NEWS UPDATE: On Wednesday, May 12, 2021, House Republicans voted to remove Rep. Liz Cheney from the No. 3 position in leadership. Before the vote was taken, Cheney said:

“We cannot let the former president drag us backward and make us complicit in his efforts to unravel our democracy. Down that path lies our destruction, and potentially the destruction of our country.” After the vote, Cheney said that if Trump tries to run again, “I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”

After House Republicans ousted Cheney, Der Führer Trump had this to say:

“Liz Cheney is a bitter, horrible human being. … I watched her yesterday and realized how bad she is for the Republican Party. She has no personality or anything good having to do with politics or our country. … She is a warmonger whose family stupidly pushed us into the never-ending Middle East disaster, draining our wealth and depleting our great military, the worst decision in our country’s history. … I look forward to soon watching her as a paid contributor on CNN or MSDNC!”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-takes-victory-lap-after-cheney-s-ouster-house-republican-n1267081

On April 3, exactly 6 months to the day he lost the election, Der Führer Trump said in a statement:

“The Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020 will be, from this day forth, known as THE BIG LIE!”

In response to Der Führer Trump, Wyoming Republican Representative Liz Cheney wrote on Twitter and told the annual retreat of the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Sea Island, Georgia:

“The 2020 presidential election was not stolen. Anyone who claims it was is spreading THE BIG LIE, turning their back on the rule of law, and poisoning our democratic system. We can’t whitewash what happened on January 6th or perpetuate Trump’s big lie. … It is a threat to democracy. What he did on January 6 is a line that cannot be crossed.”

Republican Representative Cheney has long been a vocal opponent of Trump. She joined 9 other Republican representatives to vote in favor of Trump’s second impeachment. At the time Cheney said that Trump “assembled the mob” and “lit the flame” that caused the January 6 Capitol insurrection seeking to overturn the election’s results.

Der Führer Trump responded to Cheney’s remarks in a afternoon statement by writing:

“Heartwarming to read new polls on big-shot warmonger Liz Cheney of the great State of Wyoming. She is so low that her only chance would be if vast numbers of people run against her which, hopefully, won’t happen. They never liked her much, but I say she’ll never run in a Wyoming election again!”

REPUBLICANS CONDEMN DER FÜHRER TRUMP’S CRITICS

It has been reported that Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy considers Cheney’s continued attacks on Trump as a distraction from the party. He has refused either to appear alongside Cheney in public or to say whether she should remain in leadership.

https://www.newsweek.com/liz-cheney-ramps-attack-after-donald-trump-fires-back-their-latest-feud-explained-1588376

On Tuesday, April 4, McCarthy said that there is growing concern among Republican lawmakers about the ability of Congresswoman Liz Cheney to lead the party’s caucus in the chamber while she continues to assail former President Donald Trump for inciting his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6 McCarthy told the Fox News:

“I have heard from members concerned about her ability to carry out her job as conference chair, to carry out the message [to take back the House] “We all need to be working as one if we’re able to win the majority. Remember, majorities are not given. They are earned.”

McCarthy was also overheard on a hot mic saying he has “had it” with Cheney and had “lost confidence” in the Wyoming Republican and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

ANOTHER BACKS OUSTING CHENEY

On April 5, it was reported that Der Führer Trump and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise are openly supporting Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) to replace Rep. Liz Cheney as House Republican conference chair. Trump had this to say in a statement:

“Liz Cheney is a warmongering fool who has no business in Republican Party Leadership. … Elise Stefanik is a far superior choice, and she has my COMPLETE and TOTAL Endorsement for GOP Conference Chair. Elise is a tough and smart communicator!”

Scalise’s spokesperson Lauren Fine said in a statement:

“House Republicans need to be solely focused on taking back the House in 2022 and fighting against Speaker Pelosi and President Biden’s radical socialist agenda, and Elise Stefanik is strongly committed to doing that, which is why Whip Scalise has pledged to support her for Conference Chair.”

The endorsements of Stefanik substantially increases the Republican Party’s’ internal feud over Cheney. The internal feud threatens Republicans’ chances of taking back control of the House in the 2022 elections. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise has said he thinks a vote will be taken again within a month and that Cheney will be removed.

https://www.axios.com/steve-scalise-liz-cheney-stefanik-house-republicans-4c267cc2-5d18-4507-a6c0-cc21e320cb6f.html

ROMNEY & COLLINS DEFEND CHENEY

On April 4, Republican Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) went to the defense of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) during her very public feud with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) Romney tweeted:

“Every person of conscience draws a line beyond which they will not go: Liz Cheney refuses to lie. … “As one of my Republican Senate colleagues said to me following my impeachment vote: ‘I wouldn’t want to be a member of a group that punished someone for following their conscience.”

Romney was the Republican Party’s 2012 presidential nominee and has been one of the few Senate Republicans most willing to criticize Trump. He was the only Republican to vote to convict on one of the articles of impeachment during Trump’s Senate trial in 2020.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has also gone to the defense of Cheney and did so during a Sunday, May 2 interview. Both Romney and Collins voted to convict Trump at the end of his second impeachment trial held after President Biden was sworn in. earlier this year.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/551761-romney-defends-cheney-she-refuses-to-lie

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/us-lawmaker-liz-cheney-drawing-criticism-attacks-trump

TRUMP’S HISTORY OF PUSHING THE BIG LIE

During a 2016 presidential debate in which Trump had faced off against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, FOX news caster Mike Wallace asked then candidate Trump if he was prepared to concede to the winner, if he didn’t win. “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense” Trump said during the debate. He had also said that if he did not win it meant the election was rigged.

Fast forward to July 15, 2020. In an exclusive wide-ranging interview with Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, President Trump was asked if he was “a good loser”. Trump said that he wasn’t a good loser and he went on to add that he thinks “mail-in voting is going to rig the election.” This led Wallace to ask whether Trump may not accept the results of the election and Trump said “We’ll have to see.”

https://time.com/5868739/trump-election-results-chris-wallace

On September 23, Trump was asked at a press conference if he would “commit to a peaceful transferal of power” if he lost the election, Trump said:

“Well, we’re gonna have to see what happens. … You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots. The ballots are a disaster … Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a peaceful … there won’t be a transfer, frankly, there’ll be a continuation.”

ELECTION WAS THE MOST SECURE IN AMERICAN HISTORY

On November 12, the Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees issued the following joint statement that the “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history:

“The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. Right now, across the country, election officials are reviewing and double checking the entire election process prior to finalizing the result.

“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.

“Other security measures like pre-election testing, state certification of voting equipment, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) certification of voting equipment help to build additional confidence in the voting systems used in 2020.

“While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections, we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too. When you have questions, turn to elections officials as trusted voices as they administer elections.”

https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/12/joint-statement-elections-infrastructure-government-coordinating-council-election

On November 27, President Trump claimed that President-Elect Joe Biden must prove that the votes he received in the presidential election were not “illegally obtained” in order to enter the White House. Following is Trump’s Tweet:

“Biden can only enter the White House as President if he can prove that his ridiculous “80,000,000 votes” were not fraudulently or illegally obtained. When you see what happened in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia & Milwaukee, massive voter fraud, he’s got a big unsolvable problem!”

Twitter added the disclaimer: “!This claim about election fraud is disputed.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-biden-illegally-obtained-white-house

Trump’s tweet came after it was reported by FOX News no less that Biden crossed the 80 million vote threshold as votes are still being counted. Trump’s TWEET is merely one of the many of his TWEETs to cast doubt on the election result. Trump has ordered lawsuits to challenge the results in the swing states, with all those lawsuits having been dismissed, which he has challenged by alleging voter fraud in multiple swing states that he lost, specifically Pennsylvania.

It was on Wednesday, November 15 that Trump said the election was stolen and said:

“This election was rigged and we can’t let that happen. We can’t let it happen for our country. … And this election has to be turned around because we won Pennsylvania by a lot and we won all these swing states by a lot.”

TRUMP’S LOSING LEGAL CHALLENGES TO ELECTION

The Trump campaign launched upwards of 51 legal challenges related to how votes were counted. All of the court challenges were dismissed as the states certified their results.

On November 19, 2020, during a news conference at Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, with the smell of sweat blackened by his cheap hair dye running down his face, an unhinged former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani had this to say:

“I know crimes, I can smell them. You don’t have to smell this one, I can prove it to you, 18 different ways. I can prove to you that he won, Pennsylvania, by 300,000 votes. I can prove to you that he won Michigan, probably 50,000 votes. …

It’s not a singular voter fraud in one state. This pattern repeats itself in a number of states, almost exactly the same pattern, which any experienced investigator prosecutor, which suggests that there was a plan — from a centralized place to execute these various acts of voter fraud, specifically focused on big cities, and specifically focused on, as you would imagine, big cities controlled by Democrats, and particularly if they focused on big cities that have a long history of corruption.”

It was on November 17 that Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, during a five-hour hearing in Williamsport, Pennsylvania before U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann. Giuliani asserted widespread election fraud in Pennsylvania without evidence and that a “Mafia-like” cabal of Democratic leaders in cities nationwide used mail ballots to rig the election in Joe Biden’s favor. United States District Judge Matthew Brann, a Republican appointee, wrote that the campaign’s error-filled complaint “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together”. Just one example of a pleading error was spelling “poll” as “pole”. The Federal Court denied Giuliani the right to amend the election challenge complaint for a second time. The Trump campaign appealed the ruling.

On November 27, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Brann’s lower court ruling and called any revisions “futile.” 3rd Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote the decision for the Court. Bibas is a former University of Pennsylvania law professor. The Court Panel included Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith and Judge Michael Chagares. Trump’s sister, Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the campaign’s request to stop the Pennsylvania from certifying its results, a demand the court called “breathtaking”. Judge Bibas wrote in the opinion and found:

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here. … Voters, not lawyers, choose the president. Ballots, not briefs, decide elections”

Trump’s lawyers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-pennsylvania-elections-philadelphia-d9c96c4593ec278f3b1d4bc564068df6

PART OF THE BIG LIE IS MAIL IN VOTING IS FRAUDUELENT

After the Wallace interview, Trump engaged in repeated attacks on mail in voting as a pathway to voter fraud. It was a claim that was unsubstantiated and was an outright lie that Trump kept repeating.

In April, 2020 Trump responding to a question about Wisconsin wanting to go to mail-in ballots said:

“Mail ballots are a very dangerous thing for this country, because they’re cheaters. … They’re fraudulent in many cases.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/07/829323152/fact-check-is-mail-ballot-fraud-as-rampant-as-president-trump-says-it-is

Trump also said that any expansion of mail ballots would lead to widespread fraud. Attorney General William Barr for his part said people should need an excuse to vote by mail. Trump has said no-excuse absentee voting is fine but claimed the Postal Service couldn’t handle the increase in election mail, which turned out to be totally false.

Trump laid the foundation to dispute the election outcome with his incessant lies that “mail-in ballots” would result in a rigged election. Trump’s false claims were used as an excuse for the Republican Party to purge voter-registration rolls, limit mail-in ballots, close polling stations in minority areas and challenge in-person voting by minorities. The best example was in the state of Texas where Governor Abbot ordered only one polling place or drop off for ballots per county that has millions residents and requiring hours of driving to hand deliver ballots.

Election experts say Trump’s critiques of mail-in voting was just another one of his many lies. Instead, they said mail-in voting was expected to improve voter turnout on the whole and there was little evidence that it will have a partisan effect by benefitting one party over the other.

The experts were proven right. Mail in voting improved voter turnout overwhelmingly. On October 19, 2020, it was over 71 million people had cast their ballots with early voting or mail in voting around the United States, surpassing the 58.3 million total pre-election votes cast in 2016. That’s almost half of the total presidential votes cast in 2016.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/early-voting-key-states/index.html

WASHINGTON POST OPINION COLUMN BY MICHAEL JOHN GERSON

Michael John Gerson is a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice weekly in The Washington Post. He is the author of “Heroic Conservatism”, HarperOne, 2007, and co-author of “City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era”, Moody, 2010. He appears regularly on the “PBS NewsHour,” “Face the Nation” and other programs. Gerson serves as senior adviser at One, a bipartisan organization dedicated to the fight against extreme poverty and preventable diseases. Until 2006, Gerson was a top aide to President George W. Bush as assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning. Prior to that appointment, he served in the White House as deputy assistant to the president and director of presidential speechwriting and assistant to the president for speechwriting and policy adviser.

On April 3, 2021, the Washington Post published an opinion column entitled “Elected Republicans are lying with open eyes. Their excuses are disgraceful” written by Mr. Gerson. The fact that Gerson was a top Republican advisor and aide to former President George W. Bush makes his observations about Trump spreading the “big lie” important to note. Following is the column with the link to the column:

“For the activist base of the Republican Party, affirming that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential contest has become a qualification for membership in good standing. For the party’s elected leaders, accepting the clear result of a fair election is to be a rogue Republican like the indomitable Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) — a target for Trump’s anger, public censure and primary threats.

Nothing about this is normal. The GOP is increasingly defined not by its shared beliefs, but by its shared delusions. To be a loyal Republican, one must be either a sucker or a liar. And because this defining falsehood is so obviously and laughably false, we can safely assume that most Republican leaders who embrace it fall into the second category. Knowingly repeating a lie — an act of immorality — is now the evidence of Republican fidelity.

This kind of determined mendacity requires rolling out the big guns. Said the prophet Isaiah: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.”

Moral clarity against lying is sometimes made harder by our loose application of the term. When public figures disagree with you in their analyses of tax policy, or welfare spending or Social Security reform, they’re generally not lying. They’re disagreeing. When it’s revealed that someone was previously wrong about an issue — even on a grave matter of national security — it doesn’t mean he or she was lying all along. It means that person was wrong.

“To preserve the meaning of words,” said Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), “is the first responsibility of liberalism.” Precisely because principled disagreement is essential in a democracy, we can’t attribute every difference to deception. This form of false witness is a tool of polarization and a method of dehumanization.

It’s important to keep perspective about the stakes of any given lie. There is reason the English language has so many words to describe the shades of culpability in a deception. You can equivocate, or dissemble, or palter, or mislead, or prevaricate, or fib, or perjure.

There are mortal lies and venial lies, cruel lies and merciful lies. Context matters.

Speaking of perjury, almost any GOP response to charges of deception will eventually include the words “Bill Clinton.” In a time of rampant whataboutism, Republicans often point out that Clinton was a spectacular liar defended by his party. What they fail to acknowledge is that many elected Democrats criticized his lying under oath, even as they opposed his impeachment. Clinton was not insisting his supporters share in his immorality to show their loyalty, though that might have had some appeal when it came to other human failures.

The context for Trump’s lies has been particularly damning. When Trump falsely asserted that Barack Obama was born in Africa and thus illegitimate as president, it was permission for racism. When he claimed he saw Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on Sept. 11, 2001, it was a vicious lie to feed a prejudice.

But the lie of a stolen election is the foundational falsehood of a political worldview. Believing it requires Trump’s followers to affirm the existence of a nationwide plot against him and his supporters — a plot led by ruthless Democrats and traitorous Republicans, and ignored or endorsed by useless courts and a complicit media. The claim’s plausibility is not the point. Does it really make sense that Attorney General William P. Barr, who found no evidence of election fraud that could have changed the result, was in on the plot? Were the conservative judges Trump appointed who dismissed his rubbish lawsuits really out to get him?

Such considerations don’t seem to matter. In the 1930s and ’40s, was it plausible that the democratic leaders of Weimar Germany had stabbed their own country in the back and betrayed its people? Or that an international conspiracy of powerful Jews was controlling world events?

Trump’s lie is not the moral equivalent of fascist propaganda. But it serves the same political function. A founding lie is intended to remove followers from the messy world of facts and evidence. It is designed to replace critical judgment with personal loyalty. It is supposed to encourage distrust of every source of social authority opposed to the leader’s shifting will.

The people who accepted this political mythology and stormed the Capitol were not lying about their views. They seemed quite sincere. And who knows what Trump really thinks? When a congenital liar surrounds himself with sycophantic liars, he can easily lose radio contact with reality.

No, it is the elected Republicans who are lying with open eyes, out of fear or cynicism, who have the most to atone for. With the health of U.S. democracy at stake, their excuses are disgraceful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/03/trump-republicans-big-lie/

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The similarities between Trump and Hitler are no accident as is documented in the below Dinelli blog article Trump: The Once and Future Fascist Who Wants To Be President Again

Since the election and swearing in of President Joe Biden, Republican lawmakers have remained steadfastly behind Der FÜHRER Trump. Many elected Republican officials have also kept their mouths shut in laying blame on him for the January 6 insurrection and the attack on the Capitol. Republican elected officials cower in fear of not supporting Der FÜHRER for fear of suffering his withering attacks and being “primaried” by Trump supporters. Simply put, there is no longer a Republican Party, but the Trump Party.

Several leading Republican lawmakers, including McCarthy and Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham, have traveled to Florida to visit with Trump at his Mar-Maro-Largo Mansion to play golf and talk politics, no doubt including his comeback in 2024. Trump has suggested he will run for President again in 2024 but that he won’t decide until after the 2022 congressional elections.

With any luck, Der FÜHRER Trump will be indicted soon and be relocated to a government gated community before the 2022 congressional elections roll around.

A link to a related blog article is here:

Trump: The Once And Future Fascist Who Wants To Be President Again; US Military Loyalty To Democracy Has Saved It

On May 3, 2021 the Federal Court Monitor filed with the Federal Court the 13th Independent Monitor’s Report (IMR-13 ) on the Court Approved Settlement Agreement. The report covers the time frame of August 2020 through January 2021.

SYNOPSIS OF FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE 13TH IMR REPORT

Under the terms and conditions of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in the 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed.

The 3 compliance levels can be explained as follows:

1. PRIMARY COMPLIANCE: Primary compliance is the “policy” part of compliance. To attain primary compliance, APD must have in place operational policies and procedures designed to guide officers, supervisors and managers in the performance of the tasks outlined in the CASA. As a matter of course, the policies must be reflective of the requirements of the CASA; must comply with national standards for effective policing policy; and must demonstrate trainable and evaluable policy components.

2. SECONDARY COMPLIANCE: Secondary compliance is attained by implementing supervisory, managerial and executive practices designed to and be effective in implementing the policy as written, e.g., sergeants routinely enforce the policies among field personnel and are held accountable by managerial and executive levels of the department for doing so. By definition, there should be operational artifacts such as reports, disciplinary records, remands to retraining, follow-up, and even revisions to policies if necessary, indicating that the policies developed in the first stage of compliance are known to, followed by, and important to supervisory and managerial levels of the department.

3. OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE: Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency e.g., line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.

COMPLIANCE LEVELS DETERIORATE

In the IMR-13 report, the Federal Monitor made the following findings on the 3 compliance levels:

Primary Compliance: 100%;
Secondary Compliance: 82%;
Operational Compliance: 59%.

Since the last report, IMR-12, the following changes in compliance levels are
noted:

Primary Compliance: No change at 100%
Secondary Compliance: A loss of 9.9%
Operational Compliance: A loss of 7.8%

All documents related to APD’s settlement agreement can be downloaded and reviewed at this city web site link:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents-related-to-apds-settlement-agreement</a
Discipline

FOUR ALARMING FINDINGS

The 13th Federal Monitor’s report contains 4 very disturbing findings given that over 6 years has elapsed and millions spent on the reforms. To quote the IMR-13

1. MACHINATIONS TO AVOID DISCIPLINING OFFICERS

“At this point, the disciplinary system at APD routinely fails to follow its own written policy (guiding disciplinary matrices) and virtually decimates its disciplinary requirements in favor of refusals to recognize substantial policy violations, and instead, often sustaining minor related violations and ignoring more serious violations. In other cases, APD simply defies its own written guidance regarding discipline, for example implementing “discipline” well below that required by its own disciplinary matrix. Examples of these Counter-CASA processes include:

• Replacing a matrix-required 8–32-hour suspension with a written reprimand;
• Refusal to recognize repeat offenses (which by policy require enhanced penalties);
• Failure to consider “aggravating circumstances” in determining appropriate discipline, but nearly always considering “mitigating circumstances”;
• A virtual shutdown of investigations in IAFD, possibly delaying disciplinary action for use of force violations until discipline is “time-barred” by the union contract; and
• Charging lessor included policy violations, instead of the (often more fitting) more serious of the policy violations … .

