Rule Of Law News Podcast Episode #1
https://anchor.fm/rule-of-law-news-podcast/episodes/The-Psychology-Of-The-Need–Creation-and-Promotion-Of-The-Blue-Wall-Of-Silence-In-Police-Departments-In-America-That-Cover-Up-Police-Corruption-Instead-Of-Exposing-It-Episode-1-e3noeb/a-ad4d2a
The “BLUE WALL OF SILENCE” is created, established, promoted and perpetuated when the NYPD Police Department’s Official lawful policies become superseded by unofficial unlawful Departmental policies. The greater the degree that unofficial policies override official policies the greater need to create a “BLUE WALL OF SILENCE”. For example if the NYPD wants to obtain revenue they have various options. If they are adhering to official departmental policies they could cause members of the service, civilian and police officers to issue Traffic and Parking summons, but what if total revenue derived from the lawful issuance of summons is not to the satisfaction of the NYPD Police Department? If the Department wants more revenue then is possible to be generated from the lawful issuance of summons, then they must alter portions of official policy and create and establish unofficial policies such as numerical quotas as opposed to qualitative quotas. The needed portions of official policy will be changed and superseded by the newly created unofficial and unlawful policy. NYS Labor Law 215-a makes the use of quantitative quotas illegal and unlawful.
To implement this new proposed unlawful unofficial policy the employees of the NYPD must be retrained through instruction without the public and other non-Departmental public officials knowing, because the Department and Top Brass are knowingly, willingly and intentionally with deliberate indifference violating various laws. They are committing crimes because they and the Department have an interest and derive many benefits from creating new unofficial policies that cause increases in revenue through extortion and larceny when summons are issued unlawfully.
This newly created unlawful unofficial policy must be put into practice. The NYPD employees must be instructed as to the newly amended, unlawful unofficial policy and informed that the old portions of official policy are no longer applicable. When implementing theses new unlawful unofficial policies, the compliance rate of NYPD employees will not satisfy the NYPD’s need for a predetermined minimum amount of revenue, so the NYPD will need to implement an illegal unofficial quota system to instruct, direct, guide, compel and mandate the NYPD employees to act in accordance with these newly established expectations. To ensure compliance with these illegal quotas, NYPD employees who fail to meet minimum requirements (proactive law enforcement activities) and satisfy the Department’s “performance goals”, “numbers” or “productivity goals” (quotas) will be reprimanded, reinstructed, retrained. If NYPD employees still do not satisfy Departmental quotas they will have negative employment consequences illegally taken against them. This adverse employment action could be negative performance evaluations, lost compensation, lost overtime, lost vacations days earned, punitive postings, punitive transfers (ex. assigned to Foot Patrol), denial of upgrades and promotions, denial of overtime and denial of accrued time earned, forced overtime on regular days off (RDOs), wrongful termination and other illegal penalties.
The newly established unofficial numerical quotas cause NYPD employees to become unreasonably and unlawfully coerced and threatened which induces fear. Since there is a possibility of not meeting “performance goals” or quotas. About 90% of NYPD employees want to avoid at all cost adverse employment consequences that will be taken against them for noncompliance. This newly created illegal influence causes most NYPD employees to illegally issue summons, when they can not observe enough traffic and parking violations or infractions taking place in their presence to meet their quotas.
“In January 2011, P.O. Craig Matthews met with then Captain Jon Bloch, the Precinct’s new commanding officer, and two other officers in Captain Bloch’s office. Matthews told them about the quota system and stated that it was “causing unjustified stops, arrests, and summonses because police officers felt forced to abandon their discretion in order to meet their numbers,” and that it “was having an adverse effect on the precinct’s relationship with the community. [779 F.3d 170]” Compl. ¶ 28, Joint App’x 28.” Police Officer Matthews reported these illegal quotas because he had a duty to and he was honest. NYPD Patrol Guide section 207-21 Allegations of Corruption and Misconduct Against Members of The Service. This section requires all employees of the NYPD Department to report Police or departmental misconduct/corruption if they have knowledge of violations.
