Please leave your comment or suggestion.
RSS
Click for Chiang Mai, Thailand Forecast

Dirty Cop Caught “Testilying” by Supreme Court – FALSE!!!

January 05, 2015 | | Comments 0

DIRTY COP CAUGHT “TESTALYING” BY SUPREME COURT
** Dirty Cop Dave Early Outed By US Supreme Court – Caught “Testalying” Under Oath

This LIE is what someone is posting on the internet, primarily on anti-police websites. Although it is absolutely untrue, they continue to spread, this and other stories, stating I was forced to retire in disgrace and flee to Thailand.  Of course they hide behind their computers not revealing their true identity.  They make it appear to be a legitimate news or information article.   Attempting to add some credibility, along with a couple of their cohorts, they add comments and other defamatory and libelous remark. They then send emails to people I associate with, and probably others, saying things like “Have you seen this?” or “Don’t associate with him, he’s a dirty cop” and include the links to their fairy tales. Of course they skip over the fact that this case occurred in 1985 and I didn’t retire until 2002.

To this point I have tried to mostly ignore it. I have confronted one person who gave his word his emails would stop, but they haven’t.  Mine was not a typical police career and I admit to being proud of it. These allegations upset me so because this garbage then begins to appear in internet search engines and people start to believe it. After all, if it is on the internet it must be true!

Recently someone (believed to be British due to their vernacular) has added truly vicious commentary to these sites attacking me as a person and also calling me a pedophile because of my involvement in a charity. They even included foul references to my family.

They accuse me of being involved in a police corruption case that occurred more than four years after I retired.  (Actual transcripts and other documents relating to this are linked near the bottom of this page). They are so confused in their allegations that they mix it all together and say that I retired in disgrace and fled prosecution, because of one case that happened 17 years before I retired and another that occurred years after I retired.  A person may not like me. They may just hate cops. Call me what you like, but don’t accuse me of being a Bad or Dirty Cop (“Copper” as the Brit posts).

I am not going to quote more of the ridiculous allegations made about the corruption case and how it allegedly drove me into retirement or the myriad of other nonsense claims. However I will address ‘the Brit’ who wrote:

“What kind of man are you?”…….”The most important thing for a man is to acknowledge what he has done, that if he fails to do so he can only be a coward.”

So here is acknowledgement of what I have done. Click through the gallery below. The first four documents are dated immediately after my retirement. The rest are  just a sampling (I have more) of what I was doing during the time period after the Williams case.  Disgraced? Faked? Coward? I think not.

 

DETAILS

I only hope that this page also appears in the search engines and that those reading the anonymously posted garbage without a single item of proof, also read and understand the true facts. I have included almost every detail of these events.

Everything I state here is backed up by links or documents with real names and in many items, addresses, phone numbers, and actual newspaper articles.  Easy to verify if you so choose.  Better yet, for those in Chiang Mai (which seem to be the source), you know how to find/contact me.  I would love to meet face to face and discuss this.

The Supreme Court Case-1993

Syllabus *507 US 680

“After a police sergeant threatened to “lock [him] up” during a station house interrogation about a double murder, respondent Williams made inculpatory statements. He was then advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, waived those rights, and made more inculpatory statements. The Michigan trial court declined to suppress his statements on the ground that he had been given timely Miranda warnings, and he was convicted of first-degree murder and related crimes. Williams subsequently commenced this habeas action pro se, alleging a Miranda violation as his principal ground for relief. The District Court granted relief, finding that all statements made between the sergeant’s incarceration threat and Williams’ receipt of Miranda warnings should have been suppressed.”

The Williams case is an interesting and complicated issue.  As in most homicide cases, which result in a conviction, an appeal was filed by the defense.  The conviction was upheld in the Michigan District Court,  the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the Michigan Supreme Court. Eventually the case was appealed to the Federal District court which did overturn the conviction. It is then the State of Michigan, not Williams, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“In appealing this decision to the Supreme Court, the state is asking the Court to rule that if a state inmate has had a “full and fair opportunity” to raise a Miranda question in state court, the question is barred from further review in Federal court.”

“The case the Court agreed today to hear is an appeal filed by the State of Michigan of a Federal court decision that set aside a conviction for a double murder. The Michigan state courts found that the defendant, Robert A. Williams Jr., had not been “in custody” when he accompanied police to a police station and was questioned about his involvement in the murders. Since the Miranda warnings are required only for suspects in custody, this finding served to excuse the fact that the police had not advised Mr. Williams of his right not to answer questions and to have a lawyer present.”

“………….. John D. O’Hair, the Wayne County prosecutor who filed the state’s petition, described the case in his brief as “symptomatic of a larger problem in our criminal justice system: the widespread and growing nature of Federal involvement in state court criminal proceedings.” Noting that the state courts had already rejected Mr. Williams’s Miranda arguments, Mr. O’Hair said that “for the entire Federal court system to litigate this point anew is a waste of judicial resources.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/21/us/high-court-to-rule-on-limiting-criminal-appeals.html?src=pm

Finally in 1993, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court did concur with the Federal District Court ruling ordering the State of Michigan to retry the case within 90 days. I don’t know why that didn’t happen.   Actually, it is still much more complicated as they unanimously agreed there was a procedural error, as claimed by the State of Michigan.  I am not going to attempt to address that here, and I don’t entirely understand it myself because there is not enough information available.

In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote,

“Justice SCALIA, with whom Justice THOMAS joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

“In my view, both the Court and Justice O’CONNOR disregard the most powerful equitable consideration: that Williams has already had full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim. He had the opportunity to raise it in the Michigan trial court; he did so and lost. He had the opportunity to seek review of the trial court’s judgment in the Michigan Court of Appeals; he did so and lost. Finally, he had the opportunity to seek discretionary review of that Court of Appeals judgment in both the Michigan Supreme Court and this Court; he did so and review was denied. The question at this stage is whether, given all that, a federal habeas court should now reopen the issue and adjudicate the Miranda claim anew. The answer seems to me obvious: it should not. That would be the course followed by a federal habeas court reviewing a federal conviction; it mocks our federal system to accord state convictions less respect.”

It took 8 years of review; scrutinized by countless numbers of attorneys, judges and courts, and “the entire Federal court system”.  Even then the decisions were not unanimous.  Police officers must make judgements based on the immediate situation and facts they have on hand at the moment.  We are not attorneys. We do not have the benefit of days, weeks, or years of hindsight to consider before making a decision. I was a police officer in the State of Michigan. The fact that this conviction was upheld in the Michigan lower courts and the Michigan State appeals process shows that we did indeed act in good faith and within the laws of the State of Michigan.

As a young detective I did make mistakes on this case.  My interview was described as coercive in nature.  Absolutely true. But I had found that “Pretty please, will you confess to murdering two people?” seldom gets results.  In later years I would certainly have done things differently.  None the less; whether you agree with the tactics or not, at no time during the court hearings, the appeals court reviews, or subsequent study, was I, or any other police officer accused of lying or falsifying information.  All interviews with Williams were tape recorded or videotaped (at my request) and made available to the defense and the courts.  In contention were the legal issues of arrest and Miranda requirements, not police misconduct.

In my 23 year career as a police officer I learned, and taught others, to not take legal matters and decisions as a personal affront. I cannot begin to estimate how many cases I handled through the years to the best of my ability. Most were successful prosecutions, some not.  That is how our legal system works and I respect that.

Williams was arrested in 1985.  My partner and I were both issued commendations in 1987. As to the affect this case had on my later career or retirement; it didn’t.

 

Below is the main offending post (by an American) in it’s entirety. I have also added my comments (mostly just reiterating the above).

COP CAUGHT TESTALYING BY SUPREME COURT
Published On December 23, 2013 |
Dirty Cop Dave Early Outed By US Supreme Court – Caught Testalying Under Oath

Withrow v. Williams 507 U.S. 680 (No.91-1030) http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1030.ZO.html

Sergeant David Early of the Romulus, Michigan police department testified that Robert Allen Williams, Jr. was not under arrest when Williams volunteered information that lead to his conviction for a double murder. Williams appealed his conviction costing him years in prison while the appeals made their way through the courts and costing the city and state governments hundreds of thousands of dollars to try and support Early’s abuse of authority or cover-up the officer’s abuse of Williams’ constitutional rights.

There was no cover up. There was not, according to the State of Michigan courts, a violation of William’s constitutional rights. There was no cost to the City other than the salary of officers who appear during the initial trial.  The city and officers are not involved in an appeals process.  There was never any litigation filed.

The US Supreme court noted in the very first paragraph of its ruling for the Williams, “One officer, Sergeant David Early, later testified that Williams was not under arrest at this time, although a contemporaneous police report indicates that the officers arrested Williams at his residence.”
At issue was whether or not the police officer violated the rights of the defendant. The court ruled that the officer had and Williams’ conviction was overturned.

This is not the issue that went before the Supreme Court.   The quote appears in an introduction of the case in a ruling of the U.S. District Court.  Although the author and his followers have used this many times as an indication that it was a major issue, it was not. In fact, it was accepted throughout all the proceedings that Williams was not placed under arrest at his house.  The legal issues pertained to later when during the interviews at the police station was he, under legal definitions, “in custody” and if so when.    The “contemporaneous report” was not accurate, not written by me, and only in the author’s eyes, not the courts, is it construed to be a factor.

The following is a definition that the author writes, and NOT clearly noted by the Supreme Court as he states. This did not appear anywhere in actual documents or statements regarding this case.  There was never a charge or insinuation of police misconduct, perjury, false information or anything similar stated or alluded to anywhere in the entire court proceeding.  Period!

Clearly, as the US Supreme Court noted about the “contemporaneous police report,” Sergeant Early was lying under oath. Police Misconduct occurs when an officer violates someone’s constitutional rights. This misconduct can subject the officer and the police department to both civil and criminal penalties: It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242). “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts “under color of law” even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by these laws include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another.

Finally the author writes…….

Disgraced officer Early took a self-described “early retirement” from the police department and moved as far away as he could from the state of Michigan, relocating in Thailand, from where extradition is often difficult if not impossible. The two-year statute of limitations for perjury ran out while Early was building a website about how comfortable his life was in Thailand, (www.daveearly.com) while living off the taxpayer dollars.

The arrest of Williams was in 1985.  The Supreme Court opinion was issued in 1993.  I retired in 2002 after a distinguished career.  The timeline in itself further shows how ludicrous the accusations are. I thought I adequately explained my career and subsequent retirement on my website at EARLY Retirement. Apparently not. The rest of this page probably contains more detail than most people care to know, but I must finally debunk each of their allegations.

Retirement 2002-Allegations

‘The Brit’ states;

“The offered reason for the copper retiring early from the police department, claiming a reduction in force? Yes, but a reduction in force (RIF) by one dirty copper being fired. Offer from government bureaucracy? Take the early retirement at 75% or we fire and prosecute you, and move as far away as possible and no future involvement in law enforcement.”

Irrefutable  evidence that this and other allegations are false is contained in sworn testimony in this copy of a deposition taken in conjunction with an age discrimination law suit against the City of Romulus. On October 1, 2003 Mayor Alan Lambert was deposed and explained his entire (ill fated) reorganization and early retirement plan. It also lists all TEN officers, including me, who retired due to this plan.

18   Q. (attorney) Was the reorganization plan that you were reviewing at
 19         the time predicated upon the implementation of the
 20         early retirement and buyouts?
 21   A. (Lambert) I don’t understand the question.
 22   Q.    Sure.  You instructed the Chief sometime in March to
 23         start doing a reorganization?
 24   A.    Right.
 25   Q.    Shortly thereafter, within a month, he comes back to
00013
  1         you with Debbie Hoffman and says here’s an idea, if we
  2         get the command officers to retire, we can save the
  3         money and here’s a reorganization plan on how we save
  4         the money?
+(attorney objection deleted for brevity DAE)
  9   A.    That’s what there was, yeah.  Yeah, pretty much that’s
 10         what they came and said.  In fact, they talked about
 11         what kind of offer we could make the command officers
 12         where it would make it worth their while to take a
13         buyout and everybody should be happy.
Mayor Lambert Deposition (PDF File)

And so, although NOT “happy”, I retired.


