The question was not can Johnson conclusively say that the 'black book' was not misused. He was not asked to conclusively prove a negative. The question asked is does this City have ANY information AT ALL that "INDICATES" ANY misuse WHATSOEVER of the 'black book.' To that, Johnson says no. In fact, Johnson attests with his notarized signature that the city has not one shred, not one iota, not one scintilla of evidence that the 'black book' was misused.
- Why then did Frank Mickens of WFMY report: "City Manager Mitchell Johnson claims the special intelligence division used the book to conduct bogus investigations of black officers."
- Why then did Lorraine Ahearn report in the News & Record: "Wray said in his statement the book was kept because the sexual assault case was unresolved. Yet Johnson suggested the former chief knew the book was improper."
- Why then, did Margaret Moffet Banks report in the News & Record: "Internal investigators have said the book was shown to prostitutes and drug dealers across the county in an effort to get information on any officers who might be engaging in illegal activities."
- Why then did then-City Council person Sandy Carmany write on her blog: "However, there is ample evidence that the book was used in inappropriate ways several times in efforts to implicate black officers in exchange for favorable treatment for crime suspects."
Excellent post Roch. I hope you get some answers but I'm not holding my breath until you do.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your involvement and your open mindedness on this issue.
It might bore you to know that we seem to be agreeing on issues more lately than disagreeing. Disappointing, isn't it? Scares me.
Glad you're not one of the local bloggers who install blinders when this subject is brought up.
Roch,
ReplyDeleteOver at Guarino I suggested that in view of what we now know about the uses of the black book, and since from what I can determine the EEOC made its ruling on false and misleading statements in the N&R it seems that the EEOC has an obligation to reconsider the decision and reverse it. Joe responded that someone with standing ( say for instance a taxpayer ) would have to petition them for that to happen ( since the City Council is not so inclined and wants to shell out big bucks to make this go away ).
How about checking with your law partnwer , Sam Spagnola , to see what procedeures are required to get a re-hearing on this frivilous complaint that no longer has a leg to stand on.
Thanks
Fred Gregory
Fred,
ReplyDeleteThe EEOC made its determination largely on the City legal report and the RMA report. I don't think the N&R had much to do with it. In other words, the EEOC said, if you (the City) say its so, then it is.
So, Anon, how do you know this and who are the plantiffs ?
ReplyDeleteA first year law student could successfully defend this complaint in view of the fact that the City Legal Report and The RMA Report are replte with errors of fact and misrepresentations made of whole cloth AND NOW the CITY ( Manager ) says it ain't so.
Roch ?
Fred G.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteIt is not publicly known what the EEOC complaint is based on. Certainly, if it were the 'black book' alone, it would be a flimsy case. Additionally, EEOC complaints are very hard to actually win. There are a number of hurdles to clear, including that discrimination actually resulted in some negative job action against employees (i.e. firings or not getting promoted).
Since the City Council should be the guardians of the people's money, what I would like to know is are City Council members convinced that the evidence presented in the EEOC complaint is sufficient to make them believe that the City would likely lose in court.
This all begs the question---who's lying, Mitch Johnson or the reporters?
ReplyDeleteAnybody wanna hold their breath until Lorraine Ahearn admits she fabricated a lot of her reporting??
I didn't think so...
Roch,
ReplyDeleteMike Barber told me the City would lose. I challenged his prediction.
I have been told by other comptent trial lawyers that the case is now a slam dunk winner. Why has no one sued the City to estop the settlement of this fatuous extortion is the question.
Fred Gregory
Roch: "It is not publicly known what the EEOC complaint is based on."
ReplyDeleteThe EEOC ruled in favor of the officers and it appears that more than $750,000 will be awarded to the officers. Why? The black book. In August of 2007, the N&R published a story titled "Officers willing to negotiate." Part of that article is below.
"A letter to one officer indicated that the decision rests on the use of a photo lineup
containing pictures of several black male police officers.
The precise use of the lineup, dubbed a "black book" because of its contents as well as the binder's color, remains in dispute.
In a news conference shortly after his resignation, Wray said the book, with 19 photos of black
officers and 95 photos of random black men, was compiled to investigate claims that an African American officer assaulted a woman in a local hotel in early 2005.
But Free and his clients allege that Special Intelligence offered criminal suspects favorable treatment in exchange for any incriminating information on officers in the book. On Friday, Free said the lack of white officers in the book made the practice not only arbitrary, but discriminatory.
The EEOC appears to agree.
"There is evidence to support that said black book was used to attempt to obtain incriminating evidence against black police officers," Jose Rosenberg, director of the EEOC's Greensboro office, wrote in one letter. "A review of the record shows that non-black officers were not subjected to this type of treatment."
"But Free and his clients allege that Special Intelligence offered criminal suspects favorable treatment in exchange for any incriminating information on officers in the book."
ReplyDeleteWhere's the evidence that this is fact? The keyword here is "allege". They can allege anything they want, but don't they have to provide some semblance of proof that it is factual?
Is there a single instance of discriminatory practices by the GPD currently in the public domain?
ReplyDelete