This is why Patrolman, Frank Serpico (Knapp Commission) stated that 80% of the police that go along with unofficial/unlawful policies, wish they were honest, but comply with unlawful policy out of fear that adverse employment action will be taken against them. He also said the other 10% of the police are extremely corrupt and the remaining 10% of the police are honest. He stated that the (10%) honest police officers fear the (90%) corrupt police officers. (90%). of the Police that are knowingly, willingly and intentionally with deliberate indifference violating their OATH of office are corrupt because they are acting beyond the “scope of their authority” and by committing criminal acts they are becoming criminals. The majority of NYPD employees are willing to violate multiple laws to comply with illegal, Traffic summons, Criminal summons (quality of life) investigatory stops and arrest quotas. This causes parts of the NYPD to become a Continuing Criminal Enterprise pursuant to NYS Penal Law section 460 and implicates the federal R.I.C.O. Act. When this “association-in-fact” enterprise is created, the “Blue Wall” becomes the by-product of institutionalized police corruption. One of the oaths of a Continuing Criminal Enterprise is OMERTA which is all members of the “association-in-fact” are sworn to silence for the purposes of concealing enterprise corruption and criminal activity by refusing to disclose evidence at all costs. This is done to protect the enterprise and the many dishonest NYPD employees. This is why when police offices get caught, for falsifying parking summons, falsifying business records, perjury, false arrest, false imprisonment, use of excessive or unnecessary force, unlawful detainment, unlawful search and seizure of property etc they get a slap on the wrist. They are getting punished for getting caught and not for committing corruption or violations of policy. As long as the police officer is attempting to exercise “effective law enforcement measures” which is determined by the Department, such as complying with unlawful unofficial policies and quotas, he is unofficially granted immunity from criminal prosecution and administrative discipline. Most NYPD employees do not get punished when caught committing crimes or violations. When they do get caught only a small number get inadequately disciplined which is insignificant to deter future law enforcement criminal behavior. Why would the NYPD want to deter the very unlawful conduct they order and mandate NYPD employees. When a police office is prosecuted for corruption the DA and NYPD are lenient on the NYPD violator so he is not motivated to expose the inner workings of the system and the NYPD. This is also why when a police officer should be terminated for cause such as corruption, the police commissioner invokes an exemption (get out of jail free card) and continues to negligently retain an unsuitable NYPD employee.
This is why when a police officer is for example using unnecessary or excessive force on a detainee while five other police officers are present or assisting, none of them intercede and stop the unlawful police action from continuing even though there is a duty to act. When unlawful police action is exposed, the department pretends that there is one bad police officer or a few bad (apples) out of the whole barrel. If that is so, how come all of the other police officers present did not intervene, because the barrel is the NYPD and it’s influence. In the barrel are about 90% corrupt police officers (rotten apples). By the police officers not intervening they are giving tacit approval and at the same time ratifying the unofficial illegal Departmental policies. If the Department were to disclose the true level of police corruption the public would demand that the Mayor establish an anti-corruption commission to combat police corruption that is outside of the influence of the NYPD and NYC. How many exceptions to the rule of, there are a few corrupt police, do you need before you determine that that the exception is the rule, which is that most of the police are corrupt and that the exception to the rule is that about 10% of the police are honest and lawful.
The Commission to Combat Police Corruption is an active board independent of the NYPD Police Department, with a mandate to monitor and evaluate the anti-corruption polices and practices of the NYPD Department. At the time this commission was established in 1995, the City Council believed that the commission should have more power to conduct investigations of specific incidents of potential corruption independent of the NYPD Police Department, but the Mayor with the various District Attorneys believed that the Commission should be essentially monitoring/auditing agency with little, if any, real investigative authority. They believed that an additional investigative agency was both unnecessary and would create inevitable tensions with the NYPD Department and with the numerous prosecutors involved in the anti-corruption investigations. This information came from one of the Commission’s reports. The Commission’s investigative power was and is extremely limited, it may only conduct investigations of specific incidents of potential corruption in exceptional circumstances with the approval of the Mayor. Also the Commission had to rely on the Department of Investigations for subpoenas to compel the production of documents of witnesses. The Commission did not exercise its limited investigative authority, and properly should be viewed as a monitoring/auditoring agency and not an investigative agency.
