Online Slander campaign

The following examples are from a few sources, showing how a successful slander campaign against political targets can be done.

Topix.com is a commentary website which allows anonymous postings without standards.
In the following example, community politician Marti Brown, who is identified as a "progressive", is slandered in such a way that would alienate her from her friend and fellow "progressive" Myrna Hayes.

Myrna Hayes house condemned. Will be torn down.
Posted in the Vallejo Forum [http://www.topix.com/forum/city/vallejo-ca/TUQBJHMPEUV06RRSI]:

Comments
Showing posts 1 - 5 of 5

Marti Brown
San Leandro, CA
#1
Apr 6, 2011
I just heard that Vallejo code enforcement condemned Myrna Hayes house and it will be torn down.

Sams Missing Balls
Vallejo, CA
#2
Apr 6, 2011
sammy's raging tantrum list. We actually have enough material to pass out during your campaign, but the more the better. Lots of pages to pass out.
See spammy on his raging "hate" campaign. Do you want him representing you???? Bwahahahahaha!

Bring it
San Leandro, CA
#3
Apr 6, 2011
Yeah lets pass it out.Should we wear sheets or paper bags ovwr our heads when we do it?

Sam Kurshan for Council
Vallejo, CA
#4
Apr 6, 2011
This is my message and I've approved it.

Irish Mike
AOL
#6
Apr 7, 2011
where is your brain sam??? obviously nobody approved of that

Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force

"Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force; You should know about them because they may already know about you"
2013-01-30 from "Alternet.org" [http://www.alternet.org/meet-contractors-turning-americas-police-paramilitary-force]:
The national security state has an annual budget of around $1 trillion [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/real-us-national-security-budget-1-trillion]. Of that huge pile of money, large amounts go to private companies the federal government awards contracts to. Some, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, are household names, but many of the contractors fly just under the public's radar. What follows are three companies you should know about (because some of them can learn a lot about you with their spy technologies).

L3 Communications -
L3 is everywhere. Those night-vision goggles the JSOC team in Zero Dark Thirty uses? That's L3 [http://www.l3com.com/media-center/press-releases.html?pr_id=1669570].
The new machines that are replacing the naked scanners at the airport? That's L3 [http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/01/18/tsa-abandons-rapiscans-nude-body-scanners/].
Torture at Abu Ghraib? A former subsidiary of L3 was recently ordered to pay $5.28 million to 71 Iraqis who had been held in the awful prison [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/01/08/abu-ghraib-payments-5-million/1818945/].
Oh, and drones? L3 is on it. Reprieve, a UK-based human rights organization, earlier this month wrote on its Web site: “L-3 Communications is one of the main subcontractors involved with production of the US’s lethal Predator since the inception of the programme. Predators are used by the CIA to kill ‘suspected militants’ and terrorise entire populations in Pakistan and Yemen. Drone strikes have escalated under the Obama administration and 2013 has already seen six strikes in the two countries.”
Unsurprisingly, L3 Communications is well connected beyond the national security community. Its chief financial officer recently spoke at Goldman Sachs, at what the financial titan hilariously refers to as a “fireside chat.”
L3 also supplies local law enforcement with its night-vision products and makes a license-plate recognition (LPR) device, a machine with disturbing implications. LPR can be mounted on cop cruisers or statically positioned at busy intersections and can run potentially thousands of license plates through law enforcement databases in a matter of hours. In some parts of the country LPR readers can track your location for miles. As the Wall Street Journal noted, surveillance of even “mundane” activities of people not accused of any crime is now “the default rather than the exception.”
L3 Communications embodies the totality of the national security and surveillance state. There is only minimal distinction between its military products and police products. Its night-vision line is sold to both military and law enforcement. Its participation in the drone program is now, as far as we know, limited to countries in the Middle East and North Africa. But in the words of the New York Times editorial board [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/the-dawning-of-domestic-drones.html], “[i]t is not a question of whether drones will appear in the skies above the United States but how soon.” The NYT estimates the domestic drone market at $5 billion, likely a conservative estimate, and contractors will vie for that money in the public and private sphere. L3's venture into airports, the border of where domestic policy meets foreign policy in the name of national security, is therefore significant both symbolically and materially.
In many ways, that is the most important story of the post-9/11 United States: the complete evaporation of the separation of foreign and domestic polices. Whether we're talking about paramilitarized police, warrantless wiretapping, inhumane prison conditions, or drone surveillance, there exist few differences between a United States perpetually at war and a United States determined to police and imprison its people in unacceptable ways and at unacceptable rates.

