Small town Gov't Corruption

Status
Not open for further replies.

Patch

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
25
Location
Missouri
Living in a small town in Missouri, I have often found a great deal of government and law enforcment corruption exists; sometimes secretely and sometimes very openly. I am curious as to others who also live in small towns and the stories they have to share regarding such matters.

I am conducting research into this matter, in part out of curiousity, but also to substantiate a request to the United States Commission on Civil Rights to investigate such matters. In Feb 2001 a 57-page report was published by the USCCR on the epidemic problem involving police misconduct and abuse across the Country. The report shows some astounding facts, not only statistical information, such as 48% of the police surveyed across our Country admit that they will jail a person merely for having a "bad attitude". But also the degree in which Federal funding is withheld from the USDOJ that could help millions of Americans overcome such problems. Unfortunately, the USCCR report deals with larger cities and research shows the USCCR has done no investigative research into small town corruption.

If you would like to participate in this research studdy, please send me your stories with as much detail as possible, excluding your idenity. Send to [email protected]

Christopher
 
If you would like to participate in this research studdy, please send me your stories with as much detail as possible, excluding your idenity.
That won't be research. It will be unverifiable anecdotes people with an ax to grind submit to bias any conclusions that may be drawn.
 
While there is always a risk of receiving less than credible stories in such matters....it is research nonetheless that produces a degree of credible reporting and appears to be acceptable by the USCCR to substantiate a genearlized need and request for
investigatory research to be conducted.
 
Blackhawk is correct. What you are proposing is a "poll". You have no means of verifying the "information" you collect, so any "results" you obtain are dubious at best.

I could tell you (anonymously) that space aliens infest my town and that they all dress as cops. My story would be as believable as someone claiming the "man" is "hassling" him. You have no proof of either one.

I suppose polls could be considered research. But without having any way to verify the "accounts" you'll receive, I don't see how you can draw valid conclusions.

Now. Don't "force" me to "use" more "quotes" or I "will"! :p
 
Well, let's see. Since I've lived in SE Texas, I've seen the head of the narcotic task force convicted of selling over $1 million in confiscated drugs, the mayor and two city council members convicted of federal bribery charges, a former US representative flaunt the law, trial lawyers in bed with members of the judiciary. So yeaI would say small town politics can be very corrpt. Iguess it depends on where you are. I know that being near Louisiana doesn't help.
 
To Dissent Parties

As stated previously, the research I am conducting is such that there is a natural risk to receiving unverifiable information or information that concludes an "ax to grind"....In speaking with my contact person at the USCCR, a generalized research, such as I am doing to complie preliminary statistical data, preferably verifiable is acceptable to substaniate a request that the USCCR conduct more formalized research into the matters. Moreover, you presume that I am without the necessary background in investigations and research and thus lack the wisdom to know what I need to gather. In the short time my message has been posted, I have received responses that produce viable avenues to verify the information given to me. So while dissenting parties are certainly entitled to their opinions, it does not mean their opinions are correct. I am not entirely sure I understand the level dissent exists however, when all that I am requesting is preliminary information to formulate substantiation in a request that I have already noted is acceptable by the USCCR.
 
I doubt that there is a municipal ordinance, or a state law anywhere which criminalizes one's bad attitude. And, if it's not a crime, cops can't arrest an individual for having one.

If petty tyranny is really the issue, it sounds like the USCCR's problem is with what the respective city councils and state legislatures choose to criminalize. Corruption, or the violation of the law under the color of law, is a crime that is nearly always vigorously prosecuted when actual evidence exists--unless you are talking about the the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

That gang of thugs seems to be untouchable.
 
To: hankrearden2000

I believe such is a reflection not only of the degree in which many officers abuse their discretionary authority, but also the degree in which the abuses are never brought to bear.....