In short, APD is willing to go through almost any machination to avoid disciplining officers who violate policy or supervisors who fail to note policy violations or fail to act on them in a timely manner.

Interestingly, we note this aversion to discipline does not seem to apply to civilian personnel, who are often subjected to maximum penalties for relatively minor violations.”

2. USE OF FORCE

“More importantly, it continues to be apparent that APD has not had and currently does not have an appetite for taking serious approaches to control excessive or unwarranted uses of force during its police operations in the field. Command and control practices regarding the use of force continue to be weak. APD continues to lack the ability to consistently “call the ball” on questionable uses of force, and at times is unable to “see” obvious violations of policy or procedure related to its officers’ use of force. We have consistently noted these issues in our highly detailed bi-annual monitoring reports, and each paragraph found not in compliance contains specific recommendations that APD could implement to reduce unwarranted uses of force.

Unfortunately, we find the need to continually make the same recommendations, often times over and over, as APD seems either unwilling or unable to effectively assess, identify, and remediate officers who over-use force. Again, this reporting period, we have made dozens of recommendations, many of them made multiple times in the past. After six years, while progress has been made, i.e., new policies and new training have been implemented, and the Force Review Board is demonstrating that is willing to stand for heightened scrutiny of cases of officer-use of force, there remains much to do.”

3. CLEAR AND DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE AND IGNORING MONITOR’S RECOMMENDATIONS

“We do note, however, that in IMR-12 we made twelve recommendations for improvements to the IA functions at APD. Those twelve recommendations remain in IMR-13. This is a recurring problem with APD. The monitor includes dozens of recommendations in each monitor report. Unfortunately, in some areas of compliance, we are required to make the same recommendations over and over because APD simply fails to address these recommendations in any way and refuses to implement processes of their own designed to achieve a reduction in unwarranted use of force. For example, the ten recommendations we made regarding “fact-based discipline” in IMR-12 are repeated again in this monitor’s report. The same holds true for multiple paragraphs of our CASA analysis. We recommend, APD demurs, and we continue recommending change, without reciprocal effort by APD.”

“To the monitor, this constitutes clear evidence of deliberate indifference to the requirements of the CASA. Again, during this reporting period, we provided APD with highly detailed step-by-step recommendations regarding the use of force investigations and supervision at all levels of the department, among other critical issues. Despite this advice, APD has actually lost ground in its compliance efforts as it relates to training related to and operational implementation of the requirements of the CASA.”

4. CATASTROPHIC FAILURE IN TRAINING OVERSIGHT

This monitor’s report can be synopsized in a single sentence. Due to a catastrophic failure in training oversight this reporting period and similar failures at the supervisory and command levels of APD, the agency suffered a 9.9% point loss in compliance elements related to the training and supervisory functions at APD and a 7.8% loss in overall compliance …. Overall, there is an argument to be made that operational compliance rates have held relatively steady, at slightly less than 60 percent, since IMR-8, two and one-half years ago.

The most critical issues confronted by APD in its compliance efforts this reporting period are in training, supervision, and command oversight. As frequent readers of the monitor’s reports will note, supervision and oversight are two of the most important keys to full compliance.

… . As of the end of the 13th reporting period, APD has experienced a drop in compliance levels in both secondary (training) and operational (actions in the field) compliance. APD achieved primary compliance in 100 percent of the applicable paragraphs of the CASA. Primary compliance relates mostly to development and implementation of acceptable policies (conforming to national best practices).

APD is in 82% Secondary Compliance as of this reporting period, which means that effective follow-up mechanisms have been taken to ensure that APD personnel understand the requirements of promulgated policies, e.g., training, supervising, coaching, and implementing disciplinary processes to ensure APD personnel understand the policies as promulgated and are implementing them in the field. This Secondary Compliance figure represents a 9.9% reduction in Secondary Compliance from IMR-12 to IMR-13. Operational Compliance with the requirements of the CASA for the 13th reporting period has also fallen from 64% in IMR-12 to 59% in IMR-13. This means that 59% of the time, field personnel either perform tasks as required by the CASA or that when they fail, supervisory personnel note and correct in-field behavior that is not compliant with the requirements of the CASA.

… .

These declines in compliance levels come despite intensive and extensive and intensive “hands-on” guidance and advice from the monitoring team. The bottom line is somewhat shocking. Operational compliance levels for the 13th reporting period are lower than the compliance figures for the 9th reporting period. Obviously, operational compliance is the most important of the three compliance levels.

POLICE UNION’S POLITICAL PUBLIC RELATONS CAMPAIGN TO DISPARAGE DOJ REFORMS

On April 26, the Albuquerque Police Officers Association (APOA) launched a $70,000 political ad campaign to discredit the Department of Justice (DOJ) mandated reforms saying the police reforms are preventing officers from doing their jobs and combating crime. The Police Union leaders acknowledge that the city is bound by Federal Court Order but the union claims city leaders still have the ability, within that agreement, to object to and resist policies and procedures that they do not believe work for APD.

The Police Union political ad campaign is at odds as to what the Union Attorneys have told the Federal Judge assigned the case and overseeing the reforms. The Police Union political ad campaign consists of billboards around the city and testimonials on TV, radio and social media from former Albuquerque Police Department officers. The public relations campaign is urging the public to tell city leaders that crime matters more than the Police reforms mandated by the settlement.

The public relations campaign includes providing an email template for the public to use in support of APD and to contact civic leaders. The template says APD has made progress with the DOJ mandated reforms and says:

“[We are] tired of living in a city filled with murder, theft and violence. … I’m urging you to fight for this city, stand up to the DOJ, and help us save the city we love, before it’s too late. ”

APOA Police Union President Shaun Willoughby described the need for the public relations campaign this way:

“You can either have compliance with DOJ reforms or you can have lower crime. You can’t have both. We think it’s time that our city leaders hear from the public that crime matters more because it does. … They want to focus on the growing crime problem, instead of wasting millions of dollars on endless Department of Justice oversight. … This conversation of reform needs to come back to common sense. … Right now, the City of Albuquerque capitulates to everything the DOJ wants and that might not necessarily be the right direction for the City of Albuquerque. … You don’t need enemies when you have friends like the city attorney. … We believe that our community deserves better from this police department. … We believe our community deserves better from this consent decree process.

[We are asking] for the city of Albuquerque to stand up and support Albuquerque police officers and support common sense reforms that allow our officers to succeed. … . We’re talking about the bureaucracy of police officers being taken off the street because somebody that was not used force on said ‘ow”. And how that impacts this community, our ability to respond to the community and this community’s ability to control crime. Your Albuquerque police officers are terrified that they will lose their job for simply doing their job and it’s not fair.”

Links to the new sources for the quotes are here:

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/albuquerque-police-union-starts-campaign-to-push-back-against-doj-requirements/6087348/?cat=500

https://www.abqjournal.com/2384284/apd-union-launches-campaign-against-doj-oversight.html

The APOA is also using its FACEBOOK page to promote their ad campaign. On April 26, the Police Union posted on FACEBOOK:

“Are you tired of the growing crime problems facing the city of Albuquerque? Are you tired of break-ins, stolen cars, vandalism, theft and murder being part of everyday living in our community? Then do something! If you don’t speak up and get involved right now, things will get worse. Tell your City leaders that you care more about fighting crime then than wasting millions on endless Department of Justice oversight. Share and make your voices heard because crime matters more.”

https://www.facebook.com/nmapoa

This is not the first time the police union has tried to undercut the reform process. In a February 11 Target 7 news report Shaun Willoughby, President of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association said:

“The whole [reform effort] system is set up to fail and the taxpayers and the people that live in this community like me and my family are the ones that are taking the brunt of [violent crime]. … Really look at this process. … It is absolutely out of control. … The entire department and the processes within it are out of control. Your officers are running out the door. Really look at every single state or agency that’s been involved in this process. … What is happening? Did it bring harmony and trust with the community? I don’t think so.”

https://www.koat.com/article/violent-crime-has-increased-53-since-city-signed-doj-settlement-agreement/35484856

TWO POLICE UNION ATTORNEYS TELL THE FEDERAL JUDGE OPPOSITE NARRATIVE THAN THE APD UNION AD CAMPAIGN DURING COURT HEARINGS

The Court Approved Settlement Agreement mandates 271 police reforms that APD is still struggling to implement after 6 years and millions spent. The most recent 13th Federal Monitors report released finds that APD is deteriorating further in not achieving the mandatory compliance levels. The police union is blaming the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) and its mandated reforms for the city’s high crime rates in Albuquerque.

The APD police union employs two highly experience and respected trial attorneys to represent them in union negotiations, personnel hearings and federal court proceedings relating to the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) Order. Police union attorneys Fred Mower and John D’Amato both have been practicing law for decades, not only in State District Court but in Federal Court.

Prior to the Police Union’s April 26 announcement of its $70,000 public relations campaign to disparage the CASA, there were two federal court hearings presided over by Judge James Browning in the case. Police Union Attorney Fred Mower represented the police union in a February 26, 2021 hearing for the approval of a court order. Police Union Attorney John D’Amato represented the union in the April 15, 2021 Status Conference hearing in the case.

FEBRAURY 26 HEARING TO APPROVE EXTERNAL FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM

On Friday, February 26, U.S. District Judge James Browning held a hearing and approve a Stipulated Order between the city of Albuquerque and the DOJ to create an External Force Investigation Team (EFIT).

The EFIT team will train APD Internal Affairs investigators on how to properly investigate uses of force instances by APD police officers. According to the approved order, the City will ensure that APD maintains at least 25 force investigators assigned to the APD Internal Affairs unit unless and until APD can demonstrate by an internal staffing analysis that fewer investigators are necessary to timely investigate uses of force by APD Officers.

During the February 26 hearing, Judge Browning asked the APD Police Union Attorney Fred Mower if the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) order was causing the city’s high crime rates in the following manner on pages 44, 45 and 46 of the transcript:

JUDGE BROWNING:

“… All right. Let me ask you, Mr. Mowrer, you were very careful both in your issues and concerns and then your motion opposing the joint motion not to get into this area, but I have watched Mr. Willoughby’s comments publicly, and I think they’ve been most pronounced by Nancy Laflin on Channel 7, that the consent decree and then, in addition, this additional layer that we are laying on top with the EFIT is contributing or even a primary or major cause of the rise of crime in the community. Is that the position of the police association or your views, that that’s the reason that crime is rising is because of this consent decree or this EFIT?” [Editor’s emphasis added.]

POLICE UNION ATTORNEY FRED MOWER:

“Well, Your Honor, I think to simplistically state it like that, no. I don’t think the APOA can take the position that this consent decree that’s gone on, as Mr. Killebrew has indicated, going on seven years now, and the monies, the millions of dollars that have been spent, and now this new proposal with unidentified costs is a driver of what the crime rate is happening in this town. … I can’t say, and I don’t think it’s easy to prove that the money being spent here is what’s driving crime in Albuquerque. I think we’re like a lot of major cities. We’re facing dynamics because of just the city, closeness to cartel issues, closeness to issues concerning violent crime in a lot of major cities. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

JUDGE BROWNING:

Well, that was going to be my next question. You hang around with a lot of policeman in a lot of courtrooms. What do you think the cause of the rise of crime in Albuquerque and particularly violent crime is? … What’s your thoughts … as to why we’re having a rise in crime here? [Editor’s emphasis added.]

POLICE UNION ATTORNEY FRED MOWER:

“Your Honor, as I’ve kind of indicated, I believe in fairness to all. There are multiple factors. I would say that the last one you just raised is an issue; that there is — the lack of bail bonds and quick release of individuals who are accused of violent crimes is contributing. I think the access and lack of control of arms, weapons, is a problem. I think that — and I hate to go this broad, but, Your Honor, I think there is a breakdown in our society in some ways of our morals, discipline, and control which is contributing. I think the proclivity of drugs present in the city of Albuquerque is contributing to this. There is a factor of mental illness in the city of Albuquerque. There are — I know you’ve seen, Your Honor, as you drive the city streets a lot of homeless people downtown. And all big cities have this problem. But I think there are multiple, multiple factors that are contributing to this, and that’s just a very short list. … ” [Editor’s emphasis added.]

CITY ATTORNEY’S POSITION

During the February 26 hearing, Albuquerque City Attorney Esteban Aguilar, Jr. addressed the EFIT and the accusation that the consent decree was causing an increase in crime. The comments can be found on pages 51 to 57 of the transcript:

JUDGE BROWNING:

… Let me get the City’s response. And Mr. Aguilar, I may have overlooked you earlier. You may have wanted to talk some about the overview of the process contemplated by the proposed stipulated order. But if you want to contribute to that, let me let you do that now. And also, if you … want to give a response, which I think is largely to the APOA, but you may want to say something about other things that have been raised this afternoon.

CITY ATTORNEY ESTEBAN ANGEL AGUILAR, Jr.:

Thank you, Your Honor. And if it pleases the Court, the City doesn’t disagree with the data. I think we’ve been very clear, the data that was reflected that showed the failings with our internal affairs review processes as well as 3 other areas. What this plan does is, it accomplishes a couple of things.

One, it establishes a framework for developing and limiting a process for our officers who are currently doing this work to be able to utilize. They’re going to be walking in, or step by step with those officers throughout those investigations. They’re going to be on site in the field. I think a lot of confusion or to the extent that we have heard that there are confusing expectations regarding the quality of their work, confusion regarding what is expected of those folks under the CASA, those will be cleared up. I think, additionally, it provides an additional layer for transparency for the work that 17 the monitoring team is doing.

I want to be sensitive to the comments that we hear publicly that consent decrees add or increase crime in a particular area and that monitors in general have their own financial incentive for changing the bar or prolonging the process. That isn’t happening right now. You know, I want to be very clear that we do not see that happening. What we see are issues with the review process. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

As I’ve indicated before, especially to members of the community, the monitor and his team are officers of the Court and we would expect that they will continue to interact with the parties and with the Court with a duty of candor as officers of the Court. If that were not to be the case and we were to find information that would reflect an ulterior motive or an improper motive, we would address that with our partners. That isn’t going on right now. The cost of this process in general is large. We totally understand that.

I want to push back slightly on the narrative that we’ve been in this for six years. The consent decree has been in place for six years, or a good portion of the beginning phases of that. The APD had not bought in and was not, in my view, taking steps to fully and faithfully execute its obligations under that agreement. [Editor’s emphasis added.]
…

At this moment in time, I don’t think that we can afford not to make this investment. That is difficult, especially from the policyholder — the 10 policymakers, elected officials, these are very hard decisions. What I will say is that the steps that this department are taking — and to be clear, the vast majority of the women and men of the Albuquerque Police Department have bought into these concepts. Safety, constitutional community-based policing, and this consent decree are not mutually exclusive. They’re doing incredible work. [Editor’s emphasis added.]
… .
This [EFIT] isn’t a permanent fix. I understand Mr. Mowrer and their union, their perspective and their concerns, but these are not permanent positions, and at this moment in time since those individuals are not performing the work that is required, we have to come in and do a hard refit. Because if we don’t, at this moment in time we’re going to lose all the progress that we have been gaining. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

This is a hard process. This is not a Band-Aid approach. What this department is doing is taking the initiative to actually develop systems that will be a model for the country. It is hard, though. We are at the hardest stages of this process and that is where we are working on developing processes, implementing discipline in a way that is fair and consistent, because that’s how culture changes.
… .
… When the results of the data were coming out of the internal affairs division following the implementation of the new use of force policy, there were huge problems. This is designed to, one, address those problems, but also implement a system that will be lasting and sustained past the CASA.

Because one of the other consistent things that we heard about the EFIT plan from all of the members of the community is a concern that once an officer tests out, that they will revert back to those old ways. That can happen. But in order to avoid that, the department has to do this themselves. It’s a habitual change. … fundamental habitual changes are hard. We’re going to have missteps, but at the end of the day, they’re going to be healthier, but it’s not easy and it’s hard work. We have to stay on top of it and the department is going to continue to do that. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

But we also understand that everyone has their own perspective and concerns on the cost. But if we don’t take this action now and invest this money in this department, we’re going to lose ground in the community, and I’m concerned about, frankly, the message that might send to the officers in the department who are doing the right thing.

JUDGE BROWNING:

Anything else, Mr. Aguilar? (Page 57)

CITY ATTORNEY ESTEBAN AGUILAR, Jr.:

Your Honor, I don’t.

APRIL 15, 2021 STAUS CONFERENCE HEARING

On April 15, Judge Browning convened a Status Conference hearing to get a progress report on the implementation of the External Force Investigation Team (EFIT).

The following exchange occurred between Judge Browning and police union attorney John D’Amato as reflected in the court transcript of the proceeding, pages 34 to 38:

JUDGE BROWNING:

… Mr. D’Amato, do you wish to speak on the update of the implementation of the EFIT?

POLICE UNION ATTORNEY D’AMATO:

“Thank you, Your Honor. … We don’t have enough information; the Albuquerque Police Officers Association does not have as complete information as does the City or DOJ. But what we have seen causes us a little bit of concern. The obvious concern is bringing a civilian force in.

The secondary concern goes back to our original complaint, when you and I first spoke about the use of force policy. The APOA believes the force policy is a Gordian knot. People have said that CASA is rising crime. CASA is not. CASA is not the problem, Your Honor. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

The City’s response to the strictures of CASA have gotten so convoluted, it’s hard to teach. It’s hard to investigate. It contains so much subjectivity. The second level of this EFIT, I hope they’re not held to the same standard that Internal Affairs Force Division is.

And from my personal experience representing officers through that process, it’s a zero-tolerance policy. I don’t see a successful resolution a year from now, given that standard. [Editor’s emphasis added.] Chief Medina tells me he needs more time. And there is not one person in this room, Your Honor, or on this virtual meeting whose heart is not into this process.

The Albuquerque Police Officers Association isn’t contra CASA. What we are is a representation of those sergeants that the City Attorney Aguilar spoke of … [Emphasis added.] It’s the Field Services Bureau that go out and try to go with what the academy taught them to do. That’s it.

The internal affairs investigators are facing discipline because of deficient investigations, after which a review shows that they have had zero training on investigation. So, I’m hopeful. I believe in my heart that the folks before you a year from now will be successful. I truly hope that. The APOA wishes that to happen. They want a safe community.

And I believe Chief Medina when he said he wants law and order in this community. But until we simplify, until we make things more palatable and edible, in smaller chunks and in simpler terms, you can have two civilian units come in, three, four, five, given the way the City has interpreted the CASA has caused inordinate delay.” [Editor’s emphasis added.]

JUDGE BROWNING:

Do you have a specific on that or is it back to the excessive force policy that you argued last year and that I wrote the opinion on? Is that it?

POLICE UNION ATTORNEY D’AMATO:

Well, Your Honor, as I remember that conversation you had and I had, the APOA had to take a hit in moving on that section of policy. As I said, there was internal debate.

From the beginning, we wanted to contest the entire suite. But better practice dictated “Be cooperative, be a partner, work with the City, try to make this thing work.” And despite our concerns both on the application of the use of force and expansion, as well as the internal force investigators, I raised that point back then that there would be problems with the investigators. Why? Unclear policies, confusing directives, and lack of training. [Emphasis added.]

Underlying all of this is staffing issues. But I think if we had 1200 officers, the way we sit right now, it’s not working, Judge. But I’ll give Chief Medina and Deputy Director Stanley, who I’ve known for 30 years, the time that they’re asking for, because I believe that they believe it’s going to work.

