Showing posts with label rampart. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rampart. Show all posts

Monday, February 16, 2009

Email to a whistle blower group













.
.
Thanks for adding me to this list, and here is for you - a story to tell:

A. Petition to free the LA-FIPs
We just started a petition. Our mission is to free the LA-FIP's - the Los Angeles Falsely Imprisoned People:

B. Who are the LA-FIPs? Are they truly extra-terrestrial?
No, they are humans, like you and me! Therefore, they are entitled to the rights that are enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), ratified by the United Nations General Assembly, which as incorporated into the International Covenants of Rights (1976), holds the force of International Law. The LA-FIPs designates only those prisoners in Los Angeles, who were proven innocent in the RAMPART scandal (1998-2000) investigations, but are still imprisoned today, 10 years later. The essence of that scandal was the discovery that police in an undercover narcotics unit in the RAMPART station were involved in the routine production of evidence through framing, and torture was also used to extract confessions that led to a large number of convictions in the criminal courts in Los Angeles and long-term prison sentences. As shown in the video, ethnic biases were also at play.

This is what some legal authoritative had to say about it in 2000:
  • “…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.” 
  • David W. Burcham, then Dean, today Provost, and Catherine L. Fisk, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles (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 (2000)

C. Are you sure that they are still imprisoned? It sounds like a post-scandal scandal...
I rely on official reports of the LAPD:
According to the most recent official report, of the BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL (2006) only a minute fraction of them were released. And there must be many others as well, since the official investigation was deliberately restricted only to the RAMPART station, in order to justify what was described to the public under the official title of "RAMPART-AREA CORRUPTION INCIDENT". The same report shows that the name itself is false and misleading: The conduct that was investigated was not a "CORRUPTION INCIDENT", but rather - common conduct over a long time period, and it was not RAMPART-AREA-specific either the evidence demonstrated that is was also found in others stations. Regardless, by LA-FIPs we are talking only about the ones that were confirmed innocent through the Rampart scandal investigations. After the major initial investigation, there were some 4-5 official review panels, and they all came to the same conclusion - that these people were and are innocent and should and must be freed.

But to this date, they are still imprisoned.

D. So why are they still in prison 10 years later?
At the end, more than 70 police were found involved, and in 2000 the four first indicted police were prosecuted by the LA District Attorney, and three of the four were convicted in a jury trial, and sentenced. However, a few weeks later, the trial judge, JACQUELINE A CONNOR, in a remarkable display of honesty, issued an unusual ruling from home, in the evening, on December 23, 2000:
  • "Evidence available to the court suggests that in fact the jurors were misdirected in the law, that the law was misapplied and that the misapplication resulted in the denial of a fair trial on the merits...
  • "The court does conclude that there was jury misconduct, though unintentional, misguided and inadvertent, in the consideration of improper facts.  While recognizing the enormous pressure on the community, on the police force, on the district  attorney’s office and on the courts to “fix” the Rampart scandal, this court is only interested in evaluating the fairness of the proceedings in this court and determining whether justice was done  in this case. This court cannot and should not consider the political ramifications of future lawsuits or  future prosecutions. The defense in this case has presented compelling arguments to support their  argument that the defendants did not receive a fair trial.  The court cannot simply look the other way and ignore the improprieties, innocent or not, intentional or unintentional, that served to deny a fair trial in this case.  
  • While the court cannot and will not presume to guess whether a correction of the errors would result in any different verdict, it most certainly concludes that the verdicts in this case cannot stand."
From the perspective of time, it appears that with that, any attempt to"fix" the Rampart scandal came to an end. The police never even completed its investigation report. The 2006 BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL report describes in detail how police, judges and prosecutors prevent their release of the LA-FIPs. The official investigation operated, so it appears, with the underlying paradigm that the police were corrupt, but the judges were "duped". The BLUE RIBBON REPORT describes them as a united front today in resistance to freeing the LA-FIPs.

