supporters but he declined to name them.

Regional governors from eastern Ukraine met in Kharkiv and adopted a resolution resisting the authority of Parliament. They said that until matters were resolved, “we have decided to take responsibility for safeguarding the constitutional order, legality, citizens’ rights and their security on our territories.”

One of the few institutions still taking orders from the president was the official trilingual website of the Ukrainian presidency, which posted a transcript of his defiant television appearance. But, by evening, the text had appeared only in Ukrainian and Russian, suggesting that his English translator had perhaps jumped ship.

The former nerve center of Mr. Yanukovych’s power, the huge compound of the presidential administration, just a few hundred yards from Independence Square in Kiev, was empty Saturday aside from protesters who patrolled its courtyard and blocked off a nearby street to prevent residents swarming into the building. Ukrainian flags flying outside had all been lowered to half-mast, in honor of those killed by police officers and snipers on Thursday.

Kiev Opposition

Mr. Yanukovych said in his television appearance that he would be traveling to the southeastern part of Ukraine to talk to his supporters — a plan that carried potentially ominous overtones, in that the southeast is the location of the Crimea, the historically Russian section of the country that is the site of a Russian naval base.

The president’s departure from Kiev, just a day after a peace deal with the opposition that he had hoped would keep him in office until at least December, capped three months of streets protests and a week of frenzied violence in the capital that left more than 80 protesters dead. It turned what began in November as a street protest driven by pro-Europe chants and nationalist songs into a momentous but still ill-defined revolution.

With nobody clearly in charge, other than the so far remarkably disciplined fighting squads, lieutenants of Ms. Tymoshenko moved to fill the power vacuum. With Oleksandr V. Turchynov, a former acting prime minister and close ally of Ms. Tymoshenko, presiding over the Parliament, her Fatherland party seemed to be in charge, at least temporarily.

With a veto-proof majority of more than 300 of the 450 seats, Mr. Turchynov guided the Parliament through the constitutional process of declaring the president unable to fulfill his duties and setting a date for new elections.

But with Mr. Yanukovych roaming around eastern Ukraine trying to rally support and with the economy in free fall, the country seemed certain to face severe new challenges in the months ahead. Adding to the combustible mix was uncertainty over the intentions of Russia, which now faces the loss of a key ally in a former Soviet republic and the prospect of a new government led by people it scorned as terrorists and fascists in what it considers a critical part of its own sphere of influence.

Ukraine map

It was possibly with the Kremlin in mind that the White House issued a statement Saturday welcoming the changes and stressing that, “The unshakable principle guiding events must be that the people of Ukraine determine their own future.”

American officials said President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia told President Obama in a telephone call on Friday that he would work toward resolving the crisis, but his foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, did not sound as conciliatory. In a telephone call, he told the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland, who helped mediate a short-lived peace deal agreed on Friday, that opposition leaders who signed the accord with Mr. Yanukovych had reneged on their commitments and were “following the lead of armed extremists and pogromists, whose actions pose a direct threat to Ukraine’s sovereignty and constitutional order.”

Russia’s focus on the inviolability of Friday’s accord, however, marks an abrupt change of direction as it had earlier distanced itself from the deal, with its envoy to the Ukraine negotiations refusing to join European diplomats in signing off on the accord.

Anticipating the potential troubles, one of the president’s oldest and most stalwart allies, the billionaire businessman Rinat Akhmetov, issued a statement stressing the need to keep Ukraine “united,” an apparent rebuff to any schemes to establish a new power center in the east.

“My position remains unchanged: I am for a strong, independent and united Ukraine,” said Mr. Akhmetov, Ukraine’s richest man. “Today I place a special focus on the word ‘united’ as this has never been more important.” Mr. Akhmetov and most other wealthy businessmen, who are known as oligarchs, have infuriated protesters by declining throughout months of protest to come out clearly against the president.

Having amassed huge wealth under a deeply corrupt system headed by Mr. Yanukovych since his election in 2010, Ukraine’s oligarchs could now face an angry backlash from the street. That could well drag in Oleksandr Yanukovych, the president’s dentist-turned-businessman son, who is said to have amassed a fortune approaching $200 million since his father took office.

