The Most Sued NYPD Officer: 28 Times in 8 Years, $884K Paid in Settlements

Det. Valentin -- NYC's Most Sued CopMeet Detective Peter Valentin. Det. Valentin makes approximately $125,000 per year, including overtime, for his role as a narcotics officer with the NYPD. In the last 8 years, this cop has been sued for violating the civil rights of the people 28 times, or about once every 3 months or so. The suits that have settled have already cost the city (read: the taxpayers) over $884,000, as exposed by the NY Daily News.

The fact that these suits were settled means that the city found them to be credible. New York doesn’t simply settle lawsuits to get rid of them if it thinks they can win, and as you may have noticed on my blog, goes through great lengths to convince the courts (often successfully) of some very creative defenses. Yet, despite the fact that the city has plenty of reason to believe that this cop routinely violates the citizens, Det. Valentin is still a member of the NYPD.

Although Det. Valentin holds the record for “most sued officer,” he is hardly alone. The top 12 most sued NYPD officers were involved in a total of 231 cases and have cost the taxpayers at least $7,709,071. All of them are still employed. And there’s another interesting anomaly: of the top 12, nine of them are narcotics officers. The “war on drugs” is, of course, responsible for the rise of the American police state moreso than any other factor, and brings us all of these “no-knock warrants” that leave 80 year old men shot in their beds, searches authorized by dogs rather than warrants, and “I smelled marijuana!” as the universal justification for police assholery.

Why is it that these men are allowed to continue to victimize the population? Possibly because despite costing the city $7.7M, in addition to their salary, narcotics officers bring the city significant revenue in the form of civil forfeitures. Perhaps the NYPD looks at these lawsuits, and the beatings and false arrests doled out to innocents caught up in the dragnet, as “the cost of doing business.” After all, despite the fact that these cops are sued personally, the city still picks up the tab, so there is zero reason for these officers to behave as long as they keep bringing in the dollars.


The Day We Fight Back

The Day We Fight Back

Today is “The Day We Fight Back” against NSA mass spying — a day sponsored by a broad coalition including EFF, Demand Progress, ACLU, Reddit, Mozilla, Amnesty International and at least a dozen others. The goal: to flood the offices of Congress with e-mails and phone calls for a day with our demands: that our privacy, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, be respected once again. To participate, click the banner above. It takes about 2 minutes.

TSA Gives Me PreCheck Access… Without Asking

You can imagine my surprise when I received this boarding pass yesterday…

That’s right — the guy who sues, publicly humiliates, and fights before Congress the TSA now has TSA PreCheck, meaning that I’ll personally almost never encounter a body scanner or pat-down again.

I never asked for it, never opted-in, and had no notice that I was included. I intentionally avoided it because I don’t think it’s fair that one should have to do anything to avoid being abused by their government. Their inclusion of me in this program is further ironic since in 2010, when I filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that would require the TSA not to scan or molest me, the TSA argued that such an “ad hoc” exclusion would devistate the TSA’s inpenetrable fortress. But here we are in 2014, and the TSA has done just that.

How and Why

There are many ways that people can get PreCheck status, according to the TSA, the most common being allowed to opt-in as a result of frequent flyer status. I do have that status, but I’ve never opted in, so I assume this not to be the reason.

More likely is the TSA’s new “risk assessment” program, where the TSA somehow decides, based on information like your name, address, and travel history, that you must not be a terrorist. Perhaps this is how I’ve made it through.

Or perhaps the TSA simply thinks that if it keeps me away from the body scanners, I’ll shut up. Nope — what the TSA is doing is wrong, and it’s wrong whether they decide to give me special treatment or not. “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

U.S. Court of Appeals Orders Me to Take Down Blog Posts

You may recall that back in October of last year, I filed a brief that discussed secret information provided to me by the TSA under court order not to release, and the clerk of the court mistakenly published that brief for the world to see. It contained information that was quite embarassing to the TSA and undermined their assertions that abusing us at airport checkpoints is necessary and was picked up (and mirrored) by major news and social media sites across the world.

The attorneys at the Department of Justice proceeded to flip out on me for discussing this “secret information” that was no longer actually secret, through no fault of my own, and demanded that I refrain from talking about something that anyone can read in the news, effectively making me the only person in the world who is barred from speaking on the subject. The court today temporarily granted their request and ordered me to delete the contents of any blog post that contains the not-so-secret information, pending the outcome of the case, at which point they will decide whether to make their gag order permanent.

I’d say that the court’s order was obnoxious censorship, but thinking about it, it seems more likely that they just want the government to stop bothering them about this nonsense. I say this for two reasons. First, the court entirely ignored the issue for about 2 months, allowing my Web site to remain as-is, before finally addressing the issue, which suggests to me that they really don’t care. Second, the court specifically granted me permission to link to the news sites that discuss (and host a copy of) my leaked brief, meaning they acknowledge that the information is still going to be around.

So, if you’d like to read the information that the court has ordered me not to discuss, click here to read the news article about it, which includes a link to the full, unredacted leaked brief. I can’t discuss what you might find at the link above, I can only provide the link.

Censorship is stupid. Paritally because it’s wrong, and partially because it’s ineffective.

NYPD Pays $18M to Settle 2004 RNC Protest Arrests

I grew up with a grandfather who was a retired police captain. Needless to say, respect for police officers was a highlight of my upbringing, and until I moved away from the small town in which I grew up, I never understood why people would feel uncomfortable in the presence of law enforcement.

RNC Protests in Union Square, 2004.  Cell phone camera quality wasn't quite what it is today. :)

RNC Protests in Union Square, 2004. Cell phone camera quality wasn’t quite what it is today. :)

In the summer of 2004, I went to some protests in Union Square, a small park in lower Manhattan near where I was living where political speech was (and still is) a mainstay. I didn’t go to protest — if anything, my 20-year-old self thought it would be more entertaining to watch the crazy hippies, liberals, and even communists ranting on a megaphone about how much they hate George W. Bush. It was, in fact, the first time I met someone who would openly and happily proclaim they were a communist. All very strange to me at the time.

The protesters would be out there almost daily, and I’d probably see them a few times a week. Once in a while, a few cops would come and confiscate a megaphone. You see, use of a “sound amplification device” without a permit is against the law in New York City, and I’ll let you guess who issues the permits. But, everything was always peaceful, and the protesters would continue with just their voices and would collect donations to go buy a new megaphone, which they invariably did, sometimes same day.

The peaceful atmosphere ended as the Republican National Committee’s conference began. There weren’t really that many more protesters than usual in Union Square, but the police presence rapidly grew. Eventually, a few dozen officers lined up and began arresting the people who were speaking. People were thrown to the ground, injured, as they resisted being arrested for doing nothing more than speaking. These protesters were doing nothing that they hadn’t been doing there for the months (really, years) prior, but with the RNC in town, the order was out: protesters go to jail. As they took away the organizers, a friend of mine yelled at the police to stop, at which point they grabbed her and took her away too. My friend, a 20-year-old slender young woman from upstate Privilegeville, NY, was charged with “jumping on an officer’s back.”

At least 2 video cameras captured the incident showing that she did no such thing, and 4 witnesses, including myself, came forward to say that the charge was fabricated. The DA’s office, however, was instructed to prosecute all protesters no matter what, and they took the matter to trial, forcing this girl to endure the possibility of a 1 year prison sentence for doing nothing more than yelling at a cop. Thankfully, a jury deliberated for about 20 minutes before returning a unanimous “not guilty” verdict.

The city fought against over 400 individual lawsuits, plus one class-action lawsuit with another 1,200 victims, by protesters who were arrested and beat their charges (or were never charged). Think about that for a second: during a few weeks of a convention, the city wrongfully arrested over 1,600 people. It took 10 years, but they have finally been given justice: an $18 million settlement has been reached.

The incidents during the RNC cost the city (really, the taxpayers) a huge sum of money. But it also cost them my respect. It’s a sad day when you learn that your government really isn’t there to protect you.

Federal Judge: No-Fly List Violates Due Process (Updated)

Today is a good day in the courts: a federal judge in California has ruled in favor of Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim, the college professor who once left the country to go to a conference and, when she tried to come back, found out her visa was revoked and she was on the no-fly list.

For those not yet familiar, the no-fly list has, until now, been a tool to deprive the people of their rights without due process under the law. To get on the no-fly list, one is “nominated” by a fed in one of a handful of agencies, that nomination is processed by the FBI, and you’re on the list. Once you’re on the list, they won’t tell you you’re on the list — you just can’t get a boarding pass, ever. You’re (obviously) never told why you’re on the list, and never given a chance to challenge it. The government offers a form to fill out to request a review if you think you’re on the list, but there’s no process by which it is reviewed (that is, your form is basically memory-holed).

No judge is ever involved, and even for Dr. Ibrahim, the government fought every step of the way to avoid having a court even consider the matter (much like how my case against the TSA’s nude body scanners was delayed for 2 years while the government argued that a federal district court could not touch the issue). The government argued that questioning the no-fly list would reveal “state secrets” — information so sensitive that the executive branch has the right to withhold it even from closed-door review by a federal judge. So much for “the most transparent administration ever,” eh?

Nothing underscores the absurdity more than the fact that U.S. District Judge William Alsup’s ruling, save for the fact that it was in Dr. Ibrahim’s favor, has been sealed pending appeal. That is, the government argued that a ruling that the no-fly list is illegal would release classified information.

Thanks to Judge Alsup’s refusal to be bullied, this absurd practice comes to an end — pending review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Update: Judge Alsup has released a public summary of his ruling, explaining that the government made a mistake by adding Dr. Ibrahim to the list and must correct that mistake.

Fully Briefed: Can TSA Read Your Documents, Threaten False Arrest, Lie About Checkpoint Video?

In August 2011, a TSA supervisor detained me for an hour, threatened me with forcible search and (false) arrest, read through my documents, and, ultimately, ejected me from the airport… all because I wouldn’t let a TSA screener “touch my junk.” Afterwards, I asked for CCTV video of the incident under FOIA, and was lied to about its existence. I filed suit, and last year, a federal judge dismissed that lawsuit, arguing that all of the above was either legal, or that the TSA manager had immunity from damages.

The issue is now fully briefed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. A three judge panel will now decide whether there is truly no recourse when someone so egregiously violates your rights (assuming we still have those). Although “fully briefed” means that all parties have said their peace in writing, the TSA has taken the unusual step of requesting oral arguments. I assume this means they are unsure of their case, and it’s a good sign.

Corbett v. TSA – Appellant’s Opening Brief

Corbett v. TSA – Appellee’s Brief (Federal Defendants)
Corbett v. TSA – Appellee’s Brief (Broward County)
Corbett v. TSA – Appellee’s Brief (Broward Sheriff’s Office)

Corbett v. TSA – Appellant’s Reply Brief

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: Blind, Deaf, Dumb

As you may recall from the very first of the Snowden leaks, every three months for many years, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been authorizing the bulk phone data collection — a list of every phone call you and everyone else in America has ever made, to be kept in a government database — by the NSA. Yesterday, the FISC issued yet another 3 month authorization to do the same.

A federal judge has now opined that this program is illegal. The author of the Patriot Act himself says the program is illegal. The people have made clear that this program is unacceptable and failing to meet any popular definition of “reasonable” (you know, the kind of reasonable the Fourth Amendment requires). But the FISC keeps on giving.

Last Summer, I mailed the FISC hundreds of motions to reverse their order to collect our personal information, on behalf of people who submitted paperwork at MyNSARecords. Each and every one of these motions was ignored. Not even denied with a pleasant letter, but completely ignored.

It’s as if this court is blind, deaf, and dumb. But what should we expect from a secret court that issues secret laws?

Judge William H. Pauley III Is An Asshole

Crotchety old man and federal judge William H. Pauley III ruled today, out of his ivory tower at 500 Pearl Street, that NSA phone spying is lawful. As if he were a hired spokeshole for the government, he concluded that “Telephony metadata would have furnished the missing information and might have permitted the N.S.A. to notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the fact that al-Mihdhar was calling the Yemeni safe house from inside the United States” — in other words, that NSA spying may have prevented 9/11.

Of course, we all know that the spying program would have had no chance at preventing 9/11, since we already knew that these guys were terrorists. It was not due to lack of information that 9/11 was a successful day for the Al Qaeda crew, but rather because we failed to actually do anything with the information we had — perhaps because we already had so much information that it became possible to act upon. You see, when you have four Libraries of Congresses worth of data being ingested every day (back in 2011!), you can’t possibly do anything useful with that data proactively. All you do is flood your investigators with a flow of information that dilutes the useful intelligence gleaned through more narrow (and lawful) means.

The ruling is not surprising to me, because I sat before Judge Pauley in a 2008 civil case, Twelve Inches Around Corp. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. The Plaintiff was one of my startups, and the case was asking for damages after Cisco, who didn’t like my business idea, got my company’s Web site shut down by filing a false trademark infringement notice with my Web host (we ended up settling before trial). During pre-trial hearings, Judge Pauley, quite simply, seemed upset that he should have to waste his time on the case, and displayed a level of interest, patience, and cool-headedness below that of any other federal judge whom I’ve had the pleasure of appearing before. That Judge Pauley failed to grasp the severity of the intrusion on our privacy is entirely expected. He is, quite simply, an asshole.

Luckily, a couple weeks ago a few hundred miles south in a small town called D.C., a judge ruled the exact opposite of Mr. Grumpypants here in New York, increasing the odds that we shall see a resolution of the conflicting opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Quick “Thank You!” To My Bitcoin Donors

Most of the donors, who generously support my work against intrusive government agencies, do so by PayPal, which allows me to send a “thank you” for funds received. But, the beauty of Bitcoin is that it is anonymous, so I have no idea who these supporters are unless they have also contacted me by e-mail. So to you, anonymous donors, thank you so much!

My “‘Change We Can Believe In’ Donation Drive” (where I will be paying the NYPD $820.15 in court fees with loose change) has been a huge success so far, and the NYPD will be receiving a care package around Christmas. :) If you’d still like to help…

  • Coins: Mail to Jonathan Corbett, 228 Park Ave. S. #86952, New York, NY 10003
  • PayPal: Donate here!
  • Bitcoin: 15ftA2938sp7Mnsi8U7wYVmEtd4BRbFnkT
  • Check: Make out to Jonathan Corbett and mail to the address above

This is my coin collection so far (a little under $400… about half way there!)…


Fun fact: The U.S. mint no longer circulates half-dollars! They still print them and sell them at a small markup to collectors, so I’ve purchased a few of them to sprinkle in. :D


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 335 other followers