E. How many are they? Is it at all a significant issue with everything else that it going on today?
I was hesitating to use any number, because all numbers are estimates. The BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL finds it remarkable finding in and of itself, that after several extensive reviews, including their own, there is no good data even regarding the scope of the problem. Initially I thought it was around 2,000, but eventually I used the figure of 10,000. People reacted as if I fell off the roof. Finally, I found a 2001 PBS broadcast that quoted two estimates: By prosecutors: 8,000, and by defense attorneys: 15,000. Elsewhere I found an estimate by other advocates: 30,000. Therefore, I find my estimate of 10,000, derived independently of these numbers, as falling on the conservative side.
No good figures are available for the Guantanamo detentions either, but my estimate is that they involved no more than 750 people, and much shorter period of time. Of note, they two take place at the same time, albeit one justified by various legal arguments. I am not familiar of any true legal arguments that were ever raised for the continued false imprisonments in Los Angeles. I was simply never "fixed". It is a disgrace of historic proportions.

The Blue Ribbon Review Panel is the latest I know of:
The beginning is review of the work of previous committees, it starts getting interesting around the middle.

F, Was nothing was done at all?

That would not be a correct statement. The same report documents remarkable efforts by police to address the causes of the scandal. The Rampart station itself was rebuilt from scratch in a new location. It has nice and clean design, well-trained staff, and it implements innovative management and leadership models. It is a show piece.
Additionally, a number of review panels were established and published reports. One distinction of the report of the 2006 BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL is that they clearly stated that they considered all previous reviews failures, and their own as well. Instead they called for an external review.

G. Why does the petition ask only access to some papers? What difference does it make?
You should not ask for what they cannot give...
My analysis of the previous committee reports and also reports of the U.S. Judge Overseer (appointed in 2001 to supervise the LAPD relative to respect and observance of Civil Rights) is that their failure stemmed from the same problem that cripples the justice system in L.A. in general: The courts took the liberty around 1985, while introducing computers to the courts, of removing from public access the critical data bases that were known for generations as the BOOKS of COURT. They are also the critical guarantee for the integrity of any court.

The U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark decision Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), affirmed the public's right to access judicial records, to inspect and to copy. It determined that such right precedes even the U.S. Constitution, and established it as a Common Law Right. Furthermore, already that decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was not about paper at all, but about digital or electronic media - the Nixon Tapes. And yet, in the transition from paper to digital media around 1985, the L.A. Superior Court took the liberty of removing all such records from public access. And the judges themselves, under the California Oath of Office and the legal community in LA allowed it to continue unchecked for over a quarter century.

Releasing the LA-FIPs is a mandate that is complex in nature, and it would be difficult to enforce it in court and in practice, especially with the names and numbers unknown - since the books are inaccessible. In contrast, the demand to enforce Common Law Right of access to inspect and to copy is straight forward, each of the 10 millions who reside in LA County, in fact Every Person has standing to demand this right, and the U.S. government and its agencies are required to protect these rights, it is not optional. Finally - last summer-fall, my request for a Special Counsel to review the conduct of the L.A. Superior Court went all the way up the Director of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Assistant Director of the FBI. Their responses, addressed to Congress, I deem false and deliberately misleading. Therefore, the need to limit the request to the minimal that is clearly demonstrable. Another request, submitted to the U.S. Justice Department prior to the November 2008 elections, to restore the Voting Rights of the LA-FIPs went unanswereded.

Regardless of all the statements above, the restoration of the Common Law right of access, in and of itself will have an impact on life in Los Angeles that by far exceeds what most expect.

H. So how is it going to work?
Under the new President there is renewed hope. Nevertheless, first - it was best to stick to the very minimal, but enforceable and clearly demonstrable, short-term demand, and second - international support for such cause is essential. Furthermore, since the respective government agencies, both local, state, and federal, show entire disinterest in protecting rights and enforcing the law, it would be a critical error to leave in to them to finish the job. The petition asks them to do only the minimum which by international law they must do anyway.

Vocal support by international human rights organizations and individual is badly needed. Therefore, this petition does not rely in fact on U.S. Law at all. Instead, it relies on 1) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 2) the Common Law right to access judicial records, to inspect and to copy.