The economy will remain the greatest problem facing the country, once the leadership questions are settled. The International Monetary Fund remains a potential source of financing to replace the $15 billion that Russia had made available before the protests. But that comes with an insistence on austerity and economic changes that will inflict considerable pain, and it is unclear if Europe or the United States will be willing to do more.

“Nobody wants to end up owning all the problems that Ukraine faces,” said Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, “the country is bankrupt, it has a terrible, broken system of government and insane levels of corruption.”

Simona Tibu

by Ari Simeon

Wetaskiwin, Alberta — Simona Tibu was beaten within an inch of her life after a routine traffic stop. This Camrose dentist, says that the assault occurred after she was driving home from work, and was pulled over by an Alberta sheriff for speeding. She has now launched a formal plea to see charges filed against the officer.

Tibu represented herself in a Wetaskwin court hearing on January 30, presenting her case to a judge regarding the August 3 assault. What she revealed was disturbing.

She claims that the violence began before she had even exited the car. The officer violently hit the driver’s side window of the vehicle. She said that if he continued to hit her window so violently, she would not roll it down, as she felt she was in danger.

The officer became unhinged by her demands. “He became violent,” Tibu said.

She began recording the incident on her cell phone. That’s when he ordered her out of the vehicle, and began punching her in the groin, breasts and backside.

Tibu screamed, hoping someone would help her, but that just made the officer “even more aggressive.”

She says that is when he smashed her head onto the pavement, soaking her in blood.

Two weeks later, the sheriff filed charges against Tibu for assault and resisting arrest.

The judge in this case said that Tibu has reasonable grounds to file charges but, higher officials will have to “determine if the case moves forward,” or “if there will be charges, if they’ll be dismissed or stayed,” an Alberta Justice spokeswoman Michelle Davio, said.

Tibu is petitioning the court to allow the public and media to see the evidence from the dash camera footage, as well as hearing the 9-1-1 call, and witness testimonies. That hearing is scheduled to take place on April 9.

“I have big medical records, lots of pictures and three witnesses that came forward to help me, therefore I am confident I will get justice,” Tibu said.

Texas is notorious for a lot of things. Respecting civil rights isn’t one of them. Local public officials seem aware of this, but nonplussed or disinterested altogether. The fear, loathing, and disrespect this generates toward LEO’s and the justice system is legion. The citizen seen cited in the video appropriately compares the corruption he discovered in Electra, Texas to the movie, DELIVERANCE.

Matt Wood and Gary Ellis come across as total pigs on steroids. The harassed citizen comes across as intimidated, but courageous enough to stand up for his rights, exercising them on the behalf of all Americans.

Electra, TX (March 2013) — This patriot verbally objected to an unconstitutional search of his vehicle in Electra, Texas. Police officers Matt Wood and Gary Ellis maliciously responded by issuing him two false citations. The targeted citizen eventually got a copy of their dashboard-camera video at the pretrial hearing. It revealed the corruption in its entirety including discernible incriminating audio. City attorney Todd Greenwood demanded the man give his copy of the evidence back, and tried to have him arrested when he refused. Greenwood, was at that moment, inadvertently documenting his brazen attempt to interfere with the defendant’s discovery rights as well as his right to investigate a crime committed against him by the lying LEO’s who had stopped, harassed, and unlawfully cited him under color of law as well as perjured reports. This has become such a standard method of miscarrying justice, even the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Greenwood, can be heard admitting it.  Move over, Texas, Nazi Germany has nothing on you!

The prosecutor then compares rural Texas to the movie Deliverance, and warned the defendant, “What’s written down in the Constitution is one thing, and the real practice is another.”

All charges were dropped. The violations of the federal civil rights Section 1983, et seq, is egregious and obvious.

It’s an awesome video production, a story unusually well told by this citizen. He’s a perfect example of why people should represent themselves. He did one hell of a good job. He blew it by not having an audio device and camera (several, actually) on him AND his wife to capture the events.

In this case, we see and hear not only the police, but the state’s prosecutor, Todd Greenwood, conspiring against his civil rights AND ADMITTING it! The defendant had a slam dunk federal 1983 lawsuit.

There’s a bit jealousy over the quality of his video here. Thank you so much for sharing it, bro. It should be shown in every high school civics class. This man is an example of the kind of American we should be proud to have as our countryman. Vaya Con Dios, patriot brother.

