Posts tagged Tom Carr
Brigham-Gate and Tom Carr's Past by Rob Smoke: Boulder Colorado
May 18th
Boulder’s City Attorney Tom Carr professes Seth Brigham a growing menace, progressing daily closer to violence against the Boulder city council. It’s an entertaining notion — Seth kidnapping council and turning them into his personal slaves would make a great horror-flick — however it is crap.
Interesting that Brigham-gate should touch on that issue of unpredictable violence, when the most discussed issue of Tom’s 2009 lost Seattle city attorney campaign hinged on the same issue in another context.
During Tom’s tenure as Seattle city attorney, there were extensive “excessive use of force” complaints against the police department of the city of Seattle. Imagine you’re the mom of a developmentally disabled
teenager who gets his face smashed by a Seattle police officer — an officer who had done something similar
on other occasions, but was still on the force because of corrupt internal review. Let’s be clear: Under
Tom Carr there were 400 back-to-back-to-back non-disciplined “excessive use of force” cases.
In other words, the officer was not held accountable with removal or suspension of his job — and in many cases, where an adjunct review board did recommend to Tom that he take disciplinary action, which Tom was actually
responsible for doing, he did nothing.
The Federal Justice Dept. came in, and the Deputy Attorney General of the Human Rights Division, Thomas Perez, cited the entire oversight process as broken. In point of fact, he could have cited Tom Carr, but instead cited everyone including Tom. It was, however, up to Tom to act if others wouldn’t — or at the very minimum,
act more appropriately on a case by case basis with victims of brutality. Google “Seattle police brutality”.
In other videotaped cases, an innocent hispanic man is kicked in the head by an officer while lying on the ground.
In another case, a pregnant woman was tasered multiple times by three officers and Tom appealed a Federal judge’s
ruling to allow the woman to move forward with a civil claim for damages.
Tom did not lose the 2009 Seattle city attorney’s race to a relative newcomer
by some weird accident, or, as he claims, because it was a “bad year for incumbents.”
No, he lost the race in an absolute landslide because people were sick to death of seeing reports about police brutality and suffering victims. Jon Kita, an asian restaurant owner, interviewed in the Seattle press about the videotaped “excessive use of force” assault he endured, put it this way, “How is it possible to get to 400 cases in a row with no discipline?”
Indeed, how is it possible? It must be noted, Tom absolutely oversaw the contracts for
civil claims defense of police officers alleged to have harmed people. During Tom’s tenure, the bill added up
to over $18 million dollars, which all went to one law firm which Tom helped choose. If at any time during those
400 non-disciplined cases there was a turnaround towards implementation of discipline, that would have caused the costs for handling those cases — the billings — to nosedive. Tom prevented that from happening. By the way, Tom’s replacement in Seattle, made it a first order of business to dissolve that highly questionable contract — and guess what? The firm itself has since dissolved.
The question remains, at what point in time did Tom become aware that the city of Seattle was receiving bad publicity for its brutality problems? Was it a year before the election? Could Tom have a rational understanding that he would lose — that in fact, the other side could nominate a doorknob, and he’d probably lose? In other words, what was the nature of Tom’s commitment to having this highly-paid bunch of lawyers defend brutal officers? Did Tom somehow feel that his own personal sense of justice and duty serving the city of Seattle was more significant than the information he was getting from the ever-growing list of injured residents seeking bare compensation or apology for their suffering?
Or did someone pay him to take his election loss with a smile and the “it was a bad year for incumbents” remark?
And how did the city of Boulder manage to hire him, at a pay increase of about $50k per year, without ever discussing
the 2-to-1 margin of loss in the 2009 election, and the brutality issues which always went unresolved and which were
lead stories in the local news, time and again — the hallmark of his term as city attorney?
Rob Smoke is a columnist for Boulder Channel 1. He writes about city of Boulder Politics
Capt. Underpants sues the city Again! Here we go Boulder
Sep 13th
My lawyer requested all evidence from the prosecutor and from the police department files, has or had, three weeks ago!
