Since the midterm elections I have been behaving myself — relatively speaking. No long-winded missives or rants for quite some time. But today I am about to break my streak. There is just too much going on to to remain silent.

For starters, there are the police who just murdered another black man, Tyre D. Nichols.

As a New York Times editorial argues, we have an obligation to view — to face — each one of these abuses of police power — the tortures, the beatings, the tasering, the gassing, the terrorizing of young black men like Mr. Nichols. Each day in America a dozen civilians are killed by police — double that if you factor in the asphyxiations and Taser deaths police inflict on disproportionately people of color.

It can’t go on this way.

We must also acknowledge the humanity, the love of their families, the talents, the potential, and the hopes of each of these victims. Nichols, who was just trying to get home when he was intercepted, dragged from his car, and murdered by a group of thugs with badges, died with his mother’s name on his lips and left behind a portfolio of lovely photography. How is his life any different from yours or mine?

We need to get up off our asses and finally do something to rein in police abuse. While a few people associated with an organization called BLM may have taken some wrong turns, let’s not ignore the point — that Black lives really do matter. Police abuses really are an epidemic and they put all of us at risk.

Sherrilyn Ifill, the former head of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, wrote an excellent response to a piece in the Atlantic by Conor Friedersdorf, who pronounced “Black Lives Matter” a dead letter and argued that public outrage wouldn’t fix bad policing and that, well, police killings are actually fewer than in the past. Ifill tore into Friedersdorf’s flabby and execrable arguments by pointing out that, first of all, the lack of public outrage and apathy is a white people problem. Moreover, Ifill argues, “Whatever modest reforms to policing have been adopted [following BLM pressure], were undertaken after long, pitched battles with those determined to maintain the status quo.” We saw it in the 100% Democratic Party controlled Massachusetts state legislature when the police lobby preserved Qualified Immunity — the license to kill without consequence.

With the murder of a Black man by five Black cops, many have finally realized that it is police training and police institutions which create bad cops — who just happen to police in racist fashion regardless of their own color. Compounding this is the fact that police are organized as paramilitary organizations where target practice is valued more than deescalation, where loyalty to fellow officers counts more than responsibility to the public. Police are truly a gang unto themselves. A few years ago a former California police officer spelled out exactly how the institution corrupts individuals. In his accounting, no cop can completely escape becoming an abuser.

Recent demonstrations over Cop City in Atlanta and the killing of a protester ought to also make us all think twice about America’s growing Police State. Over the strenuous objections of voters, the police lobby succeeded in getting approval for an 85 acre, $90 million (and growing) facility some have described as Fantasyland for cops. And a Police State also means that citizens must be convinced, ham-handedly if necessary, in the eternal good intentions and necessity of the police. We are constantly reminded, via well-placed Copaganda, that Officer Friendly is our pal. Particularly when he’s a “School Resource” officer.

In America everything is ultimately connected in some twisted way to race. In the case of Tyre Nichols’s murder, all five cops were Black. And in the case of Cop City, the City Council that approved the project is majority Black and the former mayor who pushed it is herself Black. Ex-mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms is now working — just as ironic as it sounds — as “Senior Advisor for Public Engagement” in the Biden administration.

So how do we account for this? Is Bottoms a flaming racist? Is Biden a flaming white supremacist? Of course not, but the institutions they work in and through, and to which they have hitched their fortunes, are most definitely racist. Capitalism, colonialism, militarism, white supremacy, and authoritarianism — all have built and corrupted everything they touch. Our Constitution is the rulebook by which our institutions can stack the game against citizens. Racist laws, racist institutions, and racist justice operate by that rulebook have created a nightmare for some of us.

And a culture war is raging about teaching these truths.

We learned this week that the Sports Medicine Committee of the Florida High School Athletics Association wants to make mandatory the reporting of menstrual cycles by female student athletes. The same state — just in time for Black History Month — has also banned the College Board’s Advanced Placement course in AP African American Studies. In fact, Florida teachers now face felony charges if they use non-approved textbooks in their classrooms. You can view the AP African American History course framework here. The AP course consists of four principal units: Origins of the African Diaspora; Freedom, Enslavement, and Resistance; the Practice of Freedom (including a critical view of Reconstruction); and (most damning) Movements and Debates (including anti-colonial responses to slavery and the Civil Rights Movement). Somehow, Florida did not feel the need to ban AP European History which also covers philosophical and political debates. Just not Black ones.

What Florida Republicans have done is to edit out Blacks from American history in exactly the same manner that Nazis did in removing Jews from Germany’s civil service and its cultural institutions. Before they really got going.

Hitlerjugend (Hitler youth)

If you think Florida is an outlier, you would be wrong. Local school boards and librarians are under attack by town Republican committees all over the country. The Massachusetts ACLU points out that a very small minority of ultra-conservatives is responsible for all the noise. This may or may not be the case, as it has been my observation that much of this is the work of Republican Town Committees. Indeed, virtually every Republican in Congress mouths these same sentiments.

In the Tri-Town area [of SouthCoast Massachusetts] a couple of Republican hacks are trying hard to do their own impressions of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Joe Pires worries that Diversity and Equity committees are harming white students. Pires also doesn’t like library books that represent the identities and concerns of gay kids. Well, too damn bad! Schools and libraries are for all the children in a community — not just for kids whose parents look like Ozzie and Harriet.

Ozzie and Harriet was a television program in the 1950’s

Joining town Republicans like Pires with precisely the same views and similarly attacking marginalized members of society are neo-Nazis and Proud Boys who use physical intimidation as they did recently in Fall River. If attacks like these on gay and brown and black children and their families don’t concern you, they are precisely the same tactics the Hitlerjugend and Brownshirts used in Germany of the Thirties. As a famous German theologian famously observed, first they come for the “other”; then suddenly it’s you. Contact the SouthCoast LGBTQ+ Network if you want to help fight back.

After a quarter of a century of Tom Hodgson’s excesses going unpunished and no politician ever mounting much of a challenge, voters finally gave a pink slip to a sheriff who preferred playing the national stage to tending to his office back home.

Hodgson’s defeat represents the tireless efforts of regular citizens, church groups, and community organizations across Bristol County who had simply had enough of Hodgson’s intentional and egregious cruelty. Paul Heroux’s win over Hodgson rides on the wings of surprising electoral wins by Democrats across the country.

Heroux’s victory was not only a rejection of the incumbent and his carceral notions but an endorsement of professionalizing what has become a highly and dangerously politicized office. In Barnstable County voters similarly elected Donna Buckley, who like Heroux ran on a campaign of reducing recidivism and doing more to treat drug and mental health problems in jail.

Because Hodgson had placed himself squarely in the national spotlight, the Bristol County election took on national significance. Heroux, with a much smaller budget and an all-volunteer campaign team, amazingly beat an incumbent with a massive war chest, a slick media campaign, and a professional and unscrupulous campaign manager.

Hodgson’s campaign attempted to re-frame the tough-talking, gun-toting Western sheriff wannabe as a kind grandpa protecting Bristol County from rising crime, which he frequently attributed to “criminal aliens” and the “woke” criminal-loving Democrats who coddle them. Hodgson spared no effort to smear Heroux as a pedophile-loving Communist funded by Jews with a global agenda. His extraordinarily sleazy campaign may have done him in as much as a quarter century of abusing Bristol County’s sons and daughters.

In the end, all of Hodgson’s mendacity and cruelty caught up with him.

On October 31st Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson dropped another Willie Horton style campaign ad. He’d already tried to frighten voters by accusing his opponent of coddling pedophiles with a non-existent vote on non-existent legislation.

This time Hodgson’s target was George Soros — who Hodgson accused of coddling criminals, funding his opponent, and having the ultimate goal of destroying America: “They have their sights set on our way of life,” Hodgson warned with an ominous “they.”

The hate groups Hodgson works with — and on whose advisory board he sits — all hate Soros, a Hungarian Jewish philanthropist who was not involved in funding the anti-Hodgson campaign ads that have so irked the sheriff. Nope, it was Everytown for Gun Safety, the work of American Jewish philanthropist Michael Bloomberg, a frequent thorn in the side of NRA shills like Hodgson.

At first blush the sheriff, who already has a racism problem, didn’t seem to be able to keep his Jews straight.

But Hodgson’s “mistake” was intentional. Like his dishonest pedophile-coddling scare ad, this one was calculated to reach a certain constituency who watches Glen Beck (“Soros: The Puppet Master”) or Tucker Carlson (“Soros has decided to destroy the American justice system”) — a constituency whose political heroes returned recently from CPAC-Hungary, where autocratic Christian nationalist president Viktor Orban, shut down a university Soros founded and used the pandemic as a pretext for a power grab.

For today’s new crop of antisemites, George Soros has replaced a 19th Century j’accuse involving financier Nathan Rothschild which went on to become a 200-year conspiracy theory.

The sheriff’s antisemitic ad was promptly slammed by Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Deborah Goldberg, and other Massachusetts politicos. Hodgson’s Tweet also drew more than 60 comments, most negative: “Well if that isn’t the most antisemitic thing I’ve heard all day… Honestly Southeastern MA, he is the biggest embarrassment in the Commonwealth… Your mustache is too wide. You gotta trim it to just a little patch under your nose… Halloween’s over but maybe next year you can go full Nazi cosplay…”

Another commented: “These people no longer have dog whistles they have bull horns. It is no longer a silent wink wink it is full out public bigotry…”

In choosing George Soros — the wrong Jew, and he knew it! — Hodgson was trotting out time-worn antisemitic tropes, implying that “they” are unpatriotic and systematically destroying “our way of life” — which MAGA politicians themselves freely call white Christian nationalism. There’s really not much of a line between this and the Charlottesville tiki-torch neo-Nazis with their “Jews will not replace us.”

For years the Anti-Defamation League has tracked two organizations Hodgson is intimately involved with — the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). The ADL’s factsheet “Mainstreaming Hate” describes one a as hate group and the other as an extremist organization. In 2018 the ADL published “The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories,” which explains why groups like FAIR and CIS are so obsessed with Soros. They routinely employ precisely the same dog whistles Hodgson used not-so-subtly in his antisemitic campaign ad: “They have their sights set on our way of life.”

In his defense, Hodgson tweeted that he couldn’t possibly be an antisemite because his parents are buried in a private crypt on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. Yet antisemitism was no impediment to Hodgson’s father, “Sir John,” being buried in Israel. According to a memoir written by Hodgson’s youngest sister, their parents were given a private crypt in Israel because of “Sir John’s” services to the Vatican. The memoir recounts numerous examples of the father’s antisemitism. The elder Hodgson’s burial in a churchyard says everything about his connection to the Church and nothing about respect for Jews.

For years Hodgson has attended events sponsored by FAIR and its front groups, as well as an event called “Hold their Feet to the Fire,” where sheriffs and a variety of homophobes, Neo-confederates, Muslim-bashers, antisemites, and Christian Nationalists fill slots on right-wing talk radio programs. In 2016 Hodgson gave a talk at a FAIR national advisory meeting that preceded one by Ira Mehlman entitled “Soros Hacked: The Truth Behind His Big Money Network to Destroy U.S. Borders.”

Mehlman calls Soros’ Open Society Institute a “shadowy foundation” with a “globalist agenda” to attack U.S. immigration policy. But “globalist” is white supremacist code for “Jewish” and FAIR and CIS have an axe to grind with Soros not only because he is a liberal philanthropist, but especially because he is a liberal Jew.

The American Jewish Committee has this to say about so-called “globalists”:

“Much like dual loyalty, Globalist is used to promote the antisemitic conspiracy that Jewish people do not have allegiance to their countries of origin, like the United States, but to some worldwide order–like a global economy or international political system–that will enhance their control over the world’s banks, governments, and media. […] Today, Globalist is a coded word for Jews who are seen as international elites conspiring to weaken or dismantle “Western” society using their international connections and control over big corporations (see New World Order)–all echoing the destructive theory that Jews hold greed and tribe above country.”

In 2001 Stephen Steinlight published a report for the Center for Immigration Studies — a group with which Hodgson has testified at Congress many times — entitled “The Jewish State in America’s Changing Demography.” Steinlight blasted secular Jews for their historical support for liberal immigration policies, arguing that Mexicans would soon erode Jewish political power. Steinlight said that his own views had been changed though dialogue with CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian, a racist who once said “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough…”

In 2004 Steinlight ratcheted up his polemics with an essay, “High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry,” but he still wasn’t making progress with secular Jews. By 2010 Steinlight was frustrated and angry at his co-religionists, accusing leading Jewish organizations of censorship and repression.

In 2015 Hodgson joined American Family Association’s governmental affairs director and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios on her radio show at the U.S. Capitol. Rios claims that secular Jews have been the worst enemy of the country, that “so many of the Jews in this country are atheist” and “sometimes turn out to be the worst enemies of the country” — a sentiment that former president and Hodgson idol Donald Trump echoed on October 16th when he wrote, “Jews have to get their act together…”

Hodgson is so often found in cesspools with antisemites and racists that he can hardly smell the sewage. A case in point is Hodgson’s flirtation with Rick Wiles, a virulent antisemite and Christian nationalist who renounced his US citizenship because of marriage equality. Wiles broadcasts an “End Time” radio program that has featured Hodgson and received Trump White House press credentials.

Hodgson’s numerous and habitual problems with hate groups and bigotry are bad enough. But this is what he has chosen to do instead of competently running his jails and making a best effort to rehabilitate people.

Vote this embarrassment out of office on November 8th.

Choose Paul Heroux.

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson must be feeling the stinging criticisms of his substandard jail food, his systematic violations of human rights, his suicides, his recidivism rate, and his refusal to help inmates deal with drug addiction.

After 24 years in office, only this week – barely a week before an election that could well unseat him – Hodgson announced to great fanfare that he had scored a “perfect score” on his opioid treatment program from the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, joining his “perfect score” from the American Corrections Association.

ACA Certifications not worth the paper they’re printed on

Readers of this newsletter are aware that ACA certifications are not worth the paper they’re printed on. As Senator Elizabeth Warren found when investigating them:

“The ACA accreditation process is a rubber stamp. It is almost impossible for a facility to fail an ACA audit. The ACA grants facilities three months’ advance notice of audits; provides facilities with “technical assistance,” including “standards checklists” and an “audit readiness evaluation” that help a facility know when to schedule its audit and what to expect; and, at a facility’s request, will conduct a “mock audit” to help the facility prepare.4 If problems persist despite these ample opportunities to correct–or hide–them, the ACA Commissioners can ignore audit finding altogether and allow a facility that failed its audit to receive accreditation, rendering these standards toothless.”

Ditto, NCCHC certifications

It turns out that the NCCHC certifications are equally meaningless. A 2016 article in Prison Legal News showed that the NCCCH misrepresents the stringency of its “inspections.”

“Like the ACA, the NCCHC warns prison officials of upcoming inspections but claims they also conduct unannounced reviews. Also like the ACA, the NCCHC has historically relied on self-reported information from the facilities it accredits.”

Like the ACA, the NCCHC is an opaque organization with too many interests in private prison licensure, and it’s little more than a pay-to-play scheme:

“Both the ACA and NCCHC are also plagued by conflicts of interest, including the fact that they effectively sell accreditation to their correctional colleagues and promulgate their own voluntary standards with no oversight.”

As with the ACA, the NCCHC frequently gives “perfect scores” to institutions that habitually violate the constitutional rights of their inmates. But don’t believe me. Believe the Department of Justice:

“The U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division issued a letter in April 2008 that found the Worcester County Jail and House of Correction in Massachusetts had unconstitutional conditions of confinement. Specifically, the jail failed to protect detainees from harm, failed to protect them “from exposure to unsanitary and unsafe environmental conditions,” and did not provide detainees with adequate mental health care. County officials rejected the allegations, noting the facility was accredited by both the ACA and NCCHC – which, in light of the DOJ’s findings, indicates the inadequacy of accreditation.”

The PLN article goes on to recount horror stories at the Idaho Correctional Center, where inmates were subjected to “gladiator school” beatings while corrections staff did nothing to intervene. It mentions the Walnut Grove Youth Correction facility in Mississippi where young people were sexually abused and subjected to high levels of violence. It mentions a Federal Bureau of Prisons facility in Texas where prisoners were given substandard medical care. It lists a number of mental health abuses at jails in Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, and others – all where NCCHC certifications papered over the abuses, giving the institutions either “perfect” or passing scores.

In 2009 – only after the Department of Homeland Security had revoked Maricopa County’s Joe Arpaio of his 287(g) program – did the NCCHC revoke Arpaio’s certifications that had previously given his facilities glowing reports. A facility that Arpaio himself called a “concentration camp.”

Hodgson’s “First in the Nation” drug treatment program

In the same self-congratulatory press release announcing his NCCHC “perfect” score, Hodgson went a step further, announcing a drug treatment program in collaboration with Correctional Psychiatric Services (CPS), Hodgson’s healthcare vendor – a major donor to his campaign.

In another press release, Hodgson described his outpatient drug treatment program as the “brainchild” of CPS president Jorge Veliz and a “first-in-the-nation inmate reentry clinic.” Of course it is nothing of the sort. Hampden County Sheriff Nicholas Cocchi has been operating a similar program for four years in conjunction with the Department of Corrections – which ought to be running all county jails. Another Hodgson lie.

But why now?

One wonders why it took Hodgson 24 years – other than facing stiff campaign opposition – to take an interest in medically assisted [drug] treatment. In 2019 Hodgson fielded questions from community members at the last 287(g) hearing he ever conducted. In this clip Hodgson whines that administering MAT treatments to inmates is “controversial,” can take up to 10 minutes, and who has the time for that? Nope, all Hodgson’s going to do is give them a spritz of vivitrol and wish them good luck on the way out of jail.

CPS is part of the problem

Besides the recidivism and suicides, and the many reports of medical neglect, Hodgson’s jail leads in jail deaths. CPS has not only presided over the administration of substandard mental health services to inmates; since 2020 there has been clear evidence that it provides demonstrably bad medical care.

In October 2020 Reuters released a national comparison of jail deaths. Bristol County again was #1 on the wall of shame:

From Reuters data

Roughly one out of 500 detainees in the Bristol County Jail ends up dead compared to less than one per thousand in most other jails.

Dr. Jorge Raul Veliz, the owner and president and founder of Correctional Psychiatric Services, has a staff of about 200 and contracts with Dukes, Bristol, Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk county jails in Massachusetts and has contracts in Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine. His employees are not unionized. Veliz founded CPS in 1994, co-founded Boston Clinical Consulting (a Guatemalan healthcare company) in 2007, and in 2009 co-founded the Hospital Psiquiatrico Mederi in Guatemala.

In 2017 Barnstable County downsized its nursing staff, outsourcing care to Correctional Psychiatric Services. Within weeks, there were two suicides at the Barnstable County jail. Before CPS services even started work, Barnstable nurse Hillarie Gaynor Clarke penned a prescient warning of the risks of using CPS: “I strongly urge the Barnstable County Sheriff’s Office to reconsider CPS as an ally, based on its blatantly poor and sometimes fatal track record. Unfortunately, at this rate, it seems that inmate care will only worsen at our county correctional institution.”

CPS employees have been accused repeatedly of medical neglect by both local and ICE detainees. One report from a California-based immigration group details a case of medical neglect by CPS. A search of nursing licenses for the four caregivers mentioned in the complaint showed one with an Associate Degree in Nursing from Laboure College, another with an LPN from Lindsey Hopkins Technical College, another with a vocational certificate from Diman Regional Vocational Technical High School – all supervised by a Nurse Practitioner from the University of Louisville, who only saw the patient after the worst neglect had already occurred.

Click here for a longer profile of CPS, the detailed account of medical neglect by an ICE detainee which names CPS employees by name, a presentation on suicide by CPS principals Jorge Veliz and Beth Cheney, and the Reuters data.

Conflicts of Interest – “The Paid Jailer”

Besides CPS’s dismal record as a medical and mental health services provider, voters ought to be very skeptical of CPS’s involvement in Hodgson’s latest public relations con.

In January 2022 Common Cause released a report, “The Paid Jailer,” which looks at the role of campaign donations to sheriffs by their vendors. Not surprisingly, the report starts with the Bristol County sheriff:

“In Bristol County, Massachusetts, more than 30 people have died behind bars in the last 10 years. Overwhelmingly, these are people awaiting trial. Some have died because of substance withdrawal and others by suicide. And the people who remain incarcerated say that they’re not receiving basic health care, including one man in Bristol County who has given us permission to share his story anonymously…

Yet Thomas M. Hodgson, the longtime sheriff of Bristol County and the sole leader of the jail facility, has made no changes to the health care provider, CPS Healthcare. CPS has spent more than $20,365 on sheriffs’ campaigns in Massachusetts, and $12,040 has gone directly to Hodgson. The State of Massachusetts reports that state sheriffs paid a total of $9.82 million in contracts to CPS Healthcare from 2012 to 2021. Hodgson appears to be the rule, rather than the exception, which we show in The Paid Jailer: How Sheriff Campaign Dollars Shape Mass Incarceration…”

Final thoughts

Hodgson’s operation is a nightmare. For both inmates and taxpayers. On November 8th voters have a chance to replace death, neglect, starvation, lawsuits, and lies with a sheriff with experience in corrections who takes corrections seriously. Paul Heroux will reform and professionalize a cruel, corrupt, hyper-politicized, patronage-based operation with data-driven programs that actually rehabilitate incarcerated people.

And after all, that’s all Massachusetts sheriffs are supposed to do.

In Massachusetts, sheriffs and deputies are law enforcement officers with limited powers who may assist genuine police officers when requested. But they are not police officers. Sheriffs run jails, transport prisoners, serve eviction and other notices, and are prohibited from patrolling cities and towns — which are chartered (through state laws) to appoint and hire police officers with full police powers (a crucial point mentioned shortly). Sheriffs, however, do enjoy a few limited police-like powers; for example, while they are transporting prisoners through a foreign jurisdiction or when asked to assist in quelling a riot. And that’s about it.

But like Hershel Walker, Bristol County’s Sheriff Thomas Hodgson keeps trying to pass himself off as the police — and whenever Hodgson’s tried it, it’s either been unappreciated or he’s failed at it. Hodgson implies he has police powers by claiming to be tough on crime, but since he has very limited police-like powers all he can really do is suggest that women carry pepper spray, hand out swag to seniors at “safety” talks, lend out canines, and have his jail officers pose with children and his $250K “Homeland Security” command truck at parades.

It may seem like a trivial matter to Hodgson, but democracies require both the consent of the people to be governed — and to be policed. Only law enforcement officers elected or appointed by chartered Massachusetts municipalities have the police powers that Hodgson has repeatedly, and illegally, attempted to usurp.

But don’t expect to see Sheriff Hodgson show up when you call 911

In November 2003, Hodgson (without being asked, and even after being asked to stop) decided that New Bedford’s police force wasn’t doing a good-enough job. So he began sending his officers to patrol the city’s streets. The New Bedford Police Chief was not amused, nor the mayor, and neither was the District Attorney. The Standard-Times reported, “Bristol District Attorney Paul F. Walsh […] said Hodgson has made no effort to coordinate with city police and has a track record of legal failures when investigating crimes inside his own facilities. Walsh also said that arrests made by the sheriff’s deputies, who typically serve warrants and act as guards at the county jail, would be subject to challenges in court. ‘You can’t have the guy who was serving mashed potatoes to inmates last week calling himself a drug detective this week,’ Walsh said.”

But that’s exactly Hodgson’s shtick — playing cop — and he’s been doing it throughout his entire time in office.

Between 1991 and 2005 Peter Larkin was Hodgson’s “Detective Lieutenant of Internal Affairs.” Larkin resigned from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) three years after botching a drug investigation the BCSO undertook — again without “assistance from other police agencies.” One lawyer described the low quality of BCSO investigators, “They’re not trained for investigative work,” while another called the BCSO itself “a task force of goofballs who couldn’t cut it as real cops.”

ABC6 News reported in July 2020 that Larkin, who eventually found work as an attendance officer with the New Bedford Public Schools, had been fired (again) from that job for advocating lynching Black Lives Matter protesters: “I would roll tanks and bulldozers. Mush any human in the way. Shoot everyone else. Pile up the bodies and burn them on national tv.” Within days Larkin had to resign. This news was no surprise given Hodgson’s membership in a hate group and memberships in several extremist organizations.

On January 12, 2017 the state Supreme Judicial Court considered the legality of a sheriff calling himself a police officer, and drew a clear distinction between law enforcement officer and police officer in Commonwealth v. Gernrich where it concluded that “sheriff’s deputies are not police officers.”

The SJC had to consider the case of an inmate in the Worcester County jail who had lied to a deputy and was charged with violating G. L. c. 269, § 13A, which reads, “Whoever intentionally and knowingly makes or causes to be made a false report of a crime to police officers shall be punished by…” The inmate disputed that the deputy he had lied to was a police officer, so the matter before the SJC was the “issue whether a deputy sheriff is a police officer within the meaning of G. L. c. 269, § 13A, present[ing] a question of statutory interpretation…” The Justices reviewed Massachusetts law and concluded:

“For the reasons explained above, a deputy sheriff is not a ‘police officer’ for purposes of G. L. c. 269, § 13A. Thus, we reverse the defendant’s conviction, and a judgment of not guilty shall enter.”

The reasoning behind the ruling is critical. The Justices wrote that G. L. c. 41, § 98 defines “unique” police powers that other law enforcement officials lack; therefore only police can be called police:

Although the term “police officer” appears in a variety of statutory contexts, we adopt the definition in G. L. c. 41, § 98, to guide our analysis of the issue. General Laws c. 41, § 98, which authorizes the appointment of “police officers” for cities and towns, is an appropriate guide for the interpretation of G. L. c. 269, § 13A, because it permits a distinction between the broad class of law enforcement officers empowered to perform only certain police duties and those expressly designated as “police officers” without such limitations. The definition of police officer in G. L. c. 41, § 98, encompasses a broad range of authority, including the power to make warrantless arrests, that is unique within the class of law enforcement officers. In other words, a police officer is a law enforcement officer, but not all law enforcement officers are police officers. It is this broad authority, granted only to persons appointed as police officers by cities and towns, that defines the term for the purposes of G. L. c. 269, § 13A.

Bottom line: “a deputy sheriff is not a police officer.” You’d think that a ruling so clear and from the highest court in the state would stop Hodgson from trying to impersonate a cop.

But no.

Barely three months following the SCJ ruling, the Fall River Herald News reported that Hodgson and disgraced former mayor (and now incarcerated felon) Jaziel Correia had entered into a backroom deal to have Hodgson run Fall River’s police lockup. Hodgson had tried and failed to sell a similar scheme before when Deval Patrick was governor. This time around Hodgson enlisted the help of a con man. The now incarcerated former mayor swore up and down that two local state representatives had promised to find state funding for Hodgson.

There were just two problems with the Correia-Hodgson deal. The Fall River police reminded all parties that policing by sheriffs was illegal. And Carole Fiola, who served on the Joint Ways and Means Committee and whose name Correira dropped, had to set the record straight when she told the Herald: “It was the first time I heard about it and I am not aware there is a budget request.”

The scheme was both illegal and based on lies.

Classic Hodgson.

Paul Heroux at the State House

Not only in Bristol County, but all over the United States, sheriffs are on the ballot. Given the previous administration’s love affair with Anglo-American sheriffs, America is now paying a bit more attention to these races than ever before.

In Massachusetts sheriffs have extremely attenuated powers but extremely long terms — rivaling that of a U.S. Senator — and very little accountability — all of which affords them a lot of time and opportunity to get into mischief.

By now everyone knows about Bristol County’s Angry White Man sheriff — the community college dropout who has been running our jail by the seat of his pants while making frequent trips to the border with militia members and white supremacists. Not to mention letting an indecent number of people die by suicide while half-starving inmates and gouging their families with usurious phone charges.

Tom Hodgson is like your neighbor, the do-it-yourself plumber, who broke the toilet, flooded the first floor, and left sewage all over. Now cooler heads have to call someone with professional skills — somebody who actually knows what the hell he’s doing — to fix the mess the stubborn hubby has made.

And Paul Heroux is just the guy to do it. Heroux has a bachelor’s in psychology, a master’s in corrections, has worked in corrections doing corrections, and has been running a city government with a budget three times larger than Hodgson’s.

In the process Heroux has also managed to steer clear of the state auditor, the state attorney general, and the Department of Homeland Security — unlike the incumbent clown who couldn’t document a third of his expenses to the auditor’s satisfaction, misplaced ICE payments in one of a dozen slush funds he keeps, who has systematically violated the civil rights of his prisoners, and last year lost his prized 287(g) program because of gross incompetence and cruelty — cruelty borne out of pandering to and offering Republican voters angry red meat.

Thomas Hodgson in an election ad telling voters that jail is not a country club.

Paul Heroux, who sometimes comes across as a brainy technocrat and not a movie-goer’s image of a Western sheriff, is nevertheless unlikely to jet down to the Texas ranch of militia members at taxpayer expense to play dress-up with Western sheriffs, take time off to run the Massachusetts Trump campaign, pose on the Capitol steps with Ted Cruz, Louis Gohmert, or various extremist and anti-government groups he belongs to, or sit on the national advisory board of a hate group — like the incumbent.

Heroux’s not going to put inmates in chain gangs, try to circumvent laws that keep Massachusetts sheriffs from doing police work, try to make deals with a Fall River mayor now serving time in federal prison, do favors for a New Bedford waterfront crime boss, or break federal law by deputizing military recruiters (which earned Hodgson a visit from Navy investigators). And no multi-million dollar legal appeals for lost cases that would never have been heard if the incumbent hadn’t broken laws by violating the rights of inmates or his employees.

No, it’s going to be the sound of crickets again when Heroux is elected sheriff.

Besides not racking up massive legal bills paid for by taxpayers for grandstanding and law-breaking, Heroux is also not going to write “love letters” to racists like Stephen Miller, Trump’s evil genius immigration advisor, or rat out his own church like Hodgson did for the “crime” of his parish caring for undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers. For a guy who likes to remind his Trumpy base how “Christian” he is, Hodgson sure seems to have forgotten Exodus 22:21: “You shall not oppress or mistreat a stranger, for you were strangers in Egypt.” Like everything about Hodgson the poseur, even his piety is all show.

But the million-dollar question is — do voters want an aggressive grandstander who just won’t stay in his lane and do his damn job — or are they ready for a little professionalism in a sheriff? I honestly have no idea. Who truly knows the heart of the fickle American voter?

But I’m not the only one to speculate. The Marshall Project covers criminal justice issues and only yesterday published a timely piece: “Progressive Sheriffs Are Here. Will They Win In November?” Since Trump was elected, Progressive sheriff candidates have increasingly run and won.

Sheriffs in the thrall of the Dear Leader

Part of that reason is that voters are beginning to realize just how extremist these overwhelmingly Trump-fanny-kissing sheriffs really are. Overwhelmingly white, a survey by the Marshall Project of sheriff’s political views showed that less than 1% consider themselves liberal, 75% support ultra-right politics, most regard protests in the wake of George Floyd’s murder to be orchestrated by left-wing provocateurs and not reflect an authentic response to a police murder. And forget accountability. Less than half are in favor of tracking bad cops. And so on. In addition, a majority of sheriffs think they are more powerful than a sitting U.S. president and can interpret the Constitution any way they see fit and selectively enforce laws.

In short, today’s sheriff’s hold views diametrically opposed to those of majorities in Democratic states like ours.

In Essex County, Massachusetts, social worker Virginia Leigh ran against incumbent sheriff Kevin Coppinger in the Democratic primary and got 48% of the vote — not bad for a first-timer. In Hampshire County, Caitlin Sepeda, a nurse and (again) a first-time challenger, garnered 25% of the primary vote but hammered away on services. Sepeda ran on a platform of delivering treatment to inmates, pointing out that 60% of her county’s incarcerated people have substance abuse problems and 70% self-report mental illness. “Those are not law enforcement issues. Those are nursing issues. Those are social service issues,” Sepeda told one reporter.

And she’s absolutely right. Which brings us to the general election on November 8th.

In Barnstable County, Donna Buckley, who is running on a platform of prioritizing programs for inmates and “preparing our inmates for pre-release,” got 30,000 primary votes in the Democratic primary, while Republican Tim Whelan got only 18,000. May these proportions hold in the general election. Besides delivery of services to inmates, federal ICE programs are on the ballot. Buckley has promised to end Barnstable County’s 287(g) program, the only county jail program remaining in Massachusetts.

In Bristol County, Paul Heroux is similarly promising to use — not Hodgson’s cruel medieval approach — but 21st Century tools to run the county jail, to provide services to inmates, to use data-driven management to evaluate rehabilitation programs, and to focus on the mundane job of care, custody, and control of incarcerated people.

To invoke the incumbent’s platform, “Jail is not a country club.” Well, no, it’s not. But it’s also not a torture chamber. It ought to be a short-term treatment center for mentally-ill and chemically-dependent people. The courts and the DA are in the punishing business. The sheriff provides care, custody, and control. Seems simple. Except, perhaps, for some percentage of voters who want sheriffs to impose their own arbitrary punishments on people already being punished.

In her latest essay in the Boston Globe, long-time Hodgson-watching columnist Yvonne Abraham quoted Carol Rose of the ACLU: “Voters are waking up. […] Maybe not this time, but soon, [a sheriff] is going to be held accountable by the voters.” To which Abraham adds: “Please, please, let it be this time.”

Amen to that.

Bristol County’s Chief Trump Bum-Kisser

The New Bedford waterfront has its share of crime, including organized crime. Carlos Rafael, aka the “Codfather,” served time in federal prison on numerous charges, including money laundering. Though no criminal connection has been established between Rafael and Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, two of Hodgson’s officers were convicted of using a Thanksgiving turkey airlift to the Azores (for repatriated deportees) as an opportunity to illegally transfer money offshore for Rafael. The money was carefully divided among couriers (so as not to raise suspicions) and was then recombined and deposited into the “Codfather’s” accounts.

James Melo, a captain with the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, was convicted in Federal court of “conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States and one count of structuring the export of monetary instruments.” Melo got a mild slap on the wrist: twelve months of probation. Sheriffs Deputy Antonio Freitas was slightly less lucky. Freitas, who also served as a deputized ICE agent for Hodgson, was convicted of charges similar to Melo’s but served twelve months in prison.

There is a fascinating account of Rafael’s money-laundering and the role Freitas played in it buried in an appeal from federal prosecutors Mark T. Quinlivan and Trump appointee Andrew E. Lelling. In the document, Rafael boasted of his close relationship with Hodgson and the influence it played in obtaining both a job and a raise for Freitas:

“I got him the job, I got him the raises, so he’ll do what the fuck I tell him to do. He called me. He says, ‘what the fuck is going on, everybody got a promotion in this fuckin’ place but me.’ So I’m like this [gestures] with the sheriff. I called the Sheriff and I said ‘what the fuck are you doing to me Tom? Fuckin Freitas has been there for so many fuckin’ years, you’re not going to give him a fuckin’ promotion and a raise?’ ‘Jesus Carlos, we do not have enough money in the budget.’ I said fuck off, find a way, give the kid a raise. He got his promotion, right, so he called me and said I want to thank you very much, I finally got my fuckin’ promotion and my raise. So it’s nice to know people.”

Rafael’s claim that Hodgson had assisted Freitas was confirmed by Freitas himself, who admitted to Federal investigators “that he had carried money for Rafael in the past because Rafael had helped him get a promotion [from Hodgson] and had co-signed a home improvement loan for him.”

When Hodgson was called to the witness stand during Freitas’ trial, “Hodgson remembered Rafael saying over the phone that he needed a promotion. But Rafael’s call did not influence his decision, Hodgson stressed.” Incredibly — as in “I don’t believe a damn word of it” — Quinlivan and Lelling simply took Hodgson’s word that he had granted the favor because, well, he was going to do it anyway.

But Rafael had access to the sheriff and knew that Freitas “worked on customs with the immigration unit of the Sheriff’s Department. And Rafael said that Freitas could also help the co-conspirators get their cash out of the country by bypassing airport security.” This is because Freitas had received the requested promotion to deputized ICE agent at the jail and had “completed a multiday training program for ICE officers that covered (among other topics) financial crimes, including structuring and bulk-cash smuggling — an instructor, for example, told attendees that structuring involved”having more than $10,000 in cash and breaking it into smaller amounts to conduct financial transactions in order to avoid the reporting requirements.”

Freitas was not only well-positioned to launder money for Rafael, but perfectly trained to commit the crime.

All thanks to Tom Hodgson.

Is Tom Hodgson a white supremacist?

If not, he would have resigned from this ugly crew of satin sheets and brown shirts long ago

Bristol County (MA) Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson has built a career as a cruel jailer on top of allying himself with white supremacists.

In 1999 Hodgson visited Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s “Tent City” — a facility for Hispanic detainees that Arpaio himself called a “concentration camp,” where inmates lived in 120-degree heat the desert in surplus tents from the Korean War and received half-rations of barely-edible food. Hodgson, who enthusiastically adopted Arpaio’s methods, joked to a Boston Herald reporter, “it’s not a buffet here.” After returning to Massachusetts, Hodgson increasingly modeled his own practices after Arpaio’s and even began using Arpaio’s tag line: “jail is not a country club.” And following the footsteps of Arpaio, who in 2016 lost access to his 287(g) ICE program because of systematic violations of constitutional and human rights of his inmates, Hodgson lost his own 287(g) program in 2021 for all the same reasons — cruelty and incompetence.

After September 11, 2001 Hodgson had realized the financial potential of collaborations with the Department of Homeland Security. With massive amounts of money being thrown around to protect the “Homeland,” Hodgson easily received $3.2 million from DHS to build the C. Carlos Carreiro immigration center in 2007, which later became a full-fledged ICE detention facility. He also received federal money for a $250K DHS command center van — now used primarily for Fourth of July parades and public relations.

In 2011 an organization created by a white supremacist optometrist named John Tanton began recruiting sheriffs to do its dirty work. The 2011 Annual Report of the Federation for American Immigration (FAIR) — which both the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) regard as a hate group — began using county sheriffs as spokesmen to oppose (and in many cases to flaunt) national and state immigration and gun control laws. Hodgson was one of the first to sign up. Working with a FAIR organizer named Susan Tully who both the SPLC and the ADL had long been monitoring, Hodgson organized a “fact finding” mission to McAllen, Texas in July 2014. Since then Hodgson has attended dozens of FAIR’s conferences and events, including its “Hold their Feet to the Fire” broadcast events that draw speakers from a variety of allied hate groups. In March 2015 Hodgson appeared with Tully at the Fisherman’s Club in New Bedford and he has appeared at most of FAIR’s “Hold their Feet to the Fire” events coordinated by Tully (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021).

By 2014 Hodgson was on FAIR’s National Board of Advisors and was “educating” the American Right to the dangers of even DACA recipients. In one of his many trips to Washington DC paid for by Massachusetts taxpayers, on October 11, 2014 Hodgson spoke to fellow FAIR National Board of Advisors on “The Effect of The President’s Decisions on DACA and Its Impact on Our Law Enforcement Challenges.” On September 24, 2016 Hodgson again spoke to FAIR’s National Advisors. The topic this time was “Sanctuary Cities.” Hodgson’s dinner talk immediately preceded one about Jewish “Big Money” and the plot to “Destroy U.S. Borders.” FAIR’s National Board of Advisors is a virtual Who’s Who of conspiracy nuts, anti-Semites, racists, Neo-Confederates, Muslim bashers, white supremacists, eugenicists, and Christian Identitarians.

In October 2015 Hodgson again visited the “Rio Grande” — this time with Robert J. Sylvia, then one of Hodgson’s top brass but now retired, who was all set to run for Sheriff in next month’s election but managed to file his ballot signatures on the wrong form. The sheriffs and their entourage toured the border but also went 70 miles out of their way to visit the ranch of Mike and Linda Vickers, founders of the vigilante group Texas Border Volunteers, an offshoot of the Minuteman Project, a loose-knit group of vigilantes, some of whom are affiliated with White supremacist militias and have been linked to both murders and incidents like the illegal detention of hundreds of migrants in April 2019.

Besides FAIR, Hodgson is also involved with another Tanton group — the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). SPLC does not categorize CIS as a hate group, but CIS functions as a disinformation and lobbying group with extensive white supremacist and antisemitic links. It is led by Mark Krikorian, who first worked at FAIR and who once said about Haiti: “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough.” The group’s most visible face is Jessica Vaughan, who used the antisemitic newspaper American Free Press, founded by Holocaust denier Willis Carto, to flog CIS talking points — as did Hodgson’s fellow FAIR national advisor Frosty Wooldridge. On March 28, 2017 Hodgson testified with CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan at Border Security and Immigration Enforcement hearings in Washington. He also appeared with Vaughan at a CIS-organized event in Boston the following month, and another in West Roxbury the month after that. In January 2020 Hodgson again appeared with Vaughan (a resident of South Carolina) before the Massachusetts Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. FAIR-AVIAC also sent two others to testify before Massachusetts legislators.

In 2015 Hodgson appeared with Dennis Michael Lynch at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, a synagogue run by Islamophobe rabbi Jonathan Hausman. Hausman had previously hosted Dutch Neo-fascist and Islam basher Geert Wilders. Over 100 members of the clergy, including other rabbis, protested a similar hate fest the synagogue hosted the following year featuring Muslim-basher Frank Gaffney and Christian nationalist Jerry Boykin. When I asked Hodgson about his talk with Hausman and Lynch, Hodgson said with a straight face that he was just there doing his duty to inform the public about terrorism: “They asked me to come speak about terrorism. That’s what they asked me to do. […] That’s why I was there, because of my my involvement with the terrorism task force.”

In 2015 Hodgson joined American Family Association’s “governmental affairs director” and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios on her radio show at the U.S. Capitol. Rios claims that secular Jews have been the worst enemy of the country, that “so many of the Jews in this country are atheist” and “sometimes turn out to be the worst enemies of the country.” It was not the first time Hodgson ignored the anti-Semites he was rubbing elbows with. His involvement with the Jew-bashing Tanton group is no aberration. In November 2014 Hodgson appeared on TruNews — the “End Times Newscast” with Rick Wiles, a conspiracy theorist and anti-Semite who claimed that Obama was inspired by Lucifer and killed Supreme Court Justice Scalia as a pagan human sacrifice, that the Irgun has kill teams all over America, and that Jews will use gun control laws to kill Christians. Wiles devoted “the first half of the program to recount several profound prophetic dreams his family received years ago” and the second half to Hodgson, who discussed immigration and his work with FAIR.

In 2016 Hodgson was one of three speakers at a “Patriots Unity Day” rally in Randolph. The second speaker was Jessica Vaughan. The third speaker was Raymond Hanna from the anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America which also maintains white supremacist ties. For example, in Arkansas ACT’s “March Against Shariah” events were organized by a Nazi and publicized on Stormfront. Perhaps because of its far-too-frequent neo-Nazi connections, ACT for America was too toxic for even Donald Trump. Following an article in the Miami Herald announcing ACT’s gala at Mar-a-Lago, which was to have been headlined by Michelle Malkin (another friend of Hodgson’s), the Trump administration had second thoughts: “[The gala] will absolutely not be taking place at Mar-a-Lago,” a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization announced. In September 2016 the sheriff also appeared at a Republican unity rally in Norfolk county attended by his old friend Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies and by ACT for America’s Ray Hannah.

In June 2017 Hodgson appeared with Dan Stein and Michelle Malkin at an annual “Hold Their Feet to the Fire” broadcast with anti-gay bigot Sandy Rios. Malkin has links to white supremacist groups, including several Tanton groups and VDARE, as well as to Islamophobic organizations. Malkin opposes the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to slaves. And, of course, Malkin is also a big fan of both John Tanton and The Camp of the Saints, a racist book that has attained almost scriptural reverence among believers in the Great Replacement, a conspiracy theory that maintains that White people are being consciously replaced and outnumbered by immigration sponsored and financed by Liberals and Jews — a view shared by the 18 year-old white supremacist who marched into a Buffalo supermarket in full body armor last May and murdered ten Black people.

In 2018 Hodgson announced with great fanfare that the National Sheriff’s Association (NSA) would be crowdfunding Trump’s wall. But Hodgson’s NSA project folded after raising less than $100K in three months — despite a false claim that excessive web traffic had crashed the site. The NSA site redirected donors to a group called the American Border Foundation, whose Director of Communications was Jeremy Messina, who identifies with the white Nationalist Identitarian movement and whose Facebook postings bore striking similarities with the Buffalo shooter’s manifesto. The American Border Foundation‘s crowdfunding scheme never reached its $450 million goal. During its three-year run, ABF’s less-than 4,000 donors raised barely over $227K. The fund’s managing director, Quentin Kramer — who like Hodgson has ties to FAIR through FAIR’s sister organization AVIAC — went on the conspiracy and white supremacist circuit trying to sell the project. For example, Kramer appeared on the far-right Southern Sense podcast and also on an “anti-federalist” program that frequently invokes Article IV, Sec. 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”).

Despite lackluster donations, Hodgson claimed that as a sheriff he could cut through the red tape to ensure donations got to the Department of Homeland Security and that the wall would be built. In November of 2018, Hodgson claimed he had submitted a form to DHS to donate $100,000 to pay for “border barriers on the Southern border.” But DHS informed the American Border Foundation it could not accept their donation. Nevertheless, in 2019 Hodgson and Kramer were still acting as if the crowdfunding effort was still viable. Both spoke at a FAIR-AVIAC-sponsored press conference in Washington, whose main function was to highlight the “Angel Families” who had lost family members to auto accidents or crimes committed by undocumented migrants. As of today, the whereabouts of $227,657 in ABF donations are still unaccounted for. Neither the ABF nor Hodgson has ever responded to information requests from Bristol County for Correctional Justice or American Oversight.

Hodgson’s newest project is Protect America Now. Once again, Hodgson is not just a member: he’s on Protect America Now’s national advisory board.

On the surface, PAN’s leadership looks like another collection of uber-patriotic, God- and gun-waving Constitutional sheriffs. PAN members number about 85 far-right sheriffs, some with Oathkeeper affiliations. But the brains behind PAN is Nathan Sproul, a GOP operative and acolyte of Karl Rove, long involved with numerous voter suppression efforts. A while ago I looked into Sproul and Kory Langhofer, a Trump Stop the Steal lawyer accused of ethics violations, who is also involved with PAN and other voter suppression efforts, and is not coincidentally the owner of Signafide, a company whose AI software is intended to challenge ballot signatures.

The Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR) connects Protect America Now, the Constitutional Sheriffs Association (CSPOA), and TrueTheVote in resurrecting Trump’s plan to have sheriffs intervene in the next election. And by “intervene” we’re talking about sheriffs seizing voting machines.

Besides his leadership role in PAN, Hodgson is also a member of CSPOA; in 2014 his membership dues were recorded by the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.

In June, PAN spokesman, Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb, announced the creation of an “election integrity” project that will funnel reports (no doubt as ridiculous as those from Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell) to sheriffs for “quick evaluation of incoming information.” And at the FreedomFest 2022 conference in Las Vegas CSPOA founder Richard Mack announced that sheriffs would seize voting machines. Lamb, Hodgson’s fellow advisor at Protect America Now, recently teamed up with True the Vote’s Catherine Engelbrecht, who was already working with the CSPOA. Lamb has promised to investigate so-called “ballot mules” — a reference to the Big Lie movie “2000 Mules” by Dinesh D’Souza, who was convicted on felony charges of using “straw donors” to make illegal campaign donations but was later pardoned by Donald Trump.

This is the world Hodgson not only lives in but has chosen to create. Whether Hodgson himself is a white supremacist — or has simply built a career by supporting white supremacists for decades — is a trivial distinction.

Hodgson is either a monster or a fool. In neither case does he deserve to be returned to his job as Bristol County Sheriff.

Detail

Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson is a member of the National Board of Advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR was founded by John Tanton, a white supremacist, and a majority of its advisory board are also white supremacists, Islamophobes, homophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists. Here are a few of the people Hodgson rubs elbows with at board meetings:

Lou Barletta, former mayor of Hazelton, PA who signed anti-immigration legislation in 2006 that was declared illegal a year later;

Sharon Barnes, clearly no DACA lover, who wrote: “It is our country. They and their parents need to be kicked out […] strengthen our laws and get rid of the locusts;”

Gerda Bikales, who regards Spanish as a ghetto language: “I don’t think Yiddish or Italian represented a threat to the union. But we are now setting ourselves up for an entrenched language ghetto;”

William Chip, who wants to repeal the 14th Amendment;

Donald A.Collins, who contributes to the white nationalist journal VDARE;

Dino Drudi, another Massachusetts zealot who has written for VDARE;

Don Feder, a Muslim-basher who thinks US troops should have “shoot-to-kill” orders on the Southern border;

Robert Gillespie, a proponent of population control — not for white Christians but in developing countries;

Joseph Guzzardi, a member of VDARE’s “editorial collective;”

Carol Joyal, who wrote a review of The Camp of the Saints calling it a “prophecy” of Third World destruction of the West while everyone else just called it racist;

Richard Lamm, former Colorado governor who said that “new cultures” in the U.S. are “diluting what we are and who we are;”

K.C. McAlpin, an Islamophobe who wants to ban Muslims for ideological reasons: “Congress has used that power in the past to ban the immigration of Communist Party and National Socialist (Nazi) party members who were deemed to be threats to our national security. This case is no different;”

Scott McConnell, another VDARE author, Executive Director at Lifeway Research (“be ready when homosexuality devastates”), and a member of the Family Research Council;

Paul Nachman, a Montana white supremacist who writes for VDARE who calls refugees “good liars” and questions the existence of “moderate Muslims;”

Robert D. Park, founder of the “Article IV – Section 4 Foundation,” a group which maintains that government has abdicated its responsibility to uphold a Constitutional clause requiring it to defend the U.S. from “invasion;”

Randy Pullen, former chairman of the Arizona GOP and self-appointed expert on black crime: “Yes black lives matter. The best way to end the slaughter of young black men is to take guns away from blacks as they are the main killers;”

John Philip Sousa IV, great grandson of the famous Sousa, a Birther, and friend of Joe Arpaio;

Alan N. Weeden, whose family owns the Weeden Foundation, major donor to white supremacist initiatives, and proponent of Secure ID, a national identification system.

A couple of years ago Massachusetts state representatives Antonio Cabral and William Straus sponsored H.5083, An Act Relative to Polling Place Security and Integrity. The bill limits sheriffs and deputies from policing polling places unless both local police and the secretary of public safety request assistance. The bill went nowhere.

Massachusetts law already authorizes police to preserve order at polling places, but the bill was filed only after Donald Trump began laying the groundwork in August 2020 for “Big Lie” accusations of voter fraud — three months before the election — boasting to FOX’s Sean Hannity that “we’re going to have sheriffs, and we’re going to have law enforcement” at polling stations sniffing out voter fraud. Trump’s demand for sheriffs to oversee the 2020 election was clearly intended to recycle time-tested racist and authoritarian voter intimidation and suppression tactics.

No sooner had H.5083 been filed when Bristol County’s scofflaw sheriff — and then-state Trump campaign director — Thomas Hodgson promised to defy the law if enacted. “No legislator is going to tell me when I can and cannot respond to someone who needs protection,” Hodgson told the Boston Herald.

Though still smarting from the loss of his 287(g) ICE program, Hodgson hasn’t dropped his anti-immigration rhetoric. But now he’s focused on enabling GOP voter suppression and ballot box tampering.

Hodgson’s new project is Protect America Now. On the surface, PAN’s leadership looks like another motley Hodgson crew of faux-patriotic Constitutional sheriffs. PAN members include an additional 69 far-right sheriffs, some with Oathkeeper affiliation.

But the brains behind PAN is Nathan Sproul, a GOP operative and acolyte of Karl Rove, long involved with numerous voter suppression efforts. A while ago I investigated Sproul and Kory Langhofer, a Trump Stop the Steal lawyer also involved with PAN, both of whom share the same office address.

The Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR) has connected Protect America Now, the Constitutional Sheriffs Association (CSPOA), and TrueTheVote in resurrecting Trump’s plan to have sheriffs intervene in the next election.

But by “intervention” we’re now talking about sheriffs seizing voting machines.

In June, PAN spokesman, Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb, announced the creation of an “election integrity” project that will funnel reports (no doubt as ridiculous as those from Rudy Guiliani and Sydney Powell) to sheriffs for “quick evaluation of incoming information.” And last week at the FreedomFest 2022 conference in Las Vegas CSPOA founder Richard Mack announced that sheriffs would actually seize voting machines.

Massachusetts voters have reason to fear that Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, ever the Trump sycophant, would put his deputies at Trump’s disposal as enthusiastically as he tried to use his inmates to build Trump’s wall.

Hodgson did not appear on the speakers list of the FreedomFest 2022 conference but there is a gap in his social media posts between July 13-16. I have called, emailed, and texted Jon Darling, Hodgson’s media representative, to confirm if Hodgson attended FreedomFest. So far, nothing.

In any case, if we want to prevent the theft of voting machines (and elections), it’s time to dust off Cabral and Straus’s bill keeping our increasingly partisan and authoritarian sheriffs out of polling places.

And then we need to send Hodgson packing in November.

He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed. (Proverbs 13:20)

Hodgson’s Great Replacement

On Saturday, May 14th, 2022 an 18 year-old white supremacist in full body armor walked into an East Side Buffalo, New York supermarket and slaughtered ten Black people precisely because they were Black.

Payton Gendron left behind a 180-page manifesto citing the Great Replacement – a conspiracy theory which holds that Liberals and mainly Jews (“globalists” or the “new world order”) are intent on replacing white people with compliant mongrel races who reproduce at higher rates. “This crisis of mass immigration and sub-replacement fertility,” Gendron wrote, “is an assault on the European people that, if not combated, will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people.”

For white supremacists, the end of white domination is as frightening as death. Though whites dominate government, courts and commerce, the fears of white supremacists have nevertheless magnified into nightmares of “white genocide” and “replacement” and are found not only in the manifestos of mass-murderers but in mainstream Republican political dogma.

And this includes Bristol County’s white supremacist sheriff, Thomas M. Hodgson.

Replacement was the theme of a 1973 novel by French nationalist Jean Raspail, a book that has captured the imagination of American white supremacists like Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Tucker Carlson, the Identitarian movement, and a considerable number of anti-immigration and white supremacist organizations – three to which Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson has close ties and all of which flog the narrative of the Great Replacement.

Raspail’s Le Camp des Saints was first published in 1973, translated into Englsh two years later and distributed by the Social Contract Press (more on this Tanton group later). The publisher described the book’s theme: “By the year 2000 there will on present projections be seven billion people swarming on the surface of the Earth. And only nine hundred million of them will be white.” Kirkus Reviews noted the book’s inherent fascism: “The publishers are presenting The Camp of the Saints as a major event, and it probably is, in much the same sense that Mein Kampf was a major event.”

Inspired by Raspail, in 2012 another French writer, Renaud Camus (no relation to Albert Camus), popularized the “Great Replacement” theory in a self-published novel by the same name, Le Grand Remplacement. Camus also penned You Will Not Replace Us, an homage to the American Alt-Right, and Tweeted: “the genocide of the Jews was undoubtedly more criminal but still seems somewhat small compared to global [white] replacement.”

In fact, le grand remplacement dates back at least to the Thirties when the expression was used by Nazi French collaborator Rene Binet, whose brigade ended up (I’m not making this up) in charge of defending Hitler’s bunker. An article from radioFrance notes that the phrase was probably used even earlier to characterize slave revolts in Haiti and Martinique, as well as to disparage Jews around the time of the Dreyfus affair.

While never truly defeated, Western fascism has been making a bit of a come-back. France’s Rassemblement National, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, England’s British National Party, Hungary’s Fidesz, and Spain’s Vox all wrap themselves in the same white Christian nationalism and anti-democratic authoritarianism that now characterize the American Republican Party. And all are preoccupied with “invasion” or “replacement” by non-white immigrants. It is no coincidence that the American Conservative Union’s CPAC Convention took place in Hungary this year. Fusing pan-European Identitarianism and resurrected fascism with good old-fashioned American white supremacy has long been a project of extremists like Steve Bannon.

But white supremacy cannot succeed without maintaining white Christian privilege and white numerical superiority, at least in the voting booth. Laws and maneuvers privileging white Christians, limiting immigration for non-whites, maintaining police control over largely non-white communities, preventing the diminution of the “white race” by abortion, and ensuring white election advantage – all are methods of delaying the inevitable loss of white supremacy.

The Tanton Network

Spike Lee’s film BlacKkKlansman opens with an unhinged racist, Dr. Kennebrew Beauregard, standing in front of a screen as D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation is projected onto his face. Beauregard laments the halcyon days when Anglo-Saxons were unchallenged masters of the nation, and he repeats several times, “We had a great way of life.” Today that lost “great way of life” has become a dog whistle for white supremacists and anti-immigrant groups who want to “make American great again” by making it white again.

Beauregard may be a fictional character, but John H. Tanton was not. Tanton was a Michigan ophthalmologist who single-handedly created a network of over a dozen white supremacist and anti-immigrant groups, half of which the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as hate groups.

The three best-known are: the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a lobbying and action group with great influence within the Trump administration; the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS); and NumbersUSA, all of which produce dubious anti-immigration reports and statistics. Tanton also created the Social Contract Press, which first published The Camp of the Saints.

Thomas Hodgson sits on FAIR’s National Board of Advisors and has appeared at anti-immigrant events sponsored by both FAIR and CIS.

Federation for American Immigration Reform

Though they might sugar-coat it a bit, FAIR’s mission is the preservation of Anglo-Saxon dominance from rapacious hordes of non-white, non-English speakers who threaten to replace white Christians and destroy America, thanks to the subversive efforts of globalists and socialists.

Once mainly an anti-immigration lobbying group, during Trump’s presidency FAIR became deeply embedded in his administration. MediaMatters notes that the mainstream media often cites FAIR’s untrustworthy “statistics” indiscriminately. The Libertarian CATO Institute slams FAIR’s studies and statistics as “fatally flawed” and “sloppy.”

FAIR’s legal wing, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, formerly headed by Kris Kobach, provides legal assistance to anti-immigrant groups. In recent years IRLI has dabbled in disenfranchising voters of color based on the claim that “illegals” are risking everything to throw elections for Democrats by voting illegally.

FAIR’s founder John Tanton expressed the organization’s mission most clearly: “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” And when Tanton spoke of “Europeans” he meant whites: “As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?”

George Washington University’s Gelman Library contains a repository of letters between Tanton and Otis Graham, a close friend of Tanton who helped him launch and run FAIR in the 1980s and who served as a board member of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Tanton and Graham wanted to create what they called a “League for European-American Defense, Education and Research.”

In 1991 Tanton and Graham took great interest in KKK leader David Duke’s campaign for the Louisiana governorship and were encouraged by Duke’s founding of the National Association for the Advancement of White People: “[T]here is a lot going on out there on the cultural and ethnic (racial) difference” [front], Tanton wrote. Appealing to racists was ultimately going to be “all tied to immigration policy. At some point, this is going to break the dam.”

FAIR, then, was created to mirror Duke’s approach and promote white interests: “There is currently no socially acceptable umbrella organization to which persons of European ancestry can belong to defend and promote their common interests,” Tanton wrote. “Absent such an organization in a highly organized society, European-Americans will continue to see their history rewritten, their character and accomplishments denigrated, and their faults magnified. They will steadily lose ground and position to other groups… For those not resigned to this gradual or not so gradual decline, a new organization tailored to the needs and interests of European-Americans as a group is essential.”

As a proponent of eugenics, Tanton also argued for sterilization of the “lesser” races: “Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids? And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less? Who is going to break the bad news to less intelligent individuals, and how will it be implemented?”

Dan Stein

FAIR’s current president is Dan Stein, who often coordinates media appearances and travel for Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson.

In a 1997 interview with “Alt-Right” darling Tucker Carlson, Stein claimed that Latino refugees arriving in the U.S. are godless, low-IQ haters: “Immigrants don’t come all church-loving, freedom-loving, God-fearing […] Many of them hate America, hate everything that the United States stands for. Talk to some of these Central Americans. Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?”

For Stein. immigration is a matter of maintaining white political power. He worries about a power shift attending newer waves of immigration. “It’s almost like they’re getting into competitive breeding,” Stein said in 1991. “You have to take into account the various fertility rates in designing limits on immigration.”

In addition to Stein’s views on recent immigrants, FAIR’s president indulges in a conspiracy theory that invokes the same villains responsible for the Great Replacement: “I blame ninety-eight percent of responsibility for this country’s immigration crisis on Ted Kennedy and his political allies, who decided some time back in 1958, earlier perhaps, that immigration was a great way to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris, and the immigration laws from the 1920s were just this symbol of that, and it’s a form of revengism…”

Center for Immigration Studies

Like FAIR, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) was founded by John Tanton and publishes questionable reports on immigration. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, CIS maintains extensive links to white supremacist and antisemitic groups. In 2017 the Southern Poverty Law Center documented 2,012 occasions on which CIS circulated white nationalist content.

CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian, who first worked at FAIR, quipped after the deadly 2010 Haitian earthquake: “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough.”

Jessica Vaughan, CIS Director of Policy Studies, may be the organization’s best known face – and certainly well-known to Hodgson, with whom she has appeared repeatedly. Vaughan is well spoken and comfortable testifying before Congressional subcommittees. Still, as the Anti-Defamation League reports, Vaughan had no misgivings in April 2014 when she gave an interview to an antisemitic newspaper, the American Free Press, founded by Holocaust denier Willis Carto.

Hodgson goes to work for FAIR and CIS

In 2011, According to FAIR’s annual report, the organization began cultivating sheriffs like Hodgson. “In 2011, we identified sheriffs who expressed concerns about illegal immigration.” FAIR staff “met with these sheriffs and their deputies, supplied them with a steady stream of information, established regular conference calls so they could share information and experiences, and invited them to come to Washington to meet with FAIR’s senior staff. We invited sheriffs who played the most prominent roles in addressing illegal immigration locally to FAIR’s national talk radio event, Hold their Feet to the Fire, where they shared their stories and expertise with listeners across the country.” Since roughly that time Hodgson has been a FAIR spokesman.

In July 2014 Hodgson visited the Rio Grande on a trip organized by FAIR’s National Field director, Susan Tully, who reported: “What we’re doing down here in the Rio Grande Valley is all about public education of our law enforcement officials so that they can see exactly what is going on along the border.”

The Anti-Defamation league already regarded Tully as a conspiracy theorist. She claimed, with no proof, that four million immigrants were granted amnesty in 1986 and – again invoking the Great Replacement – charged the Obama Administration with running school buses across the border to provide free K-12 education for Mexicans. The SPLC tracked Tully’s involvement in organizing a racist housing ban on immigrants in Fremont, Nebraska in which she called immigrants “invaders.” And, for organizing purposes, Tully simply made up the “fact” that Illinois has more “illegal aliens” than California. Tully has also been involved with an Oregon anti-immigration group with extensive militia and white supremacist links.

When FAIR National Advisory Board member Richard Lamm said that “new cultures” in the U.S. are “diluting what we are and who we are,” he didn’t mean just Latinos but Muslims as well. Susan Tully clarified Lamm’s remarks: “They are not coming here to become Americans,” she said. Rather, Muslims are “promoting colonization of their own religion, of their own culture in towns and taking them over.”

Tully has been spreading hate since 2002 for FAIR. In one interview with radio host Phil Valentine at a 2006 FAIR event in Tennessee, Tully claimed that a Border Patrol agent in Laredo, Texas described arresting the same man seven times. Tully said she asked the agent, “What do you do on the eighth time?” and Valentine interjected: “Shoot him!” Tully laughed and the FAIR crowd cheered.

In March 2015 Hodgson appeared with Tully at the Fisherman’s Club in New Bedford. He has appeared at most of FAIR’s “Hold their Feet to the Fire” events coordinated by Tully, most recently in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021.

In 2016 Hodgson was one of three speakers at a “Patriots Unity Day” rally in Randolph. The second speaker was Jessica Vaughan of CIS. The third speaker was Raymond Hanna from the anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America which also maintains white supremacist ties. ACT and FAIR have strong connections — and Tully figures into all of them. In 2016 Tully spoke at an ACT for America event in Idaho. ACT for America also happens to have a Nazi problem. In Arkansas ACT’s “March Against Shariah” events were organized by a Nazi and publicized on Stormfront.

On March 28, 2017 Hodgson testified with CIS Director of Policy Studies Jessica Vaughan at Border Security and Immigration Enforcement hearings in Washington.

In June 2017 the Sheriff appeared with Dan Stein and Michelle Malkin at an annual “Hold their feet to the fire” broadcast with anti-gay bigot Sandy Rios. Malkin too has links to white supremacist groups, including VDARE, as well as to Islamophobic groups. Malkin opposes the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to slaves. And, of course, Malkin is also a big fan of both John Tanton and The Camp of the Saints.

FAIR Board of Advisors

Over the years Hodgson has maintained numerous associations with Muslim-bashers, Anti-semites, gay-bashers, Birthers, and every variety of conspiracy theorist — many of them members of FAIR’s National Advisory Board. In November 2017 Hodgson joined that board.

When asked if his board membership might be construed as endorsement of his colleagues’ views, or at least be poor judgment on his part, Hodgson bristled: “I’m on a Board of Advisors. I go once a year to listen.”