The reason why the Mayor and various District Attorneys believed that a competing investigative agency would be unnecessary and would create tension, was because the various DA’s have a symbiotic relation with the police and the Department. This relationship is so closely intertwined that the DA’s needs and relies on the police to initiate prosecutions and obtain convictions and the police rely on the DAs to cover-up any unlawful police action caused by unofficial policies or violations of official policies. Many times the DA’s and ADA’s gives tacit approval to unlawful police action because they are obsessed with getting convictions when prosecuting cases and the police are obsessed with “clearing cases”. This type of relationship makes it very easy for both parties to get caught conspiring together. The Mayor at the time of establishing the Commission did not intend or want the Commission to become an investigative agency, nor do any other present and future Mayors. The Mayor said another investigative agency was unnecessary and would create tensions with the NYPD Department and numerous DA’s. He was right, because if the Mayor influences the Police Commissioner to violate official legal policies and create unofficial illegal policies in order to impliment summons quotas, investagatory stop quotas, Criminal summons quotas and arrest quotas, which cause unlawful police action to occur. The Mayor and various DA’s would not want an investigative agency that does parallel investigations, because the Department and it’s IAB would be exposed for committing police corruption and interfering with police investigations in allegations of police misconduct and corruption. The Mayor, the various DA’s, the police and the Department would be exposed because the Commission would obtain and present sufficient evidence of conspiracy and all of the violators would be prosecuted and possibly convicted. The Commission to Combat Police Corruption fired a lawyer named Willa Bernstein because she asked too many questions about the NYPD’s use of force practices. She said she thought her job was to critique NYPD IAB cases. She said, “the real job description should have been: Just go along. Don’t rock the boat.” She was fired after the Chief of NYPD IAB complained to her boss that she had an “anti-police” bias. Willa Bernstein said she was being targeted after she questioned why police officers Tasered a violent teenage suspect after he was shackled and handcuffed in a police stationhouse. She compared the case to the notorious Abner Loumia police brutality case. She recommended in a meeting that the Tasered teens case be aggressively investigated because no one wanted another Abner Loumia case. The IAB and the people present at this meeting were horrified by the comparison. IAB Chief Campisi spoke to Bernstein’s boss, Commission Executive Director Marnie Blit, according to documents obtained by the Daily News said, “It was after this incident that I started preparing to terminate Willa Bernstein,” Blit wrote in a Nov. 27 memo. “She insulted IAB and destroyed any credibility she might have when criticizing their cases, Blit wrote.
All of these established Commissions to expose police corruption and misconduct are nothing but public relations propaganda campaigns to fool the public into believing that police corruption and misconduct is or will become under control and that it is not institutionalized and systemic police corruption. 98% of the corruption is caused by the chief policy maker of the NYPD, the Police Commissioner who takes his marching orders directly from the Mayor. This permissive and unlawful environment is and was established for the Mayors benefit. These commissions limit the depth and scope of the inquiry into police corruption and police misconduct, they do not focus on command structure, supervisory function and supervisory liability, all the way to the Police Commissioner. The Mollen Commission, the Knapp Commission, The Commission to Combat Police Corruption, the CCRB and the OIG-NYPD are all controlled and directed that if there are major police corruption scandals it will never implicate top brass or the Mayor. The commission will just find a few sacrificial lambs to discipline or prosecute and tell the public that we weeded out all the know corrupt police officers. But they did not alter the Department’s corporate culture causing the cycle of 20+ years before a new anti-police corruption commission is established.
If the NYPD’s official lawful policies were the only policies governing the organization, they would have nothing to hide because there would not be systemic corruption, just a few corrupt police officers. The tension is established when the Commission is giving the authority to investigate and expose the police corruption the Mayor created. He created these conditions because of his selfish motives to get reelected, by attempting to reduce the crime or appearance of crime through the use of unlawful and illegal police procedures. If the Mayor, Police Commissioner, IAB, and police officers objectives were the same as the official lawful policies of NYPD Department, they would have granted investigative powers to the Commission and the IAB would be working with and not against the Commission conducting parallel investigations. The City Council members at about the time the Commission was established believed that the Commission should have more power to conduct investigations of the specific incidents of potential corruption independent the Police Department. The reason why the City Council wanted the Commission to be an investigative agency is because their interest is not based on an obsession with CompStat, crime statistics, crime reports or the perception of crime. City Council want the police to fight crime within the context of exercising lawful police action. Unlawful police action may be practical and efficient, but it is unlawful causing state actors to become criminals.
