Gonna be a bloodbath.

You will no doubt cry about how I do the same to you when I requote your statements. However, the statements of yours that I requote are either a summary of, or are, in some other manner, similar to everything you have posted on this guestbook so far. The test of this is my reply of September 29, 1999 at 05:56:16 (MDT) to your posting of Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 12:02:15 (MDT). I would be only too happy to requote everything that you have posted, as all of it is evidence. However, it is obvious that that would only create total confusion.

And, regarding the term "conspiracy," that is your throw-in and is yet another example of the ad-hoc inflammatory statements you so often come up with. At this point, I have come to no definite conclusion about Steve. I have just made a query that any reasonable person would immediately recognize as valid. But, of course, you are not reasonable. And, since the query I made does concern you, this reaction of yours to that query could be more of your diversion tactics to confuse people and divert their attention away from that query.

Finally, regarding your ad-hoc inflammatory statements, you posted the following and demonstrated yet another one of your punk tactics: that of mixing a little bit of truth with a lot of lies:

"As far as your "closed private club" comment, you really can't see your paranoia or illness can you? You have made this comment about a couple of different occupations now. And they seem to be occupations that have power or authority associated with them. It's quite obvious you do not like people that have occupations with power. That's fine---I'm just making an observation."

I can't believe you're creating ANOTHER conspiracy. Just a few days ago, the newest conspiracy was the disappearance of "Citizen Target" and your belief that I had something to do with it. And now today, you believe that the website might be controlled by somebody else. Ugh......I know this is TOTALLY useless, but what the hell, I'll say it again----Alec, when I continue to say that you find a conspiracy under every rock, how can you not see why I say this? It just blows my mind that a person can have such hardcore tunnel vision. Kind of like a "Rainman" sort of character---but worse! At least Rainman was open to new ideas every now and then.

And one other point as well. I have questioned your mental state several times now, and for very good reason. Others on this Guestbook have also said the same thing, independently of each other (for example, "Teh Editor", "Almost Retired", etc). And you yourself have admitted to run-ins with officials in the judicial process--I believe you said it happened twice and that it was in court. I could be mistaken on where it was, but I know that you have mentioned at least two separate instances. So now you have a pretty large group of people that have met you both in person, and on the web with words only. Does that mean anything to you at all? With so many different people telling you the same thing, doesn't it make your mind wonder---if only for a brief moment---that maybe some of these people MIGHT, just MIGHT, have a valid point? I guess you could say that they are all conspiring together to say that, which of course is ridiculous, but you seem to believe those kinds of things.

Bryan--I know what it feels like to get there too late. I still have visions of two little babies, ages 2 and 4, laying lifeless on the roadway. The youngest had the prettiest blue eyes just staring up into the sky. This was 17 years ago--and you never forget. Their dad was the lucky one, he died 3 weeks later. Their mom is still living the nightmare. Whatever you do, please don't resist any counselling which might be offered. It really does help. Also, seek out the comfort of others who have been involved in traumatic events such as the one which you were involved in. Don't let it win--you still have a long life, and hopefully a long career, ahead of you. Amadi--Thank you for the kind words of support. People generally don't visit this type of site to extend kind words to the police. If more people would follow your lead, perhaps the anti-social deviants who develop these sites would realize that they are wrong. And now for the Tim/Alec/Retired show. Retired--what I am about to say is said with the utmost of respect. I have been very lucky throughout my career. All of the injuries that I have sustained have healed, and if all goes well, I look forward to a normal retirement in a couple of years. I am sorry for your disability I know that unless I wore your shoes, I could never really understand what you are going through. I'll send some information to you off-list. I have to agree with you. After reading several of the comments that Tim has made, there is no way that I will ever believe that he is a police officer. Cops simply don't air their dirty laundry in a public forum such as this one. If a cop had an issue with something that you said, he would seek you out in private. Sorry Tim, but it's obvious to me that you've never had to battle in the trenches. If you had, you would understand. I won't even discuss Alec, since it's obvious to me that he's plain M.O. (that's police talk for 'in need of mental observation' in case you didn't recognize it, Tim). I guess we should prepare for Alec's political novel discussing what a criminal I am for exercising my First Amendment rights. We need to look at what we say on this type of list. It is coming across as cops fighting against cops. If this is the case, then Steve wins. I can see him sitting back now laughing at a number of entries on this list. Don't let him win. Don't feed his desire to trash good cops. Once again, these are my opinions and are not meant to harm or insult anyone (other than Tim and Alec).

Almost Retired, you can continue crying about how you "protect and defend people, how you are so touched by hurt people, how you do your job so well in spite of being unappreciated, how it is war between you and those who speak out against police brutality and how those, such as myself, who do speak out against police brutality, must be mental." But, it is extremely significant that you consider yourself to be at war with those who speak out against police brutality...

Speaking of this punk tactic, you had the unmitigated gall to simply label me "mental" in your post of Saturday, November 20, 1999 at 23:40:53 (MST), with no facts to justify your attack of course. Then you continue your attack on my character with your posting of Tuesday, November 23, 1999 at 03:24:29 (MST). Needless to say, you did this to all of the people you murdered, either before or after you murdered them of course. Does anyone reading this guestbook remember Waco? If so, does anyone remember that the so called news began smearing David Koresh and company after the FBI murdered them.

In all of this, you also count on the mistaken belief of most people that you and your ilk are somehow "legitimate." I look forward to the day when the people of this country see that you and your ilk are not "legitimate," something that my website easily proves. Then, perhaps, you and your ilk can be prosecuted for the crimes you all have and are continuing to commit against the people of this country.

Additionally, you are correct that it is 100% tax free. However, you say that as if it is something that only police officers receive. That is absolutely false. There are MANY occupations that receive a retirement salary tax free. The thing that kicks in the tax free laws are when the salary is disability related. My aunt is a nurse and was injured on the job (private hospital), and receives a tax free retirement salary. So your information is correct about the income being tax free, however, your inference is that this is something special for cops, and it is not.

In answering your question if somebody can work when they are retired on a disability, the answer is yes. I know nothing about the man that you named in your comments, so I can not address him specifically. However, I can tell you that whenever an employee (in any occupation, public or private) gets injured on the job to the point where they have to retire with a disability, that injured worker is very strongly encouraged to get re-trained for another job. The name of the state program in California is "Vocational Rehab". There is a fund of $16,000 available to all injured workers (again, not just cops, but all occupations) to train them in some other job that they are physically capable of. In the example of a police officer, that job is very physically demanding. So when that employee is forced to retire medically, that person can choose to go into another career that is not physically demanding---such as a computer programmer, or an architect, or whatever. Injured workers are assigned a person called a "Vocational Rehab Counselor" and their pay comes out of that $16,000 fund. The money does not pay for a salary for the injured worker---it only pays for training and equipment to get them back into the work force again. So the bottom line answer to your question is no, it is not fraud for a person that is medically retired to be working again. Quite the contrary, it is highly encouraged to get that person rehab'd to the point where they can become a useful member of society again.

You also asked if that same person (in the example above) will receive a tax free income with the new occupation. The answer is no, they will not. They get taxed just like anybody else in the new occupation.

Your next question asked why there is so much interest by cops on an anti-cop web page. I can't answer specifically for others, but I can certainly answer for myself. I have many reasons, some of which are personal. However, one of the main reasons I am here is so that I can correct misinformation that is posted by people. I understand that there is a small minority of people that hate cops, and those people all have their own reasons for that hatred. I fully understand that I can not change their minds or make them see things any differently. They come in with their minds made up, and they leave with their minds made up. That is an unfortunate fact of life. However, I feel that the least I can do is correct comments that are posted that I know to be incorrect, I can answer questions (as I did above), and I can give my opinions and views on different incidents, scenarios, etc. These are only my reasons---I'm sure other cops (both retired and active) have their own reasons as well. When I give answers to questions that are strictly factual with no opinion or personal viewpoints involved, there are still people out there that will challenge, yell, scream, kick, and have fits about it. That's way beyond my control, and that is totally their problem if they can't accept simple facts that have absolutely nothing to do with how I feel. Some people, unfortunately, choose to go through life with a chip on their shoulder and that's a shame. I have not seen you (Milo) post too many times on this Guestbook so I have no idea if you have been following the conversations for any length of time. But I have learned some new things and I have heard things from a new perspective that I have never known before. I'm not always correct, but when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. The only way to grow is to accept the fact that we, as people, don't "know it all" and it's always best to just keep an open mind---no matter who is saying it. As I'm sure you know, I can't stand "Alec" because his statements are so confusing and so paranoid, and he is very degrading to people who disagree with his point of view. However, that has not stopped me from letting him know that I do agree with a small portion of what he talks about. His factual information is correct, but his conspiracy theories are his own thing that I do not support at all.

I am curious about something you said in your last post though. You talked about someone that I am assuming is me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you think that I'm posting comments to this Guestbook at taxpayer expense and then reporting things back (in report form) to the police department? I think that's what you were saying, but I'm not totally sure. If you think that, of course there's not a thing I can do to change your mind---that's your business. But all I can do is tell you this----do you honestly think, with me being retired, that they (my former employer) would want me to do such a thing? Especially when they can logon to this web page from their desk and read the words themselves. If you do think such a thing exists, you're letting your imagination run a little too far.

The bottom line is that one of the functions of this webpage is to have cops visit it so that they can leave evidence proving what they really are and who they really serve. Why not welcome the cops, get their comments and then distribute the contents of this webpage to as many citizens, the more influential the better, as you can, so that everyone can become aware of just what the police are in this country?

Alec----Your latest comments are a classic example of the pure hatred that you have towards human beings. It doesn't matter what their occupation is. You are just a very sick man. Not only that, but your generalizations of the comments made by "Almost Retired" are nowhere close to anything he said. The majority of your comments are completely fabricated and made up, as he did not say anything even close to resembling what you believe he said. No wonder you can't communicate with anybody. You see what you want to see, plain and simple.

Sometimes, even, the ad-hoc inflammatory statements that you and your ilk make can be recognized for the malicious and satanic attacks that they are. An example of this is your: "Your latest comments are a classic example of the pure hatred that you have towards human beings." You have no evidence to back up this latest satanic attack on my character! Given that "my latest comments" that you refer to are...

R/I/R, it is you and the trash like you such as "Almost Retired," that degrade other people. The degradation comes in the form of the Orwellian punk attitude that you all display and that you all have the unmitigated gall to attempt to pass off as "enlightened, unappreciated, do gooders."

Almost Retired, you can continue crying about how you "protect and defend people, how you are so touched by hurt people, how you do your job so well in spite of being unappreciated, how it is war between you and those who speak out against police brutality and how those, such as myself, who do speak out against police brutality, must be mental." But, it is extremely significant that you consider yourself to be at war with those who speak out against police brutality. Do understand that you and your ilk protect, with extreme mechanical viciousness and with deadly force, a fraudulent court system of attornment that derives from a foreign power, that is completely illegal and that constitutes treason against the people and sovereignty of this country. Your crying is nothing but deceit and fraud to lead people away from the truth of what you and your ilk really are and your unmitigated gall at calling people, who attempt to expose you for what you are, "mental" additional injury on top of the crimes you have already committed. In essence, you and your ilk are traitors against the people and sovereignty of this country.

Personally, I am looking for some real cops that will recognize and protect the rights of the people of this country.

-You were given multiple opportunities to prove your occupation, in a very safe way that would not reveal who you are, or where you are employed. You refused every chance to do that. -You were given a very simple test that ANY cop in the USA or Canada would be able to answer---you again would not answer those questions, and instead came back with a poor excuse why you would not do that. -You are extremely unprofessional in your comments, as well as the fake e-mail addresses that you sign your comments with (For example, "cocksuck") -You have made fun of and degraded me for a serious on-duty injury I received. **NO** police officer would EVER do that to another cop..........ever. -You fight every word I say, which I find very interesting. I am against corruption in police departments and have given examples of my own personal experiences and what I have done about it. I have also given numerous examples of what I have done in my community to make things better by going way above and beyond the call of duty. Why are you against that? Come to think of it, you have never said what it is that you disagree with when I make my comments. All you do is come back with sarcastic, rude, and arrogant "one liners". There isn't a police officer alive today that would act the way that you act.

