UPDATED INFORMATION!
Prosecuting Attorney Joe Gagnon And Attorney Mary C. O’Connell Guilty of Covering Up Police Brutality https://richardboydenreport.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/prosecuting-attorney-joe-gagnon-and-attorney-mary-c-oconnell-guilty-of-covering-up-police-brutality/
https://richardboydenreport.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/exposing-attorneys-and-their-rouge-cops-who-withold-and-doctor-evidence/
Michael S. Stewart is a innocent victim of law enforcement brutality verging on the edge of being murdered by the rogue officers named below from Clinton County Missouri and North Kansas City Missouri- Clay County. At their hands he was mercilessly beat, his head smashed into concrete walls and being choked when handcuffed. He was convicted in a Clinton County court of staged legal nepotism beginning with the cops and sheriffs in who beat him there to the prosecuting attorney to the judge and then by the “friends of the cops and the court” jury of not his peers who found him guilty based upon “cop lies” and no legal proof other then their “lies”. Every Constitutional right of Stewart was violated in the process.
Stewart was brutalized by Clinton County Law Enforcement to the extent he had to be taken to North Kansas City Hospital for emergency treatment. There he was beaten by the North Kansas City Cops named below with the “assistance” of some of the same officers from Clinton County.
What is most important to this case is that there was a video of what happened to Stewart and by who recorded at and by the North Kansas City Hospital. They refused to release this video to Stewart’s attorneys. In fact that video after finally released was documented to have been altered in at least 40-45 some frames and with others missing or “faces” blacked out and this was done 3 times to the same “original video”.
The Prosecuting Attorney’s in this case being Joe Gagnon of Clinton County and Dan White of Clay County were fully aware of this. One of the primary beaters of Stewart at NKC Hospital was NKCPD rouge cop Bill Ficken who has a track record of abusing citizens like Angela Roberts for example (Law Suit). The reason why NKCPD altered the video was to “hide” the beatings by Ficken and the other NKCPD Officers being Romine and Kimmel with the full knowledge of Clay County Prosecutor Dan White and Clinton County Prosector Joe Gagnon.
Add to this the FACT that the United States Attorney Tom Larsen is aware of this along with Kansas City FBI Special Agent In Charge Darrin Jones because Stewart was interviewed by a FBI agent and FBI Agent Wisecut who oversees investigations of this type is fully aware of Stewarts case. So far the FEDS have said nothing and done nothing up to this point in time.
In reading the news report and law suit information below concerning Stewart combined with the perjury and obstruction of justice by the Prosecuting Attorney’s and Judges who I believe are in collusion with the attorneys representing the officers that brutalized Stewart, it should be as clear to you as it is to me that those who have done what they have to Michael S. Stewart that it would be in their “best interest” that he would end of DEAD. Their goal is just that which is why they want him to be sent back to the Clinton County Jail again with arrangements being made with inmates (who hate cops) to have him “murdered”. This would relieve them of the “law suit” as well as their “rico act” crimes committed by the cops named in collusion with prosecuting attorneys and jurisdictions involved hoping that they will never be exposed for their crimes against this man and that they never suffer the legal consequences with the guilty cops keeping their jobs.
Below I have outlined below with documentation other exact and similar cases where prosecuting attorney’s and cops were convicted of the same exact crimes that Gagnon and White and Clinton County and NKCP officers have committed against Stewart. They were found are GUILTY OF those crimes including the altering of video’s in order to hide their assaults including murder. Even the “software” used is identified with admissions by the officers of what they did which same software was used to alter the North Kansas City Hospital video by North Kansas City Police Department.
Every attorney involved in the case of Stewart is named below and each and every one of them are now exposed with examples given of what happened to those who did the same to other victims. Say disbarred to JAIL!
Michael S. Stewart is a honourable man who is not guilty of what he was and is charged with. I am hoping the FBI and US Attorney do their jobs before he ends up dead…unless that is…that is what they want also which very well could be the case since they have said and done nothing up to this day in spite of the evidence exposing the “real criminals” in Stewart’s case which they now have in their hands,
Lastly…every news outlet and reporter who documented similar cases is going to receive this information just to YOU reading this will know that you will be exposed nation wide! Each reporter will receive Stewart’s contact information. Not only that…so will ever Facebook and Twitter page that is connected to every aspect of this case! AND…I forgot…say American Bar…among others!
