Editor's note: Karl Racine is the new federal monitor for the Cleveland Police Department (CPD). He recently said that the department would be "further along" in coming into compliance if the city were "more cooperative, proactive, and transparent."
The involved judge, U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. also recently said he may need to get "more directly involved" to "speed up" the progress. The judge has also suggested that the city amend its newly agreed upon contract, specifically the section regarding discipline, to get in line with the consent decree.
Bob Scales is as an experienced Chief Executive Officer of Police Strategies LLC, which analyzes police data. He has been following the federal consent decrees of several agencies. Here's his latest analysis of the situation in Cleveland.
--
Federal consent decrees are not about constitutional policing; they are about "culture change." You don't need to take my word for it. Just read the latest consent decree monitor report from the new Cleveland monitor:
"CDP must focus on the biggest challenge ahead: changing the culture of the organization...CDP has not yet completed this broad culture change and has multiple challenge areas it must overcome in order to reach this achievement."
"Culture change" is a highly subjective term that is not defined in any written consent decree document but is used by monitors and federal judges to extend federal oversight of police departments indefinitely.
"Culture change" is whatever the montiors and judges say it is and there is no way for a city or police department to refute or rebut an allegation that their culture has not sufficiently changed.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is allergic to data, evidence and facts and they attempt to avoid reality at all costs. DOJ pattern or practice findings letters are devoid of meaningful data and evidence and are written by highly opinionated unnamed civil rights lawyers who know nothing about policing.
Monitoring plans for consent decrees are designed to be subjective with no objective metrics that can be used to determine compliance. This means that compliance with federal oversight is whatever the monitor and judge say it is.
I expect that these unethical oversight strategies were developed by the judges, monitors and DOJ attorneys who have been attending the annual closed-door, invitation-only consent decree conferences held in Texas.
The oversight of consent decrees in different cities across the country is too similar for this to simply be a coincidence. DOJ attorneys, monitors and judges, use an identical cookie-cutter approach to police reform that costs local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and lasts more than a decade.
Consent decrees are part of a political strategy that is designed to unite critics of the police and gain their support. Consent decrees line the pockets of for-profit monitors who are usually attorneys that have close ties with DOJ.
It is time for this wasteful and corrupt system to come to an end. It is time for cities to say no to the DOJ and refuse to sign these consent decrees.
Further:
This is the smoking gun that should be the death knell for all DOJ consent decrees in the United States. I previously posted about an annual closed-door, invitation-only Consent Decree Conference.
Speaker panels are made up of federal judges, DOJ attorneys and for-profit monitors who are actively engaged in federal oversight of police departments. This conference provides a forum for federal judges and DOJ attorneys to engage in ex parte collusion on pending matters before the court.
Conference attendees are deciding the fate of cities all across the country with absolutely no transparency or accountability and in violation of ethics rules designed to ensure the integrity of our judicial system.
This illegal and unethical conduct should result in the disbarment of the judges and attorneys involved.
One panel moderated by someone who has been the monitor in multiple cities is entitled "Messaging in Consent Decrees: Lessons Learned." Consent decrees are a commodity that DOJ forces cities to purchase. DOJ and monitors want to improve their marketing and sales campaign by improving their messaging.
Another panel is called "Best Practice in Police Reform- The Baltimore Consent Decree." This is led by the Baltimore Police Commissioner. Baltimore is far from being a reform success story and this is simply an attempt by Baltimore PD to ingratiate themselves with the judges and DOJ attorneys.
One panel is called "What Works and What Doesn’t in Reform Implementation." This title makes no sense because DOJ claims that all their consent decrees are successful and are the only way to effectively reform a police department that has a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing.
Apparently, DOJ attorneys are willing to admit behind closed doors that their consent decrees don't always work the way they are supposed to.
Consent decrees are the result of organized corruption designed to enrich private for-profit monitors and advance the political careers of DOJ attorneys.
State Attorney General's Offices should launch RICO investigations into the individuals involved in these federal oversight scams and should file injunctions to halt the abusive consent decrees that are already in place. State bar associations should revoke the law licenses of attorneys and judges involved in these unethical schemes.