But Hodgson is too modest. In 2014 the sheriff was not listening but speaking to FAIR’s National Board of Advisors when he conducted a two-hour dinner discussion on “The Effect of the President’s Decisions on DACA and its Impact on Our Law Enforcement Challenges.” In 2016 Hodgson participated in the National Board’s “Sanctuary Cities and Law Enforcement” roundtable with Putman County, NY Sheriff Donald Smith and FAIR’s Law Enforcement Relations Manager, Robert Najmulski. Half an hour later, FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman gave a talk entitled “Soros Hacked: The Truth Behind His Big Money Network to Destroy U.S. Borders.”

Hodgson was present for Mehlman’s analysis of materials that Russian hackers had stolen from Soros’ Open Society Institute, which Mehlman caled a “shadowy foundation” with a “globalist agenda” to attack U.S. immigration policy. But “globalist” is often white supremacist code for “Jewish” and FAIR, as we will shortly see, has an axe to grind with Soros not only because he is a liberal philanthropist, but also because he is a liberal Jew.

Besides Hodgson, some of FAIR’s National Board members include:

Lou Barletta, former mayor of Hazelton, PA who signed anti-immigration legislation in 2006 that was declared illegal a year later;

Sharon Barnes, clearly no DACA lover, who wrote: “It is our country. They and their parents need to be kicked out […] strengthen our laws and get rid of the locusts;”

Gerda Bikales, who regards Spanish as a ghetto language: “I don’t think Yiddish or Italian represented a threat to the union. But we are now setting ourselves up for an entrenched language ghetto;”

William Chip, who wants to repeal the 14th Amendment;

Donald A.Collins, who contributes to the white nationalist journal VDARE;

Dino Drudi, another Massachusetts zealot who has written for VDARE;

Don Feder, a Muslim-basher who thinks US troops should have “shoot-to-kill” orders on the Southern border;

Robert Gillespie, a proponent of population control — not for white Christians but in developing countries;

Joseph Guzzardi, a member of VDARE’s “editorial collective;”

Carol Joyal, who wrote a review of The Camp of the Saints calling it a “prophecy” of Third World destruction of the West while everyone else just called it racist;

Richard Lamm, former Colorado governor who said that “new cultures” in the U.S. are “diluting what we are and who we are;”

K.C. McAlpin, an Islamophobe who wants to ban Muslims for ideological reasons: “Congress has used that power in the past to ban the immigration of Communist Party and National Socialist (Nazi) party members who were deemed to be threats to our national security. This case is no different;”

Scott McConnell, another VDARE author, Executive Director at Lifeway Research (“be ready when homosexuality devastates”), and a member of the Family Research Council;

Paul Nachman, a Montana white supremacist who writes for VDARE, calls refugees “good liars,” and questions the existence of “moderate Muslims;”

Robert D. Park, founder of the “Article IV – Section 4 Foundation,” a group which maintains that government has abdicated its responsibility to uphold a Constitutional clause requiring it to defend the U.S. from “invasion;”

Randy Pullen, former chairman of the Arizona GOP and self-appointed expert on black crime: “Yes black lives matter. The best way to end the slaughter of young black men is to take guns away from blacks as they are the main killers;”

John Philip Sousa IV, great grandson of the famous musician, Birther, and friend of Joe Arpaio;

Alan N. Weeden, whose family owns the Weeden Foundation, major donor to white supremacist initiatives, and proponent of Secure ID, a national identification system.

Islamophobia

Although Hodgson swims with racists, Birthers, and antisemites, If there is one group to which he has more connections than any other, it is Muslim bashers.

In 1998 Hodgson was among the first group of municipal public safety officials to attend a four-day conference in Leesburg, Virginia on Strengthening the Public Safety Response to Terrorism. The conference was organized by the International Association of Fire Chiefs in conjunction with the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance and brought together police and fire chiefs from most metropolitan areas of the United States.

In an interview Hodgson said: “We were down there for four days to learn about this new thing that was coming onto our doorstep if we — Actually we were far behind in law enforcement. Because there [were] already people, terrorist activity long going on before that. In fact, if you look at [Steven Emerson’s] ‘American Jihad’ which will be worth your watching, you will see people — Muslims raising their — terrorists rising their rifles, dancing in the hall above stores in New York, saying, kill the infidels, kill the infidels. It’s all on tape. But anyway, so my training down there, I’m thinking, OK, you know what? This is good training, it’s good to be aware. The bag they gave us to carry our materials had a stencil on the front of it with the New York skyline with a target on one of the World Trade Center.”

Steven Emerson’s account of American Muslim rooftop celebrations of 9/11 in New Jersey, and Donald Trump’s recollections of the same have both been discredited. But Hodgson is drawn to self-anointed terrorism and Islam “experts” regardless how unreliable their information or their memory.

In 2015 Hodgson appeared with Dennis Michael Lynch at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, a synagogue run by Rabbi Jonathan Hausman – another self-appointed national security expert. Hausman’s temple had previously hosted Dutch neo-fascist and Islam hater Geert Wilders. Over 100 members of the clergy, including other rabbis, protested a similar hate fest the synagogue hosted the following year featuring Muslim-basher Frank Gaffney and Christian nationalist Jerry Boykin. When asked about Hodgson’s talk with Hausman, he explained he was just there doing his duty to inform the public about terrorism: “They asked me to come speak about terrorism. That’s what they asked me to do. So I was I was to speak with them. […] I was asked — I was invited to go there to speak. That’s why I was there, because of my my involvement with the terrorism task force.”

Lynch’s film, “They Come to America,” was reviewed by the Anti-Defamation League. “In the documentary, Lynch travels the country interviewing people about undocumented immigration. Lynch talks to figures from anti-immigrant groups such as NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform [both Tanton groups]. Lynch also interviews Glenn Spencer of the anti-Hispanic hate group American Border Patrol.”

Like Hodgson, Lynch is a supporter of the Constitutional Sheriff Movement. In 2014 Lynch made a fawning documentary about sovereign citizen rancher Cliven Bundy and in 2016 his bid for president was so off-the-wall that the GOP stood clear. Lynch routinely exaggerates the number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, claims that the Chinese are sneaking across the Mexican border in order to inflict a “cyber 911” on the U.S., and that ISIS is bringing terrorists into the U.S. via Mexico. This is exactly what we hear from Hodgson.

In 2018, Hodgson appeared on FOX News with Bernard Kerik, claiming that in 2015 MS-13 had ordered its members to expand the gang’s presence on Nantucket. Both claimed that MS-13 was recruiting in island high schools. The supposed metastasis of MS-13 in New England has been one of Hodgson’s favorite themes. Yet, as violent and grisly as the gang’s occasional handiwork is, MS-13 membership is down dramatically. In fact, in 2018 the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, Andrew Lelling, said that “we have all but eradicated MS-13 in the Greater Boston area. We’re running out of MS-13 targets.”

Another Islamophobic group that Hodgson is connected to, ACT for America, was founded in 2007 by Brigitte Gabriel. It claims to have more than 1,000 chapters around the country, and espouses the crudest sort of anti-Muslim hate. Both the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center have documented ACT’s many links with antisemitic, neo-Nazi, Christian right, Identitarian, and white supremacist groups. ACT for America sponsors anti-Muslim legislation and organizes anti-Muslim events with neo-Nazis. ACT for America organizes around the claim that Christianity and Judaism are under attack by Islam. Pastor Jack Hibbs and Stoughton Rabbi Jon Hausman — whom we met earlier — were both speakers at ACT’s 2016 “Religious Persecution” conference in Washington, DC.

In July 2007 Gabriel spoke at the Annual Convention of Pastor John Hagee’s Christians United for Israel (CUFI): “The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arabic world is quite simply the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil and this is what we’re witnessing in the Arab and Islamic world. I am angry. They have no soul! They are dead set on killing and destruction.”

Perhaps because of its far-too-frequent neo-Nazi connections, ACT for America became too toxic for even Donald Trump. Following an article in the Miami Herald announcing ACT’s gala at Mar-a-Lago, which was to have been headlined by Michelle Malkin (another friend of Hodgson’s), the Trump administration had second thoughts: “[The gala] will absolutely not be taking place at Mar-a-Lago,” a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization announced.

ACT might have been too toxic for Trump — but not for Hodgson and his friends from FAIR and CIS. In September 2016 the sheriff appeared at a Republican unity rally in Norfolk county attended by his old friend Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies and by ACT for America’s Ray Hannah.

In 2018 Hodgson and Brigitte Gabriel appeared again at FAIR’s “Hold their Feet to the Fire” event in Washington DC. And on September 26th both Hodgson and Gabriel attended FAIR’s 2019 “Hold their Feet to the Fire” event.

Antisemitism

In 2015 Hodgson joined American Family Association’s governmental affairs director and FOX News contributor Sandy Rios on her radio show at the U.S. Capitol. Rios claims that secular Jews have been the worst enemy of the country, that “so many of the Jews in this country are atheist” and “sometimes turn out to bethe worst enemies of the country.”

Hodgson has had a long acquaintance with Rios, having appeared with her regularly at FAIR’s annual “Hold their Feet to the Fire” events. In 2017 Hodgson appeared at one with Rios, Michelle Malkin and FAIR’s Dan Stein. Rios’s interviews were broadcast on the Christian broadcast network, American Family Radio, which also hosts programs by James Dobson and Brian Fischer. Among other members of the far right in attendance were Tom Roten, Congressman Steve King, Robert Spencer, and Hungarian neo-Nazi Sebastian Gorka. Among other gems, Rios told listeners that immigrants “don’t know basic hygiene.”

On February 10, 2019 Hodgson appeared on the American Family Council’s “Washington Watch” program with Tony Perkins. Perkins, who says that teaching evolution to children contributes to mass shootings, whose Family Research Council fabricates false claims about the LGBTQ community, and who would deny Muslims equal rights to religious freedom and ban mosques, played a central role in the Pompeo State Department’s Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom, a flagrant effort to make Christianity our state religion.

In 2001 Stephen Steinlight of the Center for Immigration Studies – one of the Tanton groups with which Hodgson is involved, and who suggested that Barak Obama be “hung, drawn and quartered” – wrote a report titled “The Jewish State in America’s Changing Demography.” Reflecting the Great Replacement theory and virtually screaming “Jews will not replace us,” Steinlight castigated secular Jews for their historical support for liberal immigration policies, arguing that Mexicans would soon erode Jewish political power. Steinlight offered himself as an example of a Jew who had come to see the light, saying that his own views had been changed by CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian – whose remark about Haiti you are already familiar with.

For FAIR and CIS, their war against the Jewish embrace of multiculturalism has largely been a failure, and secular Jews like George Soros who still advocate for liberal immigration have become a bitter enemy, as seen in Media Director Ira Mehlman’s 2016 talk following Hodgson’s at FAIR’s National Advisory Board meeting. In 2004 Steinlight issued a call to action with an essay, “High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry” but he still couldn’t make any progress with secular Jews. By 2010 Steinlight was frustrated and angry at his co-religionists, accusing the “Jewish Establishment” of censorship and repression.

Philosemitism

If liberal secular Jews are the “bad Jews,” then for FAIR and CIS Israel is the “good Jew” and a model of ethno-religious nationalism in which security and immigration are handled the “right” way. In 2019 FAIR’s Mehlman penned an article in the Daily Caller praising Israel’s “separation wall.” Hodsgon has also cited Israel’s wall as a model for the U.S.

In March 2017 Hodgson attended the AIPAC policy conference in Washington, also on the public dime. AIPAC, which bills itself as “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,” is the most powerful foreign lobby in the United States. While Democrats (and this includes most American Jews) have increasingly distanced themselves from Israel’s hard-line policies, Republicans have embraced AIPAC, and AIPAC has returned the favor by supporting extreme Christian Right Republican candidates.

Hodgson has not been particularly discriminating in jumping under the political bedsheets with antisemites and crackpots. A poster boy for this is Rick Wiles, an End Times believer and a fierce antisemite.

In November 2014 Hodgson appeared on TruNews — the “End Times Newscast” with Rick Wiles, a conspiracy theorist who, like Hodgson, advocates locking up people whose politics he disagrees with. Wiles devoted “the first half of the program to recount several profound prophetic dreams his family received years ago,” and in the second half Wiles interviewed Hodgson, who discussed immigration and his work with FAIR.

Among Wiles’ more deranged statements in recent years: that Obama was inspired by Lucifer, that Obama killed Supreme Court Justice Scalia as a pagan human sacrifice, that the Irgun has kill teams in America, and that Jews will use gun control laws to kill Christians.

American Border Foundation

But for Hodgson it always seems to boil down to immigration.

In 2018 Hodgson watchers took note when the sheriff announced with great fanfare that the National Sheriff’s Association (NSA) would be crowdfunding Trump’s wall. But Hodgson’s NSA project folded after raising less than $100K in three months — despite his false claim that excessive web traffic had crashed the site. For a time Hodgson’s old NSA site redirected donors to a group called the American Border Foundation.

When Hodgson began his association with the American Border Foundation, its Director of Communications was Jeremy Messina, who identifies with the white Nationalist Identitarian movement and whose Facebook postings bore striking similarities with the Buffalo shooter’s manifesto.

The American Border Foundation‘s crowdfounding scheme never reached its $450 million goal. During its three-year run, ABF’s less-than 4,000 donors raised barely over $227K. Its founder, Gary Dolan, had tried wall-building before via a FundRazr campaign that raised only $12K. The fund’s managing director, Quentin Kramer – who has ties to FAIR sister organization AVIAC – went on the conspiracy and white supremacist circuit trying to sell the project.

Kramer appeared on the far-right Southern Sense podcast and on an “anti-federalist” program that frequently invokes Article IV, Sec. 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”).

Despite lackluster donations, Hodgson claimed that as a sheriff he could cut through the red tape to ensure donations got to the Department of Homeland Security and that the wall would be built. In November of 2018, Hodgson said he submitted a form to DHS to donate $100,000 to pay for “border barriers on the Southern border.” But DHS informed the American Border Foundation it could not accept the donations.

Nevertheless, in 2019 Hodgson and Kramer were still acting as if the crowdfunding effort was still viable. Both spoke at a FAIR-AVIAC-sponsored press conference in Washington, whose main function was to highlight the “Angel Families” who had lost family members to auto accidents or crimes committed by undocumented migrants.

As of today, the whereabouts of $227,657 in ABF donations are still unknown. Neither the ABF nor Hodgson has ever responded to information requests from Bristol County for Correctional Justice or American Oversight.

Protect America Now

Hodgson’s latest project is called Protect America Now, which looks like nothing more than several God-and-Country sheriffs who oppose immigration reform, gun control, voting rights, secularism, and socialism. The sheriffs include: the group’s spokesman, Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb; Green County (MO) Sheriff Jim Arnott; Livingston County (IL) Sheriff Tony Childress; Bristol County (MA) Sheriff Thomas Hodgson; Brevard County (FL) Sheriff Wayne Ivey; Culpeper County (VA) Sheriff Scott Jenkins; and Wicomico County (MD) Sheriff Mike Lewis.

Despite Protect America Now’s call to “stand strong against lawlessness,” its sheriffs refuse to enforce state gun control laws or COVID-19 mask or social-distancing mandates. Instead, harkening back to the original function of American sheriffs as slave patrols, this motley crew support arming and deputizing their mainly white county residents against “urban” protesters and – again echoing the Great Replacement – border “invaders.”

Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb is the public face of Protect America Now and a “Constitutional Sheriff” who claimed in one speech to the Arizona Police Association that “the constitution is hanging by a thread.” Lamb belongs to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association founded by former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack and spoke at CSPOA’s 2020 Virginia Conference. At least three other Protect America Now sheriffs, Thomas Hodgson, Scott Jenkins and Wayne Ivey, are also CSPOA members.

Contrary to Protect America Now’s marketing on Fox News and elsewhere — Protect America Now is not Lamb’s creation. It turns out the incorporator and director of Protect America Now is Nathan Sproul, a GOP operative who has been accused of, fired for, and charged with multiple counts of voter fraud, and who set up Protect America Now most recently in June 2020. As a sometime associate of Karl Rove, Sproul’s entire career has been devoted to voter suppression and dirty tricks.

The trademark for Protect America Now was created in 2004 and was the brainchild of Kathy W. McKee, who is still listed on a PAC registration with a similar name. McKee was also the driving force behind a 2004 Arizona voter suppression bill, Proposition 200. As soon as McKee got Prop 200 on the ballot, the GOP and every brownshirt and satin-sheeted group in Arizona took an interest. But McKee made the mistake of bringing an unfiltered white supremacist, Dr. Virginia Abernethy, onto the organization’s national advisory board. Abernethy was so extreme for the rest of the racists that the Federation for American Immigration Reform removed Abernethy and took control over PAN to save Prop 200, despite previous support for Abernethy.

The lawyer who incorporated Protect America Now for Sproul is Kory Langhofer, an equally ethically-unencumbered GOP lawyer who fought both the Mueller investigation for Trump and challenged Arizona election results for Trump. Protect America Now and Langhofer’s offices share a common address. Langhofer is also the co-owner of Signafide, a company that uses AI to challenge ballot signatures.

As the GOP increasingly embraces nativism, the extremists have gone mainstream. The innvolvement by high level GOP operatives like Nathan Sproul and Kory Langhofer using sheriffs like Hodgson and their dangerous militia and white supremacist connections says a lot about the party’s transformation.

Not so very long ago it was racists and xenophobic extremists who worked behind the scenes to support the GOP. Now it’s the Republican Party operating behind the scenes to support the extremists.

Confederate Tie(s)

A couple of years ago, someone noticed that an archived page from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Department featured an official portrait of Hodgson wearing a Confederate necktie. Howard Graves, a research analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), recognized Hodgson’s tie as an “Old South Confederate Necktie” which resembles the Confederate battle flag and is sometimes called an Anglo-Confederate society tie. Graves added, “Many people affiliated with the broader neo-Confederate movement wear that tie either in necktie or bowtie form.” Mark Pitcavage with the Anti-Defamation League, agreed: “The tie in the photograph seems certainly to be derived from the design of the Confederate flag.”

Despite everything you’ve read so far, Hodgson vehemently denies his sly tip of the hat to the Confederacy. “They know I would not be wearing anything that makes me the poster boy for bigotry.”

Hodgson’s spokesman provided an even more flaccid defense – that Hodgson “has never heard of neo-confederates or anglo-Confederate societies or anything like that.”

Despite the faux outrage and feigned innocence, in the last 24 years Bristol County voters have had ample time to observe a sheriff who openly advocates for white supremacy and rubs elbows with neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis. In fact, there is no one in Bristol County who qualifies better than Hodgson as a poster boy for bigotry.

It’s time for voters to finally send this companion of fools into retirement in November.

Those who have watched Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson for any length of time know of his extensive white supremacist connections and attention-grabbing moves like instituting chain gangs, offering to have his prisoners build Trump’s border wall, informing on his own church in unctuous letters to former immigration advisor Stephen Miller, or personally participating in a jail riot. Hodgson is restless and ambitious, and he spends much of his time traveling at Massachusetts taxpayer expense to events organized by the Republican Party or by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and spinoffs like Advocates for Illegal Alien Crime (AVIAC), most of which both the ADL and SPLC count as hate groups.

Hodgson’s newest project is called Protect America Now, which purports to be simply seven God-and-Country sheriffs who oppose immigration reform, gun control, voting rights, secularism, and socialism. The sheriffs include: the group’s spokesman, Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb; Green County (MO) Sheriff Jim Arnott; Livingston County (IL) Sheriff Tony Childress; Bristol County (MA) Sheriff Thomas Hodgson; Brevard County (FL) Sheriff Wayne Ivey; Culpeper County (VA) Sheriff Scott Jenkins; and Wicomico County (MD) Sheriff Mike Lewis.

Despite Protect America Now’s call to help “stand strong against lawlessness,” most refuse to enforce state gun control laws or COVID-19 mask or social-distancing mandates. Instead, the sheriffs support arming and deputizing their mainly white counties against both urban protesters and border “invaders.”

Pinal County (AZ) Sheriff Mark Lamb is the public face of Protect America Now. Lamb is a self-promoter with numerous businesses and organizations through which he and his wife Janel market themselves and their “God and Country” brand of nationalism. He has interests in two pest control businesses with police themes. One of Lamb’s “charities,” the American Sheriff Foundation, took in $50,000 in donations but can not account for $18,000 of it. The Foundation’s main function seems to be to sell Lamb’s “brand” and the couple’s books about themselves. Lamb is being investigated by the Arizona Attorney General for refusing to seize property in 2018 owned by the family of a lobbyist friend.

Lamb is a “Constitutional Sheriff” who claimed in one speech to the Arizona Police Association that “the constitution is hanging by a thread”. He belongs to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association founded by former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack and appeared at CSPOA’s 2020 Virginia Conference. At least three other Protect America Now sheriffs, Thomas Hodgson, Scott Jenkins and Wayne Ivey, are also CSPOA members.

Jessica Pishko, in a Slate article entitled “Sheriffs Helped Lead This Insurrection,” hit the nail on the head when she wrote that “ninety percent of American sheriffs are white men, and in recent years they’ve become strongly affiliated with white supremacist groups. Across the country, sheriffs have declared that they will not enforce laws they deem ‘unconstitutional,’ like COVID-19 public health orders or gun laws limiting weapons possession and permits. Their influence has only grown since the pandemic began, as mask wearing became affiliated with progressive liberals and a bare face was a sign of Trump support. Trump has always had an affinity with sheriffs. He met with more sheriffs at the White House than any other president and pardoned ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted of contempt of court for failing to abide by a nondiscrimination order, calling him an ‘American patriot.’“

The Protect America Now sheriffs — contrary to their mission to “stand strong against lawlessness” have arrogated themselves the additional roles of lawmakers and judges, picking and choosing which laws they flout and which they enforce. Many of these choices hinge on race.

Pishko explains the racist origins: “[…] the constitutional sheriff movement has explicitly white supremacist roots. When the Supreme Court held in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation was unconstitutional, county sheriffs were among the Southern officials who defied the court’s decision. They claimed that, in fact, desegregation was unconstitutional and invoked a legal theory called ‘interposition,’ which argues that states can independently decide federal laws are unconstitutional and nullify them.”

Which is precisely the approach Trump and the GOP took in fighting both impeachment and Trump’s election loss.

When asked for comment on the January 6th Capitol insurrection, Lamb seemed to echo QAnon, attributing insurrectionist anger to the unpunished crimes of Hillary Clinton and defending the rioters: “I don’t know how loud we have to get before they have to listen to us and know we will no longer tolerate them stripping our freedoms away.” Lamb also repeated accusations of Democrat election fraud in a video that he subsequently took down.

Lamb is well-connected with the white supremacist Tanton network, its groups FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA, Angel Families, AVIAC, as well as border wall scammers like Steve Bannon (pardoned), Brian Kolfage (indicted), and Tom Hodgson, whose crowdfunding partnership with the now-defunct American Border Foundation, still can not account for more than $227,000 it collected.

While Lamb may be the poster boy for Protect America Now, six more sheriffs round out the roster. Some of them are less the ideologue than just cruel, arbitrary, racist, and crooked jailers who work for a white constituency that thinks cruelty is the only way to run jails and conduct police patrols.

Sheriff Jim Arnott serves Green County in the Missouri Ozarks. Like his brothers in Protect America Now, Arnott does things his way, voters and employees be damned. Arnott has made a name for himself insisting on his officers’ belief in a deity. When asked by one reporter what he would do if one of his deputies objected to his mandatory “In God We Trust” decal, Arnott replied, “Well, I guess he’d have to work somewhere else if he didn’t like it that bad.”

Like several other sheriffs, including Tom Hodgson, who was investigated by Homeland Security, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and a Congressional delegation for his personal participation in a correctional officer riot, Arnott runs a cruel, filthy jail where half those incarcerated have contracted COVID-19. In 2018 a county employee blew the whistle on Arnott’s sheriff’s department being pressed into a political campaign for a county tax increase. Arnott sued the state for the identity of the whistleblower and launched a barrage of press releases designed to fight the case in the court of public opinion. Arnott even harassed a county commissioner who had objected to Arnott’s ethics violations. Ultimately Arnott lost his case and finally had to admit that he had indeed violated state ethics laws.

Tony Childress of Livingston County, Illinois, is Protect America Now’s only Black sheriff. Childress was one of the Federation for American Immigration Reform’s earliest converts to its xenophobic “border invasion” campaign. With fellow Protect America Now members Hodgson and Jenkins, Childress attended a FAIR- and CIS-led junket to the Mexican border in 2014. Childress was also one of 40 sheriffs who met with former president Trump in 2019 about hardening border security. In 2018 Childress was found to have engaged in a little double-dipping — serving as sheriff while also working as a security consultant for Innovative Security Solutions. Childress defended his actions with the usual sheriff defense — whatever he had done was done solely in the interests of public safety.

Brevard County, Florida Sheriff Wayne Ivey is the living, breathing incarnation of the Southern sheriff. In 2013 Ivey re-introduced slave-style chain gangs. It was a racist touch that Arizona’s Joe Arpaio used and which Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson has also tried. If Ivey’s chain gangs were not bad enough, Brevard County’s sheriff produces “Wheel of Fugitive” videos and encourages the county’s 83% white citizens to arm themselves. Slave catching is alive and well in Brevard County.

In 2018 Ivey’s deputies murdered Gregory Edwards, a jailed Black veteran, by punching, tasing, and pepper-spraying him before placing a hood over his head and strapping him into a chair. Edwards died of a non-medical “police diagnosis” called “excited delirium.” At first Ivey refused to turn over the videos of Edwards’ death, but eventually agreed to turn over a sanitized version. In 2020 Ivey’s deputies murdered two Black teenagers,18-year-old Sincere Pierce and 16-year-old Angelo Crooms, by shooting into their moving car. Again Ivey refused at first to release the video.

After his deputies killed Edwards, Ivey paid a surprise visit to Edwards’ widow “for a welfare check.” Ivey, ringed by half a dozen deputies, showed up at Kathleen Edwards’ home unannounced, demanded she “step outside,” upon which Ivey grabbed and then, inexplicably and grotesquely, hugged her. It was a bizarre, cruel, and menacing visit. “Out of respect for Mrs. Edwards’ privacy, the Sheriff’s Office will not be commenting on the nature or purpose of tonight’s service call at her residence,” Ivey’s media spokesman said, while acknowledging that the deputies had also filmed the staged confrontation.

Like Sheriff Arnott, Ivey insists that his deputies affix “In God We Trust” decals to their vehicles. And for those who like their God and Country nationalism in equal doses, Ivey also insists on playing the national anthem or staging some “patriotic moment” every Monday. In 2017 the City of Orlando passed the Trust Act, which limited the ability of city police to assist ICE. In 2018 outraged county commissioners, with Ivey’s help, sponsored an “anti-sanctuary” resolution.

For all his faux devotion to God and Country, upright behavior has not been the result. In 2011 Ivey retired from the Florida department of law enforcement (FDLE) three days after he was accused of threatening a female probation officer who just happened to be the former fiancee of Ivey’s son Robert.

Like Mark Lamb, Ivey sounded the alarm when Black Lives Matter began protesting police murders. At the height of the protests in June 2020, Attorney Alton Edmond, who organized a George Floyd rally that drew more than 3,000 people, announced an election challenge to Ivey. It was the first time the Democratic Party had bothered to challenge the Republican.

Scott Jenkins is the Sheriff in Culpeper County, Virginia. In September 2020 Jenkins posted a video rant on his department’s Facebook page: “Citizens should alert themselves to the true nature of this violence and realize the intent is for it to continue across our nation during the months ahead. Antifa and the Black Lives Matter movement is not peaceful and at their heart are violent. They may bring their violence to any community at any time and especially where they see weakness in local government officials. These are a few of the many examples across our nation.”

So frightened of Black protesters was Jenkins that he advocated turning his county’s 80% white citizenry into reserve deputies to fight “lawlessness,” gun control and other forms of legislative or judicial “meddling” that he, Scott Jenkins, determined to be “unconstitutional.” Jenkins openly flouts his state’s gun laws. And if it sounds like the sheriff might just be a CSPOA member, well, it’s because he is.

A number of county residents have launched a legal effort to recall Jenkins, and he was sued by the Legal Aid Justice Center in Falls Church, Virginia, for handing over an undocumented immigrant to ICE in 2017. After serving his time in the county jail, Francisco Guardado Rios was held past his release date in order to be turned over to ICE, as Jenkins had done to 100 other undocumented detainees. It was unconstitutional and violated even state law, but Jenkins fought law and precedent, finally prevailing in U.S. District Court. This made him a hero to the far right.

Wicomico County, Maryland Sheriff Mike Lewis is another Protect America Now sheriff who refuses to enforce gun laws. “State police and highway patrol get their orders from the governor,” Lewis said. “I get my orders from the citizens in this county.” In a video Lewis told one reporter, “As long as I’m the sheriff in this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of their right to bear arms. I can tell you this, if they attempt to do that, it would be an all-out civil war, no question about it.”

Responding to Lewis’ inflammatory rhetoric, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence launched a petition calling for the Maryland Police Training Commission to revoke Lewis’ certification. “It is difficult to see how a law enforcement officer who is threatening to wage war with the United States government meets any recognized standards of public service. In the wake of his threatening comments, Sheriff Lewis should not be given the responsibility of training law enforcement officers in Maryland.”

Contrary to Protect America Now’s marketing on Fox News and elsewhere, Protect America Now is not Lamb’s creation. It turns out the incorporator and director of Protect America Now is Nathan Sproul, a GOP operative who has been accused of, fired for, and charged with multiple counts of voter fraud, and who set up Protect America Now most recently in June 2020. As a sometime associate of Karl Rove, Sproul’s whole career has been devoted to voter suppression and dirty tricks.

It is no coincidence that today’s Protect America Now has is roots in a similar organization created 18 years ago or that Nathan Sproul was involved in both. The trademark for Protect America Now was created in 2004 and was the brainchild of Kathy W. McKee, who is still listed on a PAC registration with a similar name. McKee was also the force behind Arizona’s 2004 bill. Proposition 200, a voter suppression bill. As soon as McKee got Prop 200 on the ballot, the GOP and every brownshirt and satin-sheeted group took an interest.

But McKee made the mistake of bringing a white supremacist, Dr. Virginia Abernethy, onto the organization’s national advisory board. Abernethy turned out to be even too extreme for the rest of PAN’s racists and xenophobes, so the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which had previously supported McKee and Abernethy, stepped in to save Prop 200 despite its previous support for Abernethy.

Between 2004 and 2005 there was a power struggle for control of Protect America Now between McKee and the Federation for American Immigration Reform and, once again, it involved Nathan Sproul. As he had done with the Kanye 2020 campaign, in 2004 Sproul paid signature collectors to get Ralph Nader on the ballot in order to siphon Democratic votes. But while Sproul’s signature gatherers were getting Nader on the ballot their prime mission was gathering signatures for the voter suppression bill.

The story gets even weirder when we learn that the lawyer who incorporated Protect America Now for Sproul is Kory Langhofer, an equally ethically-unencumbered GOP lawyer who fought both the Mueller investigation for Trump and challenged Arizona election results for Trump. Protect America Now and Langhofer’s offices share a common address. Langhofer is also the co-owner of Signafide, a company that uses artificial intelligence software to challenge ballot signatures.

Two years ago, Hodgson, Lamb, Ivey and the others were just a bunch of Stetson-hatted MAGA zealots supporting cruel immigration policies promoted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform and Trump’s immigration advisor Stephen Miller. But by dutifully groveling and doing whatever was asked of them, each has established a closer personal connection to Donald Trump and to a Republican Party that finally looks like them.

As the GOP increasingly embraces nativism, the extremists have gone mainstream. Involvement by high level GOP operatives like Nathan Sproul and Kory Langhofer with sheriffs like Hodgson and their dangerous militia and white supremacist connections says a lot about the party’s transformation.

Not so very long ago it was racist and xenophobic extremists who worked behind the scenes to support the GOP. Now it’s the Republican Party operating behind the scenes to support the extremists.

When Citizens for Juvenile Justice published their study of racially-biased police stops in New Bedford, We are the Prey, the usual Only Blue Lives Matter voices savaged the report, completely rejecting the possibility that racist policies and personnel may be operating within the New Bedford Police Department.

But no one should have been shocked by the results. Most American cities have long suffered from racist policing, as hundreds of studies over the years have amply documented and other cities have even acknowledged.

CFJJ’s report — informed by data the NBPD itself supplied — shows precisely how, when, where, by whom, and why racial profiling is done. Its findings faulted vague disciplinary policies, poor data collection, arbitrary assignment of youth to an opaque gang database, over-policing in certain neighborhoods, clear over-policing of Black and Hispanic youth, and a relatively small number of officers doing most of the racial profiling. In fact, CFJJ identified the NBPD’s “Top Ten” on page 16 of their report.

This small number of officers whom CFJJ found responsible for the many racially-motivated stops was cited in an Amicus Brief on a racial profiling case now before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The case concerns the New Bedford Police gang unit’s pretextual stop of a vehicle with a backseat passenger well-known to the unit.

The gang unit officers who searched and arrested passenger Zahkuan J. Bailey-Sweeting after the driver supposedly made an unsafe lane change included at least three officers responsible for the most stops in the CFJJ data. These three officers — Roberto DaCunha, Gene Fortes, and Kory Kubik — alone accounted for one of seven stops in the CFJJ data. Bogus, and very likely unconstitutional, traffic violations no doubt help inflate these officers’ numbers.

I was curious to see if any of these officers appeared in a “Professional Standards” document the NBPD released to the public last year. The NBPD spreadsheet shows a backlog of police complaints over many years with a status (filed, sustained, not, exonerated). The cases go back as far as 2012.

So I cross-referenced the NBPD complaints and disciplinary issues on all officers mentioned in the CFJJ report, using the number preferred by the NBPD — number of stops — rather than CFJJ’s number of individuals affected by those stops. The result was a spreadsheet shown in the image above (available for download).

Even if one stop targeted five individuals, I only looked at discrete officer stops. The results were only slightly different from CFJJ’s, but even when using NBPD’s preferred metric the results still showed a high degree of racial profiling, an apparent lack of officer discipline, and they suggest a culture of police impunity.

CFJJ’s analysis by race depended on counting individuals affected by the police. But mine was focused on the police officers making those stops. Five officers accounted for almost 25% of all stops, eleven accounted for 40%, and eighteen officers accounted for 50%. There was nothing in those results to contradict CFJJ’s conclusions — even using NBPD’s preferred metric.

One officer — Roberto DaCunha — alone accounted for 6.6% all individual stops. That’s one out of fifteen of all stops supplied to CFJJ by the NBPD. And DaCunha did it without incurring even a single disciplinary write-up — ever. In addition to his involvement in the Bailey-Sweeting stop, DaCunha is the same officer named in a lawsuit for the wrongful death of Erik Aguilar, which cost the City of New Bedford almost a million dollars to settle. In the investigation that followed, DaCunha invoked the Fifth Amendment and investigators appeared to be satisfied with that. The Aguilar family’s lawsuit maintained that DaCunha and four others “knew that leaving Mr. Aguilar in this position could cause him to die from asphyxia, yet they did not move him from this position until after his heart had stopped beating.”

I do not have list of officers in the gang unit. However, none of the officers in the gang unit whose names I recognize from past news reports or from Malcolm Gracia’s murder appear to have racked up any consequential disciplinary complaints. And many of the officers with the highest numbers of stops either received no disciplinary write-ups — or received write-ups for only relatively minor issues: mishandling evidence or failing to report for duty. This seems to suggest that their racial profiling is either condoned or incentivized.

Some of the more troubling disciplinary issues among New Bedford’s Finest include: Civility; Respect of Others; Violation of General Order 3-20 Anti-Discrimination policy; Violation of General Order 12-02 Use of Force; Knowledge of laws; Commission of an act of abusive conduct; Immoral Conduct Conduct unbecoming; Conduct injurious to the public; Neglect of Duty; Insubordination; Suspicious Conduct; [Not] Speaking the truth; Issuing False Statements; Consorting with Criminals; Use of intoxicants; Physical and mental fitness; Return of Property to Owner; Absent without Leave; and Ignorance of Departmental Rules and Regs.

Year after year officers keep violating the same policies over and over, yet they remain on the force. Chris Cotter, for example, who also serves on the New Bedford School Committee, has violated computer and social media policies repeatedly since 2014, as his sustained disciplinary cases attest.

14-1752 502.2 Respect of others; 14-1752 502.3 Civility; 14-1752 Viol of General Order 2-13 – Computer Usage Policy; 15-1796 Viol of General Order 13-06 – Use of Dept. Vehicle; 15-1796 Viol of General Order 2-13 – Computer Usage Policy; 16-1822 Viol of General Order 2-13 – Computer Usage Policy; 16-1822 Viol of General Order 3-24 – Social Media Policy; 17-1856 Viol of General Order 3-24 – Social Media Policy; 17-1856 Viol of General Order 7-02 Release of info to media; 17-1857 515.6(c) Insubordination – Disrespect for ranking officer; 18-1951 502.2 Civility; 18-1951 501.6 Providing police service on duty; 18-1951 501.9 Answering questions; 18-1951 515.6(l) Improperly performing duties assigned; 19-2009 515.6(c) Insubordination; 19-2009 502.2 Civility; 19-2009 502.3 Respect of Others

Paul Hodson, accused of killing Erik Aguilar in 2010, had no disciplinary issues until 2019 when he was written up for: [19-1992] 515.6(o) Commission of any act contrary to the order and discipline of the dept; and 501.1 Suspicious conduct. Despite repeatedly and publicly disparaging minorities on social media, Hodson happily enjoyed departmental impunity — until he was finally sent away on federal child pornography charges in 2019.

Damien Vasconcelos, who was also named in the Aguilar lawsuit for failure to render aid and apparently gave Hodson a congratulatory fist bump at the scene, had several, mostly low-level, disciplinary issues sustained.

When you read through the Professional Standards cases, it is striking that in any other job authoritarians, racists, drunks, liars, rude employees, no-shows, and insubordinates would be quickly sent packing.

Unfortunately, the data shows that New Bedford police are doing a far better job of serving themselves and covering their own backs than protecting and serving the people of New Bedford.

When the Citizens for Juvenile Justice report on racial profiling by the New Bedford Police was released in April 2021, the usual police zealots and members of city government attacked CFJJ’s numbers and screamed that New Bedford was different from those “other” cities. We couldn’t possibly be racists.

But it’s not as if police racism has ever been a secret or a surprise. For years local governments everywhere have brushed off community complaints of racial profiling, harassment, and police violence. But over the years a massive body of research has been amassed, showing that — and precisely how — so many of our institutions are corrupted by institutional racism. Sure, there may be a few bad apples in the barrel, but the point is — the barrel itself is rotten. But again, we have long known this and also how to fix it. We just choose not to.

Below is just a small selection of articles on racial profiling available in April 2021, as the Citizens for Juvenile Justice Report was released. While hardly exhaustive, they demonstrate that the NBPD’s racial profiling of Black and Hispanic youth is not unheard of. Everywhere. CFJJ’s numbers are not anomalous. At least one article makes the case that statistical data like CFJJ’s not only confirms the reality of racial profiling, but “furthermore, strong statistical associations should support an inference of discriminatory intent.”

And I agree. Politicians and policy experts have known about the many insidious forms of racial profiling and their costs to society’s most vulnerable for decades, as these articles illustrate. And when cities know the costs of racial profiling and racist policing and still refuse to stop it, then, yes, that’s racism by design.

• 1/3 Of People Killed By Police After A Traffic Stop This Year Were Black | The Crime Report

• 2018 Executive Summary

• 24 Frightening Racial Profiling Statistics – Vittana.org

• A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States | Nature Human Behaviour

• A new statistical test shows racial profiling in police traffic stops | Stanford School of Engineering

• Activists back Senate approach to traffic stop data – News – The Herald News, Fall River, MA – Fall River, MA

• Analysis: LAPD searches blacks and Latinos more often – Los Angeles Times

• Are Traffic Stops Prone to Racial Bias? | The Marshall Project

• Arizona Traffic Stop Data Analysis Study: Year 3 Final Report – 2009

• Bill would require collection of race data in traffic stops

• Black men are 8 times more likely to be stopped by Oakland police than White men, data shows – ABC7 San Francisco

• Black men fleeing the police is reasonable, Massachusetts court rules | PBS NewsHour

• Black, Hispanic drivers searched more often than white drivers, data shows

• Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – Traffic Stops

• Chicago police more likely to stop Black drivers without citing them, data investigation reveals – ABC7 Chicago

• Cleveland Heights police cited by CSU Diversity Institute over 3:1 racial disparity in traffic stops – cleveland.com

• Confronting allegations of racial profiling in Massachusetts – Harvard Law Today

• Connecticut data reveal racial disparities in policing | DataHaven

• Connecticut Racial Profiling Prohibition Data Project – CTRP3 – CTData Collaborative

• COPS Evaluation Brief – Promoting Cooperative Strategies to Reduce Racial Profiling – 2008

• Data suggests racial bias in NH traffic stops

• Decades of Data Suggest Racial Profiling is Getting Worse, Not Better

• Do Maryland police target minorities? The data can’t tell us – CNS Maryland

• Does the Minneapolis Police Department Traffic Stop Data Reveal Racial Bias? – Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality

• Driving while Black: ABC News analysis of traffic stops reveals racial disparities in several US cities – ABC News

• Duluth group examines apparent racial disparities in DPD traffic stop data, NAACP asks for change

• Duluth to take closer look at police race bias, traffic stops – StarTribune.com

• FBI Data: Racial Profiling Is Real … and Ferguson Is Just the Tipping Point

• Few states require local police to collect race data on traffic stops – pennlive.com

• Findings – The Stanford Open Policing Project

• Grand Rapids police oversight department to start collecting racial disparities in arrest, traffic stop data – mlive.com

• Houston Police Department’s analysis of motor vehicle stop data for 2015

• Illinois Traffic and Pedestrian Stop Study – Data from 2004 to 2019

• Inside 100 million police traffic stops: New evidence of racial bias

• It’s time to start collecting stop data: A case for comprehensive statewide legislation — The Policing Project

• Mapping Police Violence – Database and GIS Mapping

• Mass Police Reform – Working to Reform Policy & Practice

• Mass. High Court Lowers Burden For Proving Racial Bias In Police Stops | WBUR News

• Mass. SJC wants lawmakers to require racial data on traffic stops | Boston.com

• Massachusetts Police Data Points to Disparities In Arrests – NBC Boston

• Massachusetts Racial and Gender Profiling Study – Final Report May 2004

• Massachusetts Statute for the Collection of Data Relative to Traffic Stops

• Newsday analysis: Suffolk police stopped, searched minority drivers at higher rates | Newsday

• North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation – Traffic Stop Statistics

• Ohio State Highway Patrol | Statistics

• Pa. State Police resume tracking racial data during traffic stops in response to Spotlight PA report

• Police data collection project (New Bedford Police Department) • MuckRock

• Police Stop Black Drivers At Higher Rate Than Whites In California | HuffPost

• Police stops are still marred by racial discrimination, new data shows. | Prison Policy Initiative

• Policing and Racial Justice | The Kansas Data Project: Injustice by the Numbers

• Portland Police Bureau Traffic Stop and Search Data – Sep 23 2009

• Project CommUNITY: Massachusetts not immune to racial bias in policing

• Race and Policing – 100+ studies

• Race-Based Traffic Stop Data Dashboard – 2019

• Racial Disparities in Traffic Stop Outcomes

• Racial Disparities In Traffic Stops Decrease, But Inequalities Remain | Connecticut Public Radio

• Racial disparities revealed in massive traffic stop dataset – UofSC News & Events | University of South Carolina

• Racial gap found in traffic stops in Milwaukee

• Racial Profiling and Mandatory Data Collection in Nevada: How will Law Enforcement Respond? will Law Enforcement Respond?

• Racial Profiling and Traffic Stops | National Institute of Justice

• Racial Profiling? A Multivariate Analysis of Police Traffic Stop Data – Michael R. Smith, Matthew Petrocelli, 2001

• SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

• San Diego Has Fallen Behind on Combating Police Racial Profiling

• Session Law – Acts of 2000 Chapter 228

• State of California Department of Justice – OpenJustice

• State police traffic stop data shows racial disparities remain  – VTDigger

• State-commissioned study finds racial disparities in R.I. traffic stops for 4th year in a row – The Boston Globe

• States Face Up To Realities Of Police Racial Profiling | The Pew Charitable Trusts

• Stops, Citations, and Arrests – Police Data Initiative

• Study of 100 million police stops finds black motorists are more likely to be pulled over | CNN

• Ten years’ worth of NC traffic stop data reveal racial disparities in searches in North Carolina

• Texas was supposed to collect racial-profiling data. It left out most of the ‘racial’ part.

• The Long Road to Ending Pretextual Stops | Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review

• The Statistical Evidence of Racial Profiling in Traffic Stops and Searches: Rethinking the Use of Statistics to Prove Discriminatory Intent

• Traffic Stop Data | Arizona Department of Public Safety

• Traffic Stop Data Reporting – Governor’s Office of Crime Prevention, Youth, and Victim Services

• Traffic stop report shows lack of progress on racial disparities – VTDigger

• Traffic-stop data won’t halt debate over racial profiling | The Seattle Times

• UTEP Analysis of San Jose Police Department Stop Data Focuses on Racial Disparities

• Vehicle Stop Data Collection – City of Sacramento

• Vehicle Stops Report – Missouria 2020

• VSP releases 2019 traffic-stop data, racial disparities remain | Vermont Business Magazine

• What data on 20 million traffic stops can tell us about ‘driving while black’ – The Washington Post

• What decades of traffic stop data reveals about police bias – CBS News

• Wisconsin State Police Stops: How Choices in Madison have led to Missing Racial Data and Other Outcomes | Data Science Blog

• Would taking police out of traffic stops make a difference in reform?

There’s been a lot to unpack this week, both nationally and locally

The United States has over a thousand police killings each year, and many of them are of unarmed Black and brown people. In fact, America has more daily or weekly police killings than some European nations have homicides from all causes combined in a single year. And yet Americans — and I mean the majority, you, my fellow white Americans — are in deep denial of both facts and the reasons for all this spilled blood. Both the Chauvin trial and a recent report documenting the extent of racial profiling by the New Bedford Police have received a tremendous amount of blowback from white people. So I’d like to address both in this rather long essay.

Police serving American cities ought to be able to bring more to the door than a service weapon, but that’s apparently what White America wants. Those serving the public ought to have skills in psychology, first aid, social services, conflict resolution, and de-escalation. Here in Massachusetts all school teachers are expected to have masters degrees in order to be “highly qualified.” Police officers, on the other hand, are more likely to pursue memberships at health clubs and shooting ranges than college credits. And let’s face it: we hire police for their muscle, with a clear preference for combat veterans skilled in the arts of war.

The brutal truth is that the real function of the policing White America wants is evident in almost every police interaction. There’s no sugarcoating it. States hire cops for brutality — to compel immediate compliance with the law. But it’s not working. Or perhaps it’s working so well that in an age of ubiquitous cameras police forces have now exposed this brutality and, in the process, the extent of America’s police state.

For this reason, communities all over the United States are considering reallocating police funding to the essential human services now being mishandled by police. The idea is that targeting mental health and drug crises with professional skills, not Glocks and Tasers, will prevent some of this carnage. And relieving police of routine traffic control is likewise intended to reduce the pretextual (translation: Constitutionally dubious) stops that all too often result in a police shooting. But this is not enough. America also needs to face up to its legacy of policing born of slave-catching. After January 6th, though, I have a low opinion of White America’s ability for self-reflection.

America’s police, at least in Black and brown communities, are not there “to protect and to serve” so much as they are there to maintain old, discredited, unconstitutional models of “broken windows” and “stop and frisk” policing. You can dress it up — as the New Bedford Police Department has at various points — with euphemisms like “High Energy Patrols” or “Walk and Talk” or the much-abused “community policing.” But what police, many with recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, really mean by “community policing” is actually more akin to occupation and pacification of the enemy.

This “us versus them” attitude, well-entrenched in police culture and seen daily in police Tweets and Facebook posts (like the Fall River Police Department’s post on George Floyd), and reinforced by bad hiring, the rare firing, little discipline, minimal oversight, virtually nonexistent accountability and vague operational policies — none of this can be fixed overnight. Communities need to start from scratch to redefine how they want to be policed — that is, if they really want to stop the bloodletting.

The media may prefer neutral terms like “controversial” to describe the unconstitutional stops and patdowns, the pretextual traffic stops, the 24/7 surveillance, the “predictive policing,” and the racial profiling that accompany a police occupation. But there is nothing “controversial” about it. It is just plain wrong. It is illegal and it’s got to stop. Otherwise America will remain little more than a police state, especially for people of color.

Police, naturally, resist data collection and reporting obligations that might draw attention to racist practices. So, it is often up to community groups and independent researchers, using data only very reluctantly and resentfully provided by the police themselves which is intentionally incomplete or obfuscated — data they were compelled to produce by public information requests — to step into the breach and study patterns of racist policing. The CFJJ report was just that.

Last week’s Citizens for Juvenile Justice report on NBPD field police observations involving nearly 5,000 individuals showed that New Bedford Police have never stopped using racial profiling. CFJJ took some heat from the NBPD, the police union, and the Far Right for reporting on precisely what the NBPD had given them. But a 2018 Organizational Assessment study of the NBPD noted that the NBPD doesn’t collect accurate data because it just doesn’t care: “Obtaining accurate data was a challenge […] The multitude of errors present in all areas of the data indicate a lack of supervision and oversight both in communications and patrol. […] A quick review of some of the entries […] shows the errors in the data along with a disregard for the importance of collecting accurate data…”

To this date the NBPD has failed to make numerous recommendations in that 2018 Organizational Assessment of the NBPD commissioned by the Mayor, which also interviewed members of the community at large. And that report followed a 2015 report by the ACLU documenting the NBPD’s racist policing, and the 2012 Malcolm Gracia shooting — itself the result of racial profiling. Nothing has changed in at least a decade because the NBPD simply rejects reform.

From the same 2018 Organizational Assessment: “There is little evidence of a team approach, and there is significant resistance to change within the patrol division. The command staff does not appear to readily embrace innovation and often gravitated to sentiments such as ‘this is how we have always done it’ and ‘things will never change.'”

The 2018 report also noted that officer discipline cases had languished for many years and that only under the leadership of the most recent police chief was any effort made to address the backlog of disciplinary cases. Naturally, the police union retaliated by forcing a “no confidence” vote on the chief.

It’s clear that change is not going to come from within the nation’s police forces, city councils, or the nation’s mayors. It seems clear that change will be imposed upon the nation’s police by legislation like H.R.1280 – the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, and by eliminating a legal doctrine called Qualified Immunity, which confers impunity to police for even the most egregious acts. For this reason, H.R.1470, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, was filed by Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley.The goal is to eliminate outrageous deviations from normal criminal justice norms. Police shouldn’t get concierge service in the nation’s courts.

As much as New Bedford’s mayor and police officials might like to pretend that New Bedford is unique, the city’s police force is no different from most in America. If you were outraged at Derek Chauvin kneeling on George Floyd’s neck in front of Cup Foods until he died, while several other officers stood around watching, then you would be equally outraged at watching the video of officer Paul Hodson kneeling on Erik Aguilar in front of New Bedford’s Extra Mart until he too was dead, while several other officers made no attempt to resuscitate Aguilar. The striking difference between these two cases is that, while we all watched Chauvin led off in handcuffs to prison, Hodson remained on the NBPD payroll until he was finally prosecuted — not for killing Aguilar but on federal child pornography charges. And in both killings it was not just one officer demonstrating callous disregard for human life. It was all of them.

Let me repeat that. It was all of them. There are no bad apples in the nation’s police forces. The apple barrels are so rotten that good apples don’t stand much of a chance of preserving individual integrity. This is why change must be sweeping and why it must be imposed. Police are incapable of reforming themselves.

But digging deeper, where does such contempt for non-white life come from, and why is it so easily excused? Most of White America completely rejects police accountability. To listen to many of my fellow white folks’ own words, America’s overwhelmingly white police forces are there to keep non-white “mobs” from overrunning white neighborhoods. Referencing the “carnage” that Donald Trump referred to in his racist inauguration speech, White America also sees the non-white “mob’s” demands for justice as an equal threat to their supremacy. The “Us versus them” mentality of police extends to the “Us versus them” inherent in a race war. A race war that White America seems all to eager to have.

Newsmax host Rob Schmitt called Derek Chauvin a “sacrifice to the mob.” Sheriff Tom Hodgson’s pal Michelle Malkin used almost the same words: “Chauvin was sacrificed.” Donald Trump’s friends the Proud Boys circulated a post, “Derek Chauvin Did Nothing Wrong.” Georgia Congresswoman with No Committees Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed Chauvin’s conviction on Black people — BLM particularly, which has “proven itself to be the most powerful domestic terrorist organization in our country. After Maxine Waters’ threats, could there have been any other verdict?” Fox News’ resident Alt-White host Tucker Carlson also blamed the guilty verdict on Black terror in characteristically offensive terms: “The jury in the Derek Chauvin trial came to a unanimous and unequivocal verdict Tuesday afternoon: ‘Please don’t hurt us.'”

That same white supremacy on display following the Chauvin verdict was also on display following the release of the CFJJ report on New Bedford police racial profiling. A lot of it came from WBSM, especially from Barry Richard, whose latest includes the meaningless bromides: “the system works when given a chance” and “a nation divided must learn to heal.” In a post attacking CFJJ’s report on racial profiling Richard accused the mayor of failing to defend the NBPD, and in another he called police critics “malcontents who threaten to destabilize […] society.” Richard wrote that CFJJ was “attempting to create racial division where it does not exist and is looking to drive a wedge between the minority communities and the police […] — people who have co-existed in relative peace and harmony for so many years.” Richard would have you believe that there are no local critics of New Bedford police, only outside agitators. One wonders why Richard didn’t write reams about the many out-of-staters who invaded the nation’s Capitol on January 6th.

New Bedford City Councilor Brian Gomes — the New Bedford Councilor representing the Police Ward — was featured in another of Richard’s posts, calling the CFJJ report “garbage” and promising to introduce a City Council motion to stand in support of the NBPD. Gomes, the same Councilor who introduced a resolution to reject ending qualified immunity, who wanted to buy drones to surveil New Bedford residents, and who supported Southern-style chain gangs, also accused CFJJ of trying to “stir things up” in the City. Once again, no Dixie-style defense of local law enforcement would be complete without calling critics “outside agitators.”

But the CFJJ report resonates with a lot of people in New Bedford, including most of the groups which sponsored the CFJJ webinar. Including old-time observers of local politics like former Standard-Times editor Jack Spillane, who now hosts a website on New Bedford politics. In one of his latest pieces, Spillane noted that, even if the CFJJ study made assumptions that the NBPD could find fault with, the fact remains that “it would be a very good thing if for just once all of us who live here would acknowledge the serious mistrust that exists between large segments of the New Bedford’s minority community and the police department.”

Spillane also noted that the Police based their entire refutation of CFJJ’s report on a questionable discrepancy: “The police statement took pains to paint as serious errors what to others could easily be construed as simple disagreements over what numbers should be counted. […] To be fair, whatever errors are in the report because of multiple counting would apply to the numbers of both Black and non-Black residents, both Hispanic and non-Hispanic individuals. So it’s hard to see how its conclusions would be any different than they were.”

You can view a video of the Zoom presentation of the CFJJ report here, the report itself here, and the slides used in CFJJ’s presentation here. You can also read CFJJ’s reply to the New Bedford Police criticism here. But it’s hard to argue with the numbers — particularly since they came from the police themselves and they only confirm what a similar 2015 study of NBPD field observations showed: New Bedford cops employ racial profiling on a grand scale.

I will cite Spillane again because he sums it up perfectly: “Flawed or not, the Citizens for Juvenile Justice report was a badly needed and serious effort to raise issues about the equity of policing in New Bedford. It was a long overdue attempt to start a discussion with the city’s political and law enforcement establishment about what often amounts to an occupying-force approach to policing in New Bedford. It is an attempt at a data-driven study that the city itself should have done long ago.”

Local police defenders may prefer denial and smears of police critics to actually contending with the data, but that can’t erase the fact that America has a policing problem tied to a long racist legacy. New Bedford is just one of thousands of local police forces that share those problems and that legacy. New Bedford can fix the problems locally — or wait for change to be imposed. After 70 years on this planet, and knowing more than a little about my “people,” I guarantee you it will be the latter.

Wednesday’s presentation by Citizens for Juvenile Justice was extremely powerful and damning. New Bedford has serious policing problems. The departure of a police chief will leave both a vacuum and uncertainty about what sort of leadership replaces him. And the city has a mayor who couldn’t be bothered to attend the unveiling of a study of 5,000 police stops, all of which took place over the last 5 years of his incumbency. Thankfully, New Bedford has many friends and residents who do care.

After the killings of Erik Aguilar and Malcolm Gracia by New Bedford police — which alone cost the city $1.5 million in settlements — all the same conditions still exist today and it is only a matter of time until New Bedford experiences another police killing. Action is needed to fix bad policing both at the national, state, and municipal level.

Some people may not like hearing it, but the heart of the problem of police killings is American racism. While police forces and sheriffs may no longer officially be the slave catchers they were created to be, their modern counterparts still control and surveil Black and brown neighborhoods like military occupiers. Indeed, many of today’s police officers have had recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. And aided by the Defense Logistics Agency’s 1033 program, America’s police forces not only look like military occupations but use identical equipment.

As CFJJ reported, people in non-white New Bedford neighborhoods feel that the NBPD “essentially operates as an occupying force in poor neighborhoods of color.” For the most part, White America’s neighborhoods are spared this bad- and over-policing. While many white Americans have joined the calls for police reform, many more simply don’t want to know what goes on elsewhere.

But thanks to body cameras and mobile devices we are finally seeing just how bad 21st Century policing in America really is. And this includes police training. Whether it’s de-escalation, dealing with mentally-ill people, or the finer points of patrolling neighborhoods, America’s police basically don’t have a clue. And this is precisely as designed. Because the goal of America’s police forces is not so much to “protect and to serve” as it is to keep Black and brown people in line.

Time and time again mental health emergencies turn into police slayings. Time and time again traffic stops result in a homicide. Time and time again authoritarian police “compliance” rapidly resorts to force. Time and time again interrogations turn into tragedies. Given that police officers are trained intensively to kill with skilled center shots but lack training in psychology, social work, or any of the skills that might actually serve the public, it is no wonder that so many interactions end up with a Black or brown death. For this reason, we’ve seen numerous proposals to divert police funding into the hands of agencies that actually provide human and mental health services to the public. Let police investigate real crimes but leave the rest of human services to the real professionals.

Police impunity compounds aggressive over-policing, poor training, and the misplaced use of armed police officers for social services and traffic control by rewarding bad policing. The few cases we now see of officers being tried for homicide are a totally new phenomenon. And they have only come about as a result of public outrage. Unfortunately, these cases, rare as unicorns, do not represent a consistent commitment to racial justice in which police officers receive the same justice as everyone else. On the contrary, over decades police impunity has become enshrined in law thanks to a legal doctrine known as “Qualified Immunity.”

As Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-7) wrote in a fact sheet to accompany H.R.1470, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act: “The court’s broad interpretation of this doctrine has allowed police to violate constitutional rights with impunity, providing officers immunity for everything from unlawful traffic stops to brutality and murder. Qualified immunity shields police from accountability, impedes true justice, and undermines the constitutional rights of every person in this country. It’s past time to end qualified immunity.” But, as of this moment, impunity is still the rule and the Chauvin trial the rarest of exceptions.

Compounding the structural defects mentioned previously is the absence of community control. Police departments are structured as paramilitary organizations whose members take orders from higher-ups. Therefore, just as we saw in the George Floyd killing, police usually defer to a ranking officer even when it is obvious that a murder by one of their own is in progress. Just ask former policewoman Cariol Horne, who was fired in 2008 for stopping a white officer from administering a lethal chokehold to a Black man. She didn’t “go along to get along” and it cost her a job and her pension.

In a society that refuses to see itself as a police state, why do we blindly accept that police departments look exactly like branches of the military? Who, actually, are police waging war against? Moreover, how is paramilitary organization consistent with fulfilling a municipal services function? And why are citizens completely locked out of managing police forces? You may not like the answer, but here it is anyway: because the goal of America’s police forces is not to “protect and to serve” but to keep Black and brown people in line. Public management of police departments would upend this function pretty quickly.

Following a killing, police are usually permitted to investigate themselves, with police unions setting the terms of investigations and interrogations. District attorneys, who have daily, fraternal, interactions with the police, almost always refuse to prosecute even the most egregious misconduct. We saw all this unfold after Malcolm Gracia’s murder, and America has seen it play out hundreds of thousands of times. The officer who shot Jacob Blake in the back seven times? — he went back to work yesterday.

None of this is what any sane person would call justice. In fact, the bitter phrase “criminal justice” has become such a cruel joke that many of us can’t manage to put those words between our teeth. America may fancy itself as a nation of laws, but each time someone charged with enforcing laws breaks them with impunity while elected representatives look the other way, it shreds our democracy a little bit more.

National and state legislation is needed to set us on a different course. As of this writing, only a handful of states have lifted qualified immunity for police officers. The Massachusetts House, which only very reluctantly passed a police reform bill in an overtime session last year, preserved Qualiifed Immunity after intense lobbying by police unions. This should tell you who many Massachusetts legislators really represent.

Last month the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1280, the George Floyed Justice in Policing Act of 2020, which addresses policing practices and law enforcement accountability. It increases accountability for police misconduct, requires more transparency and data collection, and eliminates discriminatory policing practices. It also enables federal prosecution of unconstitutional practices by state and local law enforcement, limits qualified immunity in some cases, authorizes the DOJ to subpoena police departments more easily, create a police misconduct database, and mandates the body cameras and the reporting of incidents where force was used. Unfortunately, it’s doubtful this legislation will clear the Senate.

Changes to policing policy, such as the 19 recommendations Citizens for Juvenile Justice offered New Bedford residents, can make a big difference. For too long police forces have not only enjoyed complete impunity but also relative freedom from public controls and mandates. These at least represent policy changes. But they are recommendations, not absolute requirements. For that you need legislation. Yet too many mayors and city councilors habitually defer to the police on police matters while hypocritically micromanaging schools and other municipal departments. Too many legislators defer to police, sheriffs, or police unions. This sloppy, lazy governance has contributed to sloppy, unaccountable policing — precisely what is to be found in most of America’s police departments.

One obvious solution is to vote more wisely. But let’s not be naive. Those who want to preserve 21st Century American policing are constantly told that, without the police having carte blanche (run that through Google Translate some time) anarchy would rein and blood would run in the streets. What they really mean is — without police impunity the Black and brown people would rise up and overrun us.

In the end only complete citizen control of police forces, including the end of Qualified Immunity, will change the structure, practices, reporting, investigations, hiring and firing, discipline, and prosecution of bad cops. Instead of a primary mission to subdue the non-white population, police might then actually start serving communities who hire them.

On January 6th — in addition to avowed white supremacy and conspiracy groups — a number of firefighters, police officers, and military reservists joined the mob storming the nation’s Capitol building. In some cases they severely beat fellow law enforcement officers, in other cases flashed police credentials to gain unlawful entry into the Capitol. Law enforcement agencies around the country conducted internal investigations, and some officers have already been fired.

Yet neither the New Bedford Police, the Bristol County Sheriff’s Department, nor the Dartmouth Police Department conducted internal investigations into officers who might have participated in the insurrection. The New Bedford Mayor’s office referred inquires about investigations to the FBI. Chief Cordeiro told a Zoom meeting much the same. A Dartmouth Police spokeswoman said that “at this time” there was no investigation. The Bristol County Sheriff’s Office simply refused to answer our question.

The most charitable explanation is that local law enforcement agencies are waiting to see if the FBI turns up anything. A less charitable, but far more likely, explanation is that police and sheriff’s department are showing their usual disinterest in investigating their own, even for crimes that would permanently disqualify them from serving in any law enforcement capacity ever again. Unfortunately, the public has come to expect responses like this from police agencies that operate with increasing impunity.

Historically, the nation’s sheriffs have been closely identified with slave patrols and white supremacy. Our own local sheriff is a spokesman for the white supremacist anti-immigrant group FAIR, state campaign chair for America’s first openly white supremacist President, and spent considerable time attempting to ingratiate himself with white supremacist presidential immigration advisor Stephen Miller, as information requests by the ACLU, Political Research Associates, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and others reveal. Sheriffs have a long history of racist impunity, as many remember from the Jim Crow era. Since those days, sadly, not enough has changed.

The nation’s police forces are part of a criminal justice system that Elizabeth Warren took heat for calling “racist, top to bottom.” It ought to be unnecessary to point out, especially after George Floyd’s murder, that police forces, especially, have major problems with disproportionate killings, arrests, and assaults on people of color. But then there are the white supremacist chat rooms — from Facebook, Twitter, Gab, and Parler, to Stormfront and others — where a disproportionate number of participants are law enforcement or members of the military.

A 2019 investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting found that hundreds of police were members of neo-Confederate, militia, or white supremacist Facebook groups. The Plain View Project created a database of Facebook posts from self-identified police officers in just eight of America’s 350 cities and found tens of thousands of racist posts by police officers endorsing racial violence and bigotry. What would they have found in the nation’s 15,000+ small towns and in the remaining 342 cities?