Todd Greenwood
City Attorney
109 N. Main
Electra, Texas 76360
Phone:  (940) 495 – 2875
Fax: (940) 495 – 2862

Nesin, the victim in the video says it now has been viewed thousands times. It includes the dash cam video from March of 2013.

Nesin says  in the course of having stopped to switch drivers, he and his wife were accosted on the side of the road. His wife had grown fatigued and become too tired to continue driving.

Matt Wood and Gary Ellis, two Electra LEO’s, arrived and approached his vehicle to “make sure his family was okay” they said.

After some demands to hand over his driver’s license, Officer Ellis, Officer Wood can be seen opening the passenger door without permission or a search warrant, in what Nesin calls an unconstitutional search.  Nesin can be heard verbally objecting to the search.

It was at that point Nesin was given two citations (apparently in retaliation for exercising his 4th Amendment rights), one for ‘failing to identify’ contrary to the dash cam evidence showing he did, and one for “Failure to Display a Driver’s License”,  despite no evidence Nesin had been driving. One officer can be heard admitting as much when he says, “You were fixing to.”

During what Nesin calls a pretrial with Electra city attorney Todd Greenwood, Nesin argues he feels he was denied due process and his civil rights repeatedly. The video backs up his claim.

Nesin admits he didn’t expect the egregious character of the exchange.

Nesin mused, “When I was talking with Greenwood at the pretrial, I was a bit stunned; it had been going well and he had been polite…up until then.  I thought it was going to be an open and shut case for me.  Then it got very adversarial.  I didn’t like how the ‘altered deal, pray I don’t alter it any further’ conversation was going. I was thinking, does anyone in this town respect the laws?”

At this point, a recording of a conversation between Greenwood and former Police Chief Johnny Morris enters the scene.

Nesin cautions he’s grateful Morris handled the situation the way he did by refusing to arrest him.

Finally, in a virtual admission of defeat and lack of probable cause, Greenwood moves to dismiss the charges without court costs (but ex-parte!) which Nesin objected to since he wanted the additional video and audio evidence from the cameras Officers Ellis and Wood were wearing the night of the stop.

According to Nesin, Judge Dianne Gribble refused his motions as [conveniently] the charges had been dismissed at that point. [i.e. The court no longer had jurisdiction. This is another common legal ploy, often ex-parte, when the prosecutor discovers he/she has a case of police misconduct on his/her hands.]

Nessin admits he has no legal action pending right now as he doesn’t believe he has the legal means to pursue his case presently. No apology has been extended to him for the egregious violation of his civil rights. Nesin says he’d appreciate as much.

by Lawrence J. Smith of PINAC

Despite favorable court rulings for citizens and adverse publicity for law enforcement, cops in Florida have not received the memo that they are not allowed to suppress the First Amendment through wiretapping charges.

Not only is a South Florida woman preparing to sue the Broward County Sheriff’s Office after she was violently dragged out of her car for recording a traffic stop last year, a North Florida man is suing the Bay County Sheriff’s Office for arresting him after he admitted in traffic court last year that he had recorded the initial stop.

Derrick Ryan Bacon is seeking unspecified damages in his seven-count, 23-page complaint filed Feb. 11 in U.S. District Court in which he alleges Bay County sheriff’s deputies Ryan Robbins and Chad Vidrine falsely arrested him on wiretapping charges after they learned he recorded Vidrine during a traffic stop nearly 18 months ago.

In his suit, Bacon avers he “lawfully used a cellular phone to video and audio record Vidrine’s interactions with” him. At his bench trial two months later, Bacon informed Judge Maria Dykes about the recording.

Upon conclusion of the trial, in which Dykes found him guilty of speeding, and fined him $125, Bacon says he was approached by Robbins and Vidrine, who began interrogating him about the recording. After again admitting he recorded the encounter, Bacon alleges Vidrine arrested him on Robbins’ orders.

According to the suit, Bacon was placed in a patrol car for an unspecified period time in which “Robbins and Vidrine conspired in an attempt to find a crime with which to charge [him].” Later, Bacon was “ ‘un-arrested’”, and Robbins and Vidrine sent an affidavit to the 14th District State Attorney’s Office seeking to have him charged with wiretapping.