Once access to the books is allowed, I have no doubt that civil rights organizations and members of the public at large will be able to engage in habeas corpus writs that would lead to release of the LA-FIPs within a short time. Absent access to such books, it is impossible to effectively exercise the basic right of habeas corpus. The fact that such conditions were allowed to prevail in Los Angeles for over a quarter century is disturbing. In the absent of access to the Books of Court abuse of rights is not even detectable... it open the door to various abuses of medieval nature - the continued false imprisonment of a mass of anonymous civilians is definitely one of them...

I. What's the bottom line, take home message?
On the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was championed by Leonore Roosevelt, this is a low point. Sign the petition, ask others to sign, and stay alert, NOTHING that was guaranteed can be taken for granted. The public must be actively involved in protecting its rights against any violation or abuse. The current situation perfectly demonstrates the issue: Once a right was lost, you have to fight to restore it, almost as if it were never granted in the first place... And the basic rights, the ones that appear as mere technicalities, once lost can cause enormous harm.

J. A Call for Action
Please visit the petition site and sign the petition, it's easy:
  • RESTORE JUSTICE IN L.A
  • We call upon President Obama to free those who are falsely imprisoned in l.a. for over a decade in the aftermath of the Rampart scandal (98-2000).....the minimum is appointment of a  special counsel to restore public access to public records of the courts, where public access is denied for over a quarter century.
If you would lilke to do more - recruit your friends to sign, bring it to the attention of national and international human rights organizations, that would be greatly appreciated:
  • Southern California ACLU: Rripston@aclu-sc.org (Local ACLU support is required for national ACLU action)
  • Amnesty International, USA: admin-us@aiusa.org (as courtesy, projects determined in London)
  • Amnesty International London HQ: http://www.amnesty.org/en/contact (Mark in subject line: U.S. Research Group)
  • United Nations: http://www.un.org/comments.html (select comments to enter our text) 
You may also place in your web site for the next 2-3 months the Java gadget below that allows people to sign through your web site.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Restore Justice in L.A. - Petition is up and running...



The 2006 report of the BLUE RIBBON REVIEW PANEL, commissioned by the LAPD, chaired by civil rights activist Att Connie Rice.  It provides unique documentation of the ongoing incarceration in L.A. of those who were shown in the Rampart investigation (1998-2000) to be falsely convicted and falsely sentenced to long terms in prison.

The report lists as one of the major failures of its own work and the several panels in preceding years, the inability to even provide an estimate of the number of such LA-FIP (LA's Falsely Imprisoned People).  Elsewhere estimates were found that ranged from 8,000 (LA's DA office) to 15,000 and even 30,000.  By any standard, this is a disgrace of historic proportions.

According to the report, it is a combination of resistance by police, prosecutors and the court that prevents any progress in releasing these people.  The reason provided, according to the report, is that it would cause "collapse of the justice system".  A reason found elsewhere - "The total number of these people still falls under the 5% of total prisoners, which is estimated to the error level seen in many justice systems".

It took much more effort than anticipated, but the petition is up and running.  People of good will  everywhere are asked to review and add a signature:
.
.

The petition calls for the appointment of a Special Counsel to restore the basic Common Law and First Amendment right for access to court records in LA.  That right is denied to all the 10 millions that the court claims to serve for some quarter century!

The origins of such rights are in the late middle ages, with emergence of the first Books of Court.  And such book evolved over the centuries to become the central instrument in the safeguard of the integrity of the courts.   The adamant refusal of the LA Superior Court to allow access to the data, speaks for itself...

Yet to be created is a reasonable excuse for an honest court to conceal its own books from the public.  But the LA Superior Court denies that access with no reason at all.  The response received from the court, in and of itself, regardless of its content,  is likely to be found in violation of the law, upon review by a competent court -

"Sustain is privileged - for the court only"

Such resopnse demonstrated in fact an unpublished Local Rule of Court, which are forbidden by law.  But in the LA Superior Court there are many, while the published Rules of Court are obsolete.

BODY

WE THE UNDERSIGNED APPEAL TO PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA AND HUMAN RIGHTS SUPPORTERS EVERYWHERE:

.

