Source: http://www.title24uscode.org/CincinnatiWarCrimesTribunal.htm
Timestamp: 2020-02-29 01:34:59
Document Index: 549705679

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2331', 'Art. 44', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 44', 'Art. 44', 'Art. 44']

Cincinnati War Crimes Tribunal Press Release and Proposal HA-29-3-05
On Tuesday, March 29, 2005 Dan Horn of the Cincinnati Enquirer wrote “U.S. judge orders police reform”
Dlott sides with monitor on access to cops. This occurred three days after the service of HA-26-3-05 where the Labor Management Agreement by and between the City of Cincinnati and Ohio Council 8 and Locals 190, 223, 240, 250, 1543 and 3119 American Federation of Municipal Employees AFL-CIO that was contracted on August 5, 2001 and expired on August 4, 2004 was exposed without the accurate diagnosis now rendered as an “ACT of WAR” in contravention to 18USC(113B)§2331(A)(4). Without a current labor contract the Cincinnati Police have suffered their 3% annual general wage increase guaranteed under Art. 44 of the Agreement for 2001-2003 to enter dispute. The disputed wage freeze does not seem motivated by any shortage of funds but in a premeditated attack anticipated in Art. 4 (B) that states, “There shall be no discrimination or retaliation toward employees by virtue of participation or nonparticipation in Union affairs”. Whereas there no legitimate financial reason for the wage freeze the Police Union and City of Cincinnati are reprimanded for letting their contract fall into disrepute and are ordered to renew the contract before the false belief in Art. 44 leads to damages against the real wages of employees of the police force. To ensure that arbitration is successful written proceedings under the Art. 44 of the Statute International Court of Justice, are all that is required to renew the human resources contract, by;
(1) Stating on the cover that the labor contract has been renewed;
(2) Eliminate the time periods set forth in Art. 44 of the Agreement to “guarantee an annual 3% general wage increase”
Officials signed two police-reform agreements in 2002 after the April 2001 riots:
Memorandum of Agreement: This agreement resolved a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the practices of the Cincinnati Police Department following the riots of April 2001. It mandates changes in training, use-of-force policies and how force is reported.
Collaborative Agreement: Separate from the agreement with Justice, this averted a lawsuit that accused Cincinnati police of racial profiling. It covers issues related to police-community relations, such as the implementation of Community Problem-Oriented Policing (CPOP). Parties to the agreement include city officials, the police union, the American Civil Liberties Union and community activists.
Monday's ruling applies to the Collaborative Agreement.
Cincinnati is now under a federal court order to reform the city Police Department. U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott issued the order Monday after concluding that city officials violated the city's police-reform agreement several times last year. Her ruling means that any future violations could be punished with fines or jail time. The decision comes almost three years after city and police officials signed the Collaborative Agreement, a landmark deal that promised to reform police policies through a cooperative effort with community leaders and civil rights activists.
The two sides feuded several times last year before ending up in court after the city denied court-appointed monitors access to staff meetings and ride-alongs with police. One of the monitors, who are intended to track the progress of reforms, was escorted from police headquarters under orders of Chief Tom Streicher. In her ruling Monday, Dlott said the threat of stiff penalties is the best way to ensure that the city will follow the rules set down in the agreement.
"Now there is a stick as well as a carrot," said Scott Greenwood, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. "This finding is not based on a minor technical violation. This is about a fundamental breakdown - or shutdown - on the city's part."
City and police officials have admitted denying access to the monitors but have argued that the disagreements were minor and did not warrant the court's intervention.
"I think it's a bad ruling. It risks the whole notion of a collaborative because it makes it a court case," Mayor Charlie Luken said. "Common sense is taking a hike on this one."
Luken said the community activists who signed the original deal in 2002 have not held up their end of the bargain and have slowed progress in improving relations between police and blacks. The Black United Front, which joined with the ACLU when the deal was signed, was allowed to withdraw from the agreement in 2003.
"They're not selling this to the community," Luken said. "It's just a bunch of lawyers in a room arguing. The lawyers have taken over."
Both sides say that was never the plan. Dlott's order represents a fundamental change to an agreement that former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft once hailed as a model of cooperation. The Collaborative Agreement, which averted a lawsuit over allegations of racial profiling, was intended to reform police policies while also improving communication between officers and citizens. Signed April 3, 2002, the agreement called for regular meetings among the parties in hopes of avoiding a court showdown like the one that led to Dlott's ruling Monday. The judge's decision supports the findings of a magistrate who had recommended in January that she impose a court order on the city. Dlott said the evidence gave her no other choice.
"The kind of material breach that occurred as a result of the city's actions has served to effectively short-circuit the process of monitoring," Dlott wrote in her decision. "The damage to the monitoring process caused by the denial of access must be prevented from occurring again."
Dlott's lead monitor, Saul Green, could not be reached Monday. But he has said police denied access to members of his team on several occasions last year. Green's team complained that police officials were demeaning and reluctant to cooperate. On one occasion, a police commander described a monitor's question as "the stupidest" he'd ever heard. Vice Mayor Alicia Reece said police leadership bears much of the responsibility for the judge's order Monday. "That something as simple as access could get us to this point is incredible," she said.
Streicher said Monday that he had not yet read Dlott's order. But in January, he said the disputes arose because the monitors were not clear on what police had to do to comply with the Collaborative Agreement. Streicher said his department's actions toward the monitors were deliberate and meant as a way to force more concrete goals to be set. Luken has said he thinks that police already are in "substantial compliance" with the Collaborative Agreement, as well as a separate but related agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. The deal with Justice mandates changes in training, use-of-force policies and how force is reported. Despite the disagreements, Luken said, progress has been made.
"Meaningful reforms are happening every day between the police and residents," Luken said. "I think citizens and the police are getting their acts together."
Greenwood said the collaborative meetings have been more productive since January and that both sides are working through their differences. He said Dlott's order should ensure that the progress continues.
"It's disappointing that it's come to this, but it's also necessary," Greenwood said. "The court order requires reform. It's not an option to disregard a court order."
It is hoped that the US District Court will co-operate with Hospitals & Asylums to publish the War Crime Tribunal at www.title24uscode.org/Litigation.htm. This Press Release would be the first entry in the Table of Contents. I could be paid with the $3,000 email espionage settlement in the Stolen Balance Budget v. Cincinnati Bell HA-31-3-05 that is hereunder referred to Judge Herman Weber whose Social Security I still live on although much diminished as reported in the lengthy Declaration of Independence of the Spring Equinox. Judge Weber would look better on the Security Fraud case involving Computer Crime under 18USCI(47)1030(e)(2)(A)., in fact by overcoming this espionage that obviously comes from the Hamilton County Prosecutor maybe he could win the US District Court the liberty to publish their cases on their own website without any retaliation against the witnesses. I recommend for the Cincinnati Police War Crimes Tribunal that all the Judges of the US District Court ratify any judgment before submitting them to Hospitals & Asylums for publication by email.
Anthony J. Sanders title24uscode@aol.com
Enquirer E-mail dhorn@enquirer.com