Under Florida law, a person who discloses the “contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication” with another person who has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and without their consent, faces 1-5 years in prison and a maximum $5,000 fine. Also, the law allows for anyone the subject of an unauthorized recording to sue the person making it for civil damages.

However, in a letter dated Jan. 15, 2013, Assistant State Attorney Megan Ford informed Vidrine charges would not be filed against Bacon due to a lack of probable cause. In her letter, which a secretary read to Photography is Not a Crime over the telephone, Ford specifically said the lack of probable cause was the lack of a recording of the encounter between Bacon and Vidrine.

“The only evidence we have to prove a crime was committed is the defendant’s statement he did record the officer during the traffic stop,” Ford said. “ The state is required to prove corpus deliciti [Latin for “body of crime] and the body of crime was actually committed. Courts have routinely held in cases that confessions are not enough to prove corpus except in cases of child sexual abuse”

“The evidence that is needed is the actually recording,” she added. “As of yet there’s no proof that the recording is on the phone.

Despite Ford’s no probable cause finding, Bacon maintains Robbins and Vidrine continued to give him the impression he would be arrested.

According to the lawsuit, it was not until June 20 that his cell phone was returned, and he was informed of Ford’s no probable cause finding. During those six months, Bacon claims he had to purchase a new cell phone, and hired legal counsel out of fear Robbins and Vidrine “would hunt him down and again falsely arrest him.”

In his suit, Bacon makes claims against the defendants for, among other things, violations of his First, Fourth and 14th Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution as well as malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Bacon’s case is the latest example of police using their state’s wiretapping law in an effort to harass, and intimidate citizens from recording their encounters with them:

Anthony Graber faced the possibility of 16 years in prison if convicted on the four wiretapping charges for which he was indicted in the Spring of 2010 for posting on You Tube a recording of a plainclothes Maryland State Trooper stopping him after swearing in and out of traffic, and popping a wheeling on his motorcycle. However, Hartford County Circuit Judge Emory L. Plitt later that Fall dismissed the charges finding “the video taping of public events is protected under the First Amendment.”
The American Civil Liberties Union was successful in challenging the constitutionality of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act which included a 15-year prison sentence for someone who produced an audio recording of a law enforcement officer without his or her consent. In November 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to let stand the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision from the previous May that found the 1961 law unconstitutional.
A case the 7th Circuit relied on in rendering its opinion was Glik v. Cunniffe, et. al. In Glik, the 1st Circuit affirmed a district judge’s decision denying qualified immunity to the Boston Police Department, and three of its officers in a civil rights suit brought against them by Simon Glik after they charged him with, among other things, wiretapping for filming them arresting a suspect on Boston Commons in 2007. In affirming the lower court’s decision, the appellate court found since the officers did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and they lacked probable cause to arrest him, Glik’s constitutional rights were violated. The case set a precedent in determining First Amendment protections extended beyond journalists to citizens in recording public officials in their duties.
The Glik decision is among several cases cited by Bacon’s attorney Christopher Dillingham II of Plymouth. Bacon’s case is assigned to Judge Richard Smoak.

Meanwhile, Brandy Berning of Fort Lauderdale is preparing to sue the Broward County Sheriff’s Office for her arrest last year in which she was dragged out of the car, accused of felony wiretapping, even though she ended up spending the night in jail on a single misdemeanor resisting arrest charges.

Broward County Sheriff General Counsel Ron Gunzenburger is confident his department will prevail in Berning’s suit.

“BSO feels very comfortable that we will prevail in court under the current state of the law when/if this potential litigant sues,” he stated in a comment left on PINAC.

Officer Friendly

by Rick Horowitz Amicus Curia [Rick Horowitz, an attorney, complained about his editorial remarks being reposted or distributed. Hence, this re-editorializing to the same effect without attribution crediting him, or his vicarious harassment.]

Believing that law enforcement officers are good guys is one of the linchpins of our society; probably of all societies, even where they don’t officially call them “law enforcement” officers.  But to believe in law enforcement officers, we must be able to believe law enforcement officers.

Nearly everybody wants to believe in the tooth fairy and officer friendly–you know, the badge & uniform decorated gun toting billy club swinging pal we all have. He may be a friend who  searches body cavities, but he’s still our friend. Unfortunately, officer friendly’s penchant for telling the truth has come into serious question, by those you’d think benefit by their dissembling and lying under oath the most–District Attorneys and trial judges!