Harris Corporation: Stingray “IMSI catcher” -
Harris Corp. is a huge provider of national security and communications technology to federal and local law enforcement agencies. Though many people have never heard of it, Harris is a major player in the beltway National Security community. President and CEO William M. Brown was recently appointed to the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, and in 2009 the Secret Service offered Harris a contract to train its agents in the use of Harris' Stingray line. The Secret Service awarded the company additional contracts in 2012.
If you've heard of Harris at all, it's likely been because its controversial Stingray product has been getting attention as an information-gathering tool with major privacy implications. The Stingray allows law enforcement to cast a kilometers' wide digital net over an area to determine the location of a single cell phone signal – and in the process collect cell data on potentially hundreds of people who aren't suspected of any crimes. EFF claims the device is a modern version of British soldiers canvassing the pre-Revolutionary colonies, searching people's homes without probable cause – exactly what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent. EFF describes the process this way [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/stingrays-biggest-unknown-technological-threat-cell-phone-privacy]:
“A Stingray works by masquerading as a cell phone tower—to which your mobile phone sends signals to every 7 to 15 seconds whether you are on a call or not— and tricks your phone into connecting to it. As a result, the government can figure out who, when and to where you are calling, the precise location of every device within the range, and with some devices, even capture the content of your conversations.”
According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [http://epic.org/foia/fbi/stingray/], the FBI has been using similar technology since 1995. But a recent federal case, United States v. Rigmaiden, has raised Fourth Amendment questions regarding whether law enforcement officials need to obtain a warrant before employing a Stingray. The judge in that case determined that the government hadn't provided enough information about how the devices work, and ordered that the information collected in Rigmaiden couldn't be used in court.
What's especially troubling about Stingrays is that the government either won't say, or doesn't understand, how the technology works. The WSJ reported [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/10/22/judge-questions-tools-that-grab-cellphone-data-on-innocent-people/] that the US Attorney making the requests “seemed to have trouble explaining the technology.”
And it's not just the federal government that uses Stingrays. As Slate notes [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/10/stingray_imsi_catcher_fbi_documents_shine_light_on_controversial_cellphone.html], referencing FOIA documents recently obtained by EPIC, “the feds have procedures in place for loaning electronic surveillance devices (like the Stingray) to state police. This suggests the technology may have been used in cases across the United States, in line with a stellar investigation by LA Weekly last year [http://www.laweekly.com/2012-09-13/news/LAPD-stingray-spying-cellphone/full/], which reported that state cops in California, Florida, Texas, and Arizona had obtained Stingrays.”
Harris has been tightlipped about the Rigmaiden case, but expect to be hearing a lot about Stingrays in the future.

BI2 Technologies -
BI2 makes a fine pitch. Its iris-scanning technology can be made to sound very appealing. Iris scans are relatively non-invasive, there's no touching involved so the likelihood of spreading disease is reduced, and as B12 states on its Web site, "there are no lasers, strong lights or any kind of harmful beams.” It also claims that iris scanning is "strictly opt-in," and that a “user" (who in most cases would be better described as an “arrestee”) “must consciously elect to participate” in the scanning. (When I was arrested by the NYPD while covering a protest, the scan was voluntary -- though the NYPD didn't tell me that, a protester did. But if I refused to submit to it I could have been punished with an extra night in jail.)
Reuters reported [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-crime-identification-iris-idUSTRE76J4A120110720] that BI2's iPhone-based iris scanner -- called MORIS -- is capable of taking an accurate scan from four feet away, “potentially without the person being aware of it.” MORIS has drawn harsh condemnation from the ACLU. The primary concern from privacy advocates is that law enforcement will deploy this technology in an overly broad way. ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley told Reuters that he didn't want the police “using them routinely on the general public, collecting biometric information on innocent people.”
MORIS isn't just for irises; it also scans faces. In 2011, the Wall Street Journal [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/07/13/how-a-new-police-tool-for-face-recognition-works] reportedthat the sheriff's office in Pinellas County, Florida, “uses digital cameras to take pictures of people, download the pictures to laptops, then use facial-recognition technologies to search for matching faces.” New database technology like Trapwire, a data mining system that analyzes “suspicious behavior” in purported attempts to predict terrorist behavior, makes face scanning potentially more worrisome. Trapwire uses at least “CCTV, license-plate readers, and open-source databases” as input sources [https://privacysos.org/node/785], and although it doesn't employ facial-recognition software, the incentives to combine these types of technology is clear.
Beginning in 2014, BI2 will manage a national iris-scan database for the FBI, called Next-Generation Identification (NGI) [http://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2012/06/eye-crime-fbi-building-database-iris-scans/56481/]. Lockheed Martin is also involved in building the database [http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-announces-initial-operating-capability-for-next-generation-identification-system]. Much of BI2's iris data comes from inmates in 47 states [http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/05/iris_scan_database_for_the_fbi_.html], and despite BI2's claims that iris scanning can't be gamed, that is not the case. Experts showed last summer that the iris can be “reverse-engineered” to fool the scanners, which are generally thought to be more accurate than fingerprinting.
The usual suspects lamented in 2011 that iris scanning isn't used at airports or borders [http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/05/28/iris-scanning-make-borders-secure/], but security creep is difficult to combat, especially once “national security” is invoked. Just days ago it was reported that the FBI is teaming with the Department of Homeland Security to ramp up iris scanning at US borders [http://www.nextgov.com/big-data/2013/01/fbi-and-dhs-team-nab-border-intruders-iris-recognition/60876/]. AlterNet has previously reported that the Department of Defense scans the irises of people arriving at and departing from Afghanistan [http://www.alternet.org/story/155939/why_is_the_government_collecting_your_biometric_data].
The story of BI2 is important because the initial technology is superficially appealing. The company's first projects were called the Child Project, designed to help locate missing children; and Senior Safety Net, developed to identify missing seniors suffering from Alzheimer's. According to B12's Web site, sheriffs' departments in 47 states use the BI2 iris-scanning device and database, which makes it easy to mobilize support to facilitate the safe return of children and seniors.
While the desire to find missing children and seniors is perfectly legitimate, the collection of biometric data is a pandora's box. Once it's opened, it's proven difficult if not impossible to limit.