Sheriff Dupnik, of the Pima County Sheriff's Dept, AZ stated in a hearing conducted by the Pima County Merit System Commission these words....Harvey v. Pima County Sheriffs Department (2002)

"In all my experience as a law enforcement officer, it's my conclusion, as, I guess, as I am to say something like this, that unless, generally speaking, there is a serious issue of dishonesty or incriminality, deputies are very reluctant, as in other professions like doctors or lawyers, to say anything that would injure one of their peers. So, consequently, they're normally not very forthcoming, and they are usually very supportive of each other's behavior. After all, they depend on each other for life in certain occasions. So, generally speaking, we get very, very few reports from peers and we get very few reports even from first-line supervisors of misconduct by deputies. And, from personal experience, I can tell you that there's a lot of misconduct that goes on that's not reported."
 
Patch,

I have no idea whether your intentions are honorable, but I naturally assume them to be so. Not so the case with the US Civil Rights Commission, which has repeatedly shown itself to be dishonest and racist. I wouldn't trust them to honestly analyze your data, friend. Not unless they've come a very long way since the all-too-recent Mary Frances Berry days.
 
Maybe this is some of the local corruption Patch is talking about.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/52803p-49473c.html



New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Hero dad under the gun
By PATRICE O'SHAUGHNESSY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Sunday, January 19th, 2003

Ronald Dixon froze in fear when he saw an intruder enter his toddler son's bedroom, and his heart pounded wildly after he fired two shots in a confrontation with the stranger. Later, upset that he might have taken a life, Dixon shook as the wounded man lay in his driveway.
The encounter was only the beginning of an emotional upheaval for the soft-spoken Brooklyn computer engineer.

A month later, Dixon's feelings still swing from relief when he smiles at his son, to terror about what could have happened, to dread about possibly serving time because he used an unlicensed gun.

"The only thing I could think about was my family - there was no telling what he would do to my children or girlfriend," Dixon said in an interview last week.

"If I have to go to jail on the weekends, I couldn't work," he added, his voice cracking. "I couldn't pay my mortgage."

On Dec. 14, Dixon shot a career burglar who allegedly broke into his Canarsie house. Dixon used a 9-mm. pistol legally purchased in Florida that he says he was in the process of registering here.

Long criminal record

Ivan Thompson, 40, who has a 14-page rap sheet for burglary and larceny, was wounded in the chest and groin. He is being held on $75,000 bail in a mental observation unit on Rikers Island, charged with burglary and criminal trespass.

Dixon, who holds two computer jobs, was charged with misdemeanor gun possession, and the Brooklyn district attorney offered him a plea bargain that would require four weekends on Rikers.

But Dixon's lawyer said any amount of time behind bars is unacceptable.

"Mr. Dixon is clearly a victim, and his family continues to suffer from what happened," said the lawyer, Andrew Friedman. "If necessary, we'll let a jury of his peers decide."

Dixon could get up to a year in jail if convicted.

District Attorney Charles Hynes is in the difficult position of prosecuting a hardworking, law-abiding Navy veteran for defending his family and home.

But there were 486 shootings in Brooklyn last year, and the borough remains awash in illegal firearms. A spokesman said Hynes cannot condone the use of an unlicensed gun.

"That doesn't mean the prosecution should go full steam ahead," said Friedman. "There has to be some common sense involved."

Dixon, 27, clutched a balled-up tissue, and his eyes filled at nearly every mention of his son, Kyle, who will turn 2 years old next month, and daughter, Brittany, 8.

"I work seven days a week. I have been doing it for three years, because I wanted a safe haven for my family," he said.

"Sometimes the kids are asleep by the time I get home, and they go to the baby-sitter and school before I get up. The great part is Mondays and Wednesdays, I pick them up at the baby-sitter's - my girlfriend goes to school - and I spend time with them."

Dixon came to the U.S. from Jamaica after graduating high school and served in the Navy from 1994 to 1997, in weapons ordnance.

He works as a network engineer at Carnegie Hall, Monday to Friday, and on weekends at a Wall Street financial firm.

