When I wrote the first piece, the effort here was described as "investigating the investigators" because I had seen enough CLEO bullshit to last several lifetimes by then (17 months ago). So I started to describe some of them in Essay 3: http://humblejournalist.hubpages.com/hub/cleos Since then, CLEO tactics haven't changed much, the common denominator being the infinite varieties of false attribution that CLEOs have incorporated to support various storylines. Cops are trained, and supported by PMAPS, to falsify reports because their jobs are predicated on the assumption that they will accuse and arrest people who do something illegal. So that is what they do. That is not what journalists do. So let's look at how the investigative processes are completely different and often directly opposed using examples.
Now when I heard Casey Gwinn's admission that perjury had been committed in thousands of cases he had prosecuted, as a student of logic I was astounded because anyone who understands logic also knows that a false premise guarantees a false conclusion. Therefore, if perjury was part of the process, a false premise, then the conclusion, the verdict, would necessarily be false as well. This is the justice system? I guess so, but it should also be noted that when the "victims" that Gwinn used as vehicles to prosecute those cases didn't wish to testify or recanted their complaints, he went ahead with the prosecutions anyway using police reports from the initial arrest. In other words, the court became a clearinghouse for false reports, because without a victim, there was little, if anything, left to support the charges.
Since then, every example of official I've seen authored by law enforcement was falsified to some extent, including what appear to be deliberate alterations, based on specious complaints. All of the complaints, reports and other manifestations of law enforcement authority have also been tactical in nature. On May 4, 2007 when Deputy Johnston stole the California DL that was current and valid between 2000-04, he did so based on a bogus complaint by some clowns that appeared to be military slime. When I asked about the basis for the complaint, the identity of the complainants, he continued to rummage through my wallet until he found the ID, removed it and told me it was "illegal" to possess it. Of course, this was CLEO bullshit in its purest form because he knew the significance of the ID, that the photo had been used elsewhere by law enforcement in a bogus arrest and booking report or perhaps records that falsely attributed criminal activity to your humble writer.
So along the way I've constantly been at odds with the "investigative procedures" of law enforcement, because when these Raid, Rummage, Ransack incidents occur, not only are they based on specious allegations, they conspicuously subtract valid information. In this case, and the repeat performance executed by Deputy Goon and Deputy Alcala on May 3, 2011, the Who, the What and the Why are subtracted from the investigative process and as a journalist investigating the investigators that information is critical and part of the process. I can make reasonable assumptions about the answers to those questions based on my knowledge of the motives and affiliations of those who have been compelled to steal, corrupt, destroy or transport my personal belongings because the patterns have been consistent, but I have seen nothing to indicate that law enforcement "investigative procedures" have anything to do with accurate reporting.
And why should they? CLEOs and PMAPS have objectives that are often defeated by accurate reporting. Take for instance "Book-em Dan-O" Lasher's narrative. Here's a guy calling himself and law enforcement professional, an "investigator" of criminal activity. And here we have an alleged perpetrator who says he burglarized a house, removing a picture ID. (For the moment we'll forget about how that doesn't translate into another ID). Now at this point anyone familiar with journalistic processes would ask "Where did the burglary take place? When did it occur? How did you enter the residence? Why did you break into the residence in the first place? To acquire the ID that you somehow knew was sitting on the coffee table, or for another reason? What else did you take while you were there?" and so on.
But in every law enforcement report I've seen, critical data and information is either conspicuously omitted or in some cases altered. This is because law enforcement has different objectives, an agenda, that is intended to result in charges of illegal activity or to support previous falsified reports. So when I see the cops recovering stuff from Boomerangs a few moments after they cross my path, or CLEO stalkers following me around while the cops follow them around taking pictures, or when a typical CLEO enters bogus information into a report like, "Victim says he was standing in front of a restroom" when the reason for doing so is almost comically transparent, it is clear that journalistic standards and law enforcement standards have very little in common because CLEOs have an agenda that never changes. Journalists do not.
Does it matter that I never said that? No. Does it matter that I made the correction on the report and returned it? No. Does it matter that the video would disprove it? No. Because it is a police report, authored by the police that serves the interests of the police. Based on what I've seen from law enforcement officials, their reports are basically fictional accounts of illegal activity supported by the stooges that they direct for the purpose of supporting phony reports, which is antithetical to journalistic standards. They lie whenever it serves their purposes just like anyone else who thinks the consequences of telling the truth are outweighed by the benefits of lying. And at this point, after years of fielding bogus complaints and falsifying reports, they have a lot to lie about.
This shouldn't be particularly surprising though, because the objectives of CLEOs and PMAPS are certain and do not yield to reason, logic, reality or the truth. In fact, they are often in direct opposition, so law enforcement reports have all been tactical in nature. "Officer observed (blah, blah, blah)" is the device, the bogus complaints and false pretenses the vehicle for these reports. What I am suggesting is that the construction of Mt. CLEO, the steady, unrelenting addition of dirt clods over years using these reports, has been strategic; that all of the complaints and reports have been not only consistent in their purpose, but also predicated on the complaints by those with common motives and affiliations.
These elements, the Who and Why, have always been conspicuously subtracted despite my efforts to include them in my investigation of the investigators. And even when the What was available, the video to support the allegation for example, it was conspicuously omitted. Therefore, I have concluded that law enforcement reports essentially prove a collaborative, malicious effort. Why? Because without those particulars accuracy is impossible and law enforcement effectively precludes adjudication, the civil procedures that provide for response to false complaints, slander, or any possibility of contesting the allegations. This is not how accuracy is attained. It also proves that for law enforcement to accomplish its objectives, relevant information, indeed critical information, must be subtracted from the equation. Of course, this explains why so much police activity throughout this story has been instigated or supported by CLEO stooges and proxies, especially military slime. All of it, in fact, as near as I can tell.
This is not how journalists do their job. But it is also obvious that law enforcement officials have different objectives, and therefore, different ways of looking at reports or anything resembling accuracy. So we will continue with the knowledge that law enforcement reports are nothing more than renditions of CLEO bullshit, self-serving and contrived, but separating the bullshit from the burgers isn't that difficult when you take a closer look at why critical information has been subtracted by CLEOs, and conversely, this is exactly where journalists find relevant information.
How many times has this concept been proven by corrupt public officials? If you look at the "Crunch Time" essay posted at humbleauthor.blogspot.com you'll see that 172 municipalities in California refused to comply with state law regarding their finances. The information they are conspicuously concealing is red meat to those of see journalism as a professional endeavor (as opposed to an occupation that allows for the elimination adversaries and critics using the authority associated with it). And if you look at all the evidence of what I've described in these essays, those things that remains in my possession despite repeated law enforcement attacks and confiscations, you'll find that reports by law enforcement officials are hardly the place to look for an accurate account of anything. But they are a good place to look for motives, affiliations, strategy and agenda of those involved.
© humble journalist
No comments:
Post a Comment