The Founding Fathers created and ratified the U.S. Constitution to insure that our God given or inalienable rights were protected from an unnecessary and unreasonable infringements by state actors and/or government officials acting under color of law to deprive a citizen of Constitutionally protected Rights. The NYPD can ONLY infringe upon citizens Constitutional Rights if the police action is necessary, reasonable and with “Due Process of Law”. “Substantive Due Process” and “Procedural Due Process” must be adhered to before life, liberty or property is infringed upon by state actors. These procedural safeguards are supposed to prevent or limit government actors from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner, which would cause them to act in a heavy-handed manner. These instituted procedural safeguards are not designed to prevent the police from enforcing the laws, but were created to ensure that the police act within the scope of the law while enforcing law. This is called the “Rule of Law” which means everybody is accountable to the laws. When the police refuse to comply and submit themselves to the law, they become lawless criminals. The police can not justify legally that they are violating the laws, because it is more efficient and practical to enforce the law. When the public speaks against the police violating the law, the police become defensive and state that public is against law enforcement. If law enforcement is lawless then it just means that the public is against corrupt law enforcement practices and corrupt police officers. The public is in support of the few (10%) honest police officers and the rest they are against because they are corrupt police and not just because they are police.
Police recruits are trained for about 6 months at the police academy. They are trained in police procedure and the application of law etc. The training usually reflects only official lawful police policy and procedure, so the recruits do not know about any unofficial unlawful police yet. When the recruits are finished with the police academy they are assigned to Field Training Officers (FTO), these officers are usually compliant and obedient to following with no hesitation unofficial unlawful police policies. When assigned to a recruit the FTO tells the recruit to forget everything you learned in the police academy, this is how it is really done. The FTO reinstructs and retrains the recruit and guides him in the direction of following unofficial illegal policy in the name of “effective law enforcement measures”. This is where the transition takes place where the recruit is transitioned into an immoral or even a corrupt police officer. If an observer were allowed to be trained by the police academy, they would think that the training is adequate, lawful and consistent with national police training guidelines and standards, but the department’s official training is intentionally to specifications for public relations and legal reasons. This is why many police departments and police officers do no want to wear body worn cameras (BWC), because if the footage goes public it will become obvious that the department and its employees have two sets of policies and procedures, one for the public which are official and legal policies and one for the department and it’s employees which are unofficial and illegal policies. Police worn body cameras will cause tremendous stress to occur to the user, because he would be compelled to act in accordance with the expectations of official lawful policy and at the same time meet his quotas which many times would not be possible. If the NYPD caused the legislature to promulgate laws severely restricting disclosure of video and audio recordings, this would still allow the department to act through it’s employees on unofficial unlawful policies, because there would be little or no transparency which would impede accountability. This is why NYS Civil Rights Law 50-a was promulgated, because access to personal records/files would put many police officers’ credibility in question. This would prevent prosecutions and even convictions in many cases, in which the tarnished police officers were chief witnesses
This is the same reason why police officers do not like being video and audio recorded, because this video many times reveals that the police officer is “acting” beyond the facade of his profession and committing misconduct or even police corruption. The footage could be used as Digital evidence to implicate police corruption.
In the case of Floyd, et al v. The City of New York (2013 WL404609) the court stated, “it is difficult to see the difference between a performance goal and a quota and further stated, imposing numerical performance goals for enforcement activities, without providing effective safeguards to ensure the activities are legally justified, could result in an officer taking enforcement action for the purpose of meeting a ‘performance goal’ rather than because a violation of law has occurred.”
The same influence applies to quantitative arrest quotas. Qualitative quotas would be considered legal because probable cause to effect an arrest would be present.
The NYPD also has quantitative arrest quotas and these are illegal pursuant to NYS Labor Law 215-a. The Department has unlawful quotas that police officers obtain a certain predetermined minimum number of arrests for misdemeanors and felonies. The NYPD’s unofficial/unlawful reason is to ensure sufficient proactive law enforcement activities and carry out “effective law enforcement measures”. This will cause the public to perceive that crime is low since law enforcement is acting proactive. The Mayor of NYC is obsessed with CompStat, Uniform Crime Reports and the public’s perception of crime.
