09-10-25 THE RAMPART FIPs (FALSELY IMPRISONED PERSONS)

09-10-25 THE RAMPART FIPs -

A HUMAN RIGHTS DISGRACE OF HISTORIC PROPORTIONS

A. What did Los Angeles legal scholars say about it 10 years ago?

___________________________

…judges tried and sentenced a staggering number of people for crimes they did not commit. How could so many participants in the criminal justice system have failed either to recognize or to instigate any meaningful scrutiny of such appalling and repeated perversions of justice?

…we felt a particular obligation to ensure that no aspect of the Los Angeles criminal justice system, including the lawyers and judges, escaped scrutiny.

Prof David W. Burcham, then Dean, and Prof Catherine L. Fisk,

Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, Rapart symposium, 2000

___________________________

.

Any analysis of the Rampart scandal must begin with an appreciation of the heinous nature of what the officers did. This is conduct associated with the most repressive dictators and police states.

…and judges must share responsibility when innocent people are convicted.

Erwin Chemerinsky, today Dean of Irvine Law School, University of California

57 Guild Prac. 121 2000

___________________________

B. What did PBS Frontline say about it 10 years ago?

The Frontline program described mass false imprisoments in Los Angeles Courts, estimating the number of the Rampart FIPs (Falsely Imprisoned Persons) anywhere from 8,000 to 30,000. They are almost exclusively black and Latinos. Hardly any of them was released to this date (total released is estimated at under 200).

C. What did the Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report say about it in 2006?

1. The Panel refused to perform its charge and produce a "Final Report" for the Rampart scandal investigation, which the LAPD absurdly failed to produce.

2. The Panel concluded that the scandal was likely to be of much wider scope than previously admitted.

3. "Rampart-Area Corruption Incident" - the official name was a misnomer. It was not specific to the Rampart area, but police prevented investigation of leads to other stations. It was not an incident, but a common practice for years. It could continue.

4. The Panel concluded that many innocent persons remained imprisoned, but refused to provide and estimate of their number.

5. The Panel carefully documented the unbelievable refusal of the leaders of the LA County Justice system - at the LA Superior Court, and the Prosecutor's Office, and at the LAPD - to release the innocent victims.

6. The panel concluded that in the Los Angeles County justice system "a subcult of criminality was tolerated in the ranks".

7. The Panel concluded that all previous investigations and committee reports of the matter were total failure. We still do not know the basic facts about the matter.

8. The Panel concluded that LA County was incapable of investigating itself, and it recommended: "External Investigation", it specifically pointed the LA Superior Court- as requiring examination.

9. The panel expressed its appreciation for the efforts of the LAPD to engage in reform. However, under the circumstances, it estimated that the progress made may not be sustainable once the Overseer for Civil Rights per the Consent Decree closes his office.

.

D. What do we allege today?

1. The Blue Ribbon Review Panel was generally accurate in its diagnoses, about the role of the LA Superior Court, but "subcult of criminaltiy tolerated in the ranks" was an a material understatement - the court was/is dominated by the LA-JR.

The Panel was correct in its prediction - false imprisonments continue to this date - as seen in the case of Atty Richard Fine.

The Panel identified in fact the LA Superior Court as the major problem, and the reason that progress would not be sustainable once the Consent Decree is terminated. Therefore, the Panel recommended "Outside Investigation" of the justice system. No effort was made in the past 3 years to act upon the Panel's recommendation.

In fact, as it was, the Rampart scandal - the largest of its kind in the history of the U.S., and one that was described by local legal scholars in terms that must raise deep concerns - was left with no final report.

It is easy to understand why no final report was issued. No matter how it would have been written, it would have clearly shown the "conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity".

1.Claims that some LAPD officers alone were corrupt, but the judges were honest, but "duped" - were ludicrous all along.

Upon review of the evidence from the civil courts the pattern of conduct of the LA-JR becomes obvious. Any claim that conduct of police reflected "petty retributions" was ludicrous. What was found in the litigation of Marina v LA County (BS109420) - the contempt hearing of Atty Richard Fine, was not unique at all, in fact it was the fingerprints of the LA-JR :

.

a) The repetitive production of false court records, through what would be considered by a naive viewer as errors;

.

b) The use of such false court records as valid, or invalid court records, as it may fit the court;

.

c) The repeat reliance on such false records, deliberately designed to lead to false jailing;

.

d) Fraud in entry of judgments, where the false judgments produced by the judges were deemed invalid by them, but they deliberately induced their execution by law-enforcement agencies to falsely jail or imprison persons, through deceptive oral directives in open court, while creating contrary records in writing.

Upon review of series of cases of such nature, no reasonable person would be able to consider the official explanation for the Rampart scandal as bearing any validity: That corrupt police framed the victims, however, the judges were honest, but "duped" by police.

.

2. The Rampart scandal reflected conduct of the LA-JR, as an enterprise, through a pattern of racketeering activity

Review of the evidence from the civil courts, demonstrates unequivocally the conduct of the LA-JR as an enterprise - through a pattern of racketeering activity. Once that evidence is reviewed, what was insinuated by legal scholars 10 years ago, and what was known by any criminal defense attorney in town all along, would be finally openly recognize:

The Human Rights abuses that came to be known as the Rampart scandal were the manifestation of the conduct of the LA-JR in criminal litigations of the LA Superior Court.

.

3. The refusal to allow the release of the Rampart-FIPs in the past decade, AFTER the Rampart scandal investigation - was inexcusable, and on its own -criminal in nature.

The Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006) - an official report commissioned by the LAPD, carefully recorded the role of the LA Superior Court judges in preventing the release of the Rampart-FIPs. Even if one could accept any kind of explanation for the conduct of the judges that led to mass false imprisonments, there was absolutely no excuse for their objection to the release of those of were falsely convicted and falsely sentenced by them. Such conduct invalidated their authority as judges. It may also leave them liable to both civil and criminal prosecutions.

.

4. Upon review of the conduct of Judge Jacqueline Connor in civil litigation, a reasonable person would conclude that her conduct in presiding over the First Rampart Trial, and in derailing it, were both of criminal nature.

It is the same pattern repeatedly - of "errors" - that render litigations and litigation records vague and ambiguous, allowing later to treat them as valid or invalid, at will.

It was the same reason that the police could not be prosecuted and the Rampart-FIPs could not be released - concern of the judges for their own skin.

5. For at least two decades, U.S. Officers have been actively trading the Human Rights of the people of Los Angeles for various perceived or real benefits, with no authority at all, a conduct that in itself may consitute crimes upon review.

The U.S. Attorney Office and FBI, both in Los Angeles and in Washington DC owe explanations to the people of Los Angeles and the U.S.

Upon review of the events of the Rampart scandal and its aftermath, and the conduct of the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice even today, it becomes indisputable that such law-enforcement agencies in fact support the LA-JR and actively patronize it, by cover it up, and refusing to investigate crimes that would lead to their exposure.

Alejandro Mayorkas - then U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, today - partner in O’Melveny & Myers, Kenneth Kaiser - Assistant Director of FBI today, and Kenneth Melson - Director of U.S. Department f Justice, owe the people of Los Angeles explanation of their conduct. U.S. officials must not be allowed to continue this policy and this practice. We demand Equal Protectionin Los Angeles County. The people of Los Angeles must demand that the U.S. Government provide Equal Protection in Los Angeles County, and put an immediate end to the activities of the LA-JR.

.