From the Clinton County Leader
“Michael S. Stewart of Parkville, Mo., filed a personal injury suit against individuals from the three departments on Monday, August 8. In the suit, Stewart and his wife, Jennifer Stewart, seek damages in excess of $2.7 million stemming from alleged incidents in August of 2014.
The suit alleges three separate counts of excessive force, two counts of failure to protect constitutional rights, and individual counts of wrongful arrest and conspiracy. Additionally, the suit alleges the loss of consortium on the part of Jennifer Stewart.
Those locally named as defendants in the suit include David Speiser and John Wilson, then of the Lathrop Police Department, Deputies John Patterson and Jeffery Parton of the Clinton County Sheriff’s Department, and William Neil and Sheriff Porter Hensen of the Clinton County Sheriff’s Department. Speiser also worked at the time for the Clinton County Sheriff’s Department. Two defendants from the North Kansas City Police Department – Christopher Kimmel and an unnamed shift sergeant (his name is Romine) are named in the lawsuit, as is Gary Ficken, Jr., a security officer at North Kansas City Hospital.”
Stewart et al v. Speiser et al
Plaintiff: Michael S Stewart and Jennifer Stewart
Defendant: David Speiser, John Wilson, John Patterson, Jeffrey Parton, Nicholas Neill, Porter Hensen, NKCPD cops Gary W. Ficken, Jr., Christopher Kimmel and Pat Romine
Case Number: 5:2016cv06117
Filed: September 13, 2016
Court: Missouri Western District Court
Office: St. Joseph Office
County: Clinton
Presiding Judge: Beth Phillips
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: Defendant
Police corruption
Police corruption is a form of police misconduct in which law enforcement officers end up breaking their political contract and abuse their power for personal or departmental gain. This type of corruption can involve only one officer, or it can involve a group of officers. Internal police corruption is a challenge to public trust, cohesion of departmental policies, human rights and legal violations involving serious consequences. Police corruption can take many forms.
Washington, D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691
March 8, 2017
Darrin Jones Named Special Agent in Charge of the Kansas City Division
Mr. Jones…are you going to do your job or not?
FBI Director James B. Comey has named Darrin Jones as the special agent in charge of the Kansas City Division. Mr. Jones most recently served as an executive within the Technical Collections Branch of the Operation Technology Division in Quantico, Virginia.
Mr. Jones, a native of Nebraska, entered on duty with the FBI in 1997, and began his career in the Salt Lake City Division, where he investigated international drug trafficking, cybercrime, and helped lead the counterterrorism preparations for the 2002 Olympics.
Throughout his career, Mr. Jones has held leadership positions in the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs, the Operational Technology Division, the Albuquerque Division, and the Anchorage Division.
Mr. Jones assumes his new role in early March.
Mr. Jones, a native of Nebraska, entered on duty with the FBI in 1997, and began his career in the Salt Lake City Division, where he investigated international drug trafficking, cybercrime, and helped lead the counterterrorism preparations for the 2002 Olympics.
Throughout his career, Mr. Jones has held leadership positions in the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs, the Operational Technology Division, the Albuquerque Division, and the Anchorage Division.
Mr. Jones assumes his new role in early March.
Meet the U.S. Attorney Tom Larson
Mr. Lawson…your predecessor exposed and prosecuted corrupt cops and attorneys. Are you going to expose these “criminals” and indict them? Because they are guilty of tampering with evidence etc etc etc as listed below!
Acting U.S. Attorney Tom Larson is the top-ranking federal law enforcement official in the Western District of Missouri, which includes Kansas City, St. Joseph, Columbia, Jefferson City, Springfield and Joplin.
The office is responsible for prosecuting federal crimes in the district, including crimes related to terrorism, public corruption, child exploitation, firearms, and narcotics. The office also defends the United States in civil cases and prosecutes civil claims for the United States.