We congratulate President Obama for his decision, and all those who joined in efforts to bring the detentions at Guantanamo Bay to an end. Now it is time to apply the same standards at home - in LA, where the number of the falsely imprisoned people is estimated at 10,000. Such figure includes only those whose cases were shown in Rampart investigations, a decade ago, to be based on framing or confessions extracted through torture, and are also likely to be racially biased, reflecting conduct typical of “repressive dictatorships”, and a disgrace of historic proportions.

.

President Obama – if you allow it to stay – you will own it! 

Large scale abuses of civil rights in LA were recognized already a decade ago, but the Overseer appointed in 2001, is ineffective. Countrywide, which led this country into the sub-prime debacle is based here as well, and Countrywide's much publicized investigation by the FBI must be deemed deliberately aimless, while the company is still far from compliance, while the waive of foreclosures is growing, leading to looting of homeowners everywhere. At the bottom of it all, is widespread corruption of the LA Superior Court, overlooked for decades, crippling government here.

.

These problems can and must be effectively addressed at the federal level with a simple measure: A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO IMMEDIATELY RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC COURT RECORDS.

.

Abuse of such rights for the past quarter century by the LA courts is a disgrace on its own. Restoring the access will empower the public, disable wrongdoing at the courts, flag judges that need to be noticed, and allow civil rights organizations to end the false imprisonments through wholesale writs of Habeas Corpus. We also hope it will make the LA Overseer, crippled by denial of access to records, more effective as well. Finally – by eliminating the FBI’s inexplicable engagement in covering up court corruption we hope it will focus on performing its duties in restoring the integrity of financial institutions.

.

Such problems have been ignored for decades - with disastrous effects. A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO PUBLIC COURT RECORDS IN LA IS LONG OVERDUE.

 


Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Fampart Reconsidered

.
Book Club Recommendation for October, 2008
Blue Ribbon Panel report issued July 2006
.

The Search for Real Reform Seven Years Later....
._________
.
Q: IS IT FOR REAL?
A: NOT! DAH!
.
._________
.
Q: ARE YOU TOO BUSY TO READ THE REPORTS?
A: OUR 30 SEC DIGEST FOR THOSE TOO LAZY TO READ THE REPORTS:
."Unanimously, criminal defense attorneys and civil plaintiffs' attorneys believe ... innocent people remain in prison. " p60

Los Angeles Superior Court must be“examine[d for] its role in accepting pleas from innocent defendants and failing to detect police perjury or the conviction of the innocent.” p58
.
"...law enforcement, prosecutors and judges - inexorably chose containment. It is not that individuals or entities conspired to cover up corruption; it is that when a window on its true extent opened, they simply closed it." p48
._________
.
Q: WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
A: HERE WE GO!
.
A. SUBJECT MATTER - INNOCENT CITIZENS, STILL IMPRISONED IN LA.
Plainly speaking, it is a certainty that there are some innocent citizens, by now imprisoned well over 10 years as a result of routine false evidence produced in court by the police. The subject matter is this unknown number of innocent citizens that remain locked up ten years after the investigations were initiated, as a result of the fact that the investigations were never completed.

B. THE ENIGMA - HOW MANY SUCH CITIZENS ARE STILL IMPRISONED
A basic concern of the Blue Ribbon Panel was that after multiple investigative committees over 7 years, and numerous reports, and many millions of dollars spent, nobody knows the extent of the problem.
._________
.
Q: WHAT IS INPROPERINLA’S TAKE ON THE SITUATION?
A: WE GOT TO DO IT, BUT WE GOT TO DO IT SMART!

