Stop and Frisk

I have always been a supporter of the police 'Stop and Frisk' method of policing until recently. I found out I really did not know what I was supporting. The idea to a conservative seems okay in order to reduce crime, but the price is too high to pay when you really come to understand what it involves.

In 2011, the New York City police stopped and searched 684,724 people without any real probable cause except profiling of people. Out of those, 88 percent were black or Hispanic. The New York Police Commissioner said the purpose of the searches were to get guns off the streets, but only in 0.02 percent of the searches turned up any type of weapon.

I have read some of the police reports concerning some of the most ridiculous searches (which most were) and could not believe such police techniques were taking place in the land of 'freedom'. Keep in mind this is all happening while professional criminal (professional bankers) on Wall Street were stealing billions of dollars from innocent investors via the mortgage scam and serving no jail time.

The majority of those arrested were charged with suspicion of Marijuana (although none was found) or blocking a public entrance or blocking a public sidewalk. When they would arrive at the Forty-Second Precinct in the Bronx they would be offered deals - plead guilty, be fined $25 and walk out. Those that refused (which were few) had a trial date set. The trial according to New York statue was suppose to be held within 90 days. The VICTIMS would arrive for the court date and the prosecutor would get an extension because the State was not ready for trial. This would go on sometimes for a year and each time the VICTIM would be offered a plea deal. Most of the time the VICTIM would eventually get tired of missing work or sitting all day in court and would just enter a guilty plea and discover instead of $25 the fine was now $500 plus. Those that could not pay served their time in Rikers Island jail or one of the New York State youth prisons.

The New York City Police Department actually had special plainclothes officers and uniform officers patrolling buses, subways, streets to make arrest. They would arrest one and put him in a van and move on to arrests others when the van was full they would take them to the precinct. It is believed the officers assigned to that duty were on a quota system. I will concede that crime rates did drop in the early 1990's, but I am no longer convinced it was due to 'Stop and Frisk'. Nobody really knows why the crime rate actually dropped there could have been many contributing factors.

Police were even allowed to stop and frisk people in the hallways of their apartment buildings and I am not talking about government housing projects. Hallways of private apartment buildings were considered public spaces.

It is estimated that over one million police man hours were spent on these arrest in one year. In 2012 alone 50,000 summons was written for marijuana possession, 140,000 for violating open-container laws, 80,000 disorderly conduct, 20,000 for riding bicycles on sidewalks. In poor neighborhoods you would be arrested for standing on the sidewalk in front of your apartment or on the corner or sitting on the steps of your apartment building, but in affluent white neighborhoods you could jaywalk and no summons would be issued. People in white neighborhoods were not even aware this was going on in their city.

One case I found interesting and there were many, many similar cases like it was a young black man got off his job (bus driver) his father picked him up at work and dropped him off at his apartment after midnight. As he was entering the apartment a friend that lived in the same apartment was coming out and ask to borrow five dollars. The young black man reached in his pocket and gave him five dollars and two officers came from no where and arrested them for making a drug deal. When no drugs were found the charges were changed to blocking a public entrance. The man would not sign for the ticket and was carried to jail. His case dragged on for a year and finally the prosecutor and judge realized the man was not going to pay a fine and walk away. A trial was finally held the judge ask the police officers if drugs were found to which they replied, "no". He ask was he blocking a public entrance and the officers said, "ye". At which time the young man explained he was coming from work and entering his own apartment building. The judge said you have a job to which he told him "yes driving a bus". The young black man told the judge that it was one in the morning and there was no one on the street. The judge ask the officers was that true and they admitted he was correct, but added they had the authority to arrest anyone standing in a public entrance. The judge threw the case out.

In the United States does a police officer have the right to tell you to move for no reason at all and if you refuse arrest you? This reminds me of Lethohatchie, Alabama in the late 1950's. It was understood blacks could not stand and talk on public sidewalks they had to keep moving. My cousin was the sheriff and harassing the blacks was something he enjoyed. One night his son and I rode with him when he arrested a black man for standing on the street corner and on the way to taking him to jail he stopped for coffee and left the rear door of the patrol car open. I was confused and when inside looking out the window I ask him wasn't he afraid that he would run off and my cousin laughed and said, "I hope he tries there will be one less nigger in Lethohatchie tonight" and he pointed to his gun. Similar policing existed in the 1990's and exits in the 2000's and we wonder why some blacks are protesting today. I do not approve of violent protest, destruction of property, killing police officers and riots, but I understand better now the frustration in the black poor communities.

One thing I never considered was when people are arrested for any thing it could prevent them from getting school scholarships, public housing, credit, employment, etc. The actual summons can sometimes not be the issue at all it is the public record that follows with modern police computer technology.