When establishing these arrest quotas, there must be a change of official legal Departmental policies. when the new transitioning arrest quota system is fully implemented, there became a need to supersede portions of the former official policy that would interfere with new policy decisions to implement unlawful arrest quotas.
To ensure compliance with newly developed unofficial unlawful arrest policy, NYPD Police Officers must be instructed, directed, guided, compelled and mandated to act in accordance with these newly established expectations. This is to ensure compliance with these illegal arrest quotas. If the NYPD employees do not satisfy the Department’s “performance goals”, “productivity goals” (quotas) or “minimum proactive law enforcement activity” they will be reprimanded, reinstructed, retrained. If these NYPD employees still do not satisfy Departmental quotas, they will have negative employment actions illegally taken against them. The illegal threats and coercion causes most police officers to comply with these arrest quotas because they do not want to be ostracized, disciplined and wrongfully terminated. The NYPD has a “pattern and practice” of retaliating against NYPD Police Officers that refuse to meet or legally can not meet Departmental quotas.
Many police officers can not meet Departmental quotas because they have not or will not observe the commission of enough crimes in progress and/or they have not received sufficient complaints of crimes and/or observed enough suspicious acting citizens whose conduct rises to a level of “probable cause” to effect a lawful arrest pursuant to the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Coercion and threats to meet arrest quotas, strongly encourage, dictate and mandate compliance to illegal arrest quotas. This causes many police officers to make false arrests, to commit malicious prosecution, to commit police brutality, to commit perjury (when police lie under oath this is testilying- ), to encourage subordination of perjury.
Arrest quotas cause police officers to take drastic measures to meet their quotas. This encourage police to perform illegal “Terry Stops” by initiating an investigatory stop without “reasonable suspicion” or “reasonable articulable facts”. Many NYPD Police Officers stop (detain), question and frisk (search) citizens without reasonable suspicion. This standard is a particularized and objective basis for suspecting a legal wrongdoing. If a crime was committed, or in the process of being committed, or a crime is in the planning stages and is about to occur, a “reasonable” police officer upon observing the occurrence or upon a citizen making a complaint, considering the totality of the circumstances has the lawful authority to detain the subject citizen and inquire about the “reasonable suspicion” the police officer established and obtained about subject citizen. If at any time during the inquiry the police officer has reason to believe that the subject may have a weapon because the location of a bulge or a protrusion in the clothing that is indicative of said subject possessing a weapon, the police officer has lawful authority to perform a “pat down” of the outer clothing. When the police officer ascertains that the subject does not have a weapon the “pat down” must legally end, because any further intrusion is considered an “unreasonable search” pursuant to the 4th Amendment, but if the police officer while performing a pat down feels something on the subject that is indicative of a weapon, he has legal authority to further the intrusion, either to seize the weapon or to ascertain if subject posses any weapons to reduce threat to officer’s safety.
The unlawful influence of arrest quotas causes most police officers to act arbitrary and capricious. They become overzealous and stop, question and frisk many citizens without the legal authority derived from “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause”. Out of desperation police officers initiate investigatory stops without lawful cause. Police officers that unlawfully detain citizens to question them are usually trying to elicit information that would establish “reason suspicion” then they further attempt to elicit more information to desperately establish “probable cause” to make a “lawful arrest”. Since the police officers did not have legal authority to detain without “reason suspicion” they fabricate evidence of “reasonable suspicion”. Or they use the unlawfully obtained information and document in the various police reports that “reasonable suspicion” was established before the police officer initiated a police encounter with said subject then approached the subject and detained him or the officer states that he approached the subject without detaining him, to ask general questions and that is when they established reasonable suspicion.