In 2010 New Bedford Police officer Paul Hodson encountered a disturbed Guatemalan man and, within three minutes, had killed him by first pepper-spraying him and then kneeling on his back. Hodson, who was only removed from the NBPD after being convicted of child pornography charges, was known to post racist content on social media. The Standard Times printed some of his tame contributions: “After having a great time over the past 2 days spending time with friends and family, its back to work to deal with the scum of the earth,” he posted in 2011. “Time to go to work and violate some civil rights.”

Police forces historically do nothing about racism in the ranks. In the 1990’s a white supremacist gang, the “Vikings,” operated with impunity right under the noses of the brass of the Los Angeles Police Department. Klan affiliations of police and sheriffs were well-known during the Civil Rights years, and police today continue the tradition of breaking Black heads by treating Black Lives Matter activists as terrorists for simply demanding accountability or posting fantasies about running protestors over with their cruisers.

And if you think New Bedford is different from other communities, think again.

Former Bristol County Sheriff’s detective Peter Larkin, who went to work for the New Bedford Schools, was fired in 2019 for posting his own disturbed racist fantasy on Facebook. Angry at Black Lives Matter people protesting in New York City, Larkin wrote, “I would roll tanks and bulldozers. Mush any human in the way. Shoot everyone else. Pile up the bodies and burn them on national tv.” Is this an example of a someone who needs psychological help – or was Larkin simply posturing for fellow ex-cops who drink from the same racist cup?

Whatever the causes — hiring the wrong people or habitually refusing to hold “bad apples” accountable — police racism is both systemic and a self-inflicted societal wound that only radical reform and public control can fix.

The events of January 6th, which far too many law enforcement officers particpated in, provides one more example of why public oversight of police is crucial. Police simply can’t be trusted to investigate themselves. And why would any sensible person even expect them to?

If local law enforcement officers are found to have participated in the January 6^th insurrection, they must be immediately dismissed, stripped of their pensions, and never permitted to betray the Constitution or the public trust again. But since local law enforcement agencies won’t do it themselves, let municipalities investigate. If municipalities won’t do it, then let the state Attorney General conduct credible investigations.

The time for taking white supremacy within the ranks of law enforcement seriously is long overdue.

We know that in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts neither the schools nor the police are collecting adequate data on school-based offenses. This is not to single-out New Bedford. It reflects a state-wide, if not a national, lack of interest in tracking at-risk youth.

Many types of data describing the process of a child moving through the juvenile justice system — from schools, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), police, district attorneys, courts, probation, the Department of Youth Services, federal DOE and DOJ mandated data — must be analyzed in order to answer two critical questions about School Resource Officers: (1) does the presence of armed police in schools actually deter violence and mass shootings? and (2) is there a risk to children, particularly children of color, of disproportionate discipline and their early introduction into the criminal justice system?

However, there is some data, and we need to look at it. In January the NAACP New Bedford branch hosted a community discussion of SROs and juvenile justice. One of the invited organizations looked at data which school collect and turn over to DESE. Citizens for Juvenile Justice (CFJJ) obtained DESE data on school discipline in Massachusetts Gateway Cities. Aggregated data is published on the DESE site and there it is possible to look at specific infractions by school or by district. For example, you can find the New Bedford schools here:

From this data we find that in 2018-2019, out of 13,811 students in the entire district, 35 were disciplined for weapons (types unspecified), 69 for threats to other students, zero for sexual assault, 70 for fighting, 508 for battery (which includes any form of contact such as shoving or spitting), 65 for illegal substances, zero for felonies, and 5 for bullying.

But the New Bedford Public Schools already knows this. It’s their data.

The relative absence of violent crime in these numbers suggests that SROs are either unnecessary or are preventing serious crimes currently not being documented. Without data or specifics it is impossible to know which is the case. As the Justice Policy Institute has documented, schools have disciplined and expelled children just for chewing a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun. To determine if armed police are actually needed in the New Bedford schools, a better analysis of disciplinary cases, then, is necessary to determine which cases actually rose to the level of a crime.

CFJJ obtained the raw data behind the DESE numbers in order to look at discipline by race, gender, disability, economic status, and language.

Using this data CFJJ prepared a statistical analysis for each Gateway City. The New Bedford analysis was one of them. CFJJ looked at overall discipline by race, discipline for students with a disability, students economically disadvantaged, and students whose first language is not English.

The NAACP New Bedford branch obtained CFJF’s DESE data extract. You can download it here. It was possible to reproduce CFJJ’s results and also to crunch the data in additional ways. For example, we can view high school and middle school discipline with greater granularity, and by school. You can download an extract for the New Bedford schools here.

The DESE-supplied data relies on Excel Autofilters, which anyone familiar with the software should be able to apply.

Then, using Excel’s charts, visual respresentations of the data can be produced:

While CFJJ’s Gateway City report looked at discipline by the percentage of, for example, Black students over all students disciplined, it is also possible to look at the percentage of Black students disciplined over only Black students. We found that, within each racial group, Black males were always the statistically most likely to be disciplined — reflecting what national research already shows — even when they represented a smaller proportion of total disciplinary cases.

For example, the chart above for Roosevelt Middle School shows that almost one out of three Black males were disciplined while only one out of five white males were. In fact, the discriminatory over-discipline of Black males is a feature throughout all New Bedford non-elementary schools and also at Greater New Bedford Voc-Tech, whose numbers we also obtained.

Similar analyses can be done for non-English-speakers, students with disabilities, and those living in poverty. As both the ACLU and the American Bar Association point out, students of color with disabilities are especially likely to be injected into the school-to-prison pipeline.

The Sentencing Project recently released a report on racial disparities in youth incarceration in the United States. Guess which state had the 9th worst disparity in Black youth incarceration? Massachusetts. And guess which state was Number One in incarceration disparities for Latino children? Massachusetts. And this follows significant 2018 reforms affecting youth in the criminal justice system.

So why is all this important? Because SROs are frequently asked to handle disciplinary matters that have nothing to do with crimes, and the DESE data CFJJ has published shows that school officials who may ask SROs to intercede are more likely to discipline children of color.

Until the New Bedford Public Schools can prove that the benefits outweigh the risks, we call on Superintendent Anderson to suspend, immediately, their SRO program with the New Bedford Police.

Downloads

• CFJJ / DESE Collection
• NAACP Extract for New Bedford

The 192nd General Court of the Massachusetts Legislature is considering a number of bills related to school resource officers.

The Chapter 69 Criminal Justice reforms and Chapter 253 police reforms now give school superintendents complete discretion to run SRO programs. New legislation also requires schools to collect discipline and arrest data, which for the most part they have failed to do. With school resource officers being advertised by both police departments and school districts as “mentors” and “teachers,” and with even some SROs admitting they are often pressured into being used as disciplinarians by school staff, several new bills make it clear that police in schools are not to replace professional support staff and that their role is solely to deal with clear criminal activity.

• HD.2534 – Lindsay N. Sabadosa (D-First Hampshire) has proposed HD.2534, An Act relative to the location of school resource officers. This bill removes SROs from school grounds and makes it clear that SROs will never replace school counselors, psychologists, or disciplinarians.

• SD.2043 – Harriet L. Chandler (D-First Worcester) has proposed SD.2043, An Act relative to safer schools. This bill makes it clear that SROs will not (i) serve as school disciplinarians, enforcers of school regulations or in place of licensed school psychologists, psychiatrists or counselors; and (ii) use police powers to address traditional school discipline issues, including non-violent disruptive behavior. The bill also prohibits SROs from intervening in all but clearly criminal acts.

• HD.3090 – Kay Khan (D-11th Middlesex) has proposed HD.3090, An Act relative to safer schools. This bill makes it clear that SROs will not (i) serve as school disciplinarians, enforcers of school regulations or in place of licensed school psychologists, psychiatrists or counselors; and (ii) use police powers to address traditional school discipline issues, including non-violent disruptive behavior. The bill also prohibits SROs from intervening in all but clearly criminal acts.

• SD.180 – Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Second Suffolk) has proposed SD.180, An Act to prioritize violence prevention and social emotional health in school support staff hiring. In the event that schools keep SROs, it should not be at the expense of professional support staff. This bill requires at least seven “Mental and social emotional health support personnel” for every SRO and requires DESE to document compliance.

• HD.2748 – Brandy Fluker Oakley (D-12th Suffolk) has proposed HD.2748, An Act to prioritize violence prevention and social emotional health in school support staff hiring. In the event that schools keep SROs, it should not be at the expense of professional support staff. This bill requires at least seven “Mental and social emotional health support personnel” for every SRO and requires DESE to document compliance.

Republicans didn’t care much for the Chapter 69 Criminal Justice reforms passed in 2018 and no sooner did the Chapter 253 police reforms go into effect on January 1st than they began devising ways to return to the good old days when police controlled school hallways, not superintendents.

• SD.856 – Patrick M. O’Connor (R-Plymouth and Norfolk) has proposed SD.856, An Act Creating a School Resource Officer Grant Program and Fund. This bill establishes a state-administered fund to be shared only with communities who adopt SRO programs, and funds must be matched by local communities. The Commissioner of Public Safety (a political appointment) appears to exert significant influence in grant awards.

• SD.857 – Patrick M. O’Connor (R-Plymouth and Norfolk) has proposed SD.857, An Act promoting local control and effective training of school resource officers. This bill returns appointments of SROs exclusively to police chiefs, despite the title’s claim to restore community control.

• SD.2171 – Bruce E. Tarr (R-First Essex and Middlesex) has proposed SD.2171, An Act relative to school safety issues. This bill replaces superintendent’s discretionary appointment of SROs with an appointment by the Commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Two additional bills with SRO provisions from James Arciero and Walter Timilty seem to be cases of Democrats pandering to the police lobby. A third stange bill from Cynthia Creem is sure to offer both opponents of SROs and opponents of gun control something to jointly despise.

• HD.2052 – James Arciero (D-2nd Middlesex) has proposed HD.2052, Resolve establishing an Enhanced Public School Safety Commission. This resolution would create a commission to study placing bulletproof glass, classroom surveillance, and retired police officers in schools.

• SD.769 – Walter F. Timilty (D-Norfolk, Bristol and Plymouth) has proposed SD.769, An Act relative to school safety and security. This bill involves school resource officers in a requirement to hold live intruder drills within 90 days of the beginning of the school year.

• SD.1506 – Cynthia Stone Creem (D-1st Middlesex and Norfolk) has proposed SD.1506, An Act relative to firearms and firearms violence. This bill sets up a Firearms Violence Prevention Trust Fund, which among other things, prioritizes “programs that support the provision of school resource officers.” Revenue for the fund comes from a 4.5% tax on guns and ammunition sales.

On February 3rd the Sentencing Project published a new study, Racial Disparities in Youth Incarceration Persist, by Josh Rovner, Senior Advocate Associate at the Sentencing Project. It examines disparities in arrests of white children and children of color, and it does not paint an encouraging picture.

For the NAACP the findings are no surprise. Black, Native, and Latino youth have been historically disciplined and arrested in disproportionate numbers and make up a lopsided percentage of those who are fed into the criminal justice system.

The good news from the study is that in the last decade youth incarceration has been cut in half. The bad news is that, for children of color, they are still targets of overzealous and racist policing and school discipline. Disparities in Latino youth incarceration have dropped by 21% — still not on par with national improvement — but Black and Native youth incarceration disparities have remained “essentially unchanged” in the last decade.

The Sentencing Project study quotes Tufts University Sociologist Daaniki Gordon, who notes that “police are […] more likely to intervene in behavior by youth of color that would go unremarked or ignored by police in neighborhoods where white youth predominantly live. Residential segregation leads to school segregation, and students of color often experience their misbehaviors treated as a disciplinary or policing issue while their white peers’ misbehaviors are more frequently seen as behavioral health concerns, potentially meriting a modified curriculum and additional school support personnel to assist with behavioral needs.”

As the study notes, criminalization of children of color often begins with, and right in, the schools. With very good reason schools have been correctly identified as the first stop in the school-to-prison pipeline. It is NAACP policy that armed police have no place in school hallways. Now that Massachusetts police reform has given school superintendents complete discretion over SRO programs, especially with case after case after case after case after case after case of children abused by SROs, it is up to school superintendents to prove that these programs do no harm to children of color. We call on Superintendent Thomas Anderson to stop the SRO program immediately and prove to city residents that it serves some positive function.

While Massachusetts has the fifth lowest youth incarceration rate in the United States, these low rates do not extend to Black, Native or Latino Children. Massachusetts has the ninth highest disparity between Black and white youth incarceration rates and is #1 in disparity in the nation between Latino and white youth incarceration — and it’s only worsening.

The Sentencing Project has offered three recommendations for state, city, and school policy makers:

1. Racial impact statements: States and localities should require the use of racial impact statements to educate policymakers about how changes in sentencing or law enforcement policies and practices might impact racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system.
2. Publish demographic data quarterly: States and counties should publish demographic data quarterly on the number of incarcerated or justice-system involved youth, including race and ethnicity. The federal government should disseminate this information nationwide.
3. Invest in communities: States and localities must invest in communities to strengthen public infrastructures, such as schools and medical and mental health services, with particular focus on accommodating the needs of children of color.

Let’s look at how these are — or are not — being addressed currently.

As we learned in last week’s forum on Juvenile Justice and School Resource Officers, racial impact and racial justice are poorly-considered factors in both school and policing policy, or are simply not considered at all. Juvenile justice data is either not collected — in violation of state law — or it must be obtained by FOIA request or lawsuit. And budget priorities for communities frequently overlook social and human services in favor of simply throwing more money at policing.

The NAACP believes that this study adds to what many Americans have finally woken up to — that the American criminal justice system is deeply racist and needs much more reform than the band-aids and minimal reforms that timid legislators have come up with to-date.

You can download a PDF of the full Sentencing Project study from their website.

As of January 1st, 2021 Massachusetts law on School Resource Officers (SROs) has changed.

In past years the deployment of SRO’s was entirely up to the Chief of Police. But the choice of whether to place armed police in schools is now entirely up to school superintendents.

When Governor Baker signed S.2963, the compromise police reform bill, it redefined many elements of the SRO program, striking Section 37P in its entirety, and now gives superintendents the final word on whether they want armed police in district schools:

“(d) For the purpose of fostering a safe and healthy environment for all students through strategic and appropriate use of law enforcement resources and to achieve positive outcomes for youth and public safety, a chief of police, at the request of the superintendent and subject to appropriation, shall assign at least 1 school resource officer to serve the city, town, commonwealth charter school, regional school district or county agricultural school. In the case of a regional school district, commonwealth charter school or county agriculture school, the chief of police of the city or town in which the school is located shall, at the request of the superintendent, assign the school resource officer who may be the same officer for all schools in the city or town.”

I’ve attached a PDF of the legislation.

The New Bedford schools, which last October kicked off a community “conversation” with a propaganda video supporting SROs, have now enlisted community members to help improve the program. But instead of improving the optics of their SRO program, the school district now needs to justify its continued existence. And there are two questions the School Superintendent must answer:

1. what risks do placing armed police in schools pose to children, particularly children of color?
2. has the police presence in schools actually kept children safe and deterred rampage shootings?

The NAACP New Bedford Branch is sponsoring a community discussion on January 28th from 6-7PM via Zoom which may offer some answers to these questions — questions the schools ought to be asking as well. The panel will feature: Leon Smith, Seq., Executive Director of Citizens for Juvenile Justice; Dr. Ricardo Rosa, Co-Chair of New Bedford Coalition to Save Our Schools; Matthew Cregor, Staff Attorney at Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee; and will be moderated by NAACP member Moriah Wiggins.

Everyone is welcome to attend. Connect via Zoom at 6PM on Thursday, January 28th:

On January 6th Bristol County Sheriff and Massachusetts Trump campaign Chair Thomas M. Hodgson condemned in the weakest terms possible the violence of fellow Trump supporters storming the Capitol building, planting bombs, preparing to lynch both legislators and the Vice President, and attempting to prevent certification of Electoral College votes. Hodgson tweeted, “What happened at the United States Capitol today was outrageous and completely unacceptable. It is never acceptable or appropriate for anyone to resort to violence and malicious destruction to express grievances.”

Hodgson, a supporter of United Cape Patriots, a Massachusetts group that descended on the Capitol on January 6th, echoed the rioters’ false claim that the vote had been stolen: “The fastest way to end the ongoing debate over elections issues and the deep divide in our country is to have an audit prior to Jan. 20 so both Democrats and Republicans can be assured they can continue to have faith in our elections.” The problem is, post-election vote audits are not a Constitutionally-permitted alternative to counting Electoral College votes that the states have already certified.

The January 6th siege, which claimed the life of at least one police officer, was barely two months from the date Hodgson praised Trump for his “commitment to uphold the rule of law and support law enforcement in our mission to keep our families, neighborhoods and nation safe.”

Hodgson hypocritically claimed right before the election that Trump’s enemies were “attempting a ‘coup’ based on their ‘Russian Hoax’, in an attempt to deny the American people the legitimate outcome based on our nation’s electoral process.” Hodgson’s non-condemnation of the protesters and complete dismissal of the President’s responsibility for inflaming them, tell us a lot about his concern for the electoral process, the rule of law, or even Hodgson’s support of law enforcement. There is none.

The Bristol County Sheriff knows full well that marauding rioters at the Capitol had been enraged by Trump’s non-stop lies that the presidential election was fraudulently stolen from him, an assertion that Hodgson has not sufficiently distanced himself from.

If Hodgson is truly sad at “disorderly and violent behavior” then let him acknowledge the Massachusetts Attorney General’s report that he, himself, was largely responsible for an unjustified attack on detainees in his own jail. Hodgson, who has repeatedly been found by both state and federal judges to have violated the civil rights of his prisoners, personally attacked and unleashed dogs on non-resisting ICE detainees on May 1st, 2020. Hodgson would not consent to be interviewed by the AG, and the ACLU has had to sue for tapes of the riot that Hodgson provoked, which Hodgson will not release.

It seems that Hodgson shares a lot of political DNA with the Capitol rioters. And Hodgson’s well-established neo-Confederate and his white supremacist connections make his perfunctory condemnations of white supremacist and white militia violence meaningless.

If Tom Hodgson truly wants “an election audit before President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration” — an audit whose only goal is erasing over 60 state court rulings rejecting challenges to their election outcomes — he ought to welcome audits of his own jail. But Hodgson crudely dismissed the Attorney General’s report: “It’s about halfway down the sewer pipe,” Hodgson said. “That’s about how much value I put into the attorney general’s recommendations that are politically motivated.”

The validity of the presidential election was certified in fifty states, upheld by a multitude of court decisions, and then supported by Republican and Democratic officials who adhered to their oaths of office. But that’s not good enough for Hodgson, who only a day after the coup attempt said, “I do believe that there’s likely fraud, based on what I’ve seen so far, it appears that [fraud] is very likely.”

Despite all evidence to the contrary, the Capitol insurrectionists were fed false and fantastical conspiracy theories that undermined any possibility of accepting a valid election outcome. They assembled, marched and viciously attacked the Capitol because of those lies.

Lies that Hodgson continues to spread.

Part 3: Comparing your city’s police spending to others

Part 1 of this series was a quick overview of New Bedford’s 333-page FY2021 city budget along with a spreadsheet created from those numbers. Part 2 was a look at New Bedford’s department funding and how it changed from last year’s numbers. In general, the New Bedford Police is being spared the brutal “defunding” that other departments will suffer — even as COVID-19 wipes out the city’s cash reserves.

What should a community really be spending on policing? How much is enough? What do similar-sized communities to ours spend? Is there a relationship between spending on policing and crime? Education and police? Do grants and state subsidies permit municipalities to spend more on police? How are poverty and race related to policing?

There are 75 communities in Massachusetts with populations over 25,000 for which more extensive demographic, economic, racial, and policing data are available than the state’s smaller towns. Since larger communities wrestle more with police issues we’ll focus on this subset.

You can find some useful data here:

• FBI Law Enforcement Staffing data
• FBI Violent and Property Crime data
• MA 12-Month Average Unemployment data
• MA DESE data on the racial composition of students
• MA DESE Full Time Teaching Staff data
• MA Median Household income from the Census bureau
• MA Presidential Election results 2020

From these downloaded numbers I constructed a second spreadsheet and built multiple worksheets which look at policing rates (measured as officers per 10K population) compared to staffing of teachers, crime rates, median family income, degree of political conservatism, and race.

You can refer to the spreadsheet for city-specific data, but the graphs depict only the general relationships between factors.

1. Increasing officers per 10K did not affect (raise or lower) teachers per 10K population. In Massachusetts many communities are free to spend a greater percentage of their budgets on police since they know the state will pick up the tab for education. New Bedford is one of these. Not every community spends similar proportions of their budget on police or teachers; and the data shows it.

2. Increases in police per 10K population correspond to increases in violent crime. Note that some communities with lower crime rates have the same proportion of officers per 10K as others with higher crime rates. There is great variation in what a community deems an appropriate level of policing for the crime it experiences.

3. The next graph surprised me. There seems to be no connection between the degree of a community’s political conservatism and an increase in officers per 10K. I had suspected that the more conservative the community, the larger its police force would be. But in fact the trend line for officers per 10K decreases almost imperceptibly as Trump support rises. Go figure. Massachusetts.

4. Another result that matched prediction was that the higher a community’s median family income, the lower the police per 10K. The trend line shows that upscale [and usually whiter] communities do not police themselves as intensively as poorer communities.

5. Finally, race. I computed the percentage of non-white students in each community’s public schools and plotted them against policing per 10K. As I had suspected, as the percentage of Black and brown children increases, police per 10K increases as well.

We have known for a long time that poverty is an incubator for crime, and that racism creates conditions that create and sustain generational poverty.

A simple-minded solution for dealing with crime is to militarize, surveil, and occupy neighborhoods with over-policing, and to fill jails and prisons with people who after entering the “system” will never work, vote, or have sustained connection to their children or communities again.

For many of our elected officials there is always some excuse for slashing social programs but there is always money in the budget for mass-incarceration and increasing police presence on our streets and in our schools.

So while we debate whether the New Bedford police budget ought to be $32 million or some other arbitrary number, or if armed police serve any useful purpose in our schools, we should not forget that lifting people out of poverty, not promoting a police state, is the only thing that reduces crime in the long run.

Part 2: Most departments “defunded” except for the New Bedford Police

Budget: bud-jet; n. A systematic plan for the expenditure of a finite resource, such as money or time.

Part 1 of this series is a quick overview of the City’s 333-page FY2021 New Bedford City budget along with a spreadsheet created from the numbers. In this post we look at department funding and changes from last year’s numbers. Besides the generous funding they receive, and even with a delay in building a new police center, New Bedford Police will be spared the brutal “defunding” that other departments will suffer — even as COVID-19 continues to overwhelm city resources and cash reserves.

Let’s jump right into the revenues. In 2021 the Buttonwood Zoo will bring in $150K less, revenue from traffic tickets will decrease by $200K, building permits will be down by $200K, half a million dollars in investment income are up in smoke, and a quarter of a million dollars of “miscellaneous non-recurring” revenue will be lost. But the most painful loss of all will be $3.9 million of so-called Free Cash revenue lost to the pandemic; this is the money carried over from the preceding fiscal year. It’s all gone now. Consequently, funding for many city departments will be slashed in 2021. But the NBPD is not one of them.

On the Expense side the loss of $4+ million in revenue doesn’t worry City Council enough to stop it from giving themselves a 5% raise while taking away $50K in funding from the Mayor’s office and another $50K from Purchasing. “General Government” — the catch-all budget category for most familiar city services — fares worst of all, losing more than a million dollars in funding.

The Department of Public Safety will also be defunded — that is, all departments but the Police. The projected FY2021 Police Department budget increases ever-so-slightly, but the Fire Department is defunded to the tune of $1 million and EMS services loses $180,000 despite contributing an additional $200K in revenue. This has got to be an especially painful slap in the face for public employees who actually save lives.

While the City spends $50 million a year on “Public Safety” (most of it for the police) it spends only $5 million a year on human services. In 2021 New Bedford will spend slightly more ($1.2 million) on Community Services than it did last year but will slash Health Department funding — even as the pandemic is still raging. You might think of Veterans Services as a federal responsibility, but the City pays more ($2.7 million) for Veterans Services than Community Services and Health combined.

The budget is just full of surprises.

The Zoo and libraries get a tiny boost in 2021, and there is another $35K more for parks and beaches, but funding for tourism and marketing will be slashed by $65K.

Two big changes in City expenses are a $30 million increase in the school budget and a $25 million decrease in Health and Life Insurance. These numbers are related because, in a bookkeeping change, the school budget now reflects healthcare costs. This is not the case with other departments, however.

It would be nice if future budgets would do the same for all departments — reflecting health care costs in their total operating expenses. Future budgets should also reflect pension obligations and the portion of debt maintenance that each department or Enterprise Fund incurs, as well.

The City Council — over-represented by bankers and real estate agents, beneficiaries of patronage, and the Chamber of Commerce — has consistently opposed raising property taxes on City residents but is only happy to cash state checks which fund more than half of all City programs. And when the “free money” or state aid dries up the City has always been quick to borrow. In fact, it’s done so much borrowing over the years that it now pays roughly $12 million in debt service each year to lenders.

Besides the New Bedford Public Schools, the City’s single largest expenditures are $32 million in pension payouts, a similar number for police, $18 million for healthcare, a similar number for Fire, $6 million for running Greater New Bedford Voc, and a similar number for EMS.

Some city services are organized into Enterprise Funds which are somewhat self-supporting. The airport costs about $1 million a year to run, cable access costs about $1.2 million a year, the parking authority $1.2 million, wastewater $25 million a year, and city water $17 million. But these are use-based services which invoice customers instead of levying taxes. Unlike police or general government, Enterprise Funds themselves fund the wages of those who provide their services.

When it comes to police spending, the best estimate of the cost of the 302 officers on the job in 2021 and the infrastructure required to support them is about $32.6 million. This number is derived from the $25,527,814 shown in the budget, plus another $4,235,554 in estimated pension payouts and $2,894,190 in estimated health premiums, for a total of $32,657,558. This is a conservative estimate because police benefits and salaries outstrip everyone else’s and police pensions are much higher. In all likelihood total police costs are much higher than $32.6 million.

So when we look at city budgets we ought to return to the definition of a budget — planning around a finite resource called money — and think about what else we might purchase with all those finite resources.

The cost of the New Bedford Police Department is more than all the tax money the City spends on EMS, highway and street repair, Community Services, Health Services, Veterans Services, Parks and Beaches, Refuse Management, and making interest payments on its debt — combined.

A “budget is a profoundly moral document,” presidential advisor Paul Begala once noted. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be.”

Last night I read through Charlie Baker’s objections to S.2693, the conference version of the Police Accountability Bill.

In his 13-page letter to both the House and Senate, Baker proposed extensive changes to the Legislature’s reforms. His main objection to Police Accountability was public accountability itself. Baker’s amendments to the Police Accountability bill remove:

• civilian oversight

• specifically, advice and oversight from racial justice groups

• provisions to ban facial recognition

As Progressive Mass points out, Baker had three options. “(1) He could show that he cares about police accountability and listen to the activists demanding action and just sign it. (2) He could show that he doesn’t care and simply veto it. (3) Finally, he could again show that he doesn’t care, but by sending back amendments to weaken the bill. He chose #3.”

This wasn’t a passive veto, and yet it wasn’t Baker negotiating either. This was the governor mailing a Fuck You Very Much letter to racial justice advocates written for him by the Massachusetts police lobby.

After George Floyd and Breonna Taylor were murdered, Baker made all the right noises, giving lip service to the concerns of civil rights groups, civil libertarians, and people of color. In early December Globe columnist Joan Vennochi asked, “Will Charlie Baker back police reform or police unions?” It was mainly a rhetorical question, as she reminded the governor that it ought to be a no-brainer since he claimed to believe in the bill’s reforms. In the end, of course, Baker caved to the police unions.

In rejecting civilian oversight Baker even regurgitated the police line: “I do not accept the premise that civilians know best how to train police.”

Until recently the United States has had a tradition of excluding ex-military from running the Pentagon. Baker himself ought to understand how it works: the National Guard is ultimately under his command, not its own. Only in weak and failed states are paramilitary organizations accountable only to themselves.

But in rejecting civilian control Baker struck a number of sections from S.2963 (3, 5, 7-8, 12, 14, 17, 19-20, 24-25, 27-29, 31-36, 40, 55-56, 62, 66, 71, 75-76, 81-82, 88-89, 93, and 121) — for the most part simply restoring the name of the training committee from the Legislative reforms to the original “municipal police training committee.”

Baker also struck section 26, which barred the use of facial recognition, and significantly modified section 30, which requires officers to use proportional force and de-escalation techniques and which prescribes decertification and revocation procedures. Baker’s section 30 makes officer misconduct subject (as before) to internal affairs investigations that can take up to a year or more to complete and places additional constraints on officer interrogation. Who else gets to investigate themselves but police? And where else but a police state?

It was apparent that the unions had leaned heavily on Baker because he also removed section 60, which specifies the process required for an officer to return to work after a year-long break in service; and section 61, which describes requirements for returning from physical or mental disability. Baker also removed Section 74, which defines an officer as a trainee regardless of collective bargaining agreement, until the officer has completed his certification course.

There are few bright spots in Baker’s hollowed out and gutted version of police accountability. But one may be that the Governor left the Legislature’s changes to SRO programs in place, the most important of which gives School Superintendents discretion to use SROs instead of Police Chiefs.

Baker’s letter to the Legislature opens by completely cutting the public out of public oversight of the police and restructuring the Municipal Police Training Committee. His letter calls for 16 voting appointees, each to serve a 3 year term: five police chiefs by region; one selected by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association; one of his own choice; one officer from the Massachusetts Police Association Executive Board; two sheriffs of his choosing (God help us if one is Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson); the chair of the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement (Eddy Chrispin); president of Massachusetts Association of Women in Law enforcement (Marie Cleary); Boston Police Commissioner (William Gross); Colonel of the State Police (Christopher Mason); Attorney General (Maura Healey); and one person designated by his EOPSS Secretary.

The Municipal Police Training Committee also includes several non-voting members from: Personnel Administration; Corrections; Youth Services; Probation; Parole Board; Committee on Criminal Justice; Chief Justice of the Trial Court; Chief justice of the District Court; Commissioner of Education; Massachusetts Bar Association; Special Agent in charge of the Boston FBI; a District Attorney; and a grab-bag including city administrators; the Clerk of Superior Court; one social worker; one mental health clinician; and one lonely public defender.

Baker’s training committee is responsible for re-writing policies for Use of Force and hiring new officers. Given that the public now has no say in their own policing, neither the type of officers hired nor the manner in which they are trained to shoot to kill or interact with civilians will change.

No reforms, no oversight, no accountability, no change. Just the way the police lobby likes it.

But Blue Lives most certainly matter to the Governor. Baker’s police version ensures that police officers get a 2-hour in-service course each year to help them with their PTSD and suicide prevention, and each officer will attend and complete a course on mental wellness and suicide prevention. Unfortunately, the public won’t know which officers are time bombs ready to go off. But even if we could identify them, we’d have no say in removing or disciplining them.

The tepid reforms that made it into the conferenced version of S.2963 were weak and disappointing enough after the House stripped out limits on Qualified Immunity. But now the governor is determined to deliver the coup de grace to police accountability. Police will continue to be accountable only to themselves, shielded by a governor who has decided that Black and brown lives don’t matter all that much — and that the real goal of police reform is complete impunity for cops.

Ignoring the concerns of people of color, deaf to the demands of civil rights and racial justice advocates, Baker’s edits are not only bad — they’re an insult to the people of the Commonwealth, especially those who need protection from bad cops the most.

Part 1: Introduction to New Bedford’s City Budget

In the wake of a national moment of reckoning with policing in America, while some communities are making deep cuts to their police budgets, others have begun to examine them. To my knowledge no one has yet started the process of studying the New Bedford Police budget, so I offer this introduction to the City Budget as nothing more than a starting point for anyone who wants to open an honest conversation about how the City spends taxpayer money.

Download and read through the 333-page FY2021 New Bedford City budget. You may also want to download the spreadsheet I created from the budget numbers (I also talked with the City’s CFO, Ari Sky, to obtain additional insight into the percentages of pension and healthcare money spent on various departments).

The 2021 New Bedford City budget is slightly over a third of a billion dollars — $363,897,500. Of that amount, local taxes raise 8%, real estate and property taxes pull in 36.7%, and borrowing and grants account for another 2.77%. But the largest chunk of revenue — a whopping $190,962,433, or more than 52% of the budget — comes in the form of state aid.

The $190 million in revenue from the Commonwealth is very nearly the entire cost of running the New Bedford Schools. The remaining revenue, which New Bedford residents themselves contribute through assessments and property taxes, is $167,247,075 and must be used to pay for everything else.

Of this portion paid by New Bedford taxpayers, 20% goes to the New Bedford Police, 15% to the Fire Department, 14% to state and county assessments, 7% to debt service, and the rest to running a variety of municipal services — highways and streets, inspections, human services, culture and recreation, refuse management, and many others. Naturally, the greatest expenses occur in departments which offer pensions and healthcare to large numbers of employees. My spreadsheet reflects departmental pensions and healthcare in Department budgets.

According to the FY2021 budget the City will employ 3,227 people — 2,162 school employees and an additional 1,065, including 302 police officers, 211 firemen, 88 Water Department employees, 70 City fleet mechanics, 64 Public Infrastructure workers, 42 EMS technicians, 34 Wastewater workers, 25 zoo employees, and 24 library workers. Many of these other services appear under “General Government” in the graph above. The New Bedford labor force numbers roughly 42,308. Of these, 38,482 are employed. This means the City of New Bedford is a major employer, providing work for approximately 8.3%, or one out of twelve people.

What is striking about the budget numbers is that, while two-thirds of all City jobs are in the New Bedford Schools, of the remaining jobs almost a third are police officers.

So read the budget yourself. Crunch the numbers yourself. Create a budget with your own priorities.

And ask yourself — should a hard-luck city that can’t even pay a half of its own expenses be spending 20% of its taxpayer money on police — and reserving 30% of its non-teaching jobs for police?

Wouldn’t New Bedford’s many pressing needs be more appropriately met by employees whose toolkits aren’t limited to a Glock and a Taser?

On December 1st, after an endless and opaque process of reconciling House and Senate versions of police accountability legislation, both houses of the Massachusetts legislature voted to send S.2963 (“An Act Relative to Justice, Equity and Accountability in the Commonwealth”) to the Governor’s desk for signing.

Following national outrage at the police murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and thanks to unrelenting pressure by police reform advocates, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Joint Judiciary Chair Claire Cronin were unable to bury police reform, as the House often does with reforms or progressive legislation.

Still, the reconciliation process ended up shielding police unions from many of the reforms in the Senate version. Among the legislation’s bitter disappointments: it preserves Qualified Immunity for police officers; fails to reform civil service laws which govern the hiring of police officers; leaves unchanged shoot-to-kill training for police cadets; doesn’t touch structural racism anywhere — including police departments; and fails to create alternatives to police handling of medical and psychiatric emergencies.

On the plus side, S.2963 adopts language regulating the use of face recognition, establishes a POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) Commission with subpoena power to certify and investigate law enforcement officers — though not corrections officers. The bill also spells out the types of evidence necessary to suspend or revoke officer certification.

Under the POST Commission established by this legislation there are to be two divisions: one for police training and certification; another for police standards. This second division maintains a database of complaints of misconduct for each officer, and investigations carried out are subject to public records law (with some limitations).

The bill before the Governor limits the use of chokeholds, attack dogs, tear gas, and specifies de-escalation policies. It is the POST Commission’s responsibility to enforce these use of force standards. The bill also ends no-knock warrants — unless police can demonstrate they are life-saving.

School Resource Officers (SROs) will now be assigned by request of the school Superintendent, not the Chief of Police. And both school personnel and SROs are prohibited from sharing certain types of student information with law enforcement. The bill also expands expungement of juvenile records.

S.2963 defines police violence as a public health issue and requires the Department of Public Health to collect and report information on injuries or deaths at the hands of law enforcement. Besides the commission to study Qualified Immunity, the bill also establishes commissions to study: body cams; facial recognition; emergency hospitalization; civil service law; police cadet training; structural racism in correctional facilities and in the parole and probation systems; rewriting the model Memorandum of Understanding for SRO programs; and examining alternative emergency services.

While not daring to touch discriminatory hiring practices, the bill tweaks hiring, promotion, and discipline rules, especially where overtime fraud, corruption, and patronage may be involved.

The many study commissions established and the many decisions deferred by S.2963 show that the legislation is only the beginning in achieving real police accountability in the Commonwealth.

The City Councils of Springfield and Boston — where there have been numerous and high-profile cases of police abuse — have both applauded the bill’s measures. Boston City Council President Kim Janey and Springfield City Council President Justin Hurst penned a letter to the Governor on December 2nd urging him to sign the legislation without delay and without amendment.

In New Bedford, where Councilors were quick to condemn the Senate version of the bill for its Qualified Immunity provision, only a few members of the Council were prepared to offer opinions on any of the other provisions. Most I talked to claimed ignorance of its provisions.

Joseph P. Lopes, Ward 6 Councilor and Council President, said his main concern with the bill was Qualified Immunity and its impact on the morale of police and EMS workers. Lopes supports the School Resource Officer program and is concerned that, whether it’s the Chief or the Superintendent who requests SROs, that they have the discretion to move them around between schools. Lopes claims students want police officers in their hallways and he took a swipe at the Legislature for not inviting student testimony on SROs. Lopes was not alarmed by the establishment of the POST program, but could not comment on other provisions because he said he’d need more time to read through the entire bill.

Brian Gomes, the chair of Mayor Mitchell’s Use of Force Commission, and an author of a letter to the Legislature blasting Qualified Immunity, told me emphatically that he would never support the new bill. In consultation with the Police Union president, Gomes told me, he has determined that the bill will do a disservice to the public. When asked what provisions of the bill he objected to — now that Qualified Immunity is no longer a concern — Gomes told me that’s all he was prepared to say.

Councilor Debora Coelho, who earlier this year enrolled herself in the New Bedford Citizen’s Police Academy, is not only a fan of the police but an enthusiastic supporter of School Resource Officers. Asked about the change in discretion over SROs, Coelho said it’s not necessarily a bad thing to give a Superintendent discretion over their assignment. Similarly, she supports Qualified Immunity but does not oppose establishing a commission to look further into the issue.

Coelho disagrees with the bill’s ban on facial recognition. She has been a long-time supporter of CCTV and sees no reason that facial recognition should not be added to the law enforcement toolbox. Coelho does not oppose the new POST commission; in fact she believes it will ultimately give the public more confidence in officers and, therefore, actually be a good thing for police. Coelho doubts whether the Council will issue a statement on the entire police reform package anytime soon.

Scott Hovsepian, president of the 4,000-member Massachusetts Coalition of Police, is not happy that he didn’t get everything he wanted at the State House. Even after the Legislature yielded to police unions on Qualified Immunity and abandoned reforms of hiring and training of police, any measure of accountability was too much for Hovsepian: “The final compromise legislation is a final attack on police officers by lawmakers on Beacon Hill. It is 129 pages crowded with punitive measures, layers and layers of new bureaucracy and the abridgment of basic due process rights of police. It was delivered with almost zero notice and zero time for our leadership, our legal team and our members to process it before debate and votes were scheduled.”

But police reformers have found enough good in the legislation to get behind it.

Sonia Chang-Diaz is a member of the Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, a fierce proponent of police accountability, and one of the sponsors of S.2963. On December 2nd Chang-Diaz sent out an email to supporters requesting that they contact the Governor about swiftly signing the bill.

Carol Rose, Executive Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, also welcomed the legislation. “This bill represents meaningful progress for Massachusetts, even as more work remains to be done. The ACLU will keep fighting for reforms to protect Massachusetts communities from over-policing and police violence–and end the impunity with which some officers operate. It’s time for systemic change and an end to policing as usual.”

Marlene Pollock, an organizer for the Coalition for Social Justice and a member of Bristol County for Correctional Justice, characterized the bill as “an important piece of legislation [that] bans racial profiling and chokeholds, creates a Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission which establishes the possibility of civilian oversight of police, among other things. This bill has enough in it that police unions are fighting like mad to tank it. The fact that Qualified Immunity was not tackled shows how much still needs to be done both at the legislative and grass roots level to elevate the many voices of victims of police misconduct.” Pollock urged immediate and un-amended passage of S.2963.

NAACP New Bedford Branch President, Dr. LaSella L. Hall, expressed disappointment with a Democratic legislative supermajority tasked with addressing police accountability in the midst of a national reckoning. “In the context of all the blood spilled in 2020, if this legislation is the best we can do, then we have a hell of a lot further to go. This bill is about 25 years too late. Police accountability should not be a political football. It’s about the lives of innocent people.”

Hall faulted the timidity of the Legislature in failing to end Qualified Immunity, the “get out of jail” doctrine that provides impunity for even bad cops. He cited the bill’s limited input from community groups, the disproportionate influence of police voices, weak community representation on civilian boards, ineffectual tweaks to hiring and training, and the lack of value placed on multilingual officers.

Despite the bill’s weaknesses, Hall describes S.2963 as “a necessary step in a long campaign for police accountability. The NAACP will use the measures afforded in the bill as a tool to advance the policies we believe in: community control or abolition of SROs, improvements to a long-overdue POST system, and promoting a task force that will promote ending racial bias.”

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, formerly a Boston City Council member, said that the bill “fell short” of needs and expectations by refusing to rein in Qualified Immunity: “For far too long, the doctrine of qualified immunity has protected the very people charged with enforcing the law from any consequence for breaking it, allowing police officers to use their badge as a shield from accountability. The legislation does not go far enough to address this systemic problem. By merely creating a commission to study the impact of qualified immunity in the Commonwealth, and limiting immunity only for decertified officers, rather than ending the harmful doctrine outright, Massachusetts has missed an opportunity to lead by ensuring that those responsible for upholding the law are subject to it too.”

Pressley continued, “In any other occupation in America, there are standards of conduct and consequences for violating them — doctors can be sued for malpractice, lawyers can be sued for negligence. Policing should be no exception.”

Despite the legislation’s shortcomings, Police Reform Now (MA), a grassroots coalition of civil rights, religious, labor, and other organizations that advocate for legislative solutions to over-policed communities and for greater transparency in policing, is also urging the Governor to sign the bill without changes. But the coalition stops short of calling S.2963 “real” police reform because it doesn’t end Qualified Immunity, fails to include racial justice leaders in the POST Commission, and does not change how police are hired and trained.

Though America’s moment of national reckoning seems to have appeared quickly, it was grassroots organizing and years of advocacy that paved the way for these legislative reforms.

New Bedford police reform activist Erik Andrade, a member of Police Reform Now (MA) and BREATHE!, notes that “this bill affirms the power of the people and the importance of grassroots solidarity across the state. This step forward is promising and yet this is not a promised land. So we must continue to organize until real police accountability and restorative justice is achieved for families like Malcolm Gracia’s and for communities like New Bedford.”

Demands for police accountability aren’t going away in SouthCoast, Massachusetts, no matter what some officials think.

In the absence of progress on police accountability in a legislature with a Democratic supermajority, residents have been attempting to address police abuse at the local level. But at every step of the way they have been thwarted and disrespected by politicians who don’t even bother to conceal their contempt for police accountability or those demanding it.

New Bedford City Councilor Brian Gomes has convened another of his “non-listening” session to consider only the PD’s Use of Force policies. Bigger issues — qualified immunity, SROs, community review boards with subpoena power — aren’t up for discussion. And in any case, neither the Mayor nor the Council care to listen: “The public hearing is not intended to be a forum to engage in debate nor address issues not directly relevant to the policies.”

2020 New Bedford Commission on NBPD Use of Force Policies Public Hearings on Zoom Wednesday, December 2nd, 6:00-7:30pm

https://www.newbedfordpd.com/new-bedford-commission-on-nbpd-use-of-force-policies

United Interfaith Action, which is one of a number of community groups that has been attempting (unsuccessfully) to gain the ear of Fall River and New Bedford mayors, has scheduled two events in both cities:

UIA Police Reform Community Action Fall River: Community Action Meeting on Zoom Monday, November 30th, 6:30-8:00pm

https://mcan.salsalabs.org/uiacamnov30/index.html

UIA Police Reform Community Action New Bedford: Community Action Meeting on Zoom Thursday, December 3rd, 6:30-8:00pm

https://mcan.salsalabs.org/uiacamdec3/index.html

Legislators — take note.

Sometime after midnight on March 13, 2020 Breonna Taylor was sleeping when plainclothes Louisville narcotics officers, acting on faulty information, executed a “no-knock warrant” — a violation of almost everything in the Fourth Amendment — breaking down her front door with a battering ram and killing her in the hallway of her own home.

According to Taylor’s mother, Tamika Palmer, police were looking for a drug stash owned by Taylor’s ex-boyfriend, who did not live with her and had already been arrested. During the botched raid, Taylor’s current boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, assumed it was a home invasion and fired what he said was a warning shot. Police then unleashed a fusillade of 35 rounds on both occupants of the apartment. Taylor was hit six times and several shots were fired into adjacent apartments, endangering three people. As Breonna Taylor bled out, police stood around watching her die, offering her no aid.

Breonna’s killing has brought some changes to Louisville Metro Police Department (LMPD) procedures and also resulted in a $12 million wrongful death settlement with the City of Louisville.

But holding police to account was a bridge too far.

A Kentucky grand jury presented Judge Annie O’Connell with its recommendation that none of the three officers who shot Taylor ought to face charges. Although former Det. Brett Hankison was indicted on three charges of wanton endangerment — for shooting up the apartments next door — Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and Detective Myles Cosgrove will not face any charges for killing Taylor.

Police have been less than honest. Although at least one officer, Tony James, was photographed wearing a body camera, and another officer was filmed wearing a bodycam mount on his vest, LMPD at first insisted there was no bodycam footage. Then Todd McMurtry, Sgt. Mattingly’s attorney, miraculously produced bodycam footage of the raid that showed that his client, who was shot in the leg, could not possibly have shot Taylor.

Likewise, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s whitewash makes a mockery of fact and law. Cameron claims that Walker was the only one at the scene who could have shot Mattingly because all the officers were carrying .40 caliber handguns. But Det. Brett Hankison — the one who shot up the neighboring apartments — had a 9 mm weapon. Worse, Cameron turns justice on its head by declaring that the police had a right to defend themselves from Walker — even after breaking in, unannounced, in error, and plainclothed. Whatever Cameron’s tortured rationale, officers were not defending themselves from a little 26-year-old EMT when they fired almost two dozen rounds at her.

Following the release of Cameron’s findings, on September 21st the same police department that killed Breonna Taylor declared a state of emergency, announcing that in anticipation of protests they would be shutting down traffic, limiting parking, and setting up barricades — to protect property.

Breonna Taylor’s killing has left Louisville in turmoil. Hearts are broken and in the absence of justice many windows are going to have to be broken to vent outrage at a system that values property more than human life, and black lives least of all.

Breonna Taylor. Say her name. Honor her name.

If we truly believe in the rule of law in this country, Breonna Taylor’s killers must be held to account.

There’s quite a story behind New Bedford’s City Council offering up a “Blue Lives” resolution at precisely the time the City needs reassurance that Black Lives matter.

On May 25, 2020 George Floyd’s murder at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer triggered protests all over the country. In New Bedford, where the memory of police murders of Malcolm Gracia and Eric Aguiar were fresh, Mayor Jon Mitchell, a former federal prosecutor, appointed a Use of Force Commission on June 15, 2020 and put it in the hands of City Councilor Brian Gomes, a law and order zealot who supported chain gangs in the late 90’s. Both Mitchell’s Commission, and his choice of Gomes to lead it, drew howls of protest from citizen groups who foresaw that neither Michell nor Gomes were likely to act in good faith.

On July 7, 2020 NAACP New Bedford President LaSella Hall gave New Bedford and county officials a list of demands for protecting communities of color, including establishing a Community Review Board, prohibiting choke holds, training and officer credentialing, reducing blanket surveillance, revisiting the police budget, reopening the Malcolm Gracia case, and stopping High Energy Patrols — aggressive stop an frisk.

BREATHE! Timeline here

But as far as Mitchell and the Council were concerned, they had created a “study” — and that would be the end of it. Behind the scenes the Council was moving — not to reform the police — but to shield it from public accountability.

On August 20, 2020 New Bedford City Council President Joe Lopes requested that

“a member of the Mitchell Administration, the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, the EMS Director, the New Bedford Police Union and the New Bedford Fire Union meet with the members of the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods to discuss the implementation and protection of Qualified Immunity language for the members of the Police Department, the Fire Department, and the Emergency Medical Service.”

The motion carried and was referred to the Council’s Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods. On October 14, 2020 the committee met to discuss LED street lights, crosswalks, and vandalization at pocket parks. The Council had also invited New Bedford Police Chief Joseph Cordeiro to consider

“the implementation of using drones to monitor high crime neighborhoods for surveillance across the City, adding another tool in fighting crime; and further requesting, that the drones be used for surveillance and security purposes when the City is holding major events, along with monitoring the City as a whole.”

At this meeting the Council revisited a 2018 request to Mayor Jon Mitchell and then- School Superintendent Pia Durkin to install

“security in all schools throughout the City, which includes panic buttons, cameras, and evacuation plan; and further, consider hiring armed guards possibly using former retirees from the Police Department and/or Veterans; furthermore, that the School Department install a hotline within the school system for students to report unusual activity, threats or even comments about guns or anything that threaten [sic] the wellbeing and safety of all faculty and students, titlle it ‘YOU HEAR IT, YOU SEE IT, YOU REPORT IT, TOGETHER WE MAKE OUR SCHOOLS SAFE.'”

But the highlight of the October 14th committee meeting was to follow through on the August 20 motion on Qualified Immunity. Lopes moved, seconded by Councilor Brad Markey, that the Council write a letter to the State delegation (Rep. Tony Cabral and Sen. Mark Montigny) “voicing the Council’s position against the proposed Qualified Immunity Proposition” in the Police Accountability legislation still languishing in the State House. According to minutes of the October 14th meeting filed by Clerk of Committees Denis Lawrence, Jr.:

“Councillor Lopes asked Police Chief Cordeiro how the current legislation at the State Capital, as it relates to Qualified Immunity, would affect the local police force. He was told if passed, this would cause a problem with the city along with other cities of the same size in Massachusetts. It may end up preventing the police force from protecting the very people they are trying to protect. Neighborhoods that are struggling will continue to struggle if not more so. A police officer will now be hesitant to be proactive if their decisions to act can be used against them. [Cordeiro] believes that the people who should know about the possible problems with Qualified Immunity do not know about it at all. Councillor Lopes expressed his concern for the future quality of police officers this would attract when the department looks to recruit officers; the Chief agreed. The Chief explained that currently the department is operating below their budget and does not have full complement of officers. He predicts an exodus of officers from cities to better communities. The Chief suggested that the Council and other entities flood the State Legislature with calls against the Qualified Immunity proposal. Councillor Lopes expressed his concern of when an Officer uses Narcan to revive a person from an overdose that they can be held liable. The Chief agreed that this could be an issue if passed.”

On September 21, 2020 the 60-Day Use of Force Commission report was released. There were no surprises. The mayor’s mission had been accomplished in those 60 days — to blunt public anger at the police. On September 24, 2020, reading that political winds were in their favor, Mitchell and Cordeiro backed out of a community discussion on police accountability sponsored by United Interfaith Action.

The Qualified Immunity motion had been the product of closed discussions involving the Mayor’s office, the Police Department, Police, Fire, and EMS unions, Lopes, Gomes, Markey and others on the Council. No troublesome citizens were invited. Gomes rushed to announce the motion in an October 22, 2020 statement to the same Councillors who had voted for it. The list of recipients who would soon receive copies was far more important.

On October 26, 2020 the actual letter was supposedly sent to Tony Cabral and Mark Montigny. On that same date Gomes scheduled a Zoom-based Use of Force Commission hearing, which he said would record public questions regarding the New Bedford Police Department’s Use of Force Policy, but Gomes ruled out answering any questions related to police accountability in general.

On November 13, 2020 WBSM’s Chris McCarthy wrote about the Council’s letter, incorrectly characterizing it as “unanimous” when at least one Councillor was not present, and the New Bedford Police Union celebrated McCarthy’s piece on Facebook.

As of November 14, 2020 at least one of the the intended recipients, Rep. Tony Cabral, still had not seen the letter to him that WBSM, the Police Union, and the Standard Times had all received. And Sen. Mark Montigny, when asked for comment by the Standard Times, had none.

These back-room machinations are a slap in the face to New Bedford residents, community groups, and the religious community that had all attempted to engage in good faith with Mitchell and the City Council on matters of police accountability.

The letter Lopes and the Council sent to SouthCoast legislators demonstrated once again that, rather than reflecting the opinions of New Bedford’s citizens, the Mayor and Council have little regard for them. When the Mayor, the PD, police and fire unions, and much of the City Council (half of whom are not accountable to any specific ward) begin doing backroom political favors for the police — locking the public out of the discussion in the process — voters ought to take notice.

There is no reason that police, who claim to need Qualified Immunity because they make split-second, life-and-death decisions, need it any more than surgeons or air traffic controllers. Accountability to the public by both police and public officials is at stake here.

Just as Qualified Immunity confers special protections on the police that no other citizen enjoys, the Mayor and Council doubled down on the injustice by permitting the “special” police voice to be the only one to represent the city on Qualified Immunity.

Voters in King County, Washington just amended their county charter. Charter for Justice had endorsed the 7 amendments and all passed. Of note were three amendments to the charter that pertaine to sheriffs and a fourth that applies to all law enforcement officers in the County.

According to the Seattle Times, the Charter Review Commission overwhelmingly recommended returning the sheriff to an appointed position. An appointed sheriff can now be replaced between elections in case of wrongdong or incompetence, and it removes politics from administration of the department. In addition, an appointed position enables a national search for the best law enforcement and jail administration candidates.

Amendment 1 requires an inquest any time a prisoner dies in custody. And Amendment 6 gives the county discretion to redefine a sheriff’s duties — rather than giving carte blanche to a sheriff.

Finally, Amendment 4 gives teeth (and subpoena power) to King County’s civilian Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO).

Remarks at the Pleasant Street Police station on October 24th, 2020 at the BREATHE for Malcolm march.

My name is David Ehrens. I am a member of the NAACP New Bedford Branch and Bristol County for Correctional Justice.

Many of us have viewed Attorney Brisson’s evidence in Malcolm Gracia’s murder. It deserves a second look — not by the New Bedford Police, which rushed to exonerate its own officers. And not by the Bristol County District Attorney’s Office, which produced a disgraceful whitewash eight years ago. They weren’t up to the job then — and they certainly aren’t now.

We have called for an investigation by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division and by the U.S. Department of Justice. But ultimately only community police review commissions with the power to subpoena and fire officers can really address police abuse. Law enforcement institutions and the legislators they lobby show little interest in holding police accountable to the public. This is what I’m talking about:

• A Police Department that has called the public “thugs” and cannot be trusted to investigate itself.

• A police department that over 2 years paid more than a million and a half dollars in payouts for wrongful deaths.

• A DA who defends his predecessor’s whitewash and is personally responsible for some of the highest pre-trial detention and pre-trial death rates in the state

• A sheriff who serves as a spokesman for a white supremacist group, abuses ICE detainees, and has the highest jail suicide rate in the state.

• An Attorney General who refused to use her Civil Rights Division to investigate those jail suicides and whose predecessor wouldn’t look at the Gracia case.

• Representatives on Beacon Hill who — right now — are trying to water down a police accountability bill

• Police unions whose contract provisions bar the public from participating in police misconduct commissions.

• A mayor who co-opts community voices while refusing to listen to them.

• And in this same community we have a school superintendent who began a “community discussion” about police in schools with a police propaganda video.

What these men and women and institutions have in common is that they are all part of a dual system of justice — one in which the law comes down like a ton of bricks on the powerless, while police and the privileged get a pass when they break the same laws.

We’re supposed to be a nation governed by the rule of law. But this is empty rhetoric when every day laws are applied so arbitrarily — or depending on the color of your skin.

This is what has brought us to this march today — to demand equal justice for Malcolm — and for every other Malcolm.

Police reform is not training the public to accept police control. This is how you train a dog. Police reform isn’t singing kumbayah or having coffee with the police. Police reform is changing how communities are policed, and that will NEVER be achieved by ride-alongs, listening sessions, gimmicks or placebos.

Police reform will only come about when WE have the power to hire, fire, train, and discipline police — and when WE get the final say in how our own communities are served.

The Gracia family’s lawyer, Don Brisson, finished a series of presentations last week on Malcolm’s murder. Brisson spent considerable time discussing inconsistencies in detectives’ testimony and forensic evidence collected at the crime scene.

But one of the more shocking pieces of evidence Brisson released were videos that had been withheld from the public until December 2018. There are three videos of the evening of May 17th, 2012. One is high resolution surveillance footage from the Temple Landing basketball court. It is what Detective Safioleas would have been watching from the Rockdale Ave. police headquarters. The other two are residential CCVT camera footage from Middle and Ash streets displayed side-by-side.

What is striking is the sheer speed with which New Bedford Police murdered Malcolm Gracia.

At 8:36 Malcom is seen leaving the Temple Landing basketball court. He walks down Middle and turns left on Cedar Street. Eleven seconds later New Bedford police speed around the same corner. And 27 seconds after that, a camera records neighbors and children out skateboarding scattering as Malcolm is apparently shot out of sight of the cameras.

The 27 seconds it took police to kill Malcolm Gracia is never questioned as investigators simply accept detectives’ accounts of a much more professional, by-the-book, and leisurely encounter.

If you watch the videos, it’s clear that police accounts could not have been truthful.

Video #1: the elaborate handshake

This is the surveillance footage from the Temple Landing basketball court, which shows Malcolm Gracia interacting with other observers at pick-me-up basketball games.

The Gang Unit’s surveillance camera, which recorded the correct date, was about 24 minutes, 51 seconds fast. For reference it was best to use seconds into the video instead of erroneous time stamps on it.

At about 413 seconds into the video (estimated to be 8:28:55 PM) the surveillance camera first picks up Malcolm Gracia and Adam Carreira. At about 520 seconds we see Gracia wearing black pants and a black hoodie, smiling and shaking hands with a spectator seated in the bleachers of the basketball court farthest from Cedar Street. This is the handshake that sets a police murder in motion. Sgt. Brian Safioleas, who has been watching Adam Carreira’s cigarette, switches to Gracia for a minute, and zooms in on Carreira’s cigarette again as he passes it to Gracia. Viewing the video now it appears Safioleas’s interest was what the boys were smoking. At about 585 seconds Safioleas zooms out to the entire bleacher and zooms back in to put Gracia entirely in the frame of the camera. Gracia is a bit more reserved than Carreira. But he is smiling, talking to a spectator in a striped shirt, and having a smoke. At about 880 seconds spectators start getting up out of the bleachers and are getting ready leave. By my calculations the actual time is around 8:28 PM. By 900 seconds into the video the spectators are leaving and all are shaking hands as they leave. At about 936 seconds Gracia says something to Carreira and both exit the camera frame. It is only a few footsteps to the Middle Street entrance and a residential CCVT camera records them leaving. The estimated time is roughly 8:36:19 PM.

It is interesting that the camera stops following Gracia and Carreira at this point and remains directed at the remaining spectators and ball players until everyone has left the frame. Of course, Safioleas could now be scrambling to dispatch Fonseca, Sylvia, Barnes and Brown and may have simply left the camera unattended. But wasn’t Safioleas concerned about the direction they were headed? The camera keeps recording a static image of the bleachers until 1310 seconds, when it then pans north across both basketball courts to show at least four police cruisers and an ambulance. The video runs another 500 seconds, zooming into the corner of Cedar and Middle where officers are stringing crime scene tape and residents — later described as a “mob” by the EMS technician who first treats Barnes — stand around watching the aftermath of another police shooting.

Video #2: police chase Gracia around the corner

The second video displays synchronized footage from two different Housing Authority cameras. One shows officers arriving on the scene. Another shows Malcolm leaving the courts and turning the corner of Middle and Cedar. Seconds later police do the same.

The camera which provided the footage in the left frame is most likely housed in a street lamp in front of 347 Middle Street and looks southeast down Middle Street toward Cedar Street and toward the entrance of the basketball courts. The camera which provided footage in the right frame is likely in a walkway behind 263 Ash Street. It looks northeast, down Ash Street, through the climbing structures and swing sets, past the basketball courts to the corner of Middle and Cedar. Unfortunately, both video quality and lighting are poor and, owing to the distance, distorted like telephoto photos. Both frames in the one video are time-stamped but do not record seconds.

At 8:36 PM — 27 seconds into the composite video — you can see Malcolm Gracia leaving the courts with Adam Carreira. His pointed hoodie is clearly visible as he makes his way down Middle Street and at 63 seconds the two turn the corner to Cedar. At this precise moment you can see Sylvia and Fonseca’s cruiser in camera two’s frame on the right. Fonseca, the driver, has driven past Middle Street in error, and is seen backing up onto Elm Street near the white rock at the intersection. The children’s playground on Ash Street is clearly visible in front of him. At 8:37 PM — 68 seconds into the video — Fonseca turns left and races back down Middle Street.

At 8:37 PM on camera one — at 71 seconds — you see Fonseca and Sylvia speeding down Middle Street. An unidentified silver vehicle just beats them to the intersection and precedes them as they turn onto Cedar at 74 seconds into the video. At 103 seconds another vehicle comes up Cedar. At 110 seconds — 27 seconds after the police turn onto Cedar — camera one picks up residents scattering and running. Fonseca and Sylvia have probably just fired the last of six shots caught by Shotspotter. This would make the time 8:37:42 PM. At 194 seconds into the video residents start running toward the corner of Middle and Cedar to see what’s happening. Police cars begin arriving at 225 seconds.

Timeline

** estimated from Shotspotter records and video of residents reacting to sounds of shooting

Last year I began working on a profile of Bristol County Thomas M. Hodgson’s associations with far right and white supremacist organizations for The Public Eye magazine. It took a long time to research and write, and even longer to edit, but after Covid-related delays it is finally out and you can read it online here or download the issue’s PDF here.

Allow me to plug buying a subscription to PRA’s print magazine, even in the digital age. Your support will help Political Research Associates keep investigating and reporting on America’s extreme Right.

PRA is running a Fall Webinar series that so far has tackled sheriffs, militias, and austerity. They have all been interesting and the moderator does a great job of posing questions and keeping everyone on schedule. Tomorrow’s webinar is Mobilizing Misogyny in the Service of Authoritarianism.

Since Malcom Gracia’s killing in 2012 there is now a new New Bedford police chief, a new Bristol County District Attorney, and a new Massachusetts Attorney General. Almost everyone who could have investigated or pursued Malcolm Gracia’s wrongful death has been replaced with interchangeable functionaries equally disinterested in righting the wrong done to him– except for Mayor Jon Mitchell, a former Federal prosecutor who was mayor at the time and should have shown more interest in justice for all of his citizens.

Instead, Mitchell convened a group of citizens to work on a Department of Justice “Action Plan” to address hate crimes. No real change ever came of it, but it successfully cooled off an angry city.

Fast forward to 2020. We now find ourselves in an unprecedented moment of change. Following the murder of George Floyd, with a nation focused on police violence and impunity, the Gracia case is once again in the news. Mitchell’s 2012 tactics worked so well for him that he convened a Use of Force commission. From what we’ve seen so far, we can expect little to come of this exercise in blunting public anger, as well.

With compelling evidence of mishandled forensics, overly friendly interrogation of the police officers who murdered Gracia, an assistant DA who couldn’t be bothered to gather critical evidence, mishandled forensics, the DA’s final report riddled with factual errors and implausible assumptions – and now a gag order on medical records of the police officer who claimed to be stabbed – the Gracia case screams out for a second look. But Mayor Mitchell won’t look at the information, won’t talk to the family’s lawyer, won’t be questioned by the public, and won’t lift the gag order in question.

Despite the City’s half-million dollar settlement with the Gracia family, citizens are still calling for the prosecution of officers Trevor Sylvia and Paul Fonseca, and discipline for filing false police reports by officers Tyson Barnes, David Brown, Paul Fonseca, Brian Safioleas, and Trevor Sylvia. The Gracia family’s lawyer, Don Brisson, just finished a five-part series on how these officers managed to elude prosecution for their crimes – and his evidence, some of it newly released, casts a disturbing light on the New Bedford Police, the District Attorney’s office, and even the Mayor himself in the wake of Malcolm Gracia’s shooting.

We think there’s enough substance in Brisson’s presentations to at least take another look. We join with others in our community calling for re-opening the case. Despite the many years that no one has been held accountable for the 15-year-old’s death, we remind everyone that there is no statute of limitation on murder.

Throughout the United States, justice is routinely denied to Black and Brown victims of police killings. Despite taxpayer-funded payouts to their families for unlawful death, both Malcolm Gracia’s and Breonna Taylor’s lives were cheap enough that no one felt the need to hold their killers to account. And that has got to change.