No city (i.e. Phoenix, Minneapolis, Louisville, Trenton, Memphis, etc.) should ever agree to purchase one of these consent decrees no matter what the DOJ tells them.
The involved judge, U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr. also recently said he may need to get "more directly involved" to "speed up" the progress. The judge has also suggested that the city amend its newly agreed upon contract, specifically the section regarding discipline, to get in line with the consent decree.
Bob Scales is as an experienced Chief Executive Officer of Police Strategies LLC, which analyzes police data. He has been following the federal consent decrees of several agencies. Here's his latest analysis of the situation in Cleveland.
--
Federal consent decrees are not about constitutional policing; they are about "culture change." You don't need to take my word for it. Just read the latest consent decree monitor report from the new Cleveland monitor:
"CDP must focus on the biggest challenge ahead: changing the culture of the organization...CDP has not yet completed this broad culture change and has multiple challenge areas it must overcome in order to reach this achievement."
"Culture change" is a highly subjective term that is not defined in any written consent decree document but is used by monitors and federal judges to extend federal oversight of police departments indefinitely.
"Culture change" is whatever the montiors and judges say it is and there is no way for a city or police department to refute or rebut an allegation that their culture has not sufficiently changed.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is allergic to data, evidence and facts and they attempt to avoid reality at all costs. DOJ pattern or practice findings letters are devoid of meaningful data and evidence and are written by highly opinionated unnamed civil rights lawyers who know nothing about policing.
Monitoring plans for consent decrees are designed to be subjective with no objective metrics that can be used to determine compliance. This means that compliance with federal oversight is whatever the monitor and judge say it is.
I expect that these unethical oversight strategies were developed by the judges, monitors and DOJ attorneys who have been attending the annual closed-door, invitation-only consent decree conferences held in Texas.
The oversight of consent decrees in different cities across the country is too similar for this to simply be a coincidence. DOJ attorneys, monitors and judges, use an identical cookie-cutter approach to police reform that costs local taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and lasts more than a decade.
Consent decrees are part of a political strategy that is designed to unite critics of the police and gain their support. Consent decrees line the pockets of for-profit monitors who are usually attorneys that have close ties with DOJ.
It is time for this wasteful and corrupt system to come to an end. It is time for cities to say no to the DOJ and refuse to sign these consent decrees.
Further:
This is the smoking gun that should be the death knell for all DOJ consent decrees in the United States. I previously posted about an annual closed-door, invitation-only Consent Decree Conference.
Speaker panels are made up of federal judges, DOJ attorneys and for-profit monitors who are actively engaged in federal oversight of police departments. This conference provides a forum for federal judges and DOJ attorneys to engage in ex parte collusion on pending matters before the court.
Conference attendees are deciding the fate of cities all across the country with absolutely no transparency or accountability and in violation of ethics rules designed to ensure the integrity of our judicial system.
This illegal and unethical conduct should result in the disbarment of the judges and attorneys involved.
One panel moderated by someone who has been the monitor in multiple cities is entitled "Messaging in Consent Decrees: Lessons Learned." Consent decrees are a commodity that DOJ forces cities to purchase. DOJ and monitors want to improve their marketing and sales campaign by improving their messaging.
Another panel is called "Best Practice in Police Reform- The Baltimore Consent Decree." This is led by the Baltimore Police Commissioner. Baltimore is far from being a reform success story and this is simply an attempt by Baltimore PD to ingratiate themselves with the judges and DOJ attorneys.
One panel is called "What Works and What Doesn’t in Reform Implementation." This title makes no sense because DOJ claims that all their consent decrees are successful and are the only way to effectively reform a police department that has a pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing.
Apparently, DOJ attorneys are willing to admit behind closed doors that their consent decrees don't always work the way they are supposed to.
Consent decrees are the result of organized corruption designed to enrich private for-profit monitors and advance the political careers of DOJ attorneys.
State Attorney General's Offices should launch RICO investigations into the individuals involved in these federal oversight scams and should file injunctions to halt the abusive consent decrees that are already in place. State bar associations should revoke the law licenses of attorneys and judges involved in these unethical schemes.
No city (i.e. Phoenix, Minneapolis, Louisville, Trenton, Memphis, etc.) should ever agree to purchase one of these consent decrees no matter what the DOJ tells them.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments