The Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility is recommending disciplinary action against six officers for their conduct in response to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
The OPR recommended disciplinary action for conduct unbecoming in three of the cases, failure to comply with directives in one of the cases, improper remarks in one case, and “improper dissemination” in one case.
The department said it had provided the Justice Department with details of the administrative cases “as part of the ongoing discovery in the prosecution of the January 6 rioters,” but said the officers’ identities were redacted.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office found insufficient evidence to charge any of the officers with a crime, according to the Capitol Police’s statement.
In a statement, the Capitol Police said the OPR launched 38 internal investigations into officer conduct following the Jan. 6 riot, and was able to identify the officers involved in 26 of the cases. No wrongdoing was found for 20 of the cases in which specific officers were identified.
The Capitol Police said another administrative case regarding an official accused of unsatisfactory performance and conduct unbecoming, which was launched after a criminal investigation, is still pending.
“The Department is committed to accountability when officers fail to meet the standards governed by USCP policies and the congressional community’s expectations,” the statement said. “The six sustained cases should not diminish the heroic efforts of the United States Capitol Police officers.”
“Our Office of Professional Responsibility will investigate these behaviors for disciplinary action, up to, and including termination,” a statement released by Acting Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman said.
Thirty-eight internal investigations were started by the USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) since Jan. 6, but they were only able to identify officers involved in 26 of the cases, the department said in a Saturday statement. Misconduct was identified in six out of the 26.
“Some complaints did not contain enough information to identify the officer at the center of the complaint,” the statement said. “Three for conduct unbecoming. One for failure to comply with directives. One for improper remarks. One for improper dissemination of information.”
One additional case is pending for an officer accused of “unsatisfactory performance” and “conduct unbecoming,” according to their press release. USCP disclosed that this investigation was launched following a criminal investigation, although charges were never filed.
The U.S. Capitol Police said Monday that it would not take any action against the officer who shot and killed rioter Ashli Babbitt on Jan 6.
“USCP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) determined the officer’s conduct was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury,” the department said in a statement. The officer’s identity was not disclosed due to safety concerns.
“This officer and the officer’s family have been the subject of numerous credible and specific threats for actions that were taken as part of the job of all our officers: defending the Congress, Members, staff and the democratic process,” the department said.
Babbitt was shot by the unnamed officer while storming the capitol on Jan. 6 as President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election was being certified. The 14-year Air Force veteran was part of a crowd that was pushing towards the blockaded doorway of the Speaker’s Lobby.
A right wing protester holds a sign about Ashli Babbitt while participating in a political rally on July 25, 2021 in New York City. (Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in April the officer would face no charges from federal prosecutors because he acted in self-defense and in defense of members of Congress.
“The investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber,” the DOJ said in a statement.
Babbitt’s family lawyer told CNN at the time he planned to file a civil rights lawsuit over excessive force.
“The actions of the officer in this case potentially saved Members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where Members and staff were steps away,” the U.S. Capitol Police said in their statement Monday.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact email@example.com.
Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
CHICAGO (LifeSiteNews) — Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich released a new archdiocesan policy, ordering “all employees and clergy” to receive the COVID-19 injections no more than “five weeks” after full approval of “at least one of the three vaccines,” threatening “disciplinary measures” if priests and employees do not comply.
In a memo dated August 18, Cardinal Cupich outlined that the “goal of this policy is that all employees and clergy will be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 using one of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized vaccines and vaccination regimen.”
The directive, not “currently” applicable for volunteers, is due to take force just “five weeks” after the FDA gives approval to “at least one of the three vaccines,” which Cupich wrote would give time for the “unvaccinated persons to get their full regimen” of the injections.
‘Non-compliance’ with injection mandate could lead to ‘disciplinary action’
Cupich’s directive stipulates that in addition to receiving the gene-therapy injections, the employees and clergy must provide “documentation” to the archdiocesan “tracking portal or website” in order to prove their vaccination status. This “tracking” is to be done “centrally” so that the archdiocese will have full oversight into the vaccine status of all clergy and employees.
Despite the abortion-tainted nature of the injections – which has led Cardinal Raymond Burke to declare it is “never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses,” – Cardinal Cupich did not permit any religious exemptions.
“Consistent with the current guidance of the Church, there will be no allowable religious exemption from compliance with the vaccination policy,” wrote the cardinal. However, in doing so, Cupich ignored a line from the December 2020 note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).
While the CDF’s document did offer some support for using abortion-tainted vaccines – a matter strongly protested by a number of prominent, faithful clergy – the CDF also stated that “practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”
Instead, Cupich allows exemptions from the mandate only on medical grounds.
Should such a medical exemption be sought, a request is to be assessed by “a panel including two Medical Doctors; a pastor, a member of the General Counsel’s office and an AoC HR representative.” The decision of this body is not subject to an appeal, wrote Cupich.
Should such an exemption be granted, the cleric or employee would be forced to undergo weekly tests for COVID-19 and submit the results to the archdiocesan tracking portal, although the note mentions that the frequency of the tests. In addition, those who are not vaccinated will have to wear a face mask “at all times in Archdiocese facilities until further notice for the health and safety of employees/clergy and guests.”
Such restrictions are in addition to the cardinal’s stipulation that the “unvaccinated … may be restricted from use of certain amenities such as eating in lunchrooms if appropriate social distancing and/or other mitigation measures cannot be implemented to maintain a safe environment (e.g. staggered times, more than six-foot distancing etc.) in Archdiocese facilities until further notice for the health and safety of employees and guests.”
Furthermore, those who are able to obtain a medical exemption from the cardinal’s vaccine mandate might still face additional restrictions, as yet unspecified: “The Archdiocese reserves the right to prohibit unvaccinated employees/clergy from entering archdiocesan facilities for reasons of health and safety of employees and guests.”
The policy ends with a veiled threat from the cardinal’s office as he warns against “Non-compliance with the provisions of this policy,” which “may result in disciplinary action for those individuals.” No further detail is given about what “disciplinary action” might be expected.
LifeSiteNews repeatedly contacted the cardinal’s secretary, the diocesan press office, and the vaccine policy office but was unable to make successful contact with anyone authorized to respond to LifeSite’s questions about the policy.
Cupich orders priests to refuse vaccine exemptions
The cardinal, known for his widespread deviation from Church teaching on a variety of issues, has also ordered his priests not to issue any religious exemptions from the abortion-tainted injections. In a letter sent out August 17, Cupich told priests to “politely decline” signing any such religious exemption templates, declaring “there is no basis in Catholic moral teaching for rejecting vaccine mandates on religious grounds.”
Writing that the Holy See “clearly stated that receiving the Covid vaccine is unquestionably in keeping with Catholic faith,” and that Catholic morality “always keeps in focus the common good,” Cupich declared that priests must thus refuse to support requests for a religious exemption.
He told clergy to explain that signing such a form “would mean that you would be endorsing something that is not in keeping with Catholic teaching.”
While the 72-year-old cardinal admitted that the laity “can determine their own actions” and refuse the injection, he told priests to “clarify” that lay Catholic “cannot use the teaching of the church to justify such decisions, which in their essence, are a rejection of the church’s authentic moral teaching regarding Covid vaccines.”
Days earlier, reports emerged that Cupich’s opposition to any such religious exemption had resulted in him reportedly “leaning hard” on bishops and board members of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) to retract their defense of religious exemptions from mandatory vaccination.
In a July 2 statement, the NCBC defended religious, medical, and conscience exemptions, and a few days later issued an exemption letter template that provided the basis for the Colorado letter some weeks later.
Speaking anonymously to CNA, one of the NCBC board members revealed that Cupich had been putting “a tremendous pressure” on the organization to retract its statements allowing for religious exemptions, but added that the NCBC would not change its statement.
Civil war among U.S. bishops over vaccine exemptions
With the issue of mandatory vaccination now looming in many areas of life, the Catholic episcopate in the United States appears divided over whether to grant religious exemptions from such mandates.
Catholic bishops in Colorado and South Dakota, along with the National Catholic Bioethics Center, have recently written to defend exemptions from vaccine mandates. All of these statements supported the right to religious, medical and freedom of conscience exemptions in the matter of vaccine mandates.
“If a Catholic comes to an informed judgment that he or she should not receive a vaccine, then the Catholic Church requires that the person follow this judgment of conscience and refuse the vaccine,” wrote the NCBC and Colorado’s Catholic prelates.
Meanwhile, along with Cupich, an increasing number of the U.S hierarchy refuses to permit religious exemptions to the abortion-tainted vaccines, including Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, and Bishop Daniel Garcia of Monterey.
Their support for the injections, along with support for mandatory injections, comes in direct opposition to Cardinal Burke, former Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, who previously spoke out against vaccines using aborted babies: “It must be clear that it is never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of the cell lines of aborted fetuses. The thought of the introduction of such a vaccine into one’s body is rightly abhorrent.”
Days after an exclusive report by Reason, the Baton Rouge Police Department (BRPD) on Friday defended a traffic stop during which time five officers strip-searched a minor in public in January of last year because the cops allegedly smelled marijuana.
They then entered the family’s home without a warrant or consent. BRPD Chief Murphy J. Paul said in a Friday press conference that an investigation is ongoing as it pertains to the warrantless entry, but that charges were not sustained over the traffic stop and search.
The body camera footage “represents a fraction of what occurred between our officers and civilians,” said the BRPD chief of staff. The department aired additional footage on Friday after a court approved its release.
It did not change the story. Footage, incident reports, disciplinary records, and hearing transcripts obtained and released by Reason on Tuesday paint a troubling picture of what happened that day. That’s particularly true when it comes to the tenure of Sergeant Ken Camallo, who has executed three warrantless searches since 2017 and who appeared to demonstrate a lack of truthfulness while testifying under oath about that January traffic stop. Yet he has continued to serve.
On January 1, 2020, Camallo alleges he pulled over a vehicle for “suspicious driving” after noticing it had out-of-state plates and had been parked in front of a “known drug house.” Upon stopping the car, Camallo, joined by BRPD Officers Troy Lawrence Jr., Neil Porter, Jace Ducote, and Scott Johnson, proceeded to strip-search Clarence Green, then 23, and his 16-year-old brother, yanking down their underwear and prodding their genitals because the cops allegedly smelled marijuana.
They would go on to find weed on Green’s brother. They would also find a firearm on Green, which he was prohibited from owning, as he was on probation for possession of Oxycodone, according to the initial police report.
That same document says the cops then traveled to the Green residence to “release the juvenile to his mother.” They did more than that. After muting their body camera videos, they entered the home without a warrant or consent, and with guns drawn.
Green was indicted for illegally possessing a firearm. After sitting behind bars for 5 months, the state ultimately dropped the charges with little explanation.
A federal judge approved that request, but not before taking the opportunity to rebuke the state for its unconstitutional conduct and to remind the government “of its paramount obligation to seek and serve justice, not convictions.”
“The state agents in this case demonstrated a serious and wanton disregard for Defendant’s constitutional rights, first by initiating a traffic stop on the thinnest of pretext, and then by haphazardly invading Defendant’s home (weapons drawn) to conduct an unjustified, warrantless search,” wrote Judge Brian A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
He also suggested the cops may have committed crimes subject to prosecution under state law.
Camallo’s story waffled over time. An edited police report—one of nearly a dozen changing iterations documenting the January 1 interaction—notes that Tanya Green, Clarence’s mother, gave written permission to search his bedroom. That was not present on the initial police reports, Tanya denies providing such consent, and the body camera footage does not show her giving that permission.
Perhaps more importantly, a motions hearing transcript in November 2020 shows Camallo testifying that his disciplinary record was clean—something that Assistant U.S. Attorney Kashan Pathan would go on to confirm when asked point-blank by Jackson.
Yet that wasn’t true. In 2017, a different federal judge dismissed all of the evidence against a man who was charged with various weapons and drug offenses after Camallo conducted another warrantless search on his van. It was Pathan’s office, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Louisiana, that had no choice but to drop that case—specifically because of Camallo’s behavior. BRPD internal affairs records obtained by Reason show that Camallo had several stains on his record, including a charge for untruthfulness filed in 2019 pertaining to a third warrantless search, as well as disciplinary charges filed in connection to the 2020 incident.
The city last month quietly agreed to pay a $35,000 settlement if the Green family would drop a civil suit—a tacit acknowledgment of just how brutal this case was. But it’s also indicative of how elusive accountability is when the government tramples on your rights. The entire sum will come out of taxpayer dollars, the Greens will not have the opportunity to confront the officers in civil court, and the cops continue to serve on the force.
Police accountability has been the issue du jour over the last year. Relevant to the conversation is qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that makes it insidiously difficult to bring lawsuits against state actors when they violate your rights. Victims may not argue their claims before a jury if the alleged government misbehavior and the circumstances surrounding their cases have not been addressed almost identically in a prior court precedent.
In other words, should the Greens have proceeded with their suit, they may have found themselves legally barred from stating their case before a jury in civil court. The city’s settlement with them is a testament to how cut and dry their case might have beee, but there are plenty of other shocking instances where the government skirted accountability completely for their actions.
Though the Greens fared better than many victims, they still haven’t gotten real accountability. Worth noting is that internal affairs records obtained for Lawrence show no disciplinary action filed against him in connection with the January 1 traffic stop.
“If you don’t shut the fuck up, I’m gonna come in and I’m gonna fuck you up,” said Lawrence that evening. The reason? Green was trying to warn his brother not to give officers his DNA.
“You think I’m playing with you? I will fuck you up,” Lawrence said.
FILE PHOTO: Football Soccer – UEFA Euro 2020 Munich Logo Launch – Olympia Park, Munich, Germany – 27/10/16. The trophy is seen during logo launch. REUTERS/Michaela Rehle/File Photo
May 26, 2021
(Reuters) – UEFA has opened disciplinary proceedings against Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus over their attempts to launch a breakaway Super League, European soccer’s governing body said on Tuesday.
The clubs are the only three of the original 12 to have not distanced themselves from the project following an outpouring of criticism.
“Following an investigation conducted by UEFA Ethics and Disciplinary Inspectors in connection with the so-called ‘Super League’ project, disciplinary proceedings have been opened against Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus FC for a potential violation of UEFA’s legal framework,” UEFA said.
“Further information will be made available in due course.”
The Super League was launched with 12 clubs as founding members, but nine of them — Manchester United, Liverpool, Manchester City, Chelsea, Tottenham Hotspur, Arsenal, AC Milan, Inter Milan and Atletico Madrid — have since backed out and reached a deal with UEFA.
(Reporting by Simon Jennings in Bengaluru; Editing by Toby Davis)
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner is facing disciplinary proceedings stemming from an ethics complaint filed against her, according to a case list (pdf) posted on a state website.
Gardner, who was elected to her post with the help of billionaire liberal activist George Soros, will likely face a panel that will review the allegations against her. The Missouri Supreme Court would render the final verdict on what punishment, if any, Gardner will receive.
It’s unclear which allegations the disciplinary proceedings will address, but a statement by Gardner’s office provided to KMOV referenced the allegations against her lodged by former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens.
“As the Circuit Attorney has repeatedly proven time after time, she has acted in full accordance with the law during the investigation into former Governor Greitens,” the statement reads. “Despite several investigations attempting to uncover illegal wrongdoing by her office in this case, none has ever been found. We are confident that a full review of the facts will show that the Circuit Attorney has not violated the ethical standards of the State of Missouri.”
Greitens’s team had accused Gardner of failing to correct the record during a deposition from private investigator William Tisaby, whom Gardner had hired to investigate Greitens. Tisaby had conducted interviews with the woman who accused Greitens of misconduct. Tisaby had since been charged with six counts of perjury and one count of tampering with evidence as part of his work on the Greitens case. Gardner was with Tisaby when some of the violations occurred and had an ethical duty to flag his alleged lies, Greitens’s team claims.
Greitens resigned from the governorship amid Gardner’s probe, but all of the charges against him were subsequently dropped.
In 2019, the Missouri Supreme Court’s Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel received 1,733 complaints (pdf) of attorney misconduct and opened 763 investigations. The office’s work that year resulted in the disbarment of 22 attorneys and the suspension of 30 others.
Greitens is now running for the U.S. Senate in Missouri.
In an extraordinary turnabout, a George Soros-backed prosecutor in St. Louis was ordered Tuesday to face a professional disciplinary hearing over her conduct in pursuing now-withdrawn criminal charges against former Republican Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens.
The Missouri Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel found probable cause that St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner committed professional misconduct and should face a disciplinary hearing, according to records posted Tuesday evening by the Missouri Office of the Advisory Committee and Legal Ethics Counsel.
The proceeding now goes to a disciplinary hearing panel for decision on a possible penalty, which would then be imposed by the Missouri Supreme Court. Gardner will be able to defend herself at the hearing.
“All disciplinary hearing panel cases are filed with the Supreme Court of Missouri unless they are dismissed at the disciplinary hearing panel level or if the disciplinary hearing panel administers a written admonition that is accepted by the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the Respondent,” according to the state’s rules.
Discipline can range from admonishment to the revocation of Gardner’s law license. The order was based on a complaint filed by Greitens’ attorneys more than a year ago. Greitens recently announced he is planning a political comeback, running for the open Senate seat in Missouri.
The supporting findings and complaint of the disciplinary counsel against Gardner were not immediately made public, and Just the News filed a request Tuesday evening with the disciplinary office to release those records.
The order Tuesday is the latest fallout from the decision by Gardner, a Democrat, to file criminal charges against Greitens, a Republican, in 2018 alleging that he used a cell phone picture of a girlfriend to make extortion threats.
She easily won reelection last year, but her legal troubles have are far from over. Her former chief investigator in the Greitens case, a former FBI agent named William Tisaby, has been indicted on seven felonies for misconduct in the prosecution and is awaiting trial. And Gardner herself is being investigated by a special prosecutor for her handling of the Greitens case.
FILE PHOTO: Tennis – Adria Tour – Belgrade, Serbia – June 13, 2020 Bosnia’s Damir Dzumhur in action during his match against Austria’s Dominic Thiem REUTERS/Marko Djurica
March 18, 2021
(Reuters) – Damir Dzumhur has been fined and will face a further probe after the Bosnian walked off court in anger over a line call during his second qualifying round match on Sunday in the ATP 500 event at Acapulco, Mexico.
Dzumhur, who reached a career-high ranking of 23rd in 2018, was serving at 5-5, 40-40 in the opening set against Botic van de Zandschulp when a forehand from his Dutch opponent was called in by the line judge.
Dzumhur approached the chair umpire asking for the call to be overruled but to no avail and then lost his cool. He subsequently lost the service game to trail 6-5.
An infuriated Dzumhur continued remonstrating with the chair umpire during the change of ends and received a code violation. After returning to court he again said something to the umpire during the next game and received a point penalty.
The world number 125 then walked off the court, threw his racquet on his bag and touched fists with Van de Zandschulp signalling his intention to stop playing.
While de Zandschulp walked away with his bag, Dzumhur had a discussion with the tournament supervisor but continued to speak angrily with the chair umpire.
“In a second round qualifying match in Acapulco, Damir Dzumhur received two code violations for unsportsmanlike conduct, and his failure to continue the match resulted in a default,” the ATP said in a statement.
“In addition to a total fine of $6,500, Dzumhur forfeits the second round qualifying prize money of $5,280.
“Following the penalties issued on-site, a further investigation will be initiated under the Player Major Offence provision under ATP Rules,” the men’s governing body added.
(Reporting by Sudipto Ganguly in Mumbai; editing by Peter Rutherford)