The NAACP New Bedford Branch demands that the Gracia murder case be reopened and that charges be filed against officers for lying to investigators. Local and state police and the Bristol County DA’s office couldn’t manage a credible investigation in 2012, and we doubt they can in 2020. We call for new investigations by the Massachusetts Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice. For those who committed murder, prison not pensions must be the consequence. For those who falsified reports, lied to investigators or colluded with others to coordinate their tales, they must feel the sting of justice. Any of these officers still on the job should be fired. The pensions of officers and others who knowingly derailed a murder investigation must be returned to taxpayers who are always expected to fund civil settlements.

If America is truly a nation of laws, then laws have to mean something. And they must apply equally to all. The Gracia case is far from over.

Let’s look at the science for a change

Police in schools are not a new phenomenon. Apparently the first school police were used in the Fifties in Flint, Michigan. In the 1990’s the Clinton administration created the COPS program which expanded and militarized the police, deepened mass incarceration, and put police in schools to wreak more damage there, too.

SRO’s disproportionately harm poor students and students of color – all in the name of protecting students from mass shootings. But the irony is that school shootings are largely a suburban and rural phenomenon, virtually all school shooters are white, and 92% are male.

Suburban kids do the rampaging but city kids get the cops. Something’s wrong with this picture.

The following links are to mainly research studies and organizations, and they overwhelmingly point to how little empirical data actually exists to support the contention that SROs deter school shootings. Links to commonly-cited NRA and DOJ/COPS materials are provided so you can see for yourself how thin their claims are.

On the other hand, there is a mountain of evidence showing that SROs harm poor children and children of color.

1. A Comparison of Averted and Completed School Attacks from the Police Foundation Averted School Violence Database (2019) This data comes from a police foundation but it nevertheless shows that school rampages are largely a white, suburban phenomenon. In addition, 92% of all attackers are male.

2. A Preliminary Report on the Police Foundation’s Averted School Violence Database (2019) Jeffrey A. Daniels’s report is frequently cited by pro-SRO sources

3. A Retrospective Study on Rampage School Shootings: Considerations for School-Based Threat Assessment Teams (2017) The Classroom Avenger is a white rural or suburban male. Great tables.

4. Armored school doors, bulletproof whiteboards and secret snipers (2018) Although school security has grown into a $2.7 billion market — an estimate that does not account for the billions more spent on armed campus police officers — little research has been done on which safety measures do and do not protect students from gun violence.

5. Assigning Police Officers to Schools (2013) Not a lot of science in here, but references here are often used to bolster the NRA and police case for SRO’s

6. Averted School Violence Statistics (2017) 95% of school violence is suburban and rural. There are numerous cases of attackers being stopped by teachers, guidance counselors, and others; and of attacks that an SRO would not have seen coming: Sandy Hook, for example, where the attacker was not a student.

7. Bullies in Blue: The Problem with School Policing (2016) Over the past 50 years, our schools have become sites of increased criminalization of young people–a disturbing fact that is even truer for poor Black and Latino communities. Today, police officers assigned to patrol schools can legally use physical force on students, arrest and handcuff them, and bring the full weight of the criminal justice system to bear on kids who are simply misbehaving. The primary role of police in schools is to enforce criminal laws, and virtually every violation of a school rule can be considered a criminal act if viewed through this police-first lens. Though these police are often referred to as “school resource officers,” their legal power and attending actions reveal that this designation only serves to mask that their presence has transformed schools into another site of concentrated policing. Such policing marks the start of the school-to-prison pipeline–the entry point to the criminal justice system for too many kids–and fuels mass incarceration.

8. Circumventing the Law: Students’ Rights in Schools With Police (2010) Over the past several decades, public schools in the United States have been increasingly transformed into high security environments, complete with surveillance technologies, security forces, and harsh punishments. The school resource officer (SRO) program, which assigns uniformed police officers to work in public schools, is one significant component of this new brand of school security. Although the intentions of the SRO program are clear–to help administrators maintain order in schools, deter students from committing criminal acts, and arrest students who do break the law–the potential unintended consequences of this program are largely unknown. This study employs ethnographic methodology in two public high schools with SROs to examine how students’ rights, including Fourth Amendment rights, Fifth Amendment rights, and privacy rights, are negotiated in public schools with full-time police presence. The results of this study suggest that schools administrators and SROs partner in ways that compromise and reduce the legal rights of students.

9. Conflicting Cultures With a Common Goal: Collaborating With School Resource Officers (2014) The National Association of School Psychologists is not wild about armed guards in the classroom but has tried to steer a middle course by advocating for better cooperation between those who practice the social sciences and cops. Good luck to that.

10. Cops and Cameras: Public School Security as a Policy Response to Columbine (2009) To implement effective policy, officials need to know what options work. A review of the existing literature emphasizes the need for evaluative studies of school security measures to determine whether these measures are truly effective. The few studies that have been conducted rely on perceptions as to whether security measures are effective. Such information provides initial insights but ultimately is not helpful. Programs such as Scared Straight and D.A.R.E. sounded incredibly promising and were proven to be ineffective (or even harmful) through evaluative studies (Gottfredson, 1997; Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Finckenauer, 2000). The dearth of evaluative work is surprising given the growing movement in criminal justice toward evidence-based policies. The lack of evaluations is also in stark contrast to other, more vetted school policies and programs implemented since Columbine, such as antibullying and antidelinquency programs.

11. Discipline and Participation: The Long-Term Effects of Suspension and School Security on the Political and Civic Engagement of Youth (2014) Since the early 1990s, schools across the United States have tightened their security practices and increased the punishments they give to students (see Cornell, 2006; Dinkes, Kemp, & Baum, 2009; Kupchik & Monahan, 2006). It is now common to find armed police officers, drug-sniffing dogs, surveillance cameras, and zero-tolerance policies in all types of schools and all areas of the United States. Existing research documents several problems with these new school discipline and security practices, including the increasing marginalization of poor students and youth of color (e.g., Noguera, 2003; Skiba et al., 2000), unnecessary denial of future educational opportunities due to suspension and expulsion (e.g., American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Fabelo et al., 2011), and increases in the numbers of students who are formally prosecuted in the juvenile and criminal justice systems (known as the “school-to-prison pipeline”; for example, Kim, Losen, & Hewitt, 2010; Na & Gottfredson, 2013; Wald & Losen, 2003). This body of research consistently finds large discrepancies in punishment rates between White youth and youth of color, where African American and Hispanic American students are far more likely than Whites to be punished, even when controlling for self-reported rates of misbehavior (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008).

12. Do Police Officers in Schools Really Make Them Safer? (2018) While there are conflicting studies about the effectiveness of police in schools, Schindler says research shows they bring plenty of unintended consequences for students. He says that includes higher rate of suspensions, expulsions and arrests that funnel kids into the criminal justice system. That’s especially true, he says, in schools attended predominantly by students of color.

13. Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety (2018) A report on School Safety through the lens of the COPS program under the Trump administration.

14. Focusing on School Safety After Parkland (2018) The Heritage Foundation, as to be expected, does not believe in gun control but in arming teachers and installing a massive security presence in schools.

15. Mass Shootings in America: Moving Beyond Newtown (2013) The white students who perpetrated the massacre at Columbine High school apparently chose Hitler’s birthday for their attack. This article looks at a number of myths surrounding mass shootings and also asks the provocative question: If armed guards and armed teachers are indeed worthy strategies for protecting children, then what should schools do to protect the students before and after school? Expanding this approach would dictate providing weapons to coaches, athletic directors, and even bus drivers. How slippery do we want the slippery slope to be?

16. Now is the Time: the President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence (2013) The Obama administration’s plan to fund 1,000 SRO’s.

17. On the school beat: police officers based in English schools (2017) The results of this British study clearly show that police officers are more likely to be based in schools with higher levels of pupils eligible for free school meals, that is, with a more disadvantaged population of pupils. Almost allschools where 50 or more percent of pupils are eligible for free school meals have an onsite police officer deployed there. The fact that the percentage of schools with a police officer increases as the percentage of pupils eligible for FSM increases indicates that this is not an accidental occurrence. None of the, albeit small, number of schools that have no pupils eligible for free school meals have an onsite officer. It has long been argued that the origins of mass compulsory schooling in Britain lay in attempts at social control, particularly of the children of the urban poor (Cunningham 2012; Rose 2000; Walkerdine 1992). Schools are more than enclosures for a certain sector of the population, as Andrew Hope writes: Schools are institutions of social control that seek to dictate, monitor and enforce ‘appropriate’ behavior. Historically, surveillance has played a central role in such processes. (2015a, 2) Schools are increasingly adopting diverse methods of electronic surveillance (Hope 2015a). Given the levels of electronic surveillance in place in many schools, Taylor (2012) claims that school pupils in the UK and the US are becoming the most surveilled subgroup of the whole population.

18. Patrolling Public Schools: The Impact of Funding for School Police on Student Discipline and Long-Term Education Outcomes (2018) The widespread use of police officers in public schools is a relatively recent development. While school police programs have gained popularity as a policy to protect students against rare but tragic school shooting events, in practice, these officers are often actively involved in the enforcement of school discipline. When school police officers, or school resource officers (SROs), are involved in the daily lives of students, they have the capability to alter student behavior, disciplinary consequences, attachment to school, and educational attainment. Though the potential consequences of school police interventions are large, there have been few evaluations of their efficacy. There is a large qualitative and ethnographic literature that documents the growth of harsh school sanctions policies and their disparate impact on low-income minority students (e.g. Nolan, 2011; Kupchik, 2010; Devine, 1996). This work has found that administrators’ and teachers’ roles in school discipline and classroom management are increasingly outsourced to SROs, and that SROs not only utilize their ability to arrest students for criminal offenses, but frequently participate in school discipline matters such as code of conduct violations.

19. Policing Schools: Examining the Impact of Place Management Activities on School Violence (2015) The present study examines whether the presence of school resource officers (SROs) and their level of involvement in place management activities are associated with higher or lower rates of school-based serious violence. This study uses data from the 2010 School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) conducted by National Center for Educational Statistics. Propensity score matching is used to create a quasi-experimental design and isolate the influence of SROs and their level of involvement in place management activities on school-based serious violence. The analysis reveals that schools with a school resource officer are associated with higher rates of reported serious violence and those schools with SROs that participate in more place manager duties are also associated with higher rates of reported serious violence. These findings do not support the notion that SROs are acting as effective place managers and through this place management, reducing reported serious violence. Rather, it appears that the presences of a SRO and their execution of place manager duties is associated with an increase in the reporting of serious violence. Policy implications and limitations of the current research are also discussed. In other words, SRO’s don’t prevent violence but merely increase reports of it

20. Preventing School Shootings: The Effectiveness of Safety Measures (2017) The key policy issue, however, is whether SROs reduce school crime. To that point, few studies have examined the role of SROs in reducing crime in the school, with no study assessing the preventative capabilities of an SRO with mass school shootings (James & McCallion, 2013). Research testing the link between SROs and crime or victimization have yielded mixed results. […] With the current state of the research, the true effect of SROs remains inconclusive. Further, as Madfis (2016) explained, it is important to note that two of the deadliest school shootings — Columbine and Virginia Tech — were not deterred by the presence of armed police. In 1999, Columbine High School had both an armed SRO and an unarmed school security guard. During the shooting, one of the killers exchanged multiple rounds of gunfire with the SRO then proceeded to murder students in the library (Erickson, 2001). The morning of the tragedy at Virginia Tech, five officers plus the police chief were present on campus (TriData Division, System Planning Corporation, 2009). The killer at Virginia Tech was familiar with the police, having had a previous encounter with them five months prior to the shooting. All three killers involved in these two cases were well-aware of the armed officers present on their respective campuses, yet in neither instance did that deter them from carrying out their crime.

21. Public Mass Shootings in the United States: Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy (2013) Congressional Research Service’s analysis of COPS under the Obama Administration.

22. Race, Poverty, and Exclusionary School Security: An Empirical Analysis of U.S. Elementary, Middle, and High Schools (2014) As violence and crime within and around U.S. schools has drawn increased attention to school security, police, surveillance cameras, and other measures have grown commonplace at public schools. Social scientists commonly voice concern that exclusionary security measures are most common in schools attended by poor and non-White students, yet there is little empirical basis for assessing the extent of differential exposure, as we lack research on how exclusionary measures are distributed relative to school and student characteristics. To address this gap in the research, we use nationally representative school-level data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety to consider the security measures employed in elementary, middle, and high schools. Results indicate that while security measures are ubiquitous in U.S. high schools, those considered more exclusionary are concentrated in elementary, middle, and high schools attended by non-White and/or poorer students.

23. Rampage School Shooters: A Typology (2014) School shooters match Trump voters quite nicely: “A few of the common individual features included narcissism, bigotry, alienation, poor anger management, fascination with violence, low self-esteem, and a lack of empathy.”

24. Relationships among school climate, school safety, and student achievement and well-being: a review of the literature (2015) What fosters true safety and well-being in a school.

25. Report of the National School Shield Task Force (2013) This is the NRA’s proposal to arm teachers and promote SRO’s.

26. School resource officers (SROs) and other school safety issues: Results from a state census of law enforcement executives and public school principals. South Carolina Law Enforcement Census 2013 (2013) This is only useful as an example of how policy is often driven by what the Police want, rather than by using empirical data.

27. School Resource Officers and Law Enforcement in Schools (2020) The position of the National Assoc of Secondary School Principals on SRO’s is: love ’em.

28. School Resource Officers: Law Enforcement Officers in Schools (2013) In 2013 the Congressional Research Service was tasked with determining if additional SRO’s were warranted. It answered the question by saying that school students are quite safe, but “middle schools, city schools, and schools with a higher proportion of low-income students have higher rates of reported violent incidents, and schools with a higher proportion of low-income students had higher rates of reported serious violent incidents.” To the question of whether minority and low-income students would find their way quicker into the criminal justice system, the answer was “Research in this area is limited to a small number of studies, but these suggest that children in schools with SROs might be more likely to be arrested for low-level offenses. On the other hand, some studies indicate that SROs can deter students from committing assaults on campus as well as bringing weapons to school. Schools with SROs may also be more likely to report non-serious violent crimes (i.e., physical attack or fights without a weapon and threat of physical attack without a weapon) to the police than schools lacking SROs.”

29. School Safety Technology in America: Current Use and Perceived Effectiveness (2003) Between 1999 and 2001, the COPS program of the U.S. Department of Justice provided $567 million through the Cops in Schools program (CIS) to hire 4,900 SROs. Although this sounds like a large number of SROs, one must consider that there are more than 92,000 public schools in the United States (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002); therefore, there are simply not enough SROs to go around. Although there has been no large-scale systematic evaluation of this program, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is a successful collaboration. […] In the spring of 2002, COPS allocated another $121 million to hire more SROs. Though this appears to be a positive step toward improving school safety, it should be noted that each new SRO will cost the federal government approximately $125,000 (COPS, 2002). As such, only about 968 more SROs will be hired — far short of what is needed in our schools. […] It is not good public policy to continue to expand programs and invest resources in programs that are untested. This mistake has been made time and again with unsatisfactory results (e.g., zero-tolerance policies and the widespread installation of complicated school security technology systems). Thus, the efficacy of individual SRO programs in each school district should be measured to ensure that the programs actually enhance school safety and are not just another “cosmetic response” to school violence.

30. School Suspensions and Adverse Experiences in Adulthood (2017) During the 1980s and early 1990s, violence and drugs in American schools emerged as a policy priority. The available statistics and anecdotal evidence suggested that these problems were common in American schools, particularly those in poor, urban settings (Midlarskey & Klain, 2005; Skiba,2013). In response, the federal government passed two key pieces of legislation aimed at addressing the problem. The first piece of legislation, the Gun Free Schools Act of 1995, made education funding contingent on the adoption of zero tolerance policies that mandated the expulsion of students who brought weapons on school property. Following its enactment, zero tolerance policies spread rapidly throughout the country (Stinchcomb, Bazemore, & Riestenberg, 2006). States and school districts often expanded the scope of their zero tolerance policies beyond weapons offenses to include drug offenses, interpersonal violence, and more minor misbehavior. Not surprisingly, the spread of zero tolerance policies led to a significant increase in suspensions and expulsions (Skibaet al., 2014). The second piece of legislation, the Violent Crime Control and Enforcement Act of 1994, provided support and funding for school resource officer programs through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. School districts received funding to contract with local police departments to place trained police officers in schools. These officers respond to incidents of student misbehavior, such as breaking up fights in the hallways, and arrest students accused of criminal behavior, thus expanding the potential disciplinary consequences facing students. Importantly, arrests are not mutually exclusive of school disciplinary responses, so students often face suspensions or expulsions in addition to delinquency or criminal charges (Kupchik, 2010). Thus, just as schools increasingly turned to suspensions and expulsions, they also integrated the justice system into their disciplinary responses to student misbehavior. In addition to stationing school resource officers in their hallways, Americans chools also introduced other heightened security measures. These measures included security cameras, random locker and personal property searches, identification cards, metal detectors, and strictly controlled school entrance and exit procedures (Hirschfield, 2008). It is reasonable to assume that these measures contributed to the expanded use of exclusionary school discipline punishments, as they made it more likely for students to be caught violating school rules, mandated strong disciplinary responses to relatively innocuous behavior (such as talking back or acting disorderly), and provided additional strict rules for students to violate (such as requiring students to always carry their identification cards) (Lyons & Drew, 2006). Not surprisingly, the number of suspensions and in-school arrests grew as the punitive school discipline trend became entrenched (see, e.g. Losen, 2011; New York Civil Liberties Union, 2013; Skiba et al., 2014). More than three million students are suspended each year in the United States (see Losen, Hodson, Keith, Morrison, & Belway, 2015). Data also suggest that the use of other exclusionary actions are more common now than they were two decades ago, including arrests in school (e.g. Advancement Project, 2005; Blue Ribbon Commission on School Discipline, 2007; Fields & Emshwiller, 2014; Krezmien, Leone, Zablocki, & Wells, 2010). Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent to Adult Health, we analyze whether being suspended from school relates to the likelihood of students experiencing a number of adverse events and outcomes when they are adults. We find that being suspended increases the likelihood that a student will experience criminal victimization, criminal involvement, and incarceration years later, as adults.

31. School-Based Policing in Maine: A study on School Resource Officers in Maine’s public schools (2019) While school-based policing has become commonplace at campuses across the country, there is no centralized or continuous tracking of how many schools use SROs, no national governance of SROs’ roles and training requirements, and only ad hoc evaluation of their effectiveness in improving school safety. Local law enforcement agencies deploying SROs are not required to register with any national database, and school systems are not required to report how many SROs they use. The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) estimates there are between 14,000 and 20,000 SROs deployed in schools nationwide. The National Center for Education Statistics found that 42% of all public schools in 2015-16 employed at least one full-time or part-time SRO, and that 94.4% of public high schools with enrollment of at least 1,000 students maintained a law enforcement presence for security enforcement and patrol. Similarly in Maine, neither schools nor police departments have been required to report whether they deploy SROs.

32. The Comprehensive School Safety Initiative: 2015 Report to Congress (2015) Schools have adopted a number of approaches for increasing safety, including the use of controlled access to buildings, security cameras, metal detectors, and the placement of school resource officers (SROs). Using SROs, generally sworn law enforcement officers, is a costly and widely used practice: the 2009-2010 School Survey on Crime and Safety estimated that 43 percent of public schools have at least one SRO present at least once a week. However, few rigorous studies have evaluated the effectiveness of SROs, including whether there are possible unintended consequences that may harm students, such as increased arrests for disorderly conduct (which might otherwise be handled by a school administrator) or exclusionary disciplinary practices (such as suspensions and expulsions) that disproportionately affect minority youth and youth with disabilities.

33. The Cost of Arming Schools: The Price of Stopping a Bad Guy with a Gun (2013) The common denominator of most school shootings is the availability of semi-automatic weapons. The price of implementing the NRA’s proposal (which does not involve controlling semi-automatics) to place an armed security guard in every school building in the nation is nearly $13 billion a year (2013 dollars). The opportunity cost to taxpayers for fully protected schools can reach $23 billion. The cost per student approaches $500 and would take up half of federal spending on elementary and secondary education if paid for by the federal government. Is this the cost of protecting schools? Or, is it just one cost for permitting unlimited access to semi-automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition clips and preventing the potential for mass murder in our schools?

34. The Growing Concerns Regarding School Resource Officers (2018) Some harsh statistics on how SRO’s and zero-tolerance policies turn students into life-long criminals.

35. The Menace of School Shootings in America (2018) While the murders of children by semi-automatic weapon was what was keeping America up at night, American politicians decided that fighting terror, profiling potential perpetrators, outfitting school and office in high-tech security gear, and increasing police presence in schools was what we needed – a beefed-up police state.

36. The Nature of Crime by School Resource Officers: Implications for SRO Program (2014) a little-considered look at the harms and crimes SRO’s can commit as authority figures while on school property, although they do not report to school administration. Rapes and accidental sidearm firings are the least of our worries.

37. The New American School: preparation for post-industrial discipline (2006) We take as a starting point the socializing effects of schools to analyze armed police officers and technological surveillance systems on school campuses, and relate these new social control strategies to the social relations engendered by mass incarceration and post-industrialization. In contrast to schools in the early twentieth century, which prepared youth for dependable factory labor, contemporary schools prepare youth for volatile labor markets and uncertain service sector employment. The modern world that embraces students is marked by the demise of the welfare state, privatization of social services and entrepreneurial approaches to modern social problems, including private for-profit prisons and mass incarceration of over two million people (in the United States alone). Public institutions and public life are subjected to ongoing processes of globalization, militarization and corporatization, altering how citizens participate in politics and react to social problems, as well as how states control citizens in places like schools (Saltman & Gabbard, 2003). We argue that these larger forces are mediated by public education and manifested as police and surveillance presence at school sites, such that students are exposed to social control forces that simultaneously create and are produced by conditions of mass incarceration and post-industrialization.

38. The Presence of School Resource Officers (SROs) in America’s Schools (2020) Similar to the declines in national crime rates in recent decades, school-basedoffenses have also been steadily falling. As of 2017, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that victimization, theft, and violent crimes are at a multi-decade low. In the 2015–2016 school year, there were 18 homicides at schools, accounting for 1.2 percent of all youth homicides. Despite the rarity of serious violence in schools, a major policy argument in favor of SROs has been the claim that they are needed to respond to active shooter situations. Those events remain extremely rare, and in 2015-2016 accounted for 43 deaths on school property, including 10 deaths by suicide. This is not to minimize the importance of efforts to respond to school shootings, but there are little data supporting the efficacy of SROs in preventing these rare events.

39. The prevalence of police officers in US schools (2018) Students attending high schools that have substantial shares of black or Hispanic students attend schools with a police officer at higher rates than students attending schools with few black and Hispanic students.

40. The school resource officer perspective: examining crime, violence, law enforcement, and education on public high school campuses (2012) Can SRO’s successfully provide the mentoring, teaching, and community-building that proponents claim to be co-responsibilities of the job? Through interviews we were able to see how SROs are symbolic to theories on law enforcement, police, and crime. As it was previously noted, SROs display some of the same characteristics representative of traditional police culture. Examples include SROs discussing ways in which they maintain control, authority, and an edge on students paying particular attention and awareness to gangs and drug activity. There were also numerous times when the SROs reinforced their legitimized power over students, shared instances in which they had to use aggressive and punitive action, or discussed the great differences that lie between police and non-police. Although we are nowhere close to being able to define a distinct police subculture amongst SROs, the substantial differences in settings and experiences between them (SROs and other law enforcement) which impact their beliefs and behaviors, are evident. On the surface many elements of traditional police culture seem problematic to the successful functioning of our public education system. However even though some of the characteristics of traditional police culture were found amongst this small sample of SROs, the extent to which all SROs display the same culture is unclear.

41. The School-Security Industry Is Cashing In Big on Public Fears of Mass Shootings (2016) Reality check. School shootings aren’t quite the national epidemic the media depicts. Far more children and young adults are killed on the impoverished streets of America’s large cities every year. By several orders of magnitude, far more kids die each year in car crashes or drowning accidents–or from asthma. And far more young lives are lost to a host of other diseases closely correlated with poverty. There are approximately 55 million K–12 students in America and roughly 3.5 million adults employed as teachers. There are also millions of support staff – janitors, nurses, cooks, after-school-program providers, and so on. Even in the deadliest years, the chance of a student or adult being killed at school is roughly one in a million. By contrast, roughly five out of every 100,000 American residents are murdered each year. Extrapolating from this, schools are somewhere in the region of 50 times safer than society overall. But lately, America’s school-security fetish has reached a whole new level of bizarre. In the wake of the December 2012 Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, one company after another has rushed to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the epidemic of fear that emerged in response to school violence, and to exploit the emotional vulnerabilities of terrified parents. As a result, a huge number of utterly inane products have entered the market.

42. Threat Assessment for School Administrators and Crisis Teams (2020) The National Association of School Psychologists is not not wild about SRO’s and encourages schools to weigh whether they legitimately need them. If so, SRO’s are not to be used for zero-tolerance discipline or in positions a “civilian” could fill. However, SRO’s are preferable to armed guards, in their view.

43. Understanding School Rampage Shooters: Implications for Police Use of Force (2019) This study looked at a number of factors and took a generally positive view of SRO’s, as 26.9% of all shooters were stopped by police. However, it concedes that civilians do a much better job of terminating school rampages. Knox found that “Police intervention, however, was not the winner with respect to saving lives: intervention by unarmed citizens was. Unarmed citizens stopped 23 (39.5%) shooters, as many as stopped their rampages by committing suicide. However, when unarmed citizens intervened, the shooters killed an average of only one person. When school rampage shooters ended their rampages voluntarily or by firearm malfunction or ammunition depletion, they killed six times as many people on average as did shooters who were stopped by the intervention of unarmed citizens.”

44. What Do We Know About the Effects of School-Based Law Enforcement on School Safety? (2018) Are SRO’s effective in preventing school shootings? “There is insufficient evidence for drawing a decisive conclusion about the overall effectiveness of non-educational, school-based law enforcement programs (Petrosino et al., forthcoming; Petrosino et al., 2012; Gonzalez, Jetelina, & Jennings, 2016; James & McCallion, 2013; Raymond, 2010).” OK. Forget efficacy. Do students feel safer with SRO’s? “There is no conclusive evidence that the presence of school-based law enforcement has a positive effect on students’ perceptions of safety in schools. In their review of 12 quasi-experimental studies, Petrosino and colleagues (forthcoming) found that school-based law enforcement is not associated with statistically significant changes in students’ perceptions of safety at school.”

Introduction

On May 17, 2012 15 year-old Malcolm Gracia was shot by New Bedford police. The circumstances of the killing are something that today would receive a more thorough investigation than the Gracia family got in 2012. Following a $500K settlement for the unconstitutional stop that triggered Gracia’s murder, various reports which exculpated the City and New Bedford Police, an effort to conceal information from the public, and finally a gag order to muzzle the family attorney, many people thought the Gracia story had gone away.

But Don Brisson, the family’s lawyer, just can’t let it go. In a Zoom meeting on September 20th, Brisson said there are a number of things that continue to haunt him about the Gracia case. Foremost is the fact that police didn’t have to illegally stop, and then assault, Gracia. If they thought he was a gang member, they could have gone back to their offices and checked their photo registry.

Despite Brisson’s ambling pace and a four-hour marathon Zoom meeting, it was impossible to leave the online meeting. Brisson raises some very disturbing questions. His walk through the evidence reveals an unnecessary killing, an improbable tale concocted and clearly coordinated by officers on the scene, revealing contradictions between police and a civilian witness, overly friendly questioning by the state police, a DA whitewash, with much information about the case sealed by a gag order to this day.

Brisson raises questions that still deserve an answer.

Named as defendants in the Gracia family’s civil suit were police officers Tyson Barnes, David Brown, Paul Fonseca, Brian Safioleas and Trevor Sylvia, along with the city of New Bedford and the estate of David Provencher, who was the police chief at the time.

The heart of Brisson’s marathon 4 hour presentation was a review of witness reports of the altercation between Tyson Barnes and Malcolm Gracia, an examination of DA Sutter’s report, and a summary of Barnes’ medical records.

DA Sam Sutter

Sam Sutter was the Bristol County District Attorny at the time. Brisson notes that Sutter’s report is full of omissions and failed to ask criticial questions. For example, it does not mention Detective Tyson Barnes’ initial assault on Malcolm Gracia.

Sutter’s report also claims Gracia grasped Barnes’ back, removed his knife from a sheath, thrust the knife twice into Barnes’ abdomen and made repeated attempts to stab him after that. Then, carrying the sheath, Gracia runs at another officer. Brisson points out that Barnes, if he actually feared for this life, could have shot Gracia but did not. Although Sutter’s report says that eyewitnesses corrorobate police accounts, this is not actually true.

Det. Tyson Barnes

Brisson reviewed testimony from various witnesses. Despite the fact that the interviews referenced diagrams and witnesses occasionally physically acted out events they were discussing, video interviews were apparently banned. What the public has going on a decade later is audio-only.

In Barnes’ interview eight days after the shooting he says he does not know what happened to his Taser. Barnes says Gracia began running South and was no longer a threat. “I just knew he wasn’t a threat anymore.” But there was no mention of jamming Gracia against the building, which several other witnesses recalled.

The questioner, State Police Sergeant Dolan, never asks why Barnes doesn’t shoot Gracia if he is in fact attacking other officers. Dolan also never asks Barnes about the extent of his injuries — an issue of considerable controversy. Sergeant Dolan asks Barnes about being stabbed in the “chest” (not in the abdomen). So which was it?

There are numerous pauses in the questioning, as if to provide officers to get their stories straight. After one such pause, upon requestioning, Barnes now says he was in a lot of pain, while previously he claims not to have felt anything. Suddenly Barnes hears “officer down, suspect down” A Detective Gangi is now applying pressure to his chest, Detective Fonseca is calling for an ambulance, and Trooper Mark Lavoie takes Barnes’ belt and gun. EMS staff cut off Barnes’ clothes as he is transported to the hospital, supposedly with a “sucking chest wound.” Barnes says he gets his gun back several days later.

Det. David Brown

Dolan interviews Detective David Brown four days after the shooting, again audio-only. Brown contradicts Barnes’ testimony about seeing the unholstering of the knife. Brown says Barnes immediately grabs him and drives him into the building. Then Gracia “controls” Barnes and stabs him twice. Now Brown says Barnes is in shock, white as a ghost, suprised at events.

Brisson asks how it is possible that a 200-pound, 5’11” detective with two hands could be controlled by a 5’8″ 150-pound kid with one hand on his shoulder. And why doesn’t Brown either Tase or shoot Gracia, given that he has just purportedly stabbed Barnes? And why would Barnes be surprised, given that he had just assaulted a kid?

Brisson again questions the pauses in the interrogations, the hints, the guided testimony, the lack of video, the “clarifications” and the leading questions. Brisson finds it totally biased. No tough questions are asked.

Det. Trevor Sylvia

Before encountering Barnes, Detective Sylvia recounts Gracia running, Barnes is running to intercept Gracia, then Gracia turns around, fumbling in his waistband. Sylvia does not pull his own weapon and warn Gracia. Dolan asks Sylvia if anyone has issued verbal commands, and Sylvia says “no.” Barnes catches up with Gracia and tackles him from the side and pushes him into the house. Then Sylvia says he hears someone say “he’s got a knife” — which contradicts both Brown and Barnes. Also, Sylvia reports Gracia switching to his non-dominant hand after attacking Barnes.

Det. Paul Fonseca

Paul Fonseca is the officer who shoots Gracia through the head. He claims not to know if Barnes has grabbed Gracia or not (despite the running tackle Sylvia describes). Fonseca claims Barnes pushes him with his shoulders into the building as Gracia tries to control him. Brisson asks why the Asst. DA, DA Sutter, Sergeant Dolan, and others fail to ask if Gracia may have felt threatened. Fonseca says Gracia says is grabbing Barnes by the back of the head. Brisson asks how this is possible, given the difference in height and physical stature between Barnes and Gracia, and why the location (head/shoulders) is not consistent.

Postmortem Trial by Press

An EMS report mentions a “sucking chest wound” and WBZ and CBS report “serious life-threatening injuries.” The exaggeration of injuries and demonization of Gracia by Gracia’s former teacher Nick Baptiste are fodder for news articles. Sutter’s report also exaggerates the threat Gracia posed and omits mention of the Taser. The press loves pictures of Gracia’s knife, a scary-looking gut hook (fishing knife). The press also indulge in arm-chair psychology, imagining why a crazed teen killer was trying to go out in a blaze of glory, taking as many cops with him as possible. Such demonization, as we see in many police shootings, is either launched by the police or the press. Take your pick.

Medical records

Interrogrator Dolan asks Barnes’ lawyer Gambaccini for a description of his injuries — no one apparently ever looked at RI Hospital records and it is now subject to gag order. The question of whose blood is on the knife was never answered as no one ever tested the knife. Under his T-shirt, Barnes was wearing a white muscle shirt. There was no blood on it. A photo of Barnes’ torso shows a small 1cm superficial scratch. Barnes didn’t need either stitches or trauma treatment. He got two percosets and ibuprofen. Barnes was cleared to go home without restriction. He arrived in the hospital at 9pm. He was cleared by doctors by 11:43pm. X-rays ruled out pneumothorax involvement. Barnes was observed overnight. No antibiotics were administered. He got a tetanus shot. Vital signs were normal. Barnes had been taking prednisone, percosets, and valium for a “back injury.” He was discharged at 5:12am. Barnes’ tox screen, which Brisson had to fight to obtain, revealed benzodiazepine and opiates. Valium lowers inhibitions, Brisson points out. Prescriptions written by Barnes’ doctor were never delivered to Superior Court — in violation of a subpoena.

DA Sutter’s report never mentions Barnes’ tox screen — only the marijuana in Gracia’s system.

Medical Record requests by Brisson

Despite police and EMS concern for Barnes’ injuries — they considered medevac at one point — Brisson ask why EMS didn’t stop at Charlton or St. Anne’s if Barnes’ injuries were truly life-threatening.

Animation

An animation depicts the improbable 20 foot distance that Barnes fell back, according to his follow detectives’ accounts. The animation also raises questions about why no one tried to stop Gracia. There are also discrepancies in where shell casings were found.

Misc

After the killing Barnes goes out on disability for a non-injury.

Restraining Order

Brisson raises the issue of Barnes’ mental health and behavior.

It turns out that Barnes, in addition to having questionable drugs in his system at the time of the shooting, has a restraining order requiring his weapon to be confiscated.

The restraining order is not found in personnel file. Brisson asks why the NBPD didn’t ask for Barnes’ weapon. Brisson has to fight for discovery of injury, drug, and personnel records on Barnes, which it turns out strongly call his conduct in question. Brisson asks why Sutter didn’t drag Barnes through the same mud as he did Gracia?

Barnes apparently received explicit photos from another officer’s wife or girlfriend at some point. He meets with the officer regarding this dispute at a city Burger King and threatens to shoot the other officer. Then Police Chief Teachman gives Barnes a one-day suspension — which Mayor Scott Lang simply voids.

Disability

Fast forward to 2020. Barnes is now applying for disability.

Next Week: Physical evidence

To watch the final Zoom presentation, contact MalcolmGraciaEvidence@gmail.com

The New Bedford Commission on Use of Force just issued its four-and-a-half page 60-day findings. Aside from three pages of bureaucratic blather about its mandate and a rather defensive section on how it complied with Open Meeting laws, it was short on both analysis and prescriptions. The only real substance was found on the last page and a half.

It begins by dismissing accountability. According to the author, presumably Chairman Brian Gomes, there is already adequate accountability for police officers:

The NBPD “use of force” policies guide officers in performance and behavior. When an officer violates any of those policies, he/she is held accountable through the department’s governing Rules & Regulations. Disciplinary action ranges from counseling to termination. The department receives an average of 60 complaints a year. Reports of violations can come from both inside and outside of the department.

No, the real problem is apparently lack of training. Training has become the “go-to” prescription for “doing something” that everyone can get behind: the public can be deceived into thinking it will help; and the police can always use more money. Here are the Commission’s thoughts:

Officers are required by state statue to also undergo 40 hours of In-Service Training annually. The agenda of this training is set by the MPTC (Municipal Police Training Committee) and the MA Chiefs of Police. Topics that are mandatory every year are Legal updates (both Criminal Law and Motor Vehicle Law), Use of Force/Defensive Tactics, and CPR & 1st Responder. Topics that are additionally added are usually based on the landscape of what is going on in policing that we need additional training on or what is new in policing. During the past 2-3 years topics have included Fair & Impartial Policing, Officer Wellness & Suicide Prevention, Active Shooter Response, Dealing with Alzheimer issues, conducting Cruelty to Animal Investigations and responding to calls from those experiencing a mental health crisis, Alzheimer’s, Autism, other cognitive conditions and disabilities.

The 2020-2021 schedule is not quite completed, but discussions are centering around additional training in de-escalation, Integrating Communication, Assessment and Tactics (ICAT), Racial Profiling, Cultural Competency, Effective Communication and LGBTQ Rights. This Commission has discussed the importance of including trainings on unconscious bias, racial justice and racial equity along with other programs to address the needs of diverse communities who are experiencing oppression.

De-escalation training

Tactical de-escalation involves the use of techniques to reduce the intensity of an encounter with a subject/suspect and enable an officer to have additional options to gain voluntary compliance or to mitigate the need to use a higher level of force, while still maintaining control of the situation. The goal of de-escalation is to avoid a violent encounter with the key elements of de-escalation techniques being for officers to create distance, take time and use shielding. Throughout the summer, the Commission has repeatedly discussed the topic of de-escalation. Currently, the Commission is in the process of writing recommendations to further articulate and strengthen de-escalation language in the NBPD Use of Force Policies. The main learning objective of de-escalation training is to provide police officers with an organized way of making decisions about how they will act in any situation, including situations that

In light of the events of 2020, the MPTC is currently in discussions about additional training that can be brought in at the state level. This will include officers of the New Bedford Police Department.

The Commission provides no insight into the accountability required after incidents in which officers fail to use their new expensive training.

Other than this, the Commission could not come to any other conclusions — even after a raucous public meeting at which community members demanded that the Commission look at an independent police review commission and create meaningful accountability measures. In fact, the Commission’s report doesn’t even acknowledge any of these concerns:

To date, the Commission has reviewed data on public complaints of police abuse or use of force. The data has included the race of the complainant when known. The Commission has not yet determined which recommendations it will make and present to the Mayor. This will only occur after full deliberation of the Commission on each recommendation being considered.

There is a link to a form the public can use to comment on the Commission’s 60-day results.

But why bother?

Mayor Mitchell has accomplished what he set out to do — which was to blunt public demand for police accountability in the wake of George Floyd’s killing and renewed demand to revisit the Malcolm Gracia case.

Neither the public nor SouthCoast community organizations ought to continue participating in Mayor Mitchell’s and Brian Gomes’ charade.

Police Accountability legislation, which was expected to die in the Massachusetts legislature this Summer, has been given a surprising reprieve. In the wake of George Floyd’s asphyxiation murder by a Minneapolis cop, while three others stood around watching Floyd die, the Massachusetts House has been unable to pursue its usual tactics of deep-sixing progressive legislation. Members of a conference committee are still hammering out differences between a thoughtful Senate version of the Reform, Shift + Build Act and a toothless House version apparently edited by police unions.

Police unions have lobbied hard to neuter any legislation for reining in police excesses. They don’t appreciate being held accountable to the public — or to courts — for the felonious assaults and murders committed while on duty. Unions object to limits on “Qualified Immunity,” bans on chokeholds and no-knock warrants, and are only truly happy when legislators offer them more cash for “training” intended to make them sweeter, gentler souls — but never to hold them accountable by discipline or termination.

Angry that such legislation was ever filed in the first place, Boston Police Patrolman Association President Lawrence Calderone said, “Angry would be an understatement.” And dismissing the need for legislation, Calderone added, “We’re angry about it. Boston, Massachusetts in general is not Minneapolis.” State Senator Ryan Fattman echoed the sentiment, saying that Massachusetts cops aren’t like bad cops elsewhere: “… our Massachusetts law enforcement officers are the best trained, well educated, and well-meaning in our nation, bar none. […] The egregious sins of other law enforcement in other parts of our country should not be their burden to bear.”

This is, of course, absolute nonsense. Massachusetts has plenty of police abuse horror stories. Most recently, in July 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice concluded an investigation of the Springfield Police Department’s Narcotics Bureau. Undercover police in Springfield were routinely beating suspects about the head, using immediate force without identifying themselves as police, and routinely lying in statements and in court.

Closer to home, where people are still calling for the release of details on Malcolm Gracia’s killing — the details of which are subject to a gag order related to the City’s $500,000 settlement with the Gracia family — we only have to look back two years earlier to find a case similar in many ways to George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis.

No, Massachusetts is exactly like Minnneapolis. We have a breathing problem in New Bedford too.

* * *

At about 4:17 am the morning of July 22, 2010 Erik Aguilar, 42, walked into the New Bedford XtraMart gas and convenience store and asked for help. Aguilar said someone was about to kill him. The store clerk called police for help. The store’s security footage captured Aguilar’s subsequent killing by one officer and a civilian, and the contempt for human life shown by five more officers who arrived on the scene and did nothing to try to revive Aguilar.

Seven minutes after entering the XtraMart Aguilar exits the store and is seen wandering around the parking lot when Officer Paul Hodson arrives. At 4:25:28, with the store clerk looking on, Hodson gets out of his car, playing with his baton, wedging Aguilar between himself and his cruiser. Hodson reaches into Aguilar’s pockets and conducts some sort of inspection. Aguilar looks uneasy, as if he is about to run off.

At 4:26:40 — only slightly over a minute after arriving — Hodson grabs Aguilar by the arm and wheels him around onto the hood of the police vehicle. Aguilar, who has committed no crime, resists. At 4:27:29 Hodson pepper-sprays Aguilar in the face after taking him down onto the pavement. At 4:27:41 Hodson flips a handcuffed Aguilar onto his stomach and both Hodson and a civilian passer-by kneel on Aguilar’s back with his face pressed into the pavement. From about 4:27:48 forward in the video the civilian can be seen kneeling on Aguilar’s neck. For the next minute we see Aguilar’s legs move a little, then his struggling ceases at about 4:29:44.

Aguilar is either dying or is already dead.

At around 4:29:57 a second officer shows up. He looks at Aguilar’s immobile body. Hodson and the civilian release their hold on Aguilar, though Hodson keeps kneeling on him. At 4:31:28 three more officers show up and the civilian leaves. A sixth officer appears. Not one of them at any point makes any effort to resuscitate Aguilar. At 4:33:36 Hodson stands up. He has been kneeling on Aguilar for a full seven minutes.

For the next 18 minutes the five officers stand around talking. At 4:51:40 an ambulance finally pulls up in front of the XtraMart. At 4:54:09 Aguilar’s body is placed in the ambulance. At 5:09:03 the ambulance leaves the convenience store. At 5:11:52 the last of the police cruisers leaves the scene.

* * *

Attorney Howard Friedman, who previously took on the NBPD in the case of Morris Pina, filed a lawsuit, naming five of the stand-about officers as defendants: Paul Hodson, Antonio Almeida, Damien Vasconcelos, Roberto DaCunha and John Martins.

The usual machinations of the state kicked in to exonerate the officers. Former Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett was tasked with an “independent” investigation. Bennett concluded that alcohol and cocaine were responsible for Aguilar’s death. However, he did note that “the failure to detect that Aguilar needed immediate medical care and the miscommunication and time wasted waiting for a van that never arrived are troubling circumstances of this tragic loss of life.”

Police Chief Provencer refused comment, as did City Solicitor Markey — three separate times. And Mayor Jon Mitchell — about to become a recurring fixture in New Bedford police abuses cases — refused to talk to the press. No one wanted to take responsibility, especially city officials.

The Bennett report — to the surprise of no one — did not recommend prosecution. Jon Mitchell, apparently satisfied that no one would have to take the heat, issued a statement: “New Bedford residents can take confidence in knowing that the New Bedford Police Department will demand that its officers hold themselves to the highest standards of professionalism and respect for our citizens now and in the future.”

Bennett’s report was naturally seen as a betrayal by Aguilar’s family : “We are not surprised that Mr. Bennett did not recommend criminal prosecution of the police officers. Police officers are almost never charged with crimes. The video shows the officers disregarded police policies. The police were called to provide assistance. Eric needed immediate medical attention. Instead of providing care, the police officers left Eric handcuffed lying face down on the ground. They finally provided emergency medical care after it was too late to help. We believe the police officers violated Eric’s civil rights.”

Strangely enough, the New Bedford Police Department — not the police union — agreed with the Aguilar family. Lieutentant Robert Aguiar [no relation] of the New Bedford Police Department’s Division of Professional Standards wrote, “I would classify this event as a tragedy for the family of Erik Aguilar, an embarrassing disgrace to the New Bedford Police Department, and a case of absolute negligence on the part of the … police officers on scene, as well as their supervisor Lieutenant Michael Jesus. [… They]”had the training, the duty and the obligation as police officers to help and protect Erik Aguilar, and they undeniably failed to do so.” An internal investigation recommended disciplinary action, though not termination, for seven officers involved in the Aguilar case. Their slap on the wrist — four day suspensions.

The New Bedford Police Department’s Divison of Professional Standards maintains a spreadsheet of case files which the NAACP New Bedford was finally able to obtain. In it, Officer Hodson, appears twice in June 2019.

Neither lawsuits, video, nor even the Police Department’s own disciplinary mechanisms were enough to get rid of the bad apples, much less punish them meaningfully. Officer John Martins left the New Bedford Police Department in 2012 after being charged with drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident. The rest stayed on the force after receiving their four-day suspensions.

It wasn’t until December 18, 2019 that Hodson pled guilty — in the United States Attorney’s office in the District of Massachusetts — and not for klling Aguilar, but for the distribution of child pornography.

Hodson is now serving a sentence of five to twenty years in federal prison.

The Massachusetts House just passed their own police accountabily bill — long on police concessions and short on accountability. Despite language that says Qualified Immunity will be “studied,” everybody knows what that means. This is House Speaker Bob DeLeo’s way of strangling progressive legislation — even reforms that a majority of the public supports. As a lobbyist once said of the Massachusetts Legislature, “Don’t confuse what goes on in this building with democracy.”

Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, released the following statement on the House bill:

“For months, people across the country and the state have been marching in the streets to demand systemic change. Unfortunately, this bill does not reflect the fierce urgency that deadly police violence against Black people demands. Instead, it reflects the depth of entrenched opposition to necessary police reform. Police unions and officers used the weapon of fear to maintain the status quo and undermine even very moderate reforms.

“Ultimately, this piece of legislation misses the mark, because it will not help victims of violence hold police accountable. Let’s be clear: Massachusetts is not immune to police misconduct. In order to make any laws about excessive use of force or other police abuses meaningful, Massachusetts must reform our civil rights laws – including by ending qualified immunity, which denies victims their day in court. When the final bill is negotiated, it should empower victims of police violence to seek justice for the harms they have suffered and to hold abusive officers directly accountable.”

Progressive Mass. has published a guide, Here’s How Your State Rep Voted on Police Reform, including how House members voted on the Senate version, S.2820. Bristol County “Democrats” Carole Fiola, Jim Hawkins, Chris Markey, Alan Silvia, and Paul Schmid all voted with Republicans against the Senate version.

When it comes to supporting wars and the police state, we can usually count on the media to tell us a plastic fork is silver cutlery. Several media outlets have described the House bill as “sweeping” when in fact it sacrificed critical police accountability measures to police union lobbying.

• House Approach To Qualified Immunity Lacking For Some; Police Say Reform Starts With Department Accreditation
• MA House approves police reform bill on 93-66 vote
• Mass. House Passes Police Reform Bill – CBS Boston
• Mass. House Passes Police Reform Bill – NECN
• Massachusetts Bans Police Chokeholds in Sweeping Reform Bill
• Massachusetts House passes sweeping police reform bill; lawmakers still face opposition on qualified immunity
• Massachusetts House releases its version of police reform bill
• Police Budgets Are Ballooning as Social Programs Crumble
• Sweeping police reform bill passes in Massachusetts House, 93-66
• Sweeping police reform bill that passed state Senate draws swift condemnation from police unions

Let’s be honest. neither political party wants police reform — even in supposed Liberal bastions like Massachusetts. What just happened in the Commonwealth has played out all over the nation. In Missouri, for example, when Kansas City Mayor David Alvey assembled his Task Force on Community and Police Relations, he invited Police Chief Michael York and Wyandotte County Sheriff Don Ash — but snubbed Kansas City’s reform District Attorney Mark Dupree, a Black man, because he wasn’t sufficiently “objective.”

• Reform Prosecutor in Kansas Excluded From “Objective” Task Force on Policing

Finally, no discussion of police accountability would be complete without the local press quoting a man who is neither a police officer nor has ever been held accountable to the Massachusetts legislature.

• Thomas Hodgson calls the police reform bill Outrageous, Dangerous, Atrocious and Reckless

The following is reposted with the author’s permission from an editorial in the Daily Hampshire Gazette. The community Lois refers to here is unimportant; it could be any in America.

Lois Ahrens: Defund the police and break the chain

I want to talk about one long chain. Starting in this tiny city and in every city where mayors and councilors decide on policing budgets. Here the amount for police is almost $7 million a year. A big chunk considering there is almost no crime. But like everywhere, it starts with mayors and city councils giving too much money and too much power to too many cops.

The money goes to cops in schools where Black children and Latinx children get disciplined, suspended and expelled at much higher rates than white children. It moves on to racial profiling with stops of drivers and people walking down the street.

And, sometimes policing and especially over-policing leads to arrests and then charges and then over-charging by district attorneys, including Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan. That means piling up so many charges that people have little choice but to take a plea bargain out of fear of a longer sentence if they risk going to trial.

From there, the chain goes to prisons and jails. In Massachusetts, we pay $1.2 billion to keep about 14,000 people caged in jails and prisons, overstaffed by guards with unions as powerful as the ones police have. Like police outside, they are trained in the same us versus them “warrior “mentality.

When you add this up — too many police, racial profiling, cops in schools, district attorneys and plea bargains — what we get is a state where more than half of the prison population is Black and Latinz, even although those groups account for 17% of Massachusetts’ population.

And, right now prisoners, that is people, in state prisons have been locked down for months. This is really a “lockdown,” not just being unable to eat in a restaurant or take a trip to California. This is being locked in a cell the size of a parking space. This is locked down where social distancing is impossible. This is locked down, where in the Framingham women’s prison, 85 of 180 women have COVID.

It starts here. In this city council and in every city council, which is why we need to defund the police and start breaking the chain.

Lois Ahrens

Northampton

The writer is founding director of The Real Cost of Prisons Project.

Although Republicans have defunded education, food stamps, public housing, Planned Parenthood, NPR, sanctuary cities, environmental and occupational health, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the UN Refugee agency, what really upsets Liberals is when police reformers call for “defunding the police.” Objections range from worries that Hannibal Lecter will be running loose, to how it might look if Liberals called for something radical.

In the midst of a pandemic and the breakdown of American democracy, it’s the least of our worries.

Liberals have been as incapable as Conservatives of re-imagining a world without a highly-militarized paramilitary force occupying, in effect, urban neighborhoods. If only now they are beginning to understand the need to demilitarize the police, they still seem more afraid of the blowback from adopting this phrase — and of alienating the mythological white swing voter — than of finding common cause with police reformers. Hopefully this will change.

But there are many police programs that can be, and ought to be, completely defunded. There is no need to quibble or clarify what “defunding” means in these cases. It means exactly that — stop wasting taxpayer money making cops more dangerous, and stop throwing money at useless and deceptive public relations gestures.

Here’s what many of the “defunders” have been proposing:

• defunding the 1033 program, which puts military weaponry into police hands
• defunding the Department of Justice COPS program that assures preferential hiring of ex-military and subsidizes local P.D. hiring of them
• defunding school-based police (so-called “resource” officers) and the construction of actual jail cells for children in some schools
• defunding forfeiture programs that permit police departments to keep the proceeds
• defunding municipal fine programs that automatically flow to police departments
• defunding the enforcement of non-violent crime and harrassment of the homeless (fewer officers are necessary)
• defunding sensitivity training for officers who should never have been hired in the first place
• defunding “advisory” boards, ride-alongs, drug awareness and athletics programs that are basically public relations campaigns that offer the public no real oversight or control of the police
• defunding costly overtime and “details” programs (why can’t the electric company provide a flagman?)

If people think that “defunding the police” requires too much parsing and too much explanation, they aren’t spending any time questioning the phrase “community policing.”

Liberals have been some of the greatest champions of “broken windows” policing and “community policing,” which filled city streets with hundreds of thousands of additional cops, filled the nation’s jails and prisons to overflowing, and led to unconstitutional “stop and frisk” practices by police forces which suddenly began receiving piles of cash and military gear — including cities run by Liberal politicians.

One of their inventions, “community policing,” is little more than a public relations sham — a transparent attempt to convince a community [that knows better] that the White buzz-cut with a badge on their porch is really Officer Friendly. “Taking a knee,” as some police officers did last week (instead of putting that knee on someone’s neck), was another P.R. stunt, a “charm offensive” police departments resort to on occasion.

But it’s not working. And the police response to recent protests showed it’s all a big act when people protesting police abuse and members of the press were shot at, beaten, injured, tear-gassed, and pepper-sprayed by police, often for no reason. It only confirmed how comfortable police are with abusing the public and getting away with it.

As the Department of Justice defines it, “community policing” is based on [unequal] “community partnerships” involving the police, media, and community groups, and places a few hand-picked community leaders and clergy on various “advisory” boards — which in the end have no real political power.

In its most benign form Community Policing is simply lipstick on a pig.

New Bedford residents will recall the Justice Department-brokered Action Plan, which was meant to defuse community anger and distrust after the murder of Malcolm Gracia, and which constituted an advisory board of community representatives and the media — but never challenged the power of police unions and never resulted in real community oversight or control of the New Bedford police.

Provisions of the Action Plan were striking: the community, not the police, was responsible for being informed of its own rights and avoiding complications with rogue police officers; and community “relations” and “choices” by young people — not police misconduct — were identifed as the root causes of the Gracia murder.

So here we are again. We’re way past the lipstick. Clearly, somebody needs to do some thinking outside the box.

Max Rameau, an activist with Washington DC based Pan African Community Action, recently discussed a more democratic definition of community policing — members of a community board are chosen from the community by lottery and directly oversee police hiring, firing, and management of their own police departments. Voters in every precinct vote on whether to decommission or continue using existing police personnel. But oversight and management of the newly-constituted police departments is very different from today’s.

If it makes Liberals feel any better, taxes are used to fund the operations of this form of policing — Hannibal Lecter isn’t a worry — but old, ineffective, dangerous, repressive and undemocratic forms of policing would be decommissioned. And all the old budgetary and legal machinery are scrapped and defunded.

Last year over a thousand Americans, mainly men of color, were shot and killed by police. Almost the same number died after being electrocuted by Tasers. In contrast, in Germany, a country with a quarter of our population and certainly no stranger to racism, there have been roughly 11 police killings each year since 1990, and the number has been going down. Police accountability and oversight is the reason for the dramatically smaller number of killings.

It’s going to take ideas like Rameau’s, studying how police in other countries are managed, and experiments like the decommissioning of the Minneapolis Police Department, to re-imagine what policing ought to be. Given that America has a race problem not going away any time soon, police reform solutions must cede control of policing to victimized communities — today.

Yes, today — and no uncomfortable phrase, no uncharted territory, and no experiment is too radical in the service of stopping the unnecessary slaughter of Americans by their own police, particularly people of color who are its disproportionate victims.

On Tuesday Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson was photographed standing behind Donald Trump as the President signed an executive order on policing.

Trump’s police “reforms” may have been meaningless — especially since his administration deep-sixed real reforms as soon as he parked his rump in the Oval Office, and none of the families of police murder victims Trump claims to have invited with were present for the signing — but it was an opportunity for Trump to show off what Trump does best — dousing fire with gasoline.

Trump’s signing speech was precisely the plate of red meat people like Hodgson love. In fact, Hodgson could easily have written it himself: “Americans know the truth, without police there is chaos. Without law there is anarchy and without safety there is catastrophe. […] As we did in Minneapolis after it got out of control for 4 days. We sent in representatives, commonly known as the National Guard and it was all put down very quickly.”

But Bristol County voters may be wondering: what the hell was Hodgson doing there?

Good question. For starters, a Massachusetts sheriff’s job consists solely of running a county jail — something Hodgson can’t even do without killing and abusing a disproportionate number of his detainees. For all his posturing and attempts to expand his powers to patrols — rejected by the DA and the cities of New Bedford and Fall River — Hodgson is nothing but a jailer. He’s not a lawman. And if this was ever in doubt, in 2016 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that “a deputy sheriff is not a ‘police officer’ for purposes of G.L. c.269, §13A.” Hodgson runs four jails in Dartmouth and New Bedford. That’s it. Or should be.

If Hodgson had a role to play at the White House yesterday, it was as an extra in whatever cowboy drama Trump thinks he’s starring in, and to sell his tough lawman image by rubbing elbows with Stetson-hatted brethren.

But playing a lawman on TV is not the same as competently doing the job. Hodgson is such a clueless and reckless martinet that he appears to have personally triggered a recent riot in his own facility. Hodgson is absolutely the last person anyone would want to ask for “good policing” best practices.

Hodgson will get red in the face and sputtering mad any time a detractor mentions his cruelty and incompetence or pleads with government officials for long-overdue oversight. In Hodgson’s book anyone who thinks he’s unfit for office must be a pinko Commie anarchist with a political agenda.

But the fact is, the phrase “political agenda” was custom-made for Hodgson and everything he does — from sucking up to Stephen Miller, to ratting out his own church, to shilling for Identitarians at the American Border Foundation who are raising money for Trump’s border wall, to testifying with racists and eugenicists from the Center for Immigration Statistics, to attending meetings of the national advisory board of the Federation for American Immigration “Reform,” to participating in training exercises on the ranch of a couple affiliated with the Minuteman [militia] Project, to his numerous media appearances with racists, Muslim bashers, Christian nationalists, gay bashers, Birthers, End Times preachers, and conspiracy nuts. Not to mention Hodgson’s never-ending pilgrimages to the White House on the public dime.

His recent controversy is hardly surprising. That Hodgson would pose for an official photo in Confederate Battle Stars demonstrates that Hodgson the politician values the power of silent signals and dog-whistles, which apparently work as well in Massachusetts as they do in Mississippi.

No, very little of what Hodgson does is related to his day job, but everything he does is political — and of the worst sort.

It’s time taxpayers stopped paying for Hodgson’s white supremacist hobby. And where are those Congressional, state Senate, and AG investigations?

The following is based on an unpublished 2011 article.

When a policeman “Tases” you, a seven-ounce gun shoots nitrogen-propelled darts which puncture up to one inch of clothing and deliver 50,000 volts to your central nervous system through filaments that stretch up to ten meters.

The manufacturer’s website describes the product as “turning off” a person for up to 30 seconds. Police departments are buying up the thousand-dollar devices like hotcakes. Close to a million are in police use in the United States because law enforcement officers say they need new “non-lethal” tools in their arsenal for dealing with violent criminals without resorting to shooting them. Tasers are also available for personal use in 43 states (not MA or RI).

Despite public relations campaigns to sell these weapons, in which willing subjects, often police-friendly journalists, allow themselves to be zapped by a Taser while being lowered gently to the ground by officers, the “real world” deployment of these new “Electronic Control Weapons” (ECW’s) has been much more destructive.

That’s because Tasers, while less lethal than firearms, still kill. And they can and are routinely abused by police officers.

In one case of Taser abuse, a conservative student, Andrew Meyer heckled John Kerry at a campaign speech, refused to stop talking, and was then zapped with 50,000 volts after pleading, “Don’t Tase me, bro.”

In 2009 in Oakland, California, officer Johannes Mehserle reached for his Taser to “turn off” Oscar Grant, who was already lying on a subway platform on his stomach in handcuffs. Mehserle instead shot Grant in the back with his service revolver, killing him. This fatal confusion of Taser for firearm has occurred several times in other cities.

But, even taking Mehserle at his word that he had confused the service revolver for a Taser, the officer’s purpose for using a Taser on a handcuffed subject was not because Mehserle was ever in danger — but to simply compel “compliance.”

In 2009 in Oklahoma, Lona Varner, an 86 year old stroke victim on oxygen, was Tasered in her bed after her grandson called for medical assistance. Mrs. Varner, who had dementia, has lashed out at police who were stepping on her oxygen.

Also in 2009, Prospero Lassi, a Southwest Airlines employee, suffered a diabetic seizure. While being transported to the hospital and still experiencing seizures, he bumped the arm of an officer who then Tasered him 11 times while he was still unconscious.

Again in 2009 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, Deacon Frederick Williams suffered an epileptic seizure but was taken to jail instead of to the hospital. A video of his being Tasered five times while in police custody and then dying on-screen was seen by millions.

At a Phillies game, a rowdy fan ran around the field until he was Tasered by a policeman. The crowd, which had first laughed at the man’s hijinks, booed the official for excessive brutality. There had never been any concern the man posed a danger to anyone. He was simply holding up a baseball game.

Many victims of Tasers, both by abuse and homicide, are those without medical care, with mental and psychological problems, the poor, and very often minorities.

There have been numerous cases of protestors being Tasered in civil disobedience actions where only passive resistance was being offered. In former times, protesters would be led to a van in plastic handcuffs, booked, and that was it. Increasingly, people are now being Tasered for “non compliance.”

At some point, the level of physical coercion of citizens a Taser provides stops being preservation of the peace and simply becomes suppression of dissent. It is not surprising, then, that the United Nations and human rights groups have reacted with alarm to their increasing use in peaceful protests, using the word “torture.”

And the abuse of Tasers is only growing.

Between 1999 and 2004 there were approximately 71 Taser-related deaths in the US and Canada, but the death rate is rising fast. Between 2001 and 2008 there were 334 deaths and many cases of abuse like those mentioned which have been recorded in some cases by an officer’s own cruiser or body camera, or which have been posted on YouTube and Vimeo.

The use of this technology is outpacing community control of it.

The company which manufactures the Taser ascribes the many fatalities to “preexisting medical conditions” or offers an explanation popularized by a former medical examiner, Vincent DiMiao, who was hired by the company to promote so-called “Excited Delirium Syndrome” (EDS) as a rationale for the deaths. Other studies of the Taser include those by the military, which never met a weapon system it didn’t like, and law enforcement agencies like the Department of Justice, which have never questioned the EDS explanation.

Neither the American Medical Association nor the American Psychological Association recognize Excited Delirium Syndrome, but the American College of Emergency Physicians does recognize it as a cause of death. However, the definition provided by fellows Matthew Sztajnkrycer and Amado Baez of the Mayo Clinic offers little more than cocaine and struggle with police officers as contributing factors and this does not logically rule out excitation by Taser. They write:

The actual cause of cocaine-associated ED and sudden death is unknown. Studies have suggested that the elevated temperatures seen in these patients is due to abnormal changes in brain dopamine receptors. The vast majority of these patients died after a struggle. Such struggles increase the levels of circulating epinephrine, and may also result in a metabolic acidosis.

The National Association of Medical Examiners also recognizes EDS, but also qualifies it: “Chronic drug use is necessary to induce the changes in the neurochemistry that lead to agitated delirium.” Many of the cases of “EDS” linked to the many Taser fatalities did not involve drugs; merely repeated shocks.

Almost all studies purporting to demonstrate Taser safety are based on delivering shocks to healthy volunteers who do not fight the 50,000 volt blast to their central nervous systems. However, a University of California (San Francisco) cardiology study found the device to be far more lethal than the company would have us believe. And a “real world” statistical study of 185 deaths by White and Ready at the University of Arizona found that Tasers are widely abused or misused by officers who either shock subjects repeatedly when not in any real danger themselves, or who fail to recognize that the subject is already in some kind of medical or drug-related distress in which using a Taser contributes to their fatality.

Dartmouth Police officers receive only six hours of training on the Taser X26, a device which according to its marketing literature has “greater incapacitating power than the Advanced Taser M26 ECD.” How many hours of firearms training do officers receive in comparison? In Los Angeles, that number is 113. According to Massachusetts law 501 CMR 8.05, the Taser curriculum may be anything Taser International provides. Given the company’s adamant protestations that the device is non-lethal, the provided information is either incorrect, should be augmented, or the device regulated in order to eliminate fatalities.

Dartmouth Police rules for Taser use permit it to be used on minors over the age of 10 and seniors under the age of 70. How do you feel about having your 13 year old daughter or 67 year old grandmother Tasered? Even if they are on drugs or are experiencing dementia?

Dartmouth Police rules permit the device to be used for non-violent (Level 3) “non-compliant behavior.” If the Taser is intended to keep officers from harm, the public should also be kept from harm during its deployment. Dartmouth’s Level 4 is a more proper threshold for use of a device which can potentially kill. Normally Level 5 is the only one in which a firearm should be used. Why then is the criterion for a Taser so much lower, given lethality which is not common to the other remedies in its class (spray, restraint, and canine)?

The Dartmouth police guide to force and firearms states that Tasers may be employed “for self-defense, defense of another against unlawful violence or attack to his/her person or property, to overcome resistance to arrests, to conduct searches and seizures, prevent escapes from custody, preserve the peace, prevent the commission of crimes, or prevent suicide or self-inflicted injury.” Some of these categories include fleeing (which presents no danger to an officer) or are sufficiently vague (“preserving the peace”) as to be downright frightening from a civil liberties perspective.