FBI Civil Rights What We Investigate
Color of Law Violations
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law violations, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way. Those violations include the following acts:
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Excessive force: In making arrests, maintaining order, and defending life, law enforcement officers are allowed to use whatever force is “reasonably” necessary. The breadth and scope of the use of force is vast—from just the physical presence of the officer…to the use of deadly force. Violations of federal law occur when it can be shown that the force used was willfully “unreasonable” or “excessive.”
False arrest and fabrication of evidence: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable searches or seizures. A law enforcement official using authority provided under the color of law is allowed to stop individuals and, under certain circumstances, to search them and retain their property. It is in the abuse of that discretionary power—such as an unlawful detention or illegal confiscation of property—that a violation of a person’s civil rights may occur.
Fabricating evidence against or falsely arresting an individual also violates the color of law statute, taking away the person’s rights of due process and unreasonable seizure. In the case of deprivation of property, the color of law statute would be violated by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining a person’s property, which oversteps or misapplies the official’s authority.
The Fourteenth Amendment secures the right to due process; the Eighth Amendment prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. During an arrest or detention, these rights can be violated by the use of force amounting to punishment (summary judgment). The person accused of a crime must be allowed the opportunity to have a trial and should not be subjected to punishment without having been afforded the opportunity of the legal process.
Tampering with evidence, or evidence tampering, is an act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation (usually) by a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory authority.[1] It is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.
Tampering with evidence is closely related to the legal issue of spoliation of evidence, which is usually the civil law or due process version of the same concept (but may itself be a crime). Tampering with evidence is also closely related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice, and these two kinds of crimes are often charged together. The goal of tampering with evidence is usually to cover up a crime.
Tampering with evidence is closely related to the legal issue of spoliation of evidence, which is usually the civil law or due process version of the same concept (but may itself be a crime). Tampering with evidence is also closely related to obstruction of justice and perverting the course of justice, and these two kinds of crimes are often charged together. The goal of tampering with evidence is usually to cover up a crime.
By law enforcement
When police confiscate and destroy a citizen’s photographs or recordings of officers’ misconduct, the police’s act of destroying the evidence may be prosecuted as an act of evidence tampering, if the recordings being destroyed are potential evidence in a criminal or regulatory investigation of the officers themselves.[2] In a notable case in Nebraska, officers were charged with the felony charge of evidence tampering, as well as misdemeanor obstruction and theft, when they committed brutality and forcibly stole and destroyed the recordings, which was exposed due to a third party’s recording.[3] On the other hand, when police departments lose exonerating evidence that would create reasonable doubt for defendants in the cases they prosecute, such as dashboard-camera footage from patrol cars, it may be regarded as spoliation of evidence, potentially justifying motions to dismiss and/or mistrials. Police’s loss of evidence such as footage may be considered as both spoliation and tampering, if it both exonerates the defendant and proves police misconduct. Spoliation of exonerating evidence in criminal cases may also constitute prosecutorial misconduct if the prosecutor is complicit in doing so.
Spoliation of Evidence
Spoliation of evidence is a term often used during the process of discovery. Spoliation of evidence happens when a document or information that is required for discovery is destroyed or altered significantly. If a person negligently or intentionally withholds or destroys relevant information that will be required in an action is liable for spoliation of evidence.
When a crucial document is lost by spoliation, the courts may try to infer the original information by applying spoliation inference rule. Spoliation inference rule is a negative evidential inference. When applying the rule, courts will review the altered document with inference against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. The theory behind spoliation inference is that when a party has destroyed evidence, it shows that the party had consciousness of guilt or other reasons to avoid evidence. Hence, the court will conclude that the evidence was not in spoliation’s favour.
Spoliation of evidence is an act that is prohibited by American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Title 18 United States Code. Sanctions for spoliation are preventative, punitive and remedial in nature. Separate tort actions are also permitted.