JUDGE BROWNING:

If CASA is not the cause of the rise in crime, what do you — as somebody who has your ears close to the rank-and-file officers, what do you think is causing the rise of crime in our community? [Emphasis added.]

UNION ATTORNEY D’AMATO:

I think Mr. Mowrer at the last court hearing indicated the CASA was not the problem. I concur with that initial assessment. But when the city officials looked at the CASA, and they had a political mindset to implement through various protocols and policies, that’s the problem. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

The CASA, in and of itself, Your Honor, is essential. Department of Justice would not have come back in here in 2014 and frivolously said Albuquerque had a problem. Albuquerque had a problem. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

And may I sidebar just a second, just a side note. When Chief Medina was in the shooting, I commend the City of Albuquerque from the time of the shooting until today, to refocus an investment in mental health. And folks like the special CIT units, and the ECIT, and the training in those areas, and the mental health professionals that are on board today didn’t exist in 2002.

So to speculate on various outcomes, I believe, whenever an officer is involved in a shooting, no matter what the result, whether it’s a fatal or critically injuring, that reinforcing in that officer’s mind the sanctity of life. So I believe in some distorted sort of way that experience is making Chief Medina a better chief.

JUDGE BROWNING:

All right. Anything else you’d like to say to the Court?

POLICE UNION ATTORNEY D’AMATO:

No, Your Honor.
… .

During the April 15 hearing, City Attorney Esteban Aguilar, Jr. requested to address the Court to take issue with Police Union Attorney D’Amato, with the following comments reflected on pages 61 to 66 of the hearing transcript:

CITY ATTORNEY ESTEBAN AGUILAR, JR:

Your Honor, if I may, before we move on, I would like to, if it pleases the Court to address a few of the comments that were made.
JUDGE BROWNING:

All right. Go ahead, Mr. Aguilar.

CITY ATTORNEY ESTEBAN AGUILAR, Jr.:

Thank you, Your Honor. And I apologize, I’ll try to be brief, but I want to vehemently disagree with some of the comments made by Mr. D’Amato.

I think that comments unsupported by data that simply the fact that we have the CASA in place and we have rising crime rates, that there is a tangential connection, unsupported by data, are dangerous, misleading to the public and to the Court. And frankly, it funnels into that false narrative that we hear that gives officers who may not want to comply with the higher degrees of protocols that we’re requiring these officers, or that the department — by the way, the department itself is requiring and holding itself to those standards — it provides them with the ability to obstruct or to violate policies. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

And the real issue, I think is as we stress, and as Mr. Mowrer stressed at the last proceeding: There are multiple factors that lead to a rise in crime. CASA isn’t one of them. Constitutional community-based policing and fighting crime are not mutually exclusive. I think it’s clear from some of the comments that this may be an attempt to reargue or relitigate the use of force policy suite. That’s simply not the case. We’re not there. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

The vast majority of the officers, the men and women of the Albuquerque Police Department are doing everything they can to not only address crime in our community, but also to do so by fully complying with the CASA. As I stressed the last time we had our hearing, my predecessors in the prior city administration did not faithfully execute this Court’s order.

These obligations are not political moves. These aren’t — it’s not a box to be checking. What these are, in the steps of this department is taking to limit these policies are to comply this Court’s lawfully entered order, which is the CASA. Yes, it’s a settlement agreement, but it’s also a lawful order by the court.

What is clear from the data, and that we know from other jurisdictions, is that constitutional community-based policing objectives, which include de-escalation techniques, lead to not only better outcomes for members of our community; it leads to better outcomes and increased safety for our officers and the people on the streets, as well as it prolongs the longevity of their careers. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

What is difficult is learning a new way to do things. And I want to be sensitive to that. That’s a point that I in artfully made at the last proceeding. These officers — while I may have tried to alluded to a “diet,” what these officers are doing is learning a whole new way of interacting with the world in which they live. They are on the front lines again in a very dangerous time, keeping all of media, whether it’s in our community, that are misleading and unsupported by data. And I have made clear that the safety of our officers is the top priority.

Yes, we want to make sure that we are doing so and engaging in constitutional practices. But we have stressed to the Union and to its members that — and to counsel — that if there are provisions that pose unnecessary risk or operational challenges due to gaps, to let us know so we can work together with the partners at the Department of Justice and the members of the monitoring team to revise those policies so that they can be implemented in way that provides, not only for the safety of our officers, but members of the community as well. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

And so I would be remiss if I did not fully address that, Your Honor, because I think it’s dangerous. And I think that comments like that, if they’re going to be made, they need to be supported by data because it leads to confusion, and it also funnels into the distrust with members of the community and our police department. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

And that is something that is — we’re at the critical stage where we cannot and will not engage in anecdotes that are unsupported by facts, particularly at this momentum time where we are all trying to move forward for the betterment of our community. So thank you, Your Honor. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

JUDGE BROWNING:

Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. Mr. D’Amato, anything you want to say on that subject?

POLICE UNION ATTORNEY D’AMATO:

Well, Your Honor, thank you for the opportunity to respond. I believe I would refer the viewers and the listeners to those cities with either consent decrees or settlement agreements and draw their own conclusions. This isn’t the forum where Mr. Aguilar and I get to debate. But I would be most happy to take him up on a debate to show him simply how out of touch he is with Field Services Bureau and what the officers are experiencing. That’s all I have. Thank you. [Editor’s emphasis added.]

APD POLICE UNION PARTY TO FEDERAL LAWSUIT AND UNION MEMBERS ARE COUNTER CASA EFFECT

Soon after the entry of the CASA on November 10, 2014, the police union intervened in the lawsuit and became a third party to the case to advocate police union interest in city policy. The police union has been at the negotiating table for 6 years over the “use of force” and “deadly force policies” and even filed and objection with the court to those policies that the court denied. The Police Union officers and their lawyers have sat in the court room during all the hearings. It was the police union that was a major contributing cause for a full one-year delay in writing the new use of force and deadly force policies. At one point, the Federal Monitor noted told the Court that 51 changes were demanded that had to be addressed.

It was on September 10, 2018, at a status telephone conference call held with the Federal Judge assigned the case that Federal Monitor Dr. James Ginger first told the federal judge that a group of “high-ranking APD officers” within the department were trying to thwart reform efforts.

The Federal Monitor revealed that the group of “high-ranking APD officers” were APD sergeants and lieutenants. Because sergeants and lieutenants are part of the police bargaining unit they remained in their positions and could not be removed by the APD Chief. Federal Monitor Ginger referred to the group as the “counter-CASA effect.” Ginger described the group’s attitude as “certainly ambivalent” to the reform effort and the CASA. According to the transcript of the proceeding, Dr. Ginger told the Judge:

“The ones I’m speaking of are in critical areas and that ambivalence, alone, will give rise to exactly the sort of issues that we’ve seen in the past at the training academy. … So while it’s not overt, you know, there’s nobody sabotaging computer files or that sort of thing, it’s a sort of a low-level processing, but nonetheless, it has an effect. … It’s a small group, but it’s a widespread collection of sworn personnel at sergeant’s and lieutenant’s levels with civil service protection that appear to be, based on my knowledge and experience, not completely committed to this process … It is something that is deep-seated and it’s a little harder to find a quick fix or solution to it, but I think, in the long term, by having this foundation with new leadership and a new direction from the top down, we should be able to get through this and survive it.” [Editor’s emphasis added.]

The entire 53-page transcript of the conference call can be read here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GzUumHhiD3Mw2_dLg_czXml_T6-3QI2w/view

The 10th Federal Monitor’s report provided specific examples where APD, after 4 years of implementing the reforms, are still resisting the reform effort.

“Some members of APD continue to resist actively APD’s reform efforts, including using deliberate counter-CASA processes. For example:

• Sergeants assessed during this reporting period were “0 for 5” in some routine aspects of CASA-required field inspections;
• Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) disciplinary timelines, appear at times to be manipulated by supervisory, management and command levels at the area commands, letting known violations lie dormant until timelines for discipline cannot be met; and
• Spin up of “new” FRB processes will require persistent and candid review, assessment, oversight and support at the field level. “

On November 2, 2020, the Federal Court Appointed Monitor said for at least the 4th time in his reports that the “Counter Casa” effect was interfering with APD accomplishing the implementing the CASA reforms. According to the 12th report:

“[The federal monitor] identified strong under currents of Counter-CASA effects in some critical units on APD’s critical path related to CASA compliance. These include supervision at the field level; mid-level command in both operational and administrative functions, [including] patrol operations, internal affairs practices, disciplinary practices, training, and force review). Supervision, [the] sergeants and lieutenants, and mid-level command, [the commanders] remain one of the most critical weak links in APD’s compliance efforts.

… the monitoring team often found in its reviews of management and oversight practices, a near myopathy at APD when it comes to assessing actions in the field against the requirements of APD policy and the CASA. Supervisors and command level personnel have a deleterious tendency to ignore the requirements of policy and training, and at times to even support processes to hide or circumvent internal systems designed to ensure compliance to established policy.

“APD’s compliance efforts have exhibited serious shortfalls during the … reporting period. These range from critical shortfalls in management and oversight … significant and deleterious failures relating to oversight and discipline; and executive-level failures regarding oversight, command and control, discipline, supervision, and training.” [Editor’s emphasis added.]

POLICE UNION CONTRACT PROVISIONS

The contract negotiated by Keller Administration with the Albuquerque Police Officers Association (APOA) was for the time period of July 7, 2018 to June 30, 2020 and therefor expired on July 1, 2020. Despite the expiration, the terms remain in effect until a new contract is negotiated.

The 65-page APOA police “Collective Bargaining Agreement” (CBA) can be down loaded as a PDF file at this link:

https://www.cabq.gov/humanresources/documents/apoa-jul-9-2016.pdf/view

Three sections of the police union contract are worth noting. Those sections are:

Recognition

“ 1.3.1 The APOA is recognized as the Exclusive Representative for regular full time, non-probationary police officers through the rank of Lieutenants in the APD … . [Editor’s emphasis added.]
1.3.2. The City of Albuquerque extends to the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association representing such unit of employees the following rights:
1.3.2.1 To represent the employees in negotiations and in the settlement of grievances;
1.3.2.3 To exclusive representation status during the term of this agreement as provided in the Employee Relations Ordinance;
…
2.5 The City and the APOA recognize the necessity to collaborate on issues that arise as a result of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) investigation and proposals related to the findings of the DOJ regarding the Albuquerque Police Department. If the City anticipates the implementation of policies or directives related to its agreement discussions with the DOJ that impacts Officers’ terms or conditions of employment, the City will notify the APOA of its anticipated changes and provide APOA the opportunity to meet and confer with the City in a timely manner on the anticipated changes. The commitment will not prevent the APOA from submitting the changes for negotiations when the parties negotiate a successor collective bargaining agreement. [Editor’s emphasis added.]
… .
Under the union contract the APOA is recognized as the exclusive representative for regular full time, non-probationary police officers through the rank of Lieutenants in APD. This means the ranks of Sergeants, Master Police Officer, Senior Police Officers, Patrol Officers First Class, and all Detectives are included in the bargaining unit. Approximately 16 years ago, the positions of APD Captains, who are now called Area Commanders, were included in the bargaining unit until the City demanded their removal from the union in that they are management.

POLICE UNION CONTRACT VIOLATES NEW MEXICO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES BARGANING ACT

The New Mexico Public Employees Bargaining Act, Sections 10-7E-1 to 10-7E-26 H (NMSA 1978), governs the enforcement of the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the APD police union. The link to the statute is here:

https://www.pelrb.state.nm.us/statute.php

The sections on the “rights of employees”, “rights of employers, ” and “impasse resolutions are worth noting:

Section 10-7E-5 provides for the rights of public employees:

“Public employees, other than management employees and confidential employees, may form, join or assist a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives chosen by public employees without interference, restraint or coercion and shall have the right to refuse any such activities.”

The link to Section 10-7E-5 is here:

https://www.pelrb.state.nm.us/pdf/statutes/10-7E-5_Rights%20of%20public%20employees.pdf

The Public Employees Bargaining Act is very clear that “management employees” are strictly prohibited from joining the police union. Lieutenants and Sergeants are management positions, yet the City has allowed APD Lieutenants and Sergeants to be part of the collective bargaining unit and has done so for years.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is disingenuous for the APD Police Union to say that the union is not trying to get the city to end the reform process, especially 7 months before the November 2, 2021 municipal election where Mayor Tim Keller is seeking a second term.

Four years ago, the police union endorsed Keller and the union is now saying it does not know who it will be endorsing this year. Sources have confirmed many of the union members and police union advocates are advising and supporting Sheriff Manny Gonzalez for Mayor with a few working on his campaign. There is little doubt that once again APD and the union are attempting to run out the clock on another Mayor, this time the Keller Administration, knowing full well the municipal election is on November 2, 2021.

UNION SHOULD TELL IT TO THE JUDGE

Once the Police Union became a party to the Federal lawsuit, it agreed to subject itself to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and all the rules of the Federal Court. To a limited degree, all parties to any Federal Court action lose rights of free speech in order to protect the proceedings and the courts obligation to be fair and impartial and not be subject to political pressures. “Gag orders” are a commonly used by the courts on parties to prevent parties from discussing cases outside of the courtroom, especially with the media.

A major mistake the union has now made is that as a party to the lawsuit it should be taking its grievances to the Federal Court. The police union has no business talking and taking their grievances to the “court of public opinion” by undertaking a $70,000 political ad campaign that the other two parties, the city and the DOJ, cannot respond to any false claims.

Both the union attorneys are more than capable of filing pleadings in support or opposition of the CASA, have union membership present evidence under oath to the Judge and make argument in a court of law as to how the CASA reforms should be changed. The union attorneys could file any number of motions including a Motion To Dismiss The Case For Substantial Compliance, A Motion To Modify The Terms And Conditions Of The CASA, a Motion For And Order To APD To Rewrite Disciplinary Rules On Use of Force Reports.

Instead of taking their grievances to the Federal Judge, the union is expending an astonishing $70,000 for a political ad campaign. What the police may have bought with their $70,000 is a Contempt Proceeding for interference with a court order in a case that they are a party. No one knows if the Union attorneys had anything to do with the ad campaign or if they approved of it, but it’s not likely they did, especially with the Union spending $70,000 to disparage a Federal Court order.

UNION MEMBERSHIP HAS CONTRIBUTED TO APD NOT REACHING OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE

The biggest failure made clear in Federal Court Monitor’s 12th report filed on November 2, and now the 13th report relates to “Operational Compliance”. Operational Compliance is defined as “managements adherence and enforcement to APD policies in the day-to-day operation of APD” . Operational compliance is where line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance by their sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and upper command staff. In other words, APD “owns” and enforces its own policies and without expecting the Federal Monitor to do it for them.

SYNOPSIS OF FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE 13TH IMR REPORT

Under the terms and conditions of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement, once APD achieves a 95% compliance rate in the 3 identified compliance levels and maintains it for 2 consecutive years, the case can be dismissed. On May 3, the Federal Court Monitor released the 13th Independent Monitor’s Report (IMR-13 ) .APD’s compliance levels merit repeating:

Primary Compliance: 100%;
Secondary Compliance: 82%;
Operational Compliance: 59%.

Since the last report, IMR-12, the following changes in compliance levels are
noted:

Primary Compliance: No change at 100%
Secondary Compliance: A loss of 9.9%
Operational Compliance: A loss of 7.8%

It is not at all farfetched to conclude that the Police Union knew exactly what the Federal Monitor was going to report, and hence they started their $70,000 ad campaign.

All documents related to APD’s settlement agreement can be downloaded and reviewed at this city web site link:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents-related-to-apds-settlement-agreement

SARGEANTS AND LIEUTANTS ARE MANAGEMENT AND UION

APD police sergeants and lieutenants, who are management but allowed to be part of the police union, are on the front line to enforce personnel rules and regulations, standard operating procedures, approve and review work performed and assist in implementing DOJ reforms and standard operating procedures policies. They are where the “rubber meets the road” when it comes to police reforms.

The point that has been repeatedly made by the Federal Monitor is that “until the sergeants are in harness and pulling in the same direction as the chief, things won’t get done as quickly”. In other words, without the 100% support of the sergeants and lieutenants to the CASA mandated reforms, there will be little or no progress made with police reforms.

Only until APD becomes in complete compliance will APD be able to fight crime without violating people’s civil rights and thereby allow the dismissal of the DOJ consent decree. One thing for certain is that only APD management, the police union and all APD police officers can make the consent decree actually work and have the court dismiss it sooner rather than later.

SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST UNION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

Federal Judge James Browning has scheduled for June 9 a day long hearing on the Federal Monitor’s 13 report. Before the June 9 hearing, the City of Albuquerque and the Department of Justice need to file a Motion for Contempt of Court, either individually or jointly, and seek sanctions against the APOA Union for intentional interference with the Court Approved Settlement Order with its $70,000 political ad campaign and the CASA reforms.

Three sanctions the city and the DOJ should seek are:

1. The removal of all APD Sergeants and Lieutenants from the bargaining unit.

2. Seek to dismiss the APOA Union as a Third Party to the federal lawsuit.

3. Issue a “gag order” to the Police Union officials and allow the Union Attorneys to do their jobs in a court of law without constant public comments from the Police Union officials on the settlement.

Otherwise, the disruptive nonsense of the union will continue as it attempts to disrupt the APD reform process mandated by the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA).

This blog article provides a legal Analysis and Commentary in the context of mass shootings and the need to repeal the Second Amendment, ban assault weapons, regulate militias and on what responsible gun control legislation should be enacted on the federal and state levels.

MASS SHOOTINGS

In just 4 months, the United States has seen at least 147 mass shootings in 2021 according to data from the “Gun Violence Archive” (GVA) a non-profit based in Washington. A link to the statics is here:

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

According to GVA, starting on March 16, when 8 people were killed at 3 Atlanta-area spas, the US had at least 45 mass shootings in just one month. CNN compiled a list of the shootings and you can review them in the postscript below in reverse order from most recent to the latest.

On April 16, 2021, when 8 people were killed in the mass shooting at an Indianapolis FedEx facility, the total killed within the month was 53.

On April 8, President Joe Biden, accompanied in the Rose Garden by Vice President Kamal Harris and Attorney General Merrick Garland, proclaimed in a Rose Garden press conference:

“Gun violence in this country is an epidemic. And it’s an international embarrassment”.

Biden announced Executive Orders to deal with gun violence. Biden repeatedly argued that his executive actions do nothing to impinge on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The Executive Orders are limited in scope and fall short of what Biden vowed to pressure Congress to take. The orders do fulfill his March pledge to take “common-sense” steps on his own after a number of shootings that occurred in March. One order directly relates to the March shooting in Boulder, Colorado where a device known as an arm brace was used. Biden is ordering heavy regulation of arm braces used to make firing a pistol more accurate.

EXCUTIVE ACTIONS

Taken together, the actions amount to the first real steps by the Biden administration to combat gun violence. The executive actions include:

1. Efforts to restrict weapons known as “ghost guns” that can be built using parts and instructions purchased online. Ghost guns are handmade or self-assembled firearms that don’t have serial numbers. Some can be fabricated in as little as 30 minutes using kits and individual parts purchased online that do not require a background check, meaning they can essentially be bought by anyone. Biden wants the kits to be treated as firearms under the Gun Control Act. Key parts of the gun making kits would be required to have serial numbers so they can be traced. The act would also require background checks for people purchasing kits.

2. New investments in intervention programs in violence-prone communities

3. A directive to the Justice Department to publish model “red flag” laws for states that allow the temporary removal of guns from people deemed at high risk of harming themselves or others. Last year, the New Mexico Legislature enacted a “red flag” law.

4. On order is for a comprehensive report on firearms trafficking.

President Biden also announced that he is nominating gun control advocate David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which hasn’t had a permanent director in place since 2015.