In poor and/or minority neighborhoods unlawful police action is most prevalent, because the NYPD will have less repercussions and can get away with it. Because these citizens are less likely to expose police corruption or be taken seriously. When this unconstitutional law enforcement activity becomes systemic, community and police relations decline. These people in these neighborhoods and even in more affluent neighborhoods that are unlawfully issued Traffic Summons, Parking Summons, Criminal Summons or are falsely arrested, or unlawfully detained, questioned and frisked, start to dislike and maybe even hate the corrupt police. This dislike or hate by many citizens is caused by the police violating the law and then acting like they are the “law”. The police are not the “law”, but they are supposed to be enforcers of the law. When police become the “law” and are not subject to the law and not governed by the “Rule Of Law” their moral compass becomes broken and they become disoriented. Then the NYPD becomes the police officers reference for determining whether a moral/lawful orientation or a immoral/unlawful orientation is followed. The NYPD becomes the compass that directs and guides the police and the Department in the direction it wishes to go. This causes moral relativism to be established as a result of the Police Department’s new corporate police culture. This is the cause of the NYPD having summon quotas, Investigatory Stop quotas, arrest quotas. This moral relativism is causing the NYPD to think they are the “law”, therefore acting lawless, causing systemic police misconduct and police corruption. The NYPD and it’s officers must submit themselves to the “Rule Of Law” and cease and desist from intentionally, willfully and knowingly violating the law.
This lawless and permissive atmosphere encourage police to be aggressive and promote unlawful police encounters with civilians. This causes the unlawful detainment of citizens, stopping, questioning and frisking them without “reasonable suspicion”. If the detainee refuses to answer the police officer’s questions, many police officers will perceive him as “uncooperative” and unnecessary hindering the police officer’s “job”. Many police officers will threaten to falsely arrest the detainee. If the detainee still refuses to “cooperate” many officers will make a false arrest and charge with Disorderly Conduct and if the detainee films or verbally talks to the officer about his corrupt police action, many police will escalate the confrontation and add another false charge (cover charge) of Resisting Arrest. If the detainee is still “uncooperative” and doesn’t submit to unlawful police authority, (acting beyond scope of employment) the officer will most likely get frustrated because his exercise of unlawful police authority is in question. ( Frustration is caused by obstructing ones goal, which could cause the police officer to become verbally or possibly physically aggressive. The degree of aggression is determined by the officer’s perception whether the interference with his goal was legitimate or not, the intensity of his motivation to complete his goal or quota and the level self control or impulse control) This frustration causes many police officers to exercise abuse of force, excessive and unnecessary use of force causing the detainee to become assaulted unlawfully. The police officer must now charge the detainee with an additional charge of Assaulting a Police Officer, because the detainee sustained serious bodily injury. The police office must fabricate a “legal” reason to justify the initial police encounter of Stop, Question and Frisk with “reasonable suspicion” and the various charges with “probable cause”. Also the officer must justify the use and level of force applied to the detainee. If the police officer can not legally justify the initial stop then he violated the 4th Amendment and if the officer can not justify any and all charges, it will be obvious that he used “cover charges” (false charges to cover up police corruption of an arrestee) on the detainee. The police have to justify the level of force applied to the arrestee, as the severity of the charges go up it is generally appears more acceptably to increase the level of force used. This is why the officer charges the detainee with Assaulting a Police Officer. As the police confrontation is escalated the justification for the use and level of force is escalated.
The NYPD salary for police is over $100,000 after short time employed on the force. This high salary is by design. The higher the salary the more incentives the police have to comply and conform with NYPD Departmental official/legal and/or unofficial/unlawful policy. Most police employees will compromise their moral integrity and do what ever is required legal or illegal to ensure they stay employed by the NYPD. They need the finances, health care and a pension to feed themselves and their families and provide the necessities of life. A patrol supervisor at the 41st Precinct is overheard in an audio recording saying at roll call to his officers, if you think one arrest and 20 summons is breaking your balls, guess what you’ll be doing. You are going to be doing a lot more. The audio recording also reveals that another patrol supervisor chimed in and told the officers: next week 25 summons and one arrest per month, then 35 summons and one arrest per month, and until you decide to quit this job and go to work at Pizza Hut, this is what you are going to be doing till then. Most police officers if terminated would be employed at a low paying job with no or few benefits, causing them to struggle financially their whole life. Police departments pay high salaries as an incentive or bribe to comply with unlawful orders.
NYS Penal Law section 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree. A person is guilty of rewarding official misconduct in the second degree when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant for having violated his duty as a public servant.
NYS Penal Law section 200.10 Bribe receiving in the third degree. A public servant is guilty of bribe receiving in the third degree when he solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit from another person upon an agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant will thereby be influenced.