C. THE ANSWER - THE NUMBER WILL DEPEND ON THE METHOD AND STRINGENCY OF INVESTIGATION, AND ACCORDINGLY RANGE BETWEEN 100 AND 10,000.
Let me take the plunge and guess, with no committee appointment and no budget appropriation --
The number will entirely depends on the methods of investigation and stringency of criteria used to evaluate records of past litigations:
1) If the investigation would proceed along the lines of previous investigation, using traditional methods, and starting from cases where there is at present a specific allegation on record of false evidence by police, seeking to confirm such false evidence, then the number of innocent citizens found imprisoned would be between 100 and 1000. The primary reason would be that again, the investigation would never be completed.
2) However, if the investigations take innovative approaches, specially constructed for dealing with such large scandal, and supported by highly skilled statistical computerized modeling, then the number of innocent citizens found imprisoned would be between 1,000 and 10,000.

D. RECOMMENDATION - SMART COMBINATION STRATEGY FOR ACCURATE, DEFINITIVE, FAST, CHEAP RESULTS, HEAVILY RELYING UPON COMPUTERIZED DATA ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL APPROACHES.

1) Full authority must be vested with a U.S. Special Counsel, leading the investigation, and explicitly charged to investigate the integrity of the justice system in LA, including police, prosecutors, and courts, both criminal and civil.

2) Such Special Counsel must immediately secure access to all computer systems of police, prosecutors, and the courts.

3) All existing evidence must be first compiled and indexed, and in parallel - existing indexing files, which were previously denied to investigators must be discovered.

4) Phase I investigations should proceed in full speed in cases where there is already reliable evidence of false prosecution, based on previous investigations that were never concluded.

5) Phase II investigations must be initiated in parallel, based on analysis of the whole body of existing data, statistical modeling, and attempts to derive patterns that would allow expediting of the investigation, and reducing its cost, based on heuristic models combined with continued random sampling.
Such combined approach should allow exhaustion of the investigation within reasonable time and budgets.
E.g.:
a. If Officer A appeared in the Courtroom of Judge X, then it is highly likely that conviction be found false upon review .
b. If Officer A and Officer B appeared in the Courtroom of Judge X, then it is extremely likely that conviction be found false upon review . .
c. If Officer A and Officer B, under the guidance of Prosecutor Y, appeared in the Courtroom of Judge X it is practically a certainty that conviction be found false upon review.

6) Phase III investigation must be instituted in parallel to Phase I and Phase II. Phase III will constitute of statistical computerized monitoring of results as they are accumulated, and statistical models should be constructed in advance in consultation with law enforcement and judicial authorities:
When a certain threshold be reached for any given police, prosecutor, or judge, that would be deemed substantially different than peers, and also be deemed conclusive evidence of a pattern of repeat, routine obstruction of justice, all conviction achieved through the involvement of such individual be overturned first, and such cases be screened in reverse - for those that require repeat prosecution, rather than the opposite.

7) Phase IV - Similarly, separate investigation be instituted in parallel to Phase I, II, III, and proceed based on statistical analysis of results as they are accumulated. The goal of Phase IV would be to predict the length of time and cost of the investigation, propose ways to saturate and exhaust the investigation at fastest cheapest way, and adjust such predictions as results are accumulated.
._________
.
Q: WHAT ABOUT THE UNSPOKEN QUESTION?
A: YOU MEAN FALSE DEATH SENTENCES?
Obviously that is part of the problem. Those who favor death penalty would like never to think about this issue – false convictions and false death sentences, and those who oppose death penalty cannot stop thinking about the prospect.
According to newspaper reports Judge Jacqueline Connor issued in recent years at least one death sentence. Given that she was particularly fond of the Rampart officers and even gave Officer Perez in 1998 a recommendation letter based on his performance in her courtroom (later recanted as false), one can only hope that death row does not move too fast.
._________
.