 Corruption Allegations-2011

Sadly in September 2011, six Romulus Police Officers and one civilian were charged, and later convicted, of various corruption charges.

From 1997 until 2002, I was the Commanding Officer of the Romulus Police Department Investigative Bureau.  I managed the Special Investigation Unit (SIU), Detective Bureau, Romulus officers assigned to the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration and the Michigan State Police Auto Theft Task Force.  I was responsible for the Investigative Bureau budget, drug forfeiture funds and cash disbursements for informants and undercover investigations. All expenses were scrutinized by me, and verified by an independent auditing firm on unannounced random checks.

Approximately one year before my retirement, a new City Mayor (Alan Lambert) was elected.  As part of his department reorganization plan, SIU was placed under the direct supervision of the Chief of Police (Charles Kirby) and I turned all narcotic funds over to him (after an audit).

Sometime after my retirement in 2002, Chief Kirby also retired. A new Chief (Mike St.Andre) was appointed by Mayor Lambert. Management of narcotic funds had been delegated to the chief’s secretary, a civilian, who had no supervisory experience or authority over SIU officers.

My knowledge of what happened after that point is only gained from the information contained in the links below and other news items.  Yes, I had already retired and relocated to Thailand (at least “they” got that part correct).

“In December, 2008, a highly placed City of Romulus police official requested that the Michigan State Police (MSP) investigate allegations of misconduct, corruption, and embezzlement of drug forfeiture funds by select members of the Romulus Police Department Special Investigation Unit (RPD – SIU) and highly-placed command personnel.  In January, 2009, MSP began an investigation into the allegations. “

“Between January, 2006 through September, 2011, it is alleged that defendants repeatedly made, or assisted others in making, material misrepresentations of fact in connection with expense reports they submitted in an effort to seek improper reimbursement; created fraudulent documents to support improper expenditures of drug forfeiture funds; obstructed justice; made false statements in police reports; and ultimately misused City of Romulus funds for their own personal gain.”

Wayne County Prosecutor News Release (PDF File) (names and charges listed here)

Only one of the accused officers ever worked under my direct command. One was not even a member of the department during my tenure. This was a joint investigation conducted by the Michigan State Police, the Wayne County Prosecutors Office and the FBI. I have no doubt in its thoroughness and I am sure they went back as many years as they felt necessary.

I was never made aware of the ongoing investigation.  I was not asked for any information or otherwise contacted in regard to this matter. The persons now insinuating that I had any connection whatsoever to this case, related criminal acts or investigation,  say that I fled to Thailand or made some kind of deal in order to avoid prosecution, need to get their names, facts and years straight.

Romulus Police Secretary Testifies (PDF File) (noticed irregularities beginning 2005)

34th District Court Preliminary Hearing Decision (PDF File) (details of charges, Sept 2012)

Romulus City Council Demands Resignation of Mayor (PDF File) (search warrant served on home)

Convictions and Pleas End Corruption Case (PDF) (Nov 2014)

 

Not one of the allegations made by these sad individuals are true . End of story.

**I have taken great effort to post irrefutable information and sources. From now on I will consider any person(s) creating, perpetuating or aiding in distribution of defamatory remarks to be doing so knowingly, intentionally and with malice.  That person(s) will be guilty of defamation in Thailand as defined under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code and/or the Computer Crime Act.  That person(s) will be subject to, criminal or civil legal actions, or other possible remedy as I may deem appropriate.

 

Filed Under: Daily BlogGeneral Info

Tags:

RSSComments (0)

Trackback URL

Comments are closed.