But where is the justification for using the device in the first place? What are the cases of officer injury which could have been avoided only by the use of a Taser, and not pepper spray, a K9, bean bags, or some other non-lethal means? Is it a great new toy, like your iPhone, or is the Taser really necessary? Perhaps the department’s “less than lethal” force reports could shed light on this.

At a minimum, it is something a community itself should review and control.

Without knowing a subject personally, an officer can unwittingly use a Taser on a disabled, pregnant, minor, senior, handicapped, intoxicated, epileptic, uremic, acidotic, autistic, deaf, or diabetic person; a pacemaker patient, someone with an undiagnosed heart problems, stroke, neurological problems, psychotic, or someone on drugs for whom electroshock could contribute to death. Most of these people are not going to be able to respond to an officer’s commands predictably or quickly-enough (especially for an impatient officer), and especially given a disability or impairment.

We have seen numerous examples where officers have had no idea what type of medical or psychological episode a subject was having but “turned off” the subject with a Taser. The solution, it seems to me, is to limit Tasers only to situations where someone’s life is in danger. Simple “non-compliance” is not a good enough reason to use these lethal devices.

As in many communities, Dartmouth Police regulations do not place restrictions on Tasering subjects even after they have been taken down or handcuffed. Other communities do impose this restriction. What purpose, other than running the risk of killing someone, does repeatedly shocking a person who’s already in cuffs?

According to Dartmouth police guidelines, there is nothing to prevent Tasering fleeing subjects, even though the officer is not in danger. Would Dartmouth officers actually Taser a rowdy fan running around at a Crapo Field little league game? After all, we have a precedent in Philadelphia. Yet nothing is worth risking a human life just so a game is not delayed. If officers can show restraint in imminent pursuit of motor vehicles, they can also treat a Taser with as much caution as an automobile.

Dartmouth and Massachusetts regulations call for an EMT to be called to treat a Tasered subject, yet there is no requirement that officers using Tasers be able to revive a subject or even carry a defibrillator. There have been numerous cases where an apparently healthy young drug-free man was Tasered and died within 15 minutes, well before EMTs could arrive.

Some communities (for example, Mountain View and Boise) restrict the use of Tasers effectively to situations in which the use of a service revolver would be permitted. Rather than supplement less-than-lethal options like K9 and spray, in these communities Tasers are an extension of options to be used only where lethal force would be employed. This is a sensible recognition of the fact that Tasers are lethal. Shouldn’t we have such restrictions on their use in every community?

The Town of Dartmouth’s guidelines for the use of a Taser are so vague that it is not clear how “excessive force” would ever be defined. Any claim of “resisting” by an officer would be justified by vague rules and, by definition, whatever force an officer applied would not be regarded as excessive. With a service revolver it’s obvious if a mistake has been made. But how do you define excessive force when Tasers are used? And what about transparency and oversight?

For example, is there a process for community review whenever a Taser is deployed in Dartmouth and neighboring communities? In cases of lethal force, the District Attorney is to be notified. However, for less than lethal force, only a shift commander is notified, according to Dartmouth police regulations.

According to a University of Arizona study, there is a striking correlation between multiple Taser shocks and death. This is something that cannot be safely left solely to the judgment of an officer who wants to believe in the non-lethality of the device. What, then, is the maximum number of shocks which officers are permitted to administer to a person? What happens if an officer exceeds this number? What are the legal ramifications? And are members of Select Boards and City Councils aware of the insurance and legal risks?

In Charlotte, North Carolina a jury awarded a 17-year-old’s family $10 million for a wrongful death claim against the Taser manufacturer. Cities are directly on the hook for damages if officers violate civil rights, ignore Taser operating instructions, or fail to provide adequate medical care for a subject after being Tasered. The city of Albuquerque paid out $275,000; Moberly, Missouri paid out $2.4 million; Antioch, California paid out $750,000; Fort Collins, Colorado $225,000; and dozens of other cities paid out sums capped by $100,000 or $200,000 limits of state liability for wrongful deaths. Several Illinois cities joined in a suit against the manufacturer because Tasers had been marketed as non-lethal and the cities were themselves being sued in wrongful death cases. Max Vasquez was awarded a $1 million settlement from the Ventura County police department. A man who was having a stroke and was Tasered for “non-compliance” won a half million dollar settlement from the city of Riverside, California. A man in Marin County, California who was Tasered for falling and refusing to go to the hospital was awarded $1.9 million. Waveland, Missouri had to settle an epidemic of police abuse cases in which town officers improperly used Tasers on people who were stopped, detained or arrested. Even law enforcement officers accidentally shocked by Tasers have sued for lost wages and injuries. Rosalind Jones of Galveston, Texas was training officers on the use of Tasers when she suffered lasting nerve damage. Two officers in Las Vegas won similar cases. While Massachusetts has limits on punitive damages, the lifelong care of a paraplegic or coma victim of Tasering would be quite expensive.

The Taser X26 permits downloads of usage statistics. What procedures are in place for an independent body to collect and review these statistics? Again, accountability is the concern. Currently, according to Massachusetts law St.2004, c. 170 data must be conveyed to various state offices and transmitted to a university for analysis within one year. This same information should be conveyed monthly to municipal government and made available to the public long before it is bundled for academic studies.

Finally, Massachusetts is one of eight states that restrict the use of Tasers to law enforcement officers. Why? Because Massachusetts recognizes the lethality of the device:

Section 131J. No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except: (1) a federal, state or municipal law enforcement officer…

We, as a community, ought to severely restrict the use of such equipment. Tasers should only be used by specially-trained officers with EMT training or used only when EMT’s are en route. It should be up to a community, not the police, to adopt guidelines for Taser use similar to those used by Mountain View, California and elsewhere.

Technology can be extremely seductive. Whether you’re a teacher, auto mechanic, or a police chief, you want the latest gadgets and technology. But Tasers are not toys. They’re not pepper spray. They’re not bean bags. They’re not K9’s, which might chew someone’s hand up a bit. Tasers can and do kill. They can also be easily abused for trivial or punitive purposes, as many examples demonstrate. For all these reasons there must be restrictions and community oversight on their use.

Additional References

• Unregulated Use of Taser Stun Guns Threatens Lives, ACLU of Northern California Study Finds
• U.N.: Tasers Are A Form Of Torture
• U.N. Calls Tasers Torture

Safety

• Judge rules for Taser in cause-of-death decisions
• National study by the DOJ examines Taser deaths Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption

Sample Abuses

86-year old bedridden woman Tasered:

• Tased 86 Year Old Granny Receives Settlement From El Reno Police

Diabetic seizure victim Tasered:

• For Being Tasered Repeatedly While Having A Diabetic Seizure, Man Sues Police

Political Expression suppressed:

• Pittsburgh police fire Tasers at recruiting protest
• Police surround peaceful demonstration using tazer and rubber bullets

Other Filmed Taser incidents

• Family Seeks Justice In Taser Death – CBS News
• Man tased for Philly game disruption
• Man Tased by bored Utah cop… gets $40,000!
• Missouri Police Taser Boy With Broken Back 19 Times
• Off-duty Cop Uses Taser on Man Holding His Newborn Baby
• Ohio cop Tasers pregnant woman
• Police Taser Handicapped Teen
• Racist Cop Tasers Young Black Male To Death
• Taser Torture Death of Deacon Frederick Williams After Epileptic Seizure
• Taser Torture of a Skateboarder
• Tasered in 23 seconds
• University of Florida student Tasered at Kerry forum

No one should be surprised by this week’s outpouring of sadness and rage over the nation’s most recent police slaying of George Floyd by a Minneapolis cop who had 10 complaints of bad conduct, none ever resulting in disciplinary action. As much as the president attempted to portray the protests as the handiwork of lawless criminals, to many it is now finally dawning that the issue is really lawless cops and systemic racism.

As with Ferguson and Minneapolis, whenever we read stories of police abuse they invariably involve white cops and black or brown citizens. If not the police it’s the courts, prisons, or immigration authorities dispensing routine cruelty to people of color. You don’t have to be particularly perceptive to recognize the common factor; you just need a long memory and open eyes. Racism permeates every aspect of American life — especially the criminal justice system. Most lethal and shameful of all, American police are murdering black and brown men and women with impunity.

And if you think George Floyd’s protesters are angry only at so-called officers of the law, think again. That the protests are happening on a national scale ought to tell you that it’s the system protesters are angry at — and those who defend that system.

The Black Lives Matter movement arose after the murder of Michael Brown by a white Missouri cop. Since the Ferguson riot that followed Brown’s death there have been many more such killings — regarded properly as lynchings since no court of law condemned the accused, pronounced a guilty verdict, or determined a death sentence.

No, a buzz-cut with a badge took it upon himself to end a black man’s life. And, with rare exceptions, white police officers often manage to avoid consequences with a phrase few even believe anymore: “I feared for my life.” Then, the officer’s union makes sure no serious investigation is done, while the city offers blood money to the victim’s family while refusing to press charges against the officer. In this manner most of these lynchings have been quietly resolved without ever creating a ripple in a system that actually encourages them.

The particular outrage of George Floyd’s murder was that officer Derek Chauvin calmly knelt on the handcuffed man’s neck for seven minutes until he died on the spot. All while a frantic public recorded the slaying, imploring Chauvin to get off Floyd and let him breathe. This time there could be no “I feared for my life” defense. It was simply a case of a white cop committing a murder he thought he could get away with in broad daylight.

Because a thousand other cops have gotten away with exactly the same.

Early in the Democratic primaries, when Elizabeth Warren was still campaigning, Scott Hovsepian of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (MassCOP) blasted Warren for referring to the shooting of Michael Brown as a “murder.”

But Warren was spot-on. With black men having a one in a thousand chance of being fatally shot by police in their lifetime — two times the rate for whites — there really is no other word that suits such extreme indifference to life but murder. We are in fact so indifferent to these killings that police shootings aren’t even tracked by a government agency.

Delicate ears may prefer the phrases “wrongful death” or “unauthorized use of force.” But who are we kidding? Even when the evidence is crystal-clear that a police shooting was completely unnecessary and violated any number of departmental policies or protocols, officials rarely admit to mistakes, instead trotting out a legal doctrine known as Qualified Immunity which effectively gives policemen a license to kill — even when they have previously exhibited bad judgment, have psychological problems, or a history of violence toward the non-white public. Even when the officer lies. Even when there is a video.

Hovsepian’s angry letter to Warren recited a litany of bullshit arguments law enforcement officials regularly use to reject public oversight and accountability:

“I want to make this as clear as possible and every member of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police wants you to understand; your labeling of law enforcement as racist and violent is unacceptable and dangerous. Maybe I didn’t deliver the message strong enough the last time we spoke. YOUR POLITICAL PANDERING FOR PRESIDENTIAL VOTES IS GETTING POLICE OFFICERS AND CITIZENS HURT AND KILLED. […] Your inflammatory rhetoric results in the erosion of relationships that members of law enforcement have developed within our communities. […] Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. at 396-97 (1989), provides in part: The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene…”

Unacceptable and dangerous. For a moment, a reader might be excused for thinking Hovsepian meant the national epidemic of police officers slaughtering black men, two thirds of them unarmed. Hovsepian actually cited Qualified Immunity as the police officer’s shield from charges that would normally count as murder in the second degree — “acts that demonstrate extreme indifference to human life.” But it’s not police killings that we ought to be worried about, says Hovsepian — no, it’s public criticism of the police that is killing officers.

Two years ago at Dillard University, Hovsepian took issue with Warren’s characterization of the entire U.S. criminal justice system. Warren said that “the hard truth about our criminal justice system: it’s racist… I mean front to back.” Hovsepian hissed at Warren’s characterization as “cancerous rhetoric” and charged that criticism of police was lethal: “Your statements put each and every one of us in danger. Your statement dehumanizes every officer who puts on a uniform…”

Playing the part of the wronged and “dehumanized” party may be nothing but a rhetorical ploy, but it is precisely the same racist argument that Alt-Right darling Tucker Carlson makes that White Supremacy is a hoax because white people have become the real victims of the American legacy of slavery.

Last year the Washington Post reported that, “among men of all races, ages 25 to 29, police killings are the sixth-leading cause of death, according to a study led by Frank Edwards of Rutgers University.” In 2018 police killed 1,164 people. The number of black people killed by police (215) exceeded all police officers who died in the line of duty (148), servicemen killed in action (2) and Americans killed by Islamic terrorists (0) combined. There were only 23 days in 2018 when police did not kill someone. Thirteen of the 100 largest police departments accounted for a large percentage of police murders that year. 99% of all police killings never resulted in officers being convicted of any charges. In 2018 Americans were ten times more likely to die from being shot by a cop than in a mass shooting.

So, if anyone has a legitimate and “reasonable fear,” it is civilians fearing police violence, not the other way around. Americans are increasingly afraid, too, of militarized policing that is morphing into something very like an occupation. Following the protests of Michael Brown’s murder, police turned Ferguson’s Canfield Drive into Fallujah. This week, in an absolutely fascist move for no other purpose than a photo-op, Trump called in a heavily militarized force to disperse non-violent protestors.

While there are obviously many good police officers and some decent police chiefs, from the 30,000 foot view Warren was absolutely right. The list of black victims of the pandemic of police abuse never stops growing – Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Laquan McDonald, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, just to name a few of the thousands in my lifetime.

We know what skin colors predominate among America’s 2.5 million incarcerated brothers and sisters, sons and daughter, mothers, and fathers. The legacy of slavery is apparent to anyone who has studied criminal justice issues or simply reads the newspaper. The Central Park Five, whose story was recently portrayed in Netflix’s “When They See Us,” embody everything that is wrong with America’s racist criminal justice system — police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct and overreach, brutal prisons — even an ad from a future president that read like a call to lynch five young men of color.

No, MassCOP’s Scott Hovsepian had it completely backwards when he charged that criticism of police racism puts officers at risk and undermines their work. In truth it is racist cops who undermine community confidence in police departments and contribute to a community’s fear of helping police reduce crime. No matter how many public relations campaigns, youth programs, listening sessions, or ride-alongs police departments use to blunt community criticism, nothing compensates for all the damage that racist officers inflict.

Take the case of 20 year Muskegon, Michigan police officer Charles Anderson. Anderson put his house on the market and apparently didn’t think he needed to put his KKK application or his Confederate flags away. A black couple touring the home realized the officer was a racist and dug into Anderson’s history, discovering he had been cleared in the fatal shooting of a black man in 2009. Neither the killing nor the exoneration was a surprise.

Or a story last year describing Galveston, Texas cops leading a black man, slave-style, between the mounted officers’ horses. Police chief Vernon Hale offered a feeble explanation, “Although this is a trained technique and best practice in some scenarios, I believe our officers showed poor judgement in this instance.” But it was poor judgment neither investigated nor punished.

Sergeant Heather Taylor, a member of the St. Louis Metro police department, was interviewed by CBS News as part of a series on racial bias in American police departments. “Do you think that there are white supremacists on the police force?” CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues asked. “Yes” Taylor replied. “You didn’t even pause,” Pegues said. “Have you seen some of the Facebook posts of some of our suspended officers right now?” Taylor responded. “Yes.”

Taylor could have been referring to Facebook posts collected by the Plain View Project, which to date has permanently recorded over 5,000 racist posts — that’s from only eight cities. The Project’s homepage says that “our concern is not whether these posts and comments are protected by the First Amendment. Rather, we believe that because fairness, equal treatment, and integrity are essential to the legitimacy of policing, these posts and comments should be part of a national dialogue about police” — a dialog shut down by police officials who claim that such a discussions put their lives at risk.

Blue Lives matter to police officers, but the same concern for human life doesn’t seem to extend to civilian life — especially black lives. In 2016 an Oregon police officer posted an image of a Black Lives Matter protest with a comment, “When encountering such mobs remember, there are 3 pedals on your floor. Push the right one all the way down.” No surprise, this was precisely what at least one NYPD cop did to citizens in New York protesting the murder of George Floyd: hit the gas pedal and plowed into the crowd.

The Facebook page of Santa Fe, New Mexico Sergeant Troy Baker, also the police union president and a police cadet instructor, was a veritable cesspool of racist and homophobic rants, violent threats, and Confederate flags. Baker survived an internal investigation when no violation of department policy was determined, and he was allowed to retire early, remaining on the city payroll for eight months to obtain his pension.

Springfield, Massachusetts cop Conrad Lariviere thought white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. running down Heather Heyer in Charlotteville was pretty funny. “Hahahaha love this, maybe people shouldn’t block roads,” Lariviere wrote on Facebook. When confronted with the post, Lariviere told MassLive.com, “I am not a racist and don’t believe in what any of those protesters are doing, I’m a good man who made a stupid comment and would just like to be left alone.”

Lariviere was eventually fired but the damage had already been done. “It will take us months, if not years, to earn back the level of public trust we once had,” Police Commissioner John Barbieri said. “It’s never easy to terminate a fellow officer, and I take no comfort in doing so.” But Lariviere’s union, Local 364 of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, issued a statement saying it was —

“extremely disappointed in the decision of Commissioner Barbieri to terminate the employment of Officer Conrad Lariviere. Officer Lariviere’s comments on Facebook were made in his capacity as a private citizen […] While some may find Off. Lariviere’s comments to have been insensitive, we do not believe that they rise to the level of misconduct, and certainly do not warrant termination, even if there was a clear policy involved […] We also believe that the subject of the Facebook posting was a matter of public concern, and protected speech. We believe that the termination is based on political considerations, not a fair, impartial assessment of the evidence…”

Racist conduct and exercising poor judgement are, for many police associations, insignificant or irrelevant concerns for officers charged with serving the public fairly.

In Phoenix, Arizona, 75 cops were caught on Facebook bashing Muslims, African-Americans, gays, and feminists. When Trayvon Martin was murdered, Phoenix officer Joshua Ankert wrote, “CONGRATULATIONS GEORGE ZIMMERMAN!!! Thank you for cleaning up our community one thug at a time.” Officer Dave Swick posted a roadside sign that said, “Ferguson protestors ahead, speed up, aim well.” Police dispatcher Christina Begay shared a picture of two cops laughing with the caption: “They said, ‘F–k the police,’ so I said ‘F–k your 911 call, I’ll get to your dying home boy when I finish my coffee.” Officer David Pallas posted a meme showing the Quran, with a caption that read: “HOW ABOUT BANNING THIS. IT OFFENDS ME!!” The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association defended the posts. “People — including cops — say things they regret.”

Add to a climate of hate the many unfortunate interactions between police officers and young people. Stop and Frisk — violations of the Fourth Amendment — go by many names: “community engagement,” “meet and greet,” “youth liaison.” But they only add to the fear, distrust and hatred many people have of police officers. In New Bedford a young man, Malcolm Gracia, is dead because police officers decided to aggressively “engage” a group of young men at Temple Landing after seeing what they thought could be a “gang handshake.”

After allegedly stabbing an officer — the details of which the police greatly exaggerated — Gracia was shot three times in the back and once in the side of the head. But the entire interaction should never have happened. “Even on the [police] version of the facts, the stop would be unlawful,” Judge Thomas F. McGuire Jr. wrote in a memorandum on a civil lawsuit filed by the victim’s sister. The City of New Bedford for many years claimed that the incident had occurred because of insufficient policies on “engagement” with youth. But after the ACLU filed several FOIA requests, the city’s argument collapsed. Police should have simply followed the law.

But it’s not just a few bad apples or the frequently-cited lack of clear policies. As we saw in the case of Santa Fe, New Mexico, departmental racism often reflects, and is even encouraged by, the leadership of police unions and associations who represent tens of thousands of officers.

Consider Hovsepian’s Brother in Blue, Ed Mullins, the president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, New York City’s second largest police union. Mullins thought it was fine to share a video made by white supremacist Colin Flaherty (author of “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry”) that calls black people “welfare queens,” “scam artists” and “monsters.” The film uses Trump-styled language:

“When a suspect chooses to flee from police, it is never for anything good,” the narrator says. “When a suspect flees a car at night in the projects, it can only be for something incredibly bad. One of the most astonishing aspects of police work in an urban environment, is the fact that almost literally no one has a job. The section 8 scam artists and welfare queens have mastered the art of gaming the taxpayer. Bounce from baby mama to baby mama, impregnate as many women as possible. She gets the welfare benefits, and you get the flop house benefits. Symbiotic.”

Mullins, nose freshly rubbed in his own white supremacy, uttered “I have black friends, white friends, Asian friends. I wouldn’t want to insult anyone. I don’t think one incident defines who I am.”

Or consider the nation’s largest group of sheriffs, the National Sheriff’s Association, which once sponsored its own crowdfunded border wall donation site but has now outsourced it to the American Border Foundation (ABF), an organization managed by white supremacists and supported by armed militias. (After months, ABF has raised only $222K of its $450 million goal).

According to Political Research Associates, a group that tracks nationalist currents in the U.S., sheriff departments throughout the country are riddled with members of the Patriot movement, Constitutional Sheriffs, militia members, Christian Identitarians, and white supremacists. Right here at home, Bristol County Massachusetts sheriff Tom Hodgson sits on the board of a group the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate group — FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, established by white supremacist John Tanton.

But combine police racism with hyper-patriotism, militarism and PTSD, and you’ve got a big, big, big problem.

Since 9-11 more than 2 million Americans have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Justice runs a program called COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) which provides grants to communities to turn “vets to cops.” In 2016 the DOJ handed out $119 million to help communities pay for approximately 900 policemen. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has created a recruitment guide for veterans, and veterans can use their GI Bill benefits while attending police academy. America increasingly says “thank you for your service” to its warriors by re-deploying them domestically.

But programs like these, and hiring practices that favor ex-military, have a serious downside. By prioritizing military experience over diversity, police departments put communities at risk. For example, the San Jose Police Department, a force with serious racism problems, sees veterans as naturals for the police “because we have a paramilitary structure, [and] military veterans often times can easily integrate.” What ever happened to community policing?

Then there are the after-effects of war. With an increasing percentage of veterans becoming police officers thanks to programs like COPS, many officers seem to think they are still fighting the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents. Ellen Kirshman, a psychologist who works with police officers, says that between 19% and 34% of all officers show some sign of PTSD: “This is pretty alarming. An officer with PTSD cannot think clearly, is probably hyper vigilant, has a short fuse, may not be sleeping well because of nightmares, might be policing in a reckless manner…” And this is precisely what one frequently sees in videos of police encounters with black men. Legislation has been signed into law to help officers with PTSD, but what about the public? Aren’t there cops who are simply too traumatized to serve the public? Even when they are identified, it’s difficult to remove them from the force.

When Elizabeth Warren spoke about the criminal justice system, she was talking about much more than policing. Yet police unions have become powerful lobbies and relentless opponents of criminal justice and prison reform. Natasha Lennard reports in the Intercept on the savage negative campaign the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association (NYSCOPBA) waged against Governor Mario Cuomo’s criminal justice reforms. Likewise, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association spent over $10 million lobbying for the Three Strikes law, mandatory life sentences, and prison expansions. In Illinois, police unions waged a campaign to stop the closure of the brutal Tamms Supermax prison. And we have fifty states just like this.

But nothing shows how racist the criminal justice system is as clearly as the history of opposition to reforming it.

In 1991 Rep. William Edwards introduced H.R.2972, the Police Accountability Act of 1991. The bill made it “unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of their constitutional or statutory rights, privileges, or immunities.” The bill had only 10 co-sponsors and never made it out of committee.

In 2000 John Conyers Jr. sponsored H.R. 3927, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2000, which sought to impose national standards on law enforcement as we currently do in education. It had only thirteen Democratic co-sponsors and never made it to a vote. In 2015 Conyers again filed H.R.2875, this time with 48 co-sponsors. But again it died.

In 2015 Rep. Henry Johnson Jr. sponsored H.R.1102, the Police Accountability Act of 2015, which had 15 co-sponsors and died. The bill amended “title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for assault or homicide committed by certain State or local law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.” Again in 2017 Johnson filed H.R.4331, with 8 lonely co-sponsors. Again, it died.

In 2017 Rep. Gwen Moore sponsored H.R. 3060, Preventing Tragedies between Police and Communities Act of 2017, which required that police departments receiving federal funding train officers in de-escalation techniques. The bill had only 24 co-sponsors and died in committee — having also failed in 2016.

In 2017 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee sponsored H.R.47: Kalief’s Law, which sought to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for the humane treatment of youths in police custody. The bill had only one co-sponsor and there was never a roll call vote.

Whether a majority or minority in Congress, police accountability has never been a priority for Democrats or Republicans. E. Tammy Kim, in an excellent piece in the Nation (“What to Do About the Police”), writes that, “as it stands, the three branches of government are unwilling to regulate the police. Mayors and governors defer to police chiefs and union presidents; judges make cheesecloth of the Fourth and 14th Amendments; and legislators vote again and again to increase law-enforcement budgets.”

In a 2015 ruling the Supreme Court gave police broad latitude to shoot at citizens recklessly and with impunity, when it rejected a suit against a Texas police officer who fired into a car with a high power rifle from an overpass, paralyzing a driver. The officer joked: “How’s that for proactive?”

In 2018 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Kisela v. Hughes that police officers can not be sued for arbitrary and unnecessary shootings — effectively granting law enforcement a deluxe edition of Constitutional rights. In dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling another sign of “unflinching willingness” to protect rogue cops and wrote that the decision “transforms the doctrine [of qualified immunity] into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.” Cops in America today truly have a license to kill.

With one exception, every piece of reform legislation mentioned above was sponsored by an African-American. And that ought to tell you something — white people are failing to step up in sufficient numbers to fix injustices involving police, the courts, prisons, parole and probation systems, or to provide adequate rehabilitation and treatment of those ensnared in the “system.”

To quote Warren’s again, “the hard truth about our criminal justice system: it’s racist… I mean front to back.”

This is a lightly edited version of a post from August 2019.

A March 18 complaint from 51 ICE detainees at the Bristol County House of Corrections warns of a potential outbreak of the COVID-19 virus at the Dartmouth, Massachusetts facility because of unhealthy conditions of their confinement. Another 10 detainees did not sign the complaint for fear of retaliation from jail officials, according to a copy of the complaint. Detainees say that at least two potentially infected officers, one who was sent home on March 16, may have exposed an entire wing of ICE detainees to the Coronavirus.

The complaint reads in part:

“The ICE detainees of Unit B of the Bristol Correctional Center, individually and collectively, would like to highlight serious concerns about the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus within the facility of Bristol Correctional Center.

The facility safety conditions and the conditions of its personnel, in light of two recent and separate episodes, have raised the concern into a very serious matter.

Specifically, on March 14, 2020 a Correctional Officer was observed to be symptomatic of the COVID-19 virus during his shift followed by another C.O. on March 16, 2020 that was later on replaced by a colleague.

Two separate and serious episodes recently occurred and have alarmed the entire detainee population of Unit B and prompted a number of detainees to file their own Sick Call / Medical Encounter Request.

Unit B is comprised of sixty-six (66) beds, fifty-seven (57) of them occupied, one of them filled as recently as 24 hours ago…”

The detainees assert that prisoners are held in conditions that almost guarantee that they will become infected: they are housed closer than 6 feet apart; and in groups six times larger than the recommendation of 10 people in proximity at one time.

The complaint asks that detainees be released if they have serious medical conditions or are considered low-risk, or that they be released on bond if they have rescheduled hearings. The complaint also asks that detainees scheduled for deportation be repatriated within five days instead of remaining in dangerous condidtions for an indeterminate period of time.

Copies of the complaint were sent to Immigrations and Custom Enforcement, the Bristol County Sheriff, Correctional Psychiatric Services (the medical vendor), the Massachusetts Department of Health, and the ACLU.

The ICE detainees are appealing to the public for help.

“We are hoping that you will mobilize on our behalf by contacting your local congressman and any and all TV and media outlets. […] We are trapped inside […] and in fear for our lives. Please help!”

Despite prisoner claims that a couple dozen detainees are already showing symptoms of the virus, including coughing, the Sheriff’s media spokesperson, Jonathan Darling, told us on March 20 that there were no illnesses in the ICE wing and that no one was at risk.

On January 24th a handful of white extremists appeared before the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security to lie about immigrants and about the provisions of the Safe Communities Act. This relatively small number of opponents is loud and extremely well-funded. Almost all are financed or fronted by two organizations identified as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center — the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Both were founded by white supremacist and Michigan ophthalmologist John Tanton.

Indeed, it was Old Home Week at the State House for most of these people, who appear together repeatedly. And it’s time legislators knew precisely who they were listening to.

FAIR – Federation for American Immigration Reform

Tom Hodgson, who testified on January 24th in the Gardner auditorium, is not so much a county sheriff as he is a spokesman for FAIR. Hodgson serves on its National Advisory Board and sticks Massachusetts taxpayers with his travel expenses to FAIR events. Hodgson’s neglect of his day job in favor of his anti-immigrant crusade is costing incarcerated people their lives, health and rehabilitation.

Donald Rosenberg dropped in from Westlake Village, California to testify. Rosenberg is the president of AVIAC, Advocates For Illegal Alien Crime, a front group for FAIR whose events, such as the September 2019 “Angel Families” event in Washington DC, are organized by FAIR (whose legal arm, IRLI, the Immigration Reform Law Institute, provides legal services for AVIAC). Susan Tully, FAIR national field director and friend of Tom Hodgson, even admitted the connection to AVIAC in a Facebook post: “Working with our new group AVIAC.”

Maureen Maloney, AVIAC’s Vice President, also testified at the State House. Maloney told attendees at a 2017 event that the Catholic Church isn’t doing enough to turn its back on its own values: “The Catholic bishops make a fortune off of the refugees and the illegal aliens, and I’m a Catholic,” she claimed. When Maloney and Rosenberg (and FAIR) kicked off their organization at the National Press Club in Washington DC, their featured speaker was America’s white supremacist legislator Steve King, who was stripped of his committee assignments by Trump’s Tea Party GOP — no mean accomplishment in an age of concentration camps for Central American children and Stephen Miller’s brainstorm to ship DACA recipients out of the country in boxcars. Maloney herself is no slouch when it comes to unvarnished racism. Maloney was previously a member of The Remembrance Project, a group similar to AVIAC, also with substantial white supremacist connections.

CIS – Center for Immigration Studies

Jessica Vaughan fled Massachusetts for South Carolina’s more agreeable (to her) racial climate and is now the “Director of Policy Studies” for the Center for Immigration Studies. Vaughan testified for five minutes and answered questions for fourteen more before the Joint Committee. Rather than focus on the SPLC’s designation of CIS as a hate group, just consider Vaughan’s own words and deeds: “Vaughan haspreviously discussed her work with The American Free Press, a virulently anti-Semitic newspaper founded by Willis Carto, a Holocaust denier who was active on the radical right for over five decades before his death in 2015. She has also been a featured speaker at multiple extremist events including white nationalist publisher The Social Contract Press‘s annualWriter’s Workshop and the Federation for American Immigration Reform‘sSheriff Border Summit. At the Writer’s Workshop, white nationalist Peter Brimelow of the racist website VDARE also spoke. In 1996, Vaughan appeared on an episode of ‘Borderline,’ a show produced by FAIR, alongside Chilton Williamson, a longtime editor of Chronicles magazine, a publication with strong neo-Confederate ties that caters to the more intellectual wing of the white nationalist movement.”

Lou Murray, whose group Bostonians Against Sanctuary Cities appears to be a front for CIS (with ties to FAIR), sat right next to Vaughan and yielded most of his time to her. Many of Murray’s public appearances feature Vaughan, Hodgson, and retired ICE agents. Murray’s group’s Facebook page is also littered with links to FAIR and CIS. When Michelle Malkin was disinvited from an appearance at Bentley College, Murray and Vaughan organized a private event for her. And as if to demonstrate how insular this little circle is, Murray and Vaughan hosted Maureen Maloney at one of their events in West Roxbury. Murray, who was a 2016 Republican National Convention delegate, hates Muslims just as much as he does Latinos. Murray serves on Trump’s Catholic Advisory Group and has “nothing but high praise” for Trump’s 2017 executive order to ban Muslims. Murray said the US government should help “those populations who are most vulnerable,” including “the Christian population who is most at risk from ISIS, Al Qaeda and other Islamic dangers.”

Steve Kropper of MCIR, the Massachusetts Coalition for Immigration Reform, also testified before the Joint Committee. Kropper, who in 2012 was arrested for violating a domestic violence restraining order, came to the microphone joking about his divorce. The rest of his testimony was equally unamusing. MCIR appears to be another CIS front group, but is also affiliated with another of white supremacist John Tanton’s groups, the Social Contract Press. MCIR’s president John Thompson wrote in 2016 in the Social Contract Press that immigrants “are natural constituents for politicians desirous of expanding the welfare state. They could potentially provide career opportunities for social workers, ethnic militants, immigration lawyers, and poverty activists for generations to come.” Thompson goes on to quote Jason Richwine, a white supremacist known for his paper, “IQ and Immigration Policy,” which says, among other things:

• “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.”
• “the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in IQ, but the extent of its impact is hard to determine.”
• “The statistical construct known as IQ can reliably estimate general mental ability, or intelligence. The average IQ of immigrants in the United States is substantially lower than that of the white native population, and the difference is likely to persist over several generations. The consequences are a lack of socioeconomic assimilation among low-IQ immigrant groups, more underclass behavior, less social trust, and an increase in the proportion of unskilled workers in the American labor market.”

Thompson also quotes Robert Rector, of both the Heritage Foundation and CIS, whose 2007 study of the costs of undocumented refugees was rejected by even conservative Republicans (and eventually the Heritage Foundation itself) and Rector was blasted for his report’s sloppiness and dishonesty.

In March 2005 MCIR member Robert Casimiro, a Weymouth resident, flew to Arizona to join up with an armed militia called the Minuteman Project. According to a press release, “the project’s participants will also be conducting auxiliary border patrols, ‘spotting’ people crossing illegally and reporting them to the border patrol and the local authorities.” The Anti-Defamation League reported that Minuteman “members belonging to active vigilante groups, including their leadership, have been arrested on weapons charges and white supremacist and anti-governments groups continue to express interest and take part in organized ‘patrols’ of the border.”

These are just a few of the liars, racists, and extremists that routinely testify against Safe Communities.

On January 18th, a little over a hundred people marched from William Street to the Ash Street Jail to protest the incompetence and abuses of Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson, and to call for his resignation.

“After careful consideration
We invite your investigation
We don’t need your fascist nation
We don’t want your bloviation
Down with prison exploitation
You are always on vacation
You turned in your Congregation
Down with ICE participation
You are Bristol’s humiliation…”

Accompanied by a New Bedford Police Department escort, marchers chanted and carried signs with messages like “Hodgson is a Failure as a Jailer,” “No 287g,” “Stay Home and Do Your Job,” “Resign!” and “$348,922” — the dollar amount Hodgson received from ICE and “forgot” to pay back to Massachusetts taxpayers. Others read “Programs not Walls!” or “Demasiados suicidios – que verguenza!!!” (Too many suicides – shame!!!).

At the Ash Street jail marchers were met by about a dozen Bristol County Sheriff’s officers who said nothing and for the most part simply stared at protestors. Standing outside the oldest jail in the country, Bristol County for Correctional Justice (BCCJ) members cited the neglect, abuses, and malfeasance that characterize Hodgson’s administration of the jail and called for the sheriff to resign.

Protestors then marched back to Grace Episcopal Church, where there was a short speaking program followed by an opportunity for people from over a dozen groups from Providence to the Cape to exchange contact information.

At the church BCCJ member Joe Quigley moderated the presentation. Betty Ussach talked about jail suicides, Kathy Williams about Hodgson’s financial corruption and abuse of taxpayer money. Susan Czernicka covered Hodgson’s medical neglect, while Marlene Pollock highlighted Hodgson’s extensive contacts with white supremacists. Bishop Filipe Teixeira spoke about the struggle to visit immigrants in Hodgson’s jail and Kerry Mahoney, a community member, spoke movingly about the needless death and suffering at the jail because of Hodgson’s refusal to provide medically-assisted opioid treatment and other types of health care.

Lindsay Aldworth from the Coalition for Social Justice, Richard Drolet from the New Bedford Democratic City Committee, Diane Hahn from 1199 United Health Care Workers East, Jim Pimental from the Bricklayers Union and the Labor Council all offered their organizations’ support. Sally Fehervari from the Mansfield Dems and Adrian Ventura from Centro Comunidade de Trabajadores also spoke in support of ridding the county of Hodgson. Several organizations were unable to attend but sent greetings: the NAACP New Bedford Branch, FANG, Freedom for Immigrants, and Barnstable County’s Safe Communities Coalition. Immigration Justice in Eastern MA (from Plymouth County) and several members of Marching Forward (Dartmouth) also attended both the march and followup meeting.

Despite the outpouring of broad community support, WBSM’s Chris McCarthy — where ACLU FOIA records show Hodgson was actually offered a regular time slot — tried to portray the marchers as “the illegal alien lobby” and “the radical left,” accusing them of trying to overturn the will of voters — voters who were never offered another option in 2016. This was all par for the course for the aptly-named McCarthy, whose Islamophobia and gay-bashing can be seen in his Tweets from the ACLU filing. The Standard Times did not send a reporter to cover either the march or the meeting that followed.

Regardless of how the local media chose to ignore or characterize the fight by BCCJ and other groups opposed to Hodgson’s abuses — the fight goes on.

We will hold the rogue sheriff accountable.

The ACLU’s FOIA request yielded communication between the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) and the Office of the State Auditor, which in 2018 conducted a performance audit that noted the BCSO’s (1) failure to reimburse the state $350K until it was caught; (2) failure to update its per-diem custody and care rate for ICE; (3) failure to file inmate total cost reports; and (4) failure to properly document travel records.

The Auditor was asked to look into suicide rates at the jail and her field auditors did. But they looked at only two years of suicide data — 2016 and 2017. It would have been better if the Auditor had used more thorough, accurate and statistically meaningful data, such as that collected by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, which looked at Massachusetts jail suicides from 2006 to 2016.

The BCSO, in fact, had 20 years of data and offered numbers for 2013 forward, but it would have been work to compare it to other counties in the state because there is no formal mechanism in Massachusetts government (other than a FOIA request or an audit) to collect mortality data from state correctional facilities. Neither the Massachusetts Department of Correction nor the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association collects, much less publishes, such data for public or research. So, for the first time ever by an agency of the state, it was up to bean counters to look at jail suicides while doing a financial audit.

In citing Bureau of Justice (BJS) statistics to Auditor James Moriarty, Jonathan Darling compared BCSO suicides with national averages. According to the BJS report Darling cited, “the suicide rate in local jails in 2014 was 50 per 100,000 local jail inmates. This is the highest suicide rate observed in local jails since 2000 (table 4).“

Having chosen the highest national rate to compare with his jail’s suicides, Darling wrote:

“As you can see, even when we had a spike in 2016, we were still well below the national average. The narrative in the media is how evil Sheriff Hodgson is, when it really should be how great Massachusetts Sheriffs are.”

But several of the families whose loved ones committed suicide on Hodgson’s watch didn’t think he was such a great sheriff. They have filed wrongful death lawsuits.

If you want to verify the BJS data Darling cited, it can’t be done. Bureau of Justice Statistics “Deaths in Custody Reporting Program” (DCRP) data is collected by RTI International, a research group originally founded by USAID. OpenSecrets shows 80% of RTI’s corporate principals are connected with a lobbying firm, Cornerstone Government Affairs, otherwise known as the Pentagon’s lobbyist. The data — even “sanitized” and stripped of personal identification — may simply not be accessed by the public:

Due to the sensitive nature of the data and to protect respondent confidentiality, the data are restricted from general dissemination. These data are enclave-only and may only be accessed at ICPSR’s location in Ann Arbor, MI. Users wishing to view these data must first contact NACJD, complete an Application for use of the ICPSR Data Enclave (available as part of the documentation for this study), and receive permission to analyze the files before traveling to Ann Arbor.

But it doesn’t matter now. DCRP data has not been updated since 2014 and it appears that the Justice Deparment under Trump has stopped collecting it.

Sheriffs love accountability — for everyone but themselves. But because of the secretive and undependable availability of federal jail death statistics and a lack of public reporting by the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association or the state Department of Correction, the only way to get the data is for Massachusetts legislators to mandate the monthly collection and publication of detailed mortality statistics from DOC prisons and county jails.

Let’s see the data.

The National Sheriff’s Association — the organization that represents rogue sheriffs like Sam Page, David Clarke, and Tom Hodgson and which celebrates the abuses of Customs and Border Patrol officers — has a soft spot for animals. Yes, the NSA actually endorsed legislation on animal cruelty, arguing that there is a link between animal cruelty and cruelty to humans. And we would not disagree.

But the sheriffs didn’t seem to appreciate the irony of defending puppies while torturing humans in the county jails they themselves operate.

Not to be out-done by the sheriffs’ hypocrisy, Donald Trump signed the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT) last month, giving rights to animals that he refuses to extend to Central American children in his concentration camps.

But concern for animal rights while simultaneously showing indifference to human suffering is also a feature of Massachusetts law.

Massachusetts has animal cruelty statutes which provide for up to seven years in prison for the abuse of animals. In 2016 the Attorney General charged ten people with the mistreatment of over a thousand animals on a farm in Westport. All were allowed to plead guilty and serve probation, which outraged animal rights groups. When it comes to humans, the AG’s office has a civil rights division but has not similarly intervened in behalf of prisoners suffering and dying in the state’s jails.

The rights of dogs and cats in the Commonwealth have a leg up — actually four legs up — on the rights of their human counterparts. According to the Massachusetts General Laws, Part I, Title XX, Chapter 140, Section 137C:

“The mayor of a city, the selectmen of a town, the police commissioner in the city of Boston, a chief of police or an animal control officer may at any time inspect a kennel or cause the inspection of a kennel. If, in the judgment of such person or body, the kennel is not being maintained in a sanitary and humane manner or if records are not properly kept as required by law, such person or body shall, by order, revoke or suspend the license for the kennel.”

That’s right. Kennels may be freely inspected by public officials if conditions are believed to be unsanitary or inhumane. This is a right that not even state legislators have in Massachusetts “corrections” facilities.

For dogs, state law likewise regulates confinement:

“No person owning or keeping a dog shall chain or tether a dog for longer than 5 hours in a 24–hour period and outside from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., unless the tethering is for not more than 15 minutes and the dog is not left unattended by the owner, guardian or keeper.”

Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. “No excessive solitary” for dogs is written into Massachusetts law — while mentally-ill Bristol County prisoners are going to have to wait for the courts to decide if the overuse of solitary confinement is legal.

Under Massachusetts law a dog must be given adequate space to move, and environmental considerations (heat and cold) are strictly regulated. Specific types of inhumane treatment are prohibited:

“(1) filthy and dirty confinement conditions including, but not limited to, exposure to excessive animal waste, garbage, dirty water, noxious odors, dangerous objects that could injure or kill a dog upon contact or other circumstances that could cause harm to a dog’s physical or emotional health;

2. taunting, prodding, hitting, harassing, threatening or otherwise harming a tethered or confined dog; and

3. subjecting a dog to dangerous conditions, including attacks by other animals.”

No such protections exist for the safety and well-being of humans confined in Massachusetts jails and prisons.

Finally, it boggles the mind that “inhumane” is the word chosen by people to describe mistreatment of animals — but not of fellow humans who “deserve what they get” in prisons that “are not country clubs.”

But there is a solution. By simply re-designating jails as “kennels” — a name change prison rights advocates point out already describes the inhumane conditions in state prisons and jails — human prisoners in Massachusetts will finally receive the legal rights their four-legged friends already have.

Emails were not the only product of the ACLU’s FOIA request to the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO). Eventually, the BCSO had to cough up travel documents and Tweets as well.

When the ACLU asked for Twitter records from accounts @Sheriff_Hodgson and @BCSO1, the Sheriff’s Office initially tried to avoid producing the documents by changing the account handles to @SheriffHodgson and @BristolSheriff. But ACLU counsel threatened to sue. So the BCSO responded like grownups with grainy, low-quality screenshots of a surprisingly small number of private communications.

But rather than discussing programs for rehabilitating his prisoners — surprise! — Hodgson’s private Tweets were almost all about scheduling media appearances to spread his anti-immigrant gospel and to market his own “brand.” And the many free media opportunities Hodgson was (and is) given to develop his “brand” represent nothing more than unreported “in-kind” campaign contributions.

The majority of Hodgson’s Tweets were to and from local radio station WBSM 1420, which features mainly right-wing bloviators like Barry Richard, Ken Pittman, Howie Carr, and Chris McCarthy. And they were all from radio host Chris McCarthy — whose job it is to feed Hodgson stories to comment on:

Tom should see this ASAP (23 Jan 2017)

McCarthy strokes Hodgson’s ego by comparing him to the president:

The Sheriff and you as his media person changed the national conversation in the way only a President can usually move an issue. Tremendous job. (28 Mar 2017)

McCarthy passes along an article by Howie Carr lambasting acting U.S. Atty. William Weinreb for Hodgson to read:

Jonathan- Howie wanted to make sure TH saw this column (4 May 2017)

McCarthy then directs Hodgson to an interview he did with Michele McPhee, who has just been a guest on his show — before he discusses it with Hodgson:

J – I interviewed Michele McPhee about her book on the Marathon Bombing yesterday. She discusses UMass Dartmouth and the bombing and I hope you can share this with Tom. She names a UMD professor. (15 May 2017)

We learn that, besides Jonathan Darling, BCSO legislative liaison Brock Cordeiro also handles Hodgson’s media work. Hodgson does not simply do radio interviews, he has a radio schedule:

Hi Chris, I’m out of the office this week. Brock is handling this stuff and has his radio schedule for the next few days. Give him a hollar at brockcordeiro@bcso-ma.org or send him a facebook message. Good luck — Jonathan (23 Jun 2017)

At Hodgson’s request, Darling suggests to McCarthy that he give Hodgson a regular spot on his show:

Hi Chris, Congrats on the new show. Sheriff asked me to get in touch. He mentioned you wanted him to come on sometime. Right now, our best bet is a call in tomorrow or an in-studio on Tuesday or Wednesday. Also, if you want to set something regular up, say every Friday or every other Wednesday or the first Thursday of the month or whatever, we’re open to that as well. — Jonathan (3 Jan 2018)

McCarthy acknowledges the amount of work they do together:

Jonathan – we do enough together to have you call or text me – my number is 781-308-5662 – send me a text when you have a moment so we can communicate rapidly when needed. Thanks

Remember those unreported “in-kind” campaign contributions.

Sometimes McCarthy tries to elicit information or get Hodgson to speculate on local politics:

Thanks – I’m hearing the same thing. I understand the Commies at the Coalition for Social Justice are going to run SEIU organizer Lisa Lemieux in the special. (2 Feb 2017)

and

Off the record: Have you heard anything about Jill Ussach running for the open NB Ward 3 CC seat? (2 Feb 2017)

Darling replies:

Hi Chris, Consensus of some of the clued-in folks around here is she’s no doubt interested, but if she actually pulls the papers and runs is another story.

In another Tweet Darling refers McCarthy to an order form for a t-shirt a local group produced for its visit to the governor to lobby for an investigation into Hodgson’s abuses:

Hey Chris. Tom wanted me to send this to you: He can’t wait to get a t-shirt: bccjustice.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/baker-is-the-new-orange (1 Oct 2018)

But Hodgson is a self-appointed expert on everything from Iran to marijuana. Darling offers Hodgson as an anti-marijuana spokesman:

Hi Chris. Sheriff was interviewed by the herald today about that stoned kid who hit the school bus in Gloucester. Just wanted to let you and the other radio guys know he’s available to take the anti-weed side if anyone’s interested. Thanks, and merry Christmas. — Jonathan (21 Dec 2016)

At one point McCarthy sends Hodgson a private text about New Bedford City Councilman Hugh Dunn’s letter to the state legislature on marijuana dispensaries — to feed Hodgson answers for a forthcoming interview:

I sent TH a text with the letter NB CC Hugh Dunn sent to the state legislature asking them to change the law on local control. This story is going to be big and I wanted Tom to have all the information in advance of the media. (1 Jun 2017)

Darling replies:

Awesome. Thx Chris. We will be ready for it when it hits. (1 Jun 2017)

Darling sends sheriff A. J. Louderback a photo of himself with Trump — under the assumption Louderback loves vanity photos as much as Hodgson:

Sheriff, I thought this was a nice picture. It’s from the Associated Press from Friday’s meeting. Catch up soon — Jonathan. (14 Jan)

Darling sends McCarthy a Tweet thanking him for Hodgson’s chance to vent on his favorite topics:

Hi Chris, just wanted to follow up and say thanks for having the Sheriff on this morning. Trump, immigration, Elizabeth Warren … he was in heaven. Anytime you want to chat again on Herald of BSM, just drop us a line …. thanks, Jonathan (1 Dec 2016)

McCarthy returns the compliment, sending Hodgson a link to a press release from Hamilton Strategies:

Jonathan, I just spoke with the Sheriff and scheduled him to call in to Boston Herald radio this Friday morning at 7:20am to discuss this press release: hamiltonstrategies.com/news/open-letter… (14 Dec 2016)

A word on Hamilton Strategies.

Hamilton Strategies advertises itself as a “mission-driven, full-service communications firm serving Christian non-profit organizations” which exists to: “connect ministries with media, engage Christians in the culture and inspire all to share the miracle of Jesus Christ throughout the world.”

Hamilton Strategies is also a propaganda center for Islamophobia and Homophobia.

McCarthy’s item for discussion is the interfaith celebration of an “Anti-Hate” event at the Islamic Society of Boston. Hamilton Strategies has issued a press release blasting liberal Jews and Christians who attended the event, including Marty Walsh and Elizabeth Warren, and has. accused the Islamic Center of being a “terror-linked, Saudi-funded radical mega-mosque.”

McCarthy also wants to link the Islamic Center with a terror attack [that never happened] on a mall in Attleboro. Once again McCarthy feeds an article to Hodgson like somebody fed SAT answers to Felicity Huffman’s daughter:

There is a section in the press release that mentions a planned machine gun attack on a “mall in Attleboro, MA” which we will be asking about. counterjihad.com/terror-experts… (14 Dec 2016)

The author of the article for discussion is Paul Sperry, part of a “Counter-Jihad” network with connections to every Islamophobic organization in America.

Thanks, ACLU. Keep the FOIA requests coming.

The nation’s right-wing sheriffs flock to the White House for vanity photos of themselves, often captured in embarrassing thrall to the President.

Among the many White House emails returned from the ACLU FOIA request, there are at least fifty that include photos of Tom Hodgson in rapt attention to the stirring insights of Donald Trump, who is sometimes pictured holding a photo of his border wall.

These taxpayer-funded photo-ops are meat for the President and manna for the sheriffs. But sometimes even the dozens of photos offered by the White House are not enough. Here Hodgson’s media guy Jonathan Darling is found begging for more:

Tom Hodgson is not friend of the truth — even when it comes to stories of his own father.

On April 18, 2013, halfway through the Obama Administration, a group of eight senators known as the Gang of Eight stood before cameras in a Senate conference room, confident that their immigration reforms would shortly become a reality. At precisely the same moment in another room, Alabama Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (named for both a Confederate president and general) had organized a parade of county sheriffs, including Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson, to lobby against the reforms as a gratuitous “amnesty” for “criminal aliens.”

When it was his turn at the microphone (set up by Session’s aide, Stephen Miller), Hodgson painted a picture of five million people patiently waiting in lines outside American borders to become citizens — and another twelve million dangerous, criminal aliens living among us, “disrespecting” American laws. Hodgson invoked his Anglo-American heritage: “My father immigrated from England, and he raised thirteen children here.” Hodgson later told PRI: “My father didn’t walk around the streets hiding every time a police car came by, put his head down or what have you. My father came the right way.”

Hodgson went on to blast undocumented immigrants as filthy, disease-ridden burdens on their communities: “Illegal immigrants are creating public health hazards, public safety concerns,” Hodgson said, “living in homes, one-room apartments with three families, taking mattresses off the streets that are infested with bedbugs, filling our emergency rooms for lack of a better care and costing the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars.” The Gang of Eight’s immigration reforms were scuttled.

But Hodgson was not only lying about immigrants — but also about his “model immigrant” father.

Actress Tina Alexis Allen, Hodgson’s youngest sister, published a memoir in 2018. Her story of family trauma and recovery is hers alone to tell. But “Sir John” Hodgson, as he insisted on being called — the sheriff’s father, Knight of the Holy Sepulcher, Vatican courier, a man who carried four passports and racked up half a million miles a year in travel — is a central character in both Allen’s memoir and in Tom Hodgson’s mendacious narrative of immigration done the “right way.” Allen’s recounting of her father’s immigration to the United States and how a fourteenth Hodgson child immigrated to the United States reveal her brother the sheriff’s narrative as nothing but a tale woven out of whole cloth.

From Allen we learn that her father “Sir John” claimed to run the War Office in British-mandate Palestine as a 24 year-old and that he became an American citizen — not by waiting in line or immigrating the “right way” — but by courting and eventually marrying an American nurse two years older than himself and wrangling a transfer to Washington DC. That nurse, a native of New Bedford, MA, not only gave “Sir John” a sure path to citizenship as a male “war bride,” but her family connections in Bristol County helped pave the way for her son Tom to burrow his way into the county’s political establishment.

Matt Cameron, a Boston immigration attorney, disputes historical revisionists like Tom Hodgson who claim there is an equitable and orderly immigration line. “Where is this line? Where does it start? How long is it? Are there bathrooms?” Cameron points out that, thanks to overtly racist policies before 1965, Anglo-Saxons like Hodgson’s father were always preferred. “You can whitewash your own family history all you want, but it’s always been this way.”

It also helps if you’re a rich white man who can game the system with high-level connections.

In 1954 — when Tom Hodgson was three months old — “Sir” John Gerard Hodgson and Anne Marie Hodgson adopted a 10 year-old Anglo-Arab orphan named Victor Charles Joyce, the son of an Army comrade of Hodgson’s, and a child who did not qualify for naturalization under existing immigration quotas.

While the elder Hodgson could have made his adoptive child wait in line until it was his turn, “Sir John” instead used his connections with U.S. Maryland Senator John Marshall Butler, who like himself was a virulent anti-Communist, and whose campaign Joseph McCarthy managed. Butler officially notified Arthur V. Watkins, Chairman of the Senate Immigration and Naturalization Subcommittee on the Judiciary, that he had filed a private bill for Hodgson. From the Congressional Record:

Dear Arthur: on June 23 I introduced Senate bill 3652 at the request of Mr. and Mrs. John G. Hodgson, American citizens residing in Maryland at 5 East Irving, Chevy Chase, Md., for the purpose of bringing their adopted son, Frances Timothy Mary Hodgson, age 11 years, from the Franciscan Orphanage in Jerusalem, Jordan, to the United States of America.

“At the time of adoption, it was assumed that the adopted son be charged to the Jordan quota and could enter the United States under fourth preference of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which is at present open. When petition was filed, birth and baptismal records showed that the boy was born on June 13, 1943, in Nazareth, Palestine, which city is now in the State of Israel. The fourth preference for the State of Israel is oversubscribed and bill S.3654 has been introduced to permit Francis Timothy Mary Hodgson, adopted son of John Gerard and Anne Marie Hodgson to enter the United States under the fourth preference quota for the Jordan Kingdom as he has resided in Bethlehem and Jerusalem since shortly after birth in Nazareth. Records show the boy was baptized in Bethlehem (Jordan) July 5, 1944.”

The bill was not drafted to provide a non quota visa but it was felt that as the adopted child resided in Jordan all his life, that he could be charged to the Jordan quota.

On August 19, 1954 Hodgson’s private bill quickly moved from one express line to another in the U.S. House of Representatives (relevant portions of Congressional Record here) — a professional courtesy for a fellow “Anglo Saxon” immigrant.

Interestingly, Butler went out of his way to argue that this special legislation for Hodgson was not really an effort to bypass immigration quotas, but that the boy had lived in a formerly Jordanian part of Israel “all his life” — a kindness Tom Hodgson today is not prepared to extend to DACA recipients.

When asked to help place this maneuver in historical context, immigration attorney Matt Cameron noted that “today’s closest analogue might be the Special Immigrant Juvenile process, a fourth-preference visa available for minors who were abused, abandoned or neglected by one or more parents (many are orphans). As with the fourth-preference beneficiaries from Israel, SIJ from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador (the countries which have benefited by far the most from the program) is seriously oversubscribed and wait times are now well over two years.”

“Given that this process is available for qualifying individuals up to the age of 21, I would guess that hundreds of SIJ-eligible people have been locked up in Hodgson’s disgrace of a jail over the years and deported either before they had a chance to apply or while waiting ‘in line’ for a visa in the same category as the one that his family had no problem manipulating to their benefit 65 years ago.”

Travel records the ACLU received from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office feature the same sloppy paperwork and potential abuses of taxpayer money that a State Audit warned of last February and which Bristol County for Correctional Justice (BCCJ) found in documents from its own FOIA request last year.

BCCJ has previously called for a forensic audit of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office — not just because two of its officers were convicted of federal money laundering charges in the “Godfather” case — and not merely because the sheriff is now being sued for receiving kickbacks from a phone vendor.

Tom Hodgson has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant and forfeiture money that were intended to be used for opioid treatment — and now we learn that he has never written a single email relating to MAT treatment — and that he lied to the public about his communications with other sheriffs at a 287(g) hearing last April.

One reasonable conclusion is that the Sheriff’s Office is simply pocketing the grant money and using it to subsidize ICE agreements which actually lose money for the state.

And we’ve said this before, too: the sheriff is using large sums of taxpayer money to fund a private war on immigrants — a war designed by and coordinated with white supremacists within and down the street from the White House. All while neglecting the rehabilitation of prisoners in his jail.

The ACLU’s information request proves it. Their FOIA request shows hundreds of Tweets and emails between White House and anti-immigration zealots, including 74 with the White House’s resident white supremacist, Stephen Miller — but nothing related to helping people with opioid use disorder.

If you believe in math, this is a ratio you can’t ignore.

And then there’s the sheriff’s travel — again. In 2017, shortly after the Trump inauguration, Hodgson spent almost two weeks in Washington, DC and in his hometown of Chevy Chase, Maryland. The hand-written cover sheet attached to his travel invoices states that the Sheriff was attending the PREA Conference (the National Prison Rape Elimination Act Resource Center Conference).

This sounds plausible enough — since no one ever really bothers to scrutinize sheriffs’ expenses — until you find that the Massachusetts Department of Corrections indeed convened a PREA Conference that month, but it was at the Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel — that’s Boston, not DC — and that Bristol County Sheriff’s Office CEO Lawrence Oliveira attended it, not Hodgson.

So what was Hodgson doing in Washington, DC for twelve days between January 30, 2017 and February 12, 2017? The Sheriff’s Bank of America statement shows him staying at some pretty swanky places in the nation’s capital. And he didn’t even send us a thank you.

Absent any oversight of the sheriff’s finances — and absent any thorough audits — this would have gone undetected if not for the ACLU’s FOIA request.

Was Hodgson visiting family, taking a winter vacation, huddling with his white supremacist buddies at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, meeting with the Trump administration, or what? And why were Massachusetts taxpayers once again footing the bill?

We just don’t know. And Hodgson’s deceptive record-keeping certainly doesn’t shed any light on the truth. It’s hard to imagine what sort of pressing county business requires a county sheriff to spend two weeks in luxury hotels in Washington, DC.

Two decades of friendly “performance” audits by the state have failed to improve Hodgson’s record-keeping habits or stop his abuses of taxpayer money. Once again we call for a forensic audit of the Bristol County House of Corrections.

For over two years Bristol County for Correctional Justice has been hammering away at a painfully obvious truth: Sheriff Tom Hodgson is neglecting the job voters elected him to do — caring for and rehabilitating prisoners — at the expense of his collaboration with white supremacists.

Recent disclosures of responsive documents from a FOIA request the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLU) made to the Bristol County Sheriffs Office (BCSO) last March prove just how true that contention is.

In the ACLU’s repository there are literally hundreds of communications between White House officials, including dozens from White Supremacist Stephen Miller and demonstrating coordination between Hodgson, the White House and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Hodgson’s real and only focus. Yet even though a majority of Hodgson’s prisoners have substance abuse disorders, his office could not provide a single email or Tweet documenting a shred of concern for helping prisoners with medically-assisted treatment (MAT).

The ACLU archives make for pretty interesting reading. Hodgson’s slavish, unctuous attempts to ingratiate himself with the White House are exposed in 74 emails to Stephen Miller. We find White House talking points that Hodgson receives, and we see Hodgson notifying Miller that he’s been a good boy and used them in various interviews. We see his pettiness in action as he blasts New Bedford representative Tony Cabral, the Immigrant Assistance Center, and — as Yvonne Abraham reported in the Globe — Hodgson even removes information cards on ICE from the back of his own church, St. Julie’s in Dartmouth, and dutifully reports it to Miller. And although the ACLU did not request Hodgson’s correspondence with FAIR, he CC’s fairus.org in emails with Miller and Britt Carter, Associate Director of the White House Office of lntergovernmental Affairs. The ACLU’s trove of documents follows the release by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of extensive correspondence between Stephen Miller and a number of white supremacists.

All Hodgson’s efforts paid off recently when he was rewarded with a White House doggy bone — honorary chair of Trump’s Massachusetts re-election campaign.

Last April members of BCCJ attended a so-called “public hearing” on ICE 287(g) agreements and the topic of medically-assisted opioid treatment came up.

Hodgson has received several large grants for opioid treatment, so the public is entitled to know what he’s doing with all the money — a question that still must be answered. In addition, under Section 98 of Chapter 208 of the Acts of 2018, five sheriff’s offices have started piloting MAT treatment of prisoners — Hodgson isn’t one of them.

At the 287(g) hearings Hodgson offered a number of excuses for not offering treatment. The worst was that his officers — now serving as state-paid, part-time ICE agents — can’t afford ten minutes to supervise the treatments.

Currently, prisoners now receive a spritz of Vivitrol — a drug Alkermes already gives National Sheriff’s Association members a “taste” of for free.

Needless to say, BCCJ was not satisfied with Hodgson’s response and on September 23, 2019 we began trying to get better answers to what kind of MAT treatments, if any, the BCSO and its medical contractor provided. We contacted Beth Cheney, the Chief Operating Officer of Correctional Psychiatric Services (CPS), to ask what sort of treatment CPS provides prisoners in Bristol County.

In response, Cheney sent us a link to an article about the sheriff’s pilot program — the very program Hodgson and CPS refuse to participate in. Cheney also directed us to Jonathan Darling, the Sheriff’s spokesperson, for authorization to speak to CPS. So we did — and Darling passed the buck back to CPS:

“If you feel that CPS is not answering your questions, that’s an issue between you and CPS.”

In October we tried again, telling Darling that the “public would be well-served by knowing what types of MAT treatment the BCSO currently offers its prisoners.”

On October 22, 2019 Darling agreed — but he never followed up:

“I agree, I think we can do a better job at sharing with the public about our Mat and substance abuse programs. I’ll be working to update our website with more information on this. I believe you’ll find your answers there in weeks ahead.”

But the ACLU was also interested. On March 18, 2019 the ACLU requested the following from the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office:

8. All records of any request, decision, or recommendation by BCSO to participate in, or not to participate in, any pilot program for the delivery of medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder at county correctional facilities, including under Section 98 of Chapter 208 of the Acts of 2018.

9. All records concerning the formulation or preparation of any request, decision, or recommendation described in paragraph 8, above, including without limitation any discussion of the reasons for such request, decision, or recommendation

The responsive documents the ACLU received to the request show that — while Hodgson was emailing Stephen Miller and numerous White House and anti-immigrant organizations almost daily — there was absolutely no correspondence regarding medically assisted treatment. None. Zero.

On May 29, 2019 — more than two months past the required 10 day window for response to FOIA requests — Hodgson’s office replied to the question of MAT treatments:

“No records exist that are responsive to this request.”

So on August 20, 2019 the ACLU’s legal counsel at Foley Hoag LLP wrote back to the Sheriff’s Office to obtain information the sheriff refused to divulge.

Among the many non-responses to the ACLU’s FOIA request, the BCSO had refused to provide records from the sheriff’s supposedly “personal” Twitter account.

The ACLU also disputed the BCSO’s contention that no records existed on MAT treatment because the Sheriff had made a public statement about collaboration with other sheriffs at the aforementioned 287(g) hearing on April 10th:

At the BCSO’s annual 287(g) steering committee meeting held on April 10, 2019, Sheriff Hodgson publicly announced that the BCSO will not implement the pilot program established by Section 98 of Chapter 208 of the 2018 Acts, and will, instead, continue its current practices for treating inmates for opioid disorder. ‘ During this meeting, Sheriff Hodgson made a number of statements that suggest he and/or the BCSO have records concerning this decision. For example, he stated:

• “The sheriffs all met not too long ago — a few months back — and collectively we decided, for those that were going to decide to use medically-assisted treatment, that there would be a sampling of four or five sheriffs who were going to do it to see how it goes. Medically-assisted treatment is very controversial with regards to the types of medication that have to be given. For example, when somebody is on a medically-assisted treatment program, there are certain medications where it takes ten minutes per person to have that medication dissolve in their mouth, and they have to watched by a person on our staff until it is done.”
• “We have probably the most difficult county when it comes to detoxing people for drug use.”
• “I am not going to institute a program that’s going to have people come to jail who want to get off drugs, be exposed to more drugs. Because if you can’t go to jail to get off drugs, I don’t know where you’re going to go to get off drugs.”
• “We aren’t going to institute programs that we don’t know [are] working yet, as are a number of other Sheriffs, until we know it works.”