Quotas are solicitations to commit unlawful acts with conferred benefits of continued employment and high salaries. They impair judgment and prevent police officers from exercising discretion
These high salaries with unofficial illegal policies also cause other police departments in other states to violate the law and compromise their moral integrity. The Ferguson Police Department, the Charlottesville Police Department, the Berkeley University Police Department, the LAPD Department and their employees were told to “stand down” or not to intervene. This caused the confrontations to escalate between competing factions of protesters. Many more police departments around the country are told to “stand down” and their employees are complying with unlawful unofficial policies which lead to unlawful orders. Most police officers are willing to violate the law if their police department mandates it through unlawful orders. The police must follow unlawful orders or risk being written up and having this documentation used as evidence to establish “cause” for termination.
This is why many police develop a Schizophrenic like mindset. When police are with other police officers they disclose intimate information about their law enforcement activities, but not to civilians. If police disclose anything about law enforcement activities to civilians it would be superficial, limited and distorted in a manner that appears to be within the expectations of official policies. Living a “double life” causes cognitive dissonance which causes tremendous stress, since pretending to the public to be acting as a lawful police office and then having to violate the law during their tour of duty to meet quotas is hypocritical. To reduce the stress to a manageable level, police develop a mechanism to compartmentalize their mindset (moral relativism), so their conscience becomes hard and unresponsive. This makes it psychologically easier to comply with quotas by committing unlawful acts. This hypocritical unlawful life can cause police officers to get prosecuted and incarcerated. This is why the “Blue wall Of Silence” is almost impenetrable and many other police departments beyond geographical and political boundaries are united by a common experience, identifying, promoting and perpetuating the “Blue Wall”. When a legitimate Civilian complaint is filed with major allegations of police corruption and significantly threatens legally the Department and/or its members, the police along with the department’s tacit approval initiate police harassment campaigns. This is an a attempt to discourage the citizen from further pursuing his complaint. If the Complainant is intimidated, discouraged and does not pursue his complaint, the IAB will determine that the investigation will be closed because the witness refused to further his complaint or was uncooperative, causing the IAB to prematurely close the case. If the complaint is undiscouraged and continues to pursue the case pertaining to the allegations of police corruption in his complaint, the Department many times has defamed the complainants character. This is established by painting the complainants as psychological unstable or unbalanced, for example telling the complainant that no violation of departmental policy occurred and/or no violation of law occurred. If a complainant alleges that the police are conducting a harassing campaign against them, the IAB will say that you are imagining this and that these police near you are just performing legitimate law enforcement activity and they are not focused on you. This is an attempt undermine the credibility of the complainant, so the legitimate allegations of police corruption can be dismissed, causing the police corruption to be protected. If the complainant allegations are serious and the media is watching for the outcome, sometimes the implicated police Department will not use their police to directly harass the complainant, but other neighboring police departments may initiate and escalate a police harassment campaign. They use other police Departments when they are afraid of getting exposed if done directly, because too many people are watching. They can easy explain away why other members of another department are not involved, because they say we are a separate entity. The “Blue Wall” unites all of the corrupt police and the corrupt police departments only and not the honest police and honest police Departments, because they do not identify with the “Blue Wall”. Since their Department’s official and unofficial policy is one and the same, there is nothing to hide.
Most police will commit illegal acts under the guise of “effective law enforcement measures”. When the U.S. Constitution or state constitution constrains their police conduct or activities they say they are being “handcuffed”, hindered and they can not do their job. If the NYPD Department’s official lawful policies and unofficial policies were one and the same they would not have numerical quotas and would not have systemic violations of law. There may be a few violations of law every so often, but it would be obvious to the public and the Department. Because the unlawful actions would be obvious that it is contrary to policy, if portions of policy are applied in an unlawful manner this would be obvious, so the situation can be rectified immediately. This is what transparency is about.
Police officers are granted Qualified Immunity which is designed to shield their actions (when performing a discretional function) insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable police officer would have known at the time of the questioned police action taken. Qualified Immunity defense when invoked grants the defendant police officer limited immunity, because if the plaintiff can not prove that the unlawful police action taken by a police offices was a clearly established law and that a reasonable police officer would of known at the time of questioned police action taken. The office would have his police department’s lawyers file a motion for summary judgment and he would obtain the benefit of having the lawsuit dismissed, because of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity.