He and his girlfriend, Tricia Best, and their children moved into the brick house in Canarsie in June.

"It was a very quiet neighborhood - maybe too quiet," Dixon said.

At 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday five weeks ago, Dixon was home in bed because he had called in sick. It was almost time for Kyle to wake up and run down the hall to his parents' room to watch his "Barney" video.

"I was supposed to be at work the night before, and would have gotten home about noon," Dixon recalled. "I was not totally asleep, and I heard a squeak in the floorboard. I opened my eyes and see a person snooping around, peeping around outside my bedroom.

"The only thing I could think of was my family. I didn't want to move, until he went to my son's room, and he went in."

Dixon said Best called 911, and he got his weapon from a closet and slowly crept up to the room. He said he saw Thompson rifling through dresser drawers.

"I went in ... I looked in his face, I didn't know this guy, I was so shocked ... In a nervous voice I said, 'What are you doing in my house?' and he ran toward me, yelling, 'Come upstairs!' like there were other people with him. I shot him 'cause I thought more people were in the house."

Shots and screams

Dixon continued, "He ran to me, I shot him and he fell down the stairs. My daughter started screaming - she had thought I got shot. My son was not in his room, he had been sleeping in my daughter's bed."

After the police arrived, Dixon looked outside.

"I saw him lying there, I saw him looking at me, I was nervous, shaking. I've never been in any type of trouble. I only fired a gun in Navy training.

"I very much felt bad that he got hurt. I was worried if he died. I wasn't hoping for that."

Dixon was taken to the 69th Precinct, and then sped through Central Booking.

"Everyone I came across was sympathetic," he said. "The court officer said he would have done the same thing."

He found out that the intruder, Thompson, has a long record of break-ins and burglaries.

Fearful at home

He said the thought of someone invading his home still terrifies him and his children.

"My children are not comfortable being downstairs by themselves."

He shook his head and said that all he ever wanted was just a good life, and he thought buying the house was the first step.

"I thought that house would give me a safe haven. Now I'm thinking if I didn't buy this house this never would have happened."
 
"Not unless they've come a very long way since the all-too-recent Mary Frances Berry days." I must have missed this; did Berry surrender her fiefdom. I remember watching her 2000 Election hearings in Florida on C-SPAN; why I don't have an ulcer, I'll never know.
 
To Khornet and others

First, thank you for your reply and yes, my intents are honorable as I believe the subject to be honorable of being researched, if handled correctly by independent studdies. I am not familar with the case you are speaking about and have based my decision to request the USCCR to conduct more formalized research on the 57 page report I read titled "Whose Guarding the Guardians". It is a report that strongly favors the need and clearly endorces civilian oversight programs to be developed and enacated in every community to give citizen perspectives on police actions, policies and procedures. Granted I am basing my decision to request this research on only one report...but the impact of this report is profound as it targets many of the problems existing in our County and provides a well-rounded view on the pro's and con's of having a civilian oversight program verses internal affairs doing the same.

In the community I live in, which is approximately 8,998 people, I find that our local city officials exploit their ability to be corrupt on the rule of fear by the people. And naturally, if it exists here, I must logically question if it also exists in other small communities as well. I am a stong advocator for civilian oversight programs becuase I beleive they serve a greater good for the people and our systems of gov't overall. No program however is a cure to the problems unto itself, but I beleive this program is a step in the right direction. As I see a growing trend, both in our community and Nationally that gov't and law enforcement officials are increasingly using every opportunity to inflict the greatest harm possible, while hiding behind the "qualified immunity" protection clause. It is a clause that often victimizes the victims even more and prevents corrupt individuals from being removed from office or finding themselves in prison. Of course, corruption is not a "new" concept any more than it is for officials to use every opportunity to inflict harm....I just see things getting even worse in our community and our Country to the point that I beleive we will inevitably lose our identity as a free nation altogether.