Accordingly, no later than September 10, 2019, please: (1) confirm whether records responsive to Requests 8 and 9 exist and produce any such records; (2) confirm whether any documents responsive to Requests 8 and 9 are being withheld on the basis of any assertion of privilege; and (3) provide a description of what, if any, searches the BCSO undertook to identify records responsive to these requests, including the sources and custodians BCSO searched and any date ranges and/or search terms that it applied.

The BCSO replied on September 20, 2019, offering the following explanations to Foley Hoag and the ACLU:

• “… the Sheriff’s Office states that Sheriff Hodgson is referring to a Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association Meeting (‘MSA’). any records of decisions made, if any exist, would be records of the MSA.
• “… Sheriff Hodgson’s statements refer to his decisions to not institute medically-assisted treatment in its entirety. The decision was not reduced to writing and, thus, no record exists …”

Apparently Hodgson didn’t have time to jot anything down. He was too busy being a White House errand boy.

On September 27th, the same day Tom Hodgson was giving the president an award in Washington, DC on the taxpayer dime, one of his prisoners died.

Scott Lajoie’s death set another gruesome record for a sheriff who seems to have no interest in his day job. Already leading the state in suicides and coming in a close second on both recidivism and assaults by correctional officers, Hodgson’s jail now comes in second with three times the state average for pre-trial detention deaths.

Since January 2019, 13 people have died in pre-trial custody. That’s an average of less than one per county.

Hodgson’s death count is already up to three.

You can download the full Courtwatch report here.

Following two more suicides at the Bristol County House of Correction this summer, there has been another death at Tom Hodgson’s jail.

While we do not yet know if the cause of death was suicide or an untreated medical issue, it is important to remember that each of these deaths has a human face.

Scott LaJoie, 49, was the father of five children and a grandfather of seven. He was an Army veteran, a musician, and ran a concrete forms business in Westport. On September 27th LaJoie was transported from the jail to Saint Luke’s hospital, where he was pronounced dead. His family has asked that donations be sent to Disabled American Veterans.

LaJoie’s death occurred while Sheriff Thomas Hodgson was in Washington DC giving President Trump another award. A 2017 suicide at the jail also coincided with a flurry of anti-immigrant lobbying in Washington by Hodgson.

Following LaJoie’s death, his case in Fall River District Court (docket #1932CR002613) was dismissed by Judge Kevin J. Finnerty because LaJoie died while never having gotten his day in court. LaJoie had been locked up without even the possibility of bail pursuant to Mass General Laws Chapter 276, section 58A.

While Sheriff Tom Hodgson has the highest suicides and the second highest recidivism rate in the state, not to be out-done Bristol County District Attorney Tom Quinn has the highest per capita number of 58A hearings and the second (just behind Essex County) total number of 58A hearings in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, according to Massachusetts Trial Court data. Democrat Quinn has also lobbied for even more draconian provisions in the Dangerousness statutes in concert with Republican Governor Charlie Baker.

Court records tell us that LaJoie had been prescribed various medications. In an April 4th, 2019 entry in docket #1932CR001197, Judge Franco Gobourne allowed LaJoie’s motion to see a doctor to get a prescription refilled. It is unclear whether LaJoie ever received those medications. A physician from SouthCoast Health specializing in medical and pharmaceutical management offered condolences.

While it’s too early to say if LaJoie’s death resulted from jail conditions inducing despair, medical neglect, or the absence of medically-assisted substance abuse treatment, LaJoie’s death is the consequence of overuse of pretrial detention by District Attorney Thomas Quinn and Bristol County judges who rubber-stamp his motions, subjecting prisoners to abusive conditions in the Bristol County Jail.

Court records tell us that LaJoie was locked up in June 2019 when his bail status on an earlier case (docket #1932CR001197) was revoked and prosecutors asked the judge to keep him locked up pursuant to Mass General Laws Chapter 276, section 58A (“Dangerousness”) based on the argument that LaJoie was so “dangerous” that no conditions of release could ensure the safety of his girlfriend, Rebecca Campbell.

Campbell had accused LaJoie of threatening to burn down the apartment they shared. As a result, LaJoie was arrested and [incorrectly] charged with an assault on Campbell — and with violating a “no abuse” order issued by the court. The earlier case was dismissed on the trial date, July 16, 2019, when Quinn’s office was unprepared to go forward with a trial. Nevertheless, LaJoie remained locked up on the new case (docket #1932CR002613) as a “danger.”

Attorney Sean A. McDermott was then appointed to represent LaJoie. McDermott did not file a single motion in the case and on the pretrial conference report simply checked off a few boxes. So much for zealous legal representation.

LaJoie’s case was scheduled for trial on August 26, 2019 but was continued to September 24, 2019, and then again to October 25, 2019. One can only imagine the despair of a person repeatedly denied bail and kept in perpetual detention without a trial ever in sight.

On September 27th, 2019 Scott LaJoie died at the Bristol County Jail.

The Mass Bail Fund is looking for additional volunteers to post bail for prisoners at the Bristol County jail. There will be a meeting in Dartmouth in November for those with time to give. Posting bail is the perfect volunteer gig for people with some privilege to put to good use. Email us if you’re interested.

The Mass Bail Fund doesn’t post bail of more than $500. A substantial percentage of those in county jails have not been convicted of a crime but cannot meet even a small bail amount. Click here for more information on how the Bail Fund works — but here’s the short version. You’ll get a call at an inconvenient hour. And when you show up to bail out your client, the Bristol County Jail will make you jump through more hoops than most; you’ll have to wait, come back later, or go to a different location. You’ll front the money for the Bail Fund, drive the client off the jail premises, and get your money back from the Bail Fund in roughly a week.

Anybody is welcome to volunteer, but if you’re older, whiter and a member of a religious organization you will magically get better results for your client. You’ll be doing your part to reduce mass-incarceration right in your own community.

Consider this. The inability to post bail can make a prisoner:

• more likely to lose their children to DSS
• more likely to lose their job, plunging their family deeper into poverty
• more likely to plead guilty just to get out of abusive conditions
• more likely to receive harsher sentences because of the inability to easily access legal resources
• more likely to be found guilty

Email us to discuss attending the Bail Fund’s Dartmouth meeting in November.

Whenever I encounter a story about police abuse it almost always involves white cops and black or brown citizens. If not the police, it’s courts, prisons, or immigration authorities. You don’t have to be particularly perceptive to recognize the dominant factor in all these stories; you just need a long memory and a filing system. Racism permeates every aspect of American life — especially the criminal justice system and, most especially, the police.

So it was no surprise last week, when Scott Hovsepian of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (MassCOP) blasted Elizabeth Warren for referring to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri as a “murder.” With black men having a one in a thousand chance of being fatally shot by police in their lifetime — two times the rate for whites — there is really no other word that suits this extreme indifference to life but murder. We are in fact so indifferent to these killings that police shootings aren’t even tracked by a government agency.

Delicate ears may prefer the phrases “wrongful death” or “unauthorized use of force.” But who are we kidding? Even when the evidence is crystal-clear that a police shooting was completely unnecessary and violated any number of departmental policies or protocols, officials will rarely admit to a mistake and instead trot out a legal doctrine known as Qualified Immunity which effectively gives policemen a license to kill — even when they have previously exhibited bad judgment, have psychological problems or a history of violence toward the non-white public. Even when the officer lies. Even when there is a video.

Hovsepian’s angry letter to Warren went out on August 10th:

“I want to make this as clear as possible and every member of the Massachusetts Coalition of Police wants you to understand; your labeling of law enforcement as racist and violent is unacceptable and dangerous. Maybe I didn’t deliver the message strong enough the last time we spoke. YOUR POLITICAL PANDERING FOR PRESIDENTIAL VOTES IS GETTING POLICE OFFICERS AND CITIZENS HURT AND KILLED. […] Your inflammatory rhetoric results in the erosion of relationships that members of law enforcement have developed within our communities. […] Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. at 396-97 (1989), provides in part: The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene…”

Unacceptable and dangerous. For a moment, a reader might be excused for thinking Hovsepian meant the national epidemic of police officers slaughtering black men, two thirds of them unarmed. Hovsepian mentions Qualified Immunity as a police officer’s shield from charges of murder in the second degree — “acts that demonstrate extreme indifference to human life.” But it’s not police killings that we ought to be worried about, says Hovsepian — no, it’s public criticism of the police that is killing officers. Or so he says.

A year ago at Dillard University, Hovsepian took issue with Warren’s characterization of the entire U.S. criminal justice system. Warren said that “the hard truth about our criminal justice system: it’s racist… I mean front to back.” Hovsepian labelled Warren’s characterization “cancerous rhetoric” and again charged that criticism of police was lethal: “Your statements put each and every one of us in danger. Your statement dehumanizes every officer who puts on a uniform…”

Playing the part of the wronged and “dehumanized” party may be nothing but a rhetorical ploy, but it is precisely the same argument as Tucker Carlson’s claim that White Supremacy is a hoax because white people are the real victims of the American legacy of slavery.

Last week the Washington Post reported that, “among men of all races, ages 25 to 29, police killings are the sixth-leading cause of death, according to a study led by Frank Edwards of Rutgers University.” In 2018 police killed 1,164 people. The number of black people killed by police (215) exceeded all police officers who died in the line of duty (148), servicemen killed in action (2) and Americans killed by Islamic terrorists (0) combined. There were only 23 days in 2018 when police did not kill someone. Thirteen of the 100 largest police departments accounted for a large percentage of police murders that year. 99% of all police killings never resulted in officers being convicted of any charges. In 2018 Americans were ten times more likely to die from being shot by a cop than in a mass shooting.

So, if anyone has a legitimate and “reasonable fear,” it is civilians fearing police violence. Americans are also increasingly afraid of militarized policing that is morphing into something very like occupation. Following the protests of Michael Brown’s murder, police turned Ferguson’s Canfield Drive into Fallujah.

While no doubt there are many good police officers and police departments, from the 30,000 foot view Warren is absolutely right. The names of black victims of police abuse, from Rodney King to Tamir Rice, Sandra Bland, Eric Garner, Laquan McDonald, and Michael Brown, just keep being etched on headstones. We know what skin colors predominate among America’s 2.5 million incarcerated people. The legacy of slavery is apparent to anyone who has studied criminal justice issues or simply reads the newspaper. The Central Park Five, whose story was recently portrayed in Netflix’s “When They See Us,” embody everything that is wrong with America’s racist criminal justice system — police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct and overreach, brutal prisons — even an ad from a future president that read like a call to lynch five young men of color.

MassCOP’s Scott Hovsepian has it completely backwards when he charges that criticism of police racism puts officers at risk and undermines their work. It is racist cops who undermine community confidence in police departments and contribute to a community’s fear of helping police reduce crime. No matter how many public relations campaigns, youth programs, listening sessions, or ride-alongs police departments use to blunt community criticism, nothing compensates for all the damage that racist officers inflict.

Take the case of 20 year Muskegon, Michigan police officer Charles Anderson. Anderson put his house on the market and apparently didn’t think to put his KKK application or his Confederate flags away. A black couple touring the home realized the officer was a racist and dug into Anderson’s history, discovering he had been cleared in the fatal shooting of a black man in 2009. It wasn’t a surprise. The killing or the exoneration.

Or a story from August 6th describing Galveston, Texas cops leading a black man, slave-style, between the mounted officers’ horses. Police chief Vernon Hale weakly explained, “Although this is a trained technique and best practice in some scenarios, I believe our officers showed poor judgement in this instance.” Poor judgment that went unpunished.

Sergeant Heather Taylor, a member of the St. Louis Metro police department, was interviewed recently by CBS News as part of its series on racial bias in American police departments. “Do you think that there are white supremacists on the police force?” CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues asked. “Yes” Taylor replied. “You didn’t even pause,” Pegues said. “Have you seen some of the Facebook posts of some of our suspended officers right now?” Taylor responded. “Yes.”

Taylor could have been referring to Facebook posts collected by the Plain View Project, which to date has permanently recorded over 5,000 racist posts — that’s from only eight cities. The Project’s homepage says that “our concern is not whether these posts and comments are protected by the First Amendment. Rather, we believe that because fairness, equal treatment, and integrity are essential to the legitimacy of policing, these posts and comments should be part of a national dialogue about police” — a dialog shut down by police officials who claim that such a discussions put their lives at risk.

Blue Lives matter to police officers, but the same concern doesn’t aways extend to civilians — especially the black lives. In 2016 an Oregon police officer posted an image of a Black Lives Matter protest with a comment, “When encountering such mobs remember, there are 3 pedals on your floor. Push the right one all the way down.”

The Facebook page of Santa Fe, New Mexico Sergeant Troy Baker, also the police union president and a police cadet instructor, was a veritable cesspool of racist and homophobic rants, violent threats, and Confederate flags. Baker survived an internal investigation when no violation of department policy was determined, and he was allowed to retire early, remaining on the city payroll for eight months to obtain his pension.

Springfield, Massachusetts cop Conrad Lariviere thought white supremacist James Alex Fields Jr. running down Heather Heyer in Charlotteville was pretty funny. “Hahahaha love this, maybe people shouldn’t block roads,” Lariviere wrote on Facebook. When confronted with the post, Lariviere told MassLive.com, “I am not a racist and don’t believe in what any of those protesters are doing, I’m a good man who made a stupid comment and would just like to be left alone.”

Lariviere was eventually fired but the damage was already done. “It will take us months, if not years, to earn back the level of public trust we once had,” Police Commissioner John Barbieri said. “It’s never easy to terminate a fellow officer, and I take no comfort in doing so.” But Lariviere’s union, Local 364 of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, issued a statement saying it was —

“extremely disappointed in the decision of Commissioner Barbieri to terminate the employment of Officer Conrad Lariviere. Officer Lariviere’s comments on Facebook were made in his capacity as a private citizen […] While some may find Off. Lariviere’s comments to have been insensitive, we do not believe that they rise to the level of misconduct, and certainly do not warrant termination, even if there was a clear policy involved […] We also believe that the subject of the Facebook posting was a matter of public concern, and protected speech. We believe that the termination is based on political considerations, not a fair, impartial assessment of the evidence…”

Racist conduct and exercising poor judgement are, for many police associations, insignificant matters for officers charged with serving the public fairly.

In Phoenix, Arizona, 75 cops were caught on Facebook bashing Muslims, African-Americans, gays, and feminists. When Trayvon Martin was murdered, Phoenix officer Joshua Ankert wrote, “CONGRATULATIONS GEORGE ZIMMERMAN!!! Thank you for cleaning up our community one thug at a time.” Officer Dave Swick posted a roadside sign that said, “Ferguson protestors ahead, speed up, aim well.” Police dispatcher Christina Begay shared a picture of two cops laughing with the caption: “They said, ‘F–k the police,’ so I said ‘F–k your 911 call, I’ll get to your dying home boy when I finish my coffee.” Officer David Pallas posted a meme showing the Quran, with a caption that read: “HOW ABOUT BANNING THIS. IT OFFENDS ME!!” The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association defended the posts. “People — including cops — say things they regret.”

Add to a climate of hate the many unfortunate interactions between police officers and young people. Stop and Frisk — violations of the Fourth Amendment — go by many names: “community engagement,” “meet and greet,” “youth liaison.” But they only add to the fear, distrust and hatred many people have of police officers. In New Bedford a young man, Malcolm Gracia, is dead because police officers decided to aggressively “engage” a group of young men at Temple Landing after seeing what they thought was a “gang handshake.”

After allegedly stabbing an officer, Gracia was shot three times in the back and once in the side of the head. But the entire interaction should never have happened. “Even on the [police] version of the facts, the stop would be unlawful,” Judge Thomas F. McGuire Jr. wrote in a memorandum on a civil lawsuit filed by the victim’s sister. The City of New Bedford for many years claimed that the incident had occurred because of insufficient policies on “engagement” with youth. After the ACLU filed several FOIA requests, the city’s argument collapsed. Police should have simply followed the law.

But it’s not just a few bad apples or the frequently-cited lack of clear policies. As we saw in the case of Santa Fe, New Mexico, departmental racism often reflects, and is even encouraged by, the leadership of police unions and associations who represent tens of thousands of officers.

Consider Hovsepian’s Brother in Blue, Ed Mullins, the president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, New York City’s second largest police union. Only last week Mullins shared a video made by white supremacist Colin Flaherty (author of “Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry”) that calls black people “welfare queens,” “scam artists” and “monsters.” The film uses Trump-styled language:

“When a suspect chooses to flee from police, it is never for anything good,” the narrator says. “When a suspect flees a car at night in the projects, it can only be for something incredibly bad. One of the most astonishing aspects of police work in an urban environment, is the fact that almost literally no one has a job. The section 8 scam artists and welfare queens have mastered the art of gaming the taxpayer. Bounce from baby mama to baby mama, impregnate as many women as possible. She gets the welfare benefits, and you get the flop house benefits. Symbiotic.”

Mullins, nose freshly rubbed in his own white supremacy, uttered “I have black friends, white friends, Asian friends. I wouldn’t want to insult anyone. I don’t think one incident defines who I am.”

Or consider the nation’s largest group of sheriffs, the National Sheriff’s Association, which once sponsored its own crowdfunded border wall donation site but has now outsourced it to the American Border Foundation (ABF), an organization managed by white supremacists and supported by armed militias. (After months, ABF has raised only $222K of its $450 million goal).

According to Political Research Associates, a group that tracks nationalist currents in the U.S., sheriff departments throughout the country are riddled with members of the Patriot movement, Constitutional Sheriffs, militia members, Christian Identitarians, and white supremacists. Right here at home, Bristol County Massachusetts sheriff Tom Hodgson sits on the board of a group the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate group — FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, established by white supremacist John Tanton.

But combine police racism with hyper-patriotism, militarism and PTSD, and you’ve got a big problem.

Since 9-11 more than 2 million Americans have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Justice runs a program called COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) which provides grants to communities to turn “vets to cops.” In 2016 the DOJ handed out $119 million to help communities pay for approximately 900 policemen. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has created a recruitment guide for veterans, and veterans can use their GI Bill benefits while attending police academy. America increasingly says “thank you for your service” to its warriors by re-deploying them domestically.

But programs like these, and hiring practices that favor ex-military, have a serious downside. By prioritizing military experience over diversity, police departments put communities at risk. For example, the San Jose Police Department, a force with serious racism problems, sees veterans as naturals for the police “because we have a paramilitary structure, [and] military veterans often times can easily integrate.” What ever happened to community policing?

Then there are the after-effects of war. With an increasing percentage of veterans becoming police officers thanks to programs like COPS, many officers seem to think they are still fighting the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents. Ellen Kirshman, a psychologist who works with police officers, says that between 19% and 34% of all officers show some sign of PTSD: “This is pretty alarming. An officer with PTSD cannot think clearly, is probably hyper vigilant, has a short fuse, may not be sleeping well because of nightmares, might be policing in a reckless manner…” And this is precisely what one frequently sees in videos of police encounters with black men. Legislation has been signed into law to help officers with PTSD, but what about the public? Aren’t there cops who are simply too traumatized to serve the public? Even when they are identified, it’s difficult to remove them from the force.

When Elizabeth Warren spoke about the criminal justice system, she was talking about much more than policing. Yet police unions have become powerful lobbies and relentless opponents of criminal justice and prison reform. Natasha Lennard reports in the Intercept on the savage negative campaign the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association (NYSCOPBA) waged against Governor Mario Cuomo’s criminal justice reforms. Likewise, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association spent over $10 million lobbying for the Three Strikes law, mandatory life sentences, and prison expansions. In Illinois, police unions waged a campaign to stop the closure of the brutal Tamms Supermax prison. And we have fifty states just like this.

But nothing shows how racist the criminal justice system is as clearly as the history of opposition to reforming it.

In 1991 Rep. William Edwards introduced H.R.2972, the Police Accountability Act of 1991. The bill made it “unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of their constitutional or statutory rights, privileges, or immunities.” The bill had only 10 co-sponsors and never made it out of committee.

In 2000 John Conyers Jr. sponsored H.R. 3927, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2000, which sought to impose national standards on law enforcement as we currently do in education. It had only thirteen Democratic co-sponsors and never made it to a vote. In 2015 Conyers again filed H.R.2875, this time with 48 co-sponsors. But again it died.

In 2015 Rep. Henry Johnson Jr. sponsored H.R.1102, the Police Accountability Act of 2015, which had 15 co-sponsors and died. The bill amended “title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for assault or homicide committed by certain State or local law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.” Again in 2017 Johnson filed H.R.4331, with 8 lonely co-sponsors. Again, it died.

In 2017 Rep. Gwen Moore sponsored H.R. 3060, Preventing Tragedies between Police and Communities Act of 2017, which required that police departments receiving federal funding train officers in de-escalation techniques. The bill had only 24 co-sponsors and died in committee — having also failed in 2016.

In 2017 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee sponsored H.R.47: Kalief’s Law, which sought to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for the humane treatment of youths in police custody. The bill had only one co-sponsor and there was never a roll call vote.

Whether a majority or minority in Congress, police accountability has never been a priority for Democrats or Republicans. E. Tammy Kim, in an excellent piece in the Nation (“What to Do About the Police”), writes that, “as it stands, the three branches of government are unwilling to regulate the police. Mayors and governors defer to police chiefs and union presidents; judges make cheesecloth of the Fourth and 14th Amendments; and legislators vote again and again to increase law-enforcement budgets.”

In a 2015 ruling the Supreme Court gave police broad latitude to shoot at citizens recklessly and with impunity, when it rejected a suit against a Texas police officer who fired into a car with a high power rifle from an overpass, paralyzing a driver. The officer joked: “How’s that for proactive?”

In 2018 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Kisela v. Hughes that police officers can not be sued for arbitrary and unnecessary shootings — effectively granting law enforcement a deluxe edition of Constitutional rights. In dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling another sign of “unflinching willingness” to protect rogue cops and wrote that the decision “transforms the doctrine [of qualified immunity] into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.” Cops in America today truly have a license to kill.

With one exception, every piece of reform legislation mentioned above was sponsored by an African-American. And that ought to tell you something — white people are just not stepping up in sufficent numbers to fix injustices involving police, the courts, prisons, parole and probation systems, or to provide adequate rehabilitation and treatment of those ensnared in the “system.”

To quote Warren’s again, “the hard truth about our criminal justice system: it’s racist… I mean front to back.”

Judge Katie Rayburn sentenced FANG activist Amory Zhou-Kourvo to ten days in jail yesterday for blocking the entrance to the Bristol County House of Correction. On August 20, 2018 Zhou-Kourvo and Holly Stein were arrested after cementing their arms to a concrete filled tire and fastening bike locks around their necks to a fence. Zhou-Kourvo’s sentence will be shortened by two days already served and Judge Rayburn is considering a request to permit the sentence to be served in Norfolk instead of Bristol County because of the Bristol County House of Correction’s abysmal reputation, and because of its sheriff’s closeness to the case. A dozen FANG supporters, several local activists, and representatives of the NAACP New Bedford attended the hearings.

After learning of the epidemic of suicides at the jail, widely reported in the Boston Globe and elsewhere, the Attorney General passed the buck to the Department of Corrections and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security — both headed by Baker appointees. The State Auditor, to her credit, conducted a friendly “performance audit” which, like a previous one, found financial and managerial irregularities at the Sheriff’s Office, but it fell short of a complete investigation that would have shed light on the neglect and deprivation of prisoners. The Office of the Inspector General — also headed by a Baker appointee — was given evidence of the sheriff’s financial abuses of taxpayer money, but again no action was taken. Legislation which would have stopped the sheriff’s giveaways of state money to ICE have been shelved in the Massachusetts House by Speaker DeLeo.

So — hats off to these young people for temporarily inconveniencing a sheriff at the scene of his own crimes.

Sitting through the hearings on Tuesday morning, it took a while to get to Zhou-Kourvo’s case. Right before the nineteen year-old was sentenced to jail, attendees in Katie Rayburn’s court watched her give probation to a fentanyl dealer who had beaten his wife and also been implicated in accessory-to-murder charges. For Rayburn, who insisted on handling the FANG cases herself following the initial arraignments, a message apparently needed to be sent — don’t mess with law enforcement, no matter how crooked it is.

If the name Katie Rayburn rings a bell, you probably just watched the HBO documentary on the Michelle Carter case. Rayburn was the ambitious Bristol County Assistant District Attorney who built a case around a story that a calculating 17 year-old ice princess convinced an adult “boyfriend” (who in reality she had met only a handful of times) to commit suicide by text message — from a 40 mile distance. The case raises so many questions that it is now headed for the Supreme Court.

The only expert witness in the case, psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who looked at the suite of medications both teens had been prescribed, came to a totally different conclusion about Carter’s culpability than in Rayburn’s tale. Even as Rayburn herself continued to try the case in front of the cameras, she slapped a gag order on Breggin. Rayburn was rewarded for her prosecutorial zeal (if not misconduct) with an appointment to the bench by Governor Charlie Baker.

Having seen the judge in action, it’s clear Rayburn still thinks she’s a prosecutor.

New Bedford’s local paper, the Standard Times, reported another suicide of a young woman on July 3rd at the Bristol County jail. Her name is being withheld, but she was reportedly in the women’s’ behavioral unit inside the men’s facility at the jail’s Faunce Corner location. According to Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, “There was absolutely no indication to anyone. This was a shock.”

Like most of the many suicides that preceded it, it is being investigated by the sheriff’s own department. A year ago reporters from the New England Center for Investigative Reporting (NECIR) looked into the epidemic of suicides at the jail and the sheriff’s self-investigation. They described his process as essentially a whitewash, noting that “Hodgson’s report concluded that his jail staff did everything right in all cases.”

The Standard Times added a postscript to their suicide article with the phone number of the National Suicide Hotline. But this latest victim was not a member of the public with suicidal ideation. She was a prisoner at a notorious jail known for its extremely high rate of suicides, known for its deprivation of medical and psychiatric care, known for driving its prisoners to despair. The postscript should instead have been directed at the correct audience — prisoners — by adding the phone number of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division.

This was the second suicide in two months. On May 3rd, Mark Trafton was found in his cell at the Bristol County Sheriff’s Ash Street jail and pronounced dead by paramedics. Despite a social media discussion that described the man’s apparent suicidal intentions, a sheriff’s spokesman told a reporter from the New Bedford Guide that the man “didn’t give any indication […] to wanting to take his own life, nor did he have any prior history or exhibit any suicidal behaviors or statements since he arrived in custody.” The sheriff’s statement sounded scripted. “We offer our condolences to his family and we’re keeping not only them but everyone involved in this incident in our prayers.”

These latest suicides represent a return to Bristol County’s shameful record as the county jail with the worst suicide record in the Commonwealth. We renew our calls to place this facility in receivership. It is a failed correctional facility. The administrator shows more interest in making the talk show circuit to disparage asylum-seekers than in running a jail humanely and professionally. An interim warden should be appointed and a full, independent investigation of the facility should be conducted.

Legislators, the Attorney General, the State Auditor, the Inspector General, the Department of Corrections, the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, the Governor — we have appealed to all of them to stop these suicides negligent homicides and other abuses at the Bristol County jail. How many more are they going to ignore while paying lip-service to their public duties?

Yesterday I attended the Bristol County 3rd District Court sentencing of Holly Landowne-Stein, who was arrested for cementing herself to the gate of the Bristol County jail in August 2018. Landowne-Stein and several others were calling attention to abuses at the jail by Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, and protesting his 287(g) agreement with ICE. The activists were charged with not only trespassing, but inflated charges of disturbing the peace and resisting arrest.

When you enter the New Bedford courthouse, you may not bring with you any recording devices or personal electronics. Justice [such as it is] may not be blind — but in the American justice system the nasty business that goes on in courts and jails must be done in twilight.

Courtroom #4 has three banks of benches, the front row reserved for a parade of legal counsel that handles hearings on an industrial scale. Bristol County now uses a scheme most Americans imagine only exists in Cairo, Riyadh, Beijing, or Kazakhstan — the cases are heard by a judge on the other end of a wire, providing neither the accused’s defense lawyer nor the public any chance to see or hear the accused in person. While we waited, two public defenders commented on the difficulties of properly representing their clients this way, not the least of which is the ability to confer privately during the hearings.

This electronically-dispensed “justice” seemed to be far from efficient. In case after case, defense attorneys complained of not having received discovery materials from the District Attorney’s office; in all cases this meant that the accused would have to sit in jail several more weeks until the ADA shared their information with the defense. In a few cases the accused’s lawyer was either not present or could not be located when the prisoner was hauled before the cameras in the Ash Street jail. In one case the prisoner’s bail had already been paid and the judge was confused about why the prisoner was still incarcerated.

In another dispensing of one-minute justice, one defense lawyer wanted to enter a plea but could not — because his client was not physically present. Another prisoner seemed to be in a Catch-22 situation with the New York courts. Miles away, and trying to be heard over the clanking of bars and the din of voices at Ash Street, it was impossible to see whatever paperwork the man was waving — hoping — that the judge would consider.

I’ve been to court before, but this one morning illustrates the efficiencies of the prison-industrial complex and the lengths to which the courts will go to create a simulacrum of “justice.” Each hearing took approximately sixty seconds as incarcerated widgets were processed through a remote assembly line – each prisoner’s humanity reduced to a smudge of pixels on a screen.

In one hearing, that of Maria Carrion, who was charged as part of Operation Ghost with fentanyl trafficking, District Attorney Thomas M. Quinn III himself showed up in court, presumably to send a get-tough message to the judge, Douglas J. Darnbrough, a Baker appointee. Or maybe Quinn was just grandstanding like his matching bookend, Tom Hodgson.

Finally, the case we had all come to hear was being called.

Holly Landowne-Stein’s supporters, four from New Bedford, and twenty from Providence — including her mother, Rabbi Ann Landowne — had to wait until around noon for her sentencing. After posing numerous questions to the activist, including asking her if she voluntarily waived a jury or bench trial, her right to question witnesses, and querying if she was happy with her representation and understood all charges against her, Judge Douglas J. Darnbrough sentenced Landowne-Stein to 10 days in the Ash Street jail, with a one day credit for time served. She was immediately cuffed and taken from the room.

As the father of thirty-something children myself, I felt great admiration for this young woman, who had put her values and her freedom on the line to protest a sheriff who has quite literally killed and injured people through willful neglect and cruelty. I could easily imagine the fear and pain a parent feels as cuffs are placed on his child’s wrists – and, in this case, the anger at state violence masquerading as justice.

Nine days should pass relatively quickly for this young woman. Unlike many (if not most) detainees at Tom Hodgson’s jails, Holly Landowne-Stein has her health, her sobriety, and dedicated friends and family on the “outside.” Her experience will be nothing like a thousand others, far less fortunate, who are victimized for up to two and a half years in his facilities – all because society doesn’t want to know what goes on inside those walls.

The fight against Hodgson’s abuses and his ICE collaboration will continue.

Tom Hodgson is in bed with the extreme Right. There’s his seat on the National Board of Advisors of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a group founded by white supremacist John Tanton. Then there’s his membership in the Constitutional Sheriff’s and Police Officer’s Association, an extremist group of lawmen who claim to know the proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Then there are Hodgson’s flirtations with Muslim-bashers, gay-bashers, birthers, and all manner of conspiracy nuts — many of them members of FAIR.

And then, in a category all by himself, there’s Rick Wiles.

In November 2014 Hodgson appeared on TruNews — the “End Times Newscast” with Wiles, who advocates locking up people whose politics he disagrees with — just like Hodgson. The sheriff managed to cram in many of FAIR’s talking points on Wiles’ show, repeating the lie that Mexico pays $300 per child to come into the United States, that 30,000 Americans have been murdered by illegal immigrants since 9/11, and that undocumented immigrants receive better treatment than citizens because — well — that’s just what America-hating Liberal elites want.

Wiles then turned his questions to the “historical role of the Constitutional sheriff,” giving Hodgson an opportunity to whine about Massachusetts mayors and other officials who support Safe Communities. The show ended with Wiles appealing to his audience to raise funds for local sheriffs to attend a FAIR-sponsored event. Hodgson, who in 2014 was already sticking taxpayers for his FAIR-related travel, never bothered to correct Wiles.

So it didn’t come as a surprise when Hodgson’s old buddy went on the air, warning that any opposition to Donald Trump’s plan to build a border wall would result in the US military rounding up godless subversives and smiting them. Extreme, certainly. But that’s why people like Wiles and Hodgson are called extremists.

“They’d better wise up and stop what they’re doing because they’re pushing the republic to the brink of breaking,” Wiles warned. “They’d better count the cost. What happens if you push the country that far? You snap the bonds that hold this country together [and] you might be shocked at the reaction you get because there is a lot of fury built up inside millions of Americans who are just fed up with what the Left is doing.”

“It’s going to be lights out for the Democrats and the leftists,” Wiles said. “The conservative patriots will slam your slimy butts against the wall that you hate. It’s going to happen. They are not going to tolerate it. The American people want law and order in this country and the Democrats are a party of rebellion, of lawlessness. They better count the cost before they do something crazy because there’s a limit to how much patience the American people are going to show them.”

But speaking of locking people up — locking Tom Hodgson in his office on Faunce Corner Road might not be such a crazy idea.

Then maybe the immigration-obsessed sheriff could finally take care of the many messes he’s created by neglecting his day job — spending all his working hours with proto-fascists like Wiles and his white supremacist handlers at FAIR.

When something is too good to be true, it usually isn’t.

During Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson’s 287(g) hearings on April 10, 2019, citizens pushed back at Hodgson’s claims that his 287(g) agreement with ICE is a big money-maker. Hodgson claimed that since 2007 he has “earned” $61 million of ICE reimbursements for the Commonwealth. News sources have been parroting the sheriff’s numbers without really looking at the math.

Some of us, on the other hand, have reason to believe the sheriff is simply subsidizing ICE detentions at a loss to the taxpayer because of his well-known associations with far-right anti-immigrant groups. And recently obtained Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association figures support this suspicion.

The FY2017 Massachusetts Sheriff’ s Association’s “Spending per Inmate Report” for all counties shows that the average cost per prisoner per day in the Commonwealth’s 13 county jails is roughly $134 — well over the $98 that ICE reimburses Hodgson and the $90-$94 it reimburses other Massachusetts sheriffs. Hodgson’s incredible (as in “not credible”) figures are so low, and so anomalous, that only forensic accounting by a watchdog agency can ascertain if they are truthful.

Right before she was ejected from the hearings for arguing with Hodgson, local activist Marlene Pollock asked the sheriff if his suspicious figures were the result of (1) skimping on food, rehabilitation and medical care of prisoners, (2) if the sheriff was still using the shoddy financial management practices a recent state audit faulted him for; or (3) if Hodgson had found some magic formula no other sheriff could duplicate.

The sheriff chose the last option, calling the state audit a “joke” and trumpeting his SAMS system — a 20 year-old piece of homegrown management software and the data it tracks “right down to the cost of a cup of coffee” — as the key to his too-good-to-believe custody and care costs. When challenged to share his expertise with other sheriffs, Hodgson declined, claiming that House Speaker Robert DeLeo had all the numbers.

And now the public needs to see those numbers.

The Bristol County sheriff may not appreciate the scrutiny, but the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association report calls into serious question Hodgson’s fabulous (as in “out of a fable”) per-diem rate. Only a complete and detailed accounting of Bristol County Sheriff’s Office income and expenses — right down to the cost of that cup of coffee — will prove whether the sheriff and his numbers can truly be trusted. Equally important, the question of whether the state’s ICE agreements are losing money can finally be answered.

Though short of a full accounting, Amendment 1250 to the FY2020 budget requires sheriffs participating in 287(g) agreements to document the real costs of caring for, and the proper reimbursement of, ICE detainees. This amendment was sponsored by representatives Cabral of New Bedford, Robinson of Framingham, Balser of Newton, Domb of Amherst, Hecht of Watertown, Vega of Holyoke, Provost of Somerville, Peake of Provincetown, Lewis of Framingham, Garballey of Arlington, Decker of Cambridge, Farley-Bouvier of Pittsfield and DuBois of Brockton.

Bristol County for Correctional Justice recently testified before the Ways and Means Committee in favor of the amendment, and we urge state representatives concerned with the abuse of taxpayer money to support its provisions.

When something is too good to be true, it usually isn’t.

Citizens of Bristol County have known for years that sheriff Tom Hodgson peddles fiction while demonizing brown people, that he relies on sham awards and sham accreditations to spray away the stink of the human rights abuses, prisoner mistreatment and deaths at his facilities, and he is not averse to using excessive force on prisoners.

But last night Bristol County residents got a little taste of it themselves at an ostensibly “public hearing” the sheriff is required to hold once a year as part of his 287(g) agreement with ICE.

In contrast to recent 287(g) hearings in Barnstable and Plymouth counties, Hodgson’s show was not a public event. And, unlike his award ceremonies which are often held at schools to maximize the number of community visitors, this one was designed to keep the public away from people asking tough questions.

In line with the xenophobe who relentlessly shills for “Fortress America,” getting into Hodgson’s hearings was almost as bad as going through airport security. Anyone who wanted to attend first had to RSVP by email, then get by the jail’s guard house, where “Special Sheriff” Bruce Assad checked their ID, permitting only those on the “list” to enter the jail complex. Visitors were then directed to a parking lot from which they had to walk about a thousand feet, past a phalanx of armed deputies, to the jail’s auditorium, where once again they had to show ID.

Nor could the spectacle really be called a hearing. Though the ICE panel included Sheriff’s Office Legal Counsel Robert Novack, “Special Sheriff” Bruce Assad, Superintendent of Security Steven Souza, ICE Boston Deputy Field Office Director Marcos Charles, ICE Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer Claudia English, Sheriff’s Director of Immigration Services Liunetty Couto, and Sheriff’s spokesman Jon Darling, Hodgson did all the talking. This was his show.

During the “hearings” the tone-deaf sheriff refused to truly listen to the roughly 50 attendees, most of whom disapprove of Hodgson’s abuses of prisoners and his unilateral decision to sign the 287(g) agreement. The sheriff treated his guest with contempt, evading questions, peddling falsehoods, frequently changed the subject, lashing out at his enemies, and it was clear the purpose was mainly to demonstrate that he was in control of the show.

At the beginning of the proceedings, two members of the FANG Collective, Arely Diaz and Max Grear, unfurled a banner and began to make a statement. They were immediately assaulted by a number of Bristol County deputies, arms twisted into submission, and were shoved out the door. They did not resist, nor did they refuse to leave. The two had RSVP’d and were on the sheriff’s “list.” Nevertheless, the two face multiple charges, including trespassing, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. FANG may have momentarily interrupted the sheriff’s staged event, but the disorderly conduct was entirely the sheriff’s by responding with violence to people who had irritated him by protesting in front of his house last winter.

The thin-skinned sheriff also ejected New Bedford activist Marlene Pollock, who had the temerity to challenge him during one exchange on former inmate claims of brutality and neglect. Hodgson delivered personal insults to Pollock and referred to her long history of opposing him before ejecting her as well from “his” hearings. Through both these authoritarian acts of force Hodgson made it clear he was delivering personal payback to his political enemies.

There was a contingent of deputies inside and out who managed to create an intimidating environment for attendees. A conspicuous display of weapons was a new touch this year, and it seemed hardly coincidental. Everyone was packing a sidearm, including the sheriff, and ICE Boston Deputy Field Office Director Marcos Charles was wearing an ankle holster.

The arrests and ejection of the sheriff’s enemies were the only aspect of the hearings that the press generally thought to cover. Among issues of substance raised by Bristol County voters last night were Massachusetts Sheriff’s Association’s figures showing that ICE agreements are actually costing the state millions — not raking in the profits that Hodgson claims and the press parrots. Citizen questions also revealed that the number of deputized ICE agents at the jail has not increased and that in the last year only 18 Bristol County ICE detainees were arrested on criminal charges. Bristol County Jail and ICE statistics both refute the sheriff’s claims that “criminal aliens” are overwhelming the Commonwealth.

Community members also questioned whether all the money lost to ICE could not be better spent on medically assisted drug treatment, prisoner rehabilitation and education programs, and better food and health care. But the sheriff retreated to his single preoccupation — immigration — claiming that immigrants account for most of America’s crime, that MS-13 is taking over the state, and that 90% of the opioids in the US are coming across the border. Community pushback on these lies and misinformation accomplished nothing. The sheriff’s heart and mind are black holes admitting no light.

It was a complete waste of time for everyone. But for Hodgson it may have been a great audition for one of those empty Homeland Security jobs now available with the Trump administration.

Lickspittle

Like the Anglo-American position of “High Sheriff” the word “lickspittle” is a relic of the 17th century. The phrase “lick the spittle” as a repulsive act dates back to the 1640s.

Pronunciation

lick·​spit·​tle | \ ˈlik-ˌspi-tᵊl \

Definition

lickspittle (noun): a fawning subordinate, sycophant, abject toady, one who will do any repulsive thing

Synonyms

apple-polisher; ass-kisser; boot-licker; brown-noser; fawner; flatterer; flunky; groveler; lackey; suck-up; sycophant; toady; truckler; yes-man

Example

Tom Hodgson just got back from another Massachusetts taxpayer-funded trip to Washington, DC which (once again) had nothing to do with his official duties. On January 11th Hodgson met with the Trump administration to (once again) try to sell Trump’s Wall.

Things may be going to hell in Hodgson’s own backyard — he has the highest prisoner suicide rate in the state, the second-highest recidivism rate, the highest rate of complaints of excessive force, and he is the subject of multiple wrongful death and human rights lawsuits — but when it comes to selling Trump’s Wall, Hodgson and the far-right groups he represents are nothing if not persistent.

On December 21, 2018 Hodgson posted a statement on Facebook condemning Congress for not funding Trump’s wall. A week later Hodgson posted a swipe at an assortment of Democrats for opposing the wall, blaming them for the death of California police officer Ronil Singh. On January 2nd Hodgson again blasted Congress for resisting the wall, and on January 4th he singled out Nancy Pelosi for her characterization of the wall as immoral. All this was done on official letterhead, likely in violation of state ethics regulations.

Hodgson watchers took note when the grandstanding sheriff announced that his right-wing rogue sheriff outfit, the National Sheriff’s Association (NSA), would be crowdfunding Trump’s wall. But Hodgon’s project folded after raising less than $100K — despite dishonest claims of overwhelming traffic — and it now redirects donors to a group called the American Border Foundation.

Hodgon’s new group should not be confused with the GoFundMe campaign that fell short of its goal but doesn’t want to return donations. That one was started by Brian Kolfage, a conspiracy nut and scamster who once duped donors eager to help wounded military vets. Kolfage’s organization is directed by a toxic crew of Islamophobes, racists and loose cannons — including Erik Prince, disgraced Sheriff David Clarke, and Kris Kobach.

In some ways, the Sheriff’s fundraising group is even worse.

Hodgson’s new fundraising outfit, now run by the American Border Foundation, is not anywhere close to its $450 million goal. Its less-than 4,000 donors have raised barely over $200K. The founder, Gary Dolan, tried wall-building before with a FundRazr campaign that raised only $12K. The fund’s managing director, Quentin Kramer has appeared on the bible show Southern Sense and on a talk show which often invokes Article IV, Sec. 4, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion…”). “Invasion” is a central theme of both the Trump administration and the Constitutional Sheriff’s Association (cspoa), which Hodgson joined in 2014.

The Director of Communications for the American Border Foundation is Jeremy Messina, who really ought to clean up the racist rants on his Facebook page. Messina might also want to redact his YouTube profile. Turns out, the young Trumpian is a self-identified Identitarian White Supremacist. But then Hodgson himself sits on the National Advisory committee of FAIR, which was founded by White Supremacist John Tanton. Birds of a feather. Or, as Proverbs 13:20 puts it: “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.”

If these pathetic donation efforts are any indication, the American public hasn’t really embraced Trump’s wall. For all the fear-mongering and hype, most people know it’s a stupid waste of billions (“show me a ten foot wall and I’ll show you an eleven foot ladder”). But the nation’s racists and miscreants love the idea, it’s become their organizing principle, and they don’t care if the whole country has to suffer for them to get it.

As for Hodgson, it’s time the Massachusetts state auditor, the Office of the Inspector General, the Attorney General, the legislature, and the various state Ethics boards began looking at Sheriff Hodgson’s abuses of his job as county jail superintendent — the letterhead, the inappropriate travel, the waste of taxpayer money — all to further a White Supremacist agenda.

Sheriff Tom Hodgson is routinely criticized for having the highest suicide rate among inmates of any county jail in the state. He has the second highest rate of recidivism in the state. He spends the least on inmate care in the state. His corrections officers have the highest rate of complaints of excessive force in the state. Hodgson has been faulted for excessive absences, for political grandstanding instead of doing his job, and for accepting kickbacks from a phone vendor. He’s fighting four wrongful death suits, a lawsuit for abusing mentally ill inmates, and one for illegal detention and deprivation of Constitutional rights. The Attorney General wrote a letter calling for an investigation of his facilities, but otherwise there has been absolutely no effort from any branch or office of Massachusetts government to hold the sheriff accountable.

Hodgson doesn’t care for public scrutiny. Whenever he is accused of abuse, neglect, or mismanagement at his jail, Hodgson whines that political opponents are out to get him and cites his 100% A+ perfect score from the American Corrections Association. The sheriff recently penned an editorial in the New Bedford Standard Times, trotting out the claim that “the BCSO is nationally accredited by the American Corrections Association, which gave us a perfect 100 percent score on our most recent inspection that looked at everything from security procedures to health care and everything in between.”

Public officials who refuse to do anything about Hodgson’s abuses may want to believe that his loudly-proclaimed accreditations are an indication that all is well in his facilities. But, like the sham award Hodgson received at the National Sheriff’s Association meeting last summer, his ACA accreditation is equally laughable — or would be if taxpayers were not paying for it.

In 2004 Prison Legal News published an article about the ACA entitled “The American Correctional Association — A Fraud on Texas Taxpayers.” The author described the ACA as:

“a non-governmental private agency that offers a veneer of respectability to those client correctional institutions that comply with the association’s volumes of published standards. After payment of the obligatory and substantial fees, the ACA’s audit teams visit client prisons and, finding at least the appearance of compliance, the ACA declares the prison to be ‘accredited.’ Prison officials hope that ACA accreditation will thwart lawsuits over conditions of confinement by prisoners. That some of the worst, most brutal, violent and decrepit prisons are ‘accredited’ by the ACA should cast doubt on whether the accreditation has any real world meaning. The ACA will not disclose if any prison or jail, after having paid the requisite fees, has failed to be accredited.”

The article goes on to fault ACA “accreditations” for secret audits, audits which ignore prisoner complaints, and questionable and improper payments in exchange for 100% A+ “perfect” ratings like Hodgson’s.

Besides offering cover for disinterested politicians, ACA audits also function as a legal shield. States which rely on the ACA to set “best practices” cannot be sued for neglect if they are making a “good faith” effort to follow some sort of standards. This has led to cases like one in South Dakota in 2007. Prisoners complained that “cells lacked adequate ventilation, lacked running hot water, the electrical wiring was substandard, the fire standards were inadequate, the kitchen conditions were unsanitary and unsafe, and the medical and dental care was grossly inadequate. Moreover, the prison was understaffed. The court held these conditions support a finding the double-celling was unconstitutional, but the defendants could move for an evidentiary hearing to seek double celling upon improving the confinement conditions.” But the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled that the ACA — a private entity — could determine prison capacity. This then undermined many of the prisoners’ complaints and hampered remediation of the horrific prison conditions.

In 2001 the Suffolk County sheriff’s department in Boston faced charges of abusing inmates and mismanagement at the facilities. The ACA director, James Gondles, was asked to participate in an inspection but declined to do so because the ACA had previously given “glowing” reviews in a previous inspection. Gondles’ refusal to revisit the Suffolk jail raised some alarms.

The Boston Globe reported that “a closer look at the accreditation program of the American Correctional Association — the trade group chosen by Suffolk County Sheriff Richard J. Rouse to investigate reports of systemic abuse and mismanagement in his department — shows that it has routinely accredited facilities beset by charges of abuse or poor conditions. The facilities include one that was put into receivership following a federal lawsuit, and another set to close this year, and others found by courts to be operating in violation of the constitution.”

Worse, the ACA-led inspection of the Suffolk jail was led by a Nebraska auditor from a corrections department under investigation by Nebraska state officials for failure to meet minimum standards of health care at his own institution.

In a 2006 academic study of ACA accreditations, the researcher reviewed criticisms of the ACA’s “standards” — “badly borrowed principles from outdated, never tested, academic theories.” Some facilities, as one cited study noted, do not adopt ACA “standards” until right before the ACA audit. Another observed that some facilities concoct policies and procedures consistent with ACA “standards” just prior to the audit, which were referred to as the “one-day shine.”

The study found that ACA accreditation did not necessarily signify a professionally managed jail. In fact, “with respect to levels of violence, riots, and fires, ACA accredited facilities are more violent than non-accredited facilities. The data showed a significant positive relationship between ACA accreditation and higher rates of assaults on staff and riots. Although inmate assaults on other inmates and assaults on staff decreased from 1995 to 2000, assaults on staff remained the same. Similarly, the ratio of riots increased between 1995 and 2000, and the ratio of fires remained higher in ACA accredited facilities than in non-accredited facilities.” The study also found the suicide rate much higher and noted that Hepatitis C, HIV, and TB testing was performed less often in ACA-accredited jails.

The Center on Media, Crime and Justice at John Jay College reports that in 2015 Tennessee’s prisons were being routinely accredited by the ACA — at an annual cost of $40,000 — but something didn’t smell right to Tennessee Congressman Mike Stewart. Stewart had heard [eventually substantiated] rumors that a Nashville facility had brought in extra staff for the ACA’s inspection, and he called the ACA accreditations “a sham” and a “rubber stamp,” citing similar problems with ACA inspections in Boston.

The Tennessee certifications came under fire for the state’s human rights abuses — and also for highlighting the cozy relationship between the ACA and the private prison corporation Corrections Corporation of America. According to a piece in PRWeb:

“ACA accreditation is based largely on documentation provided by the correctional agency being examined, and whether it has certain policies in place — not necessarily whether it follows those policies in practice. Thus, some ACA-accredited CCA facilities have experienced significant problems despite being accredited. For example, earlier this year two prisoners were murdered at CCA’s Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, which is ACA accredited; CCA’s ACA-accredited Idaho Correctional Center is presently the subject of an ACLU class-action lawsuit that describes systemic violence condoned by CCA staff; and both Hawaii and Kentucky prison officials removed their female prisoners from the CCA-operated Otter Creek Correctional Center in Kentucky, which is also ACA accredited, following a sex abuse scandal in which six CCA employees were charged with sexually abusing or raping prisoners.”

As in the Arizona correctional facility above, where prisoner deaths were covered up by Corrections Corporation of America, ACA accreditations are frequently obtained or preserved by falsifying or destroying records — a by-product of the conflicts of interest that beset the ACA. “One former CCA employee [in Nevada], Donna Como, who served as an accreditation manager, candidly admitted that she helped falsify documents for an ACA audit. ‘I was the person who doctored the ACA accreditation reports for this company,’ she stated in December 2008, referring to her employment at the CCA-operated Southern Nevada Women’s Correctional Facility.”

And the rot goes all the way to the top of the ACA.

In 2013 former Mississippi Corrections Commissioner Christopher Epps was sworn in as the 102nd president of the American Correctional Association. Epps had been an ACA auditor for at least a decade. Only a year later the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi indicted Epps on corruption charges stemming from his receiving kickbacks from prison contracts worth over $800 million. Epps will be spending two decades in one of the facilities he ran — and audited.

Like Hodgson, the ACA doesn’t care much for public scrutiny. Prison Legal News reported that “in August 1982, David L. Bazelon, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, resigned his position as an ACA board member. In a lengthy article entitled ‘The Accreditation,’ published in Corrections Magazine, the ACA’s own periodical, Bazelon accused the organization of multiple unethical practices. The ACA, he wrote, ‘has repeatedly refused to open the accreditation process to public scrutiny and participation; the commission’s audit techniques and deliberative procedures are inherently unreliable; the commission is unwilling to accommodate constructive criticism and the possibility of meaningful change; the commission’s priorities are fundamentally flawed; [and] the commission has pervasive conflicts of interest with the facilities it is charged with monitoring.'”

In addition to corruption, conflicts-of-interest, and the secretiveness of the ACA, its accreditations are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. You can practically print them yourself. Prison Legal News noted:

“Tennessee is one of only a few states in which the entire prison system is accredited by the ACA, and as a result the TDOC holds the American Correctional Association’s Golden Eagle Award. That honor is somewhat tarnished by the fact that for two of every three years that state prisons are accredited, they self-report data to maintain their accreditation; that the TDOC makes large payments to an ACA affiliate; and that despite the TDOC being fully accredited, when conducting its technical review the ACA found Tennessee prison officials were not correctly reporting violent incidents — something that presumably should have been discovered during the regular accreditation process but was not.”

Conflicts of interest include the revolving door between the ACA, the prison industrial complex, and state agencies. The Massachusetts ACA chapter is called the Correctional Association of Massachusetts (CAM) and CAM’s executive board is virtually a Who’s Who of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, EOPS, Parole Board, and county sheriff’s departments. As state officials they authorize and sign off on ACA certifications with their right hand. But as ACA members their organization receives public funds with the left.

You, the Massachusetts taxpayer, on the other hand, are expected to simply pay the bill and pretend that the conflict of interest is nothing serious. You, the citizen, are expected to pass much more rigorous certifications in your own professional life. Whether cardiologist, lawyer, long-haul trucker, or daycare worker, the bar for you is much higher than a self-audit. And you’d lose your job if a payoff were involved.

So the next time Tom Hodgson waves his 100% A+ perfect score in your face, remember — an ACA accreditation isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

The rights to share an opinion, peacefully assemble, and protest are all protected in the Bill of Rights. They’re non-negotiable.

Yet Tom Hodgson has called for leaders of so-called “Sanctuary cities” to be arrested. One of them thought Hodgson was a “jack-booted thug” and dared him to “come and get me.” But Hodgson has also flouted a Supreme Judicial Court ruling protecting 14th Amendment rights and is being sued for everything from wrongful deaths to accepting kickbacks to abusing mentally-ill inmates. This is one bad hombre.

So it’s not surprising that someone like Hodgson, with so little regard for the law, wants to stop people from exercising their right to protest — him.

On Thanksgiving morning Hodgson got a home visit from Rhode Island immigration activists of the FANG Collective. FANG was there to protest Hodgson’s 287(g) agreement in Dartmouth, which is the nearest ICE facility for Rhode Island detainees. FANG spokesman Nick Katkevich told the Boston Herald, “I think to interrupt his holiday for 30 minutes is definitely appropriate because he is disrupting people’s lives every day.” We completely agree.

According to FANG, Hodgson called the New Bedford Police on the protesters but they were clearly observing the law and continued to deliver their message, leaving after about a half an hour in the unseasonable 16 degree weather.

Hodgson wasn’t happy with the protest, but neither he nor his talk radio buddies could manage to offer a coherent counter-narrative.

Playing the victim, and sounding an imaginary alarm — Hodgson’s great talent — he told WBSM talk show host Chris McCarthy that he felt the group was there to try to intimidate him. Speaking with the Boston Herald Hodgson said, “Any time you get groups of people together things can quickly shift into a mob mentality.” The Boston Herald (“Protests taking dangerous turn“) ignored the [actual] peaceful nature of the protest and instead imagined all the mischief that citizens who confront public officials outside working business hours could make. Constitutionally-protected mischief.

WBSM’s Ken Pittman showed his customary detachment from reality. Pittman blamed the protests on “grey haired” New Bedford “Leftist Parrots,” actually accusing them of being paid actors. Pittman was so unmoored he couldn’t even get his activist groups straight, calling the fairly youthful protestors “anarchist Bolsheviks” and making an unhinged remark about helping Ugandan children — which in retrospect can only be interpreted as a desperate plea for help with his mental health.

Two days later Hodgson was back on the Adriana Cohen show at Boston Herald Radio, this time playing less the quaking victim and more the brave gunslinger. “The minute you violate the law, we’re going to lock you up,” Hodgson told Boston Herald Radio, which rather unprofessionally reported that the Sheriff’s family had been eating their Thanksgiving meal at 9:00 in the morning when the protestors appeared across the street. Hodgson said it “wouldn’t surprise” him if protestors show up again, but he boasted he’s prepared to take them on all by himself. “I have some security of my own, through my own training.”

But protests against Hodgson and his well-documented hatred for immigrants are nothing new.

• In 2011 protesters interrupted a news conference in Boston at which Worcester Country Sheriff Lew Evangelidis, Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, and Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald announced they were applying to participate in ICE 287(g) agreements.
• In July 2017 protesters interrupted Massachusetts House Republicans, including Sheriff Hodgson, with chants of “Keep hate out of our state” during their news conference to promote anti-immigrant legislation.

But Hodgson is right about one thing — the protests are only going to continue.

• In January 2017 Hodgson himself kicked off the first in a series of protests, and triggered a movement to rein in his abuses, after offering to let Donald Trump use local prison labor for his Mexico wall.
• Within weeks Bristol County for Correctional Justice (BCCJustice) had been launched.
• In July prisoners went on a hunger strike to protest conditions at the Dartmouth facility. In solidarity, BCCJustice organized a protest in front of the jail, calling for an end to abuses, which include the highest suicide rate in the state, second-highest recidivism rate, horrendous food, filthy conditions, lack of medical care, denial of prescribed medications, and the lack of accountability for the many abuses.
• In August several members of the FANG Collective staged a protest in front of the jail on Faunce Corner Road and blocked both entrances.
• In September the Boston group FIRE — Fight for Immigrants and Refugees Everywhere — protested Hodgson’s history of abusing ICE detainees at the jail, toward the tail end of a national prison strike.
• In October 40 members of BCCJustice visited the governor to demand the investigation of Hodgson’s facilities that the Attorney General had asked two Baker appointees to do.
• And on November 1st, BCCJustice peacefully picketed Tom Hodgson’s fundraiser at White’s of Westport. Again Hodgson called the police.

Again the police refused to interfere with a peaceful, orderly protest protected by the Constitution.

Let’s keep it that way.

Join Bristol County for Correctional Justice at Governor Charlie Baker’s office in the State House to again ask him to investigate abuses at the Bristol County House of Correction. Governor Baker has not responded to our certified letter delivered on Aug. 24th, so now we’ll plead our case in person! We are asking the governor to compel his appointed officials to investigate Sheriff Hodgson.

We’ve chartered a FREE bus on Thursday, October 18th:

• Pick up in New Bedford at 9 AM from Park & Ride (Mt. Pleasant St.)
• Pick up in Fall River at NY Bagel at 9:30 AM
• Return to Fall River by 4:10 PM
• Return to New Bedford by 5:00 PM

Make sure to bring your own lunch and beverages. Check for rain.

Reserve your spot on our FREE bus to the State House on October 18th. Call 508-415-8385 or 508-982-8751.

Bristol County House of Correction (BCHOC) facilities are notorious for:

• Highest suicide rate of the state’s 13 jails.
• Meals inedible and too low in calories.
• Abuse of solitary confinement.
• Denial of medicinal and psychotropic meds.
• Refusal to join in a pilot program to provide medically assisted treatment.
• Sky-high telephone rates and canteen prices.
• Unsanitary conditions, with cold temperatures in the winter and stifling heat in the summer.

We reported previously that BCCJ requested the sheriff’s travel documents from 2014 through 2018. We are concerned about the amount of time Tom Hodgson spends running around the country promoting himself and his anti-immigrant agenda while neglecting horrific conditions in his own jail.

In light of this we do not believe that the sheriff can be expected to provide humane treatment and necessary services either to the routine prison population or to ICE detainees. There have been multiple reports of abuses of ICE detainees (here and here and here) and violations of their civil and Constitutional rights. In addition the sheriff is also connected to far right hate groups, including one founded by a white supremacist.

We have informed state officials of our concerns, with no results. So in May 2018 we filed an information request with BCSO. You can obtain what we have received to-date here.

There are glaring gaps in the records, with obvious omissions. The documents we did receive paint a picture of a sheriff spending weeks every year pursuing his private agenda on the state’s dime.

We need your help going through the 574 pages of information we currently have. We are asking independent journalists and investigative reporters, the local press, the state auditor, and anyone interested, to go through the data, supplement it with your own information requests, cross-check it with actual media appearances Hodgson has made (which don’t appear in the collection), and calculate a total dollar amount that taxpayers have been stuck with for the sheriff’s many ex-curricular activities. Please contact us with anything you discover. Thank you!

Two Hate Conferences Came to Washington, D.C. Last Week

Here’s Who Attended

by Zachary Mueller on September 10, 2018, re-posted with permission

Last week the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and ACT for America, both listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center and both with ties to the Trump Administration, held overlapping conferences in Washington D.C. Despite advocates’ efforts to warn members of Congress away from participating, both featured a number of GOP House members, proving once again that bigotry has unfortunately become a hallmark of today’s Republican Party.

FAIR is an anti-immigrant hate group that was founded by white nationalist John Tanton, who helped create a network of anti-immigrant organizations — many of which are also hate groups. For this year’s “Hold Their Feet to the Fire”, an annual event, FAIR brought in anti-immigrant activists and far-right talk radio hosts from across the country to amplify their anti-immigrant messages. The conference also attracted a number of elected and appointed officials.

One of them was Ronald Vitiello, the acting director of ICE, who came to speake with far-right talk radio host Tom Roten. On the show, Vitiello defended the policy of separating families at the border and racistly characterized immigrants as the bearers of crime and disease.

At least ten Republican members of Congress participated in the conference, including Republican Senate candidate and Congressman Lou Barletta (PA – 11), Steve King (IA – 04), Andrew Biggs, (AZ – 05), Clay Higgins (LA -03), Mo Brooks (AL – 05), Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Bill Johnson (OH -06), Bradley Byrne (AL – 01), Raúl R. Labrador (ID – 01), Jim Renacci (OH – 16), as well as the candidate for Alabama’s 6th Congressional district Gary Palmer.

FAIR also helped facilitate a gathering of 49 sheriffs from across the country, including known anti-immigrant Sheriff Tom Hodgson of Bristol County, Massachusetts and Sheriff Andy Louderback of Jackson County, Texas. All the sheriffs met with Reps. King, Biggs, Higgins, and Brooks before heading to the White House for an event with both President Trump and Vince President Pence.

Louderback, at the White House roundtable discussion with Pence, called for greater law enforcement participation in immigration crackdowns. Hodgson, who sits on FAIR’s board of directors, appeared on the Two Way Radio Show to brag about how he built a immigration detention facility to detain immigrants for ICE and how his deputies would drive immigrants three and a half hours to the JFK airport for ICE. He even encouraged the White House to turn the DMV into a tool for immigration enforcement, and called for the arrest of any elected official that supports safe city policies.

Meanwhile, the ACT for America conference featured speeches from Republican Reps. Jeff Duncan, (SC-03), Louie Gohmert (TX-01), and Doug Lamborn (CO-05). Former director of ICE Thomas Homanand Texas Senator Ted Cruz both attended and accepted awards.

ACT for America is an anti-Muslim hate group whose founder, Brigitte Gabriel, stated that “every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim” and wrote in her 2006 book that Muslims are a “natural threat to civilized people of the world, particularly Western society.” ACT has continually promoted “anti-Sharia laws” and Islamophobic conspiracy theories. They also organized nationwide anti-Muslim rallies in June 2017, which attracted the white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups which attended the rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, that following August.

On September 5th Tom Hodgson was in Washington DC giving Donald Trump an award. How does Hodgson ever find the time with so many work problems unsolved back home in Massachusetts?

With Bristol County leading the state in suicides, second-place in recidivism, receiving non-stop complaints of abuse and neglect in his facilities, and Hodgson himself spending so much time on talk radio or before the press cameras, we wondered how much time and taxpayer money the Sheriff was wasting.

Last May we requested the Sheriff’s travel records, including dates and sponsoring agencies. At the end of August we finally received a thumb drive with 574 pages in PDF format.

Much of the mundane paperwork is meal vouchers, rent-a-car bills, airfare, and hotel bills — the sheriff spends a lot of time at the Hotel Omni Shoreham in Washington DC, the Willard Intercontinental in DC, the Grand Hyatt in DC, the Hamilton Crowne Plaza in DC, The Old Town Crowne Plaza in Alexandria Virginia, and others. Hodgson’s official job may be to run the county jail, but he seems to spend most of his time on activities taxpayers are footing the bill for but know very little about.

Many of the documents we received were not responsive — that is, did not answer the question of who sponsored the trip or for what purpose the sheriff left town. Many of the travel cover sheets noted only “Sheriff’s DC trip” or contained no reference at all. Almost none of the documents received documented the hundreds of talk show radio and television appearances he has made.

Some of the documents we received had little or nothing to do with travel and simply make going through the trove more difficult. For example, we were given bills for locks, transmissions, and a floor scraper. Somebody at the Sheriff’s Office has a sense of humor.