Q: NEED MORE INFO?
A: NO PROBLEM – HERE IT IS…
Reading the latest report, published in 2006 by the "Blue Ribbon Panel", appointed by LAPD to investigate LAPD's failure to produce previous reports regarding the scope of the Rampart scandal, and the degree to which the LAPD addressed the deficiencies revealed in that scandal, reveals the following pattern: One committee after the other is appointed by police to investigate itself, in an effort to establish why the previous committees failed, and invariably such committees are denied access to the relevant data, especially any indexing data that would allow an overview of the scope, or extent of the problems as a whole, and the degree to which such problems were at all addressed. . The latest report candidly admits that most inside the police believe that the scandal was far from being addressed, and that many innocent citizens are likely to remain incarcerated, 10 years after the beginning of investigations.
._________
.
Q: ARE FAQ’s YOUR FAVORITE WAY TO DIGEST NEW MATERIALS?
A: NO PROBLEM – HERE IT IS…
.
• What is the true reason why the investigations are never completed? As the Blue Ribbon Panel puts it - true investigation could have resulted in catastrophic failure of the justice system in LA... the risk is too high...
.
• How did the investigations fail in reality?
The courts, police and prosecutors failed to allow investigators full unlimited access to computerized data, and with that brought the investigations to a halt.
.
• What is the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendation? Yet another investigative committee, but here they depart somewhat from the official line, and state that it must be an external investigation... . • What was done since then? Nothing that we know of... . • What have we been asking the U.S. Department of Justice for months? U.S. Special Counsel investigation, which is exactly the mechanism provided by law for situations such as described by the Blue Ribbon Panel - "an external investigation", where local conflicts prevent true investigation of material deficiencies in the law enforcement and justice systems.
.
• What response have we been given so far? No response at all...
.
• Why is a Special Counsel the way to go?
A special Counsel is quintessential, since it is the only authority that could force the LA Superior Court, prosecutors, and the LAPD to open up their computer systems and provide the indexing data that is required in order to first assess the scope of the problem, and then estimate what is required for completing such investigation, then master the required resources, conduct the investigation and provide credible reports.
.
The alternatives have been tried and failed too many times in the past 10 years. .
The citizens of LA owe it to their peers, who are incarcerated but innocent, to complete this investigation.
._________
.
Q: WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ SOME ORIGINAL QUOTES?A: HERE WE GO
.
p2:
"The real story about Rampart is that no one really knows. I know people still on this job that were part of this crew. The investigations were botched so early on, and the guys on Perez's crew sat down. But at least one or two are still working. The investigations were botched so badly by IA .. Now [PSB] wouldn't botch [the investigations like that].... They wouldn't tell Perez' sergeant that they're following him..." .
.
p47:
Los Angeles Institutions Failed to Respond Adequately to the CRASH Crisis

The facts that best support this conclusion arc that a federal court had to take over Los Angeles police reform and that no public entity conducted an independent investigation with the capacity, authority and resources to properly investigate the extent of the alleged corruption or its causes. In addition, after numerous scandal related criminal trials and pleas, multiple LAPD investigations and over 80 internal Boards of Rights, four major reports and a failedcivil grand jury inquiry, the following basic facts about the Rampart CRASH corruption remain unknown or disputed:
• Whether the scandal was about two officers guilty of isolated criminal misconduct or about policing systems that tolerated routine abuse and criminality by a significant subcult in its ranks.
• How many officers committed crimes or serious misconduct.? The scope of misconduct at issue (ranging from unjustified shootings, framings and beatings to falsifying arrest reports and fabricating probable cause).
• How many officers committed crimes or serious misconduct.
• The scope of misconduct at issue (ranging from unjustified shootings, framings and beatings to falsifying arrest reports and fabricating probable cause).
• The extent of Rampart CRASH-like misconduct in the CRASH units of other divisions, other specialized units and LAPD policing generally.
• The extent of corrupt acts, if any, by Rampart CRASH alumni who graduated into Metro, Internal Affairs and other coveted and specialized units.
• Why CRASH supervisors and others in LAPD silenced whistleblowers who tried to warn about CRASH insubordination and misconduct.
• How many of Perez' specific allegations were fully investigated and verified.
•sd Why the DA's declination memos explaining the reasons for not charging Rampart related cases submitted by LAPD did not address a number of cases of alleged misconduct, including several allegedly unjustified shootings.
• How many officers were administratively investigated or sent to Boards of Rights as a result of Perez' allegations.
• Why an after-action report on LAPD's response to the CRASH crisis could not get written.
• Why the Boards of Rights were allowed to fail on such a large scale,
• Whether the USCIS (formerly known as the INS) investigated Perez' allegations that its agents helped deport gang members or others who filed complaints against LAPD officers.''
.
.
p48:
"While the criminal justice system could sustain overturning scores of criminal prosecutions tainted by Rampart CRASH corruption, thousands could have meant the collapse of the entire LA County criminal justice apparatus."
"Facing a choice between containment or catastrophic failure, the operators of any system-law enforcement, prosecutors and judges-inexorably choose containment. It is not that individuals or entities conspired to cover up corruption; it is that when a window on its true extent opened, they simply closed it."
.