2013-02-19 "Meet 6 Politicians Getting Rich from America's Endless Wars" by John Knefel from "Alter.net" [http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/meet-6-politicians-getting-rich-americas-endless-wars]:
War is a racket, and perpetual war is a money-printing machine. Though the defense industry as a whole contributes relatively little to members of Congress compared to, say, the pharmaceutical lobby, it remains an incredibly powerful and influential lobby. Below are the six members of the House whose primary industry donor in the 2012 election cycle was the defense sector. (Numbers are from the Center for Responsive Politics [http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2012&ind=D], unless otherwise noted.)

1. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-CA): $566,100 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
It's impossible to talk about defense industry beneficiaries without mentioning Buck McKeon. He became the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee in 2009, and then the chairperson after the GOP took the House in the 2010 election. Donations from the defense sector to his 2012 campaign dwarfed all other House campaigns, with McKeon bringing in a whopping $566,100.
That big pile of money certainly seems to have made McKeon a friend to the military. As part of the House, McKeon doesn't have the opportunity to vote on Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, but he still publicly opposed the appointment, due to Hagel's presumed willingness to back defense spending cuts. A statement on McKeon's website reads in part, “[Hagel's] refusal to shut the door on further defense cuts put him at stark odds with the current Defense Secretary and military leaders.” McKeon is also, predictably, against a round of planned automatic cuts to domestic spending and the military budget, known as the sequester, which he has said could “start costing lives.” [http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/02/military-joint-chiefs-sequester-forecast-020613w/]
Regarding the US' longest war, McKeon thinks it hasn't gone on long enough. He has called the planned troop drawdown next year, “needlessly fraught with risk,” and said that “our hard-fought gains are fragile and reversible” [http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130212/AGENCY04/302120004/GOP-leader-critical-Obama-pledge-%20reduce-number-U-S-troops-Afghanistan].
If that language sounds familiar, it's because he said almost the same thing regarding troops leaving Iraq. "I remain concerned that this full withdrawal of US forces will make that road tougher than it needs to be,” he said in a statement posted on his website [http://mckeon.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=291506]. “These shortcomings could reverse the decade of hard work and sacrifice both countries have endured to build a free Iraq.”
McKeon is predictably hawkish on Iran [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np5HdLvO4y4], consistently supports providing military aid to Israel [http://mckeon.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=294923], and is in favor of expanding military powers as contained in the 2012 NDAA act [http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2011/%2012/defense-bill-passes-house-107550.html], which critics say allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military [http://truth-out.org/news/item/14418-can-the-military-detain-us-citizens-appeals-court-hears-arguments-in-ndaa-lawsuit].