Some of the receipts were for National Sheriff’s Association meetings — weeklong affairs in vacation locales like Mackinac Island and New Orleans. These are not quite the professional meetings the rest of us attend since they almost always feature celebrities like Trumpista Jeanine Pirro or events some taxpayers might object to, like prayer breakfasts. The NSA is more right-wing advocacy group than professional association and attendance at events like this ought to come out of the Sheriff’s campaign coffers.

Massachusetts taxpayers are also being stuck with the bill for the sheriff’s attendance at AIPAC conferences. AIPAC is a lobbying group which promotes Israeli, particularly extreme right-wing pro-Likud, interests. Again, this is something some taxpayers find abhorrent. We again ask Suzanne Bump and the State Auditor’s office to investigate the sheriff’s use of taxpayer money for no other purpose than to help Hodgson curry favor with the far-right.

One of the most sickening use of the Sheriff’s time and our tax money is his association with the far-right anti-immigrant group FAIR, the Federation for American Immigrant Reform. Started by John Tanton, a Michigan white supremacist, FAIR (along with its sister organization CIS) is at the forefront of shaping Trump’s immigration policy. Tom Hodgson sits on FAIR’s National Advisory Board along with John Tanton.

FAIR coordinates many of Tom Hodgson’s appearances. For example, the trove we received documents communications from FAIR President Dan Stein, who once said that non-white immigrants are challenging white supremacy with “competitive breeding.” GOP-connected BCSO employees coordinated Hodgson’s appearance at FAIR’s direction on on the Daily Ledger show on the conspiracy theory network One America News.

There were only a couple of FAIR events included in the returned travel documents. Hodgson has been involved with FAIR since 2011, has appeared at many FAIR and FAIR-sponsored events, and there ought to have been many more communications with groups affiliated with the Tanton network, a network of approximately a dozen anti-immigrant and white supremacist sister organizations.

One lonely little receipt showed that Hodgson met for dinner with Rockingham County, North Carolina Sheriff Sam Page, who regularly collaborates with the ultra-far-right, anti-government Constitutional Sheriff’s Association (Tom Hodgson joined in 2013 according to OCPF campaig filings). Like Hodgson, Sam Page is often found flirting with white supremacists. Here he is (above) with Michael Peroutka, board member of mass-murderer Dylan Roof’s favorite racist group, the Confederate League of the South.

We think there’s probably a lot more where this came from, but we believe the attorney general, the legislature, and the state auditor should all take a little more interest in the sheriff’s use of taxpayer money for questionable travel – and the staggering number of days each year he is nowhere to be found at the facilities he mismanages.

Spike Lee’s new film, BlacKkKlansman, opens with an unhinged racist, Dr. Kennebrew Beauregard, standing in front of a screen as D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation is projected onto his face. Beauregard laments the glory days when Anglo-Saxons were unchallenged masters of the nation, repeating several times, “We had a great way of life.” Today that lost “great way of life” has become a dog whistle for white supremacists and anti-immigrant groups alike.

Beauregard may be a fictional character, but John Tanton is not. Tanton is a retired Michigan opthalmologist who single-handedly created about a dozen white supremacist and anti-immigrant groups. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes most of them as hate groups because they demonize non-whites and immigrants as inferior races and cultures.

One of Tanton’s white supremacist creations is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and one of its most vocal advocates is Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson, who sits with Tanton on FAIR’s national advisory board.

On August 20th Tom Hodgson was at the White House to celebrate Donald Trump’s “Salute to the Heroes of ICE and CPB.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protecton (CBP) have been in the news a lot — for anything but heroic acts.

But they are Donald Trump’s private deportation army, and heroes to anti-immigrant groups like FAIR and CIS, whose policies both Trump and Hodgson support.

Abolish ICE

When Elizabeth Warren, a U.S. Senator, has to walk back remarks critical of institutional racism in the nation’s police and criminal justice system, it’s another sign that we live in something uncomfortably close to a police state.

If criticizing the police is off-limits, imagine the response to calling for the shutdown of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Though Republicans have long called for shutdowns of agencies they don’t like — the IRS, DEA, EPA, OSHA, for starters — shutting down an abusive law-enforcement agency that functions like the president’s personal paramilitary force is a step too far for most Republicans.

And, predictably, centrist Democrats agree with them.

With progressive Democrats like Randy Bryce, Alejandra Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, and progressiv-ish Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Kirstin Gillibrand calling for an ICE shutdown and possibly a reboot, party strategist Tad Devine sees opportunity for Centrists. For Devine, candidates like Mikie Sherrill and Andy Kim, and kinda-sorta-Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp, ought to distance themselves from, and bash whenever possible, what the New York Times calls “far left” critics of ICE. Heidi Heitkamp rolled her eyes and said “It’s crazy town,” echoing a 33-word Boston Herald article, “Boston City Councilor Ayanna Pressley crosses border into crazy territory.”

But shutting down ICE is not such a crazy idea.

A recent article by Jennette Barnes in the Standard Times reports that Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson is refusing to participate in a pilot Department of Corrections medically-assisted [opioid] treatment (MAT) program that five other Massachusetts sheriffs have already signed on to. The program would offer methadone, buprenorphine or naltrexone to people leaving prison within 30 days. As usual, the sheriff ignores best practices by denying these treatments. Hodgson’s denial of opioid treatment to prisoners is going to get people killed — if it hasn’t already.

Currently, prisoners at the Bristol County House of Correction are pulled off drug therapy medications and must endure painful withdrawal. Upon release, prisoners may be given a single shot of Vivitrol to block opioid receptors for a month. Because of sweetheart deals with departments of correction and the National Sheriff’s Association, Vivitrol (naltrexone) has become the only treatment currently offered at $1000 a pop in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Hamphire, and Massachusetts. There are only a few states and a handful of corrections facilities where a full range of MAT options are being used.

STAT News reports that those without treatment in jail are at extreme risk of overdosing on the “outside” because their tolerance to drugs has dropped and they reenter the world with the same triggers for their drug use. A 2013 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine showed that, in the two weeks after release, former inmates overdose at rates nearly 130 times as high as the general population.

According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “opioid agonist therapy with methadone hydrochloride, a full opioid agonist, or buprenorphine hydrochloride, a partial agonist, effectively treats opioid use disorder and reduces mortality.” The JAMA study found “no evidence” that Vivitrol reduced mortality. Despite the advantages of MAT treatment, the JAMA authors lamented, “opioid agonist treatment is used infrequently in correctional facilities. What steps must be taken to change the situation?”

Dionna King, policy coordinator with the Drug Policy Alliance, makes a distinction between MAT and a shot of Vivitrol upon release from prison. Vivitrol blocks the effects of opioids while methadone and buprenorphine eliminate pain, reduce cravings, often improve the health of the patient, and are strongly correlated with continuing drug treatment on the “outside.”

According to Holly Alexandre, medical director of addiction services at SouthCoast Health, medication-assisted treatment (MAT) is a recommended method of opioid treatment used by hospitals, and those with this medical disorder should receive the same care in jail. With MAT, incarcerated people receive drugs like methadone, buprenorphine or naltrexone, which ideally are combined with counseling and other therapies.

MAT is considered a corrections “best practice” around the world. The World Health Organization recommends MAT treatment, and a National Institutes of Health review of fourteen MAT studies found only one that did not conclusively demonstrate better post-release participation in community drug treatment programs.

And if Sheriff Hodgson could tear himself away from the microphones and cameras and make the short trip to Providence, Rhode Island, he’d see the advantages of a well-conceived MAT program.

Through an innovative partnership with actual health professionals, Rhode Island’s prisons offer MAT with buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. The treatment program, which launched in 2016, has resulted in a 61% reduction in post-release overdose deaths. What makes the Rhode Island program so effective, according to Science Daily, is that “the treatment is administered to inmates by […] a nonprofit provider of medications for addiction treatment contracted by RIDOC to provide MAT inside correctional facilities. Upon release, former inmates can continue their treatment without interruption […] in MAT locations around the state. Patients are also assisted with enrolling or re-enrolling in health insurance to make sure they are covered when they return to the community.” Rhode Island’s program is the only one to make the full suite of MAT available to everyone entering or leaving prison. “Medications are continued if they are on them when they arrive and started if they need them upon arrival or prior to release.”

The American Medical Association says it’s unethical to deny opioid agonist treatment to patients. Ross MacDonald, medical director of New York City’s correctional health program, says that every person who enters New York City’s main jail with an opioid addiction problem represents an opportunity for treatment and the possibility of saving a life. The ACLU of Washington State is suing Whatcom County for denying MAT treatment to prisoners with opioid addictions on medical grounds.

Even Donald Trump’s President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis recommends medically-assisted treatment: “Multiple studies have shown that individuals receiving MAT during and after incarceration have lower mortality risk, remain in treatment longer, have fewer positive drug screens, and have lower rates of recidivism than other individuals with [opioid use disorders] that do not receive MAT.”

While the Rhode Island program represents a more level-headed and compassionate approach toward opioid treatment, rehabilitation is still being delivered in the state’s prisons (there are no county jails in the Ocean State). Most of these patients belong in a clinical or rehabilitation setting, not behind bars. Despite this structural defect, Rhode Island is light years ahead of our Bristol County, Massachusetts jail where Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson starves, abuses, and neglects the medical care and treatment of those who face death by overdose upon release.

We received the following letter from a prisoner at the Bristol County House of Correction in Dartmouth.

July 26, 2018

Dear [omitted],

At this time I am incarcerated at the Dartmouth House of Corrections of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office. The whole jail has been on a hunger strike due to the injustices we are faced with on a daily basis here. Today is day two of the hunger strike and there is still no change. I am here to give you an account of what is actually going on in this jail.

I’ve witnessed inmates with severe medical issues such as epilepsy get violently assaulted by Corrections Officers. What was said by AG Maura Healey is true. They are giving inhumane amounts of time in segregation (the hole). I personally have been to the segregation unit. They took my food, all of it, and said I was running a “store.” They coerced me into taking 20 days in segregation with threats, saying I will remain there for the remainder of my time in the jail. I had receipts for all my food and they still took it. As inmates, we have few liberties, such as: food; health care; and earned good time. We don’t get any of those things.

The food we get is not enough to feed a five year old child. We get nothing but soy products with either rice or mashed/scalloped potatoes every day. Never mind breakfast: it’s either one of three things — grits, oatmeal, or tasty-ohs. Some meats that they give have hundreds of tiny little bones that break your teeth. We all put in grievances bu they said it’s just fat and it’s healthy.

To see the doctor or dentist you must put in a medical slip. By the time you are seen it is approximately 4-6 months after you put in said medical slip. This is exactly why this county jail has the highest amount of suicides. There is no health care. We inmates are supposed to be allowed to get good time, yet there are very few programs that you can actually earn good time. All of the programs that are stated online that are here haven’t been in this jail for over ten years.

For god’s sake, we sat in our rooms without electricity for two days. I don’t make commissary so when they took my few belongings it really hurt. We are humans and we are not being treated as such. Something has to change. Sheriff Hodgson is not doing his job. He is focused on building a wall at the border. Where are our programs? Where is our healthcare, and where is our food?

The injustice we face every day is inhumane and it has to be against the law. This is my testimony on the inside of DHOC. I don’t mind if you quote any of this but make it anonymous because time is hard here with constant threats by Corrections Officers.

I am due to be released on [omitted] and I am willing to do what I can to make sure no one has to endure what I’ve had to endure for over a year. Make copies of this and send it to whoever can help our cause. I hope [omitted] because reform needs to be made because DHOC is not a House of Correction. That’s why the recidivism rate is beyond compared to every other county jail in MA.

Sincerely,

[prisoner’s name withheld]

P.S.: So far the jail said they will lower the cost of commissary and make the food better because of the article in the Standard Times this morning, but only time will tell.

On June 2nd Tom Hodgson, along with 69 others chosen from 365 nominations, received the National Sheriff’s Association’s (NSA’s) “National Command & Staff College” Magnus award for “building and maintaining trusting community relationships.” Hodgson’s award leaves many of us scratching our heads wondering how high suicide rates, recidivism, and abuse of inmates merit an award with a description like this.

But a quick look at a few of the numerous recipients hints at the National Sheriff’s Association’s increasingly Trump-oriented and racist political agenda — which has nothing to do with public safety, respect for campaign law, treating inmates and the public fairly, or earning the public trust. While citizens keep asking — Why are there so many bad sheriffs? — the National Sheriff’s Association doles out sham awards to scofflaws and bigots — claiming that such men are the “best of law enforcement.”

We don’t think misconduct like the following should have earned any of these “award-winners” anything but scorn or jail time.

• Ron Abernathy, from Alabama’s Tuscaloosa County, had a wrongful death problem at his jail and wants to deal with it by suing his critics.

• The County Commission was not happy with overcrowding at the jail run by Jefferson County Alabama Sheriff (and NSA Board and Executive Committee member) Mike Hale and suggested that 300-500 low-level offenders might have to be released. Hale said he didn’t care: overcrowding be damned, inmates weren’t going anywhere.

• Grady Judd, Sheriff in Polk County, Florida, is an open-carry, arm-every-teacher advocate known for his fondness for grandstanding. Judd was sued last year for conducting unconstitutional identity checks at emergency evacuation shelters during Hurricane Irma.

• John Layton, Marion County, Indiana sheriff, is no stranger to controversy. The Indianapolis City Council authorized a quarter million dollar audit of the Sheriff’s Office by KPMG. His son, also a veteran Indianapolis police officer, was arrested for dealing cocaine in 2016. Citizens Against Marion County Sheriff John Layton has compiled a long list of questions and grievances. Apparently Sheriff Layton is not doing such a great job “building and maintaining trusting community relationships.”

• In Hendricks County, Indiana, Sheriff Brett Clark replaced in-person jail visits with HomeWav, a video visitation service like Securus. Even when family members visit inmates at Clark’s jail, they can see one another only through a video screen, not directly.

• We were relieved that Louis Ackal, head of Louisiana’s Iberia Parish Sheriff’s Department and subject of a Fault Lines documentary (along with Hodgson) on jail abuses, didn’t go home with a Magnus Award. Ackal, who piled up civil rights and wrongful death lawsuits, charges of killing a handcuffed man, using excessive force on pregnant women, planting evidence, racism, corruption, calling a federal prosecutor a “son-of-a-bitch Jew bastard,” famously opined that black people “needed to be treated like animals.” What a relief the National Sheriff’s Association has some standards, albeit low ones.

But elsewhere in Louisiana the Magnum award winners were at it — abusing their communities’ trust and pocketbooks.

• In Charles Parish, Louisiana, Sheriff Greg Champagne, and National Sheriffs’ Association president (pictured above at the 2018 NSA convention with FOX News’ Jeanine Pirro), took some of his deputies to Standing Rock in North Dakota to “observe” the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, allegedly on the public dime and ostensibly to curry favor with the petrochemical industry. The Center for Constitutional Rights sued for travel documents after filing public information requests and not getting them.
• In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, Sheriff Joseph P. Lopinto III‘s deputies were accused of excessive force in the death of Keveen Robinson in May. Lopinto, handpicked by Newell Normand to succeed him in July 2017, made it clear there would be few changes from Normand, including ongoing friction with the Latino community.

Continuing around the country, the Magnus awards reflected more of the same:

• Hennepin County, Minnesota Sheriff Richard Stanek served on the National Sheriff’s Association board of directors and in 2012 was the chair of Minnesota’s Homeland Security Committee. In 2012 Stanek testified before Congress about Somali gangs he claimed had an astounding 125,000 members in Minnesota, the majority in Hennepin county. Stanek was one of 10 anti-immigrant sheriffs to meet with Trump last month at the White House.
• Anoka County, Minnesota Sheriff (and NSA Board member) James Stuart is being sued by the ACLU for violating the rights of an undocumented woman who was illegally detained for ICE. Just like Tom Hodgson.
• Dechutes County, Oregon Sheriff Shane Nelson‘s employees are the focus of several external investigations of misconduct by a public servant and firearms violations. One of his captains was indicted for embezzling public funds, and Nelson himself is the subject of two additional complaints. Nelson also allegedly harassed deputy Eric Kozowski, an employee who announced he was challenging Nelson in the sheriff’s race.
• In Texas, Rockwall County Sheriff Harold Eavenson recently signed a 287(g) agreement with ICE, and met with Trump to complain about state legislation he claimed would help Mexican cartels. Eavenson was angry when the U.S. Sentencing Commission reduced the sentences for 6,000 lower-level drug offenses, and both he and the National Sheriff’s Association blamed it on “the Obama administration’s attitude toward law enforcement.”
• Michael D. Chapman, Magnus winner from Loudoun County, Virginia, was investigated in 2015 because he had allegedly “illegally obtained and published private e-mails of his Republican primary opponent and that he has illegally concealed the true source of campaign donations in his run for reelection.” In what Bristol County residents will recognize as a familiar defense, Chapman called the allegations politically-motivated “nonsense.” A fired detective sued Chapman for intimidation, Chapman also made a video for FAIR, an anti-immigrant hate group.
• Like Tom Hodgson, Spokane County, Washington’s Ozzie Knezovich is a man drawn to simple answers for complex problems. In 2017 he blamed school shootings on the media, bad child-rearing — everything but the ease with which guns can be acquired. Knezovich was charged with violations of campaign laws for using his employees as props in campaign ads. Knezovich, like Hodgson, blamed Barak Obama for a supposed “war on cops.”
• Sheriff Eric Severson, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, signed onto a 287(g) program with ICE, despite calls from over 10,000 members of his community to refrain from doing so. So much for “building and maintaining trusting community relationships.”

“He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.” — Proverbs 13:20

Sheriff Tom Hodgson often claims that everything he does is to keep us safe, but Hodgson’s job description is to run the county jail. Instead, the sheriff frequently steps outside his areas of responsibility and competence, neglecting official duties and leaving chaos, conflict, and mismanagement in his wake.

Hodgson is less interested in being a county sheriff than a xenophobic mouthpiece for far-right views. With his continual attacks on immigrants, that a Boston Globe editorial characterized as crossing the “line of decency,” Bristol County’s own Joe Arpaio wannabe frequently makes the Trump-like claim that more immigrants equals more crime.

At a state committee hearing last month State Senator Sonia Chang-Diaz challenged Hodgson to prove it. For a moment the sheriff looked like a deer in the headlights, mumbling that he’d have to get back to her. And when he finally did, his numbers were not scientific studies but talking points from an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group.

But this is an old story. In 2011, Duval Patrick opposed the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to turn local lawmen into federal immigration officers. Hodgson thumbed his nose at the governor’s “moronic” stance and signed onto the DHS program anyway. Patrick then vetoed budget earmarks for Hodgson, and Hodgson responded by echoing right-wing conspiracy sites that Patrick (and Obama) were flying in plane-loads of illegal immigrants (and Muslim terrorists) into Massachusetts. And he threatened to shut down the Ash Street jail.

This is classic Hodgson – a martinet who once tried to shame prisoners on work release by literally placing them in chains. Who illegally charged them housing and medical fees. Who puts “his” inmates on food restrictions and limits contact to family members. Who presides over the county lockup with the worst suicide rate in the state. Who oversees a prison population three times the size the facility was designed to hold. Who advocates putting political adversaries like Somerville mayor Joe Curtatone in jail. Who, in his inauguration speech, promised to send inmates to build Donald J. Trump’s Great Wall.

Tom Hodgson was appointed Bristol County Sheriff by William Weld in 1997 to fill a retirement vacancy, and he’s been the incumbent ever since. Hodgson is the Massachusetts county sheriff with the greatest share of suicides at his jail, the Trump Wall sheriff, the chain gang sheriff, the Joe Arpaio wannabe who wants to arrest mayors of sanctuary cities. Hodgson has been accused of flouting a Massachusetts SJC ruling on ICE detentions, of political patronage schemes, and of abusing prisoners. Hodgson spends so much of his time on talk radio flogging dubious anti-immigration “facts” and conspiracy theories that it’s a miracle he ever clocks in at his day job. But most galling, the sheriff claims to speak for the people of Bristol County — when in fact much of the time Hodgson is out of the office representing a hate group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

And it seems everybody’s got a Tom Hodgson story.

A retired Fall River cop recalls in a recent editorial that the sheriff wanted to patrol the streets of Fall River. That was a no-go. Fall River mayor Jasiel Correia tried an end-run around his own police department, inviting Hodgson to run the city jail and involving Rep. Paul Schmid in funding it. That too was a no-go.

In 2015 the sheriff deputized thirteen military recruiters. But as soon as they had been sworn-in, the Department of Defense launched an inquiry, sending a Naval petty officer to investigate. There were obvious questions about members of the armed forces performing law enforcement functions – since the Constitution specifically prohibits it. Hodgson’s reasoning: “We’re doing these things for the right reasons, certainly for the public’s protection and for our national security.” Great. But what about running the jail?

Recently the publicity hound sheriff played Dr. Phil when he offered up his deep psychological insights into Aaron Hernandez on TMZ, WLNE, WBZ and others. Viewers learned that Hodgson regarded himself as a “fatherly influence,” recommending the Bible and “Tuesdays with Morrie” to Hernandez.

Hodgon spends so much time out of the office, providing psychological counseling to celebrity prisoners, or trying to become one himself, that he is apparently unable to keep up with the paperwork. The Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice had to file a lawsuit to obtain records related to the BCSO’s participation in federal ICE programs, but Hodgson violated the state’s public records law by failing to produce the documents. “Sheriff Hodgson appears to think he is above the law,” said Sophia Hall, Staff Attorney at the Lawyers’ Committee. “But as President Trump has learned, that is why we have courts.”

Since 2012 inmates in county lockups in Massachusetts are twice as likely to commit suicide as prisoners in state facilities. Of the 14 county lockups the worst offender is the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) facility. Since 2008 there have been 14 suicides at the BCSO jail, 50% more than Suffolk County and twice the number at Essex and Worcester facilities. The BCSO jail represents almost a quarter of all 65 county prison suicides from 2006 to 2016 but only 13% percent of the total county prison population. The BCSO lockup also spends the least amount of money per inmate of any facility in the state.

For all the bibles and the tough talk, the sheriff’s management style isn’t working – and it’s cruel. In 2013, when Aaron Brito committed suicide in Hodgson’s lockup, his mother received a call from an anonymous BCSO employee: “Your son died today. If you want more information today, call St. Luke’s Hospital.”

Tom Hodgson has had a contentious relationship with his corrections officers. Five officers were punished for speaking about labor negotiations with the sheriff and by 2008 Hodgson had spent $1 million on a losing case he took all the way to the Supreme Court. Hodgson also spent $3.7 million on other legal cases, making him far and away the most profligate legal spender of all county sheriffs. Before a new round of lawsuits in 2018, Hodgson had already flushed $4.7 million of taxpayer money down the drain. $1.3 million of that was handed over to “Special Deputy” attorney Bruce Assad and $1.3 million to attorney Ronald Lowenstein, another donor whose family was flagged in 2004 for giving more than the legally permitted campaign maximum.

Many of the sheriff’s employees or contractors are also donors. Filings with the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance show a current quarter million dollar war chest and a history of $1.3 million in donations. Occupations from hundreds of entries in donor records include: corrections officer, canine officer, captain, warrant apprehension officer, internal affairs officer, deputy, chief, contractor, investigator, or simply BCSO. An audit of these records might lay to rest persistent accusations of patronage.

* * *

FAIR is probably the most influential anti-immigrant hate group in the United States. It was founded in 1979 by a Michigan ophthalmologist, John Tanton, functions as a lobbying group, and is deeply embedded in the Trump administration. MediaMatters notes that the mainstream media often uses FAIR’s “statistics” without realizing that it’s a hate group. The CATO Institute has slammed FAIR’s studies and statistics as “fatally flawed” and “sloppy.” The Southern Poverty Law Center lists FAIR and a number of other groups in the Tanton Network as hate groups. Yet many journalists just keep quoting FAIR’s “facts.”

* * *

In 2015 Tom Hodgson appeared with Dennis Michael Lynch at an Islamophobic venue in Stoughton which had previously hosted Dutch neo-fascist Geert Wilders. Lynch is an Islamophobe, a white supremacist, a supporter of the Constitutional Sheriff Movement and of sovereign citizen Cliven Bundy, about whom he made a film.

That same year Hodgson appeared with a representative of the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) at the Fisherman’s Club in New Bedford. Despite the name, FAIR has little to do with reform. Instead, its goal is assuring White Anglo-Saxon dominance. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, FAIR has links to white supremacists and eugenicists. Its founder, John Tanton, wrote to one eugenicist: “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”

In 2016 the Sheriff was one of three speakers at a “Patriots Unity Day” rally in Randolph. The second speaker was Jessica Vaughan, of the nativist organization Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Like FAIR, CIS was founded by John Tanton and publishes dubious statistics on immigration. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, CIS also maintains links to white supremacist and anti-semitic groups. CIS executive director Mark Krikorian quipped after the deadly 2010 Haitian earthquake: “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough.” The third speaker was Raymond Hanna with the anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America, which also has white supremacist ties. In Arkansas ACT’s “March Against Shariah” events were organized by a Nazi and publicized on Stormfront.

In June this year the Sheriff appeared with Dan Stein and Michelle Malkin at an annual “Hold their feet to the fire” broadcast with anti-gay bigot Sandy Rios. Stein is executive director of FAIR, and characterizes America’s immigration laws as an effort “to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance.” Stein describes Central American immigrants as engaged in “competitive breeding” and asks: “Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?” Malkin too has links to white supremacist groups, including VDARE, and to Islamophobic groups. Malkin opposes the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to slaves.

On October 19, 2017 the SouthCoast Chamber of Commerce hosted Bristol County sheriff Tom Hodgson and Helena DaSilva Hughes at the Wamsutta Club to discuss immigration. During his presentation the sheriff cited questionable statistics from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), claiming that illegal immigration costs taxpayers $116 billion a year. The CATO Institute calls FAIR’s new study “fatally flawed” and “even more sloppy” than their previous one.

According to FAIR’s 2011 annual report, that was the year the organization began cultivating sheriffs like Hodgson. “In 2011, we identified sheriffs who expressed concerns about illegal immigration.” FAIR staff “met with these sheriffs and their deputies, supplied them with a steady stream of information, established regular conference calls so they could share information and experiences, and invited them to come to Washington to meet with FAIR’s senior staff.” Since roughly that time Hodgson’s main job has been as a FAIR spokesman.

* * *

Not so focused on law and order as it claims to be, FAIR sees its true mission as the preservation of Anglo-Saxon civilization from rapacious hordes of brown non-English speakers. FAIR peddles white supremacy, eugenics, and dubious statistics on immigration. The following quotes from John Tanton — Hodgson’s colleague on the advisory board — betray FAIR’s chief preoccupations:

“As Whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night? Or will there be an explosion?” (October 1986)

and

“I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.” (December 1993)

FAIR’s current president, Dan Stein — with whom Tom Hodgson appeared at an event last June — likes to add a dash of anti-Irish conspiracy theory to his white supremacy:

“I blame ninety-eight percent of responsibility for this country’s immigration crisis on Ted Kennedy and his political allies, who decided some time back in 1958, earlier perhaps, that immigration was a great way to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris, and the immigration laws from the 1920s were just this symbol of that, and it’s a form of revengism…” (August 1994)

In an interview with “Alt-Right” darling Tucker Carlson, Stein maintains that Latinx immigrants coming to the U.S. are godless, low-IQ haters:

“Immigrants don’t come all church-loving, freedom-loving, God-fearing … Many of them hate America, hate everything that the United States stands for. Talk to some of these Central Americans. […] Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?” (October 1997)

For FAIR it’s not just about white culture, church, and the English language. As Stein’s quote above shows, like their goose-stepping cousins FAIR sees America threatened by inferior races. But here’s Tanton again:

“Do we leave it to individuals to decide that they are the intelligent ones who should have more kids? And more troublesome, what about the less intelligent, who logically should have less? Who is going to break the bad news [to less intelligent individuals], and how will it be implemented?” (September 1996)

How, indeed, does FAIR want to see it implemented?

FAIR’s “final solution” is the preservation of “Anglo-Saxon dominance” by privileging white people through overtly racist immigration policies and the use of mass deportation and eugenics for ethnic cleansing.

Schemes like this didn’t work out so great for the Third Reich. And they’re not going to work for Tom Hodgson and his brownshirted buddies at FAIR.

* * *

Tom Hodgson has spent the majority of his life in law enforcement and took only a few criminal justice classes in college before dropping out. But by the frequency with which he offers up his views, he is an expert on everything — 911, Criminal Justice reform, the second amendment, the Constitution, the psychology of Aaron Hernandez, the Iran deal, Islam, drug abuse, Obama, the military, religion as therapy — and Immigration.

Among members of the Hodgson’s right-wing echo chamber: Howie Carr, Chris Resendes (a former employee of the Sheriff), John Keller, NRATV, Fox and Friends, Jeanine Pirro, Laura Ingraham, and Lou Dobbs.

Some of Hodgson’s like-minded friends: Dan Rea, Rick Wiles, Robert Spencer, Sandy Rios, Tom Roten, Jessica Vaughan, Dennis Michael Lynch, ACT America, FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA, VDARE.

* * *

Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson’s passion is badmouthing immigrants, though his day job is running a county jail. But Hodgson is less interested in being a county sheriff than a mouthpiece for far-right views. His continual attacks on immigrants prompted the Boston Globe to accuse him of crossing the “line of decency,”

Last year Hodgson joined the national advisory board of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). This formalized a long relationship with the organization. FAIR, CIS, and several sisters organizations were founded by fellow advisory council member John Tanton, a white supremacist who believes in applying eugenics to controlling non-white population.

In July 2017 the Center for New Community published a report, “Crossing the Line: U.S. Sheriffs Colluding with Anti-Immigrant Movement,” which described Hodgson’s relationship with FAIR starting around 2011.

FAIR’s 2011 Annual Report describes a strategy of identifying “sheriffs who expressed concerns about illegal immigration.” FAIR “met with these sheriffs and their deputies, supplied them with a steady stream of information, established regular conference calls so they could share information and experiences, and invited them to come to Washington to meet with FAIR’s senior staff.”

New Community reported that FAIR seemed to capitalize upon blurry lines between sheriffs’ official duties and their work for FAIR:

“Despite Hodgson’s endorsement, FAIR’s recruitment event did draw some scrutiny. When inviting sheriffs, FAIR used materials suggesting the event was sanctioned by the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program (HIDTA), a U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) program. FAIR’s flyer for the event featured HIDTA’s official logo and stated that participants’ travel and lodging costs “may be covered by your agency’s HIDTA funding.’ ONDCP officials sternly rebuked that claim. ‘In no way is the ‘border school’ sanctioned, co-hosted, or endorsed by the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program,’ Rafael Lemaitre, ONDCP’s associate director for public affairs, told the Southern Poverty Law Center. ‘Any use of the program’s logo to imply support for this conference is unacceptable, and the local HIDTA director has asked for this to be corrected as soon as possible,’ Lemaitre added. ‘Additionally, at no time have any HIDTA training funds been requested or been approved for use in association with this conference.”

In 2014 Hodgson, Brock Cordeiro, and Linda Ross used Bristol County Sheriff’s Office letterhead and email addresses to organize a meeting in Washington, DC, to support Senators Jeff Sessions and David Vitter in promoting anti-immigrant policies.

It is not known whether Hodgson himself spent Massachusetts taxpayer money on these activities or on travel to Washington. Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) data shows no travel expenses paid by his campaign, and public information requests for the Sheriff’s travel records have been ignored since May 23, 2018.

In recent weeks it has become clear that the Sheriff’s views on immigration deeply influence how the Bristol County House of Correction operates.

In May 2018, an ICE detainee described in detail the medical neglect he received at the Bristol County House of Correction. In June 2018 Tom Hodgson was sued by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice and Latham and Watkins LLP for violating the rights of an ICE detainee and thumbing his nose at the Supreme Judicial Court’s Lunn Ruling. That same month Freedom for Immigrants released its National Report on Abuse Motivated by Hate, which focuses on bias- and hate-motivated abuse in ICE detention facilities. Bristol County was mentioned in the report several times. Aída Chávez reported on the Bristol County abuses in the Intercept. According to the report, detainees were abused physically and verbally, prodded to battle in gladiator-style fights and were called “gorillas” and “baboons.”

In 2017 the New Bedford Standard Times reported that the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies FAIR as a hate group, and that the Anti-Defamation League considers it an “extreme anti-immigrant group.” The Standard-Times asked Sheriff Hodgson for comment and he waved the notion of racism away: “I’ve never run into anybody that’s even hinted at that kind of thing.” The newspaper asked FAIR executive director Bob Danes for comment and quoted a statement from the organization’s website: “immigration policy should not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, gender, or nationality.”

Besides Tom Hodgson’s amateur psychoanalysis of Aaron Hernandez, no other topic interests him as much as immigration. Hodgson has left quite the trail of commentary. Anyone interested can view these videos featuring Hodgson’s “expert” views on immigrants or these videos demonstrating the sort of racist propaganda FAIR disseminates.

* * *

Hodgson’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance filings show he is a member of the Constitutional Sheriff’s Association:

Here, then, is the assortment of racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, birthers, gay-bashers, conspiracy nuts, and white supremacists who serve on the national advisory board with Tom Hodgson.

* * *

Lou Barletta – as mayor of Hazelton, PA, signed anti-immigration legislation in 2006 that was declared illegal a year later

Sharon Barnes – apparently no DACA supporter, who wrote recently: “It is our country. They and their parents need to be kicked out […] strengthen our laws and get rid of the locusts.”

Gerda Bikales – who shudders at bilingual education and regards Spanish as a ghetto language: ”I don’t think Yiddish or Italian represented a threat to the union. But we are now setting ourselves up for an entrenched language ghetto.”

William Chip – who would like to repeal the 14th Amendment

Donald A. Collins – who has published a number of recent articles on the extremist white national VDARE website

Dino Drudi – another Massachusetts zealot Mr. Hodgson probably knows; they sound alike

Bob Eggle – whose son Kris, a park ranger, was killed by drug dealers on the US-Mexico border

Don Feder – rightwing Islamophobe

Robert Gillespie – a proponent of population control in developing countries

Otis Graham – the first director of John Tanton’s Center for Immigration Studies, and a man the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says has extensive contacts with American white supremacists

The relationship between Otis Graham and his friend John Tanton is instructive. From the Southern Poverty Law Center’s profile:

But documents stored in George Washington University’s Gelman Library by Otis Graham, a close friend of Tanton who helped him launch and run FAIR in the 1980s and who currently serves as a board member at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), make the point about Tanton’s interest in race one more time. Most instructive is a Tanton plan in the files to create what he called a “League for European-American Defense, Education and Research” or, to use Tanton’s acronym, LEADERs. In a 1993 cover memo attached to his LEADERs plan, Tanton, who is white, wrote to Graham: “For a decade or more, I have been musing about the drift in our society back toward organization along group lines, all the while realizing that there was no group for me – no legitimate group that I could join to further or defend my own particular social, cultural or linguistic interests.”

A serial creator of organizations, Tanton, who by then had already funded and founded an array of anti-immigration groups that included FAIR and CIS, added that “with the establishment of several national organizations behind me, I need to pick my targets carefully and in a way that reinforces what has gone before.” The plan makes clear that Tanton saw LEADERs as bolstering his anti-immigration work.

The document offers an argument as to why LEADERs, which is clearly a “European-American” (read: white) version of the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund, is needed: “[T[here is currently no socially acceptable umbrella organization to which persons of European ancestry can belong to defend and promote their common interests. Absent such an organization in a highly organized society, European-Americans will continue to see their history rewritten, their character and accomplishments denigrated, and their faults magnified. They will steadily lose ground and position to other groups… . For those not resigned to this gradual or not so gradual decline, a new organization tailored to the needs and interests of European-Americans as a group is essential.”

Joseph Guzzardi – listed as a member of white nationalist group VDARE’s “editorial collective”

Carol Joyal – a frightened suburbanite with odd notions of how immigrants parent their children and whose review of The Camp of the Saints terms it a “prophecy” of the Third World destruction of the West; everyone else just called the book racist

Richard Lamm – former Colorado governor who said that “new cultures” in the U.S. are “diluting what we are and who we are.”

Once again, here’s what the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say about Lamb, FAIR, and their connections to the Pioneer Fund:

Probably the best-known evidence of FAIR’s extremism is its acceptance of funds from a notorious, New York City-based hate group, the Pioneer Fund. In the mid-1980s, when FAIR’s budgets were still in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the group reached out to Pioneer Fund, which was established in 1937 to promote the racial stock of the original colonists, finance studies of race and intelligence, and foster policies of “racial betterment.” […]

The Pioneer Fund liked what it saw and, between 1985 and 1994, disbursed about $1.2 million to FAIR. In 1997, when the Phoenix New Times confronted Tanton about the matter, he “claimed ignorance about the Pioneer Fund’s connection to numerous researchers seemingly intent on proving the inferiority of blacks, as well as its unsavory ties to Nazism.” […]

One of FAIR’s long-time leaders, and a personal hero to Tanton, is the late Garrett Hardin, a committed eugenicist and for years a professor of human ecology at the University of California. Hardin, who died in 2003, was himself a Pioneer Fund grantee, using the fund’s money to expand his 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” In it, Hardin wrote, “Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.” […]

Hardin wasn’t alone. A current FAIR board member, three-time Democratic governor of Colorado Richard Lamm, sounded a similar theme in 1984, while still governor, saying “terminally ill people have a duty to die and get out of the way.”

K.C. McAlpin – an Islamophobe who wants to ban Muslims for ideological reasons: “Congress has used that power in the past to ban the immigration of Communist Party and National Socialist (Nazi) party members who were deemed to be threats to our national security. This case is no different.”

Scott McConnell – executive director at Lifeway Research (“be ready when homosexuality devastates”) and member of the Family Research Council, also with white nationalist VDARE connections

Paul Nachman – Montana white supremacist who writes for VDARE, and an admirer of white nationalist Lawrence Auster

Robert D. Park – formerly with the Border Patrol, founder of the “Article IV – Section 4 Foundation,” a group which maintains that a Constitutional provision provides justification for defending the U.S. from “invasion”

Randy Pullen – former chairman of the Arizona GOP and old white expert on Black Lives Matter: “Yes black lives matter. The best way to end the slaughter of young black men is to take guns away from blacks as they are the main killers.”

David P. Schippers – 911 and Oklahoma bombing conspiracy nut

Alan Simpson – Reagan-era immigration bill sponsor

John Philip Sousa IV – great grandson of the famous Sousa, nutty birther, and friend of Joe Arpaio

John Tanton – read this and this and this profile of this prolific white nationalist, racist, and eugenicist

Alan N. Weeden – member of the family who owns the Weeden Foundation, a major donor to white supremacist initiatives, and proponent of Secure ID schemes

* * *

Additional links

• Louis Barletta
  https://barletta.house.gov/11th-district
  http://www.nndb.com/people/578/000258801/
• Sharon Barnes
  https://www.adl.org/blog/anti-immigrant-political-action-committee-sees-rise-in-contributions-for-2012-election-cycle
  https://immigrationreform.com/2017/01/13/apprehension-and-removal-of-illegal-aliens-a-revolving-door/
• Gwat Bhattacharjie
  https://www.cfrw.org/club-Santa_Barbara_RWF_121.htm
• Gerda Bikales
  http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/three-two/Gerda.pdf
  http://www.amerika.org/tag/gerda-bikales/
• Brian Bilbray
  https://ballotpedia.org/Brian_Bilbray
• J. Bayard Boyle
  http://www.texasgopvote.com/images-upload/SpiesInTheCamp5Parts.pdf
  https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2006/09/29/colorado-news-outlets-failed-to-identify-conser/140469
• Hugh Brien
  http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002327.html
• John Brock
• William W. Chip
  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-origins-of-trumps-new-immigration-policy/
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0W65dA9cc0
• Pat Choate
  http://www.nndb.com/people/044/000396850/
• Donald Collins
  http://www.vdare.com/users/donald-a-collins-0
• Clifford Colwell
• Thomas Connolly
• Alfred P. Doyle
• Dino Drudi
  http://www.vdare.com/articles/lynn-massachusetts-just-the-beginning-immigration-becoming-key-issue-nationwide
• Paul Egan
  http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/2798-immigration-reform-divides-gop
• Bob Eggle
  https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/immigration-the-war-on-terror-and-the-rule-of-law/
• Don Feder
  http://www.grasstopsusa.com/
• Robert Gillespie
  https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Robert_Gillespie
• Otis W. Graham
  https://www.splcenter.org/search?keyword=otis+graham
• Joseph R. Guzzardi
  https://www.splcenter.org/search?keyword=guzzardi
• Robert E. Hannay
  http://www.veteransforsecureborders.us/supporters/supporters.html
  https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/robert-hannay.asp?cycle=12
• Hessie Harris
  https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00405878
• Tom Hodgson
• Jon Honeck
  https://www.canadianinstitute.com/speakers/jon-honeck/
• Glenn Jackson
• Carol Joyal
  http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1004/article_895.shtml
  http://americanpatrol.com/IRAW/carol_joyal.html
• Richard Lamm
  https://www.splcenter.org/search?keyword=lamm
  http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000121428/
• Roy C. Lierman
• Donald Mann
  http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shock-80-of-us-population-growth-is-from-immigrants-resources-being-sucked-dry/article/2551464
• Jack Martin
• K.C. McAlpin
  https://www.splcenter.org/search?keyword=mcalpin
• Joel McCleary
• Scott McConnell
  https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/11/03/anti-lgbt-roundup-events-and-activities-11317
• James G. McDonald
• Paul K. Nachman
  https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/08/08/trump%E2%80%99s-oregon-campaign-manager-set-address-nativist-extremist-group-weekend
• Peter Nunez
  https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2009/01/18/hate-groups-politicians-reportedly-pushing-california-nativist-measure
• Robert D. Park
  http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/twelve-two/xii-2-110.pdf
  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/43/case.html
• Fred Pinkham
• Randy Pullen
  http://www.elbelconsultingservices.com/portfolio/ecs_randyforchair/info/about_randy_pullen.html
• Bruce S. Reid
• Teela Roche
  https://ncvoiceblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/18/leaders-rebuke-minutemans-endorsement-of-mike-huckabee-for-president/
• David P. Schippers
  http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2002/True-Believer/
• Alan Simpson
  https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-anguish-of-alan-simpson-tragic-hero-of-immigration-reform
• John Philip Sousa
  http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/john-philip-sousa-iv-arpaio-birther/
• John Tanton
• Alan N. Weeden
  http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2011/07/18/conservation-foundations-funding-anti-immigrant-groups/
  http://www.greenwichtime.com/local/article/Greenwich-coalition-stresses-need-for-secure-IDs-5116636.php
• Curtin Winsor
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtin_Winsor_Jr.

Last week Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson went before the cameras to demand an apology from the Attorney General. He should have instead taken the opportunity to apologize to the people of the Commonwealth.

Maura Healey heard the growing complaints about abuses at Hodgson’s facilities — the highest suicide rate in the state, high recidivism, abuses of the mentally ill, overuse of solitary confinement, chronically overcrowded and dirty facilities, inadequate food and denial of medication and medical care, kickbacks from a phone vendor, civil rights violations of inmates, and violation of the Supreme Judaical Court’s ruling on ICE detentions. Hodgson is knee deep in lawsuits. The Attorney General was duty-bound to address the worst of the abuses so she sent a letter to Executive Office of Public Safety and Security’s Daniel Bennett asking him to investigate.

But to hear Tom Hodgson tell it, it’s all a big Democratic witch hunt. “It smacks of partisan politics, given my work on immigration.” His “work,” as he puts it, consists of relentless shilling for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a hate group. On any given day Tom Hodgson can be heard on talk radio conflating immigrant children with MS-13 gang members, suggesting that Massachusetts mosques are Al Qaeda recruiting stations, or that immigrants are disease vectors. You probably heard him grandstanding from the Rio Grande or testifying for anti-immigrant legislation in Washington. Hodgson fancies himself an immigration expert but he can’t even handle the job he was actually hired to do — competently running a county jail.

Hodgson has only himself to blame for his jail’s suicide rate. “If something happens to me, I want people to know that I’ve been getting no help, no matter how many mental health slips I’ve put in,” Michael Ray wrote shortly before his suicide. Only weeks before, an article in the Globe asked, “Why Is The Suicide Rate In Bristol County Jails So High?” If Hodgson’s’ talk radio schedule hadn’t been so full he might have rolled up his sleeves and done something about it.

But on June 1, 2017 Tom Hodgson was having brunch with the Mass Fiscal Alliance, a group that promotes anti-immigrant rhetoric just like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, where Hodgson sits on the advisory board with its white supremacist founder, John Tanton. Nine days later Michael Ray was dead. Two weeks after Ray’s death, on June 28th, Hodgson was back flogging anti-immigrant talking points at a far-right event called “Hold Their Feet to the Fire.” Hodgson appeared with gay-basher Sandy Rios, FAIR president Dan Stein, VDARE contributor Michelle Malkin, white nationalist Congressman Steve King, Muslim-basher Robert Spencer, and Sebastian Gorka, another self-styled “Muslim expert” whose ties to a Hungarian Nazi group were too much for even the White House. Rather than dealing with the suicides Hodgson had better things to do.

So hats off to Maura Healey. She has nothing to apologize for. Unlike Hodgson, she’s actually doing her job — which includes seeking justice for those abused, neglected, and left to die by callous disregard for their human rights. The Sheriff must be held accountable. There is such a level of willful neglect and poor leadership at the Bristol County House of Correction that it is an insult to hear the Sheriff demanding an apology for the many lawsuits he has brought upon himself and his staff.

It is Tom Hodgson who owes us an apology.

Would you let your county sheriff fix your teeth or provide home health visits for a parent? Would you permit him to perform surgery on you or provide psychiatric services? Of course not. Your county sheriff is a man with a badge and a gun. So why on earth would you expect him to provide expert treatment and rehabilitation to those with substance abuse problems? Unfortunately, this is exactly what’s happening right now in Massachusetts.

The Legislature just passed long-awaited criminal justice reforms. An important objective was to keep people with substance abuse disorder out of jail and provide needed treatment. Yet several recent jail projects are already undermining the intent of these reforms. And they show just how inclined we are, as a punitive society, to always look to incarceration as the solution to a social problem.

In Hampden County, MassLive reports, Sheriff Nick Cocchi is rolling out an 86-bed “treatment facility” for opioid abusers in his jail. Cocchi says it’s conceivable another 100 beds will be needed. Within the next 60 days people with substance abuse disorder will be civilly committed under Section 35 and incarcerated in either the Hampden County jail or in the Hampden County Sheriff’s WMRWC Mill Street facility.

Sheriff Cocchi, like many sheriffs in Massachusetts, is now left with “empty beds” in his jail because of drug courts and other diversion programs. In some jails these “beds” are now being filled by ICE detainees and civil commitment is seen as a mechanism for filling others. Cocchi says “he anticipates seeking additional funding from the legislature during next year’s budget” and that “the new programs are for now carved out through savings and reallocations from within the annual Sheriff’s Department budget.”

A new report in MassInc by Ben Forman and Michael Widmer (“Revisiting Correctional Expenditure Trends in Massachusetts”) documents the cost of incarcerating someone at the Hampden County jail at almost $80,000 per year. A 90-day Section 35 commitment would cost almost $20,000. Certainly, more comprehensive and cost effective treatment can be provided outside of jail.

Civil commitment can either be a part of a criminal sentence or (more and more likely) a process initiated by a “spouse, blood relative, guardian, a police officer, physician, or court official.” But if sheriffs and legislators believe addiction is a disease, why then is prison the cure? In Massachusetts there have been a number of lawsuits challenging the incarceration of substance abusers precisely because prisons are not even close to being treatment centers.

In Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins wants to “partner” with AdCare to run a Vivitrol program at his South Bay jail. The Suffolk County program will target “pre-trial detainees” — those not convicted of any crime. The ultimate responsibility for the safety and effectiveness of a client’s rehabilitation program will rest with a law enforcement official, not a psychological or medical professional. And by outsourcing services to a private corporation — what could possibly go wrong?

Vivitrol is both controversial and currently the the go-to treatment for sheriffs. Vivitrol blocks the “high” from opioids for up to a month. Other Medically Assisted Treatments (MAT) with buprenorphine or methadone are not favored by sheriffs, although Vivitrol is problematic in many ways and may result in fatal overdoses. The drug made news recently because the Trump administration’s opioid treatment plan is typical of his style of crony capitalism — “a single drug, manufactured by a single company, with mixed views on the evidence regarding its use.” Vivitrol will be the only drug treatment given federal prisoners. Through an “Inspiration Grant” Alkermes gave to the National Sheriff’s Association, prison staff and contractors all over the country get a “taste” of the drug, then are allowed to buy more with taxpayer money. No wonder that Vivitrol CEO Richard Pops says “the best days of Vivitrol are still ahead of it.”

Over in Worcester County Sheriff Lewis Evangelidis is building a $20 million “intake” section for his jail, he says, for people with substance abuse disorder. The intake process will also screen for gang affiliation, prior offenses, and determine if those about to be incarcerated are detoxing or need psychological services. But, given the suicide epidemic among county jail prisoners in Massachusetts, legislators ought to be asking why medical issues are not being treated in medical facilities run by real medical professionals.

Some feel the brand-new criminal reform bill is a good start. But Massachusetts could learn something from Portugal, where medical, not carceral, treatment is used for drug addiction. Under Portugal’s 2001 decriminalization law, “anyone caught with less than a 10-day supply of any drug — including heroin — gets mandatory medical treatment. No judge, no courtroom, no jail.”

Prison is an inhumane and ineffective solution for dealing with drug addiction. So why, in a state with some of the best medical care in the nation, can’t we can do better than turning over drug treatment to sheriffs? Why should a sheriff — having no clinical expertise and possibly even unethical relationships to vendors— be permitted to determine treatments for drug rehabilitation? Why not invest in community-based treatment on demand instead of arresting and incarcerating people for low-level crimes committed and driven by their addiction? And why aren’t we taking the tens of millions of dollars used to civilly commit people and instead investing it in health and mental care in our communities?

If we believe substance abuse disorder is a medical problem, let’s put our money where our mouth is — in treatment rather than more investment in jails.

The Massachusetts Legislature just can’t bring itself to end price-gouging and state-sanctioned bribery.

On January 20, 2017 state Senator Mark Montigny sponsored bill S.1336 (“An Act relative to inmate telephone calls”) to lower the crushing cost of inmate telephone calls and eliminate kickback “commissions” offered by companies like Securus and accepted by prison administrators like Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson. Last September there were hearings on Montigny’s bill and it was eventually referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, headed by Karen Spilka and Joan Lovely.

The wording of Montigny’s bill was similar to Massachusetts House bill H.825, filed only two days earlier by state Representative Carlos Gonzalez, and co-sponsored by Carole Fiola, Russell Holmes, and Bud Williams. The House version had more teeth — it required that “the cost of local and long distance telephone service provided to prisoners in department of correction facilities and county houses of correction shall be the same as the rates charged for comparable residential telephone service.” Like the Senate version, Gonzalez’s bill also sought to put an end to kickbacks.

A second House bill, H.966, with identical wording, was filed not long after by Representative Chyna Tyler, and co-sponsored by Mike Connolly, Tricia Farley-Bouvier, Paul Heroux, Mary Keefe, Kay Khan, Elizabeth Malia, Juana Matias, Timothy Whelan, Bud Williams, and Senator James Eldridge.

These two House bills were identical to H.1614, which had been filed two years earlier by Benjamin Swan, and co-sponsored by Gloria Fox, Elizabeth Malia, Ellen Story, Carolos Gonzalez, and Mary Keefe. This 2015 version was placed on the back-burner until October 2016, when House Speaker Bob DeLeo scuttled it by sending it off for “study.”

Despite impressive work by the Legislature, the price-gouging and anti-corruption provisions in all these inmate phone service bills never made it into the Criminal Justice Omnibus bill, S.2371, passed recently and signed into law. Instead, legislators decided to punt these matters to a Department of Corrections “study”:

“The department of correction, in consultation with the department of telecommunications and cable, shall study and report on: (i) the cost of local and long-distance telephone service provided to prisoners in department of correction facilities and houses of correction; (ii) a comparison of the rates with comparable residential telephone service; and (iii) information relative to commissions and revenue collected as part of telephone services provided to prisoners in department of correction facilities and houses of correction. The report shall be filed with the house and senate chairs of the joint committee on the judiciary, the house and senate chairs of the joint committee on public safety and security and the house and senate chairs of the joint committee on telecommunications, utilities and energy not later than December 31. 2018.”

Unfortunately, the Department of Corrections has a glaring conflict of interest. The DOC itself profits from prison phone contract kickbacks, so it will be interesting to see what sorts of justifications they cook up for maintaining their own cushy deal with Securus.

It’s shameful and jaw-dropping but, despite commendable individual efforts, the Legislature has shown that it is unwilling to end the sleazy practices of price-gouging a mainly indigent prison population and permitting public officials to acccept kickbacks.

This is a story that could have been predicted in 2010.

On April 4th, Diante Yarber was gunned down in a hail of bullets in a Wal*Mart parking lot by four Barstow policemen. Yarber was killed and two others who were sitting in the car were seriously injured. The Washington Post added Diante to its growing list of police victims for 2018, noting that we are already ahead of last year’s figures by 26 fatalities.

Police claimed Yarber had stolen the car he was driving; it turned out to be his cousin’s. Police claimed he rammed two of their cruisers; but Yarber’s car was not found to have been in a collision, though it was destroyed by a fusillade of bullets. Police offered no reason for trying to kill four black passengers for a supposed property crime. But then nothing about the police account of the story makes much sense.

I’m asking you to sign a petition to demand District Attorney Michael Ramos charge the four Barstow police officers with murder.

As an elected official with the sworn duty to pursue justice, DA Ramos must indict Jose Barrientos, Vincent Carrillo, Matthew Allen Helms – and Jimmie Alfred Walker, who screamed racial slurs and threatened Diante’s life just before murdering him.

Walker has a history of racially motivated violence. In 2010 sheriffs were called to the scene for a disturbance in Hesperia, San Bernardino County, and after their arrival Walker used racial slurs in their presence. After an initial plea deal, Walker was charged with assault and a hate crime, and then fired.

And that should have been the end of Walker’s license to kill. But following arbitration the racist officer was rehired and paid nearly $200,000 in back pay — only to escalate his hate into murder eight years later.

Enough! There must be a reckoning for Diante Yarber’s death.

Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson spends a lot of time out of the office, organizing anti-immigration rallies on the Rio Grande, making appearances on right-wing talk shows — so frequently that he’s dropping the ball on keeping his inmates safe. Hodgson has the highest suicide rate in the Commonwealth and is now swimming in wrongful death and abuse suits. But that’s not the sheriff’s only problem. He also has some of the highest rates of recidivism — former inmates returning to prison. In fact, twice in the last five years Bristol County’s recidivism rates have topped all other counties.

The sheriff likes to tell voters his “get tough” prison policies discourage repeat offenders and keep the public safe: “Our firm, demanding approach to corrections works well,” he promised in one 2010 campaign ad. “Jail is not a country club. That’s why once you’ve done time in the Bristol County House of Corrections you won’t want to come back.”

Except for one problem — it’s completely untrue.

The Massachusetts Department of Corrections began compiling comparative statistics on 3-year recidivism rates for each county prison in 2012 — right about the time the sheriff made his dubious claims. Twice in the last five years Tom Hodgson has actually had the highest recidivism rates in the Commonwealth and when he’s not leading the pack he’s never far behind.

In 2009 the DOC began adding county data to prison releases. In 2012 it was ready to issue its first 3-year recidivism report. Of those released from county jails in 2009, after 3 years Bristol County had the highest recidivism rate of all counties (49%). Of those released in 2010 the county was 4th highest (of 13) with a rate of 44%. Hodgson maintained his 4th-highest ranking again with 2011 releases, scoring a 3-year recidivism rate of 38%. For 2012 releases Bristol County again had the highest recidivism rate in the state — 43%. The last figures we have from the Massachusetts Department of Corrections are for releases from Bristol County jails in 2013, showing a 3-year rate of 34% — Hodgson’s lowest in the last five years but still higher than the state average of 32%. You can view the reports yourself at https://www.mass.gov/lists/research-yearly-reports#three-year-recidivism-rates.

While recidivism surely involves individual choices, high and persistent recidivism is also typical of inadequate rehabilitation programs, bad prison policies, neglect, and abuse of inmates. Tom Hodgson’s punitive approach consists of overcrowding, deprivation, starvation, overuse of solitary confinement, denial of effective drug treatment programs and family visitation, and gouging inmates for canteen and phone calls. Unfortunately this abuse actually ensures that offenders leave prison without ever acquiring the necessary skills and treatment to stay out for good. And the number of hours the sheriff spends weekly promoting his racist immigration views — while shirking his real duties — seem to distract him from running his facilities humanely and efficiently.

Somebody needs to chain the sheriff to his desk so he can get prison suicides and recidivism under control. Hodgson’s abuse of prisoners isn’t doing anybody any good — neither the inmates nor their families, nor taxpayers footing the bill for legal expenses and award settlements resulting from his incompetent and cruel practices.

Today Susan Tordella at End Mass Incarceration Together (EMIT) wrote about putting prison employees to work implementing rehabilitation programs for inmates. Tordella reminded us that more rehabilitation correlates strongly with less recidivism and wrote that European prisons have markedly lower rates than the United States because they focus on change, not punishment. Only about 2% of the governor’s $640 million Department of Corrections budget is earmarked for programs for incarcerated people — and much of this is outsourced.

So as long as the state has money for guards, Tordella asks, why not utilize all the skills of corrections officers? She suggests CO’s could “serve as [rehabilitation] program officers who share a skill and/or knowledge with the people in their care. The program can be practically anything — culinary, GED preparation/tutoring, plumbing, carpentry, writing, running a small business, yoga/mindfulness, college or high school classes, computer repair/programming, job skills, trauma awareness/healing, or sales and communication skills…”

What a great idea. And why couldn’t the same thing be done at the county level? We looked at pay stubs for all county prisons from the Comptroller of the Commonwealth for the first quarter of 2018, determined the number of employees, and extrapolated annual costs for each county. The state only publishes prison capacity figures for DOC facilities but someone pointed us toward county overcrowding reports from 2015 — the last year reported — so we at least had a reasonable snapshot of inmate counts for each county as well.

The table below does not represent all the costs of running a prison — technology, infrastructure, vehicles, power, maintenance, food, medical, education, or rehabilitation — much of it outsourced. But the table paints a good picture of how expensive just the corrections officers are. Looking only at salaries, the price tag is $42,474 per year (in jailer costs) to throw someone in a Massachusetts county jail. Far more if you include the rest. With this obscene amount of money being spent, shouldn’t taxpayers be trying to have fewer repeat offenders, more education, and effective rehabilitation?

Here in Massachusetts we spend half a BILLION dollars on just the jailers for our county jails. There are 6,629 men and women who put handcuffs on another 11,480 men and women in 14 county facilities and leave education and rehabilitation to others. There are very close to 2 prisoners for each staff person — or 6 per shift — which makes one wonder why more of these employees couldn’t be put to work implementing rehabilitation program services.

Math and language are both quite clear what “all” means. If some parts of a whole are missing, overlooked, undervalued, forgotten — or routinely shot by police — then it’s nonsense to say that “all lives matter.” The hundreds of black people — many unarmed — whose lives are ended by police each year is a testament to how little black lives really do seem to matter — and the severity of a national crisis that demands comprehensive police reform and accountability.

Tanisha Anderson, Sandra Bland, Rumain Brisbon, Michael Brown, Philando Castile, Stephon Clark, John Crawford, Ezell Ford, Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Akai Gurley, Eric Harris, Laquan McDonald, Dante Parker, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Alton Sterling. And now, most recently: Saheed Vassell.

The names just keep adding up. In 2015 a Guardian headline reported the scope of this carnage: “Young black men killed by US police at highest rate in year of 1,134 deaths.” The Guardian found that young black men are nine times more likely than any other American to be killed by police. Brittany Packnett, a member of Obama’s White House task force on policing, called the killings an “epidemic.”

Fast forward to 2017 and we now have a very different White House. When fielding a question about the 2016 killing of Alton Sterling by two Baton Rouge policemen, Trump’s spokeswoman called the killing a “local matter.” When pressed on the president’s responsibility to deal with an epidemic of police murders, Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president’s role was to keep Americans safe from immigrants, to “grow the economy” and to avoid divisive issues. Meanwhile, Trump’s Justice Department, led by an unrepentant segregationist, wants to return to failed “broken windows” policing.

But we can’t blame everything on Trump and the Republican Party. For decades Americans have had better things to do than deal with police abuse.

In 1956 J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI set up the COINTELPRO program which, among other victims, targeted black dissident groups. It was inconceivable to White America that African-American unrest could be a response to second-class citizenship. Instead, dissidence was seen as a product of “outside agitation” by Communists and COINTELPRO was intended to “disrupt” and “neutralize” the agitators. In 1969 the FBI and Chicago police took “neutralization” to extremes when they murdered two Black Panthers, Fred Hampton and Mark Clay, in their sleep during a pre-dawn raid. Besides African-American groups, the Justice Department and FBI also launched attacks on indigenous rights groups, the peace movement, and numerous organizations on the left.

In 1967 Lyndon Johnson commissioned the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, otherwise known as the Kerner Commission. The 1968 Kerner Report chastised White America for its racism, though the word “racism” only appeared in a summary of the full report. Its dismal prediction was: “Our Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white — separate and unequal.” The Kerner Report was attacked from both right and left and its recommendations were generally ignored.

Chapter 11 of the Kerner Report (“Police and the Community”) looked at the toxic relationship between police and African-American communities and offered a number of recommendations including: reviewing police operations and eliminating “abrasive” practices; improving security in black communities; countering “dual standards” in law enforcement; establishing avenues for grievances and police accountability; adopting policy guidelines for community policing; developing community outreach programs; recruiting more African-American police officers and ensuring equal promotion; and funding “junior police officer” programs for young people in the community. It never happened.

In 1998 the Heritage Foundation re-examined the Kerner Commission’s recommendations and concluded it was hogwash concocted by a “Who’s Who of liberal elites.” The real problem, the foundation’s white Conservatives decided, was that poverty, drugs, and crime were symptoms of liberal coddling: “The greatest barrier that the poor face is not racism; it is elitism.” And, specifically, the second-class citizenship of Blacks was the result of their own moral failure: “The crisis we face as a country is fundamentally spiritual, and its answer lies in supporting the moral centers of influence that exist in our communities.”

Fifty years later White America still won’t face reality. If Rodney King didn’t show us that something was seriously wrong with the LAPD in 1991 — or if Amadou Diallo didn’t demonstrate how savage the NYPD’s racism was in 1999 — or if revelations of the existence of racist torture centers run by the Chicago police didn’t shock us — then Michael Brown’s murder in 2014 couldn’t possibly faze us either. None of the shockingly routine murders of black and brown men and children we see on YouTube ever seem to prick our consciences or lead to meaningful police reform.

The United States is swimming in badges and guns. To whites the nation increasingly feels like a police state, though it has long been such to African-Americans. New York City, with a population of 8.5 million, has 35,000 officers — down from 40,000 in 2000. The U.S. has between 200 and 241 police officers for every 100,000 people. That’s about three quarters of a million officers. Many these policemen are armed with unprecedented military and surveillance gear. SWAT teams regularly deliver simple warrants or conduct raids for small amounts of marijuana. We’ve seen armed personnel carriers and tanks in city streets. And when police show up at a demonstration nowadays, they’re dressed and armed to kill.

Since 9-11 more than 2 million Americans have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Justice runs a program called COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) which provides grants to communities to turn “vets to cops.” In 2016 the DOJ handed out $119 million to help pay for approximately 900 policemen. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has created a recruitment guide for veterans, and veterans can use their GI Bill benefits while attending police academy. America increasingly says “thank you for your service” to its warriors by re-deploying them domestically.

But programs like these, and hiring practices that favor ex-military, have a serious downside. By prioritizing military experience over diversity, police departments put communities at risk. For example, the San Jose Police Department, a force with serious racism problems, sees veterans as naturals for the police “because we have a paramilitary structure, [and] military veterans often times can easily integrate.”

Then there is the residue of war. Ellen Kirshman, a psychologist who works with police officers, says that between 19% and 34% of all officers show some sign of PTSD: “This is pretty alarming. An officer with PTSD cannot think clearly. Is probably hyper vigilant, has a short fuse, may not be sleeping well because of nightmares, might be policing in a reckless manner…” And this is precisely what one frequently sees in videos of police encounters with black citizens.

One of the recommendations of the Kerner Report was what we might today call “community policing.” But this is a vague phrase that often translates to “public relations.” Citizen ride-alongs, walk-alongs, Police Athletic Leagues, toy drives, and pretty blue coffee mugs (like mine) are substitutes for real citizen oversight of hiring, management, and holding sworn peace officers to account.

But community policing has always been a vague buzzword — from the 1968 Kerner Commission to the 1970 Knapp Commission. Vague or not, last year Senator Jeanne Shaheen sponsored unanimously-adopted resolution S.288 recognizing “National Community Policing Week.” America may be a little hazy on what community policing actually entails — but we’re crystal clear that it shouldn’t involve oversight or accountability.

In 1991 Rep. William Edwards introduced H.R.2972, the Police Accountability Act of 1991. The bill made it “unlawful for any governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives persons of their constitutional or statutory rights, privileges, or immunities.” The bill had only 10 co-sponsors and never made it out of committee.

In 2000 John Conyers Jr. sponsored H.R. 3927, the Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act of 2000, which sought to impose national standards on law enforcement as we currently do in education. It had only thirteen Democratic co-sponsors and never made it to a vote. In 2015 Conyers again filed H.R.2875, this time with 48 co-sponsors. But again it died.

In 2015 Rep. Henry Johnson Jr. sponsored H.R.1102, the Police Accountability Act of 2015, which had 15 co-sponsors and died. The bill amended “title 18, United States Code, to provide a penalty for assault or homicide committed by certain State or local law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.” Again in 2017 Johnson filed H.R.4331, with 8 lonely co-sponsors. Again, it died.

In 2017 Rep. Gwen Moore sponsored H.R. 3060, Preventing Tragedies between Police and Communities Act of 2017, which required that police departments receiving federal funding train officers in de-escalation techniques. The bill had only 24 co-sponsors and died in committee — having also failed in 2016.

In 2017 Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee sponsored H.R.47: Kalief’s Law, which sought to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for the humane treatment of youths in police custody. The bill had only one co-sponsor and there was never a roll call vote.

Whether a majority or minority in Congress, police accountability has never been a priority for Democrats or Republicans. E. Tammy Kim, in an excellent piece in the Nation (“What to Do About the Police”), writes that, “as it stands, the three branches of government are unwilling to regulate the police. Mayors and governors defer to police chiefs and union presidents; judges make cheesecloth of the Fourth and 14th Amendments; and legislators vote again and again to increase law-enforcement budgets.”

In a 2015 ruling the Supreme Court gave police broad latitude to shoot at citizens recklessly and with impunity, when it rejected a suit against a Texas police officer who fired into a car with a high power rifle from an overpass, paralyzing a driver. The officer joked: “How’s that for proactive?” Just this week the Supreme Court again ruled 7-2 in Kisela v. Hughes that police officers can not be sued for arbitrary and unnecessary shootings — effectively granting law enforcement a different set of Constitutional rights than the average citizen enjoys. In dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling another sign of “unflinching willingness” to protect rogue cops and wrote that the decision “transforms the doctrine [of qualified immunity] into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.”

White America may have no appetite for dealing with the racism at the heart of so much police abuse, but we could still hire cops who better represent communities and hold the bad apples accountable. The National Urban League has proposed ten Police Reform and Accountability Recommendations and the ACLU and NAACP have proposed reforms as well.

If the Supreme Court sees police as above the law, then it is incumbent upon Congress to clarify the responsibilities of, and punishments for, sworn officers of the law. But this may be a long way off — or even impossible to achieve in many states. For this reason it is up to municipal voters to select district attorneys and mayors willing to investigate and prosecute police misconduct. It is up to municipalities to create oversight boards with real powers to conduct independent investigations. It is up to state attorneys general to conduct automatic investigations into any police killing. Citizens must know that they can observe and film officers doing their work and not be arrested for exercising their Constitutional right to do so. And yet some states have actually passed laws that limit police accountability.

America needs to begin taking its epidemic of police murders seriously and pass tough reform legislation. Voters need to start choosing politicians willing to take on the root causes of this epidemic. With one exception, every piece of reform legislation mentioned above was sponsored by an African-American. And that ought to tell you something — that if citizens really want police reform with teeth, then maybe we ought to vote for more candidates who have a personal stake in actually making it happen.

Felice Freyer at the Globe reports that the US Department of Justice is investigating violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in Massachusetts jails. But Freyer adds that the investigation does not extend to county jails. Prisoners in county lockup basically undergo forced withdrawal (“cold turkey” treatment) because prisons “do not provide the two main medications to treat addiction — buprenorphine and methadone.”

Instead, “Massachusetts prisoners nearing discharge are offered a shot of Vivitrol, a drug that blocks the high from opioids for up to a month.” And that’s it. Vivitrol made news recently because the Trump administration’s opioid treatment plan is typical of his style of crony capitalism — “a single drug, manufactured by a single company, with mixed views on the evidence regarding its use.” Vivitrol will be the only drug treatment given federal prisoners.

Alkermes, the manufacturer of Vivitrol, works just like a real drug dealer. Through an “Inspiration Grant” Alkermes gave to the National Sheriff’s Association, prison staff and contractors get a “taste” of the drug, then are allowed to buy more with taxpayer money. No wonder that Vivitrol CEO Richard Pops says “the best days of Vivitrol are still ahead of it.”

It is unconscionable that our criminal justice system incarcerates people with drug addictions and then — instead of offering real treatment — administers a questionable drug upon leaving prison for the benefit of a single-source vendor. The Globe’s piece only confirms what ex-inmates have told BCCJ. Despite a quarter of a million dollar grant from the Feds for drug treatment, Bristol County is either squandering or simply pocketing the money. The main occupants of our county prisons are substance abusers — and their time spent in these harsh facilities always ends without meaningful drug rehabilitation.

Again, we implore state investigators — the Attorney General, the State Auditor, the governor, anyone who will listen — investigate the mis-treatment and non-treatment of people in our county prisons. Prison should be a place for rehabilitation, not abuse.

Bristol County Massachusetts is in the midst of a prison suicide epidemic. At this point nobody is doing anything about it although there is mounting alarm at the growing body count.

Yesterday WGBH News ran the first of two reports on prison suicides in the Commonwealth. The report, written by New England Center for Investigative Reporting (NECIR) reporters Jenifer McKim and Chris Burrell, took Bristol County sheriff Tom Hodgson to account for fudging details of his self-investigation into the death of Michael Ray on June 10, 2017. According to the sheriff, who deflected blame for failing to monitor Ray, “we have very high standards here and we’re constantly looking for ways to improve.”

Hodgson blames his suicides on the opioid epidemic — though Ray had been in custody for almost two years and drugs should not have figured into the death. The fact is, Michael Ray was not getting the help he needed for depression. “If something happens to me, I want people to know that I’ve been getting no help, no matter how many mental health slips I’ve put in,” Ray wrote shortly before his death.

A month before Ray’s suicide, the same NECIR reporters ran an article in the Globe asking, Why Is The Suicide Rate In Bristol County Jails So High? Scarcely a month later Ray was dead. Even if Hodgson was preoccupied by his busy talk show schedule, the Globe article should have sent a signal that things needed to change at his facilities.

But on June 1, 2017 Tom Hodgson was having brunch with the Mass Fiscal Alliance, a group that promotes anti-immigrant rhetoric like the Federation for American Immigration Reform, where Hodgson sits on the advisory board with its white supremacist founder, John Tanton. Nine days later Michael Ray was dead.

Two weeks after Ray’s death, on June 28th, Tom Hodgson was back selling anti-immigrant xenophobia at a far-right hate group event called “Hold Their Feet to the Fire.” Hodgson appeared with gay-basher Sandy Rios, xenophobe Dan Stein, conspiracy theorist Michelle Malkin, white supremacist Tom Roten, white supremacist congressman Steve King, Muslim-basher Robert Spencer, and real-life fascist and anti-semite Sebastian Gorka. Rather than running jails humanely and competently, Hodgson had better things to do.

Despite Tom Hodgson’s denials of responsibility for a suicide rate twice the state average, we tend to agree with Governor Charlie Baker: “Look, any time anybody kills themselves in a prison, something clearly went wrong.”

Something clearly is going wrong, and it’s time public officials hold Hodgson’s feet to the fire.

In 2015 Brandon St. Pierre committed suicide while in custody at Sheriff Thomas Hodgson’s Bristol County prison. St. Pierre’s suicide was one of a growing number of suicides at the facility — one of fourteen county jails in the state that accounts for a quarter of all suicides. St. Pierre’s name was mentioned in a number of articles published by the New Bedford Standard Times, the Boston Globe, WGBH, the Huffington Post, and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, which won an award last fall for its reporting.

On February 28th Tom Hodgson bent the ear of a reporter at Dartmouth Week, patting himself on the back for all the positive changes that have supposedly been made at his facilities. But the Dartmouth Week piece was mainly a report on Hodgson’s own investigation of himself — in which the sheriff cast blame on the inmates’ mental health and drug issues for their own deaths.

It was another piece of a pre-emptive public relations campaign from the wily politician — pre-emptive because, once again, Tom Hodgson is being sued for violating prisoners’ Constitutional rights. A new lawsuit against the Bristol County sheriff joins two others within the last year.

On February 21st Barbara Kice, Brendan St. Pierre’s mother, filed suit in Massachusetts Superior Court [docket number 18CV00189]. Kice’s lawsuit alleges that Sheriff Hodgson, Corrections Officer Dylan Bedard, and an unspecified “Jane Doe” violated St. Pierre’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by improperly caring for a person known to be suicidal.

Click here to view the lawsuit in PDF format.

We especially appreciate the ongonig reporting from the Globe and NECIR. And there is a lot more for journalists to cover than a whiskered personality who thinks xenophobia is his day job. It is more critical than ever that the public is informed about the ongoing suicides in our community and the systemic abuses behind them.

We are distracted by so many simultaneous assaults on human and civil rights today that it’s easy to forget those caught up in America’s massive prison population — the largest in the world. This includes people who need to stay away from the rest of us for a long, long time. But most of those languishing in American prisons today are guilty of lesser offenses — usually drugs and theft to support their addictions. Once they enter the “system” America’s Puritanical instincts kick in and we brand them with a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. And if we don’t forget them completely, we banish all thought of how prison abuse will scar them — and society — for decades to come. Lock ’em up and throw away the key.

Unfortunately, the criminal “justice” system runs without oversight by elected officials who have the thinnest of mandates.

In September Massachusetts voters will select primary candidates. Forget gerrymandering, forget voter suppression, forget Russian hackers. Massachusetts itself inflicts the most damage on its own democracy through apathy and patronage. In the last state election only 34 of 160 state House races had challengers from more than one party — an uncontested rate of 79%. With this level of apathy, voters truly get the democracy they deserve — patronage, careerists or grandstanding politicians. And a substandard, inhuman, expensive prison system.

Southeastern Massachusetts has three Trump Republican sheriffs who participate in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 287(g) programs. Bristol County’s sheriff sits on the advisory board of a group the Southern Poverty Law Center calls a hate group. County Democrats elected a Republican, Thomas Hodgson, over a Democrat in the 2010 sheriff’s race. Hodgson’s facilities are known for horrific conditions, health and safety violations, abuse of solitary confinement, and abnormally high suicide rates. Yet Bristol Country voters haven’t tried to hold the sheriff accountable, nor have state and local agencies. It will be up to voters to replace him in 2022.

But Hodgson ran unopposed in 2016 — like a majority of sheriffs that year.

If the school-to-prison pipeline ends in overcrowded, unsanitary cells or solitary confinement, a critical junction on that line is the DA’s office. Nationwide, elected district attorneys have enormous latitude to prosecute (or not), lay on trumped-up charges (or not), send the accused to lockup (or not), set bail (reasonable or not), negotiate plea deals, and seek jail time or diversion programs.

Often outright enemies of civil liberties, Massachusetts district attorneys have destroyed lives, in many cases defending tainted convictions with tainted evidence, and nine out of eleven state DAs staunchly opposed criminal justice reform legislation. Nationwide, district attorneys have discovered that running on a “law and order” platform — going after the weakest and most vulnerable in society by labeling them “superpredators” — is a winning election strategy.

In Bristol County, for example, DA Thomas Quinn used the full force of his office to come down with vengeance on a troubled teenager who encouraged an equally troubled friend to end his life. Mercifully, a judge gave the defendant a fraction of the 12-20 year sentence the DA wanted. Though Quinn says he likes the idea of drug courts, he wants to extend incarceration without bail for super “dangerous” individuals from 120 days to one year. Quinn already bears considerable responsibility for the miserable overcrowding in the Bristol County jails he has filled, whose inmates are subjected to abusive conditions by the sheriff.

Quinn was appointed by the governor after his predecessor’s resignation — and then ran unopposed in primary and general elections in 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVPIsuVp9X4

Very few voters know who their county DA is — much less anything about his handiwork. The ACLU recently announced an initiative called What a difference a DA makes. Since a district attorney is an elected official who can potentially do a lot of damage, the ACLU’s message is — “buyer beware!” By late summer voters should have a scorecard on their district attorneys. But this still won’t solve the problem of uncontested races. And it’s a little late for this election cycle.

In Massachusetts judges are selected, not elected. Selection is the responsibility of the governor and the Governor’s Council, a body composed of representatives from the state’s eight Senatorial districts and chaired by the Lieutenant Governor. Besides selecting judges, notaries, and justices of the peace, the Council considers pardons and commutations. In Bristol County the previous Councillor for the First District seemed to alternate between two brothers — Democrat Oliver Cipollini and Republican Charles Cipollini. Voters didn’t seem to notice which brother stood for election or care that the race was uncontested.

Today, representing the First District (Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable, and Duke counties), we have Joseph C. Ferreira, former police chief in Somerset, a former Assistant DA, and now a lawyer at Lynch & Lynch. At the Democratic caucuses on February 11th Ferreira and his signature collectors signaled he was running on a “law and order” platform — tougher judges, tougher sentences. In a 2015 interview with the Fall River Herald, Ferreira spelled out one of his rules for selecting judges: “You never want to see someone lean to the left too much.” Whether you like Ferreira or not, this is what the Democratic Party is currently offering.

If 2018 is anything like 2016, Joe Ferreira will run another uncontested race in both the primary and general election.

Few people who listened to Donald Trump’s first State of the Union speech could fail to miss his remarks on minorities and immigrants. This is a demagogue playing to a far-right base by expanding a deportation machine. This is an unrepentant racist who now makes it clear he doesn’t want even legal immigration if it involves brown people.

In New Hampshire since last summer American citizens on I-93 have been stopped at roadblocks in Thornton, forced to show their ids, and had their cars searched in violation of what’s left of the Fourth Amendment. In Fort Lauderdale last week, agents stopped and boarded a Greyhound bus and again demanded to see everyone’s id. A video of the spectacle provoked widespread condemnation.

This is not a sign of a healthy democracy, nor is it an America most of us want to live in. It’s a little too reminiscent of the pogroms of Germany of 1935. And this is why we need the Safe Communities Act, now before the Massachusetts legislature.

State legislators want to protect the public, and they also want to provide law enforcement officials with the tools to do it. Anti-immigrant organizations like FAIR, and spokesmen for FAIR like Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson, would have us believe Trump’s claim that an overwhelming number of immigrants from Latin America are rapists and cartel members. Those who know the immigrant community know that this is complete hogwash. But some legislators fear making the wrong call.

Hodgson and his former segregationist friend Jeff Sessions claim the Safe Communities Act is a “sanctuary” bill that prevents immigration agents from doing their job. Sessions, like Hodgson, even wants to arrest mayors of cities who won’t deputize their police as ICE agents.

But nobody’s stopping ICE from doing its work. The Safe Communities Act now moving through committee simply says that Massachusetts taxpayers aren’t picking up the tab for federal policing, and we’re not going to go out of our way to deputize our police and prison officials as ICE agents. The bill also says “no” to registries of Muslims, Latinos — or anyone else on the wrong side of the president.

Fear merchants like Tom Hodgson are hoping you won’t read the legislation and will believe whatever they tell you about it. But the Safe Communities Act is 154 lines double spaced, and it’s not difficult to read or understand.

An important calculation the legislature must make when voting on “Safe Communities” is whether the risks to democracy of expanding the president’s deportation machine outweigh any benefits of getting rid of what the president calls “bad hombres.” Most of the deportees we’ve been hearing about recently are guilty of 20 year-old DUI’s and other low level offenses. Expanding a police state to go after them will have only negative consequences.

Let’s leave the determination of dangerousness to local cops and DA’s — and not willingly join the president’s pogrom against brown people. Encourage your legislator to pass the Safe Communities Act. The quality of our democracy literally depends on more states passing courageous legislation like this.

There is a great piece in the Massachusetts political blog HesterPrynne about the Trumpian evil lurking beneath Charlie Baker’s popularity with the legislature. For starters Baker funnels money to the national GOP, hardly a troop of Boy Scouts. And now there’s Baker’s ICE bill, entitled “An Act empowering law enforcement to cooperate with the United States to transfer custody of convicted criminals.”

As anyone familiar with 287(g) agreements knows, prisons participating in ICE agreements do not exclusively transfer custody of “convicted criminals” but instead any undocumented person who ends up in jail for even minor offenses. Baker’s bill capitalizes on his bizarre popularity with Democratic legislators to sell Jeff Sessions’ and Donald Trump’s racist immigration policies.

HesterPrynne points out that ICE handovers should already have been settled with the Supreme Judicial Court’s Lunn decision. Baker’s bill is an attempt to neuter its provisions:

On Tuesday, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the immigration bill the Governor filed in August in response to a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court. That decision, which held that no authority exists to allow Massachusetts law enforcement officials to detain persons who are wanted only because of civil immigration violations, has barred police in the state from assisting with the President’s deportation agenda by holding such persons until ICE can come pick them up.

She also notes that if Baker’s “bill were to become law, he’d be the one to enlist our State Police in Trump’s reprehensible cause.”

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled hearings in Boston on Tuesday, January 30, from 1:00-5:00 PM in Room A-2, to consider the governor’s bill. Written testimony can be submitted at the hearing, to the Committee on the Judiciary in Room 136, by mail, or by email sent to Philip McLaughlin. If you would like to travel to the State House for the hearings, let us know. Maybe we can organize something.

Reminder:

On January 29th Bristol County for Correctional Justice is holding a meeting at 105 William Street, Suite 26, at 6:30pm. Please try to make it. We have several important issues to discuss.

Speaking at a hearing earlier this month to discuss the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office’s (BCSO) collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the arrest and detention of undocumented immigrants, Sheriff Tom Hodgson described his targets as criminals responsible for the most heinous crimes — murder, rape, narcotics trafficking. But, as usual, the sheriff could offer no evidence to support the charge. Instead, he ridiculed and humiliated citizens who challenged him.

About 25 people, local activists, public defenders and lawyers, and some from the Cape and Providence, attended. Sheriff Hodgson who had invited citizens to discuss his department’s participation with ICE under a program known as 287(g), was flanked by Todd Lyons, Deputy Field Office Director, ICE Boston; William Sullivan, 287(g) Program Director, ICE Boston; Steven Souza, Superintendent of Security, BCSO; and Liunetty Couto, Director of Deportation Services, BCSO.

Five minutes into the hearings Sheriff Hodgson launched into his customary scary talking points about dangerous immigrants, asserting, “I took an oath to protect you,” claiming that inmates in his jails are there “because they committed a crime,” though fewer than half the prisoners have been convicted. Most inmates are there simply because they cannot post bail.

The sheriff asserted that 95 percent of violent crimes, the drug trade, and sex trafficking were committed by illegal aliens. When challenged for evidence, he attacked the questioner personally, declaring the man couldn’t possibly know the “real story” because he was not in law enforcement. Another questioner, a lawyer, received a similar condescending response.

Even the ICE officers acknowledged that Hodgson’s “detainees” were often guilty of lesser offenses such as operating a vehicle without a license.

Attendees objected to the panel’s claims that, before 287(g), dangerous criminals were frequently released from jail. Exactly what type of criminals had been released? Neither the sheriff nor the ICE officers could provide a substantive answer. One questioner complained about the panel’s use of anecdotes and misleading statistics, and that no data actually substantiated claims that a majority of detainees had been picked up for violent crimes. An ICE officer promised to get back to her with some data.

While the sheriff gave the impression he had sweeping powers to deploy local resources to help ICE, one ICE officer cautioned that, with the abandonment of the 287(g) Task Force model, local law enforcement can no longer conduct raids but is limited to investigating and holding prison inmates.

Of particular concern was that Massachusetts taxpayers pay for the sheriff’s decision to work for the Trump administration. Hodgson dug in, telling attendees he was not going to apologize for protecting the public. He said being elected justified his personal decision to partner with ICE. He rejected the notion that voters elected him to do a specific job — running the county jails. And the sheriff tried to downplay 287(g) costs. Both Hodgson and ICE insisted that ICE paid for all training, lodging and travel for personnel from BCSO during training. But this is simply not true.

The BCSO’s Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with ICE states that Massachusetts taxpayers pay for “personnel expenses, […] local transportation, […] salaries and benefits, including overtime, of all of its personnel being trained […] and of those personnel performing the regular functions of the participating BCSO personnel while they are receiving training. The BCSO will cover the costs of all BCSO personnel’s travel, housing, and per diem affiliated with the training required for participation in this MOA.”

Several questioned whether ICE knew about various abuses at the prisons. Attendees challenged Hodgson’s claim that his facilities were rated in the top ten percent of American prisons when so many complaints have been filed against them. The sheriff refused to acknowledge the highest prison suicide rates in the Commonwealth, class-action lawsuits for human rights abuses, and repeated citations for violations of health and safety regulations.

Hodgson denounced a recent lawsuit by Prisoner’s Legal Services over abuse of solitary confinement and made derogatory comments about the plaintiffs. He insisted that those accusing him of mismanaging his jail, treating inmates cruelly, failing to properly oversee psychological treatment of prisoners, or dealing with the suicide rate, were either “politically motivated” or acting out of venality or pecuniary interest.

When asked about violations of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Lunn ruling, which constrains ICE detentions, Hodgson feigned ignorance. One attendee refreshed the sheriff’s memory, mentioning an illegally-detained inmate’s name. But Hodgson waved that one away as well. It was surprising to hear a Republican, from the party of state rights, claim, “federal law supersedes state law.”

Hodgson says he took an oath to “protect” us all. But he seems more dedicated to protecting himself and the extrajudicial activities he has undertaken in service to a personal agenda. The question citizens of Bristol County might reasonably ask is — who will protect us from Sheriff Hodgson and the cost of his misfeasance?

UPDATED 1/21/2018 12:00.

On September 24, 2009, Suffolk Superior Court Judge John C. Cratsley ruled in a class-action lawsuit that Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson was housing prisoners under cruel and unusual conditions. According to Prison Legal News, “originally filed in 1998, the suit alleged that Hodgson was improperly triple-bunking prisoners at the Ash Street Jail, a pre-Civil War-era facility. The lawsuit also claimed that prisoners were being forced to sleep on the floor in ‘boats’ — portable bunks — and in common areas. The lawsuit was amended in 2004 to add a claim concerning Hodgson’s practice of ‘dry-celling’ prisoners at the Dartmouth House of Correction. ‘Dry-celled’ prisoners did not have access to a toilet.” Nevertheless, the prison capacity in Bristol County has fluctuated between 300% and 384% of the capacity the prisons were designed for.

Over the years, Tom Hodgson has been involved in numerous lawsuits, but conditions rarely seem to improve at facilities under his control. Among the frequent allegations — abuse of prisoners, violations of a State Judicial Court ruling barring unconstitutional ICE detentions, starving and denial of medical treatment, and filthy conditions in both the Dartmouth and New Bedford lockups.

In the last two years, inspections of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office ICE Facility conducted by Nicholas Gale, a Massachusetts Environmental Health Inspector, have turned up repeat violations of health and safety standards: see reports on April 19, 2016 and November 21, 2016 and April 25, 2017. Likewise, the Women’s Center in North Dartmouth is not in compliance either: see this report on November 16, 2015. Conditions are the worst at the Ash Street Jail: see reports on June 5, 2013 and June 12, 2015 and January 12, 2016. You can download all these reports as a single PDF.

Each includes the following warning:

“This facility does not comply with the Department’s Regulations cited above. In accordance with 105 CMR 451.404, please submit a plan of correction within 10 working days of receipt of this notice, indicating the specific corrective steps to be taken, a timetable for such steps, and the date by which correction will be achieved. The plan should be signed by the Superintendent or Administrator and submitted to my attention, at the address listed above.”

Still, not one federal, state, or municipal agency has ever made the sheriff account for these violations. And it’s not for lack of reporting. Each is dutifully reported to a slew of bureaucrats — Massachusetts, Dartmouth, and New Bedford Departments of Health, both the Commissioner and Director of the Department of Corrections, various policy units within the state government, the governor, the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office itself, and clerks of both the Massachusetts House and Senate.

But nothing.

Countless newspaper articles have been written about the dungeon-like environment at the Ash Street Jail, the epidemic of suicides in Bristol County jails, and the cruelty of the sheriff.

Still nothing.

Human beings are being warehoused in inhuman, unsanitary conditions.

Does anybody care?

“No mans person shall be restrained or imprisoned by any Authority whatsoever, before the law hath sentenced him thereto, If he can put in sufficient securitie, bayle or mainprise, for his appearance, and good behaviour in the meane time, unlesse it be in Crimes Capital, and Contempts in open Court, and in such cases where some expresse act of Court doth allow it.” — Body of Liberties (1641), the oldest codification of Massachusetts Colonial law.

Yesterday two members of BCCJ attended an informational meeting on the Massachusetts Bail Fund at the UMASS Law School in Dartmouth. The meeting was organized by Jesse Purvis, National Lawyers Guild, UMASS Law Chapter.

Jessica Thrall, a federal public defender and member of the Massachusetts Bail Fund’s Steering Committee, spoke first. She outlined one stark injustice of the criminal justice system — that a poor person unable to post bail is locked away in miserable conditions and lacks the ability to consult and communicate freely with lawyers and family.

Prisoners under these circumstances are often needlessly warehoused for months in jail at considerable cost. When finally offered a plea for “time served,” they will often accept the plea deal simply to escape the abusive conditions — even though they are innocent. Thus, for the poor, and particularly for people of color, the criminal justice system creates a grinding conveyor belt from poverty to “criminality” — even when the accused is actually innocent. And once the indigent accused has been systemically transformed into a “criminal” more injustice awaits him/her in the workplace and in a probation system that can hound him/her for decades.

Thrall mentioned the recent case of Jahmal Brangan, who sat in the Hampden County jail for three and a half years because he could not post bail. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last August in the case of Brangan v. Commonwealth, 082517 MASC, SJC-12232, in which Brangan’s “bail order violated his right to due process because the judge failed to give adequate consideration to his financial resources, and set bail in an amount so far beyond his financial means that it resulted in his long-term detention pending resolution of his case.”

The justices ruled that “In setting the amount of bail for a defendant, a judge must consider the defendant’s financial resources but is not required to set bail in an amount the defendant can afford if other relevant considerations weigh more heavily than the defendant’s ability to prove the necessary security for his appearance at trial.” It was a small victory, but now the door is open to more reasonable bail amounts.

Massachusetts has a system in which defendants post cash bail in court (and pay a clerk a nonrefundable $40 fee for the privilege). Bail bondsmen cannot legally operate in the Commonwealth.

The Massachusetts Bail Fund began in Suffolk and Middlesex counties, but has been expanded to Essex, Norfolk, Worcester, Plymouth and Bristol. The Fund provides up to $500 in bail to defendants who are already represented by a public defender and can prove indigence. To date the Fund has bailed out about 700 defendants, and of those about 60% of the cases were immediately dismissed. When asked about defaults — defendants running and causing the Fund to forfeit its $500 — Thrall noted that this has only happened six times — 6 out of 700 — a statistic Thrall says should make the Commonwealth think twice about requiring any amount of bail for minor offenses.

Attendees wanted to know how the process works — and it works only because of the thirty or so volunteers who do the thankless work of actually bailing out indigent people. Attendees had a chance to hear from a remarkable couple about the process.

Jan and Chuck Bichsel are two of four volunteers in Bristol County. They have been volunteering for about seven months with the Mass Bail Fund and have handled about a dozen “releases,” which play out something like this: (1) volunteer(s) receive an email from the Bail Fund coordinator informing them of the release and the jail (Ash Street or BCSO), contact information, telephone numbers, and public defender; (2) the volunteers post the $500 (or lesser amount) personally at the prison, which may entail appearing in the evening, spending up to six hours waiting for prison staff to respond; (3) coordinating with family to pick up the released individual, or even driving him home if the family has no transportation; (4) appearing at a court hearing many months (or years) later in order to recover the bail money for the Fund.

Volunteers are not personally responsible for bail funds. Money “up-fronted” by volunteers is quickly reimbursed by the Fund. Releases, at least in Bristol County, are handled only during the first two weeks of every month (which means that the earliest release for many follows two weeks of incarceration).

It takes a thoughtful, patient person to do this work. Jan Bichsel joked that she might look like the “crocheting type” but that it took every bit of patience and focus to work with a prison system designed to crush people (maybe she is the crocheting type after all). The couple invited prospective volunteers to “ride along” with them before deciding if this work was for them.

To contribute to the bail fund, go to https://www.massbailfund.org/donate.html

For more information about volunteering, contact the Massachusetts Bail Fund at information@massbailfund.org or complete the online form at https://www.massbailfund.org/contact.html.

In a front-page piece by Curt Brown (“Mentally ill inmates sue Sheriff Hodgson”) in today’s print version of the Standard Times, Bristol County Sheriff Hodgson disputes charges in a lawsuit brought against him — allegations similar to those BCCJ heard from former inmates whom we interviewed:

“It’s a frivolous lawsuit,” Hodgson told the Standard-Times. The sheriff also questioned the timing of the suit since the state legislature is now considering a sweeping criminal justice reform package.

Hodgson claims his facility has “never received a deficiency on any inspection of its mental or physical health care” and that “the Bristol County House of Corrections ranks in the top 10 percent of all correctional facilities in the nation.”

That’s not for quality — but it’s certainly in the top 10 percent of county prison suicides.

But Tom Hodgson didn’t acknowledge that he’s lost a number of suits for abusive treatment of prisoners. In 2009, for instance, the sheriff was accused of housing prisoners in cruel and unusual conditions — and he lost the case.

If Hodgson’s weasel words are true — that inspections do not reveal deficiencies related to abuse — then the state had better start conducting thorough inspections.

For the sheriff a good defense requires dispensing with facts of public record. “The lawsuit is full of misinformation and flat-out lies,” spokesman Jonathan Darling told the Standard Times. “Shame on Prisoner Legal Services for filing such a ridiculous lawsuit and wasting taxpayer resources.”

Yet it’s hardly “ridiculous” when Hodgson has a history of abusing prisoners. And the sheriff wasn’t worrying about waste when he squandered millions of dollars in taxpayer resources pursuing a losing case all the way to the Supreme Court. In fact, wasting taxpayer money — like the suicides in his jails — stand out among Massachusetts county jails. Which is why we are asking for thorough investigations.

Three neighboring counties in the bottom right quadrant of the Commonwealth have Republican sheriffs in otherwise Democratic districts. It could have something to do with demographics — or maybe just neglect and Boston-centric politics. But it is surely a sign that not all is well with a party that habitually runs weak sheriff candidates — or none at all.

Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings recently joined fellow Republicans, Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson and Plymouth County Sheriff Joe McDonald, in signing a 287(g) agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Under such agreements ICE permits prison officials to volunteer as federal immigration agents. The Trump administration, which strongly promotes the program, sees 287(g) as a tool in its larger mass-deportation strategy. And the Republican sheriffs know it. “The president said our role is probably the most critical because we know the players in our communities and we know how to find them,” Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson said.

You wouldn’t know it from Hodgson’s many statements on right-wing talk radio, but 287(g) is not very popular — by any stretch of the imagination. At present ICE has agreements in only 18 states, and with only 60 law enforcement agencies. Massachusetts joins Arizona, California, Nevada, New Jersey, and Ohio — and the entire South — as participants. Now generally limited to a “jails” model because of previous abuses in the older “task force” and “hybrid” models, 287(g) agreements have a long history of civil rights abuses. For instance, in 2011 Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s agreement with ICE was terminated for civil rights abuses.

These ICE agreements impose costs of running a federal law enforcement program on state government and redeploy state corrections employees as federal agents. Sheriffs who enter into the agreements do so out of personal politics — not as part of their job description. And many local police forces find 287(g) programs undermine community trust.

According to the American Immigration Council, ICE agreements with local sheriffs are not properly supervised by ICE. Both the Boston Globe and the New York Times have featured articles on the lack of local accountability for county sheriffs — sheriffs who often operate as spokesmen for the Trump administration and anti-immigrant groups like FAIR and CIS. Understandably, there is growing resistance to 287(g) programs and a desire to slap some limits on them. And a lot is happening recently.

On January 3rd the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates ratified a resolution opposing the 287(g) program in Barnstable County — although voters had no choice in entering into the agreement in the first place.

On January 8th at 7PM at the Falmouth Public Library county residents will have a chance to discuss 287(g) agreements and learn about the Safe Communities Act — state legislation which puts some limits on a sheriff’s discretionary powers regarding ICE.

And at the Bristol County prison on January 11th at 6PM county residents will have a similar opportunity to express concerns about the 287(g) program — see http://www.bcso-ma.us/ for details of the public hearing. And do your homework if you plan on attending.

Barnstable County’s Sheriff has the dubious distinction of recently joining Bristol and Plymouth county sheriffs in signing 287(g) agreements with ICE. Dartmouth’s Sheriff Tom Hodgson will be hosting an annual 287(g) Steering Committee meeting on January 11th at 6PM. The meeting is open to the public and feedback is requested.

Along these same lines — on January 3, 2018 the Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates held a public hearing to vote on a proposal by Provincetown Delegate Brian O’Malley (County Resolution 17-10) to not support the County Sheriff’s pursuit of an ICE 287(g) agreement, though the agreement is already in place. Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings answered questions on the 287(g) program he just signed with ICE, then left before listening to the community he supposedly serves. County Delegate Christopher Kanaga (Orleans) asked that two members of the press be permitted to report on the testimony but the request was denied for “fire code” reasons. Fortunately there was a recording of the meeting:

One member of the Cape Cod Coalition for Safe Communities offered a summary of the proceedings:

While you might find our testimony interesting, even more interesting to me are the questions asked by the delegates after the sheriff’s initial presentation and the comments the delegates made after the hearing was adjourned and the business meeting convened to consider Brian [O’Malley’s] proposal. Although the weighted vote was against the proposal, the majority of the delegates voted in favor of it. Their reactions were serious and thoughtful — we have many allies who share our reservations about the sheriff’s intentions. My impression was that he left immediately after his portion of the hearing was done. If that’s true, I think that not staying to listen to the comments of the public or the delegates was arrogant and disrespectful, not the behavior I expect from a public servant.

The first two hours of the Assembly hearings featured the sheriff first presenting his case, followed by questions from the delegates. (There’s one delegate from each of the fifteen towns, but their votes are weighted depending on population.) This all started because, before the sheriff’s 287(g) application was approved, Brian O’Malley, the delegate from P’town, presented a proposal on December 6 asking the Assembly to vote not to support the application. Somewhere between 20-30 of us showed up, some just to show support by our presence for Brian’s resolution but some of us to talk. The Speaker freaked out, adjourned the meeting, and then put together this public hearing. Over 100 people showed up last night. Out of the 23 speakers, only three spoke in favor of the sheriff’s new powers.

The question now is: What can we do to help move the Safe Communities Act out of committee and make this issue disappear? There will be a meeting on January 8th in Falmouth to discuss precisely that:

https://www.facebook.com/events/210192542883146/

On Thursday morning the SouthCoast Chamber of Commerce had Bristol County sheriff Tom Hodgson and Helena DaSilva Hughes to breakfast at the Wamsutta Club to discuss immigration. During his presentation the sheriff cited questionable statistics from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), claiming that illegal immigration costs taxpayers $116 billion a year. The CATO Institute calls FAIR’s new study “fatally flawed” and “even more sloppy” than their previous one.

It would have more appropriate for Hodgson to speak about opioids, recidivism, or suicides. He actually knows something about the latter since his own jail accounts for a quarter of all county prison suicides. But there he was – again – acting as a spokesman for FAIR’s white supremacist immigration policies and conveniently avoiding trouble in his own backyard.

In 2015 Tom Hodgson appeared with Dennis Michael Lynch at an Islamophobic venue in Stoughton which had previously hosted Dutch neo-fascist Geert Wilders. Lynch is an Islamophobe, a white supremacist, a supporter of the Constitutional Sheriff Movement and of sovereign citizen Cliven Bundy, about whom he made a film.

That same year Hodgson appeared with a representative of the Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) at the Fisherman’s Club in New Bedford. Despite the name, FAIR has little to do with reform. Instead, its goal is assuring White Anglo-Saxon dominance. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, FAIR has links to white supremacists and eugenicists. Its founder, John Tanton, wrote to one eugenicist: “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”

In 2016 the Sheriff was one of three speakers at a “Patriots Unity Day” rally in Randolph. The second speaker was Jessica Vaughan, of the nativist organization Center for Immigration Studies (CIS). Like FAIR, CIS was founded by John Tanton and publishes dubious statistics on immigration. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, CIS also maintains links to white supremacist and anti-semitic groups. CIS executive director Mark Krikorian quipped after the deadly 2010 Haitian earthquake: “My guess is that Haiti’s so screwed up because it wasn’t colonized long enough.” The third speaker was Raymond Hanna with the anti-Muslim hate group ACT for America, which also has white supremacist ties. In Arkansas ACT’s “March Against Shariah” events were organized by a Nazi and publicized on Stormfront.

In June this year the Sheriff appeared with Dan Stein and Michelle Malkin at an annual “Hold their feet to the fire” broadcast with anti-gay bigot Sandy Rios. Stein is executive director of FAIR, and characterizes America’s immigration laws as an effort “to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance.” Stein describes Central American immigrants as engaged in “competitive breeding” and asks: “Should we be subsidizing people with low IQs to have as many children as possible, and not subsidizing those with high ones?” Malkin too has links to white supremacist groups, including VDARE, and to Islamophobic groups. Malkin opposes the 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to slaves.

According to FAIR’s 2011 annual report, that was the year the organization began cultivating sheriffs like Hodgson. “In 2011, we identified sheriffs who expressed concerns about illegal immigration.” FAIR staff “met with these sheriffs and their deputies, supplied them with a steady stream of information, established regular conference calls so they could share information and experiences, and invited them to come to Washington to meet with FAIR’s senior staff.” Since roughly that time Hodgson’s main job has been as a FAIR spokesman.

It’s hard to believe that the avuncular fellow who sends Thanksgiving turkeys to deportees in the Azores could really have such horrific views. But when the sheriff keeps consorting with white supremacists, singing and quoting their lyrics in the original German – well – it’s hard to reach any other conclusion. Tom Hodgson is a white supremacist.

It was disappointing that the Chamber of Commerce gave this hater a mainstream platform, and worse, an opportunity to skip another day of work – taking care of the business Bristol County voters actually elected him to do.

They swarm the porch shouting “Police!” But it’s a lie.

It sounds like something out of a totalitarian state, and it is – Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are allowed to lie to citizens – even impersonate police officers. But the real police don’t like it at all. It undermines trust and creates problems. And it’s gotten so bad that Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, the LA City attorney, and City Council President Herb Wesson sent a letter to ICE telling them to knock it off.

As the LAPD, the city’s police department, had to point out, rousting and terrifying communities undermines actual police work. The problem is so severe and so widespread that a proposed House Bill seeks to end the practice by prohibiting ICE agents from lying about who they are.

This single issue highlights an important point – that federal and local policing have different objectives. Donald Trump’s xenophobic purge of brown people should not be conflated with the needs of American cities.

With already serious problems of police militarization, taser abuse, police shootings, racism and misconduct elsewhere, many communities are trying to do something about it – regain control over the hiring and firing of officers, conducting public reviews of police misconduct cases, and re-introducing community policing. But now they have another problem – ICE agents eroding the trust of communities that police departments serve.

Police officers are obliged to forward fingerprints and other arrest information to a variety of federal databases, and they often detain suspected criminals on behalf of Immigration and Custom Enforcement – only as long as the Constitution permits. But in communities with large immigrant and minority populations, many police departments would simply rather not be in the Immigration business. In Santa Clara County, California, for example, the DA and county police chiefs signed an agreement spelling out their involvement with federal policing:

“The agencies of this county will not enforce federal immigration laws,” said Morgan Hill police Chief David Swing, president of the county chiefs association. “It is not our mission nor our role … we will treat all of our residents with dignity regardless of status.”

Conscientious police officials also adhere to the letter of the law by not honoring ICE detainers beyond certain limits – because? – well, because the U.S. Constitution says so:

Two weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security started issuing a weekly report that aims to identify and publicly shame law enforcement agencies that released people from custody despite an ICE detainer request. And U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions went a step further last week, promising to withhold federal funding from law enforcement departments that don’t get in line with ICE. But several sheriffs said their defiance is not rooted in ethical or political opposition but legal concerns. Federal court rulings, including one in Oregon where a judge found that police violated a woman’s constitutional rights by keeping her in jail at ICE’s request, have left California’s law enforcement officials worrying that they could expose themselves to legal troubles for doing the same.

In fact, according to the National Sheriffs Assocation, a majority of sheriffs departments have stopped honoring ICE hold requests because so many of them are unconstitutional.

Tom Hodgson, ever the right-wing grandstander, appeared yesterday at a forum on immigration at the UMass Law School in Dartmouth. By the next afternoon he was making guest appearances with shock jock Howie Carr, auditioning for Joe Arpaio’s old job – Wingnut Sheriff of America. One wonders why the guy can’t put in a full day at work. But I digress..

Besides previously calling for the arrest of a co-panelist, Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone, Hodgson made a number of odd and false claims: that sanctuary cities are hotbeds of crime (statistics say otherwise); that California prohibits reporting to ICE of human traffickers and gun runners (a lie politifact rates as false); that terrorists hide out in sanctuary cities and Massachusetts is a “magnet” for terrorists (“we have terrorists all over this state,” he said, sounding a lot like Donald Trump); and that no statistics support that improved policing occurs in cities where openness with officers is improved by not being part-time ICE agents.

On Hodgson’s last point – it’s possible that the statistics are as hard to come by as police shooting data, but according to Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, the nation’s police chiefs know something our local talk radio gadfly doesn’t – that sanctuary cities keep crime down. And apparently the still unaggregated data confirms it to their satisfaction.

But whether we call them sanctuary cities, freedom cities, or give them some other designation, the real debate has nothing to do with “sanctuary” – and everything to do with local control of police departments.

There is no suspension of federal law in cities that do not compel Officer Friendly to become an ICE agent. There is no suspension of federal law in cities that hold all suspects for a Constitutionally permitted period. There is no suspension of federal law when cities complain that ICE agents are lying to citizens and undermining the trust of their communities. There is no suspension of federal law when cities, counties, and states decide – for themselves – what kind of community policing they want to do.

There are now three bills in the Massachusetts legislature that would help the Commonwealth protect our communities and community policing programs from ICE and rogue sheriffs.

• The Safe Communities Act, S.1305, proposed by Senator James B. Eldridge
• An Act Relative to Enforcing Federal Law, H.3033, proposed by Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral
• An Act Limiting the Use of Prison Labor, H.3034, also proposed by Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral

Next time – I’ll be asking you to call your representatives to support these important pieces of legislation.

Massachusetts Representative Antonio Cabral has written a bill (H.3033) that places limits on the use of state funds that can be used for the federal ICE program. Another bill (H.3034) prohibits sending prisoners out of state [for example, working on Donald Trump’s Great Mexican Wall].

Please send emails in support of Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral’s bills to both the Massachusetts House and Senate chairs of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary — Senator William Brownsberger and Rep. Claire Cronin:

“Sen. William N. Brownsberger, Chair (Senate)” William.Brownsberger@masenate.gov
“Rep. Claire D. Cronin, Chair (House)” Claire.Cronin@mahouse.gov
“Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral” Antonio.Cabral@mahouse.gov

If you’re not an enthusiastic letter-writer, here is one possibility:

Dear [–]:

I am writing in support of two bills introduced by Rep. Antonio Cabral and recently assigned to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. These bills limit (a) the involvement of Massachusetts resources in ICE’s deportation efforts (HD 3033) and (b) the use of prison labor outside the State (e.g., to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico) (HD 3034). I also support Senator James Eldridge’s Safe Communities Act (S 1305).

These bills both deserve our support. Residents of Massachusetts towns and cities should be able decide for ourselves what type of community policing we want. The nation’s police departments have not (yet) been federalized. It will be a dark day if this ever happens.

How voluntary is a prisoner’s consent to be used as a “Great Wall” builder when prison is an inherently coercive environment and when a prisoner’s treatment depends on the goodwill of a sheriff supporting that wall? Are there no other educational and rehabilitation programs prisoners can participate in within the Commonwealth? And how can the fair treatment of our state’s sons and cousins be guaranteed if they are transported thousands of miles out-of-state?

The current wave of deportations is being executed without prioritizing the removal of truly dangerous individuals or concern for the destruction of families. It is also being carried out without regard for the previous administration’s promises to young people who grew up in the United States and know no other home. And this ideologically motivated purge is being done without regard for the economic impact the disappearance of thousands of workers will have. Worse, these reckless and cruel deportations are causing chaos and fear.

But we have an opportunity to restore tranquility and security.

I am not advocating anarchy or the selective application of law. We are indeed a nation of laws, but federal laws have their own scope and their own agents of enforcement, while the same is true of states. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts should not be compelled to effectively turn its law enforcement officials and county prisons into ICE agents and federal facilities.

I appreciate your consideration of this letter, and I hope you will give prompt and favorable attention to the bills I have endorsed. Thank you.

Sincerely,

[me]

bcso-ma.us

Tompuffery

Thomas M. Hodgson, a law enforcement and corrections professional with extensive management, marketing and business experience was appointed Sheriff of Bristol County, May 21, 1997 by Gov. William F. Weld and was sworn in officially June 2, 1997 by then Lt. Gov. Argeo Paul Cellucci.

In 1994, Sheriff Hodgson, a former Maryland Police Lieutenant for Special Operations, joined the staff of the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office and served as Deputy Superintendent of Investigations. He also served five years as a Councilor-at-Large on the New Bedford City Council.

Upon assuming the role of High Sheriff of Bristol County, Sheriff Hodgson immediately set out to implement his goals for corrections reform, public safety and raising the standards for the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office to enhance the primary mission of care and custody of inmates. He instituted structured disciplines for the inmate population and expanded the Work Release programs to include graffiti removal. Several years ago Sheriff Hodgson gained international attention when he instituted the Tandem Work Crew (tethered), a strictly voluntary program for medium security inmates. While initially controversial, these initiatives have proven highly successful over the long term in providing valuable services to and saving money for the cities and towns of Bristol County. The Tandem Work Crews continue to work in communities throughout the County. He banned tobacco products for staff and inmates, removed televisions and weight-lifting equipment from cells, donating the equipment to police departments and the local Boys and Girls Club. These activities were replaced with programs affording educational opportunities, spiritual assistance and vocational aptitude. Sheriff Hodgson implemented a Regional Lock-up at the Ash Street facility for the Bristol County Police Departments in 1998.

Sheriff Hodgson has been successful in bringing together a number of Law Enforcement/Public Safety agencies through the establishment of a Law Enforcement Collaborative, consisting of Bristol County Police Chiefs, State Police and UMASS Dartmouth Police, to share intelligence and resources. The Bristol County Sheriff’s Office is a member of the SouthCoast Anti-Crime Team (SCAT) utilizing the combined resources of the Sheriff’s Office and Police Departments to control the proliferation of drugs and other criminal activity in the area. In support of these efforts the Sheriff has also established a Warrant Apprehension Unit, Drug Task Force, Gang Unit and has assigned staff to the federal departments of DEA, ICE, and FBI.

In 1998 the Sheriff went to the Justice Department in Washington D.C. to be briefed on the growing national concern regarding terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction. Since then he has become a leader in Homeland Security issues and has brought together public safety officials from Local, State and Police, Fire Services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), National Guard, Coast Guard, FBI, TSA, other federal agencies, EMS and hospital groups, along with stakeholders from the private sector to form the Bristol County Homeland Security Task Force with the mission of training and preparing Bristol County to have the ability to develop and implement a cohesive response to a critical incident. It has always been the Sheriff’s belief that Public Safety First Responder Groups can best serve the community when working in a collaborative effort. The Sheriff has been invited to address groups throughout the country on the subject of anti-terrorism. The Bristol County Homeland Security Task Force meets monthly and has coordinated several major training exercises throughout the County.

Sheriff Hodgson designed and purchased a state-of-the-art Mobile Command Unit (Incident Command Center) that contains a sophisticated communication platform and other equipment that is available to every community in the County. Incident Command Center training for Police, Fire and Public Safety agencies is on-going, as is planning, implementation, and after action reports for table top exercises for Bristol County cities and towns.

School Programs: Sheriff Hodgson believes that early childhood intervention is the key to reducing the high rate of recidivism. He therefore has aggressively sought grant funding and implemented several school and youth programs, all of which have proven to be highly successful. SLAM (Students Learning a Message) provides the opportunity for student classes to be brought in to the facility for a tour and a presentation by inmates. CHOICES – inmates are taken to schools around the County to speak with students about the importance of making good choices. SAFE TO LEARN – provides training to school department staff, parents and students on proactive and reactive responses to school incidents involving violence or hostage situations. School audits and risk assessment are also provided as part of the program. N.B. JUVENILE COURT – designed to help teenagers overcome drug addiction, provided financial support and a full time coordinator. School training programs include Bullying Programs for school staff, students and parents. The I-SAFE program introduces teachers, administrators and students to internet safety and the many dangers children may be exposed to in Cyber Space. The program has been expanded to include I-SHIELD training for law enforcement personnel, enhancing training opportunities for the I-SAFE program in all communities. BCSO K-9 Unit demonstrations are frequently provided for children at schools and public safety events throughout the county.

Senior Programs: Sheriff Hodgson’s commitment to public safety also includes initiatives for the Senior Community. He has successfully implemented twelve TRIAD programs in Bristol County, namely Easton, Attleboro, North Attleboro, Rehoboth, Mansfield, Swansea, Seekonk, Somerset, New Bedford, Taunton, Fall River and Dartmouth. TRIAD is a collaborative for senior citizens introduced by the National Sheriff’s Association involving the Sheriff’s Department, Police Department and Council on Aging. Also implemented by Sheriff Hodgson is the “R.U.O.K.” Program in which senior citizens sign on to be telephoned every morning as part of a monitoring/response system; PROJECT LIFESAVER, a new bracelet-tracking-device system for Alzheimer patients, as well as the IRIS SCANNING PROGRAM, the latest innovation in identification technology being used to identify lost or missing persons and children. Identity Theft, Crime Awarenes and Disaster Preparedness Seminars have been presented at Senior Centers throughout Bristol County.

Sheriff Hodgson initiated an employee accountability system based on similar programs studied by the Sheriff and his staff at Broward County, Florida and Rikers Island, New York. The Strategic Accountability Management System (SAMS) is a management accountability system designed to hold employees accountable for the work they are performing and the subsequent results intended to encourage teamwork and achieve higher levels of efficiency. Great strides have been made and the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office has been awarded national Accreditation from the American Correctional Association for the Dartmouth House of Correction 2004 – 2007, the Women’s Center 2005 – 2008, and most recently, the Dartmouth House of Correction again for 2007 – 2010.

In 1998, Sheriff Hodgson signed a memorandum of agreement with Carlos Cesar, President of the Autonomous Regional Government of the Azores, Portugal.

Since that time, the Sheriff has worked with the Cesar Administration and now the administration of the newly elected President Vasco Cordeiro on developing reintegration programs for deportees returning to the Azores. Social workers from the Azores travelled to the United States to train with the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office social worker staff and have since developed protocols that have provided necessary information to Azorean authorities to make the deported individuals’ return and transition safer and more successful for the individuals and citizens of the Azores.

For the past three years, Sheriff Hodgson, through the generous support of local business owners, has hosted a Thanksgiving dinner for deportees living on the islands of Sao Miguel and Terceira. Children living in orphanages have also been treated to separate Thanksgiving dinners during the same time period.

Several crime prevention and personal safety programs have been introduced to residents in various villages, as well as programs targeting the needs of the elderly.

The Sheriff, working in collaboration with the Azorean Government and representatives of the University of the Azores, has integrated student volunteerism, targeting the needs of children and the elderly. Sheriff Hodgson was able through the generosity of local businesses in Bristol County to purchase a transportation van for the students to travel to various villages to conduct volunteer efforts.

Most recently, Sheriff Hodgson has been actively involved in supporting efforts to prevent force reduction at the United States Airbase in Terceira, Azores, meeting with members of Congress in Washington, D.C. to discuss options for continued full service operations and other options.

Sheriff Hodgson continues to remain actively involved with other sheriffs throughout the United States to call for careful and thoughtful immigration reform with an initial emphasis on securing our borders and points of entry.

Sheriff Hodgson and his wife Jo-Anne reside in Dartmouth, Massachusetts.

Contact Information:

Thomas M. Hodgson

Bristol County Sheriff’s Office 400 Faunce Corner Road North Dartmouth, MA 02747 Tel: (508) 995-1311 email: info@bcso-ma.org

A #BlackLivesMatter banner hangs over City Hall in Somerville, Massachusetts. The police union wants it taken down, but Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone is keeping it flying – right next to another one supporting dead officers.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) has grown enormously. It has popped up all over the US and Canada, and there are spinoffs in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Brazil, and India – wherever racist policing occurs. BLM has thousands of white allies and includes just about every minority affected by discriminatory policing and the prison pipeline.

To describe it as a Black Nationalist movement is just plain wrong.

So, when Derryck Green in Monday’s op-eds describes BLM as a revolutionary terrorist organization and tries to link it with violent Black Nationalism, one can only scratch one’s head and smile. Except that libelous misinformation like this is not funny – though it is par for the course from conservatives.

To be certain, BLM is ideological. It is strident. It has goals. It will not be silenced. Its website cites Black activists whose voices do not necessarily come out of Black churches – but from the streets, from political struggle, and from progressive movements.

Green acknowledges that Micah Xavier Johnson, a cop-killer, was never a member of BLM – but this doesn’t stop him from nevertheless trying to link Johnson to BLM in the next several paragraphs. And Johnson is also a convenient starting point for smearing all activists. Next on Green’s conservative hit list – President Obama, who at one point was a community organizer – or as Green writes, an “agitator.”

Next Green tries to set up a straw man by writing that everyone thinks of BLM as a part of the Civil Rights movement, but that it lacks the moral underpinnings.

Excuse me? Who said that?

Basically, Green just doesn’t like these young black “belligerent” upstarts. He resents their “celebration of black racial pride and solidarity.” (is this really such a bad thing?) If Green were not a black man himself, I’d almost expect the word “uppity” to pop out of his mouth.

Green accuses BLM of “increasingly violent” demands. This is nothing but empty rhetoric.

What’s violent is the epidemic of killings of black people.

Green says that BLM has “peddled lies” about the number of blacks killed by cops. More nonsense. The Washington Post and the Guardian (UK) have had to create databases to track police shootings for the last two years. And Neill Franklin, a 34-year Maryland State Police veteran, has an online petition asking Congress to start a national database.

Why? Because our society doesn’t care enough about black lives to officially track the body count. But we do have preliminary figures – and they’re shocking.

As Somerville Mayor Curtatone’s principled actions show, support for police reform does not have to come at the expense of support for local police. We may never see “Officer Friendly” again, patrolling on foot and stopping by at the local soda fountain, but most Americans want our police officers to be neighbors and treat us like neighbors – not hound us like an occupation force. Most Americans want fair sentencing for crimes – and recognize that no one wins by putting people in “the system” for life.

Many white Americans are happy with their local police forces, and most are good, decent officers. But it can be a totally different story for Black Americans. BLM’s demands reflect this different reality in a racist society and are absolutely correct and needed. And “moral” as well, Mr. Green.

Derryck Green and his fellow conservatives will no doubt be profoundly disappointed by the “lack of courageous condemnation of Black Lives Matter by good and decent people” as the movement continues to grow and attract allies.

But most “good and decent people” would agree – a broken tail light should never be the prelude to what has now become the obscenely routine shooting of an unarmed black person.

Jack Spillane didn’t get it quite right in his Sunday editorial (“We want police who are better than ourselves”). When society so persistently ignores police abuse, it seems clear that we want violent cops.

Jack correctly points out cases in which young local men have been stopped for questionable reasons or where they have been neglected when forcefully, and fatally, restrained. Mr. Spillane also correctly commends the independent investigations that followed cases that brought grief to families and community, and says that the investigators got it right both times. Hm. Maybe.

But then he writes: “we want our cops to be better than the members of the public they police.” And he immediately gives the poorly-trained policemen, and the police forces that do not reflect the makeup of the communities they police, a free pass. “We want them to have the skills to quickly defuse a situation. That’s not always possible.” Citing Jack Nicholson’s character, Major Jessup, in “A Few Good Men,” Spillane writes: “You can’t handle the truth! The truth being that there are bad guys in the world. And that overwhelming force is sometimes needed to control those bad guys.”

Even though he is 100% wrong, Spillane is close to the issue.

The issue is that we as a society do not wish to tinker with the brutality, the militarism, the authoritarianism, and the lack of accountability of the police. The same goes for our refusal to rein in the abuses of the national security institutions. The same goes for our refusal to hold accountable those who unleash torture, kidnapping, assassinations, reckless wars, and rampant “collateral damage” on civilians. The same goes for our refusal to hold accountable those in the military on whose watch abuses at Abu Ghraib, Kandahar, and elsewhere took place. Indeed, this is Major Jessup’s world.

Whether we can or cannot handle the truth, the truth is – we are a violent, racist society. We know we are. How many wars have we started and how many people have we killed in the last 50 years? How many murders do we permit because we refuse reasonable controls on weapons? What kind of society leads the world in incarceration of its own citizens? What kind of people permit gruesome executions with mystery cocktails to be carried out in secrecy? We are almost unique in the Western world for our barbarity.

A police officer, no matter how friendly he is when he stops you, the middle class white, still has the power to end a young poor, black or Hispanic life in an instant – and what will you say? Regrettable. Tragic. Sometimes “these things” happen? Lip service. And what does society say? Oh well, collateral damage in the very necessary war against bad guys. More lip service, Jack.

Mr. Spillane concludes that we pay the police to protect us from ourselves. Not quite. We pay the police to maintain control over those we fear the most – the poor, the immigrant, the politically suspect, the “other.” It is not a coincidence that the police are also interested in middle class whites if they happen to belong to environmental or political groups. Look at the police violence we saw during the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement. This is not the police protecting us from ourselves. This is the police terrorizing society.

Last week we witnessed shocking displays of defiance and unaccountability toward the New York City mayor and the people of that city by policemen attending a funeral. Their “thin blue” loyalty toward one another is apparently wider, and stronger, than to their employers.

We need the police, but we need police who are part of the communities they serve, represent the makeup of those communities, are accountable to them, and do not run roughshod over those communities. That would be a start.

This was published in the Standard Times on January 7, 2015
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150107/opinion/150109514

While emptying a service revolver into Michael Brown was bad enough, there is a fear that his killer may get away with it – one more “justified” police killing of an unarmed citizen. It’s impunity that has many people upset. Police impunity is just another of the many forms of injustice that roils this country.

“Our Constitution works. Our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men,” said Gerald Ford – right before pardoning Nixon for all the laws he had broken.

Nixon in turn pardoned Jimmy Hoffa and William Calley, the only soldier held accountable for the massacre of 500 people in My Lai, Viet Nam.

Reagan pardoned Nixon’s FBI burglars.

Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, a fugitive donor to Clinton’s presidential library and his wife’s Senate campaign, as well as his own brother, Roger, on federal drug charges.

George Bush (Sr.) pardoned the ringleaders of the Iran-Contra Affair, which included Reagan’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of Defense.

Bush Junior commuted the meager 30 month sentence given to Irving (Scooter) Libby for leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Aside from pardons, which are often a professional courtesy extended to former administrations, not even the most severe criminal acts by political leaders are ever investigated or prosecuted.

The US may have played a role in the show trials in Nuremberg, but now it refuses to be bound by the World Court. The US uses its UN Security Council veto to shield itself from charges of war crimes and human rights abuses. International law is for quiche-eating foreigners, not us.

CIA kidnapping, murder and torture have gone unpunished. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about spying on citizens. The CIA destroyed torture tapes and spied on a Senate team investigating it. And nothing ever happens. A president lies to the nation about weapons of mass destruction. Nothing happens. A famous general takes those lies to the United Nations. Nothing happens. Whistleblowers are hounded for exposing lies. Nothing happens – except to the whistleblower. The FBI kills hundreds of people over several decades and not one agent is ever disciplined for an unjust shooting.

But if government impunity is well-understood, so is that of corporations and the very wealthy.

A July article in Forbes reported: “Six of the 60 richest families in the country include heirs who have killed, raped or sexually abused someone. The circumstances of the tragedies vary — some were accidental car crashes and others were deliberate crimes. But one thing was consistent: the perpetrators hardly received any punishment.”

Deregulation, preferential tax rates or forgiveness, special laws giving corporations “religious” rights to ignore laws that others have to follow – all these diminish our ability to hold accountable anyone other than the average citizen. The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people, but when was the last time you saw one in jail? – in a nation that incarcerates more humans than any other.

And in the rare case where corporate misbehavior is so egregious that token punishment is unavoidable – JPMorgan Chase and British Petroleum come to mind – it turns out even their fines are tax-deductible.

No, laws are only for citizens. This is why the average guy is spied upon, stopped and frisked, and incarcerated in record numbers, especially if he is Black or political or both.

When a police officer violates the law, assaults or kills a citizen, commits violations of the Constitution (locking up journalists, preventing people from legal assembly, stopping and frisking for no reason, or insisting on a suspicion-less search) – they put themselves above the law. Unfortunately, there is actually very little meaningful community oversight of police departments. Most internal police misconduct investigations are done with little transparency, and the outcomes are predictable. Rogue cops often keep on abusing citizens.

If we truly want to be a nation of laws, we need to insist that those who make and uphold the laws and claim to be protecting us – follow the same laws. If not, they should be given orange jump suits like any other criminal.

We may be a nation of laws, but impunity engenders lawlessness when some of us are above the law.

This was published in the Standard Times on August 25, 2014
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20140825/opinion/408250313

Every 28 hours police kill another Black man in the United States. In Ferguson, Missouri, an unarmed Black man, Michael Brown, stole cigars from a convenience store and may or may not have been stopped for this reason by a policeman who emptied his service revolver into Brown.

The Standard Time’s editorial on Brown’s killing correctly highlights the racial elements of police encounters in America today. The images of Ferguson’s police officers with their M16’s, MRAP (IED-resistant armed personnel carrier), and all the other Homeland Security-funded toys used against the community, shocked those who still remember Montgomery and Selma during Jim Crow.

Ferguson police acted as if they were at war with the Black community and journalists – acting as occupiers, not patrolmen. Armaments of war were employed. Journalists were arrested as they filed stories from a local McDonald’s. Police hauled an alderman from his car and roughed him up. They tear-gassed one group of journalists and dismantled their equipment. News helicopters were banned, journalists were bullied and prevented from covering the demonstrations, and police ignored the 72-hour requirement to publish a report of Michael Brown’s killing.

None of this is a surprise to any minority community. Police “serve” Whites differently than others. Recall the kid-gloves treatment that Cliven Bundy’s White supporters received from law enforcement – especially shocking since Bundy’s supporters had sniper rifles trained on them. But militarization of the police affects everyone, not just minorities. We saw it during the Boston Marathon bombing. We saw it during the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, when police throughout the country used tear gas, water cannons, TASERs, and concussion grenades against protestors, denying them rights of assembly and speech.

Radley Balko writes in his “Rise of the Warrior Cop,” that 30 years ago only about a quarter of small towns had SWAT teams. Today, even with lower crime rates, that number is close to 90%. But when you have a big hammer, you have to pound every nail with it. According to Pete Kraska, a professor of Justice Studies in Kentucky, SWAT teams are deployed 137 times a day in the US. SWAT raids are used for everything from delivering a summons to raiding a house where marijuana might be found. Many innocent people have been killed in these raids. And not once has a policemen been held accountable.

Police, including most of our local forces, are armed with TASERS, which send 50,000 volts of electricity via a dart into a human’s nervous system. TASERS have been associated with hundreds of deaths, particularly when repeatedly used on mentally ill, convulsing, non English-speaking, or drugged civilians who cannot “comply” with an officer’s command. YouTube is full of dashcam videos of mouthy White suburban moms who have been tased for basically their “attitude” at roadside stops. Where once an officer was forced to de-escalate an incident with an upset person, mainly by just listening, now he can just blast him with 50,000 volts and slap on the handcuffs.

Funding all this expensive gear (via your tax dollars) is the Law Enforcement Support Office, an obscure federal agency that outfits police forces with military surplus. Similarly, the Defense Logistics Agency has an office whose motto is “from warfighter to crimefighter” and which also provides police with state of the art war gear. The Justice Department, too, has a program to transition veterans, many of whom have PTSD, into positions as police officers. All this has cost taxpayers $35 billion but communities are further on the hook for costs of upgrades and maintenance of these systems, which also include spy gear like “Stingrays,” which gather information from people’s cellphones.

The net result is that we are no longer being served by police forces that look like us, grew up with us, or even necessarily live among us. Certainly this is the case in Ferguson, 70% Black with a police department 95% White. Nationally it is true as well.

That’s because the goal is no longer the protection, but something nearer the occupation of citizens – all of us – by a government that increasingly distrusts its own citizens.

And this is the very definition of a Police State.