As for the shoulder patch---are you for real? Go over to ebay.com and do a search for police patches. There are thousands of them availble because that's a huge hobby for people.

Almost Retired, you can continue crying about how you "protect and defend people, how you are so touched by hurt people, how you do your job so well in spite of being unappreciated, how it is war between you and those who speak out against police brutality and how those, such as myself, who do speak out against police brutality, must be mental." But, it is extremely significant that you consider yourself to be at war with those who speak out against police brutality. Do understand that you and your ilk protect, with extreme mechanical viciousness and with deadly force, a fraudulent court system of attornment that derives from a foreign power, that is completely illegal and that constitutes treason against the people and sovereignty of this country. Your crying is nothing but deceit and fraud to lead people away from the truth of what you and your ilk really are and your unmitigated gall at calling people, who attempt to expose you for what you are, "mental" additional injury on top of the crimes you have already committed. In essence, you and your ilk are traitors against the people and sovereignty of this country.

You said: "what you just accused Tim of is what you are guilty of."

What in the world are you talking about? What specifically did I accuse him of that you think I am also guilty of?

As far as your "closed private club" comment, you really can't see your paranoia or illness can you? You have made this comment about a couple of different occupations now. And they seem to be occupations that have power or authority associated with them. It's quite obvious you do not like people that have occupations with power. That's fine---I'm just making an observation.

By the way, since you seem to believe that "Tim" is a police officer (and that he is "one of the good ones"), when are you going to start accusing him of treason, fraud, and other crimes? Come on Alec----here's your chance. Or are you going to speak out of both sides of your mouth again? (by the way, I like how you copied my phrase there---I'm flattered) After all, Tim is supposedly a currently employed police officer. And I am an injured and retired officer, and you have been giving me non-stop lectures about me not doing all of these things that you think I should be doing. It's time for you to put the same expectations on Tim. And if he doesn't take the action that you think I should have taken, then I expect you to start calling him a traitor and everything else as well. Right now you're probably thinking to yourself, "Oh shit. How am I gonna get out of this corner I've painted myself into?". Well, that's a good question. How are you going to handle this?

Second of all, you say I am "incredibly hard headed" on this issue. Oh, so you want me to say, "Yes, oh great one, you are a police officer and I NEVER should have doubted your word". Give me a break dude! I have NO REASON to believe you---I have given you 3 different **SAFE** suggestions on how to verify your occupation, yet you refuse to do any of them. The bottom line is this: Any real cop would never speak the words that you are speaking, plain and simple. When a fellow officer gets injured on duty with the seriousness that I was, the response from other cops is 100% different than yours. Of every single person on this Guestbook that has said they are a police officer, I have received an e-mail from them discussing my injury and have received words of encouragement. They always offer me their "ear" because they know how serious it is for a cop to go out early like I did. Not only that, but every single one of them agree with my assesment of "Alec". On the other hand, you Tim (if that's even your real name since you refuse to post an e-mail address, or even a part of the world you are in) have said everything that is totally and completely the opposite of what any true cop would say. I am one thousand percent certain that you are certainly NOT a police officer. Your mindset is not even close to what it takes to be a cop. The only exception is what I already noted earlier. If, by some small exception you somehow sneaked through the checks and balances of the hiring process, the academy, and FTO, then you work in a very small, very insignificant department where your co-workers can't stand you.

You are LYING about being a police officer. I don't give a shit if you claim to be Elvis Presley, except when it comes to a discussion such as this. There are many people reading this Guestbook, but keeping quiet, and they may just think that you are who you claim to be. I can't let that happen, because I care about the reputation of my profession. We are a dedicated, hard working, respectable group of people and I don't want anybody for a moment thinking that you are part of such a group. Your ridiculous and lame excuse for not doing a simple verification to back up your claim is enough right there to discredit everything and anything that you might say. You have no creditbility at all now. You can say whatever you want to, and it will fall upon the deaf ears of myself and the many readers of these comments. **IF** you and Alec are indeed two separate people (of which I still have strong doubts), what a sad state of affairs you have placed yourself in by having---of all people---a whacko like Alec on your side. What a great pair you make---I'll call you the "dynamic duo".

Hey "Alec"---You say below that you will "later" be able to PROVE to the world just how far gone I am when all of the FACTS come in. Why wait?? Go ahead and tell the world now---we're all waiting with great anticipation. Geez, I just hope that your "facts and evidence" are better than the garbage you have been referring to for the last 6 months on your web page that makes no sense at all! Oh, and while you are proving to the world how delusional I am, don't forget to include in your package of evidence the information to back up your accusation from yesterday that "Citizen Target" seems to have disappeared and that me and my "ilk" are somehow responsible for his disappearance. Wait---run that by me again---who is delusional?

And finally, to "Tim" (aka: Alec)-----You talk about my "conspiracy theory"? Nice try in copying my previous words about you two characters, but it won't work. First of all, yes, it is a "theory" by my own admission. I never said I was positive or that it was a fact. I also listed some of the reasons why I have this theory (and my mind has not changed on this either). If "Alec" (which I believe may be one in the same as you) has "proof" of this, then show it now---what are you waiting for????

Regarding my back injury---what an arrogant ass you are. Let's see, it took 2 surgeons over 10 hours to reconstruct my spine using metal rods, screws, and titanium cages. Yup, I guess you're right. I'm faking the whole thing! I've been going through physical therapy three days a week just trying to WALK again! You are one warped son-of-a-bitch, you know that? What in the hell is wrong with you anyway?

R/I/R, thank you for admitting to the entire world that brainwashing police to be like you is an ongoing and systematic process in multiple police departments, most notably in the large cities but attempting to continue its spread to the small towns. Funny how it is that the scenarios that you describe are also the tales of horror that people tell about the office politics in "regular employment" settings. In other words, anyone, who doesn't live, breathe, eat and feel the lie that the "United States is the bastion of the free world and everyone must do their part," complete with all of its self-inflicted misery, is immediately singled-out, ostracized and eventually assaulted, either physically or otherwise.

This exactly parallels a news story I read about 10 years ago about a "lay" judge in the very small town of Jarbidge, Nevada being the last of the "lay" judges. By "lay" judge, the news story meant judges that were not members of the various State Bar Associations or of the American Bar Association, which are proven closed and private clubs who, by their very nature and actions, are illegal and treasonous aristocracies.

All of this fits in perfectly with the evidence that I have here, which R/I/R, true to his brainwashing, attempted to fluff off to the readers of this guestbook as "more legalese than I care to read." So, it appears, that in the steady ongoing corruption of the government, that began in earnest in 1933, the police are about 10 years behind the court system in their level of corruption.

Until the police do their job, quit protecting, and begin arresting these judges and attorneys for the crimes, including treason, that they have committed against the people of this country, the police are going to remain a deadly threat to the people of this country, regardless of their individual good acts on behalf of the people.

Also, are you (Alec) and you (Tim) one in the same? Of course I will never be able to prove it---that's impossible. But Steve (webmaster) I think can do it by checking the IP address of the person that posted. I know on his main web page it logs the IP address right away. But I don't know enough about computers or the Internet to know how all of that stuff works. But it is interesting the timing of Alec's and Tim's responses to my comments. And how Tim's comments suddenly appeared out of nowhere to slam me for no reason, while at the same time, Alec was quiet. Very interesting.

Well Alec, if you are indeed "Tim", that would certainly explain why you answered a question that I asked him---not you. Or did you get confused and forget which "alias" you were posting the comments under? My question to **TIM** was this:

"What is it about the police that you hate so much? Just curious....."

I find it extremely interesting that YOU chose to answer that question. I wasn't asking you the question Alec---I already know what your answer is. I think you just burned yourself.

Regarding the public record search that I did, I don't really care what you think about it. Obviously it ruffled your feathers a bit didn't it? Is that because I'm finally revealing who is behind that curtain, and it's not really the Wizard after all? Yes Mr. Constitution (who interprets it wrong), your cover is being blown. You didn't expect anyone to do that did you? I wonder what your true reason is for being here. Since I can't imagine anyone actually believing in the words that you write, maybe you do this just for the thrill of arguing. Is that what this is all about? Do you get off on this stuff?

At the end of your comments, you say this: "And my original questions still remain:" Um, what original questions? You mean the two BRAND NEW questions that you just posted tonight? You write that as if you have written these questions before and they have gone unanswered. The people who read this stuff and keep track of it aren't that stupid Alec (or Tim, whichever name you're using tonight). They know that this is the very first time you have asked these questions. Okay, I'll play. I'll answer your questions. Unlike you, I will answer direct questions with direct answers. No wait, let me first answer your questions the way that you answer mine. Here it goes: "You are a satanic spy, and you have the gall to challenge me? A person who is not an attorney but pretends that he is? Even though the Bar Association is a group that I wish I belonged to, but they won't let me in so I trash them instead. The people can see you for who you really are. You are a CRIMINAL and you have commited TREASON against the Constitution. You still haven't arrested OJ Simpson yet, which is further EVIDENCE of your criminal behavior!" There, that's my "Alec style" answer to your questions. Now, I will answer your questions the way most normal people answer them.

Question 1: "What kinds of violent crimes, under color of law and using fabricated "charges" of course, are you contemplating to commit against me right now?"

Answer: What does "under color of law" mean? If you're referring to "under color of authority", it doesn't apply. I am not part of 830 or 832 PC any more. So, in ignoring that part of your question since it's not applicable, I can say with absolute certainty that I am not contemplating ANY violent crimes or acts against you. But you're too stupid to figure that out. Why on earth would I jeopardize my future on somebody like you? Do you think I'm nuts? You're not worth it---as a matter of fact, NOBODY is worth my future. Unless of course you touch my family, then you've placed yourself into a different category. But you can relax Alex (or Tim), you know damn well that I wouldn't do anything to you. I used to enforce the law for a living and take lawbreakers to jail. My morality and ethics haven't changed.

Question 2:"And, have you or your ilk already committed those kinds of crimes against Citizen Target? Citizen Target kept bringing forth a lot of specific and damning evidence against you and your ilk before he disappeared from this guestbook."

Answer: Oh puh-leeeeeze......Are you for real?? How on earth would I have ANY idea what part of the world he is in??? He doesn't post anything at all to give away who he is or where he is. You have such a paranoid mind. He'll be back soon enough. Just because he doesn't come running when you call on him doesn't mean "me and my ilk" have gone and done something with him. You watch too many "X Files" reruns dude.

You don't limit your crap to just me. You have pulled your crap on Citizen Target, myself, Tim, Ross, PigKilla, and God knows how many others. Regarding Tim's defense of PigKilla, PigKilla may not be very articulate and may not know how to write good English. But, he is making the same valid point everyone else is making, namely: the police in this country do not serve the people of this country and the people are sick and tired of it! You have said: "What is it about the police that you hate so much? Just curious....." The answer is simple: you, your ilk (other police like you), and the fraudulent court system of attornment that you and your ilk protect with such unprecedented mechanical viciousness. You are truly disgusting and satanic.

Regarding your foolishness that you can simply check public records for me just because you want to, the last time that it appeared that I even came close to stating that I could do the same to you, you pulled your threat of September 25, 1999 on me! So, you claim that you can search public records for me and cause me to feel threatened, and it is not a crime, whereas, if I do the same to you, you claim that that is a crime. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution clearly states, amongst other things, "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the law." And, you have the unmitigated gall to claim that you do not consider yourself to be above the law?

And what about your reply to PigKilla's posting of Wednesday, November 17, 1999 at 16:51:06 (MST)? You didn't try to twist that into looking like a direct threat on your life. But, you most certainly did attempt to twist my statements of September 25, 1999 into looking like a direct threat on your life. The bottom line is: you will target me, or anyone else, who you believe can successfully expose the fraud that calls itself our public government for what it is and who you believe can succeed in getting it eliminated. But, you will simply fluff off and degrade people who you believe to know nothing about and who you believe to be incapable of exposing the fraud that calls itself our public government for what it is. And, you claim to not be attempting to further the fraudulent New World Order?