American Bar Association Rule 3.4 prohibits a lawyer from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence pertaining to a case. Likewise Title 18 of United States Code Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519 prohibits a party from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence, and provides for criminal prosecution against the wrongdoer. Under Title 18 United States Code Section 1519, a wrongdoer can be fined in huge amounts and imprisoned up to 20 years.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 possible sanctions are as follows:
When a crucial document is lost by spoliation, the courts may try to infer the original information by applying spoliation inference rule. Spoliation inference rule is a negative evidential inference. When applying the rule, courts will review the altered document with inference against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. The theory behind spoliation inference is that when a party has destroyed evidence, it shows that the party had consciousness of guilt or other reasons to avoid evidence. Hence, the court will conclude that the evidence was not in spoliation’s favour.
Spoliation of evidence is an act that is prohibited by American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 37 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Title 18 United States Code. Sanctions for spoliation are preventative, punitive and remedial in nature. Separate tort actions are also permitted.
American Bar Association Rule 3.4 prohibits a lawyer from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence pertaining to a case. Likewise Title 18 of United States Code Sections 1503, 1510, 1512 and 1519 prohibits a party from destroying or assisting another in destroying evidence, and provides for criminal prosecution against the wrongdoer. Under Title 18 United States Code Section 1519, a wrongdoer can be fined in huge amounts and imprisoned up to 20 years.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 possible sanctions are as follows:
- dismissal of the wrongdoer’s claim;
- entering judgment against the wrongdoer;
- excluding expert testimony; and
- application of adverse inference rule.
Additionally, Rule 37 imposes fines on the wrongdoer.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigation
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
N.O. FBI agent accuses Justice Dept. of ‘systemic corruption http://www.wwltv.com/news/investigations/no-fbi-agent-accuses-justice-dept-of-systemic-corruption/424349390
BuzzFeed News reviewed 62 incidents of video footage contradicting an officer’s statement in a police report or testimony. From traffic stops to fatal force, these cases reveal how cops lie — and why they get away with it. https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertsamaha/blue-lies-matter?utm_term=.ooBZyalzvB#.suB8AlPqB3
Major Kevin Freeman NKCPD FBI trained expert in “altering videos”
http://nmindepth.com/2016/11/18/affidavit-abq-police-have-illegally-deleted-altered-videos-of-shootings/
A manual for Evidence.com published online last month by Taser supports many of Chavez’s claims about the process for editing or deleting videos.
Anyone with administrator privileges at an agency can delete videos, the manual shows. Those clips remain in a queue for seven days. And administrators can “mask” entire videos or portions of them using four different “blur levels.” Audio also can be removed.
Affidavit: ABQ police have illegally deleted, altered videos of shootings
“If I change the setting in Evidence.com to allow offline mode this will give the officer the ability to manage their videos…” – Christopher Whigham, APD Detective.
The meeting came just three days after two APD officers shot James Boyd in the foothills at the eastern edge of the city, killing the homeless man who had been illegally camping in city open space.
Control+Assault+Delete: When Cops Destroy Video Evidence
http://www.theroot.com/control-assault-delete-when-cops-destroy-video-evidenc-1794316875
Reynaldo Chaves, a former Albuquerque, N.M., cop who was designated the department’s “custodian of public records,” testified that the Police Department routinely altered and deleted lapel-camera footage, including two police shootings. In the nine-page document, Chaves revealed an organized effort by the city to destroy evidence of the police shooting of Mary Hawkes that extended all the way up the ladder to the city attorney and police leadership:
21. Specifically, I know that from 2013 to the spring of 2014, the primary person in the Criminal Forensic Unit of the City of Albuquerque Police Department, Frank Pezzano, knew how to encrypt and/or erase Taser lapel camera video with a possible result being lapel camera video would either appear blank, encrypted, altered or corrupted when produced to media and/or attorneys …
Feds investigate claims APD altered video
APD has said it edits videos to clarify them, but does not tamper or try to hide evidence. It also said it maintains original copies of all video evidence. But little detail has emerged about its editing capabilities or practices.
Frank Pezzano, an Albuquerque police detective and video technician, said police use multiple editing software programs. He said at least one software system allows officers to edit video evidence in a way that he compared to “Photoshop.”
He explained the software system during a sworn deposition testimony that was part of the lawsuit brought against the city over the police shooting of 19-year-old Hawkes, who was shot in April 2014 near Wyoming and Zuni.
He said he’s used a program called VideoFOCUS Pro and other software systems and compared VideoFOCUS Pro to Photoshop, a computer program that allows people to add or subtract images from photographs and videos.”
How to Prosecute Abusive Prosecutors
WHEN it comes to poor people arrested for felonies in Scott County, Miss., Judge Marcus D. Gordon doesn’t bother with the Constitution. He refuses to appoint counsel until arrestees have been formally charged by an indictment, which means they must languish in jail without legal representation for as long as a year.
Judge Gordon has robbed countless individuals of their freedom, locking them away from their loved ones and livelihoods for months on end. (I am the lead lawyer in a class-action suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Scott County and Judge Gordon.) In a recent interview, the judge, who sits on the Mississippi State Circuit Court, was unapologetic about his regime of indefinite detention: “The criminal system is a system of criminals. Sure, their rights are violated.” But, he added, “That’s the hardship of the criminal system.”
Former St. Louis Prosecutor Admits To Covering Up Brutal Police Beating Of A Suspect
Kiss your career goodby Gagnon!
Clinton County Prosecutor Joe Gagnon Guess who is coming after this boy and the Judges of the 43rd Circuit Court. Say ACLU! It serves Caldwell, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb and Livingston counties. This “Nepotistic Judicial Mafia Circuit Court runs a “rico make LOTS of money holding folks in jail in Clinton County ACLU suing Mississippi county while men are stuck in jail | Fox News
https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_43rd_Judicial_Circuit_Court
Judges
Associate judges
- Caldwell: Jason Kanoy[2]
- Clinton: Teresa Bingham[3]
- Daviess: Daren L. Adkins[4]
- DeKalb: J. Bartley Spear[5]
- Livingston: Jim Valbracht[6]
www.foxnews.com/us/…/aclu-suing-mississippi-county-while-men-are-stuck-in-jail.ht…Sep 27, 2014 – ACLU suing Mississippi county while men are stuck in jail. By Kyle … counsel — it’s hard to believe,” said ACLU Staff Attorney Brandon Buskey.
Former St. Louis Assistant Prosecutor Pleads Guilty to Concealing Police Officers’ Assault of Arrestee
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 514-2007/TDD (202) 514-1888
October 26, 2015
Bliss Barber Worrell, 28, of Clayton, Missouri, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey of the Eastern District of Missouri to misprision of a felony.
Worrell admitted that she failed to notify authorities that on July 22, 2014, police officers assaulted an arrestee in their custody, and that she took an affirmative step to conceal the felony. Worrell also admitted that she filed charges without disclosing knowledge of the assault to her colleagues, supervisors or the judge assigned to setting a bond. She admitted that she allowed the charges to stand despite later learning that the facts that made out the charge of attempted escape were fabricated to cover for injuries the arrestee sustained during the assault.
“Prosecutors are trusted to exercise discretion in enforcing the law and are charged above all with doing justice in a fair and impartial manner,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Gupta. “In this instance, the defendant ran afoul of her obligation to uphold the Constitution, and must therefore be held to answer for her actions.”
“An officer of the court allowed her friendship with a police officer to eclipse her public obligation to uphold justice,” said U.S. Attorney Dickinson. “This remains an ongoing investigation that extends farther than this defendant’s role in covering up an egregious civil rights violation.”
Worrell admitted that she failed to notify authorities that on July 22, 2014, police officers assaulted an arrestee in their custody, and that she took an affirmative step to conceal the felony. Worrell also admitted that she filed charges without disclosing knowledge of the assault to her colleagues, supervisors or the judge assigned to setting a bond. She admitted that she allowed the charges to stand despite later learning that the facts that made out the charge of attempted escape were fabricated to cover for injuries the arrestee sustained during the assault.
“Prosecutors are trusted to exercise discretion in enforcing the law and are charged above all with doing justice in a fair and impartial manner,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Gupta. “In this instance, the defendant ran afoul of her obligation to uphold the Constitution, and must therefore be held to answer for her actions.”
“An officer of the court allowed her friendship with a police officer to eclipse her public obligation to uphold justice,” said U.S. Attorney Dickinson. “This remains an ongoing investigation that extends farther than this defendant’s role in covering up an egregious civil rights violation.”
Former St. Louis Prosecutor Admits To Covering Up Brutal Police Beating Of A Suspect
Kiss your career GOODBYE White!
Clay Country Prosecutor Dan White
Former St. Louis Assistant Prosecutor Pleads Guilty to Concealing Police Officers’ Assault of Arrestee
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
(202) 514-2007/TDD (202) 514-1888
Bliss Barber Worrell, 28, of Clayton, Missouri, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Henry E. Autrey of the Eastern District of Missouri to misprision of a felony.
Worrell admitted that she failed to notify authorities that on July 22, 2014, police officers assaulted an arrestee in their custody, and that she took an affirmative step to conceal the felony. Worrell also admitted that she filed charges without disclosing knowledge of the assault to her colleagues, supervisors or the judge assigned to setting a bond. She admitted that she allowed the charges to stand despite later learning that the facts that made out the charge of attempted escape were fabricated to cover for injuries the arrestee sustained during the assault.
“Prosecutors are trusted to exercise discretion in enforcing the law and are charged above all with doing justice in a fair and impartial manner,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Gupta. “In this instance, the defendant ran afoul of her obligation to uphold the Constitution, and must therefore be held to answer for her actions.”
“An officer of the court allowed her friendship with a police officer to eclipse her public obligation to uphold justice,” said U.S. Attorney Dickinson. “This remains an ongoing investigation that extends farther than this defendant’s role in covering up an egregious civil rights violation.”
Worrell admitted that she failed to notify authorities that on July 22, 2014, police officers assaulted an arrestee in their custody, and that she took an affirmative step to conceal the felony. Worrell also admitted that she filed charges without disclosing knowledge of the assault to her colleagues, supervisors or the judge assigned to setting a bond. She admitted that she allowed the charges to stand despite later learning that the facts that made out the charge of attempted escape were fabricated to cover for injuries the arrestee sustained during the assault.
“Prosecutors are trusted to exercise discretion in enforcing the law and are charged above all with doing justice in a fair and impartial manner,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Gupta. “In this instance, the defendant ran afoul of her obligation to uphold the Constitution, and must therefore be held to answer for her actions.”
“An officer of the court allowed her friendship with a police officer to eclipse her public obligation to uphold justice,” said U.S. Attorney Dickinson. “This remains an ongoing investigation that extends farther than this defendant’s role in covering up an egregious civil rights violation.”
October 26, 2015
How to Prosecute Abusive Prosecutors
“As long as the defendant is not given access to substantial discovery devices, discovery is a one-way street
running in favor of the prosecution with the defendant relegated for the accumulation of the information
necessary to his defence to a haphazard investigation, which in most cases he is unable properly to finance
and which is without formal sanction or judicial assistance. The realistic effect of the denial of discovery
is to permit the prosecution “to monopolize the sources of evidence applicable to the case to use or not
as might be deemed most advantageous” to it. http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2462&context=nclr
Misconduct and punishment. State disciplinary authorities investigate prosecutors accused of misconduct
Unlike any private attorney, the local prosecutor—be he district attorney, county attorney, or criminal district attorney—is an elected official whose office is constitutionally mandated and protected. Prosecutors are still subject to the Rules of Professional Responsibility, but they must police themselves at the trial court level because of their status as independent members of the judicial branch of government. Such a holding is not tantamount to making the fox guardian of the henhouse or letting the wolf keep watch on the flock, because a prosecutor who violates ethical rules is subject to the disciplining authority of the State Bar like any other attorney. Perhaps even more importantly, as mentioned above, his violation of the rules will subject his cases to reversal on appeal when his unprofessional conduct results in a denial of due process to a defendant. Lastly, he, like all elected public officials, must regularly answer to the will of the electorate. Should his conduct create too much appearance of impropriety and public suspicion, he will ultimately answer to the voters. — State ex rel. Eidson v. Edwards, 793 S.W.2d 1 (Tx. 1990)
575.270. 1. A person commits the crime of tampering with a witness or victim if, with the purpose to induce a witness or a prospective witness or a victim in an official proceeding to disobey a subpoena or other legal process, [or] to absent himself or herself from any proceeding to avoid subpoena or other legal process, [or] to withhold evidence, information or documents, or to testify falsely, he or she:
(1) [Threatens or causes harm to any person or property; or
(2) Uses force, threats or deception; or
(3)] Offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit, direct or indirect, upon such witness or victim; or
[(4)] (2) Conveys any [of the foregoing] benefit, directly or indirectly, to another in furtherance of a conspiracy.