Biden emphasized the announcements only amount to the first steps toward addressing gun violence, with later action, such as a ban on assault weapons or rules requiring universal background checks, requires Congressional action.

Biden, who is in the midst of implementing a national corona virus inoculation program and advancing a massive infrastructure plan, has previously voiced uncertainty on the likelihood of passing major new gun laws.

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

American voters have already said “enough is enough” when it comes to gun violence and they are demanding responsible gun control by congress and state legislatures. The Second Amendment is always cited by gun advocates.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in full:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

On January 14, 1990, Warren Burger, Conservative US Supreme Court Chief Justice, (1969-86) had this to say about the Second Amendment:

“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. “

Over many years, former Chief Justice Burger often said that the “right to bear arms” belongs to the states to regulate. He attacked the National Rifle Association (NRA) for promoting the opposite view with political manipulation using political donations to exert influence over America’s elected officials, especially Republican law makers.

Burger wrote in 1990 that the Second Amendment grew out of the founding fathers’ political philosophy that a state military force was necessary to protect the security of the state. He often quoted Elbridge Gerry, one of the founders and eventually James Madison’s vice president, as arguing that a state militia was necessary “to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Burger acknowledged that after 200 years of national defense, the role played by state militias was overshadowed and said:

“A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats – and dueling.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm

LANDMARK UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger passed away on June 25, 1995 at the age of 87. He likely turned over in his grave when in 2008, the United States Supreme court issued its ruling in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Heller decision was the very first US Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended strictly for state militias.

The US Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated the second amendment to the US Constitution. The landmark decision ruled the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms even if those arms are unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Second Amendment advocates always ignore that the case District of Columbia v. Heller also made it very clear that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership can be regulated. The Supreme Court said in Heller that restrictions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, on the carrying of arms in sensitive locations, and with respect to the conditions on the sale of firearms could be permissible under the constitution.

Instead, Second Amendment advocates cry out that they should be able to buy and sell guns of whatever type of gun they want, from whomever they want, and carry them and use them however they want because they are “responsible law-abiding citizens” and not criminals.

PANDEMIC OF GUN VIOLENCE DEATHS AND MASS SHOOTINGS

According to the “Gun Violence Archive”, the number gun violence death has spiked going from 12,356 deaths in 2014 to 19,378 in 2020. Following are the numbers:

2014: 12,356 killed
2015: 13,571 killed
2016: 15,121 killed
2017: 15,718 killed
2018: 14,885 killed
2019: 15,442 killed
2020: 19,378 killed

https://www.businessinsider.com/2020-more-gun-deaths-than-any-year-over-two-decades-2021-3

According to the “Gun Violence Archive”, the number of mass shootings incidents for the last 7 years has more than double going from 269 mass shootings to 611 mass shootings in one year.

Following are the numbers:

2014: 269 mass shootings
2015: 335 mass shootings
2016: 382 mass shootings
2017: 346 mass shootings
2018: 336 mass shootings
2019: 417 mass shootings
2020: 611 mass shootings

https://theconversation.com/mass-shootings-in-the-us-have-risen-sharply-in-2020-why-150981

The on-line publication Mother Jones has compiled a database of mass shooting from 1982 to the present. The data base is broken down by location, date, summary of the facts, the number of fatalities, and the number of injured. You can review the entire Mother Jones data base here:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

According to Mother Jones the mass shooting with guns in the last 11 years include: Orlando, Florida (49 killed, 50 injured), Blacksburg, Va. (32 killed), San Ysidro, Cal (21 killed), San Bernardino, (14 killed), Edmond Oklahoma (14 killed), Fort Hood (13 killed), Binghamton, NY (13 killed) Washington, DC (12 killed), Aurora, Colorado (12 killed), Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Conn (21 children and 6 adult staff members killed) and the largest mass shooting in this country’s history that occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada with at least 59 dead and at least 515 wounded and the Parkland/Stoneridge High School shooting that resulted in 17 children’s deaths, El Paso, Texas, 23 dead and 23 injured, Atlanta, Georgia (Atlanta Message Parlor) 10 killed, Boulder, Colorado (Boulder Supermarket) 8 killed.

“The deadliest mass shootings … have had one thing in common: the perpetrator used an assault rifle. These weapons possess an incredible amount of killing power, and amplify the destructive will of the person who carries out an attack. Nine people died and 27 were injured in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio in an attack that lasted 32 seconds. The killer used an AR-15 style assault rifle. Since 1999, there have been 115 mass shootings in which 941 people were killed and 1,431 were injured. Of those 115 attacks, 32 — just over a quarter — involved semi-automatic rifles. But those attacks accounted for 40% of all deaths and 69% of all injuries. Since 2017, 12 of the 31 mass shootings involved assault rifles — which caused 39% of the deaths and 92% of the injuries. That includes the Las Vegas massacre — which alone accounts for almost 40% of all mass shooting injuries since 1999. The perpetrator of that shooting used over 20 assault rifles during that attack.”

https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html

OVERWHELMING PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR GUN CONTROL

A Wall Street Journal- NBC News poll was conducted between August 10 to 14, 2019 after the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. The poll found that an overwhelming majority of Americans favor Congress expanding background checks for firearm sales, passing “red flag” laws and instituting a voluntary buyback program.

According to the poll, overall, the public remains divided over the government’s role in gun control, despite widespread support for those specific measures. 50% of Americans say they’re more concerned that the government won’t go far enough to regulate access to firearms, while 45% are more concerned gun control laws will be too restrictive. Only 46% of the 834 registered voters surveyed have a gun in their household.

Highlights of the poll are:

89% say they favor Congress expanding background checks to all firearm sales and transfers.
76% back “red flag” laws that help law enforcement temporarily remove guns from those deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others.
75% support a voluntary program where the government would buy back firearms that people no longer want.
62% favor banning the sale of selected semi-automatic firearms referred to as assault weapons.
25% support banning the sale of handguns.

Methodology: The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Aug. 10–14 of 1,000 adults — more than half reached by cellphone — and it has an overall margin of error of ±3.1 percentage points. The margin of error for the 834 registered voters interviewed is ±3.4 percentage points.

https://www.axios.com/gun-control-background-checks-red-flag-laws-congress-53675a5c-3a8b-4bc1-8af0-93df470dde1c.html

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT EXPANDS SECOND AMENDMENT

Over the years, the United State Supreme Court has expanded the Second Amendment right to right to keep and bear arms. It is referred to as the “right to bear arms” as a right for people to possess weapons or arms for their own defense.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution and, in that case, and in Presser v. Illinois (1886) recognized that the Second Amendment protected the right from being infringed by Congress.

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court again recognized that the right to arms is individually held and, citing the Tennessee case of Aymette v State, and indicated that it protected the right to keep and bear arms that are “part of the ordinary military equipment” or the use of which could “contribute to the common defense.”
In its first opportunity to rule specifically on who’s right the Second Amendment protects, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled in the landmark case that the amendment protects an individual right “to keep and carry arms in case of confrontation,” not contingent on service in any militia.”

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Republicans and right-wing conservatives are always the very first to scream out “judicial activism” whenever the United States Supreme Court expands or interprets the United States Constitution as protecting civil rights or privacy rights that are actually not outlined nor contained in the United States Constitution. The best example is the constant and relentless attack on the landmark case of Roe v. Wade that held that state bans on abortions were unconstitutional and the court protected a woman’s right to choose.

The outcry of “judicial activism” was nowhere to be heard from Republicans and conservatives when the Heller decision essentially ignored the specific language that the Second Amendment that deals with “well-regulated Militia militias.” It was the United States Supreme Court that decided to ignore the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment and expand it to apply to all citizens which was not necessary given the prior United States Supreme Court decisions of United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and United States v. Miller (1939) highlighted earlier in this article.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF SECOND AMENDMENT

A point all too often overlooked by the NRA and the defenders of the Second Amendment is the historical context of when the Second Amendment was enacted and the advancement of our technology to make and wage war. Simply put, times change, scientific advancements are made and fiction becomes a reality.

When the Second Amendment was enacted, the mode of transportation was horseback, flint locks were used to defend and wage war, there were no planes and no satellites. All mankind could do is look to the stars through telescopes. Life expectancy was around 50 years old if you survived childbirth and if you were lucky, you did not die of disease.

Today, our mode of transportation are cars, massive ships and jet airplanes. The US defends itself with nuclear warheads and cruise missiles. The United States has gone to the moon and back more than once. Medical advances are allowing people to live into their nineties, some over 100 and organ transplants are common place.

Sooner rather than later, gunpowder will be replaced by technology. No doubt Second Amendment advocates will want to hold a weapon of mass destruction in their hands like seen in Star Trek or Star Wars. It is not at all hard to imagine in 100 years an NRA member, if the NRA is even still around, and Second Amendment rights advocate going into a gun store and asking to buy the updated, hand held “Laser Death Star 100” saying it’s needed for the weekend hunt and proclaiming “My Laser Death Star 100 can take out an entire herd of elk, butcher it, cook it and make jerky out of it with just one shot!”

SECOND AMENDMENT CAN BE REPEALED

The purpose and intent of why the United States Constitution allows for amendments is contained in our Declaration of Independence when it says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.“

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

The “right to bear arms” is NOT a right embodied or guaranteed in the original constitution. Second amendment advocates ignore that all the Amendments to the US Constitution that have been enacted and can be repealed or substituted by the will of the people.

Our founding fathers knew that for a democracy such as ours to survive, it needed a process to allow government to be able to reflect changing times, grant and protect human rights and civil rights and allow the US Constitution to conform with changing norms and make corrections. Otherwise, we would still have slavery, women would not be able to vote and we would not be able to drink wine and spirits.

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declares that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”, and it formally abolished slavery in the United States. The Civil War over slavery ended on April 9, 1865. The 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865.

The 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. It was passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920.

The 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution repealed the 18th Amendment mandated nationwide prohibition on the production and sale of alcohol. The 21st Amendment passed congress on January 16, 1919 and was ratified by the states on December 5, 1933.

CITIZEN MILITIAS DEFINED

“Private Militias”, more commonly known by the general public as “Citizen Militias” are loosely defined as “armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by the United State Government or state governments.” Upwards of half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias.

A Wyoming, a very conservative and reliable “red state” has a statute that prohibits the very formation of private militias. Wyoming State Statutes provides:

“No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor.”

Section 19-1-106, Wyoming Statutes Annotated

The Wyoming statute also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.

THE INSURRECTION THEORY OF SECOND AMENDMENT

“Legal and political scholars have argued that citizen militias are driven by what is known as the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment. Under this view, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms for self-defense and for “rebellion against a tyrannical government” defined as when a government turns oppressive and private citizens have a duty to “insurrect” or take up arms against their own government.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951):

“[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a ‘right’ to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.”

Legal scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government. This is particularly relevant to the January 6, 2021 storming and takeover of the United States Capital to prevent Congress from certifying the electoral college vote for President Joe Biden. The January 6 takeover of the capital was sedition, pure plan and simple.

https://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Second-Amendment-PRIVATE-MILITIAS.html

In states that allow militias, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all. In other words, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members are subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms violations, or even riot statutes.”

Links to quoted sources are here:

https://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Second-Amendment-PRIVATE-MILITIAS.html

https://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Second-Amendment-PRIVATE-MILITIAS.html#ixzz6RZtSrv00

CONGRESS AND STATES SHOULD ENACT MILITIA REGISTRATION ACT

There is no comprehensive federal law that regulates militias under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and citizen militias are not regulated in the State of New Mexico.

Those who take it upon themselves to associate and bear arms calling themselves “citizen militias”, such as those who stormed the United States Capital on January 6 insighted by Führer Trump with his false claims that the election was stolen are insurrectionist. They take it to the extreme when they attend protests fully armed in military attire proclaiming, they attend to assume the responsibility law enforcement to protect people and property and “take back our country”.

As shootings escalate with mass murders and protests, the State of New Mexico and the United State Congress need to enact legislation that defines what a “citizen miltia” is and either ban them entirely or regulate all citizens militias.

A Citizen’s Militia Registration Act needs to be enacted. Citizen militias need to be defined along similar lines of how “gangs” are defined under federal criminal law.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-gang-definitions

A “citizens miltia” can be easily defined as:

“An association of three or more individuals, whose members collectively identify themselves by adopting a group identity employing one or more of the following: a common name, slogan, identifying sign, symbol, flag, uniforms or military apparel or other physical identifying marking, style or color of clothing, whose purpose in part is to engage in the protection of private property and other people. A registered citizens militia may employ rules for joining and operating within the militia and members may meet on a recurring basis.”

A Citizen Militia Registration Act would require citizen militias to:

1, Allow only American Citizens to be members of a citizen militia.

2. Register with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) within the United States Department of Justice.

3, Require members to register their firearms with the ATFE.

4.Pay yearly regulation fees and firearm certification fees and carry liability insurance.

5. Identify all their members by name, address and contact information.

6. Prohibit felons from joining.

7. Limit their authority and powers so as to prevent militias to engage in law enforcement activities.

8. Require members to pass criminal background checks and psychological testing.

9. Mandate training and instructions on firearm use and safety.

10. Require all militias and its members to agree to follow all local and federal laws.

11. Failure to register as mandated by federal would be a felony.

OTHER PROPOSALS TO CONSIDER LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY

There are many other legislative proposals, too controversial for Republican United State Senators to stomach, that need to be considered and enacted by congress.

The United State Congress should:

1. Implement mandatory background checks on the sale of all guns.

2. Close the “Charleston loophole” or “delayed denial” where federally licensed dealers can sell guns if three business days pass without FBI clearance.

3. Call for the update and enhancement of the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check system (NCIS).

4. Institute mandatory extended waiting periods for all gun purchases.

5. Implement mandatory handgun licensing, permitting, training, and registration requirements.

6. Ban “bump-fire stocks” as was used in the Las Vegas mass shooting and other dangerous accessories.

7. Ban future manufacture and sale of all assault weapons and regulate existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act of 1934, and initiate a federal gun buyback program.

8. Impose limits on high-capacity magazines.

9. Prohibit firearm sale or transfer to and receipt or possession by an individual who has: (1) been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor hate crime, or (2) received from any court an enhanced hate crime misdemeanor sentence.

10. Institute mandatory child access prevention safe storage requirements and prohibit the sales of handguns with “hair triggers”.

11. Provide more resources and treatment for people with mental illness.

12. Enhance accountability of federally licensed firearms dealers.

13. Implement micro stamped code on each bullet that links it to a specific gun.

14. Produce ‘x-mart guns’ with Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or biometric recognition (fingerprint) capability.

15. Limit gun purchases to one gun per month to reduce trafficking and straw purchases.

16. Prohibit open carry of firearms.

17. Digitize Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire (ATF) gun records.

18. Require licensing for ammunition dealer.

In New Mexico, our legislature should:

1. Repeal the New Mexico Constitutional provision that allows the “open carry” of firearms. This would require a public vote and no doubt generate heated discussion given New Mexico’s high percentage of gun ownership for hunting, sport or hobby.

2. Prohibit in New Mexico the sale of “ghost guns” parts. Ghost guns are guns that are manufactured and sold in parts without any serial numbers to be assembled by the purchaser and that can be sold to anyone.

3. Requiring in New Mexico the mandatory purchase of “liability insurance” with each gun sold as is required for all operable vehicles bought and driven in New Mexico.

4. Enact a gun violence restraining order and extreme risk protection process to temporarily prohibit an individual deemed by a judge to pose a danger to self or others, from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and allow law local law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual’s possession.

5. Restrict and penalize firearm possession by or transfer to a person subject to a domestic violence protection order or a person, including dating partners, convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor.

6. Mandate the school systems and higher education institutions “harden” their facilities with more security doors, security windows, and security measures and alarm systems and security cameras tied directly to law enforcement 911 emergency operations centers.

FINAL COMMENTARY

Of all the legislation suggested it is enacting a Militia Registration Act that makes the most sense. A registration of citizens militias would go along way to deal with the insurrection that occurred in the United State Capitol on January 6, especially citizens militias such as the Proud Boys.

There is no comprehensive federal law that regulates militias under the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and citizen militias are not regulated in the State of New Mexico.

What is needed at a minimum on federal level are prohibitions and the ban of the manufacture, sale and distribution to the general public of semi-automatic firearms, AR-15 style rifles, assault weapons, semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic shotguns and weapons that result in the most murders in the shortest amount of time.

Until the United States congress does something to enact reasonable and responsible gun control measures and ban assault weapons, we can expect many more mass shootings at soft targets. Soft targets include all public schools, movie theaters, malls, department stores and major public events like concerts and state fairs. The mass shootings will again be followed by the predictable cycle of news coverage, more outrage, more nighttime candle vigils, more funerals, more condolences, more rhetoric demanding action.

Congress and our legislators can end the madness but only if they have the backbone and will to act and help fulfill the goal of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as declared in our Declaration of Independence.

__________________________________________

POSTSCRIPT

Following an edited CNN listing of the 45 mass shooting incidents reported from March 16 to April 15 in reverse order.

April 15: Indianapolis
Eight people were killed and several others wounded in a mass shooting at an Indianapolis FedEx facility on Thursday night, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Genae Cook said.

April 15: Pensacola, Florida
At least six people were injured at an Escambia County apartment complex. No suspects are in custody.

April 15: Washington, DC
Four people were shot, including a teenage girl, Thursday in Northeast Washington, DC..

April 13: Baltimore
Police said a dice game turned violent when two shooters opened fire on a group, injuring four.

April 12: Chicago
Four people were shot, one fatally, and a fifth person was hit by a car in a shooting early Monday on the Eisenhower Expressway.

April 11: Wichita, Kansas
One person was killed and three others injured in a shooting at a house party at an East Wichita Airbnb.
A toddler and three other people were injured when suspects fired into a business parking lot.

April 10: Memphis, Tennessee
One person was killed and three others were injured, including a mother and child, after gunfire was exchanged in a Memphis neighborhood.

April 10: Koshkonong, Missouri
One person was killed and three others injured in a shooting at a convenience store.

April 10: Waterbury, Connecticut
Police responded to calls of a weapons complaint and found blood trails and four injured victims.

April 10: Allendale, Michigan
An incident outside a house party resulted in four people being shot and one critically injured.

April 9: Fort Worth, Texas
One person was killed and at least five others injured when people in two vehicles shot at each other on a Fort Worth, Texas, freeway Friday night, officials said.

April 8: Bryan, Texas
A gunman killed one person and wounded at least five others — four of them critically — at a cabinet manufacturer, police said.

April 7: Rock Hill, South Carolina
A former NFL player killed six people — including a prominent doctor, his wife and their two young grandchildren — before killing himself, authorities said.

April 7: Milwaukee
A 26-year-old man was charged with the shooting that killed two people and injured two others at a gas station.

April 6: Detroit
One person was killed and three others injured after gunfire erupted from a car.

April 5: Baltimore
Five victims were taken to a hospital with multiple gunshot wounds.

April 4: Monroe, Louisiana
Police responded to Bobo’s Bar, where they found six victims with gunshot wounds.

April 4: Birmingham, Alabama
An argument between two groups of men devolved into more than 30 shots fired at a park on Easter — killing a woman and wounding five other people, including four children, police said.

April 4: Beaumont, Texas
A man arrived at a home, threatening several people with a firearm before shooting four victims.

April 3: Wilmington, North Carolina
Three people were killed and four others injured in a mass shooting at a house party.

April 3: Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Two men were arrested and charged with attempted murder after five people were injured during a shooting outside an Alabama bar, police said.

April 3: Dallas
In what police said was an apparent murder-suicide plot, 21-year-old and 19-year-old brothers made a pact to kill their parents, sister and grandmother.

April 3: Quincy, Florida
Seven people were injured by gunfire near a nightclub after a fight broke out into gunshots.

March 31: Orange, California
Four people, including a child, were killed and another person wounded in a mass shooting at an office complex in Orange, California, according to authorities.