But, all of this satanism is the way of parasites like yourself. You and your ilk will continue to commit your satanism as long as there are suckers and trash you can use to support it. I am even dead certain that you will come back with a bunch of long winded nonsense specifically designed to confuse the readers of this guestbook and lead them away from the important truths about you I just proved, as part of your attempts to preserve your horde of suckers and trash. Again I say, you are truly disgusting and satanic. And my original questions still remain:

What kinds of violent crimes, under color of law and using fabricated "charges" of course, are you contemplating to commit against me right now?

And, have you or your ilk already committed those kinds of crimes against Citizen Target? Citizen Target kept bringing forth a lot of specific and damning evidence against you and your ilk before he disappeared from this guestbook.

Additionally, what in the hell is this supposed to mean? :

"I know about the drugs because I, unlike you, actually work in the field."

So what? You work in a field where you know about RX meds? What does that have to do with ANYTHING that is being discussed?

You ask me why do I think I receive poor treatment from some of you people? Personally, I don't care how you treat me. I'm a cop, so I'm used to being treated like shit. However, I stick with the same rules that I have always lived by. I treat people with the same respect that they give me. If you look back on the comments, you will see who the first person was to make comments and what the tone of those comments were. Mr. "Pig Killa" is the most recent example, but there are plenty of others. If you think I'm going to come back with a respectful answer to someone like that, then you're living in a fantasy world.

As far as Alec and his garbage, well, we're both cops and we know about guys like him. What more can I say?

And you are such a double-talking, double-standard, hypocritical person it is just unreal. You speak of all of the freedoms that the Constitution gives us, and you extrapolate many more things out of it then I have ever heard before, yet when I exercise my rights and my freedoms as an American Citizen, you go on the defensive and think you're being threatened. What a complete lunatic you are! I can check the public records on any person that I want to. It's my right as a citizen, and it is perfectly legal. That's why the records are public---it's our rights as citizens. Or are you going to pick and choose which rights you like and which rights you don't like? Are you creating your own little private world and your own little private Constitution that applies only to you? You can't do that Alec---you've got to take the whole thing as one package. And if you don't like the fact that there are public records available to the PUBLIC, then that's not my problem. Go complain to your "so called" government.

And of course, you never did give a SPECIFIC answer to ANY of my questions---I knew you wouldn't. It's because you can't---there is no way you possibly could. That's because you know that everything you speak is pure garbage. Do you think that is how law enforcement and the criminal justice system should work in "your world"? Do you think that people can just be charged, at random, for serious felony crimes without providing ANY evidence or ANY specific instances of what they did wrong? Thank God there's nobody like you working in our government at the law enforcement or court level! What do you think the police do when they make an arrest Alec? Do you think we see somebody working for a big corporation, and just because we have our own personal feelings that the corporation is corrupt that we can just pluck out employees at random and tell them that "by the power invested in me, through the interpretations of Alec, i hereby find you guilty of treason" and then throw them in jail? You've got to be kidding me. Your "logic" is so incredibly flawed and lame. No Alec, when people are arrested for a crime, we must write specifically what they did wrong, when they did it, where they did, and make sure the full corpus delecti of the crime was fulfilled (go look it up). For example, as a synopsis, a person being charged would have a summary that reads, "On 11/17,99 at approximately 1255 hours, suspect Alec was seen entering the 7-11 store at 123 Main Street in Anytown, USA. The witness watched the suspect slowly walk around the store, continuously looking around him to see if anybody was watching him. The witness was watching the suspect in one of the store's security mirrors, when he saw the suspect take a bottle of Schlitz Malt Liquor and place it in a pocket located inside the left side of the black trench coat he was wearing. After the suspect walked around the store for about 5 more minutes, the suspect then walked out of the front door of the store passing two open cash registers and made no attempt to pay for the item. Once the suspect was outside the doors of the business, he was detained for petty theft and the police department was called." That is a synopsis Alec---it specifically lists the who, what, where, why, and when of the crime. Your shitty comments basically say that the whole Constitution is not being followed (per your own warped interpretation) and the whole system is corrupt---therefore, I must be guilty of various crimes. What a joke dude. Try a different argument and a different topic. I am just so amazed at how incredibly ignorant you are, and how much little respect you have for citizen's rights.

Regarding this statement of yours...

Alec---why do you begin all of your comments with "For the record"? Do you really think you're an attorney? That must be part of your problem---you're a frustrated "wanna be" attorney that could never make the cut. Well, it's quite obvious why you never made it----you have no idea how to interpret even the simplest of statutes. Maybe if you took a class or two, you could understand it. Instead of empty arguments with nothing to back up your statements, you might actually be able to write something that makes legal sense! (Italics added for emphasis).

I have searched all over the Internet and I have kept the name next to my computer, checking different search engines and other sources (including "copwatch") for more information on this case. I have not been able to find anything at all except for the one paragraph synopsis of what happened. Unfortunately, there isn't enough info in that one blip of information for to make too many comments. Based on the surface, without ANY other information, what can I say really? I mean, an innocent an un-armed 75 year old man died of a heart attack because he was scared to death (literally) when the SWAT team of Boston PD raided the wrong house after acting on a tip that drug activity was happening there. In this particular case, the officers did not use deadly force against anyone, however, as a result of their entry into the residence (which was the wrong location) a person died because it was too much for his heart to handle.

At least some good has come about as a result of that one incident. First of all, according to the paragraph, the police department changed it's policy on warrants and informants. Secondly, the officers involved in the incident were disciplined (it doesn't say what exactly the discipline was--there is a huge range or things that can happen from something as simple as a letter of reprimand to a maxiumum 30 days suspension without pay). And thirdly, the city settled with the victim's widow for one million dollars which was the largest payout of it's kind in the entire history of the city of Boston. So those are three significant things that took place as a result of that incident. I'm curious---did you want more to happen? If so, what would you like to have seen done? Keep in mind that yes, the officers raided the wrong house but unfortunately (unless you have it), we don't know what the circumstances were of why they were sent to the wrong location. The officers did not make entry into that house with the mindset of giving that man, or anybody else, a heart attack. It is a very unfortunate and sad thing that happened, but the officers did not go in and willfully kill him as would be the case with, for example, the victim being shot with a gun by the police officers. I'm not making excuses for the cops---obviously, they were in the wrong house. But at the time, they did not know that. I just wish I could find out what happened to place them at the wrong house---for me, that's the 64 thousand dollar question. The whole "guts" of the case lies within that question.

I finally went back and was able to find your original comments on the Guestbook for this incident. You questioned what the discipline of the SWAT officers was--"harsh words?" That's a good question, and I have the same question as you. I would assume that in a case like this where the city of Boston paid out the largest amount of money in the history of the city for an incident like this, that the cops would receive more than harsh words as discipline. But again, I would really like to know how the mistake was made to end up in the wrong house. I don't feel right attacking someone for their actions without knowing the full story. Just as I would never arrest somebody without knowing the full story, the same hold true here.

Regarding your comment about respect, I can't follow what the heck you're saying but I do know this---I have no respect for you. From the beginning you've been the same broken record, over and over again. Your closed mind is amazing----I've never run across anything like it.

I've also noticed that you preface many of your statements with the words "so called". You talk about our "so called government", you talk about me being a "so called retired police officer", you mention my "so called training and experience"---Geez, if that isn't classic paranoia! Does anything exist to you, or is everything "so called"? Do you live in a "so called" house and drive a "so called" car? Because after all, it may be a government plot that's out to get you with all of my cohorts from the Federal Reserve involved in the conspiracy.

I have asked you so many questions that you have failed to answer over and over again. Why is this? When you are faced with a question that actually MAKES SENSE, do you just continue down your tunnel (part of the tunnel vision) and pretend it's not there? Just like Pee-Wee Herman who used to plug his ears with his fingers and say, "I'm not listening!". Is that what you do when something logical comes along? It must be, because you have yet to answer one single DIRECT question with a DIRECT answer. If you're going to go spouting off things against me, fine, I don't really care about that. But at least have the balls to back up what you say. You won't even do that! I'm gonna try asking this question one more time. And if you don't answer it, again, it's no skin off my nose. But at least it shows that you are not capable of answering a simple question that relates to charges that you make. Here is the question:

You continue to stick with a "theme" about me being a criminal and a traitor, and have stated repeatedly that I have committed fraud and treason and that I have acted in bad faith (among many other charges). You talk about the Constitution requiring me to act upon something that you have notified me about. My question to you is extremely simple: Provide some sort of back-up information to each and every specific charge that you have made. In other words, specifically, what did I do SPECIFICALLY that can be charged with FRAUD? SPECIFICALLY, what did I do that can be charged with TREASON? SPECIFICALLY, why am I a TRAITOR? SPECIFICALLY, why am I acting in bad faith? What specific acts or omissions did I commit to cause you to charge that I am guilty of these crimes? And word your answer cautiously, because keep in mind that if you are going to use the same old line about you giving me "evidence" that Ira Reiner (who is 400 miles away from here) did something illegal, then your exact same logic will follow with the arrest information I gave you about Bill and Hillary Clinton. You are an able-bodied American citizen, and I am not able-bodied as you well know. Therefore, you are in a much better position to physically make an arrest. So anything you charge against me, you better be willing to do the exact same thing yourself. And if you think Bill and Hillary Clinton are too far away, then I will stick with somebody closer to your neighborhood. I will order you to go arrest O.J. Simpson. Enough probable cause exists to re-try him for murder. Double-jeopardy will not apply because he can be tried for violating the civil rights of his two victims, just as the four LAPD officers were found "not guilty" in the Rodney King incident, yet they were found guilty in the civil trial so double-jeopardy does not apply. If you don't want to arrest any of the three people I told you about, then you are committing treason against your country and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are then acting in bad faith yourself for not taking action on these cases. I can give you other names of people to arrest if you don't like those three, but there is plenty of information available on all three.

As far as respect is concerned, the only people you respect are those who pay for and have the capability of taking away your cushy existence. It is not just me you attack, but anyone who doesn't mindlessly go along with your propaganda, and you have recently become even more arrogant and cavalier in your manner. Your entire view of respect, and everything about you for that matter, is built on violence and has nothing in common with God or God's Law at all, or any of the other finer things in life.

Regarding your so called training and experience, and your claims about who is competent to quote the law, etc., all of that is irrelevant. Because, you are and have always been acting in BAD FAITH! In the United States, given the Constitution and the oaths that it requires, either directly or otherwise, of all government officers, that makes you a criminal and a traitor!

Of course, R/I/R's latest piece of drivel is about the longest yet and is one of the most nauseating I have seen to date. R/I/R even tries to claim that I am guilty of the same crimes that he is! What R/I/R willfully fails to realize is that I am attempting to expose the truth and get the problem corrected. He, however, is doing everything in his power to mislead people and cover up the truth so that the problem can continue to fester and become slavery for everyone in this country.

I find many of the things that you do to be very interesting. For example, in almost all of your posts, you put words in quotation marks as if they are coming from some specific person (such as me). Why do you use quotation marks when you make no reference as to who said those words? The obvious inference is that the words were said by me, which of course is another one of your famous lies. (If you want an example of this, your continuing reference to "The United States is the bastion of the free world" is a recent one---I have never said anything even closely resembling those words, yet you continue to put those and many other phrases in quotes as if I said them. You just love to lie and twist words around to fit your warped little mind don't you?) The next thing I find very interesting about you is how you pick and choose certain things that I say as if I'm finally coming around to seeing things your way. The latest example of this is your quotation of my words about the criminal justice system and how I feel about it's current status. I will explain this to you, but it seems like a complete waste of time because I know what I am about to say will go in one ear and out the other. That's because logical explanations and factual explanations have no place in your life. The only things you have room for are impending doom, the world coming to an end, secret agents hiding behind every corner, a vast conspiracy of all people in power, and so on. But what the hell, I'll give it a shot again anyway. Alec--listen up to what I am saying. When you start to agree with something that I say, have you noticed that it is ONLY the items where I talk about how bad and how negative things are in government? You have NEVER agreed (and I know you never will) with anything postive or good that is said. You have a very warped mind that really wants to believe that everyone is out to get you. I know by now that no matter what I say, your mind is made up and there is just no getting through to you. Even if you did have your mind made up, most people would be able to at least say, "Okay, my mind is made up, however---I'll listen to what somebody else has to say and if I disagree with them, I'll tell them why I disagree with them". But you don't even go that far. You only go as far as the "I'm right---you're wrong---period" philosophy. I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to be in your shoes. How in the world can you go through life with such an attitude about things? I'm not talking about government corruption, police, attorneys, or anything like that. I'm just talking about life in general. Your life must be so rough because of the stress that you place upon yourself. Why do you do this to yourself? I'm sort of asking a rhetorical question because I know that there is no logical explanation. All of this that I'm saying is just going in your head and going right back out again without any of the words "sticking". I don't give a shit if you can't stand me---so what. But at least look at what I'm saying. Geez dude, you only live once--take advantage of that because you never know when your number is up. But my response to you as far as you thinking that I'm finally coming around to your way of thinking is this---Have you ever stopped and thought for a moment that I have years of experience working in the system that you talk so much about, and maybe I know a lot more things than you realize? I'm serious----have you ever thought about that? I worked in the system for 13 years, and I trained in the system for 13 years. It was my job--my occupation--my way of making a living. Don't you think that automatically qualifies to be an expert in making some basic observations about things?

If I am following your thought pattern here, I think what you are saying is that it is not possible for a person to criticize something (like the criminal justice system), while at the same time making good points about it as well. As I look back at what you have written in your comments over the months, that seems to be an ongoing theme of yours. You call it "speaking out of both sides of my mouth" when I point out some terrible inconsistencies within the system, yet at the same time talk about people within the system that do an excellent job and work hard putting in an honest day's work. Correct me if I'm wrong here Alec, but I'm pretty sure that is what you are saying. If that is what you believe, then what can I say? If you are so black and white and have such an attitude of "go to the freezer, get the box" and can not see how there can be huge differences of things within a large operation like the criminal justice system, then I can't help you. That's just one of those basic things that can't be taught. If you can't understand something simple like that, well, what can I say?

You are so deep into your own beliefs that you go so far as to rip into a young woman who stumbled upon this web site and was upset by what she saw. Her father is a police officer, and she is obviously very proud of him. And you had the arrogance and gall to tell her that she is "lost" and that you wanted to "bring her back to reality". First of all, she is in reality closer than you will ever be. Second of all, how dare you go after a young woman like that who loves and respects her father. Again Alec, this goes to the essence of who you are. You can't stand seeing happy people who have a positive outlook on things. You only believe in doom and gloom, and theories about the world ending, people committing treason, and all sorts of other crap. My God, what a life you must lead. How awful.

Speaking of "treason", I think you should look up that word and see what it means. I continue to laugh hysterically when you accuse me of being guilty of treason. What kind of crap is that anyway? Well, let's see, I guess I can follow your logic for a brief moment. Okay, since I'm guilty of treason, so are you!! If you remember, several days ago (maybe it's been a week, I'm not sure) I let you know about serious crimes taking place in our Federal Government. I told you about the crimes of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. They have committed very serious crimes against this country and I referred you to a web page with all of the evidence. YOUR FAILURE TO ACT UPON THIS INFORMATION IS TREASON!! YOU ARE A TRAITOR AND ALL OF YOUR COHORTS ARE GUILTY OF CRIMES! You CONTINUE to ignore *EVIDENCE* that I have given you of clear crimes committed by government officials!!!! If you would put your money where your mouth is, you would have TAKEN ACTION!!! But you haven't, which just goes to show everybody reading this list that you, Alec, are guilty of felony crimes and all who read this know what a fraud you are!

You see Alec, anybody can play that stupid little game of yours. My "orders" to you to go take action in arresting the Clintons is just as valid as you giving "orders" to me to go arrest Ira Reiner. It's complete bullshit, and you know it. Well, maybe you don't---your mind works in mysterious ways. And just in case I need to remind you again Alec, I have no duty to act on anything any more than any other citizen of this country. If anything, I have LESS of a duty to act because of my physical limitations. Even if I was not injured and I was still working full-time, I would not have any sort of duty to act. My department's off-duty policy is about the same as most other police departments. It basically states that off-duty police officers are encouraged to NOT get involved in law enforcement activities and instead should be a good witness for assisting the on-duty police in whatever jurisdiction you happen to be in at the time. The only time they encourage an off-duty police officer to get directly involved in a situation is when life is at risk. The resasons behind this policy are complicated, but one of the simple explanations is because of the possibility of lawsuits and legal action being taken against the off-duty officer for his actions. It's also just plain stupid to get involved in an off-duty incident because of the lack of certain safety equipment and the access to backup officers. You live in your own little world of just assuming that police officers are awaiting your beck and call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to do whatever you want. That simply is not true. It's just a job dude--just like any other job. We go to work when we're supposed to, and when we're off-duty, we go home to our families and do what everybody else does. Why do you not understand such simple concepts? I know you won't answer any questions that I ask you---you never do. You claim to answer them, but I don't consider it an answer when it's always the same thing of "look at my evidence on my web page" and other garbage like that. You wouldn't know a direct answer to a direct question if it bit you on the rear.

You have mentioned several times now that I have to protect my "own cushy existence". Come on now, you have GOT to be kidding me!!! Can you define "cushy"? Hello??? Is anybody home inside that brain of yours Alec?? Think about this Alec---think REALLY hard.....My occupation was a police officer. Not exactly a high paying job. And now I'm retired because of an on-duty injury. Do you think I'm getting paid *MORE* by being retired?? Um, no--not quite. I'm getting paid *A LOT* less than when I was working. I can tell you this---I *WISH* I was protecting a "cushy existence"! Where in the world do you come up with this stuff??? Again Alec, this is another example of you throwing statements around where you simply have no clue as to what you're talking about. I can't believe you would actually refer to my life as a "cushy existence". How would you like to live in my cushy existence Alec---just for 24 hours???? How would you like having four huge metal rods in your spine? How would you like having four HUGE metal screws drilled into your vertabrae? How would you like to have two large metal cages in between your vertabrae? How would you like to have a surgery scar over 14 inches long that is still healing that goes down your back and into your ass? How would you like to not be able to twist, bend, run, lift weights, dance, carry groceries, sleep in a regular bed (hospital bed only), and so on----for the REST OF YOUR LIFE?? How would you like to look forward to the first of every month when your "cushy" retirement check arrives so that you can barely pay your bills? God damn Alec, you are so fucking ignorant! And you wonder why I say "you have no idea what you are talking about"?? The answer is simple---it's because YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! I speak from the viewpoint of experience, authority, training, education, certification, and training other officers. What sort of experience do you speak from Alec? This is just another question that you won't answer. I'll answer for you---you learn your information from the Internet, from the law library, and from various other written items. That's good---I have no problem with that. There is lots of good information out there on the topics we speak of. But you are forgetting the one important thing that I have already mentioned many times. You may read things out of a book, but you have not received ANY training or education in how to apply those things or how to interpret those things. That would be the equivalent of me being a brain surgeon, having been a brain surgeon for the last 13 years. And you are a person with no medical training or experience, but you have been visiting the hospital's medical library and you have been studying and reading many books filled with good, solid, authoritative information as well as reading the Internet and other publications. And then, you come along and tell me (a brain surgeon) that I don't know what I'm doing and I'm all screwed up and I'm doing it wrong. Well, I've done the brain surgeries and I've been there---I know how it goes and I know the realites of surgery. I know the things that happen in the operating room that a book can NEVER tell you. Experience is the best teacher there is, and there is no replacement for experience. Who would you want operating on you----a surgeon with 13 years experience with the training, certification, and experience to back up his knowledge? Or would you want a guy who has been visiting the local hospital's medical library reading up on how to do a surgery? Unless you're a complete fool, you're going to want the doctor/surgeon who has been doing it for a while and who has passed all of the exams and testing processes. Well Alec, that's the same thing I'm talking about here. Why can't you see this? I know what I'm talkinga about. You certainly don't have to agree with the things that are my opinion, but when you disagree with factual items that I say, well, you're just being foolish. Your ignorance is shining through brilliantly.

"All I can tell you from my experience and observation over the years is that the criminal justice system is not about what is right and what is wrong. It's not about who is guilty and who is not guilty."

"Brittney------If you're still here (and I doubt it), just know that the overwhelming majority of people support the police and understand how tough their job is. I'm sure your father is an excellent cop and you have every right to be damn proud of him. Unfortunately, there is a small minority of people that believe there is a conspiracy under every rock and they have a warped and distorted view of reality. Just find comfort in knowing that those kind of people fit into an extremely small category of people, and nobody pays attention to their conspiracy theories. You're lucky to have such a great dad---I'm sure you are turning out to be a great human being because you have seen what the realities of life are, through your father. Cops by far have the best behaved, most well-adjusted kids of virtually any other occupation out there. You know as well as I do what the reason are behind that. Take care....."

To the readers of this guestbook, this is not the first time that R/I/R has displayed this bahavior pattern. R/I/R feels that he has an agenda to follow (the fraudulent New World Order under the guise of the "United States is the bastion of the free world" propaganda) and a cushy existence (his own) to protect, yet, he has to acknowledge, at least in part, the overwhelming corruption present in the government. Otherwise, people would be able to recognize him for what he really is and he, like any other corrupt and criminal government official, doesn't want that to happen.

So, R/I/R will bellyache about government corruption, but will take no action to correct it, whenever he feels that he needs to appease the people that he is interacting with. However, whenever someone suggests that corrective action be taken and/or provides evidence that proves that immediate corrective action is necessary, R/I/R will attack the character of that person and/or will spout out meaningless sweet nothing drivel that attempts to promote the "United States is the bastion of the free world" propaganda. In so doing, R/I/R relies completely on the very real fact that the evidence against the government, although completely true, is so astonishing and depressing that it is very easy for people to simply dismiss it out of hand, before they have had a chance to consider and ponder on it. The end result of R/I/R's entire behavior pattern here is that he is furthering ongoing TREASON against the people and sovereignty of this country!

The sooner the people of this country recognize R/I/R, and all like him, for what they are and the sooner that they clean out this fraud that calls itself our public government, the better off everyone will be.

To Brittney: I suggest that you ignore R/I/R's sweet nothing drivel and that you carefully reread what I posted in response to your posting.

What a complete waste of time your website is. I stumbled upon it, and am very sorry I did.

Your stereotyping all police officers as bad policer officers just because there are a few bad ones.

These are the people that put their lives on the line every time they go to work. They are the good guys. I admit there have been bad police, but there are bad people in every proffesion.

It doesn't mean the whole professions bad. If the police didn't exsist who would protect us.

So I hope you feel good about yourself. By promoting violence it just shows what a low life you are. You are very sick. My dad is a police officer. A good police officer and I am so proud to say he's my dad.
Brittney
USA - Sunday, November 14, 1999 at 22:52:38 (MST)

You need to take a serious look at why your friend can't get a fair trial by an impartial jury, something that is required by the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Further, you need to understand how the courts are causing this to happen, how they have and are corrupting the law of this country, and how they are giving the police a free hand, for those poor excuses of police officers who take the opportunity, to do nothing less than wage war against the people they are supposed to serve.

R/I/R says: "My only suggestion is to turn the case around on the prosecution." I add, you need to turn the case around on the entire court system, and especially the judge and the prosecutor. You will need legal evidence against the court system for that and you can find it here. You will need to read through that evidence thoroughly, however, and you will need to "build up" to it, because, even though it is the complete truth, it is so damning that it sounds crazy.

R/I/R's suggestion of: "If the defendant is black and the officers are white, your odds of bringing this to the attention of the national media is quite high." is a good place to start to "build up" to the evidence. Beyond that, look for blatant acts on the part of the police and/or courts, that have been documented by them, and that violate written police department policy, or local and/or state laws. More than likely, to your complete surprise, you will find an ongoing pattern of such incidents. You will need to thoroughly document each and every one and keep them all in a file to prove the story R/I/R suggested that you write. I suggest that you get a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and a copy of your state's criminal code, and that you reference them frequently.