The problem with Qualified Immunity is that it helps shield corrupt police conduct from public scrutiny. If the lawsuit were not dismissed on summary judgment, discovery would be used to prove rampant institutionalized police corruption and NYPD municipal corruption. When the police and the NYPD Department is sued they manipulate by lies and deception. They pretend that the police action that is apart of the case and controversy is not clearly established law and/or a reasonable police office would not have know that this law was on the books. Police departments that intentionally or inadvertently inadequately train their police officers can use the excuse that they did not know they violated the law and they can claim they are “reasonable police officers” even though they are really untrained unreasonable police officers. The low standards for training police officers cause many police to exercise poor judgment and abuse of discretion when carrying out their discretionary function. Only honest, moral and well trained police officers acting in good faith should be granted Qualified Immunity.
When police officers are compelled and forced to committed unlawful acts because of quotas under the guise of “effective law enforcement measures”, they have to keep this unlawful police activity to themselves and not allow any civilian from knowing how they really enforce the law. Because if this information/evidence came out to the public that the police were violating the law in normal course of their duties, this could cause the police to be found criminally culpable and prosecuted and/or they could be sued along with the NYPD and multiple juries would render verdicts with large judgments in favor of the injured parties (plaintiffs).
This is why when many civilians become police officers they start to distance themselves from their civilian friends and civilian acquaintances. Many police officers start to associated more with other police officers and talk to each other about their “war stories” on the job. Police may associate with civilians, but police do not tell their civilian friends about all the violations of law they commit to meet quotas. This unofficial/unlawful actions committed by most police cause them to separate from civilians, physically and psychologically. The different expectations between unofficial and official police cause most of the police to develop a defense mechanism to cope with their hypocrisy or “double life”. This defense mechanism becomes “Us verses Them” mindset. Once established police become secretive about their daily law enforcement activity. This is why when citizens talk about police corruption they are quickly labeled by the police as anti-police. If the police were following the law most citizens would not be against the police. I am not personally against the NYPD Police. I am against the systemic police misconduct and corruption. I belong to the CONSTITUTIONAL SHERIFFS and PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION and the OATH KEEPERS ORGANIZATION. The police must follow their OATH of office. This means that if the police respond to an incident and observe a citizen violating a statute that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution the police must not knowingly make an arrest because the U.S. Constitution is the “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.” Most police would say if I did not effect an arrest I would be violating my OATH of office, but if they were adequately trained, they would know that the U.S. Constitution supersedes ALL statutes, codes, rules, regulation, ordinances and state constitutions when contrary to the U.S Constitution. When police violate their OATH of office there is a need for secrecy, therefore they create a “Blue Wall”.
I am writing you this e-mail letter to inform you and put you and the Department on official notice. If you fail to intercede in a timely manner and take corrective action and I sustain physical, emotional and/or financial injury as a result of your dereliction of duties, you will be named in a section 1983 lawsuit along with other Police Officials. Please consider that “Qualified Immunity” is a limited immunity. If you go beyond the scope of your employment and violate “Clearly Established Laws” you can not invoke “Qualified Immunity”. This means that a lawsuit will not be dismissed on “Summary Judgment” because you are not legally entitled to the limited immunity protections, since you willfully, knowingly, intentionally and with “Deliberate Indifference” committed multiple violations of law. Such potential violations may include but not be limited to 42 USC 1983 claims, Municipal Liability, Federal Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud Statutes for a scheme to defraud, the Hobbs Act and extortion Statutes (Larceny and Grand Larceny), 18 USC section 241 color of law Conspiracy to deprive Rights, 18 USC section 242 Deprivation of Rights.
You are not legally authorized to be indemnified against judgments when found liable, because you went so far beyond the scope of your employment. If the NYPD decides to indemnify you, it will be revealed in the Discovery phase that the NYPD actively conspired with “Top Brass” and the “Chain Of Command” to Obstruct, hinder or block a Police investigation, Tamper With Evidence, Tamper With a Witness, Perjury, Subordination of Perjury, Knowingly Making False Statements, and violating your Oath of office etc. The NYPD and the NYPD IAB has an interest in the status quo because they derive a benefit with the existing official and unofficial practices.
Rule Of Law News 