Hospitals & Asylums
On Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Dan Horn of the Cincinnati Enquirer wrote “U.S. judge orders police reform”
Dlott sides with monitor on access to cops. This occurred three days after the service of
HA-26-3-05 where the Labor
Management Agreement by and between the City of Cincinnati and Ohio Council
8 and Locals 190, 223, 240, 250, 1543 and 3119 American Federation of Municipal
Employees AFL-CIO that was contracted on August 5, 2001 and expired on August
4, 2004 was exposed without the accurate diagnosis now rendered as an “ACT of
WAR” in contravention to 18USC(113B)§2331(A)(4). Without a current labor contract the
Cincinnati Police have suffered their 3% annual general wage increase guaranteed
under Art. 44 of the Agreement for 2001-2003 to enter dispute. The disputed wage freeze does not seem
motivated by any shortage of funds but in a premeditated attack anticipated in
Art. 4 (B) that states, “There shall be no discrimination or retaliation toward
employees by virtue of participation or nonparticipation in Union
affairs”. Whereas there no legitimate
financial reason for the wage freeze the Police Union and City of Cincinnati
are reprimanded for letting their contract fall into disrepute and are ordered
to renew the contract before the false belief in Art. 44 leads to damages
against the real wages of employees of the police force. To ensure that arbitration is successful
written proceedings under the Art. 44 of the Statute International Court of
Justice, are all that is required to renew the human resources contract, by;
(1)
Stating on the
cover that the labor contract has been renewed;
(2) Eliminate the time periods set forth in Art. 44 of the Agreement to “guarantee an annual 3% general wage increase”
|
MODEL OF COOPERATION |
|
Officials signed two
police-reform agreements in 2002 after the April 2001 riots: |
Cincinnati is now under
a federal court order to reform the city Police Department. U.S. District Judge
Susan Dlott issued the order Monday after concluding that city officials
violated the city's police-reform agreement several times last year. Her ruling
means that any future violations could be punished with fines or jail time. The
decision comes almost three years after city and police officials signed the
Collaborative Agreement, a landmark deal that promised to reform police
policies through a cooperative effort with community leaders and civil rights
activists.
The two sides feuded several times last year
before ending up in court after the city denied court-appointed monitors access
to staff meetings and ride-alongs with police. One of the monitors, who are
intended to track the progress of reforms, was escorted from police
headquarters under orders of Chief Tom Streicher. In her ruling Monday, Dlott
said the threat of stiff penalties is the best way to ensure that the city will
follow the rules set down in the agreement.
"Now there is a stick as well as a
carrot," said Scott Greenwood, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties
Union. "This finding is not based on a minor technical violation. This is
about a fundamental breakdown - or shutdown - on the city's part."
City and police officials have admitted denying
access to the monitors but have argued that the disagreements were minor and
did not warrant the court's intervention.
"I think it's a bad ruling. It risks the
whole notion of a collaborative because it makes it a court case," Mayor
Charlie Luken said. "Common sense is taking a hike on this one."
Luken said the community activists who signed
the original deal in 2002 have not held up their end of the bargain and have
slowed progress in improving relations between police and blacks. The Black
United Front, which joined with the ACLU when the deal was signed, was allowed
to withdraw from the agreement in 2003.
"They're not selling this to the
community," Luken said. "It's just a bunch of lawyers in a room
arguing. The lawyers have taken over."
Both sides say that was never the plan. Dlott's
order represents a fundamental change to an agreement that former U.S. Attorney
General John Ashcroft once hailed as a model of cooperation. The Collaborative
Agreement, which averted a lawsuit over allegations of racial profiling, was
intended to reform police policies while also improving communication between
officers and citizens. Signed April 3, 2002, the agreement called for regular
meetings among the parties in hopes of avoiding a court showdown like the one
that led to Dlott's ruling Monday. The judge's decision supports the findings
of a magistrate who had recommended in January that she impose a court order on
the city. Dlott said the evidence gave her no other choice.
"The kind of material breach that occurred
as a result of the city's actions has served to effectively short-circuit the
process of monitoring," Dlott wrote in her decision. "The damage to
the monitoring process caused by the denial of access must be prevented from
occurring again."
Dlott's lead monitor, Saul Green, could not be
reached Monday. But he has said police denied access to members of his team on
several occasions last year. Green's
team complained that police officials were demeaning and reluctant to
cooperate. On one occasion, a police commander described a monitor's question
as "the stupidest" he'd ever heard. Vice Mayor Alicia Reece said
police leadership bears much of the responsibility for the judge's order
Monday. "That something as simple as access could get us to this point is
incredible," she said.
Streicher said Monday that he had not yet read
Dlott's order. But in January, he said the disputes arose because the monitors
were not clear on what police had to do to comply with the Collaborative
Agreement. Streicher said his department's actions toward the monitors were
deliberate and meant as a way to force more concrete goals to be set. Luken has
said he thinks that police already are in "substantial compliance"
with the Collaborative Agreement, as well as a separate but related agreement
with the U.S. Department of Justice. The deal with Justice mandates changes in
training, use-of-force policies and how force is reported. Despite the
disagreements, Luken said, progress has been made.
"Meaningful reforms are happening every day
between the police and residents," Luken said. "I think citizens and
the police are getting their acts together."
Greenwood said the collaborative meetings have
been more productive since January and that both sides are working through
their differences. He said Dlott's order should ensure that the progress
continues.
"It's disappointing that it's come to this,
but it's also necessary," Greenwood said. "The court order requires
reform. It's not an option to disregard a court order."
It is hoped that the US District Court will
co-operate with Hospitals & Asylums to publish the War Crime Tribunal at www.title24uscode.org/Litigation.htm. This Press Release would be the first entry
in the Table of Contents. I could be
paid with the $3,000 email espionage settlement in the Stolen Balance Budget v.
Cincinnati Bell HA-31-3-05 that is hereunder
referred to Judge Herman Weber whose Social Security I still live on although
much diminished as reported in the lengthy Declaration of
Independence of the Spring Equinox.
Judge Weber would look better on the Security Fraud case involving Computer
Crime under 18USCI(47)1030(e)(2)(A).,
in fact by overcoming this espionage that obviously comes from the Hamilton County
Prosecutor maybe he could win the US District Court the liberty to publish
their cases on their own website without any retaliation against the witnesses. I recommend for the Cincinnati Police War
Crimes Tribunal that all the Judges of the US District Court ratify any
judgment before submitting them to Hospitals & Asylums for publication by
email.
Anthony J. Sanders title24uscode@aol.com
Enquirer E-mail dhorn@enquirer.com