Finally, trust no judge or attorney, be it a public defender, private attorney, or prosecutor. They are all inherently your enemy and the only defense you have against any aggression they may choose to take against you is that they feel that they have to appear "moral and legitimate" to the masses. For this reason, I believe a "civil suit" will be a complete waste of your time, but try it if it doesn't cost you anything. Be extremely leery of the media because they will try to slant your story in such a manner that you will look "crazy" to the masses. You might want to consider putting up a website to spread your story. You can get a free webpage here.

My only suggestion is to turn the case around on the prosecution. Unfortunately, you have to play the game too, because you know for sure they are certainly going to play it against the defendant. There are a couple of things that may help with this case. Again, I'm not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice here. But one thing to consider is the race of the defendant. If the defendant is black and the officers are white, your odds of bringing this to the attention of the national media is quite high. The media foams at the mouth for incidents like that. And with the national spotlight on a small, sleepy town like you describe, that will send the cockroaches running for cover while the truth comes out. Your only other chance that I can think of is to write your story down on paper and submit it to national news media organizations---for example, the "big 3" networks because they all have news magazine programs, talk shows, magazines like Time, Newsweek, etc, CNN, Fox News, etc, etc....Maybe one of those organizations will see it as a "scoop" and they will take it to get ratings. But it has to has a "sensational" edge to it. Keep in mind that every story has two sides. When you say the officers started firing (or whatever), what is their side of the story going to be? What sort of evidence do they have? What sort of evidence do you have? Is the defendant and/or witnesses to all of this willing to take a polygraph examination (lie detector) to show that they are being truthful? If you can build your own case and then submit it to the news media, if there is any hint of police corruption in it, they will run with it. Especially if it's a small town. They can have headlines like, "Police Corruption in a Small Town" or something like that.

I'm not taking sides here or saying who I agree with. I know nothing about your case other than what you said. I'm just trying to answer your question for you so that you understand what you are dealing with. You've got to do something that will make them stop with the false police reports, lying, and coverups (if there are any). Again, once you shine the media spotlight on them, lots of things will suddenly change. But you MUST have excellent evidence on your side that goes WAY beyond the old "he said, she said" story. If it's just a matter of your word against theirs, guess what? You will lose. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is today. I don't like it---not many people do.

"I find it hard to believe that you went to the watch commander and he was not helpful to you. If this is in fact true, then I question the significance of the topic of conversation you brought up to him. I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like "Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post, I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that you know about human nature and more specifically, the police. As you pointed out, the cops don't make the laws or set the policy--they just do what they're told. I have taken people to jail before where I have honestly felt sorry for them because the law was ridiculous and I did not believe in it, but that is not up to me. I am required to do it, and if I am not going to do it then I am in the wrong profession (an example of that is a boyfriend/girlfriend dating since 8th grade, and then when they are seniors in high school, the male turns 18 and the female is 17 for another 3 months---because they are having sex, he is now committing stat. rape of a minor---a felony sex crime! I just do not agree with that--it's too traumatic for everyone involved. But it is not my place to agree or disagree---it is my job to enforce the laws whether I like it or not)."

"2)You are obviously a person who knows nothing about case law decisions, as well as the "spirit of the law" and how it applies itself in real life. You quote all of these laws like everything is followed in black and white just becuase it's written. There is the fantasy-land of reading the law books, and there is the reality of actually applying those laws in real life. I'm just telling you this since you obviously live in fantasy-land. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about. And there is no way I'm going to take the time to justify why. There isn't room for two people in your strange little world."

"Every single arrest I ever made I feel 100% confident about it. No person ever went to jail that didn't deserve to go--not deserve to go because I thought they deserved it--but deserved to go because of the crimes they committed."

And just in case you're wondering, no, I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Independent because both major parties have let me down. They're both a bunch of lying scum that are corrupt and have committed criminal acts that are going unpunished.

This seminar talked about the Constitution, our forefathers, the corruption and crimes at the highest levels of our government, and how to take back control of our country from the socialist/communist politicians that are now holding office. You see, I'm interested in DOING something to make things better.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were terrible tragedies, and the people at the top of those departments made those raids for highly political decisions. Those people never should have died, and law enforcement was wrong. The cops following the orders weren't wrong---they were doing what they were told because they assume their command structure makes the proper decisions.

You said in your most recent comments for me not to make assumptions about you or what you have seen. I didn't know I did that. Can you show me what you're referring to? And I certainly understand that you are not the normal kid at school. You can relax on here Ross--this isn't school and you don't have to prove anything to anybody---including me.

You mentioned that you think all police department procedures and stuff should be open. I don't know what state you are in, but I am fairly certain that it's basically the same nationwide as to what those rules/laws are. I'm sure there are slight differences from state to state, but for the most part they are about the same. The only reason I say this is from my experience of working in the buisness for so long and observing how other out of state departments operate when we have joint cases. But I'm curious--specifically, what are you referring to? Because as far as I know, everything within the police department already is open. You can find out almost anything you want to about your local law enforcement agency. There is also the "Freedom of Information Act" which allows much more information to be released than it was years ago. The only thing I can think of that you might be referring to are personnel matters. Of course, those matters are confidential just as they are in all occupations---not just law enforcement. All arrest records are public, salaries are public, our budget is public, our policies are public (except for the confidential policies that would jeopardize public safety if they were released), and most everything else. If you wouldn't mind, tell me what you are referring to because I can't think of what you would be looking for but can not access. It's pretty much an open book----it has to be because it's a publicly funded operation.

Yes, I understand that most people feel guilty for breaking the law. And if not guilty, nervous as to what a cop might do. Yup.

Don't make assumptions about myself or what I've seen or whatnot. It's quite a possibility they'd be wrong. For one thing, I am NOT the normal kid at school. Secondly, I've even heard some of the cool kids/the ones who get pulled over/whatever, saying how cops are actually surprisingly nice, and stuff, in their experience. Oh, and if you don't consider some resident state troopers, there are no town cops around here.

I also understand the telephone game, and how stupid people are and can be. Yet another reason to make all police department procedures and stuff open. Then people *know* what happens, from the source, and not from rumors and whatnot.

About the Oklahoma bar fight: first of all, the person I know didn't *start* the fight. He was the last one to get involved. Also, I don't believe that there is paperwork about the bail or the jail report. I'm sure that my friend has more reasons than I can think of to believe that it's not on file. Also, this happened *quite* a while ago, so I'm not sure about the audio records. Don't forget where it happened, either. And now, the important part. No, my friend is almost certainly telling to whole story. He doesn't mind making himself look like an ass. I have no reason to doubt anything this person says.

First of all, I have to make a couple of "general" comments before I say anything about the different incidents that you posted. My first comment is this: If I was to make a size-up based strictly upon what you wrote--and nothing more--then my comments would be this: The police officers in each and every case that you talked about were wrong. They had no right to do what they were doing, and the "suspect" was totally right. I do not see professionalism in the officer's actions, nor do I see adherence to policy or procedure. So you have my 100% agreement with everything that you said. Again, my comments right now are based 100% on exactly what is written down---nothing more, and nothing less.

The next "general" comment that I would like to make is regarding a citizen's contact with a police officer or officers. Many studies have been done by scientists and psychiatrists to learn more about the interaction between a police officer and a citizen. These studies have been done for various reasons over the years, but generally it is to find out what kinds of things can be done to improve relations with the two groups of people. And the results of these different studies was very interesting. Among many things that were discovered, they found out that when a citizen gets pulled over by the police for a simple traffic infraction (like running a stop sign, or whatever), the whole psychology of the average person getting pulled over will completely change. It does not matter if the person is a rich, powerful CEO of a company or if they are a janitor at the local supermarket---the reactions are the same. The person getting pulled over suddenly feels embarrassed and kind of stupid. The experts describe it as feeling like a little kid who just got his hand caught in the cookie jar. Because the power and authority that the police have generally is not questioned when the red light gets turned on and you see it in your rear view mirror. The majority of people will indeed pull over. A small percentage of people will run, which initiates a vehicle pursuit which is an entirely different topic. But for purposes of my comments, I'm just talking about your average citizen who really doesn't have much contact with the police at all--if any. So when that red light goes on, the heart rate increases, blood pressure goes way up, the hands start to sweat, and the hands are actually visibly shaking quite rapidly. I have witnessed this myself hundreds of times. When a person is trying to pull their driver's license out of their wallet or their purse, their hands are shaking and they have problems doing even simple things because they are so flustered and taken aback by what is going on. The reason I am taking the time to mention the psychology of a person contacting the police is very important for my next point. Anyway, once the encounter is finished with and the person either has a ticket or a verbal warning, they drive away from the location with relief and they are just happy as can be to get the hell out of there. They know that everybody driving by is staring at them, because that is what people do. Every time somebody sees a police car, they stare--that's normal. And if the police car has another car pulled over, then people REALLY stare. So the person getting pulled over feels basically like an idiot. This is human nature, and this is also documented scientific fact. Now you can throw some variables into the scenario. Take that "average Joe" that just got pulled over, and now make him a guy about 21 years old who is out with a girl on his 2nd date. He REALLY likes this girl a lot, and he is trying to impress her. Well, it's hard to impress a chick when you're getting pulled over by the police and your hands are shaking and your forehead is sweating. The girl is not going to be too impressed with you. Or, take a high school student who is pulled over just as school is letting out and he happens to get stopped on the main street where EVERYBDOY drives down as they leave the school on their way home. That student that got pulled over by the police now has pretty much the entire student body staring at him as he is getting his hand slapped (not literally) in front of all of his peers. Definitely not the cool thing to have happen to a dude.

So now I have provided some information about what generally happens on a simple police encounter. I would assume that maybe you are in agreement with me so far. If not, let me know and we can discuss it. But that's not rocket science so far---it's pretty basic stuff. But now, let's go a few steps further with the situations I just gave. Beginning with the high school student, what do you think is going to happen to him when he shows up at school the next morning? Yup---all of his buddies are going to be laughing at him saying "You choked dude---you got stopped by the cops! Bahhh hahh hahhh!!" and so on....I'm sure you have seen this before since you are still in high school. What is that person's defense going to be? Do you think that student that got pulled over the day before is going to say in front of his friends, "Hey dudes, I messed up yesterday. I should have worn my seat belt and I didn't. Also, I should have come to a full and complete stop at the stop sign and I didn't. So that's why I got pulled over". There is no way in hell he's going to say that! Instead, he will probably say something like, "I don't know what that cop's problem was. He was such a dick. I told him he should be at the donut shop instead of picking on me. I didn't do anything wrong. I'm gonna fight this piece of shit ticket because that cop is wrong. This bites man, that cop was just a jerk". That is how people save face when they are embarrassed. In the example with the guy who is out on a date, the exact same thing is going to happen. He is going to make up some sort of justification to that girl as to why he got pulled over. He'll just say something to take the humiliation off himself and maybe say something like, "That cop should be out catching REAL criminals. So I was going 6 miles per hour over the speed limit. Big deal! I can't believe he gave me a ticket for such a chicken shit thing. The cops in this town are like that. They're a bunch of losers". Again, this is how the embarrassment and humiliation is handled. I'm sure you have seen this yourself as well.

Not only does all of the above stuff happen, but other things as well. To give you an example, I was in a home center store the day before yesterday buying a filter for my furnace. When I was up at the checkout line, the guy working the cash register looked to be about 18 or 19. The guy working the next cash register in the line over from where I was also looked to be about the same age. I was the only customer at the front of the store at the time. The guy helping me commented on the shirt I was wearing because of what it said. He asked me, "Are you a lawyer"?. I told him no way---why would he think that? Then he pointed to my shirt and I understood why. I told him that logo on my shirt was for a group of lawyers that created a "watchdog" group to keep an eye on corrupt judges, corrupt politicians, and stuff like that. Then he said, "Corrupt cops too?". I said, "Yeah, they keep an eye on cops too". Him and his co-worker then proceeded to have a conversation about all of the "shitty cops" in this town that are corrupt. I said "Really"?, because they did not know who I was nor did they know that I have a pretty good amount of knowledge about the police department they were talking about. The guy said "Yeah, check this out dude---this police department has a cop where his only duty is to write tickets to kids not wearing bike helmets. That's his ONLY job--they pay him to do that and nothing else. These cops need to find REAL work to do". I did not argue the point, because it wasn't worth it. But my point here is very simple--these two guys were as wrong as they could possibly be. They couldn't be more wrong if they tried. There is no such thing as a cop being hired to just "write tickets for kids without their helmets"--that's insane! Now, how did he get that information? I don't know for sure, but I can probably guess. Someone probably got a ticket for not having a helmet on while they were riding their bicycle. That kid told a friend (with an embellished story), and then that kid told a friend, and that kid told another friend, and it just continued and continued until it got to the point where I heard it. Is this uncommon? Heck no--it happens every day. Whenever I would go to the middle schools or high schools for a call, I would usually get swarmed by students asking me questions about things. The questions that they ask me just make me go "HUH???". There are so many false rumors about my police department floating around the local schools, it's actually pretty funny. But that's okay---I understand how students think and what is going through their minds. After all, I was there once also doing the exact same thing as them, so it's no big deal. Stories like that get spread around all the time. I have handled calls there personally, where I would go back a week later and the rumor had gotten around about what happened to a certain kid. Then I would get asked, "Is it true that Joe Smith got arrested for carrying a 9mm pistol to school"?. Uh, no. What really happened was, I had to go take him out of class because there was a family emergency and I had to take him to the hospital to meet his parents. Again, these rumors in schools and in neighborhoods are a dime a dozen---there is no way to control them, and they will always be there no matter what.

The reason I have gone into such detail with all of the above is because I have a sneaky suspicion that some of that is exactly what is going on with the stories that you have heard. Rarely does a story that involves the police get passed on from one person to the other with much accuracy. It just doesn't----my experience has shown that time and time again. Now don't take what I am saying here the wrong way, or put words in my mouth. I am NOT saying that I support bad cops. And I am NOT saying that the incidents did not happen. All I am simply saying is that my experience goes a long way with this stuff, and based upon some of the stories you mentioned, I really doubt it happened the way that you heard it. I'll mention a couple of items specifically to illustrate what I mean:

Regarding the incident in the Oklahoma bar---Neither of us were there, so we can't say what really happened. But just keep in mind, that as a general rule of thumb, people who get in trouble and do something REALLY stupid (like get in a bar fight) are not going to tell you the full story later on. If they did, they would basically be saying, "Look at me--I'm an idiot". So they have to change some things around a little bit to make it fit their "style" more. Your friend got arrested, I am assuming, for assault and battery. I don't know if it was A&B against another bar patron or against the deputy sheriff. Either way, the result is the same--he went to jail. As far as who knocked out his teeth, who knows if the guy is telling you the truth? What makes a better story----"that damn cop punched my teeth out", or "I got the shit kicked out of me in a bar". Of course the guy is going to blame the cop---it's the "easy out". So then the guy spends the night in custody at the jail, and the next day he is released by paying his bail (not extortion---bail). And the fact that your friend never heard anything else about it is no surprise at all. Just so you know a little something about bar fights---generally speaking, bar fights begin over something REALLY dumb. As you said in your description of the incident, it began over a "steers and queers" story. That's a pretty dumb thing to start a fight over. But like I said, the majority of bar fights get started because of very dumb reasons. The cops know this, the judges know this, and the district attorneys know this. Because of how common a bar fight is, generally speaking, you will not see the D/A file a criminal complaint against the person unless the victim in the case is hardcore and totally for prosecution. The victim that got beat up is the person who would technically be pressing charges---not the police. So the D/A probably has a standing policy in that county about simple assault and battery cases. I'm sure it's similar to our policy---you arrest them and keep them the night so that they stay out of trouble and don't start more fights. Then the next morning, they pay their bail and they are home free. The case does not get prosecuted and the case does not go to court. Your friend would naturally never hear anything about it again because the incident is over and done with. As far as there being no record of the incident, again, I question this statement by your friend. There has to be a record of it. There will be the phone call by whoever called the police originally, there will be radio dispatch tapes of the police responding, there will be a jail report of the person being in custody overnight, there will be bail paperwork showing that money was taken in, and so on.....There is no way in hell that a conspiracy by law enforcement would be created just to hide a simple assault and battery. It makes no sense. Conspiracies are created over big money, high stakes crimes---but definitely not a stupid little bar fight. In my opinion, this is a simple case of the friend not telling the full story. Again, this is so extremely common and it happens all the time.

And I do keep my word---if I say I'll do something, I do it. But again, refer to the above answer as to why I didn't respond. Your earlier posts (if I recall correctly) said nothing about you not having the time to come back and check. But even if you did say that, it doesn't matter. The fact is, you said "even if I don't get to read them". The reason for me not responding to your comments had nothing to do with keeping my word, being angry, playing a trick, or anything like that. It was a simple matter of me not wanting to waste my time. I appreciate you coming back and checking for my response from time to time, but I had no way of knowing that. If you visit this page without saying anything, then I have no clue that you were here looking. All you had to do was drop a quick, friendly note saying that you will be able to read my comments after all and you would appreciate hearing what I had to say. That would have taken care of it long ago.

I appreciate you correcting yourself from "argument" to "conversation". Who says it's going to be an argument? That is sort of the kind of thing that I have referred to so many times on here. People have such a hardcore mindset of "us vs. them", instead of just laying things out on the table for inspection, picking up the pieces and putting them together, and seeing what is made. That is how I attempt to do things. I may not be the greatest at it, but I sure give it my best.

You said that you would respond if I wanted, and I said that I did. You should keep your word, don't you think? And I was not indicating that I wouldn't read your responses. I was indicating that I don't have too much time, and I *might* not have been able to. So, instead I spent my time coming back to see if you had responded yet... really helpful. Besides, you said that you didn't want a one sided argument... who says it needs to be an argument? I posted what I know to be the truth, and it's an argument? I thought that you *never* defended bad cops, or anything like that. So, what's the problem?

First of all, in response to your comments below where you are attempting to show that I have a "do as I say and not as I do" ego, I just have to laugh. I'm serious--it's actually hilarious that you can write those words and keep a straight face. You think that I am a "do as I say and not as I do" person because I am not getting on an airplane and flying to Los Angeles to arrest the former elected District Attorney of Los Angeles County? Are you for real? Alec---listen dude. When people (such as myself) call you a "nut", "whacko", "mentally unstable", "EDP", etc, do you mean to tell me that you have NO idea why you are called that? Of **ALL** the people on this planet, you are picking ME to go and travel across the state to arrest some guy that allegedly did something that you think is illegal? I don't even want to know what you think his crimes were. You said it once before, but I forget now---but that's not even important. What is important is---why are you picking me to do this task? What "super powers" do I have that you do not have yourself? As I have stated numerous times now, you have the same exact arrest powers that I do (with one felony exception that is not applicable to these discussions). Why don't YOU go try to arrest him? You know why you won't do it? Because you know what will happen---YOU will get arrested yourself for false arrest, kidnapping, and false imprisonment. Not only that, but you will most likely be placed on the psychiatric floor of the jail while you are awaiting trial----and you don't want to do all that do you?

Let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is true (once again, I'm really stretching things here but I've got to do it for purposes of this comment). Okay Alec, so, you've given me this "evidence" (??) and I'm supposed to go arrest this guy. Okay, well, guess what? I can't go on this little trip of yours. You know why? Because I had reconstructive spine surgery after getting injured on duty by a suspect. Because of this, my physical capabilities are very limited. I am in no condition to make an arrest. Therefore, I'm turning this case over to you. I'm directing you to use your citizen arrest authority to go and make the arrest. I know that you (or someone else) already brought this topic up once before in a court of law and you almost got your ass thrown out by the bailiff---but try it again. Just because you didn't make the arrest the first time doesn't mean you can't try again. When police officers attempt to arrest somebody for an arrest warrant and they get away, do the cops give up? Nope---they keep coming back again and again until they get their suspect. You should be doing the exact same thing. You give up too easily. And while you are arresting Ira Reiner, I have some more things I would like you to do for me. I have been following closely the crimes of President Bill Clinton. He is guilty of treason by selling nuclear missle technology to the Chinese in exchange for donations to the Democratic National Committee. Also, President Clinton just purchased a home in the state of New York which violates financing laws because he does not make enough money or have enough collateral to purchase a home for 1.7 million doallars. The hard and extremely clear evidence can be located at the following web site: http://www.judicialwatch.org/. While you are at The White House, I want you to arrest Hillary Clinton as well. She was the one responsible for "Filegate" and personally oversaw the entire operation. She also terminated the entire staff of the White House Travel Office shortly after her husband's tenure as President began. This was discrimination which violates federal employment laws. Again, the evidence of these crimes can all be found at the same web site that I listed. There is more than enough probable cause to arrest each party I named, and bring them before a judge for a preliminary hearing. I have other people in Washington DC that need to be arrested as well, but I don't know how big your car is. For now, I'll just say to go ahead and arrest Bill and Hillary Clinton. Okay--will you do that for me? Thanks. Let me know when you come home and tell me how it went. Oh--and don't forget, before you say that I'm the one who should be doing it, I can't---I'm not physically able. Therefore, you're the one that has to do it. If not, you are guilty of treason and other crimes of which the evidence will be crystal clear!

I hope that the above paragraph looks utterly ridiculous to you Alec. Now, get a good picture of how stupid that paragraph was that I just wrote. And now picture this---that's how stupid your comments look. They are just as stupid and just as lame.

You also wrote something else that I must address before closing. Near the end of your comments, you wrote:

And, in light of the previous direct quotes by you (remember the boyfriend/girlfriend situation you so eloquently described above?), your arrogance and contempt for the common citizen by lying through your teeth and stating the following: "Every single arrest I ever made I feel 100% confident about it. No person ever went to jail that didn't deserve to go--not deserve to go because I thought they deserved it--but deserved to go because of the crimes they committed. "

How can you continue to claim that I am "lying through my teeth" and that I have "arrogance and contempt for the common citizen" when you go and print the things that I wrote that prove exactly the opposite of what you are claiming? I guess I should thank you for bringing up the things that I wrote in the past, because it just goes to show what a completely ignorant man you are. I stand by every statement I said. And yes, I do feel 100% confident about every arrest that I made, and I do feel that every person that I took to jail deserved to go because of the crimes they committed. Look at what else I said Alec: ".....not deserve to go because I thought they deserved it--but deserved to go because of the crimes they committed. " The beginning part of the above quote explains clearly what I am referring to when it comes to situations such as the boyfriend/girlfriend example I used. Did the boyfriend deserve to go to jail because of the crimes that he committed? Yes--he certainly did. It is a perfectly valid arrest, it is totally legal, and it is also what I am mandated to do if I myself want to stay out of jail and keep a job. However, that doesn't mean that **I** personally agree with it. In the example of the boyfriend/girlfriend, I think it's terrible that such a law exists. I think it's ridiculous that I have to take a kid to jail for something like that. Nobody benefits from him being arrested---he does not benefit, the girlfriend does not benefit, parents on both sides do not benefit, the school does not benefit, the courts do not benefit, and the police do not benefit. All around, it's a lose/lose situation for everybody. But it's not my place to decide those things. My job is to enforce the laws, and act on them per policy and procedures. And that is exactly what I did---even though I may not have agreed with some of them. But nobody said being a cop was easy. Those kinds of things, for me personally, were hard. I hated taking an 18 year old kid to adult jail when he was just doing what teenagers seem to do naturally. If the same thing would have happened 12 weeks later, nobody would have cared. I think it's a screwy law and it should be modified to correct for those types of errors. But who am I to say that? All I can do is voice my personal opinion at the appropriate times, but I can not change the law or go against the law on my own. Police officers can't do that--if they did, it would be complete chaos with each officer doing what he or she thought was the right thing to do. Some people's vision of what is right and wrong is totally different from somebody else's vision of what should be right and wrong. That's why we have a standard way of doing things---to keep order and to keep things as fair as possible. How in the world can you say that I am lying through my teeth just because I say that I feel sorry for somebody I arrest for a crime that I don't think should be illegal in the first place? But that arrest that I am doing is 100% correct and 100% legal---and I feel totally confident that he deserved to go because of the law that was violated. That is my professional stance on that. However, if you were to ask me my personal opinion--well, that is totally different (and I already explained it). Again, as a police officer, I can't step in and change a felony law around just by waving my arms and saying "presto change-o". It's a felony, and I am mandated to act on it. If I am not going to act on it, then I have obviously chosen the wrong profession.