Some police stop people (usually minorities) and when they do not bend the way the officer wants them to they slap a summons on them.  This is not my words this is the words of Peter Moskos a former Baltimore police officer who wrote Cop in the Hood. If the police stop them and find nothing they will always charge them for loitering and issue a summons. In 2005, 22,000 people were arrested for loitering in New York City. The vast majority of those arrests were dismissed. If they want the police can arrest you for just about anything.

I recently read about a rogue police precinct in Brooklyn that routinely bust into homes without a warrant claiming they suspected the premises to be a drug house. When nothing was found they would bully the occupants to sign a form that they agreed to allow the police to search the premise. Does this sound far fetched. You are wondering why anyone would sign such a form after they had destroyed your property looking for something that was not there. I would have had the same doubts if it had not happen to me.

I owned Enviro-Tech Electronics in Houston, Texas. It was a high end stereo shop and we had customers spending $20,000 on sound systems that we suspected some were drug dealers. They were customers to us and nothing more. One evening the Harris County Sheriff's Department raided my business. They made everyone lay on the floor employees/customers and me.  They even tore the ceiling tiles out and found nothing. After they destroyed my property. An official from the department came and apologized and ask me to sign a form that I had given them permission to search the premises. I first refused and then I ask to call my attorney. My attorney told me to sign the damn form because if I did not they would sit out in front of my business everyday and stop and search every vehicle that left and my business would be destroyed. I signed. They left and even our customers stayed and helped us put the store back in order.  This happen shortly after the incident at Key Truck Stop on I-10 (Channelview, Texas) that was filmed on television and nothing was found. The owners refused to sign and within two years they were out of business because the Harris County Sheriff's Department officers stopped trucks leaving their truck stop delaying the drivers so they quit stopping Key Truck Stop.

If a police officer makes a bad arrests, and if a settlement is granted to those wrongly arrested the tax payers pay for the mistake. Not one penny comes out of the officers pocket. Sometimes settlements are made before the officer even knows one has been made.

There are two sides to every story and what it boils down to are we willing to gamble that our rights will not be violated and accept that it is okay to violate others peoples rights as long as we feel safer.







 

The Department of Justice under President Obama was and is a joke!

The Justice Department under President Obama and Eric Holder was and is a joke!

Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama made sure that none of their friends in the banking industry went to jail for the crimes they committed. A large number of Covington & Burling’s Law Firm corporate clients are mega-banks like JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Bank of America. Lanny Breuer who ran the criminal division for Holder’s Justice Department and Eric Holder were lawyers for Covington & Burling prior to taking positions under Obama in the Justice Department.  Their specialty was protecting corporations, especially banking, investment and savings corporation from prosecution – looking for loopholes in the law that would allow them to escape prosecution if caught.

Covington & Burling was given the American Lawyer “Litigation Department of the Year,” award in March 2014 for getting clients accused of financial fraud off with  only a slap-on-the-wrist fines. if you want to understand what Eric Holder did for the perpetrators and firms of the largest financial fraud in history that blew up the nation’s economy in 2008, you only have to read one line from his former employer praising Eric Holder: “He helped them, get the best deal they could possibly get.”

As for homeowners, they received a raw deal, in the form of little or no compensation for some of the greatest consumer abuses in American history. As far back as 2004, the FBI warned of an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud, which they said would have “as much impact as the Savings & Loan crisis.” They were wrong; it was worse.

By the time the bubble collapsed, the recession hit and Holder took over the Justice Department, Wall Street was a target-rich environment for any federal prosecutor. Physical evidence to an untold number of crimes was available in court filings and county recording offices. The proof was there. Chief Executives could have been easily held criminally responsible for misrepresenting their risk management controls to bank regulators.

In 2009, Congress passed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, giving $165 million to the Justice Department to staff the investigations necessary to bring those accountable for the financial crisis to justice. Keep in mind this was a Democrat House and Senate that gave Eric Holder the funds to prosecute these C.E.O.’s. Yet, not one major executive has been sent to jail for their role in the crisis.

The department has put real housewives in jail for mortgage fraud, but not real bankers. The D.O).J. saved their firepower for people who manage to defraud banks, not for banks who manage to defraud people. Most of the “investigations” of financial institutions over six years was swiftly moved to cash settlements, often without holding anyone responsible for admitting wrong doing or providing a detailed description of what they did wrong.

The National Mortgage Settlement, for example, was touted by Holder’s Justice Department as a $25 billion deal. In reality, banks were able to pay one-quarter of that penalty with other people’s money, lowering principal balances on loans they didn’t even own. Banks were even allowed to satisfy their obligations under the settlements through routine business practices (including some, like making loans to low-income homeowners that make them money.