March 31: Washington, DC
Five people were shot in Washington, the DC Police Department said. The incident started as a dispute and ended with two people dead and three injured.

March 28: Cleveland
Seven people were shot at a Cleveland nightclub, according to CNN affiliate WOIO. The victims, four men and three women, were all between 20 and 30 years old, and police believe several people fired inside the nightclub, the station reported.

March 28: Chicago
Four people in an SUV were shot on the I-57 expressway, according to CNN affiliate WLS. All were taken to hospitals in critical condition.

March 28: Essex, Maryland
A man fatally shot his parents before shooting three people at a convenience store, killing two of them, CNN affiliate WBOC reported, citing Baltimore County police. The suspect died by suicide.

March 27: Chicago
Four people were shot in Chicago’s South Austin neighborhood, according to CNN affiliate WBBM. The victims, who included men ages 42, 53 and 64, were near a sidewalk when they were shot, the station reported.

March 27: Yazoo City, Mississippi
At least seven people were injured in a mass shooting at a nightclub, CNN affiliate WLBT reported. At least six people were shot and another person suffered a laceration, the station reported.

March 27: River Grove, Illinois
A shooting on a party bus left three people injured and one dead, according to CNN affiliate WLS. Police say the occupants of another vehicle fired at the bus while stopped at an intersection, the station reported.

March 26: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Three shootings in the city left eight people injured and two dead, according to the City of Virginia Beach.

March 26: Chicago
A gathering in Chicago’s Wrightwood neighborhood turned into a mass shooting, according to CNN affiliate WLS. Two gunmen opened fire inside the gathering, wounding seven people and fatally shooting a 26-year-old man, the station reported.

March 26: Norfolk, Virginia
Police responded to a shooting that left four people wounded, CNN affiliate WTKR reported. The victims — two 18-year-old men, a 17-year-old girl and a 21-year-old woman — sustained non-life-threatening gunshot wounds.

March 26: Memphis, Tennessee
Five people were shot, the Memphis Police Department said on Twitter. Three victims were pronounced dead at the scene, two were taken to a hospital in critical condition, and one was in non-critical condition, the tweet said. Michael Tucker, the man identified as the suspect, was found dead in a motel in Nashville Thursday. Police spokesman Don Aaron said it is believed Tucker died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

March 26: Philadelphia
Outside of the Golf and Social Club, police say two suspects shot seven people, CNN affiliate WPVI reported. Video released by police shows two suspects approaching a gathering crowd and opening fire.

March 23: Aliceville, Alabama
A shooting reported at an Aliceville home left two people dead and two injured.

March 23: Boulder, Colorado
Ten people, including a Boulder police officer, were killed in a shooting at a King Soopers supermarket, according to police.

March 20: Philadelphia
One person was killed and another five were injured in a shooting at an illegal party, CNN affiliate KYW reported. “There were at least 150 people in there that fled and believed they had to flee for their lives,” Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said.

March 20: Dallas
Eight people were shot, one fatally, by an unknown assailant, according to police.

March 20: Houston
Five people were shot after a disturbance inside a club, according to police. One was in critical condition after being shot in the neck, and the rest were in stable condition.

March 18: Gresham, Oregon
Four victims were taken to the hospital after a shooting in the city east of Portland, police said in an initial report.

March 17: Stockton, California
Five people who were preparing a vigil in Stockton, in California’s Central Valley, were shot in a drive-by shooting, the San Joaquin Sheriff’s Department said. None had life-threatening injuries.

March 16: Atlanta
Eight people, including six Asian women, were killed when a White gunman stormed three spas, police said.

March 28: Cleveland
Seven people were shot at a Cleveland nightclub. The victims, four men and three women, were all between 20 and 30 years old, and police believe several people fired inside the nightclub, the station reported.

March 28: Chicago
Four people in an SUV were shot on the I-57 expressway. All were taken to hospitals in critical condition.

March 28: Essex, Maryland
A man fatally shot his parents before shooting three people at a convenience store, killing two of them. The suspect died by suicide.

March 27: Chicago
Four people were shot in Chicago’s South Austin neighborhood. The victims, who included men ages 42, 53 and 64, were near a sidewalk when they were shot, the station reported.

March 27: Yazoo City, Mississippi
At least seven people were injured in a mass shooting at a nightclub. At least six people were shot and another person suffered a laceration, the station reported.

March 27: River Grove, Illinois
A shooting on a party bus left three people injured and one dead. Police say the occupants of another vehicle fired at the bus while stopped at an intersection, the station reported.

March 26: Virginia Beach, Virginia,
Three shootings in the city left eight people injured and two dead.

March 26: Chicago
A gathering in Chicago’s Wrightwood neighborhood turned into a mass shooting. Two gunmen opened fire inside the gathering, wounding seven people and fatally shooting a 26-year-old man, the station reported.

March 26: Norfolk, Virginia
Police responded to a shooting that left four people wounded, The victims — two 18-year-old men, a 17-year-old girl and a 21-year-old woman — sustained non-life-threatening gunshot wounds.

March 26: Memphis, Tennessee
Five people were shot Three victims were pronounced dead at the scene, two were taken to a hospital in critical condition, and one was in non-critical condition, the tweet said. Michael Tucker, the man identified as the suspect, was found dead in a motel in Nashville. Police spokesman Don Aaron said it is believed Tucker died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

March 26: Philadelphia
Outside of the Golf and Social Club, police say two suspects shot seven people. Video released by police shows two suspects approaching a gathering crowd and opening fire.

March 23: Aliceville, Alabama
A shooting reported at an Aliceville home left two people dead and two injured.

March 23: Boulder, Colorado
Ten people, including a Boulder police officer, were killed in a shooting at a King Soopers supermarket, according to police.

March 20: Philadelphia
One person was killed and another five were injured in a shooting at an illegal party, CNN affiliate KYW reported. “There were at least 150 people in there that fled and believed they had to flee for their lives,” Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said.

March 20: Dallas
Eight people were shot, one fatally, by an unknown assailant, according to police.
March 20: Houston: Five people were shot after a disturbance inside a club, according to police. One was in critical condition after being shot in the neck, and the rest were in stable condition.

March 18: Gresham, Oregon
Four victims were taken to the hospital after a shooting in the city east of Portland, police said in an initial report.

March 17: Stockton, California
Five people who were preparing a vigil in Stockton, in California’s Central Valley, were shot in a drive-by shooting, the San Joaquin Sheriff’s Department said. None had life-threatening injuries.

March 16: Atlanta
Eight people, including six Asian women, were killed when a White gunman stormed three spas, police said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/us/mass-shootings-45-one-month/index.html

Alan Wagman is a retired Public Defender attorney in Albuquerque. He served on the city’s Police Oversight Task Force in 2013-14 and continues to work on police reform and human rights issue. He has also worked as a legislative analyst. Mr. Wagman submitted the below guest column for publication on this blog:

EDITOR’S NOTE: The opinions expressed in this article are those of attorney Alan Wagman and do not necessarily reflect those of the political blog www.petedinelli.com. Mr. Wagman was not compensated for his guest column.

“On April 27, the Albuquerque Journal ran a front-page story about the Albuquerque Police Officers Association (APOA). The APOA, it seems, has begun an advertising and public relations campaign against the city’s continuing efforts to comply with the consent decree in the Department of Justice lawsuit.

https://www.abqjournal.com/2384284/apd-union-launches-campaign-against-doj-oversight.html

The Washington post ran a story about the nationwide failure of civilian oversight of police. The story begins and ends with extensive coverage of Albuquerque, including the problems with the Civilian Police Oversight Agency and Albuquerque’s general non-compliance with the federal court consent decree.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2021/civilian-oversight-police-accountability/?

Both stories are important. Both stories illustrate the futility of efforts to reform policing. Not just in Albuquerque, but everywhere. The fatal flaw in both stories, though, is the failure to acknowledge the roots of American policing’s resistance to reform. To understand why reform is not working, it is necessary to examine the history of American policing: its beginnings; its development; its role today in a society with economic inequality at historic levels.

AMERICAN SLAVERY PART OF HISTORICAL ROOTS OF AMERICAN POLICING

Economic inequality has been with us throughout our history and is foundational to the United States, including and perhaps especially in the US Constitution. James Madison, often called the father of the Constitution, posited that the purpose of government is to protect the opulent minority from the majority. As instrumentalities of government, police are organized to protect the minority who have accumulated a disproportionate share of societal wealth and income. To that end, those who have been locked out of a fair share of wealth and income must be pacified. Pacification may be accomplished either by keeping people in an unfree status or by setting them against each other. In America, police have always been the front-line instrument to pacify those who are not getting fair shares.

Although policing in America has always served the core purpose of protecting the opulent minority, two separate policing traditions developed and then merged. One tradition began in the North; the other developed in the South. The Southern model – slave catching – is both the earlier and the more familiar model of the origins of American policing, so we can begin there, in Virginia.

The first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619. The story as usually told is that these Africans were enslaved upon arrival, and when we speak of unfree people and unfree labor in his country, the general assumption is that we are speaking of enslaved black-skinned people. But in the beginning, there was no color line that made some people free and others not.

Most white people – about sixty percent – who came here before 1775 were unfree when they arrived. Some came in as indentured servants on a contract to work for a specific number of years; some came in because they were in poor houses in England, and someone had purchased their debts and therefore owned their labor for a period of time; and some came in because they were simply kidnapped off the streets of London and sent to the colonies to work involuntarily.

In the beginning, there was not much difference in status between the unfree blacks and the unfree whites. The captive Angolans sold to Virginia colonists in 1619 were likely considered to be indentured, just like unfree whites; the historical record is ambiguous about the exact status of those particular Africans. It is clear, however, that for decades there were blacks who were considered as indentured, the same status held by unfree whites.

As one might expect of people holding the same status, the unfree people congregated together. They mixed socially. They intermarried. And they rebelled together.

That rebellion together became a problem, because the unfree laborers grossly outnumbered the people who owned their labor. In the absence of police to enforce unfree status, the opulent minority which controlled society resorted to setting the unfree laborers against each other.

To this end, beginning in about 1630 and continuing for about forty years, especially in the South, colonial legislatures enacted laws to separate the status of unfree blacks from that of unfree whites. The laws restricted the movement and other activities of unfree blacks more than that of unfree whites.

Even then, it still took until 1640 – more than a decade after the first of these laws was enacted and more than two decades after the arrival of African labor at Jamestown – before we have a clear, unambiguous record of a black-skinned laborer being enslaved rather than indentured. And even then, it was because a court changed the man’s status from indentured to enslaved.

In 1640, John Punch, an indentured servant of African descent, ran away with two other indentured servants. When they were caught, a judge punished the other two – an Englishman and a Dutch man – with a four-year extension of their indenture periods. As for Mr. Punch, the judge extended the indenture period until the end of his life, making John Punch the first officially enslaved person that we know of in the United States.

SLAVE PATROLS

In addition to imposing restrictions on black laborers of all types, elites promised unfree whites that they would eventually become eligible to purchase or otherwise own land stolen from the indigenous people of this continent. Whites also became eligible for jobs as overseers. But what was perhaps the most significant step to separate unfree and lower-rung whites from unfree blacks was to allow – and in fact, mandate – these whites to join slave patrols.

Slave patrols were mandatory for every white male from age eighteen to age forty-five. The Slave patrols were the “well-regulated militia” referred to in the Second Amendment to justify creating a right to bear arms. Privileging low-status, landless, unemployed whites to serve in slave patrols alongside the biggest landowners and the most prestigious white people in the area created a bond and an identification, a sense that whiteness set even the lowest status slave patroller apart from and against black laborers.

With this separation and opposition, there was no more congregating together across an artificial color line. No more socializing. No more intermarriage. And, most important for the elites, no more joint rebellions. Once white labor was no longer pacified by being made unfree, laborers were pacified – and social control was established, then and still – by setting non-elite white-skinned people against black-skinned people.

One other thing to note about slave patrols as forerunners of modern American policing: Slave patrols were allowed – and in fact mandated – to inflict corporal punishment upon black-skinned people they encountered out on the road without passes. Patrollers administered whippings and beatings on the spot, without court proceedings, without what we and the Constitution call “due process.”

Slave patrols, of course, ended after the Civil War, after enslaved people were emancipated. But the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, contained a loophole, one which Southern white elites used to reverse emancipation. And policing was key. The loophole in the amendment stated that slavery could be imposed “as a punishment for crime.”

BLACK CODES IN THE POST CIVIL WAR ERA

To take advantage of this loophole, Southern white elites passed so-called Black Codes throughout the South which made it illegal for black people to be unemployed or to be out in public with no money. Under these laws, nominally free black people could either submit to whatever terms an employer imposed or take advantage of “freedom” and quit to seek employment elsewhere, risking arrest.

Police were all too ready to arrest any black person who had left a job, who could not find a job, or who had no money. Once arrested, African-Americans were re-enslaved, “as a punishment for crime.” Southern states, counties, and towns sold enslaved labor to the cotton and sugar plantation owners from whom they had ostensibly been emancipated. Northern-owned concerns like US Steel purchased enslaved labor as well.

For decade after decade, police arrested laborers, counties enslaved laborers and sold their labor. It was not until 1940 that the United States Supreme Court made the practice more difficult by ruling that authorities could not arrest and convict people for the crime of not having money. Nonetheless, the license plates on cars are still produced by enslaved laborers.

ENGLISH POLICING INFLUENCE OVER THE NORTH

Unlike the home-grown policing tradition of the South, the policing tradition which took hold in the North began in England in 1829 with the passage of the Metropolitan Police Act. The Act allowed the formation of city police forces. Sir Robert “Bobby” Peel, from whom London police get the name “Bobbies” formed the London police force – but not to combat crime.

London at the time was flooded with unemployed – and more important, unemployable – displaced rural people who had lost their lands as agriculture became concentrated in the hands of fewer, wealthier landowners. The displacement followed the Enclosure Acts, under which so-called “common land” was sold off – often at reduced prices – to richer landowners. Peasants were barred from their traditional use of the commons. They could no longer graze cows or otherwise maintain their lifestyle and existence. The dispossessed rural folk, having nowhere to go, went to London.

At the same time, in urban areas, skilled tradesmen were losing their livelihoods to industrialization. Standardized production in factories made skilled trades and individual specialists unnecessary. The newly obsolete tradesmen joined rural folk in the London slums.

Both rural folk and tradesmen were used to working on their own schedule and taking care of their own chores and necessities when they saw fit to do so. Their habits did not change in the urban slums. With no need to get up in the morning, they stayed up late. With no need to be quiet and sober, they were drunk and rowdy.

This was a problem for London’s growing industrial economic power and the elites behind that power. Rowdy drunks who partied late into the night kept shift workers awake. The loss of sleep reduced workers’ productivity and cut into the factory owners’ profits. Equally bad for the industrial bosses, rowdy drunks who did not live by set schedules were not suitable to fill the growing number of industrial job openings. Until they were controlled and regimented, they could not serve as an excess labor pool to enable employers to keep wages low.

Enter Sir Robert Peel and the newly-created London police. The mission was not to stop violent crime. The mission was not to stop property crime. Superficially, the mission was to keep the public peace – meaning to keep things quiet enough so that people with jobs could sleep at night and be productive in the daytime. The corollary mission, though, was to create by force a population capable of being an industrial work force, full of potential employees who could both fill jobs and be set against those who already had jobs.

FIRST AMERICAN MUNCIPAL POLICE FORCE

Nine years later, in 1839, Boston created the first American municipal police force on the London model. Its mission was to control rowdy, drunken, Irish immigrants and transform them into an industrial work force, complete with excess labor to set against those already employed. Once again, this was less about crime than it was about making people conform to the needs of the elite owners of industrial production.

This became a pattern in Northern cities. There were no slave patrols, because by the time formal policing began, Northern states had abolished slavery. Unlike in the South, policing was not racialized by skin color; until the “Great Migration” of African Americans in the twentieth century, there was not a significant African-American population in the North. Rather, policing in the North set first generation immigrants against newly-arrived immigrants.

The first police in the North were Anglo-Saxons, who policed newly-arrived Germans. A generation later, first-generation German-Americans policed newly-arrived Irish immigrants. Still another generation later, first-generation Irish-Americans policed newly-arrived Poles and Italians and Jews. Each immigrant group, as it moved up into the socially-constructed definition of “whiteness,” gained that status in part by policing the next immigrant arrivals, who were not yet considered to be “white.”

By the latter part of the nineteenth century, Northern police added to their roles and duties. They served as enforcers – that is, hired thugs – for corrupt politicians. Police also served as strikebreakers, beating and arresting union members or workers who dared to go on strike or try to organize unions. (For example, the original mission of the Pennsylvania State Police was to suppress labor disputes.) Essentially, police openly and brazenly did the bidding of corporate and financial elites, And, as with slave patrols in the South, they were empowered to mete out extrajudicial corporate punishment.

A NEW CHAPTER OF AMERICAN POLICING

In the twentieth century, the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to the North ushered in a new chapter of American policing. Beginning in 1916, large numbers of black Americans came north, looking to escape destitution and Jim Crow. When white Americans arrived home from World War I, they found a new “immigrant” community in place, competing for jobs.

Whites responded in 1919. In that year alone, there were over 60 race massacres in cities across the United States – North, South, East, West, virtually everywhere. African American homes were burned; African American businesses were destroyed; hundreds of African Americans were murdered. Police response ranged from doing nothing to providing weapons to marauding whites to disarming and arresting blacks who were trying to defend themselves.

Throughout the 1920s, largely because of Prohibition and the growth of organized crime, police corruption grew and was perceived to be a problem. In response, August Vollmer, Berkeley, CA police chief, led a movement to “professionalize” police. This included training, modern equipment, widespread use of police cars, etc. In addition, Vollmer created university curricula for training police and wrote police manuals that are still in use today.

Although that sounds good, August Vollmer’s ideas about policing grew out of his experience in the Philippines during and after the Spanish-American War. During the war, the US allied with Filipino freedom fighters, who were fighting Spain for independence. After the US took the Philippines from Spain and reneged on promised Philippine independence, the rebels resumed their fight, this time against the US. Vollmer learned how to infiltrate Filipino villages, how to use extreme violence to exert control, and how to use torture to extract information. As well, this father of modern policing considered African-Americans to be a degenerate race, genetically disposed to criminality.

A new chapter began after World War II, as American police forces continued to reorganize and professionalize themselves. The Los Angeles Police Department reorganized itself explicitly to control the city’s growing African-American population. Orlando Wilson, Chicago Police Chief Orlando Wilson, a student of Vollmer, went before the Chicago City Council every year throughout the 1960s to request an increase to the police budget. Each time, he explicitly said that he needed the money because the African-American population was growing. Chicago City Council never denied Wilson his requested budget increase.

1960’s CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

From 1964 to 1968, racial rebellions broke out in cities across the country – Harlem, LA, Newark, Detroit, DC, Baltimore, and more. These rebellions differed from the racial massacres of earlier decades. These were not invasions of white people into black neighborhoods. These were not armed white people killing black people. These were uprisings of black people against the oppressive institutions in their own neighborhoods. In response, heavily-armed police, national guard troops – and in some cases regular US army troops – invaded African American neighborhoods and killed people to protect property.

The rebellions of the 1960s generated three policing responses:

(1) In 1965, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, which accelerated the trend toward increasing militarization of policing.

(2) President Richard Nixon declared a “War on Drugs.” This was not because there was a drug problem serious enough to justify a “war.” This was explicitly aimed at undermining white anti-war and black anti-racist political activity and potential joinder of the movements.

(3) Beginning with George Wallace and continuing through Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and more others than can be counted, calls for “law and order” were stand-ins to divide white people from black people.