The prosecutor has refused to release all the evidence! Nada, nothing.
Tom Carr is essentially the supervisor to the prosecutor.
>My case is open, the charges have not been dropped.
My lawyer is filing a motion this week, but, I think one should wonder about our “Justice System” in Boulder and the ethics of our City Attorney, Tom Carr.
Why is it necessary? What is our City Attorney afraid of?
He was one who wrote up the most draconian Press Release concerning my arrest, and the charges against me regarding the “incident” on June 3rd, 2011.
A defendant may file a motion requesting a subpoena to call forth all witnesses and evidence that could favorably determine the outcome of the case, at no cost.
George Thomas, a professor of criminal procedure at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said he has not heard of a case where prosecutors denied a defendant all access to probable cause and doubts such a practice would be found constitutional.
He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause must be present before a defendant can be arrested.
He said it is only logical that the defense should be able to challenge the adequacy of the probable cause.
And, I, Seth Brigham, have always maintained that I was arrested without probable cause, and, in fact, the police we’re abusing their positions, had no probable cause to question the homeless group, ID them and do background checks. And, in any case, I did not obstruct any police investigation.
For all of Tom Carr’s harsh rhetoric and lies concerning the case, no wonder he fears to release evidence yet received by my attorney, for example, taped interviews of two witnesses and photographs of the scene.
He is full of himself and was reckless with his statements. He spoke to my attorney in response to my attorney’s “upset” over the unethical nature of his Press Release.
He said he would not apologize or correct his statements in any way. I feel a need to redeem my name.
I’ve been able to find at least four witnesses that seem to have a recollection of the arrest much like mine.
The prosecutor, who told my lawyer that this deferred prosecution had no bearing on a possible civil suit I might pursue in the future, I find it disconcerting that she will now not cooperate.
TOM??? Do you have a response as to why you are circumventing my rights?
Seth Brigham
3383 Madsion Avenue #W225
Boulder, Colorado
80303
720-298-6711”
MUNICIPAL Court, city of boulder, state of Colorado Court Address: 1777 – Sixth Street, Boulder, CO 80302 Court Phone: 303.441.1842 |
COURT USE ONLY |
Attorney Name: Philip Bienvenu, 206 UCB, UMC 311 Boulder, CO 80309-0206 Attorney Reg. #: 10412 Attorney Phone: 303.492.6813 Attorney Fax: 303.735.5398 Attorney Email: bienvenu@colorado.edu |
Case Number: CR-2011-0009268-GE Division Courtroom |
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY |
Defendant in this case agreed to a Deferred Prosecution on 8-17-11. The following week, Defense Counsel informed the City Prosecutor that we wished to move forward with further discovery, in particular any contents of the case file maintained at the Boulder Police Department, whether or not those materials had yet been turned over to the City Prosecutor’s Office for its file. We are aware that such a separate file is routinely maintained in Municipal Court Criminal cases and the materials sometimes not turned over until the eve of trial. We were informed by the Prosecutor Ms. Michels that she considered the case files and materials no longer discoverable because the Deferred Prosecution is in effect. Defendant’s position is that the case has not been dismissed and is in fact subject to reopen on the Prosecution’s judgment call. There is nothing precluding continuing investigation and preparation for possible trial by either party to the case. We therefore maintain that discovery rights have not been waived or abandoned by the Defendant and should be honored as with any pending case not yet dismissed. The only way the Prosecution could cut off further discovery rights under the case would be full dismissal, which has not happened. Delaying discovery burdens and prejudices Defendant’s right to prepare for possible trial and to be ready should that eventuality become necessary. There can be no claim of prejudice or unfair burden on the Prosecution if this request is granted, because these are just rights the Defendant has in any pending criminal case, and concomitant duties of the Prosecution in any pending criminal case.
We therefore ask the Court to Order continuing discovery of all relevant materials in the case, including all material in the Police Department’s case file, including photos, interview tapes and/or notes, and all materials.
Respectfully,
_______________________________
Philip Bienvenu #10412
Attorney for Defendant