Your refusal to act on my evidence and get Ira Reiner and his cronies prosecuted for their crimes that were not directed against me but against someone else. Any common citizen would have immediately been thrown in jail for those crimes. Yet, you obviously preach (it's all over your postings to this guestbook) how those common citizens should have been thrown in jail for those crimes. All of the frivolous comebacks about how "I don't know what I am talking about," including the one you will no doubt come back with in response to this latest post, are simply further confirmation that you believe yourself, and the criminals that you protect, to be above the law.

Your refusal to act on Citizen Target's evidence, for exactly the same reasons you have refused to act on mine.

The following direct quotes by you:

"I find it hard to believe that you went to the watch commander and he was not helpful to you. If this is in fact true, then I question the significance of the topic of conversation you brought up to him. I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like "Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post, I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that you know about human nature and more specifically, the police. As you pointed out, the cops don't make the laws or set the policy--they just do what they're told. I have taken people to jail before where I have honestly felt sorry for them because the law was ridiculous and I did not believe in it, but that is not up to me. I am required to do it, and if I am not going to do it then I am in the wrong profession (an example of that is a boyfriend/girlfriend dating since 8th grade, and then when they are seniors in high school, the male turns 18 and the female is 17 for another 3 months---because they are having sex, he is now committing stat. rape of a minor---a felony sex crime! I just do not agree with that--it's too traumatic for everyone involved. But it is not my place to agree or disagree---it is my job to enforce the laws whether I like it or not)."

"2)You are obviously a person who knows nothing about case law decisions, as well as the "spirit of the law" and how it applies itself in real life. You quote all of these laws like everything is followed in black and white just becuase it's written. There is the fantasy-land of reading the law books, and there is the reality of actually applying those laws in real life. I'm just telling you this since you obviously live in fantasy-land. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about. And there is no way I'm going to take the time to justify why. There isn't room for two people in your strange little world."

And, in light of the previous direct quotes by you (remember the boyfriend/girlfriend situation you so eloquently described above?), your arrogance and contempt for the common citizen by lying through your teeth and stating the following: "Every single arrest I ever made I feel 100% confident about it. No person ever went to jail that didn't deserve to go--not deserve to go because I thought they deserved it--but deserved to go because of the crimes they committed. "

You wrote: "I am certain that learning how to and using a law library takes an insignificant amount of effort and contributes a significant amount to your knowledge and perspective."

I'll meet you halfway here, and agree with you that learning how to use a law library takes an insignificant amount of effort. But as far as it contributing "significantly" to your knowledge and perspective? I don't know about that. It depends on many factors. For example, it depends on the person using it and why they are using it. If it is an attorney using it for research into a case they are working, then yes, you are right. If it's a college student using it for an assignment, again you are right. If it's a regular person using just to gain knowledge and insight into things, yeah, sort of I suppose. The reason I'm hesitating a little bit here is because the "average Joe" doesn't have the education or training on how to interpret or understand exactly what certain things mean. The law is a complicated subject, which is why it takes so much schooling to become a lawyer. As far as your statement applying to police officers, I totally disagree with you. A cop doesn't belong in a law library for professional reasons, however, he or she is more than welcome to go there for reasons of their own personal interests or as a hobby, or some other reason. But they do not belong there to look up cases as it relates to their job---I say again, cops are not lawyers and it is not the cop's job to do the job of a lawyer. What good would it do a police officer to study things in a law library? Don't give me the answer of "because they can learn about the corruption and conspiracies that exist, and the U.S. is the bastion of the free world" and so on and so on. I'm looking for a realistic, everyday, common sense answer---what good would it do a police officer to go to a law library? I can tell you from first-hand experience (I know that means nothing to you, but I'm telling you anyway) that it will not do the cop any good at all in helping them perform their duties. They receive the training at the beginning in the police academy, and then once they are working for a police department, they have regularly scheduled training that they are required to attend to receive updates on numerous topics--including changes in laws that happen on January 1st every year, case law decisions that effect how they do their job, and so forth. Additionally, they receive regular updates at work (and most officers, such as me, pay with our own money to receive them at home as well) that keep the police officer updated on case law. There are companies that specifically cater to the police officer and send out case law updates that pertain to cops, so that we don't have to read through all of the stuff that has nothing to do with police work. It's like having the law library sent to us each month. Therefore, there is no need for the police officer to go to a law library.

You wrote: " I do know that your entire attitude has been that your so called "credentials, education and training" have made you believe that you are somehow superior to the common citizen,....."

No Alec, you are the one with the superiority complex pretending you are an attorney as you mis-quote and mis-interpret laws. And by the way, my credentials, education, training, and experience do give me an edge above a person that has not had the same experiences as me. It by no means makes me "superior" to them. I have never claimed that, and those are words that you have again made up on your own. Just as an electrician can claim more knowledge and confidence in discussing wiring, or as a Pharmacist can claim more knowledge and have more confidence in discussing drugs, these prosessions and many others (including police officer) have more knowledge of their particular experitse because that is their occupation and that is what they have received training in. Again, this is common sense and I'm surprised I even have to point this out to you. Are you so wrapped up in your own thoughts that you can't see the forest for the trees?

You wrote: "In other words, you consider yourself to be an aristocrat and the common citizens you are supposed to serve, peasants."

Well, you can come up with whatever you want Alec. Maybe you should ask the people that wrote letters to the Chief of Police how I was doing and if I was ever coming back if they think I treated them as peasants. These were people that lived on the beat that I patrolled. They saw me in their neighborhoods every day, talking with them, giving their kids a ride home from school, trying to keep the kids who were "walking the fence" between joining a gang and staying out of one to lead a clean and productive life---I could go on and on with examples. As I have said before, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how many good cops are out there and put in an honest day's work to do what they can to make a difference in somebody's life. You look ridiculous quoting a law dictionary in defining a simple word. Alec--you're not a lawyer. Try looking at things through the eyes of a man with common sense. You may not have any though. I have had to fail trainees before simply because they didn't have common sense. They would get straight A's in their classes, and they could cite any policy or procedure that I asked them. But when it came down to actually doing the job and talking with people, trying to figure out their problem or what they need help with, they simply could not do it. Common sense can't be taught---you've either got it or you don't. I don't think you have any common sense because you certainly haven't been displaying it here.

You wrote: " Your superiority complex has degenerated to the point where you practice "do as I say and not as I do" and where you honestly believe that you are above the law..."

Can you provide one specific example of this? I challenge you Alec. Show me one single time where I have preached for someone to do one thing, but I will not do that one thing myself. And where have I shown that I am above the law? I haven't Alec, because I know better than that. Nobody is above the law. Where in the world do you come up with these things?

You wrote: "This means that the police, as well as the common citizens, are just as free or just as obligated, depending on the circumstances, to study and understand the law."

I agree with you 100% here. However, it doesn't fit in with the paragraph that this is attached to, in my opinion. If someone wants to study the law--go for it. There's no reason that they shouldn't study it--I'm for that all the way. The only problem I can see is in circumstances such as these, where a person such as yourself reads certain things and then mis-interprets them. It's not all black and white--there is much more to it than that. That is why people who use the law for a living (lawyers, police officers, etc) must first study the law and pass certain tests. And those with the power and authority that certain laws give them (such as police officers, D/A investigators, constables, sheriff's, etc) must also pass additional testing to meet State government requirements before that power and authority can be granted.

You wrote: ".....and especially considering that you have no doubt enforced your aristocratic behavior on the people around you with deadly force, your actions amount to treason against the people of this country!"

No Alec--I have never had to use deadly force in my entire career. As I have stated previously, I have come too close for comfort at times to using deadly force, but I chose not to. I found another way out of it, even though the law and any jury in this country would have supported my decision to use deadly force. So I guess that sort of shoots down your "treason" theory. Although you'll find something else, no doubt, that I'm "guilty" of. If anything, it's that I'm guilty of carrying on a conversation for such an eternity with you. The conversations never go anywhere and nothing is ever accomplished. But for my own personal reasons, I continue to respond to your statements because of incredibly wrong and innacurate they are.

You wrote: "You, and all judges, attorneys and police that are like you, are a disgrace, and a deadly threat to everyone in this country."

Well, if that's true, then I would hate to see what sort of threat the police officers are that are NOT like me. Like the corrupt ones that abuse their authority and power. I mean, if I'm a deadly threat to people, what are those cops? What's worse than deadly? Double deadly? I don't know, but it doesn't sound good. I can assure you Alec, even though you will disagree with me, that me and the people that I used to work with are the types of cops that you want to have patrolling the streets of your town. Yeah, I guess I'm sort of patting myself on the back here. But I know that we worked our butts off to do the right thing and always treated people with the respect that they deserved. We also put a lot of bad guys in jail--where they deserve to be. I don't feel guilty or the slightest bit sorry about the job I did in arresting people who committed crimes. Every single arrest I ever made I feel 100% confident about it. No person ever went to jail that didn't deserve to go--not deserve to go because I thought they deserved it--but deserved to go because of the crimes they committed. It's such a shame that you refuse to open your eyes and see these things as they truly are.

I do know that your entire attitude has been that your so called "credentials, education and training" have made you believe that you are somehow superior to the common citizen, that is, any common citizen including myself and Citizen Target. In other words, you consider yourself to be an aristocrat and the common citizens you are supposed to serve, peasants. Keep in mind that Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition defines aristocracy, verbatim, as: "a select group of people, who, believed to be superior, rules supreme." That definition fits you exactly! Your superiority complex has degenerated to the point where you practice "do as I say and not as I do" and where you honestly believe that you are above the law and try to justify that by saying that "the common citizen does not know how to quote the law."

Regarding your absurdity that "police are not lawyers," the United States is required to be a republic. Republic is defined verbatim in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition as: "that form of government in which its administration is open to all of its citizens." In other words, there was never meant to be a special class of people (so called lawyers, actually attorneys) to practice law. The practice, study and application of the law is required to open to all of the citizens. This means that the police, as well as the common citizens, are just as free or just as obligated, depending on the circumstances, to study and understand the law.

But, of course, R/I/R, you will never see my perspective here, because you live, breathe and feel the aristocracy that you are an integral part of. Being who are what you are, considering that the United States is required to be a republic, and especially considering that you have no doubt enforced your aristocratic behavior on the people around you with deadly force, your actions amount to treason against the people of this country!

Once again Alec, your ignorance of law enforcement and the criminal justice system in general is blatantly apparent. I know more case law then you will ever know. Well, let me quantify that.....I know more case law that applies to real world police work then you will ever know. Did you not understand what I wrote in my latest comments? Police officers are NOT lawyers, you idiot.

Any real police officer would, out of conscience and duty, immediately learn how to use a law library and get familiar with the basics, such as details about the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and a few of the major court cases based on those documents. Furthermore, such a real police officer wouldn't need some kind of requirement to do so, but would do so on his or her own. Finally, a real police officer would, out of respect for citizens, most certainly consult a law library, and expand his or her knowledge of the law, whenever a citizen quoted the law in order to confirm or deny the issue the citizen raised and would politely and respectfully respond accordingly.

Why do you feel that I am not qualified to give an opinion on something because I have not been to a law library? Here is a simple question for you that I assume you will most likely not answer, and if you do answer it, it will be something that doesn't make sense. But I'll give this a try anyway. Here is the question for you: Do you think it should be a requirement for police officers to go to a law library? If the answer is yes, how often should they go? When should they go? Should it be just during the academy? Should it be during their entire career? If yes, at what times during their career should they go? I fail to see your point in the statement you made about me not going to a law library, which is why I am asking you these questions.