So far that doesn’t seem to be a problem for the majority of submitizens, even though newspapers as small as the Fresno Bee contain at least one — and usually more than one — story almost every day about the illegal activities of police officers.

Many local newspapers now routinely carry stories detailing the scandals of police corruption, falsifying of reports, and planting evidence…or withholding it…to manipulate the justice system which ultimately translates into many factually innocent defendants being convicted and sentenced to hard prison time.

But there’s one type of malfeasance in which police officers engage even more routinely that usually goes unreported.  Until now.

Corruption in our public officials has become the cesspool of our democracy today. But now some notice is being taken about how deeply this culture of corruption has penetrated the thin blue line, the ones we’ve entrusted to uphold our values, our principles, and our laws–to protect and to serve: Police officers who have sworn to uphold the law–all the laws, including the civil rights of all citizens.

Serving & Protecting

The Wall Street Journal reports that,

According to a Wall Street Journal article,

In a 1992 survey, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in Chicago said they thought that, on average, perjury by police occurs 20% of the time in which defendants claim evidence was illegally seized. (Amir Efrati, “Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie” (January 29, 2009) Wall Street Journal.)

And, trust me (I’m not a police officer), Chicago is not unique.

Does this damn Chicago with faint praise, or are police officers there only following suit and fitting in with a  corrupt police culture that spans the breadth of the nation?

Patrick, over at PopeHat, reports in “A Rickety, Wooden Story” about two police officers who wanted in to a man’s house because they believed another man they wished to arrest was there.  They had no legal right to enter the house and the man refused them entry.  Thereupon, they beat him, tasered him and arrested him for assaulting police officers.  Fortunately, these cops were stupid and both wrote reports and repeatedly testified about the “rickety, wooden porch” which required one cop to stick his foot inside the door to stabilize himself, supposedly provoking the man’s attack.  Unfortunately (for the cops), the porch was made of concrete.  The only thing rickety was their fabricated story.

One reporter (“A Rickety, Wooden Story”) tells of how 2 cops entered a man’s house seeking to arrest a suspect they believed was hiding within. When the resident balked at permitting them entry, rather than seeking an arrest/search warrant, they summarily brutally beat and tased him then charged and arrested him for assaulting a cop to cover their ass. Then, serendipity struck. It wasn’t for nothing these cops were known as the dumbest flatfoots on the force. Each perjured themselves in their sworn affidavits when they declared a rickety wooden porch caused them to put a foot through the door to keep from losing their balance, thereby provoking the resident into assaulting them…except there was NO wooden porch–the stoop was composed of solid concrete. Rather than a flimsy porch, it was their flimsy story which ended up doing them in.

Not all police officers lies are as blatant as this, of course.  In San Francisco, a woman spent 20 months in jail, awaiting trial on attempted murder.  Though there was no evidence that a crime had even been committed, a police officer revised an earlier story about hearing a shot and seeing a car; months after the fact, he identified an innocent woman as the shooter.  A jury acquitted the woman after police, who had safeguarded the bullet in an evidence locker for two years, “disposed” of it three days into the trial.  The Public Defender was glad that the jury had seen through the lies.  But did they see through the lies?  Or did they merely think the officer was mistaken?  That case had so many weaknesses it’s hard to tell.

Most cops are not quite this obtuse and lie more effectively. Some are decent people and a credit to their uniform, thank God!  But others are responsible for miscarriages of justice such as an innocent San Francisco woman who spent almost 2 years in custody awaiting trial on a charge of attempted murder. Despite a lack of evidence of any crime whatsoever, in typical knee jerk fashion, our justice system lurched from pillar to post like a bull in a china shop. One officer changed his story about sighting a car and hearing gunfire.  Months later, he fingered an innocent woman as the culprit. But, a jury didn’t agree. They acquitted her. They weren’t impressed with the revelation of how the police who had preserved the alleged bullet in an evidence locker for 2 long years destroyed/lost it 3 days into the trial proceedings. Although the defense attorney seemed pleased the jury had rejected the lies, had they? Or did they conclude the LEO had made a good faith mistake? Is there a distinction between corruption and incompetence or is it one without a meaningful difference. If an innocent defendant ends up on death row due to a corrupt judge, or an incompetent one, does he/she really care which given the end result will be the same? Court records are rife with such miscarriages of justice. Lying cops exacerbate the problem tremendously.