A series of securities fraud settlements with JP Morgan, Bank of America and Citigroup, which the Department of Justice and Eric Holder approved and claimed cost the banks $36.65 billion, actually cost them about $11.5 billion and shareholders, no executives bore that cost. Wall Street Journal has found out that only 25% of the fines were actually collected from the corporations involved in the banking crisis.

The Department of Justice Inspector General criticized this in a March 2014 report and revealed that that the Department of Justice de-prioritized mortgage fraud, making it the “lowest-ranked criminal threat” from 2009-2011.

The banking sector’s get-out-of-jail free card gave them confidence that they could commit the same crimes again, with little if any legal implications and if you think the problem is not continuing you are naive.

The decision to protect banks instead of homeowners should be laid at the feet of President Obama and his administration. Guess where Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer work today – the law firm of Covington and Burling the law firm that represented the big banks during the crisis.

 Eric Holder was U.S. Attorney General when the world desperately needed the nation’s chief law enforcement officer to hold accountable the elite bankers who oversaw the epidemic of fraud that drove the 2008 global financial crisis and triggered the Great Recession. But, nearly six years in office, Holder announced on Sept. 25, 2014 that he plan to step down, without bringing to justice even one of the executives responsible for the crisis. His tenure represents the worst  failure against elite white-collar crime in the history of the Department of Justice. Eric Holder was careful not to step down until the statue of limitation ran out on prosecuting banking executives.

In both the U.S. savings and loan debacle of the late 1980's and the Enron-era accounting frauds of the early 2000's, there were more than 1,000 successful felony convictions in white-collar crime cases. In those cases Federal Prosecutors prioritized the top executives of the corporations responsible and sought convictions.

In addition to the failure to prosecute the leaders of those massive frauds, Holder’s dismal record includes 1) failing to prosecute the elite bankers who led the largest price-rigging cartel in history — the LIBOR scandal, in which the world’s largest banks conspired to rig the interest rates at which banks were willing to lend to one another, which affected prices on over $300 trillion in transactions; 2) failing to prosecute the massive foreclosure frauds (robo-signing), in which bank employees perjured themselves by signing more than 100,000 false affidavits in order to deceive the authorities that they had a right to foreclose on homes; 3) failing to prosecute the bid-rigging cartels of bond issuance in order to raise the costs to U.S. cities, counties and states of borrowing money in order to increase banks’ illegal profits; 4) failing to prosecute money laundering by HSBC for the murderous Sinaloa and Norte del Valle drug cartels; 5)  failing to prosecute the senior bank officers of Standard Chartered who helped fund terrorists and nations that support terrorism; and 6) failing to prosecute the controlling officers of Credit Suisse who for decades helped wealthy Americans unlawfully evade U.S. taxes and then obstructed investigations by the DOJ and Internal Revenue Service for many years.

How quick minority voters either forget or never knew that Eric Holder blamed them for the banking crisis.  Eric Holder stated on more than one occasion that mortgage fraud was largely an ethnic crime that was committed almost exclusively by primarily ethnic borrowers rather than the officers controlling the lenders.

Eric Holder in June 2016 still maintain the Department of Justice did not have the evidence to criminally prosecute banks – how much more evidence did he need? Eric Holder, for a combination of political and self-serving reasons, held his department back.

Career prosecutors in 2012 wanted to criminally charge the global bank HSBC for facilitating money laundering for Mexican drug lords and terrorist groups. But Holder said no. Aggressive attorneys wanted to prosecute HSBC, but Holder overruled them. From 2006 to 2010, HSBC failed to monitor billions of dollars of U.S. dollar purchases with drug trafficking proceeds in Mexico. It also conducted business going back to the mid-1990's on behalf of customers in Cuba, Iran, Libya, Sudan, and Burma, while they were under sanctions. Such transactions were banned by U.S. law. So many people within the Treasury Department were pressuring Eric Holder to charge HSBC than he finally on November 7, presented HSBC with a “take it or leave it” offer of a deferred prosecution agreement, which would involve a cash settlement and future monitoring of HSBC and no criminal charges and no admission of guilt. HSBC negotiated until December getting employee bonus’ guaranteed, a guarantee no employee would ever be criminally prosecuted and the fine reduced and that no one at the bank would ever be tried for aiding terrorist – Eric Holder agreed.

Will President Obama share these facts while on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton or will he continue to blame George Bush and the Republican Party for all that is wrong with the United States Government?

September 16, 2016 - Deutsche Bank stated  today they have no intention of settling with the U.S. Justice Department over their part in the mortgage/banking scandal for $14 billion dollars. They will not accept any offer higher than Eric Holder gave U.S. Banks.