2. [A person commits the crime of “victim tampering” if, with purpose to do so, he prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade any person who has been a victim of any crime or a person who is acting on behalf of any such victim from:
(1) Making any report of such victimization to any peace officer, or state, local or federal law enforcement officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge;
(2) Causing a complaint, indictment or information to be sought and prosecuted or assisting in the prosecution thereof;
(1) [Threatens or causes harm to any person or property; or
(2) Uses force, threats or deception; or
(3)] Offers, confers or agrees to confer any benefit, direct or indirect, upon such witness or victim; or
[(4)] (2) Conveys any [of the foregoing] benefit, directly or indirectly, to another in furtherance of a conspiracy.
2. [A person commits the crime of “victim tampering” if, with purpose to do so, he prevents or dissuades or attempts to prevent or dissuade any person who has been a victim of any crime or a person who is acting on behalf of any such victim from:
(1) Making any report of such victimization to any peace officer, or state, local or federal law enforcement officer or prosecuting agency or to any judge;
(2) Causing a complaint, indictment or information to be sought and prosecuted or assisting in the prosecution thereof;
Court Says Cops Can’t Testify In Case After Destroying Footage Of DUI Arrest
Patrick Romine
Christopher Kimmel (No mug shot)
Attorneys defending rogue NKCPD cops being turned into the American Bar and other “interested parties”!
ALL of these attorneys knew about and approved of the altering of the NKC Hospital video working with the 2 prosecuting attorneys to protect the guilty rogue cops who almost murdered Stewart!
David S. Baker
Managing Partner
dbaker@fisherpatterson.com
Kansas City, Missouri Office
9229 Ward Parkway, Suite 370
Kansas City, MO 64114
Telephone: (816) 523-4667, Ext. 121
Fax: (816) 523-5667
Managing Partner
dbaker@fisherpatterson.com
Kansas City, Missouri Office
9229 Ward Parkway, Suite 370
Kansas City, MO 64114
Telephone: (816) 523-4667, Ext. 121
Fax: (816) 523-5667
| Defendant: Gary W. Ficken, Jr. | |
|---|---|
| Represented By: | Timothy S. Frets http://dfrglaw.com/attorneys/frets-timothy-s/ |
| Represented By: | Mary C. OConnell  |
| Represented By: | John W. Witten |
| Defendant: Christopher Kimmel | |
| Represented By: | Karen J. Halbrook |
| Represented By: | Lindsay Poehling Windham |
| Defendant: Pat Romine | |
| Represented By: | Karen J. Halbrook |
| Represented By: | Lindsay Poehling Windham |
North Kansas City Hospital hired a known sexual predator named Price who drugged a woman and stuck his fingers in her vagina while maintaining an “erect penis”. North Kansas City Hospital is owned by North Kansas City who’s employee is defended by attorney’s and Ceasar’s gets tagged which is not their fault. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mo-court-of-appeals/1558546.html
North Kansas City Hospital Leaders Who Are Paying The Above Named Attorneys…the same attorneys who defend Ficken and others and allowed for the video to be “altered” which documented the assault of Michael S. Stewart by LE at their hospital.
Here are the executives who represent North Kansas City Hospital. Notice how many women who evidently have to no problem what takes place in their facility.