And then, of course, there are the “testiliars” who get away with it.  Shockingly, this is not really a secret.

Too many cops who perjure themselves are never held accountable. Judges are too often indifferent or never met a cop they didn’t like. They turn a blind eye to the perjury and fail to do justice by all the parties–they fail in their primary mission which is to ensure the trial proceedings are conducted as a search for the truth.

“It is an open secret long shared by prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges that perjury is widespread among law enforcement officers,” though it’s difficult to detect in specific cases, said Alex Kozinski, a federal appeals-court judge, in the 1990s. That’s because the exclusionary rule “sets up a great incentive for…police to lie.”  –(Amir Efrati, “Legal System Struggles With How to React When Police Officers Lie” (January 29, 2009) Wall Street Journal (emphasis added).)–

I still remember when I first learned about this.  I was stunned.  Prior to becoming a criminal defense attorney, I thought that most police officers were good and figured, at most, ten percent were “bad cops.”  As a criminal defense attorney practicing in Fresno, Tulare, Madera and Kings Counties, I’ve come to learn that, at best, the percentages are reversed when it comes to testilying.  As the WSJ article points out, “there’s a tacit agreement among many officers that lying about how evidence is seized keeps criminals off the street.”  Police officers figure it’s okay to break the law in order to get a conviction against someone who they believe has broken the law.  After all, the someone being convicted isn’t them.

It’s a sad day when our innocence about the police is destroyed, when the choices we saw as children to become a fireman, policeman, doctor, nurse, butcher, banker, or candlestick maker become a fiction, an illusion. Did our parents not tell us policemen were our friend, that if we were in trouble to find one and tell what happened? But, our parents did us a disservice to hide the fact that many policemen are not our friend–far from it, that they beat, kill, lie, bully, provoke, set people up, and even rape. Yeah, there’s bad apples in any broad cross section of people, but the shocking truth is the bad apples in the ranks of police are NOT exceptions or ‘rogue’ cops, they’re common–some even say these officers are the rule, and they should know because these critics deal with the police frequently. These cops excuse themselves with the belief they have to break/bend the law to enforce it, to make sure the ‘bad’ guy gets what he deserves, to give the law a little nudge/boost to make certain the criminals get convicted. They deliberately put their finger on the scales of justice to skew it.

The problem is that sometimes police officers are wrong.

But, setting one’s self up as judge, jury, and executioner is a slippery slope. There’s a reason why it’s said the road to perdition is paved with ‘good’ intentions. This God complex among cops leads to innocent people being condemned to Hell on earth. These state sponsored thugs become more dangerous to the social fabric than the criminal element itself and exercise the same ethics of convenience cut from the same warp and weave.

It leaves you to wonder: “How many innocent people are sitting in jails and prisons because of police testiliars?”

How many innocent people are in prison today or even on death row because of lying cops?

[Editor’s Note: Mr. Rick Horowitz, or someone claiming that name and to be an attorney, filed a fraudulent DMCA take-down notice regarding the above article. Obviously any potentially objectionable material with respect to copyright has been removed/struck-out, as is self evident. Nevertheless, Mr. Horowitz continued to make threats through e-mail and has now opted to manipulate the host service to harass the editor vicariously. This is now an old dodge familiar to many internet publishers. An investigation has been launched to determine if he is an attorney and, if so, what his bar number is so a bar complaint against him can be filed.]

BTW, here’s a pic of the p**k.

Rick Horowitz – #248684
Bar Number: 248684
Address:
The Law Office of Rick Horowitz
2014 Tulare St Ste 627
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone Number: (559) 233-8886
Fax Number: (559) 233-8887
e-mail: rick@rhdefense.com
Undergraduate School:
California St Univ Fresno; Fresno CA
Law School:
San Joaquin COL; Fresno CA
County: Fresno
District: District 5
Sections:
Criminal Law
Status History

Effective Date Status Change
Present Active
Admitted to The State Bar of California: 4-14-2007

“The only profession hated more than cops is attorneys!” (Even cops loathe them.)

“It’s better to be a mouse in a cat’s mouth than a client in the hands of an attorney!” -Spanish Proverb-