All three of these trends use what are now popularly called “dog whistles” as proxies for race and race-based policing. As the late Lee Atwater, top political strategist to George H.W. Bush put it, “You start in 1954 by saying ‘N****r, n****r, n****r.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘N****r.’ That hurts you. It backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff and you get so abstract. Now you talk about cutting taxes and these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. … So anyway you look at it, race is coming on the back burner.” Although Atwater did not directly invoke the need for police in his explanation, he created the “Willie Horton” ad in the 1988 presidential campaign to stoke white fears of black people

POLICING IN AMERICA TODAY

Today, with or without dog whistles, police maintain a choke-hold on people of color and low-income communities. To this end, arrest warrants are an important new weapon in the policing arsenal. The process for generating arrest warrants is as follows: Police officers give out citations like candy, A ticket could be for a parking violation, for a broken tail light, for jaywalking, for making too much noise, for rolling through a stop sign, for an expired license tab, for air freshener hanging from the rear-view mirror, or for [fill in the blank]. If the person does not pay the ticket, because they can’t afford it, or they don’t make it to court, because they’ll lose their job, a court will issue an arrest warrant. But that’s just the beginning.

Once a warrant is generated against a person, nothing happens until police identify that the person has a warrant. Because neither police nor anyone else can tell who has a warrant and who does not, police stop anyone they choose to stop in order to check for warrants. Police do not have to see any wrongdoing or believe any wrongdoing is taking place. Police can stop anyone, anytime.

LAW ENFORCMENT HAS POWER TO STOP PEOPLE FOR NO REASON

Although it seems as though this should be unconstitutional it is not. In 2016, the US Supreme Court ruled it is Constitutionally permissible for police to stop people for no reason other than to see if they have warrants. Police do not have to suspect that a person is committing a crime or doing anything wrong. Police can stop anyone, whether it’s at random, or whether police are specifically targeting that person or that person’s neighborhood. Of course, this police power is only used in certain neighborhoods and on certain people.

How effective have police been at generating warrants?

Nationwide, not counting what are likely a far greater number of arrest warrants for unpaid traffic citations or parking tickets, there are 7.8 million outstanding warrants for petty offenses.

Worse, these warrants are not spread evenly across the population. In predominantly African American Ferguson, MO, with a population of 21,000, 16,000 people have outstanding warrants. Nine percent of adult Californians have outstanding warrants. Fourteen percent of New York City residents have outstanding warrants. Eleven percent of Pennsylvanians. Cincinnati, OH, population 300,000, has 100,000 outstanding warrants.

How many people do police stop for a warrant check?

In a single year in New Orleans, out of 60,000 arrests, 20,000 were for warrants for minor infractions, including unpaid tickets. In Newark, NJ, police stopped 52,235 pedestrians in a four-year period and ran warrant checks on 39,308 of them. In 92% of those 52,235 stops, Newark police officers had no legal reason for stopping the pedestrians other than wanting to check for warrants. There was no suspicion of crime; no suspicion of wrongdoing. It is difficult to argue that the reason for these warrant checks is anything other than to keep people unfree and under control.

BERNALILLO COUNTY

It’s not just a national problem. In Bernalillo County, there are 65,000 outstanding warrants, about one warrant for each ten residents. It is eminently safe to assume that these warrants are, not evenly distributed across the population. We know in which neighborhoods people are getting those warrants. We know how Albuquerque police and the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office treat people in the neighborhoods where people are most likely to have warrants and are most likely to fear being stopped for a warrant check, lest they had not paid a jaywalking fine.

STOPPING CRIME NOT PRIMARY PURPOSE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

It is important to understand that this police activity is not primarily focused on stopping crime. It is focused on either keeping labor and laborers unfree or setting people against each other. It is focused on creating a vested interest among “white” people to believe that there is criminality, there is crime, and there is danger from crime in low income neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with people of color. Creating fear is the best way to keep people from working together to solve mutual problems.

It is also important to understand that police officers in general come from the newest entrants to “whiteness” or aspire to that entrance. Police officers who are people of color do not behave differently than police officers who are white – because policing is a path into what society defines as “whiteness.” And the path into whiteness is to put your foot down on – or put your knee on the neck of – the lowest stratum of society. This is the role that historically police have been created to fulfill. The result is, as US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, if you are a low-income person or a person of color:

“You are not a citizen of a democracy, but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged.”

Does this “cataloging” protect us in any real sense? What happens when policing stops? For seven weeks in late 2014 and early 2015, New York City police conducted a work stoppage. If dispatched to a location to deal with a situation, police would drive to the location but not get out of their patrol cars. They went where they were supposed to go but did nothing when they got there. They gave no tickets for jaywalking, vomiting on the sidewalk, being homeless, etc. They made few if any arrests.

What happened? Serious crime – robberies, domestic abuse, violence in general – went down. People double parked more. People ran more stop signs. But overall, neighborhoods became safer and more peaceful. And once the rate of major criminal activity went down, it stayed down, but only until the police went back to work.

LACK OF POLICING CAN CAUSE CRIME TO GO DOWN

In 2017, social scientists studied what happened, looking for why this occurred. They tested numerous hypotheses. Of all the hypotheses they tested, only one stood up. Serious crime had gone down not in spite of the lack of policing but because of the lack of policing. Crime went down because police stopped stepping on people in low-income neighborhoods.

Crime went down when people stopped losing their jobs because they got arrested for missing a court appearance for a petty violation. Crime went down when people did not lose their homes because they went to court instead of to work and lost their jobs as a result. Crime went down when people were not being harassed and put under stress, when households did not dissolve into violence because of the stress. Families stayed together because they were not stressed. And because residents’ stress level was lowered and people were not operating at or beyond the breaking point, neighbors were able to help neighbors.

The effect of policing has been to make it as difficult as possible for the bottom strata of society to look beyond the next five minutes, to work together, to form alliances, to pool resources, to evaluate how they are being kept down, why they are being kept down, who is keeping them down, and what they can do about it. This has been the effect of policing because this is what policing, from the slave patrols to the Municipal Police Act, has been designed to do.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSENT DECREES ARE MISPLACED HOPES

This is why hopes resting upon civilian oversight and civil rights lawsuits brought by the US Department of Justice are misplaced hopes. If by some miracle every police force in the country were to come into compliance with the US Constitution, the real problem would remain:

**Police would still flood low-income neighborhoods and neighborhoods of color;

**Police would still over-enforce petty offenses in those neighborhoods;

**People in those neighborhoods would still miss court dates or not pay fines for those petty offenses;

**People in those neighborhoods would still accumulate warrants.

**Police would still check for warrants while people in those neighborhoods are walking down the street doing nothing wrong;

** Police would still arrest people in those neighborhoods for those warrants.

Then people in those neighborhoods would lose their jobs, homes, families; people in those neighborhoods would still crack under the stress on individuals and communities; peaceful people, stressed beyond their limits, would become violent. And people in better-off neighborhoods would continue to increase police budgets, because, clearly, there is something wrong with the people in those neighborhoods, and we need the police to protect us from them.

Essentially, civilian oversight and the Department of Justice seek to moderate police imposition of extrajudicial corporate punishment, a practice rooted in American policing since its beginnings. Yes, it’s something. But we should not fool ourselves that it is nearly enough.

The alternative is to create a society organized to give everyone a full share, to serve and meet the needs of all of its people rather than just the needs of Madison’s opulent minority. A society where the levers of power are controlled by all of its members.

FINAL COMMENT

We won’t get there all at once, but we will never get there if we do not acknowledge the history and role of policing in our country and why police, no matter how much “reform” is instituted, will not solve our problems. As James Baldwin said:

“Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

Instead of allowing institutions to separate us – and police are on the front-line of creating that separation – we must create institutions which bring us together. It will not be easy. But one thing is clear: As long as we think fixing the police is the answer, we’re asking the wrong question.

It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt who established the tradition to evaluate a first term president’s accomplishment during the newly elected President’s first 100 days in office. On March 4, 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated President of the United States. Roosevelt moved at break neck speed during his first 100 days to pull the country out of the depression, get the country back to work, create prosperity and stimulate the economy, the manufacturing, construction and agricultural industries. Roosevelt summoned the United States Congress into a three-month, 100-day special session, during which he presented and was able to rapidly get passed a series of 15 major bills designed to counter the effects of the Great Depression.

Roosevelt passed 76 laws during his first 100 days many directing towards reviving the economy of the United States through various public works projects. Following Roosevelt’s lengthy 3 terms in office, many other presidents also made significant decisions during their first 100 days.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN’S FIRST ADDRESS TO JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS

On April 28, President Joe Biden gave his first address to Congress after his first 100 days in office. The address was extremely historic when it comes the visual for two major reasons. First, two women sat behind him, Kamala Harris, the first African American elected Vice President and Nancy Pelosi the first woman ever elected Speaker of the House. Second, the House Chamber for the Joint Session of Congress was sparsely filled with members of congress, only the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts in attendance and only 4 cabinet members. The audience size was intentionally reduced because of covid restrictions and social distancing with all in attendance wearing masks.

President Biden marked his first 100 days in office by proposing a $1.8 trillion investment in children, families and education to help rebuild the US economy devastated by the corona virus and compete with rising global competitors.

Biden pointed optimistically to the nation’s emergence from the coronavirus scourge as a moment for America to prove that its democracy can still work and maintain primacy in the world. The speech was considered by many to represent a highly aggressive approach for government involvement to restore the country with a considerable gamble. Biden is governing with the most slender of majorities in the Senate with a 50-50 split and a slim House majority. The speech reflected Biden’s fundamental belief in the power of government as a force for good, as opposed to the traditional Republican condemnation of the size of government and government interference.

President Biden began his speech by telling the joint session of congress and the public by saying in part:

“I can report to the nation: America is on the move again. Turning peril into possibility. Crisis into opportunity. Setback into strength. … America is ready for takeoff. We are working again. Dreaming again. Discovering again. Leading the world again. We have shown each other and the world: There is no quit in America.”

“I have never been more confident or more optimistic about America. We have stared into an abyss of insurrection and autocracy — of pandemic and pain — and ‘We the People’ did not flinch.”
…
“Can our democracy overcome the lies, anger, hate and fears that have pulled us apart? … America’s adversaries – the autocrats of the world – are betting it can’t. They believe we are too full of anger and division and rage. They look at the images of the mob that assaulted this Capitol as proof that the sun is setting on American democracy. They are wrong. And we have to prove them wrong.”

President Biden addressed the broader national crisis over race relations in America by urging legislation be passed by May 25, 2020, the one-year anniversary of George Floyd’s murder. Biden also call on Congress to act on the issues of prescription drug pricing, gun control and modernizing the nation’s immigration system.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDENS FIRST 100 DAYS

Following is a listing of President Joe Biden’s accomplishment during his first 100 days in office gleaned from news reports:

RESPONSE TO COVID PANDEMIC

President Bidens dealing with the Covid pandemic is considered his biggest accomplishment during his first 100 days in office. The United States has gone from having one of the worst Covid responses under Trump to being a global leader in vaccinations under Biden.

According to a CNN report:

“Biden came into office pledging to administer 100 million vaccine shots by his 100th day in office, after Trump fell short of his goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of 2020. The Biden administration reached its 100 million-shot goal in mid-March, about 40 days ahead of schedule. The administration reached 200 million vaccine doses on April 21 — a week ahead of Biden’s updated timetable.
…
Vaccine eligibility opened to everyone 16 years of old and over before Biden’s 100th day in office. Unemployment is falling, with new jobless claims hitting a pandemic low, and schools are reopening for in-person learning, returning kids and families to a semblance of normal life.
…
To increase Americans’ access to vaccines, the Biden administration started a federal retail pharmacy program that turned more pharmacies into vaccination sites. It also opened up vaccinations at community health centers and set up federally run vaccination centers across the country. The President ordered an expansion of the list of eligible vaccinators to include dentists, midwives, paramedics and optometrists, among other professionals, to meet increased demand. The administration also committed to partnering with community organizations to transport seniors and people with disabilities to get their vaccinations.”

“Biden put public health experts and scientists front and center in a number of roles within the administration. He tapped Dr. Anthony Fauci, the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who had a contentious relationship with Trump, as chief medical adviser and elevated the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to a Cabinet-level position. And his administration restarted frequent Covid-19 briefings featuring federal government’s public health experts, including Fauci, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith, the head of the White House’s Covid-19 health equity task force.”

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/politics/president-biden-first-100-days/index.html

Biden’s $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill passed without a single Republican vote in both the House and Senate. Biden was successful in getting direct payments of $1,400 per person to more than 160 million households. Hundreds of billions of dollars in aid is expected to arrive for state and local governments. The $1.9 trillion is enough money that overall U.S. growth this year could eclipse 6%, a level not seen since 1984. The Biden Administration believes that amount is more than sufficient to bring back all 8.4 million jobs lost to the pandemic by next year.

A significant amount proposed will ensure that eligible families receive at least $250 monthly per child through 2025, extending the enhanced tax credit that was part of Biden’s COVID-19 aid. There would be more than $400 billion for subsidized child care and free preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds.

Another combined $425 billion will go to permanently reduce health insurance premiums for people who receive coverage through the Affordable Care Act and the national paid family and medical leave program. Spending will be directed toward Pell Grants, historically Black and tribal institutions and to allow people to attend community college tuition-free for two years.

It’s the funding that will pose the biggest obstacle. The funding will be a series of tax increases on the wealthy that would raise about $1.5 trillion over a decade. Not at all surprising is that Republican lawmakers in Congress are highly critical of the total cost of Biden’s plans.

RETURNING TO NORMALCY IN GOVERNING

President Biden has delivered on his pledge to return the presidency to what it looked like before his predecessor Donald Trump. Gone are the inflammatory tweets attacking one and all. Gone are the days of Trump standing on the White House lawn answering questions over the roar of a waiting helicopter. Now there are daily press briefings and selecting a cabinet and staff of seasoned experts, and not appointing cabinet members determined to dismantle the agencies they oversee as was the case with more than a few Trump cabinet members.

Biden has made less progress with his goal of restoring bipartisanship and unity. Not a single Senate Republican voted for the Covid bill. Then there are moderate Democrats like Democrat Seantor West Virginia Joe Manchin who are resisting his efforts and balking in the face of unified GOP opposition to goals like immigration refprm, extending voting rights or passing Biden’s a massive infrastructure package.

As a candidate, Biden issued dozens of comprehensive plans for what he would do as President. But the Biden administration has faced hurdles, including a surge of unaccompanied minors coming across the US-Mexico border. Biden’s approach has shifted in some cases. The White House recently backed off on creating a policing commission that Biden had said he would establish during his first 100 days in office, opting instead to push for legislation in Congress.

CNN REPORT

On April 28, the CNN news agency published on its web page an excellent reports report entitled “Biden’s first 100 days: What he’s gotten done” . The report was written by CNN news reporters Maegan Vazquez, Kate Sullivan, Tami Luhby and Katie Lobosco. Following is an edited and condensed version of the report with the link:

“ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Days before his inauguration, Biden put forth a massive economic relief proposal, asking Congress to approve $1.9 trillion in funding to provide Americans with another round of stimulus checks, aid for the unemployed, support for small businesses and money to help schools reopen safely.

The silver lining for workers after a hellish year? A jobs boom.

In March, Congress approved the package, known as the American Rescue Plan. Much of it mirrored Biden’s proposal, though there were some key changes, including narrowing the scope of the $1,400 stimulus payments, trimming the federal boost to unemployment benefits and jettisoning an increase in the federal minimum wage to $15 a hour.

So far, the Biden administration has sent out more than 160 million stimulus payments worth up to $1,400 per person, released more than $80 billion in aid to state education agencies and beefed up Affordable Care Act subsidies on the federal exchange, healthcare.gov. It has also delivered $39 billion to states to help child care providers reopen or stay afloat.

States have largely implemented the $300 federal enhancement to weekly jobless benefits and the extension of two key pandemic unemployment programs through early September. Also in place is a federal income tax break on $10,200 in unemployment compensation for those earning less than $150,000.

The package provides more than $350 billion to states and local governments, territories and tribes, extends a 15% boost to food stamp benefits through September and offers billions of dollars in aid to struggling renters and homeowners. It also greatly enhances the child tax credit for one year, increasing its size, allowing more low-income parents to qualify and providing half of it as a monthly stream of income from July to the end of the year.

Separately, Biden has used his executive powers to expand food assistance, extend the federal moratorium on evictions and continue the suspension of federal student loan payments and interest charges.

Yet the rollout of relief programs hasn’t gone entirely smoothly. A new grant program for struggling restaurants that was established by the bill has yet to launch. The Small Business Administration ran into trouble standing up a grant program for closed theaters and music venues that had been approved under an earlier Covid relief package passed in December. It was taken offline hours after opening and reopened only this week. But money continues to flow through two existing aid programs for small businesses, boosted by the American Rescue Plan: the Paycheck Protection Program and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program.

Also going slowly is the Biden administration’s efforts to provide funds to low-income families whose children are missing free- or reduced-price meals in school because they are learning remotely. While Biden increased the value of the Pandemic-EBT benefits and the US Department of Agriculture has approved many more state plans for the 2020-21 school year, about a dozen states have not yet gotten the nod, leaving millions of children waiting for the aid program created last spring. Also, many parents are still waiting for the money even in states that have been approved.

REOPENING SCHOOLS

As early as December, Biden was already pledging to get the majority of schools open by the end of his first 100 days in office.

Unlike other countries, the US leaves school control at the local level, and the challenges to providing in-person instruction are not the same everywhere, making it nearly impossible to create effective federal and even state-level guidance as the pandemic wears on. In some places, school authorities faced strong opposition from powerful teachers’ unions.

At first there was confusion over how the administration defined reopening. When pressed about his administration’s stance during a February 16 CNN town hall, Biden clarified that by the end of his first 100 days, “the goal will be five days a week” of in-person instruction or close to that for K-8 students in particular.
There are certainly more schools offering in-person instruction now than there were at the beginning of 2021. But it remains unclear whether a majority of schools are offering it five days a week for all students.

A first-grader works on an English exercise on the first day of class in Los Angeles on April 13, 2021.

One estimate from the private data-tracking company Burbio says that about 65% of K-12 students are attending schools that offer in-person instruction each day, up from 33% the week Biden took office. About 29% currently attend schools offering hybrid models that include some in-person instruction, and less than 6% have only virtual options.

Younger students are more likely to be offered in-person learning. As of April 20, elementary and middle schools in a little more than half of the 101 largest school districts in the country are offering full five-day-a-week in-person instruction, according to CNN’s tracking.

Some experts say the transition to in-person learning could have come more quickly, arguing that guidelines released by the CDC in February made it harder for schools to reopen. The CDC relaxed its physical distancing guidelines in March, recommending that most students maintain at least 3 feet of distance, accelerating the return to school for some.

HEALTH CARE

Biden has acted swiftly to strengthen the Affordable Care Act, one of his main campaign promises. His administration has already taken multiple steps to reverse efforts by Trump to destroy the Democrats’ landmark health care law.

Biden reopened the federal Affordable Care Act exchange in mid-February, giving uninsured Americans until mid-August to sign up for 2021 coverage and allowing existing enrollees to shop for better plans with their beefed-up subsidies, which last for two years.

That additional assistance was part of the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion relief package. Enrollees will now pay no more than 8.5% of their incomes toward coverage, down from nearly 10%. And lower-income policyholders and the jobless will receive subsidies that eliminate their premiums completely.

Also, those earning more than 400% of the federal poverty level — about $51,000 for an individual and $104,800 for a family of four in 2021 — are now eligible for help for the first time.
The 14 states, and the District of Columbia, that run their own exchanges have also extended enrollment, though the durations differ by state.

Laid-off workers who want to stay on their work-based coverage will receive subsidies that pay the full premium cost from April through September, as part of the relief package.

Biden has also started withdrawing approvals from the Trump administration that enable states to mandate work requirements in Medicaid.

And the administration has asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Affordable Care Act, reversing the position of the Trump administration, which joined Republican-led states in urging the justices to strike down the entire law. The justices have not yet ruled in the case — and if they upend Obamacare, it’s not clear what Biden and congressional Democrats will be able to pass to replace it.