You then go on to state that I was never qualified to be a police officer and that I don't know what the law is. Hmmmm....Okay, I'll bite---since you say that I was never qualified to be a police officer, what is your basis for this statement? Is this "the Gospel according to Alec", or are you basing this on some sort of fact? As a matter of record, I was required to pass extensive tests throughout the entire police academy training process. Police officer recruits are tested in all sorts of areas: physical conditioning, tactics, shooting, self-defense, driving, all sorts of laws, procedures, interviewing, etc, etc, etc...Each phase of the academy requires a very specific and rigurous testing procedure. If a recruit fails ANY of those tests along the way, that recruit is terminated that very day and they are out of a job. They do not allow people to continue in the police academy who fail any block of instruction. I received a 4.0 grade point average during my attendance at the academy and I graduated at the very top of my class. I have a drawer full of certificates showing that I am extremely well qualified to do the job. What certificates and training do you have Alec?

And one more important item that you seem to have forgotten. How do you think police recruits are taught things? Since we don't go to the law library, do you think that we don't learn the laws? I'll clue you in on a little secret how we learn things---we have TEACHERS that come and teach us different things. These teachers are from all walks of life. I was taught by district attorneys, defense attorneys, public defenders, judges, police officers, police supervisors, martial arts experts, physical education instructors, etc. That is how we learn things Alec---we are taught in a classroom. We don't have to go to a law library to learn the law. Furthermore, through your ignorance of the occupation of a police officer, there are countless magazines and newsletters that police departments and police officers subscribe to. There are too many to name, but the one that I receive here at home is called the "Law Enforcement Legal Reporter". It comes out quarterly with all case law updates that are pertinent to police officers. I have it both in written form in a big binder that gets updated quarterly, and I also have it on CD-ROM so that I can access lots of case law information on my PC. You are such an ignorant man. One additional thing sir, you seem to forget that it is not the job of the police officer to interpret what the different laws mean. We are taught what the laws are, how to enforce them, and we go and do it. If you want to talk about case law decisions in regards to the police doing their job, you are wrong. That is what the court system is for, and that is the job of the attorneys to fight it out. **NOT** the police officer. With the exception of the case law updates that I just told you about (because we have to know when a law has changed), all of that other stuff is handled at the level of the attorney. Maybe this is where your confusion is. Perhaps you are under the misconception that a police officer is supposed to interpret case laws and do law research in a law library. If that is what you think, you couldn't be more wrong. Again, your ignorance of what the job of a police officer is continues to entertain me.

In regards to the case law that you cited in your previous post, I don't know whether it's valid or not. I mean, look at what you're citing---you're citing a case law from **1867**. Alec, that case law wasn't even decided in this CENTURY!!! Sure, there are certain laws and things from WAY back in time that are still valid today. But case law changes over the years to reflect the times that we are living in. There are still laws on the books in California today that say silly things such as "people may not take a bath between the hours of sunrise and sunset", or "proper attire must be worn on sundays when appearing out in public". We, the voters and the people of the State of California, have never taken those laws off the books. And those were written back in the 1800's just as the case law that you cited. Do you want the police to go out and arrest the people that are caught taking a bath during the non-legal hours? After all, in following your logic, that's the proper and legal thing to do. Your problem is, you are trying to pretend that you are an attorney, yet you have no training. You are simply going to these places like a law library or the Internet and you are reading these things and interpretting them the way that YOU think they should be interpretted. You are missing many different pieces of the puzzle along the way. This is why nobody takes your message seriously---because it's blatantly obvious that you are very ignorant and you haven't the slightest idea of what you talk about.

Here is an example of you taking a piece of information, and twisting it around in your own mind to say whatever it is that YOU feel it means---and you can't do that Alec. You simply can't do that. But in the 1867 case that you are referring to, you say that it "forbids requiring a person to be a member of the California State Bar Association (or any other similar requirement) in order to be eligible for the office of District Attorney." Okay, fine, so now we know what the case law actually says. But then, you go a step further and you create YOUR OWN LAW based upon that, and you can NOT do that Alec--you just can't do that. Here is what you said next: "Obviously, the same prohibition applies as well to the office of judge in the State of California." Alec, in law, NOTHING is "obvious". It has to say it in order for it to be law. By you coming up with your own "obvious" interpretation of something, you are wrong. You have no authority and no justification for doing that. That is why you are so screwed up in the things you talk about. If you had received proper training at a law school and became a lawyer, or if you had become a paralegal, or if you had become a police officer, you would know how NOT to interpret things. You are making yourself look very silly with your ignorance. And if you think you are going to make a difference or make an impact with the garbage that you spew out, you've got a surprise coming to you. Nobody sane will believe anything you say because it is so incredibly "out there" it's downright funny.

At the end of your recent post, you ask me when I am going to attempt to correct this fatal problem in the California court system. What fatal problem? You haven't talked about a fatal problem yet. All you've done is talk nonsense and talk about incorrect interpretations of laws. And even if you did discuss with clarity (yeah, right!) a fatal problem, why are you looking at ME to do something? Our justice system is flawed---very flawed. And it's getting worse. But at least I can say this much---it's still one of the best damned justice systems in the world. Compare our system to the other civilized countries in the world and ours is far superior to most, if not all of them. The defendant has rights, and is innocent until proven guilty. Ask any cop, and they will tell you that the overwhelming odds are in favor of the defendants when it comes to court. One little technical mistake by a police officer, and the whole case is thrown out---even though the defendant is as guilty as can be. Cops make mistakes, and of course they will continue to make mistakes that will ruin a case and get it dismissed in court. That is because 1) cops are human, and 2) laws are changing so frequently and quickly that it's almost impossible to stay on top of the latest changes, so you're bound to make an error sooner or later.

I believe your conclusion of most police officers being good to be mistaken. My experience has shown me the following:

About 25% of police officers are good.

About 60% of police officers are robots who will blindly obey whoever they feel has control over them whether or not the person or people controlling them have any morals or not. An excellent example of this is R/I/R's boyfriend/girlfriend example which I just requoted a couple of postings or so ago.

The remaining 15% or so are worse than the worst nations on Earth are. Because, at least those worst nations are honest enough to torture you physically. The scum here, however, are so dishonest that they engage in mental, psychological and spiritual torture because that is easier to disguise.

You have forgotten that R/I/R "talks out of both sides of his mouth." Read my postings and his postings to this guestbook from July 6, 1999 onward to get an idea of what I mean.

You have forgotten that R/I/R "talks out of both sides of his mouth." Read my postings and his postings to this guestbook from July 6, 1999 onward to get an idea of what I mean.

So, you admit that you have never been to a law library and that you don't know how to use one! Yet you still feel that you are qualified to state the following:

"I find it hard to believe that you went to the watch commander and he was not helpful to you. If this is in fact true, then I question the significance of the topic of conversation you brought up to him. I can tell you from personal experience that if somebody comes to me (as a police officer) ranting and raving like a lunatic, throwing things out like "Constitution" and court cases and other things that you mentioned in your post, I will not really listen to what you are saying. I will basically just hear "blah blah blah blah". I'm not saying that to be dis-respectful, but I am saying this so that you know about human nature and more specifically, the police. As you pointed out, the cops don't make the laws or set the policy--they just do what they're told. I have taken people to jail before where I have honestly felt sorry for them because the law was ridiculous and I did not believe in it, but that is not up to me. I am required to do it, and if I am not going to do it then I am in the wrong profession (an example of that is a boyfriend/girlfriend dating since 8th grade, and then when they are seniors in high school, the male turns 18 and the female is 17 for another 3 months---because they are having sex, he is now committing stat. rape of a minor---a felony sex crime! I just do not agree with that--it's too traumatic for everyone involved. But it is not my place to agree or disagree---it is my job to enforce the laws whether I like it or not)."

"2)You are obviously a person who knows nothing about case law decisions, as well as the "spirit of the law" and how it applies itself in real life. You quote all of these laws like everything is followed in black and white just becuase it's written. There is the fantasy-land of reading the law books, and there is the reality of actually applying those laws in real life. I'm just telling you this since you obviously live in fantasy-land. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about. And there is no way I'm going to take the time to justify why. There isn't room for two people in your strange little world."

R/I/R, for the record, I have been to a law library (mainly the Los Angeles County Law Library) too many times to count. A law library is very simple (but somewhat tedious) to use. Over half of the evidence on my website, which you have the unmitigated gall to call "more legalese than I care to read," was obtained from what I found in a law library.

Here is a simple and very important court case example. To look up a court case, you need a cite. The following is a cite: Galvin vs. Dorsey (1867), 32C296. "Galvin vs. Dorsey" is the title. You need to know this so that you can be sure that you found what you are looking for. "1867" is the year in which the case was decided. It helps to know this but it is not necessary. "32C296" is what I call the pointer. It is essential to know this as it tells you what set of books to look in, what book to select from that set and what the case's starting page is in the selected book. In the case of Galvin vs. Dorsey, the set of books is the California Appellate Court volumes, the book to select is Volume 32, and the starting page for the case in Volume 32 is 296. If you know what you are doing and if the books are readily available, the process takes about 5 minutes.

But, do not expect to find Galvin vs. Dorsey anywhere in the Los Angeles area but at the Los Angeles County Law Library or at the Long Beach court law library. It was at the Torrance court law library before a certain common citizen, whom I do know, looked it up. Shortly after that, Volume 32, and only Volume 32, of the California Appellate Court volumes at the Torrance court law library mysteriously disappeared! Furthermore, some years after that, which is a few years ago from today, the wording of the reference to Galvin vs. Dorsey in California Government Code 24002, from which that common citizen first discovered Galvin vs. Dorsey, was changed from "...A person IS eligible to the Office of District Attorney..." to "...A person WAS eligible to the Office of District Attorney..." I, personally, witnessed each piece of this entire process unfold! Of course, Galvin vs. Dorsey hasn't changed and it has never been overruled or superseded!

R/I/R, for the record, Galvin vs. Dorsey, is a case where the California Appellate Court ruled that the United States Constitution forbids requiring a person to be a member of the California State Bar Association (or any other similar requirement) in order to be eligible for the office of District Attorney. Obviously, the same prohibition applies as well to the office of judge in the State of California. Yet, Galvin vs. Dorsey has been quietly buried and, as soon as anyone tries to dig it up, it is quietly buried even deeper. Then, California Government Code 24002 and Article 6, Section 15 of the California State Constitution have quietly been brought into existence. Both of those so called laws are in direct contradiction to Galvin vs. Dorsey, are completely forbidden by the United States Constitution, and turn the entire court system in the State of California into an illegal and treasonous aristocracy and render that now fraudulent court system of attornment incompetent to even exist in California, let alone issue any kind of rulings on anything. At this late date, the arrogance of judges and attorneys, and the routine contempt that they show the common citizen, is just further confirmation that the court system in California has been corrupt from the core outward, for decades!

Has anyone seen "The Chase". I find the cops on camera funny as hell...

Without me doing ANY research on this case at all, there is one thing that just jumps out at me as being improper on the part of the police officers that I don't think a non police officer would realize right away. But this is what jumps out at me immediately---the cops in this case seem to be very wrong in the beating even if the "suspect" was resisting simply because in this case, the "suspect" was actually a police officer who was on duty working plainclothes. This means that the plainclothes officer had a gun, handcuffs, a badge, maybe a radio, and a couple of other "give aways" that he is a cop once you go "hand on" with somebody. When it is five against one like it was here, SOMEBODY there should have been checking the "suspect" for weapons. The fact that none of the cops found his gun, his badge, his handcuffs, etc, shows me that these officers were just out to beat the crap out of the guy and were not following proper arrest procedures. I hate to jump to a conclusion without knowing all of the facts, but I just thought that I would mention this because that is the first thing that came to my mind when I read the case. Very interesting. I am wondering why their union has stood behind these officers for 4 or 5 years now as if they did nothing wrong. That seems odd to me. Just so you know, if the cops DID do illegal and improper things (which it seems like they did), then their union is suppposed to support them financially as far as paying for an attorney and stuff like that. That is why cops pay monthly dues---to have that "insurance". So that is no surprise at all because that's how it's supposed to work. However, I am surprised that the President of the union has been vocal and had come out actually supporting the acts of those officers. That is why I feel that some huge chunk of information must be missing here. I can't see a big city police department like Boston supporting 5 cops in a case like this. Very strange. At least it seems like now things are moving along and justice may happen after all.

Paragraph 1: