Quoted Text

On this, March 26, 2008, the 200th Anniversary of the incorporation of the City of Schenectady, this brief history is dedicated to our families, often unrecognized, they are an essential part of the law enforcement community and public service.
Their support and courage in the face of adversity strengthens our resolve in having chosen a profession that  is not merely a job, but a lifestyle -- a dedication to doing what is right and just in the service of humanity.

Quoted Text

Illegal Police Department Activity Threaten to Bankrupt Counties Nationwide

Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
February 7, 2013





Local police departments (LPDs) across the nation are incorporated as specialized non-profits. Most LPDs are known to the Secretary of State in their respective state as an association which gives the impression to the average citizen that this is a union. However this is not the case.

The LPDs are contracted by the City Council to preform police services and securitize the city they are hired in. This is the exchange of a local government hiring a private security firm to stabilize the local population and generate revenue for the city through tickets, arrests and recording infractions. However, this does not include upholding local laws, as the County Sheriff’s Office is elected to take charge of.

The problem with this system is that the LPDs, being corporations, are subject to corporate law. And corporations fall into dissolution (i.e. the termination of the corporation) for various reasons quite often. When it is the LPD that dissolves; this becomes a question of legal authority over the citizens by the hired private security firm known as the LPD.

Corporations that dissolve are not allowed by law to conduct business. These same rules apply to the LPD that is actually a corporation hired by the local government or city council to preform police services.

For example, in the State of Oregon, over 12 LPDs are in dissolution. On the Secretary of State website, when a LPD is dissolved it is classified as “INA” or inactive. This includes LPDs in the following cities:

• Beaverton
• Canby
• Charleston
• Eugene
• Gresham
• King County
• Lake Oswego
• Lebanon
• Portland
• Sherwood
• Weston

According to corporate law, if a corporation dissolves, it must withdraw as a business entity. This means that once the LPD is dissolved, they cannot continue to perform police services for the city in which they were hired.

And in fact, should this be brought to the public, it might be common place (as it is in the State of Oregon) that LPDs are in dissolution and not legally allowed to conduct police services because they lack legal authority as a dissolved corporation.

It also stands that the local governments that are privy to this information would be involved in not only egregious corruption but are knowingly misleading the citizens of their towns and cities. Once the LPD is dissolved, from the date of dissolution, any arrest, ticket, or police service preformed is now an illegal act. It is tantamount to a citizen impersonating a police officer which as serious legal ramifications.

Should citizens become aware of this fact in their city – that their LPD is a corporation that has dissolved and is continuing to operate as if they have legal right to do so – there would be justified legal recourse for every citizen who had been arrested, jailed, forced to pay a ticket of any kind and forced to appear in municipal court under those circumstances (including court costs, attorney’s fees and fees attributed by the court).

In 2012, Louis F. Quijas, Assistant Secretary of the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement (OSLLE), for the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained the purpose of the OSLLE as a front “office that provided coordination and partnership with state, local, and tribal law enforcement.”

The OSLLE was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. It was created to “lead the coordination of DHS-wide policies relating to state, local, and tribal law enforcement’s role in preventing acts of terrorism and to serve as the primary liaison between non-Federal law enforcement agencies across the country and the Department.”

Intelligence is disseminated through OSLLE to LPDs or “non-Federal law enforcement partners” to keep information flowing through initiatives such as the “If You See Something, Say Something™”, the Blue Campaign, the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI), and the Department’s efforts in Countering Violent Extremism.

OSLLE consistently works with LPDs on education, actionable information, operations and intelligence for the purpose of their part in the operations of the DHS with regard to keeping “our homeland safe”.

OSLLE also works as a liaison between LPDs to maintain DHS leadership and considerations of “issues, concerns, and requirements of state, local, and tribal law enforcement during budget, grant, and policy development processes.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) upholds relationships with LPDs for the purposes of and participation with National Preparedness Grant Program that began this year.

To ensure that local police departments continue to meet the requirements of training from DHS, officers regularly attend the DHS Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.

LPDs are focused through OSLLE and DHS to “remain vigilant and to protect our communities from all threats, whether terrorism or other criminal activities” as DHS expands its control over local law enforcement and the communities they oversee.

As stated in the DHS directive from the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement (SLLE), the assistant Secretary for SLLE has “the primary official responsible for leading the coordination of Department-wide policies related to the role of state, tribal, and local law enforcement in preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man- made disasters within the US.”

This directive also sets guidelines of advocacy for DHS by the LPDs. Authorization of DHS to take over LPDs is given in Title 6 of the United States Code, Section 607, “Terrorism prevention”.

In 2008, the Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that LPD “make up more than two-thirds of the 18,000 state and local law enforcement agencies in the US” which translates to an estimated 12,501 law enforcement agencies. Of those LPDs, there are more than 461,000 sworn officers.

Last year President Obama signed an executive order (EO) that created the White House Homeland Security Partnership Council and Steering Committee which tied DHS to local partnerships, federal and private institutions “to address homeland security challenges.”

Members of the Steering Committee include:

• Department of State
• Department of US Treasury
• Department of Defense
• Department of Justice
• Department of Transportation
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• The Federal Bureau of Investigations

In 2011, Congress encouraged private sector “police companies” to replace law enforcement on the State and local level by coercing a new police protection insurance that would tack on a fee to citizens for the use of “police protection”.

This move was justified by having citizens pay for the police to be called to scenes as a “communal service” that is contractual just as any other service or good is paid for. As a customer, the citizen would tell 911 dispatch their insurance information for payment purposes to be billed after the police were deployed to the scene, or services were rendered.

Turning LPDs into private security firms that provide services to the public was the scheme behind privatizing law enforcement.

Under state government contract, private security firms preform law enforcement services. With legislative bodies on both the state and Congressional level supporting this change, private corporations enter into contractual agreements with city councils to provide armed security patrol. Just as a rent-a-cop is hired to secure private property, local police departments are masked rent-a-cops that were hired by local government to secure their city.

This fact has been hidden from public scrutiny and has added to the blending of social perception of what the police are and what they do so that police services are able to function without question. At the same time, citizens are expected to pay fees for these “services” that were once inherent to life in a structured town or city.

In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission” which outlined in part on how to redirect efforts of the federal government from international terrorism toward home-grown terrorists and build a DHS-controlled police force agency that would control all cities and towns through the use of local police departments.

DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which necessitates the militarization of local police in major cities in the US and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.

Private corporations have been parading as public servants policing cities and towns across America without the knowledge of the average citizen for quite some time. Although they wear the same badges as LPDs of the past, these private security firms are not there to uphold peace or enforce any laws and city ordinances. Just like any other corporation, they seek out opportunities to collect revenue for the benefit of the city that hired them.

TOP 10% : NEW ARTICLES
Transhumanist Scientists Successfully Link Rat Brains in Telepathy Experiment
Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism March 1, 2013     Researchers at Duke University and scientists at the Safra International Institute for Neuroscience of Natal have collaborated on a project to solve the question of telepathy and neurotechnology. In a study published this week, Miguel Nicolelis has pioneered brain-computer interfaces and was the lead author […]
Senators Debate Permanent Records of Gun Purchases Kept by Gov Agencies
Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism March 1, 2013     Neil Heslin, father of a boy who was killed in the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee in near graphic detail about how his small son was murdered with a gunshot to the head. Democrats on Capitol Hill have ramped up […]
Obama Climate Change Exec Order & the Carbon Tax Scheme
Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism February 28, 2013     President Obama is pushing for climate change policies to the extent that he will consider signing an executive order to make sure his proposed changes are implemented. Obama stated in his State of the Union address that: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, […]
Obama Proposes Government Mandates For Universal Preschool Programs
Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism February 28, 2013     In President Obama’s State of the Union address he discussed the idea of a government-sponsored universal preschool program to enhance the middle class. Obama claimed that children benefit from preschool while having our children enter indoctrination stations earlier will cause a big “boosting [of] gradu […]
Study: Heat Given Off By Humans & Cities Are Causing Global Warming
Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism February 28, 2013     In a recent man-made climate change alarmist study entitled “Reductions in Labour Capacity From Heat Stress Under Climate Warming” which states that “a fundamental aspect of greenhouse-gas-induced warming is a global-scale increase in absolute humidity.” Because of “continued warming” there will be an “i […]
Police Depts & FBI Use Digital Data From Phones & Internet to Spy on Citizens
Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism February 27, 2013     The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) wants internet service providers (ISPs) to support their proposal that would require corporations like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Yahoo and others to have backdoors installed specifically for US government surveillance purposes. The FBI’s outline called “Going […]
Bernanke Continues Massive QE3 US Land-Grab to Stimulate the Economy
Susanne Posel Occupy Corporatism February 27, 2013     Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank spoke to the Senate Banking Committee, defending the $85 billion buy-back of mortgage-backed securities by the central bank; essentially resulting in a massive land-grab in the US by the technocrats. Bernanke said: “We do not see the potential […]

Quoted Text

Development of Theory
Michel Foucault claims in Western culture, the contemporary concept of police paid by the government was developed by French legal scholars and practitioners in the 17th and early 18th centuries, notably with Nicolas Delamare's Traité de la Police ("Treatise on the Police"), first published in 1705. The German Polizeiwissenschaft (Science of Police) first theorized by Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi was also an important theoretical work on the formulation of police.[17]
As conceptualized by the Polizeiwissenschaft, the police had an economic and social duty ("procuring abundance"). It was in charge of demographic concerns and needed to be incorporated within the western political philosophy system of raison d'état and therefore giving the superficial appearance of empowering the population (and unwittingly supervising the population), which, according to mercantilist theory, was to be the main strength of the state. Thus, its functions largely overreached simple law enforcement activities and included public health concerns, urban planning (which was important because of the miasma theory of disease; thus, cemeteries were moved out of town, etc.), and surveillance of prices.[18]
Development of modern police was contemporary to the formation of the state, later defined by sociologist Max Weber as achieving a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force" and which was primarily exercised by the police and the military. Marxist theory situates the development of the modern state as part of the rise of capitalism, in which the police are one component of the bourgeoisie's repressive apparatus for subjugating the working class.

Quoted Text

United States
Main article: Law enforcement in the United States
In British North America, policing was initially provided by local elected officials. For instance, the New York Sheriff's Office was founded in 1626, and the Albany County Sheriff's Department in the 1660s. In the colonial period, policing was provided by elected sheriffs and local militias.
In 1789 the US Marshals Service was established, followed by other federal services such as the US Parks Police (1791)[19] and US Mint Police (1792).[20] The first city police services were established in Philadelphia in 1751,[21] Richmond, Virginia in 1807,[22] Boston in 1838,[23] and New York in 1845.[24] The US Secret Service was founded in 1865 and was for some time the main investigative body for the federal government.[25]


A Deputy U.S. Marshal covers his fellow officers with an M4 carbine during a "knock-and-announce" procedure
After the civil war, policing became more para-military in character, with the increased use of uniforms and military ranks. Before this, sheriff's offices had been non-uniformed organizations without a para-military hierarchy.[citation needed]
In the American Old West, policing was often of very poor quality.[citation needed] The Army often provided some policing alongside poorly resourced sheriffs and temporarily organised posses.[citation needed] Public organizations were supplemented by private contractors, notably the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which was hired by individuals, businessmen, local governments and the federal government. At its height, the Pinkerton Agency's numbers exceeded those of the standing army of the United States.[citation needed]
In recent years, in addition to federal, state, and local forces, some special districts have been formed to provide extra police protection in designated areas. These districts may be known as neighborhood improvement districts, crime prevention districts, or security districts.[26]
In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.[27]
There are more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers now serving in the United States.[28]

Quoted Text

Private police in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Private police in the United States are law enforcement bodies that are owned and/or controlled by non-governmental entities such as security agencies. There is a strong overlap between the work of police and security, given that they share the same goals, perform the same activities and cooperate with one another, and often the same individuals work in both fields simultaneously, with police moonlighting as security officers.[1] The overlap is even more pronounced when the police are private. Thus, it can be hard to draw a line between what is a private policeman and what is a public police officer. Private investigation is extensively used to investigate workplace crime.[2]
Perhaps the easiest distinction to draw between public and private police is by sponsorship (i.e. by government or by private entities).[3] Thus, private companies to whom police work is contracted out by the government would still be considered public police, since they are funded by government, and private security officers would be considered private police. Under the United States code security are police officers and hold all powers of public police. There is also sometimes a distinction made between voluntary policing supported by the state and vigilante forms of policing that do not have the support of the state.[4]
Private security firms patrol industrial facilities, commercial establishments, office buildings, transportation facilities, recreational complexes, shopping districts,residential neighborhoods, military complexes, power plants, and prisons.[5]
Contents  [hide]
1 Examples
2 History
3 Perceived advantages
4 Perceived disadvantages
5 See also
6 References
[edit]Examples

Depending on one's definition of private police, it can include firms to which the government contracts out police work (e.g. the 1975–1977 Oro Valley, Arizona-Rural/Metro contract, the 1980 Reminderville, Ohio-Corporate Security contract, the 1976 Indian Springs, Florida-Guardsmark contract, and the 1976 Buffalo Creek, West Virginia-Guardsmark contract). Or, they can be officers who contract with various firms to patrol the area, as in the case of the San Francisco Patrol Specials, which at one time had arrest powers. Private police services are sometimes called "Subscription-Based Patrol."[6]
A specific type of private police is company police, such as the specialized railroad police. In some cases, private police are sworn in as government employees in order to ensure compliance with the law, as in the Kalamazoo, Michigan-Charles Services contract, which lasted 31⁄2 years. Private security firms in the U.S. employ more guards, patrol personnel and detectives than the U.S. federal, state and local governments combined, fulfilling many of the beat-patrol functions once thought central to the mission of public police. It has been argued that the private police market furnishes tangible evidence about what people want but are not receiving from public police.[7]
In South Carolina, all Security Officers have the same authority and power as Sheriff Deputies.[8] Spring Valley HOA in Columbia, SC is a good example of this. Private Officers respond to calls for service, make arrests and use blue lights[9] and traffic radar. They are Law Enforcement under state law, case law and AG’s opinion, and are authorized by the state to issue Uniform Traffic Tickets to violators.[10] Security Officers in some cases are also considered Police Officers.[11]
In Boston, Massachusetts, more than 100 housing projects and low-income apartment buildings are patrolled by private security. One firm, Naratoone Security Corporation, fields 122 traditional security officers in those locations, as well as 43 “special police officers,” who are armed and licensed by the Boston Police Department and have limited arrest powers.[12]
In Florida, Critical Intervention Services patrols neighborhoods and has used lethal force before.[13] They have limited arrest powers.[14]
In Utah, if privately owned colleges or universities that are certified by the commissioner of public safety, they are allowed to have a law enforcement agency with officers being granted the same law enforcement authority as any other public law enforcement agency (police department).[15]
[edit]History

By the late 1960s, the private security industry was growing at a recession-resistant rate of 10-15% annually. Estimates of the number of private guards, investigators, and so on ranged from 350,000 to 800,000.[16] From 1976 to 1981, there was a 20% increase in calls for police service. Demand existed for nonroutine services, such as police checks of vactioners' homes, escorts for merchants making bank deposits, extra patrols at business closing times, and so on. Around that same time, many police departments were facing budget freezes or cuts, and the number of police employees per 1,000 population dropped 10 percent between 1975 and 1985. Police adopted differential responses to requests for services, deprioritizing investigation of "cold" burglaries and larcenies. Private firms were employed to fill the gap.[17] Private police and their clients have compiled extensive records on certain crimes, such as department store pilferage, whose perpetrators have often been arrested and dealt with privately, without involving the governmental criminal justice system do also in part to security having its own private courts that are staffed by federal judges and have to power to send the convicted to private prisons.[18] By 1990, private police comprised three-fourths of all police officers in the United States.[19] It has been suggested that the private sector of policing in the future may increasingly assume the role of the public guardian of society, leaving public policing to a more narrow role that focuses on personal violence.[20]
[edit]Perceived advantages

There is evidence that private police can provide services more cheaply than public police. The cost of San Francisco's private patrol specials is $25–30/hour, compared to $58/hour for an off-duty police officer.[21] In Reminderville, Corporate Security outbid the Summit County Sheriff Department's offer to charge the community $180,000 per year for 45-minute response time emergency response service by offering a $90,000 contract for twice as many patrol cars and a 6-minute response time.[22]
Another advantage that has been cited is that private police have a contractual responsibility to protect their customers.[23] In Warren v. District of Columbia, the court found that public police have no such responsibility.[24] Thus, they cannot be sued if they fail to respond to calls for help, for instance.
James F. Pastor addresses such disadvantages by analyzing a number of substantive legal and public policy issues which directly or indirectly relate to the provision of security services. These can be demonstrated by the logic of alternative or supplemental service providers. This is illustrated by the concept of "para-police." Para-police is another name for private police officers. Many public safety agencies use auxiliary police officers, who are part-time sworn police officers. Some also use reserve police officers, who are hired on an "as needed" basis, with limited police powers. These officers are typically called to duty for special details or events. In contrast to auxiliary and reserve officers, private policing is a relatively new and growing phenomenon.
There are several key distinctions between these options. Briefly, the distinctions relate to the level of police powers associated with the officer, the training levels required for each officer, the funding sources for the service provision, and the contractual and liability exposures related to each supplemental arrangement. Each alternative or supplemental service has its own strengths and weaknesses. The use of private police, however, has particular appeal because property or business owners can directly contract for public safety services, thereby providing welcome relief for municipal budgets. Finally, private police functions can be flexible, depending upon the financial, organizational, political, and situational circumstances of the client.[25]
Murray Rothbard notes, "police service is not 'free'; it is paid for by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer is very often the poor person himself. He may very well be paying more in taxes for police now than he would in fees to private, and far more efficient, police companies. Furthermore, the police companies would be tapping a mass market; with the economies of such a larger-scale market, police protection would undoubtedly be much cheaper."[26]
Patrick Tinsley also notes that some consumers might benefit from free police service:[27]
“     There are products for which the bother of charging money outweighs the prospects for profit; these products are thus offered free of charge to the individual user, more or less in affiliation with the sale of coadunate goods. Examples of this phenomenon abound: book matches are given away with and without the sale of tobacco products; bathrooms, whether in restaurants or department stores or gas stations, are often open to customers and the general public alike. Police protection could operate likewise.     ”
[edit]Perceived disadvantages

Ultimately, some people see the potential for a “dual system” of policing—one for the wealthy and one for the poor—and others see the provision of private security as the primary protective resource in contemporary America.[28] Other issues that arise in private policing include those arising from searching private property, electronic eavesdropping, and private police access to public police records. Abuse of authority, impersonation of public police, false arrest, improper search and interrogation, and operating without a license have been cited as potential dangers.[29]

Quoted Text

The Evolution of American Policing
by Dan O. Sabath, FIrearms Editor


It is no secret that America inherited much of its governmental institutions from Great Britain. American law enforcement is no exception. British policing can be traced back to before the Norman Conquest of England in 1066.

The first Europeans who landed on our shores, found a strange and wondrous new land, inhabited by strange and wondrous people. The newcomers had all they could do to establish themselves and to protect themselves from those who did not wish to share their land. Thus, policing was the responsibility of all able-bodied men, and, of course, young boys as well.

After "things" got fairly well settled the job of maintaining order in the new colonies was given to Justices of the Peace, and one might see "culprits" in pillories or stocks, paying their debt to society. But, as colonies changed into towns and towns into cities, the Justice of the Peace system was not enough. It became time for an organized, and paid, police force.

In 1636 the city of Boston established Night Watch, which idea worked reasonably well as long as the area remained a rural and agrarian one. New York City established the Shout and Rattle Watch in 1651, but, by 1705 Philadelphia found it necessary to divide the city into ten patrol areas.

In the almost 100 years between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the more than rapid growth of population and industrialization in America mandated the development of municipal police departments. In 1833, Philadelphia organized an independent, 24 hour a day, police force. In 1844, New York City had two police forces; daytime duty and the night watch. During this period, police departments were headed by police chiefs, appointed and accountable to political bosses. Corruption was commonplace.

Part of the inherited law enforcement was the Sheriff system. (Remember the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham from Robin Hood?) As America moved toward the west, in most frontier towns the Sheriff was the chief law enforcement official. He could be recruited from the local community, or more often a Sheriff was selected by his reputation, and not always a savory one. The Sheriff system still exists today, but, on a more formal and politicized basis.

Todays law enforcement agencies and departments are highly specialized organizations, with ongoing training to prepare to meet a great variety of problems and situations. Today we have federal, state, county, and municipal police. The world, our world, has gotten to be a most dangerous place, and we all are dependent on peace officers from every organization for our" life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Quoted from Tommy

Enough with the copy and paste crap already.
Do you seriously think anybody reads all that crap?
You probably don't read it your own damned self.