Federal Suit Filed Against DC's Jim Crow Policing  

     

   The MPD is named in the suit for failing to protect and serve black residents and visitors by allowing and aiding transit officers in impersonating law enforcement officers in the streets, The MPD allows the transit officers to "arrest" people, to search and seize property, to seize and transport to police stations, where they have the same access as DC police officers, including to cell keys and cells in which to place the people they kidnap. ITJ shows in the suit that by law, transit officers are not "law enforcement" officers and by no stretch of the language of the law, act as law enforcement officers, or be authorized to act as such. The WMATA police are merely the security service for the regional transit system created to "provide protection for patrons, personnel, and facilities" of WMATA. (DC §9-1107.01 (76)) 

   The attorneys for Richard Sarles (pic) and WMATA responded to the suit by admitting to all of the factual allegations made against them, contending that their transit officers are law enforcement officer no different from MPD or any other law enforcement agencies for the metropolitan counties where ever WMATA makes tracks. The attorneys stated that the law creating the agency makes transit security "law enforcement" officers the same as DC police, which an entirely contrary reading of the statute. The statute, §9-1107.01 (76), explicitly restricts the conduct and authority of the transit police to "providing for the protection of patrons, personnel, and facilities" of WMATA. They are not authorized to patrol the streets in search of suspects, making street arrests, traffic stops, breaking in and searching people's homes, or seizing and transporting people to MPD stations. 

     By admitting to the facts alleged against it WMATA left "no genuine issue of material fact" in dispute, leaving only for the court to make a summary judgement based on the law. Cathy Lanier and MPD, represented by the DC Attorney General, responded by also admitting to the factual allegations made against them, but cutely responded that Lanier and the MPD did not "authorize" the transit police to act as DC law enforcement, the law did. Thus, Lanier, the MPD, and the DC Attorney General all consider and treat transit officers as "law enforcement" on the streets of DC based on a wrongful representation of the statute - a deliberately "wrongful" reading of the statute. However, the statute itself is unambiguous in its intent when it came to providing for security of the regional transit system in DC, as is the same in each jurisdiction in which Metro operates.  

    The attorneys for WMATA and DC blatantly put forth a deliberate misreading and misrepresentation of of the law based on a single poorly worded sentence in "sub-paragraph (a)" of subsection (76),providing for the creation of the transit police, where it is stated that:                                                                       

                                                                    "The Metro Transit Police shall have   the powers and  duties...of enforcing... the laws, ordinances, and regulations of the political subdivisions"     

                                                                                                                                      The statute include restricts the security authority of the transit cops to  "Transit Zones." and only extends it beyond as the result of "hot" or close pursuit. 

     The U.S. Attorneys Office for DC was also named as a defendant in the suit for initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution against Solomon Davis based on the illegal actions of the transit officers and the MPD. Solomon was never arrested by an MPD officer, nor charged with committing any offense by an MPD officer. Thus, Solomon Davis had never been "arrested" and charged with an offense, a fact which the U.S. Attorneys Office was duty bound to make sure had in fact occurred. In response to the suit, although the U.S. Attorneys Office did not outright admit to the factual allegations made against it, but instead conceded that it had engaged in a malicious prosecution. However, still, the U.S. Attorneys office urged the court to accord it "absolute" or "qualified" immunity. Neither of these defenses is applies or is available for actions committed by prosecutors who abuse their office by initiating prosecutions without basis in law and fact, or a "malicious prosecution." Even after ITJ helped Solomon to show that the case and the proceedings were based in fraud, the U.S. Attorenys Office persisted, insisting on pursuing efforts to try intimidating and coercing Solomon into entering a guilty plea. 

   ( ITJ  Photo-shopped his iconic picture to use on the flier                  informing the public about the issue and Solomon's fight)       When intimidation failed, the U.S. Attorney shifted to  trying to entice Solomon from his position, with the last  attempt being the reduction of "unlawful gun possession,"  which is always a felony under DC law, to "misdemeanor" unlawful possession of a gun. Ultimately, when it became clear that Solomon was not backing down on his challenge, three days before the matter was to be dismissed for lack of "probable cause," the U.S. Attorneys Office quietly went to senior judge Milton C. Lee with a "motion" to have the matter dismissed "without prejudice." Only when an arrest or prosecution is dismissed for "lack of probable" cause does the victim have a course for criminal and/or civil redress, by having the matter dismissed "without prejudice," the U.S. Attorneys Office clearly sought to deprive Solomon of the right to seek redress, furthering the general "Jim Crow" scheme to violate his every right.

    When senior judge Milton C. Lee (pic) accepted and entertained the "motion" by the U.S. Attorney, he knowingly acted in violation of the Constitution and laws, for not only was the matter properly before him, but he knew that Solomon had not been given any due notice of the motion and no opportunity to respond. Lee instantly granted the U.S, Attorneys motion, making him liable to suit and criminal prosecution since he did not act as a judge. Lee, as judge, knew that he had no lawful authority to be acting in matter not assigned to him, on a dispositive "motion" that he also knew had not been served on the opposing party. Lee certainly could hear the motion, but only upon the following of certain procedures to ensure constitutional protections, such as the right to due notice and to be heard. Even though Lee is black, as are many of the other defendants named in the suit, it does take away from the fact that Solomon and his family continue to be subjected to racist segregationist practices.  

   The suit also named three other DC "Superior" court judges as defendants, one for facilitating the malicious prosecution by failing to make a "probable cause" determination as required by the Fourth amendment. That judge was Hiedi Pasicow, who initially tried to disregard and intimidate Solomon when he stood and raised the fact that she had no jurisdiction. After two subsequent attempts to scare Solomon off his position failed, Pasicow disappeared and the U.S. Attorney went to another judge to enter an order dismissing the matter "without prejudice." The matter was to have been dismissed for lack of probable cause, which would open all of the parties involved, including the U.S. Attorney and Pasicow, to civil and criminal liability. However, by going to another judge, Milton C. Lee, the U.S. Attorney and Lee acted in violation of Solomon's due process and equal protection rights. 

 The other two DC judges named in the suit, Rodney Wertheim and Cheryl M. Long, are both sued for issuing the search warrants to the transit cops. However, the federal judge to whom the case was assigned, Richard Leon (pic), refused to isue process on the named judges simply because they were judges. The law does not permit judges to unilaterally award the benefit of any immunity defense without that person themselves putting forth that defense. In the case of a person who is a judge, they cannot be sued for judicial decisions, but are liable for acts not within the power of the office. Judges cannot subject people to bogus court proceedings, may not issue warrants to security guards, and cannot conduct bogus proceedings. In December, ITJ helped the Davis family file a demand that Richard Leon remove himself for joining the conspiracy. This is not a matter where Leon has any discretion, his action showed gross bias with criminal intent and federal statutory law requires his removing himself or being removed by the chief judge of the district court.              _________________________________________________________________

 Related:  Paddi-Roller/Vigilante Policing

    The Cover-up in the killing of Trey Joyner  

     In 2009, 25-year old Trey Joyner was followed into an alley of the Trinidad neighborhood in DC, by six white men, who pumped seven bullets into his back.The killing was treated as a "police shooting," even though the six white men were employed as U.S. Park Police and the Trinidad neighborhood is not federal park land. Although much was made about the fact that they were also "off duty" and in plain clothes, these facts are irrelevant to whether they were authorized by law to be "policing" outside of a U.S. Park, off-duty. The MPD never made any effort to arrest or investigate the murder, and the DC U.S. Attorney whisked the matter off to Pennsylvania, where the six killers were mysteriously cleared even though it was never shown that they were acting in a law enforcement capacity even though they were not acting under or in connection with the MPD, nor with any FBI gang investigation. So, how where they "police" when they pumped those seven bullets into Trey Joyner's back?                    __________________________________________________________________

  JOIN THE FIGHT 

   The Institute for Tsunamic Justice is not an offering legal assistance, but to assist persons who qualify to pursue their rights under the law. This is not a legal service or free legal assistance to individuals, but a self-advocacy and community empowerment for equal justice. 

    Registering as a possible claimant in this suit  is subject to participation in actions by ITJ and the Peoples' Defense Network essential to publicizing the issues and conducting public education. You may be asked and expected to volunteer to help: 

  •  pass out information
  •  testify
  • organize community meetings
  • generate interest and support

 

Claim Registeration

Where you?






Judge Alprin.docm Judge Alprin.docm
Size : 23.519 Kb
Type : docm
D. Dixon SPR CRT .doc D. Dixon SPR CRT .doc
Size : 37 Kb
Type : doc
Order1.pdf Order1.pdf
Size : 358.945 Kb
Type : pdf
Error Demand.doc Error Demand.doc
Size : 22.5 Kb
Type : doc

 1. Petition to Judge Geoffrey Alprin giving him the opportunity to void his own order, dispel the unlawful conviction, and order the arrest expunged from all public records. 

2. Dorita Dixon then files for action from chief judge Lee Saterfield when Alprin passes her petition off to the U.S. Attorney without ever addressing it as a legal action.

3.  Satterfield passes the matter on to senior judges who decide that rather than doing the right thing, which did not require a hearing, they would "order" Dorita to appear as the "defendant" for a "Diversion Status" hearing, stating as a matter of fact that Dorita had entered an "agreement" with the U.S. Attorney.

4.   Dorita informs the court that she will not be appearing as the "defendant," but as the prosecutor.

Sign up to receive updates updates on this initiative