p58:
" Dealing with scores of writs, the Los Angeles Superior Court had to
examine its role in accepting pleas from innocent defendants and
failing to detect police perjury or the conviction of the innocent.
Public Defenders saw their long ignored complaints about incompetent
investigations, routinely fabricated probable cause, frequent
police perjury and excessive force briefly acknowledged, but had to
confront their inability to effectively check the abuses they observed.
apparatus."
.
p60:

"Conclusion 1.20. Most Believe that Justice Was Not Served . Several officers told the Panel that they believe that officers who were culpable in the CRASH corruption escaped sanction; they remain in the department and, in some cases, have been promoted. Many also believe that innocent officers were unfairly investigated or prosecuted and the lives of several officers were arbitrarily destroyed. Unanimously, criminal defense attorneys and civil plaintiffs' attorneys believe that the extent of the corruption was covered up, guilty officers got away and innocent people remain in prison. When the Board of Inquiry report, the one who had the most resources committed to (well over 200 command staff), was published, in March 2000, it was clear that it was an incomplete effort to generate some quick results, and at least one follow-up report was to be completed later on: p63: ”In the spring of 2002, the Los Angeles Times published an article reporting that the promised after-action report, originally to be published in early 2001, was now more than a year overdue.
.
”... by the time William Bratton took over as LAPD Chief in October 2002, no report had been issued.
.
”In February 2003, Chief Bratton called the department's effort to account for its handling of the Rampart scandal "totally inadequate," and called for an independent blue ribbon panel to address the issue. . Rampart Boards of Rights were supposed to be instituted for each of the individual cases that were identified in the Rampart scandal, but were never investigated in full, or even in part, by the time of the publication of the Board of Inquiry report. It was supposed to be the mechanism of completing the investigation of that part of the problem that was identified by the Board of Inquiry investigation, but was cut short. Obviously that would have been only a partial effort, in and of itself, since it is openly admitted that the Board of Inquiry was never able to assess the scope or extent of the problem. And yet, even this partial effort was allowed to fail and was never completed.
.
.
p64:
Rampart Boards of Rights .
Conclusion 1.28.
The Rampart Related Boards of Rights Largely Failed
.
The Panel identified approximately 400 internal Investigations commenced by the department relating to the CRASH crisis. Approximately eighty-six of these investigations resulted in internal Boards of Rights. These numbers are approximate because the Panel was unable to obtain complete information regarding the Rampart related Boards of Rights. The department's failure to maintain any kind of centralized repository of Rampart CRASH material forced the Panel to reconstruct the profiles of Rampart related administrative investigations and Boards of Rights, including complaint file numbers and names, before Professional Standards Bureau could provide the Panel with any Rampart related Boards of Rights material.

The response by police to the Blue Ribbon Panel report was of interest in that it failed to ever mention past present or future investigation into the Rampart scandal abuses that were the reason the Panel was instituted, and were the subject of its report.
Obviously the LA Superior Court and the DA office, the two other parts of the justice system that the Blue Panel Report recommends must be investigated relative to the integrity of the system, have not produced any response that we know of.
._________
.
A: WOULD YOU LIKE THE REFERENCES FOR THE REPORTS?
Q: HERE IT IS, BUT TAKE IT EASY, DON’T GET TOTALLY SUCKED IN… SEE WHAT HAPPENED TO ME..,
.
Check it out:
1) Blue Ribbon Panel report
http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html

2) Chief Bratton Reacts to Blue Ribbon Report
July, 2006 - Los Angeles
http://www.lacp.org/2006-Articles-Main/RampartReconsidered.html