This comming Monday a small group of citizens having the courage to demonstrate in civil right protest will present themselves at the City Councili meeting. Our Council recently suggested that the public comment section in the council meetings be banned. The intent is for the Council to have control a/k/a censorship ability over what speech citizens are allowed to engaged in and thus, prevent exposure of gov't corruption. The suggestion came after I stood before the Council and confronted each and everyone of them regarding their failing to protect minors who have been complaining of police sexual misconduct and threats. So out of retaliation, the Council elected to suggest this ban.

I am widely known and publicized in this community for my political and civil rights avocations against gov't and law enforcement corruption, misconduct and abuse...needless to say, I am not well like by our local officicals, but that is ok. I have suffered a great deal of retaliation as a result, but beleive that the need of the many outweigh the need of the one. I am in the process of looking for an attorney to file suit against certain city officials, leastwise I will have to do it myelf...that ought to be an adventure. In any event....while I see so many Americans willing to "protest" against abortion, gun control, war, and any number of other matters....I am wondering when American will finely rise and "march on Washington" against gov't and law enforcement corruption. It is ceratinly a worthy cause, no less no more than any other protests that exist in our country and it is a subject that effects everyone in our country in one way or another...but it remains to be the fobidden fruit of protests and I am not sure I understand why?
 
Well I guess I should chime in :).

I study a particular type of police or more commonly sheriff's department corruption, involving the sale of gun carry permits for campaign contribution :scrutiny:.

In California, gun carry permits (CCW) are handed out at the personal discretion of police chiefs and sheriffs, who are supposed to evaluate the "good cause" and "good character" of permit applicants. What usually happens is they ask the question "what have you done for me lately?" :rolleyes:.

I have the finest collection of documented cases in this area on the planet:

http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/expose.html

Start with the Sacramento materials (esp. the infamous Colafrancesco police report), the Oakland file and the New York reports (esp. how Aerosmith scored coveted NYC carry rights with backstage passes and limo rides for an NYPD Leiutenant). Then just browse around, there's just a ton of stuff. The Contra Costa file is the most detailed to date.

I'm working on a report right now where we've taken one sheriff's 250 permitholders and ran them past his campaign contribution data - over $100,000 worth of correlation found so far, a lot more suspected (hidden under corporation donations and family member cutouts).

What else...it turns out that under the California gun permit system, since the permitholder lists are public you can get a feel for who's "buddy buddy" with the sheriff. In county after county, you tend to see links between the sheriff and major figures in real estate, real estate development and big construction companies. In 1996 former sheriff Craig of Sacramento County was caught selling his signatures on environmental impact reports (EIRs). Turns out, when you want to build something, the sheriff signs off on the traffic impact and crime impact portions of the EIR. See also the links to the San Joaquin County reports from the Expose Project URL above. You'll also see extensive real estate links in the Contra Costa file.

Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
http://www.equalccw.com
 
I could tell you (anonymously) that space aliens infest my town and that they all dress as cops.

Your town too? :D


I doubt that there is a municipal ordinance, or a state law anywhere which criminalizes one's bad attitude. And, if it's not a crime, cops can't arrest an individual for having one.

No, the cops aren't SUPPOSED to arrest you for having a bad attitude. If The Man wants to cuff you and jail you, the man will -- on any pretext. And it won't be until the next day that they let you out.

Some cops are great folks doing a hard job, but some DO forget who's the master and who's the servant.
 
Sounds like one malcontent looking for others, simply to justify his own feelings. This is not "research" by any meaning of the word. Sounds like someone with an "axe" of his own to grind, hoping more "I don't like it, don't like it one bit" stories will bolster his "standing" and add to his "proof".

I don't waste my time on people of this sort. Others can do as they please.
 
The corruption exists, all right,

and I don't disagree with Patch's idea of researching it. It's just that anything done through the USCCR will not be research. It will be a political farce.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.