IMMIGRATION

Biden has signed several executive actions taking aim at Trump’s hardline immigration policies, including reversing the former President’s travel ban targeting largely Muslim countries and fortifying the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program after Trump’s efforts to undo protections for undocumented people brought into the country as children.

Biden created a task force focused on identifying and reuniting migrant families separated at the US-Mexico border as a result of Trump’s controversial “zero tolerance” policy, and he revoked a Trump-era proclamation that limited legal immigration during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Young minors talk to an agent at the Donna Department of Homeland Security holding facility in the Rio Grande Valley, March 30, 2021.

Biden rescinded Trump’s national emergency declaration, which allowed his predecessor to dip into additional funds for his signature border wall, and called for a review of ongoing wall projects. He narrowed immigration enforcement in the US. The President also directed relevant agencies to ensure LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to protections.

Biden went on to end Trump’s so-called “remain in Mexico” policy, which required asylum seekers to stay in Mexico until their immigration court dates in the United States, and began the gradual entry of migrants who still had active cases. His administration also initiated a review of policies “that have effectively closed the US border to asylum seekers.”

Yet the Biden administration has struggled to keep up with the influx of migrants coming to the US southern border, particularly unaccompanied minors, who have been held in Border Patrol stations as officials scramble to find sites to accommodate them.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which is charged with the care of unaccompanied migrant children, announced or opened at least 11 new temporary facilities to try to get kids out of Border Patrol stations, which are akin to jail-like conditions and not suited for children.

Vice President Kamala Harris was assigned by Biden to oversee efforts with Central American countries to stem the flow of migrants to the US southern border. It is the first major issue Biden has assigned Harris, who is expected to travel to Mexico and Guatemala.

On legal immigration, Biden signed an order seeking to reverse Trump-era policies that targeted low-income immigrants, including calling for a review of the public charge rule, which makes it more difficult for immigrants to obtain legal status if they use public benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing vouchers, and reestablished a Task Force on New Americans.

Biden has, however, gone back and forth on refugee admissions. The White House recently said the President would set a new, increased refugee cap by May 15 after facing blowback for keeping the Trump-era ceiling of 15,000, though without the restrictions put in place by Trump.

FOREIGN POLICY

While the US-China relationship was a key issue during the campaign, Biden has focused on three other areas since taking office: Afghanistan, Iran and Russia.

Two decades after the US launched what would become America’s longest war, Biden has committed to withdrawing troops from Afghanistan before September 11, the 20th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and at the Pentagon, just outside Washington.

Biden said the withdrawal will begin May 1, in line with an agreement made with the Taliban during the Trump administration. Some US troops will remain in Afghanistan to protect American diplomats, but a precise number of remaining troops has not been disclosed. US humanitarian and diplomatic efforts will continue in Afghanistan and the US will continue to support peace efforts between the Afghan government and the Taliban, Biden said.

The President has also moved to salvage the US-Iran nuclear deal put in place in 2015 under President Barack Obama, which was abandoned by the Trump administration in 2018.

The US and Iran resumed talks in Vienna in April, though delegations from the two countries did not interact directly but instead exchanged views through officials from the global powers still party to the deal. A State Department official stressed earlier this month that the Vienna conversations were “just the first step of this first phase of a potential return to” the nuclear deal.
…
And the Biden administration issued sweeping sanctions and diplomatic expulsions against Russia in response to Moscow’s interference in the 2020 US election, its SolarWinds cyberattack and its continued occupation and “severe rights abuses” in Crimea.

The US pointed to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service as the group behind the SolarWinds hack. The White House also said it is expelling 10 Russian diplomats in Washington, including “representatives of Russian intelligence services,” for the hack and the election meddling.

The Biden administration also barred US financial institutions from participating in the primary market for bonds issued by Russia’s central bank and other leading financial institutions. Two days before issuing the sanctions, Biden spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin and proposed a summit between the two countries later this year.

CLIMATE CRISIS

Last week, Biden fulfilled his pledge to host a global climate summit within his first 100 days in office. During the event, he committed the US to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52% below its 2005 emissions levels by 2030. While the goals are part of the Paris climate agreement, which Biden rejoined upon taking office, they are nonbinding and the administration has not rolled out a plan on how the US will meet them.

The wide range of leaders attending the two-day summit included a number of American allies, such as France’s Emmanuel Macron and the United Kingdom’s Boris Johnson, as well as leaders with whom Biden anticipates having a more confrontational relationship, like China’s Xi Jinping and Putin. While some countries reiterated during the summit that they were working toward their previously set climate goals, others, including Canada and South Korea, announced they were upping their targets.

Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office reversing Trump’s 2017 decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate accords, the landmark international agreement to limit global warming championed by Obama. The US was the first and only country to pull out of the agreement, officially exiting in late 2020.

As part of the global deal, which the US formally rejoined in February after a 30-day review, countries are expected to enhance their commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions every five years. The goals of the global pact are to limit global warming to well below 2°C and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INEQUALITY

Biden kicked off his presidency by naming the most racially diverse Cabinet in US history, disbanding the 1776 commission and taking steps to address racial economic inequality, including signing executive orders that could potentially help bridge the gap in homeownership between people of color and White people, strengthen the fight against bigotry faced by Asian Americans and ease the anxiety of families with incarcerated relatives.

Biden signed an executive order in January repealing a Trump-era ban on most transgender Americans joining the military. The Pentagon said in March that its updated policies, which make it easier for transgender individuals to join up and to access medical treatment while serving, go into effect April 30. The changes will also protect transgender individuals from discrimination within the services.

In the wake of … [the] conviction of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin in the murder of George Floyd, Biden called systemic racism “a stain on our nation’s soul” and said he was heartened by the jury’s verdict, the testimony of other police officers against Chauvin throughout the trial and the collective realization about the reality of systemic racism worldwide that has taken place since Floyd’s death.

Yet his administration said in April that it would stand down on a campaign promise to create a White House-led commission on policing and instead move forward with efforts to pass police reform through legislative channels.

“The Biden-Harris Administration strongly supports the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and is working with Congress to swiftly enact meaningful police reform that brings profound, urgently needed change,” Domestic Policy Council director Susan Rice said in a statement.

NEXT STEPS

Last month, Biden laid out a massive plan to improve the nation’s infrastructure and shift to greener energy.

The roughly $2 trillion proposal, which Congress will spend months on, would provide funding for roads, bridges, trains, broadband, airports, waterways and ports. He would put billions toward manufacturing, job retraining, housing, schools, veterans’ hospitals and federal buildings.

He would also lay out $400 billion to enhance long-term-care services for elderly Americans and those with disabilities, as well as improve the pay of home health workers. To pay for the package, he would increase a variety of taxes on businesses, including raising the corporate rate to 28% from 21%, where it was set by the 2017 Republican tax cuts.

The President is also set to unveil an additional $1.8 trillion federal investment in education, child care and paid family leave during his first address to Congress on Wednesday.

The proposal calls for making community college free for two years, investing in a universal preschool program for 3- and 4-year-olds, providing paid family and medical leave and helping families afford child care. It would also extend or make permanent enhancements to several key tax credits that were contained in the rescue bill.

To pay for the plan, Biden would raise taxes on the wealthy. In particular, he would reverse a key part of the Republicans’ 2017 tax cuts by returning the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6% for those in the top 1%. The GOP law had reduced it to 37%. The President would also raise the capital gains tax rate for households earning more than $1 million annually.”

The link to the full CNN report with photos and graphs is here:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/28/politics/president-biden-first-100-days/index.html

HIGH APPROVAL RATINGS

According to an NBC poll released on April 25, 53% of adults say they approve of Biden’s job as president, including 90% of Democrats, 61% of independents but just 9% of Republicans. The poll found 39% of all respondents say they disapprove of Biden, which essentially the same percent of Trump’s base.

President Biden’s APPROVAL rating of 53% for his first 100 days is essentially equivalent to Führer Trump’s DISAPPROVAL rating of 54% for his first 100 days. President Biden gets his highest marks on handling the pandemic at 69% approval, on dealing with the economy 52% approval, on uniting the country 52% approval and on race relations 49% approval. Throughout his entire 4 years as President Führer Trump never broke a 50% approval rating.

Comparing Führer Trump to President Joe Biden, Trump’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll is 32% positive, 55 % negative, while Biden’s score is 50% positive, 36% negative.

The link to the raw NBC poll data is here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20690434-210098-nbc-news-april-poll-4-25-21-release

EDITED CONDENSED VERSION OF NBC POLL REPORT

Following is an edited and condensed version of the NBC report on its poll:

According to the NBC poll, slightly more than half of Americans say they approve of Biden’s job performance. Biden gets his highest marks on handling the Covid-19 pandemic. Biden gets his lowest marks on the situation at the southern border with Mexico.

The poll found that the public is largely supportive of Biden’s top legislative priorities. It also found that the public is more optimistic about defeating the pandemic and that the public is more optimistic about the country’s direction than it was back in January.

The poll also shows that nearly 1 in 5 Americans (20%) are resistant or hesitant about getting a Covid-19 vaccine. A majority of those polled believe the nation is on the wrong track and an astounding 80% still think the country is mostly divided.

According to the poll, Biden’s job rating is higher than Donald Trump’s was at this same point in time in the poll, 40% approve, 54% disapprove, but it’s lower than Barack Obama’s was at 100 days, 61% approved, 30% disapproved.

Among registered voters in the poll, Biden’s job rating stands at 51% who approve, 43% who disapprove.

The president gets his highest marks on handling the pandemic (69% approve), on dealing with the economy (52% approve), on uniting the country (52% approve) and on race relations (49% approve).

But Biden’s lowest scores come on dealing with China (35 percent), handling the gun issue (34 percent) and dealing with border security and immigration (33 percent).
And by a 55-to-34 percent margin, respondents believe that Biden has returned the country to a more typical way that past presidents have governed the country.

COVID AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS POPULAR

The NBC News poll found that Biden’s top legislative priorities are fairly popular with the American public.

46% of Americans say the Covid-19 relief bill he signed into law in March is a good idea, versus 25% who call it a bad idea, with another 26 % who don’t have an opinion.

And 59% say his infrastructure plan — which would upgrade roads and bridges, expand broadband access and pay to care for the elderly and disabled — is a good idea, while 21 percent disagree; 19 percent don’t have an opinion.

By party, 87% of Democrats, 68% of independents and 21% of Republicans support Biden’s infrastructure plan.

56% of respondents said they feel more hopeful when looking at Biden’s leadership and plans for the country, compared with 42% who say they feel more doubtful.

Fifty-one percent believe Biden has so far accomplished a great deal or a fair amount in office, versus 47% who say he’s accomplished very little or just some — a result that virtually matches the popular vote in the 2020 presidential election.

And when it comes to perceptions of Biden’s ideology, 42% of Americans identify the president as moderate; 29% say he’s “very liberal”; 15 percent believe he’s “somewhat liberal”; and a combined 8% say he’s conservative.

GROWING CONFIDENCE IN COVID FIGHT

A majority of Americans — 61% — say the worst is behind the United States when it comes to the coronavirus pandemic, while just 19% believe the worst is yet to come.

That’s a significant reversal from the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in October, when 55% of voters said the worst was yet to come, and when only 25% said the worst was behind the U.S.

The poll also showed that 57% of Americans say they’ve already received a Covid-19 vaccine; another 8% say they will take the vaccine as soon as they can; and 15% say they will wait to see if there are major side effects before take taking it.

That’s compared with 12% who say they will never take the vaccine, as well as another 7% who will take it only if it’s required.

There’s a striking divide by party here: Among Democrats, 74% say they’ve already been vaccinated, while just 4% say they won’t ever take it.
But among Republicans, 40% say they’ve been vaccinated, while 24% say they’ll never take it.

DIVIDED RATHER THAN UNITED

36% of Americans say the country is headed in the right direction — up from 21% who said this in January.

Yet 56% believe the nation is on the wrong track, which continues a streak (going back to George W. Bush’s second term as president) of at least a majority of Americans holding this view in the poll.

And despite Biden’s positive marks on uniting the country, 82% of respondents in the poll say the country is divided, while only 16 percent say it’s united.

OTHER POLL FINDINGS

Asked to pick the one or two most important issues facing the country, Americans’ top responses were Covid-19 (30 percent), uniting the country (25 percent), race relations (23 percent), the economy (23%) and border security and immigration (22%).

The top responses among Democrats were Covid-19 (43%), race relations (35%), guns (25%) and unity (24%).

Among Republicans, the top responses were the border/immigration (47%), the economy (28%), taxes and spending (23%) and unity (17%).

Democrats hold a 5-point advantage in congressional preference, with 47% of registered voters preferring a Democratic-controlled Congress, and with 42% preferring Republicans in charge.

And former President Donald Trump’s favorable/unfavorable rating in the poll is 32% positive, 55 % negative, while Biden’s score is 50% positive, 36% negative.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-100-days-biden-s-approval-remains-strong-can-honeymoon-n1265199

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Any and all references to Der Führer Trump is totally intentional and deserving. This is a political blog and after 4 years of total disruption and daily crisis, racism and hate coming from the WHITE supremist HOUSE that we can now comfortably call the WHITE HOUSE again. The country now has a President we can be proud of and President Biden has proven that the voters made the right decision.

With that said, GET THE DAMN VACCINE!

On April 19, it was reported Bernalillo County Sheriff’s (BCSO) deputies were called to 1932 Coors Blvd. SW in front of Valley Fence County Monday evening in reference to a roll-over crash involving a dark-colored sedan. Deputies located two unidentified male subjects deceased on the scene from apparent gunshot wounds.

https://www.koat.com/article/bernalillo-county-sheriffs-office-investigating-double-homicide/36168855

On April 22, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD issued a press release that it launched a homicide investigation after a woman was found dead on Central near Vermont. An APD spokesman said officers responded sometime before 10:45 p.m. to report of a woman “lying on the ground lifeless” near Central and Vermont SE. When officers arrived, they confirmed the female was dead. It was the city’s 38th homicide of the year.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/police-begin-homicide-investigation-after-finding-woman-dead-in-ne-albuquerque/6084375/?cat=500

https://www.abqjournal.com/2383221/woman-found-dead-on-east-central.html

On April 23, it was reported that the Albuquerque Police Department is investigating its second homicide in less than 24 hours, the 39th homicide of the year for the department. Police said they were called to the 900 block of Locus Place, which is near the Big I. That’s where they found a male with a gunshot wound. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/apd-investigating-second-homicide-in-less-than-24-hours/6085057/?cat=500

On Friday April 23, Bernalillo County Sheriffs Deputies responded in the evening to a call at Bridge, SW, where a man had crashed into a yard after being shot. It was reported that another a person in another vehicle shot him. The victim was taken to the hospital where he died.

On Sunday, April 25, APD was dispatched from the Southeast Area Command and found a man shot during a domestic violence incident, and he died with the woman who shot him taken into custody.

On Tuesday, April 26, the Albuquerque Journal published an editorial entitled “Homicides are too routine on too many ABQ streets” The link to the full editorial is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2384600/homicides-are-now-too-routine-on-too-many-abq-streets.html

KRQE REPORT

On April 21, KRQE News 13 posted on its web page under Data Reporting an excellent and very lengthy report written by Curtis Segarra. Such reports are not fully reported on the nightly news because of length. The headline and link to the full report is here:

“2021 Albuquerque homicide rate outpacing previous years: the numbers behind the rise”; Albuquerque Homicides: Why are there so many?”

https://www.krqe.com/krqe-plus/data-reporting/2021-albuquerque-homicide-rate-outpacing-previous-years-the-numbers-behind-the-rise/

The pertinent portions of the report relating to homicide is as follows:

“New Mexico is no stranger to violent crime, but so far this year’s homicide count is outpacing the average of the last two years by about 75%. As of April 18, 2021, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) recorded 35 homicides across the city. By this time last year, there were only 18. In April 2019, there were only 22 homicides by April 18.
…
Estimates from the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that New Mexico’s violent crime and homicide rates have been above the national average for several years now. Since 2016, between 6 and 8 homicides per 100,000 people, each year are estimated to have occurred in New Mexico, according to the FBI data. Neighboring states, such as Arizona and Texas, have seen an estimated 5 to 6 homicides per 100,000 people each year. … “

As of Tuesday, April 28, APD has opened an astounding 40 homicide case investigation within the first 4 months of this year. The 40 homicides are half the number of homicides that occured in 2019 which was the city’s all time record.

In the unincorporated areas of Bernalillo County, there have bee reported 4 homicides that we know of in that the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department has a policy in place that the office will not report them unless the media asks questions.

BERNALILLO COUNTY CRIME RANKINGS

The Best Places to Live web site compiles data on cities and counties throughout the United States ranking them in such categories such as cost of living, job market, economy, real estate, education and health and weather. Crime is one of the most important categories. Best Places to Live ranks crime on a scale of 1, low crime, to 100, high crime.

According to the data published Bernalillo County, New Mexico, violent crime is 42.3 with the US average being 22.7.

Bernalillo County property crime is 66.5 with the US average being 35.4.

https://www.bestplaces.net/crime/county/new_mexico/bernalillo

THREE YEARS OF HISTORICAL HIGH HOMICIDE NUMBERS AND FAILED PROGRAMS

In 2018 there were 69 homicides the first full year of Mayor Keller’s term. In 2019, during Mayor Keller’s second full year in office, there were 82 homicides. Albuquerque had more homicides in 2019 than in any other year in the city’s history. The previous high was in 2017 when 72 homicides were reported. The previous high mark was in 1996, when the city had 70 homicides. The year 2020 ended with 76 homicides, the second-highest count since 1996. The decline dropped the homicide rate from 14.64 per 100,000 people in 2019 to about 13.5 in 2020.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1534762/homicide-numbers-high-despite-pandemic.html?amp=1

In 2019, Mayor Tim Keller reacting to the spiking violent crime rates, announced 4 programs in 9 months to deal with and bring down the city’s high violent crime rates . Those APD programs are: the Shield Unit, Declaring Violent Crime “public health” issue, the Metro 15 Operation, “Violence Intervention Plan” (VIP Program). Based on the city’s high violent crime and murder rates, it appears Keller’s programs have been a failure.

On Thursday, April 16, 2021 it was reported that killings in the city have nearly doubled. According to the report, the Albuquerque Police Department has investigated 34 homicides this year, almost twice as many as the city had at this point in each of the past two years. By April 15 in both 2020 and 2019, there were 19 killings. APD ended up with 77 homicides in 2020 and a record 80 in 2019. Of the 34 homicides, APD has made an arrest in six cases and filed an arrest warrant for 15-year-old Josef Toney in the double homicide of two women.

As of April 24, there have been 45 homicides thus far in 2021 in the city.

It is clear the city is on its way to the highest murder rate in its history.

A link to the news sources are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2380171/year-to-date-homicides-up-significantly.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/abq-murder-rate-continues-to-climb-in-record-cases/ar-BB1fJHcG

SHERIFF GONZALES TAKES CREDIT FOR A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND

On August 28, 2020, U.S. Attorney for New Mexico John Anderson reported that in a little over a month since federal agents arrived in Albuquerque as part of “Operation Legend”, earlier called “Operation Relentless Prusuit”, 19 violent felons were arrested on federal charges. According to Anderson, it is just a small number of people driving the majority of violent crime in Albuquerque, and their goal is to get those people off the streets. The Department of Justice (DOJ), including the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is targeting people with lengthy and violent criminal histories and convicted felons accused of crimes like carjacking, illegally shooting guns and drug dealing.

U.S. Attorney for New Mexico John Anderson had this to say:

“Operation Legend is about combating dangerous crime and gun crime in our cities. … It’s not about policing any kind of protest in our city. It’s not about immigration enforcement. … We are really looking at the people who are driving the violent crime epidemic in Albuquerque. … We are looking to remove the most violent folks from communities, not simply rack up arrest numbers of people who do not have serious criminal histories. … There are more cases on which prosecution has been initiated, but I can’t say more about them because they are under [court] seal. … More than anything, I hope to see reduction in violent crime and people feeling safer living and working in the city.”

When it comes to taking credit for “Operation Relentless Prusuit” and “Operation Legend”, Bernalillo County Sherriff Manny Gonzales was front and center making sure he got the credit as being instrumental in bringing the Federal funding and agents to New Mexico, so much so he made sure he did a press conference and did a photo op with former US Attorney General William Barr right here in River City. Gonzales also flew to Washington, DC during the summer for a photo op with Der Führer Trump. Gonzales takes credit for the funding proclaiming he will cooperate with anyone and cross party lines while totally ignoring and feuding with Democratic law enforcement elected officials such as the Bernalillo County District Attorney.

Even with the initial success of Operation Legend, the 35 sworn law enforcement brought for Operation Legend as well as the 40 new sworn police paid for by the Operation Legend grant, Operation Legend has not made any difference in reducing the city and counties crime rates. Given the city and counties existing law enforcement personnel resources, our crime rates are still some of the highest in the country for the last six years.

Operation Legend has proven to be nothing more than a legend in the mind of Bernalillo County Sheriff Gonzales.

CITY’S HISTORICAL LOW HOMICIDE CLEARANCE RATES

For the past three years, the city’s homicide clearance percentage rate has been in the 50%-60% range. According to the proposed 2018-2019 APD City Budget, in 2016 the APD homicide clearance rate was 80%. In 2017, under Mayor Berry the clearance rate was 70%. In 2018, the homicide clearance rate was 56%. In 2019, the second year of Keller’s term, the homicide clearance rate was 52.5%, the lowest clearance rate in the last decade. In 2020 the clearance rate has dropped to 50% and to approximately 30% thus far this year. Of the 75 homicides thus far in 2020, half remain unsolved.

There are only a dozen APD homicide detectives each with caseloads high above the national average. Each year since 1995, the FBI has released annually its Crime In The United States Report.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/publications

Following are the national clearance rates for 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 as reported by the FBI:

In 2016, the national clearance rate for murder offenses was 59.4%.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/clearances

In 2017, the national clearance rate for murder was 61.6%
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017

In 2018, the national clearance rate for murder was 62.3%
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/clearances

In 2019, the national clearance rate for murder was 61.4%
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/clearances

BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE FAILS TO REPORT STATS TO FBI

In all the 6 years Manny Gonzales has been Bernalillo County Sheriff, he has been conspicuously silent on just how bad the crime rates are in Bernalillo County. There is a very reason for that silence. On April 8, the Albuquerque Journal published on its front page a story written by Journal staff reporter Matthew Reisen with the banner headline “BCSO has been silent about this year’s homicides.” It was reported that BCSO waited until the week of April 5 to report on the 2 homicides that occurred in the county and being investigated by the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office. Further, the BCSO waited until April to report that the December 2020 death of Francine Gonzales, 36, on the West Side was ruled a homicide after an autopsy in late March.

The link to the full report is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2377985/sheriffs-office-was-mum-on-2021-homicides.html

According to the Journal report, in previous years, including 2020, BCSO regularly sent out email and Twitter alerts when BCSO detectives opened a homicide investigation. BCSO usually gave details on the incident and solicited tips from the public. Until April 7, BCSO had been silent on the 2021 cases, yet increased email and Twitter notifications for warrant roundup operations and “repeat offender” arrests often criticizing the actions of courts for previously releasing the suspects.

BCSO Transparency and Public Information Coordinator Jayme Fuller explained the delay in reporting on the 2 homicides as not always telling about homicides, or other incidents, until reporters ask about them and they confirm them with BCSO supervisors.

The most troubling fact in the Journal report was glossed over. Buried in the article is the statement:

“Last year, BCSO’s crime statistics were not included in the annual FBI report because the agency didn’t meet the March deadline to report them, and they couldn’t be certified in time.”

The problem is that the yearly FBI statistics are the best measure as to performance measures of BCSO. Further, Bernalillo County and BCSO rely upon those statistics to secure federal grant funding.

BCSO’s crime statistics not being included in the annual FBI report was likely no mistake. No doubt Gonzales wants to hide the statistics that show our out-of-control high crime rates are just as bad in the county as in the city as he runs for Mayor.

“USE OF DEADLY FORCE” CASES DURING SHERIFF GONZALES TENURE

“Use of deadly force” cases by law enforcement are not classified as homicides but are a sperate category of statistics. In the day and age of the “Black Lives Matter” as well as the conviction of former police officer Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd, many police reform advocates want such statistics to included in all murder rates.

There is no doubt as Sheriff Gonzales runs for Mayor, his total mismanagement of BCSO will be examined as will any and all lawsuits filed against the department under his watch for systemic racial profiling, excessive use of force and deadly force. Bernalillo County has been forced to pay out upwards of $10 million in settlements involving the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) over a 2-year period of Sheriff Gonzales tenure as Sheriff.

When settlements he did not like were announced, Gonzalez said the amounts were excessive and he defended the actions of his sheriff’s deputies. As an act of defiance, Gonzales even issued issued commendations to the deputies involved with the killing of an 88-year-old suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, claiming his appointed deputy sheriffs acted properly.

Following is a listing of the cases:

2015 WRONFUL DEATH OF FIDENCIO DURAN: $1,495,000 SETTLEMENT

It was on September 14, 2015, Fidencio Duran, 88, died after he was shot numerous times with a “pepper ball” gun after he encountered BCSO Deputy Sheriffs in the South Valley. Mr. Duran was partially blind and deaf and suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. His wife of 67 years had died the day before after a three-year bout with illness. Duran wandered around the neighborhood shirtless. He banged on the door of a neighbor, who called the BCSO.

When BCSO Deputies arrived, a 90-minute standoff ensued, in which Mr. Duran, shirtless and wearing one shoe and reportedly holding a four-inch knife, spoke, sometimes incoherently, in Spanish. Eventually, the BCSO officers fired over 50 rounds of pepper balls at him from two directions. Some of the pepper balls penetrated his skin, causing contusions and embedding fragments of plastic.

BCSO officers unleashed a muzzled K9 police dog after shooting with pepper balls. The dog knocked the 115-pound man over, breaking his femur and hip. He was taken to the hospital, where it took doctors days to remove all of the pepper ball fragments. He never left the hospital, succumbing to pneumonia as a result of his injuries a month later. A doctor from the Office of the Medical Investigator “determined that the manner of death was Homicide” according to a civil lawsuit filed.

In an ostensible act of defiance, Sheriff Manny Gonzales issued commendations to the deputies involved.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/09/albu-f09.html

2017 WRONGFULL DEATH OF ROBERT CHAVEZ: $700,000 SETTLEMENT

On August 16, 2017, Bernalillo County Sheriff’s deputies spotted a stolen car near Coors and ILiff. When they tried to pull over the vehicle a chase ensued. The stolen vehicle crashed into Robert Chavez’, 66, car near Broadway and Avenida Cesar Chavez in the Southwest part of the city. When Robert Chavez was hit, Chavez broke his back, shoulder, forearm, wrist, ribs and pelvis in the crash and also had other internal injuries. Chavez went into a coma and died 11 days after the crash. A wrongful death lawsuit was filed against the county and BCSO.

The BCSO Sheriff Department’s old policy would not have allowed officers to pursue for a stolen vehicle, but Sheriff Manny Gonzales changed the hot pursuit policy allowing such chases a year before the fatal crash. The Bernalillo County settled with Mr. Chavez’ family for $700,000 but not before the county backout of a $1 Million settlement.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1210343/man-injured-in-bcso-chase-dies.html

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/family-attorney-county-

2017 KILLING OF MARTIN JIM AND SHOOTING OF ISAAC PADILLA: $3.3 MILLION SETTLEMENT

On November 17, 2017, BCSO Deputies, at around 4 am in the morning, initiated a high-speed chase of a stolen truck across the South Valley on November 17, 2017. A BCSO Deputy rammed the truck at Coors and Glenrio NW on Albuquerque’s West Side obliterating the front driver’s-side wheel. With the truck at a standstill, two BCSO deputies parked their vehicles to block the truck from moving forward.

BCSO Deputy Joshua Mora soon arrived on the scene. Mora is the son of then-undersheriff Rudy Mora and had worked for BCSO about 18 months as a sheriff’s deputy. In the span of 18 seconds, Mora jumped from his car, ran to the truck, yelled commands at the driver, and fired 7 shots into the vehicle occupied by 3 passengers, including a 4-year-old child. Mora did no know Martin Jim was sitting in the back seat. A settlement in the case was reached after Senior U.S. District Judge Judith Herrera of Albuquerque ruled that a “reasonable jury could conclude that Deputy Mora acted unreasonably.”

On May 21, 2020, it was reported that the family of Martin Jim, 25, the man killed in 2017 incident settled the federal excessive force lawsuit against the county for $1.5 million. An earlier $400,000 state court settlement arising from the same deadly shooting paid to Jim’s partner, Shawntay Ortiz and his four-year-old son, amounted to $1.9 million. That is an addition to the $1.36 million settlement paid to the estate of the driver of the pickup truck, Isaac Padilla, 23, who was also killed. Another $40,000 was paid to two other passengers in the truck. The total payout to resolve legal claims related to Deputy Joshua Mora’s actions was $3.3 million.

The defendants, Mora, the county and Sheriff Manny Gonzales maintained Martin Jim’s death was unintentional and that the killing of Isaac Padilla, the driver of the truck, was justified. No weapons were found in the truck negating Mora’s defense that his actions were justified and in self-defense.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1458471/settlements-in-bcso-shooting-total-33-million-deputy-opened-fire-killing-driver-passenger-in-stolen-truck.html

2019 THE KILLING ELISHA LUCERO: $4 MILLION SETTLEMENT

On July 21, 2019, Elisha Lucero, 28, who suffered psychosis and schizophrenia, was shot to death in front of her RV, which was parked in front of her family’s South Valley home. BCSO Deputies had responded to the home after a relative called 911 saying Lucero had hit her uncle in the face. According to the 911 call, a relative said Lucero was mentally ill, needed help, and was a threat to herself and to everybody else. Just one month prior, Lucero had called BCSO and asked to be taken to the hospital for mental health issues.

According to the lawsuit, when deputies arrived, they said Lucero initially refused to come out of the home. Eventually, the 4-foot-11 Lucero, naked from the waist up, ran out screaming and armed with a kitchen knife. The BCSO Deputies pulled their revolvers and shot her claiming they feared for their lives. According to an autopsy report, Lucero was shot at least 21 times by the deputies. The two BCSO Deputies who shot and killed Elisha Lucero were not wearing lapel cameras. Sheriff Gonzales refused to have lapel cameras purchase and mandated for the BCSO.

Bernalillo Count settede the case for $4 Million. Even after the shooting of Elisha Lucero and the $4 Million settlement, Sheriff Gonzales did not change his opposition to lapel cameras. Gonzales has proclaimed his deputies do not need lapel cameras because they have audio recorders on their belts.

https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/family-of-elisha-lucero-settles-case-with-bcso-for-4m-/5667056/

https://www.abqjournal.com/1428402/family-of-mentally-ill-woman-shot-by-bcso-gets-4m-settlement.html

BCSO RACIAL PROFILING CASES SETTLED: $100,000 SETTLEMENT AND COUNTING

It was on December 6, 2017 that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sherese Crawford, a 38-year-old African-American woman on temporary assignment in New Mexico as an Immigration and Customs Agent (ICE) deportation officer. The lawsuit alleged that Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) deputies racially profiled her by pulling her over three times, twice by the same deputy, within a month with no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that she was breaking the law. None of the three times she was pulled over was she given a warning or a citation.

ACLU of New Mexico Staff Attorney Kristin Greer Love had this to say at the time:

“Our client is an accomplished federal agent who was targeted for driving while black … BCSO unlawfully and repeatedly stopped her because she fit a racial profile. Targeting people because of the color of their skin is unconstitutional and bad policing. Racial discrimination has no place in New Mexico, and BCSO must take immediate action to ensure that this behavior does not continue.”

https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/press-releases/aclu-files-racial-profiling-lawsuit-against-bcso

On July 8, 2020, it was reported that two black women from Wisconsin are suing Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales and two deputies alleging racial and religious profiling stemming from a traffic stop in July 2017. The lawsuit was filed about five months after Bernalillo County reached a $100,000 settlement with Sherese Crawford, a 38-year-old African-American who filed a lawsuit against BCSO after she was pulled over three times in 28 days by BCSO deputies Patrick Rael and Leonard Armijo, the same deputies named in the new lawsuit, in spring 2017.

The civil case was filed by Sisters Consweyla and Cynthia Minafee, and a 5-year-old child, Yahaven Pylant, were traveling from Phoenix back to Wisconsin when they were pulled over by Rael on Interstate 40 the morning of July 7, 2017. Cynthia Minafee was Yahaven’s legal guardian at the time. According to the lawsuit, the traffic stop lasted almost an hour and included an extensive search of the vehicle with a drug dog.

According to the lawsuit, Rael told the women to get out of the car and said he could smell marijuana on Cynthia. Cynthia said that she had not smoked in the car and that there was no marijuana in the vehicle. Consweyla Minafee, the driver, was not issued a traffic citation, but Cynthia Minafee was issued a citation for not having Yahaven properly restrained. The citation was dismissed in May, online court records show.

A link to a news source is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1473973/two-bcso-deputies-face-second-racial-profiling-lawsuit.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is little doubt that crime will be the biggest issue in the 2021 election for Mayor. It is disappointing that inept “Burque Bros” Tim Keller and Manny Gonzales are running for mayor and are the two top contenders. Both are seeking public financing and will likely make the ballot.

Mayor Tim Keller, who has been in office for over 3 years, and Bernalillo County Sheriff Manny Gonzales, who has been in office over 6 years, have both been ineffective in bringing down the city’s and the county’s crime rates. Sheriff Manny Gonzales and his BCSO are just as hapless in dealing with spiking crime rates as Mayor Tim Keller and APD.

During the last 3 years under Mayor Tim Keller’s leadership as well as the leadership of Bernalillo County Sheriff Manny Gonzales, things have only gotten worse in the city as well as the county when it comes to murders and violent crime rates. When you listen to both, you hear them say things will get better. Gonzales especially says he can do better than Keller as mayor. Gonzales doing better than Keller as Mayor is not at all likely given he has failed at the county level during his entire tenure as Sheriff and he has failed to keep up with changes in law enforcement and constitutional policing practices.

MAYOR TIM KELLER

In August, 2017, then New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller, candidate for Albuquerque Mayor, had this to say about the city’s high crime rates:

“It’s unfortunate, but crime is absolutely out of control. It’s the mayor’s job to actually address crime in Albuquerque, and that’s what I want to do as the next mayor.”

Candidate for Mayor Tim Keller ran on the platform promising to reduce the city’s crime rates, increase the number of sworn police and return to community based policing, promises that have essentially been broken. APD has 985 sworn police while Keller promised 1,200 sworn by the end of his term. On February 8, Chief Harold Medina told the City Council Public Safety Committee that APD had 957 sworn police, but only a mere 371 sworn police are assigned to the field services taking calls for service which in now way can be considered enough to do community based policing in 6 area commands. The Homicide Unit has only 12 detectives for one unit with case loads way above the national average for best practices and two years ago the city council was told that APD needed at least two homicide units or roughly 24 detectives.

Keller is the front runner mainly because of incumbency. His accomplishments have been less than stellar. The city’s high murder rate is rising even further. There will be more violent crime during the hot summer as people break out of quarantine as things return to normal. Keller failed to make the sweeping changes to the Albuquerque Police Department, and his promised implementation of the DOJ reforms stalled so much that he fired his first chief.

Keller has appointed Harold Medina, who has a nefarious past with the use of deadly force against two people suffering from psychotic episodes, permanent chief. Keller is not even close to reaching the 1,200 sworn police officers promised nor to community-based policing. Keller’s promise to bring down violent crime never materialized and the four programs to bring down violent crime have failed. For three years, murders have hit an all-time record, with many still unsolved.

BERNALILLO COUNTY SHERIFF MANNY GONZALES

When Gonzales says he can do better than Keller when it comes to crime, he acts like no one knows he has been Bernalillo County Sheriff for 6 years and in law enforcement for over 25 years. Sheriff Gonzales’s programs and felon warrant sweep initiatives in Albuquerque, especially in the South East Heights, have not brought down crime rates, but have only given him the press he covets.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Manny Gonzales wants voters to think his jurisdiction and law enforcement activities are confined to the county and do not include the city of Albuquerque which is APD’s territory. Truth is, the Bernalillo County Sherriff’s Office and the Albuquerque Police Department have concurrent jurisdiction. Any attempt by Gonzales to distance himself from the city’s high crime rates needs to be called out for what it is and that is a political ploy to avoid transparency and accountability of the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department during his tenure.

That’s the case unless of course when Gonzales seeks publicity and decides to do law enforcement initiatives in the City such as when he did it in the South East Heights last year proclaiming how businesses and resident’s asked him for help. In the 6 years he has been Sheriff, it was the very first time Gonzales decided to “help out” in the city. Truth be known, Gonzales was already thinking about running for Mayor and he jumped on the opportunity to make Mayor Tim Keller and APD look incompetent and unable to do their job in dealing with crime rates. It was very effective revealing just how opportunistic Gonzales really is.

Then there is the matter of Gonzales working with federal law enforcement, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI to work on Der Führer Trump’s initiatives brought to the city last year for Operation Legend with 50 federal agents sent to Albuquerque. He also jumped on the chance to go to Washington, DC all dressed out in his formal Sheriff’s uniform for special occasions for a photo op with Der Führer Trump which gave him the opportunity to strike up a friendship with Sam Vigil, the widower whose wife was slain in her driveway. Sam Vigil is now heading up a measured finance committee to raise money to oust Tim Keller and he has expressed support for Gonzales as Mayor. Mr. Vigil has also been a guest of Sheriff Gonzales on a government cable where Vigil promoted Gonzales.

Gonzales brings to the table his law enforcement credentials, but that’s it. He is well-known for his opposition to civilian oversight and inability to work with other elected officials, often being at odds with the County Commission and the District Attorney’s Office. As mayor, Manny Gonzales will not listen to nor work with the City Council, let alone respect the Police Oversight Board and the Community Policing Councils. Gonzales is a throwback to the way law enforcement was many years ago before the Black Lives movement. He failed to keep up with the times by implementing constitutional policing practices within BCSO. He opposes many of the DOJ reforms.

FINAL COMMENTARY

The city is facing any number of problems that are bringing it to its knees. Those problems include the coronavirus pandemic, business closures, high unemployment rates, exceptionally high violent crime and murder rates, continuing mismanagement of the Albuquerque Police Department, failed implementation of the Department of Justice reforms after a full six years and millions spent, declining revenues and gross receipts tax, increasing homeless numbers, lack of mental health programs and little next to none economic development.

The city cannot afford another mayor who makes promises and offers only eternal hope for better times that result in broken campaign promises. What is needed is a mayor who actually knows what they are doing, who will make the hard decisions without an eye on the next election, not make decisions only to placate their base and please only those who voted for them. What’s needed is a healthy debate on solutions and new ideas to solve our mutual problems, a debate that can happen only with a contested election. A highly contested race for mayor will reveal solutions to our problems.

There is still time for other candidates to run for Mayor as privately financed candidates. The time for privately financed candidates for Mayor to collect 3,000 qualifying signatures from registered voters to run is from June 8 to August 10, 2021. Hope springs eternal that more viable candidates for Mayor will run and give voters viable alternatives to the “Burque Bros”.

With Keller and Gonzales, we are faced with walking into a voting booth, holding our nose and voting for the lesser of two evils, or just not voting at all.