2. CW “Bill” Young (R-FL): $229,760 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
Bill Young is the longest-serving Republican member of Congress, having served since 1970, and a long-time beneficiary of defense sector contributions [http://young.house.gov/press-release/statement-congressman-bill-young-his-reappointment-chair-appropriations-subcommittee]. Since 1989, when CRP's data begins, Young has received $1,440,385 from defense PACs and individual contributors. And since at least 1998, defense sector contributions to Young's campaigns have been greater than from any other industry, often by staggering amounts. He is currently the chairperson of the  defense appropriations subcommittee, a powerful position he has held on and off since the mid-1990s.
In 2012 he wavered on his support for continuing the war in Afghanistan, telling the Tampa Bay Times [http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/war/us-rep-cw-bill-young-changes-course-says-us-should-withdraw-from/1252055] that the longer we stay in-country, the more we're “killing kids who don't have to die.” Those comments, however, come after more than a decade of war, and after numerous refusals by Young to even consider a timetable for withdrawal.
Recently, Young came under attack from then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates about a Humvee project Young was protecting that Gates said was unnecessary [http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/bill-young-vs-defense-secretary-robert-gates]. Makers of the Humvee, AM General, had contributed $80K to Young's campaign, but he denied that the contractor's donations played any role in his decision to defend the program [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030206041.html].
Young was one of the targets of an independent ethics investigation in 2010 that involved six other members of the defense appropriations subcommittee [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DF1130F934A15751C0A9669D8B63&ref=cwbillyoung]. The investigation – conducted by the Office of Congressional Ethics, which is not comprised of members of the House – found, according to the New York Times, “that private contractors who received millions in defense industry earmarks from the seven lawmakers generally believed that their political contributions to the members facilitated the financing their companies received.” All seven were cleared by the House ethics committee, which is to say, the colleagues of the targets.
The congressman has also faced down charges of nepotism after earmarking millions of federal dollars to a defense contractor that employed his son [http://www.pdacommunity.org/component/content/article/92-ewo-articles/2673-meet-6-politicians-getting-rich-from-americas-endless-warsmeet-6-politicians-getting-rich-from-americas-endless-wars#.UR4_DFripAt]. The porkbarreling doesn't stop with family members: the Center for Public Integrity reports Young “obtained about $475 million in earmarks over the past three years, mostly funneling money to defense contracting firms that are also among his top donors" [http://www.publicintegrity.org/2010/11/04/2355/cw-bill-young-—-appropriations-subcommittee-defense].

3. Charles Albert “Dutch” Ruppersberger III (D-MD): $229,550 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
The third biggest recipient of defense sector contributions in the House over 2011- 2012 is Dutch Ruppersberger, a Maryland Democrat. Dutch took office in 2003 and became the first first-term congressperson appointed to the House Select Committee on Intelligence [http://dutch.house.gov/committees.shtml]. He became the ranking member – highest committee post for the minority party – in 2011, landing him a spot on the so-called “Gang of 8,” who are supposed to be kept apprised of the president's intelligence decisions. He has previously served on the Armed Services committee.
Dutch has been in the news lately for co-sponsoring a bill, along with House intelligence committee chair Mike Rogers (R-MI), called the Cyberintelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA. CISPA gives private companies the ability to share information with government intelligence agencies, which could potentially use the data however they see fit – in the name of national security, of course. An identical version of the bill passed the House in 2012 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/digital-rights-activists-vow-to-fight-cispa/2013/02/14/e0c63282-7626-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html], but went nowhere after Internet privacy activists mounted a campaign against it and Obama threatened a veto. CISPA has returned, however, much to the dismay of activists who say it could be the end of what little privacy remains online.
“In seeking to promote cybersecurity information sharing, CISPA creates a sweeping exception to all privacy laws,” Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the New York Times [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/the-president-revives-an-old-debate-about-privacy/].
A tweet from Dutch's official Twitter handle reads, “#CISPA: Because U.S. companies need to protect your personal information from hackers” [https://twitter.com/Call_Me_Dutch/status/302457676229648384].
One has to wonder if the next industry to do massive fundraising for Dutch might be the telecoms, which  overwhelmingly support CISPA [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/13/verizon-cybersecurity-idUSnPnNY59962+160+PRN20130213].

4. Morris “Mo” Brooks (R-AL): $202,020 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
Second-term congressperson Mo Brooks is a minor figure compared to the first three on this list. He traffics in boilerplate GOP positions like opposing the debt ceiling increase [http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/rep_mo_brooks_argues_against_r.html] and pushing an absurd bill to impeach the president if he and Congress don't pass a balanced budget [http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/01/rep_mo_brooks_proposes_bill_to.html]. Bruce Bartlett once called a balanced budget amendment the “dopiest constitutional amendment of all time.”
Brooks, like many on this list, sits on the House armed services committee. He enjoys photo ops with Raytheon, tied for his fifth largest contributor [http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/05/house_oks_642_billion_defense.html]. He also managed to keep $403 million in a defense budget for a missile project the military didn't want, in which Boeing, a major contributor to Brooks, was the lead contractor [http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/05/house_oks_642_billion_defense.html].
Brooks has said he favors eliminating all foreign aid, save to Pakistan for the remainder of the war in Afghanistan, which he thinks should end [http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/08/times_watchdog_report_congress.html], and Israel.
As Israel bombarded Gaza with disproportionate force, Brooks' official Twitter handle said he, “stand[s] with our close ally #Israel [...] during this violent and horrific attack on innocent civilians” [https://twitter.com/RepMoBrooks/status/269537336914755584].
In a similarly tin-eared tweet, his official handle responded to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act (which Brooks is against) by saying, “Our founding fathers fought for individual liberty.” More shockingly, Brooks said of removing undocumented immigrants from the US, “I will do anything short of shooting them” [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/29/257324/mo-brooks-anything-but-shoot-immigrants/].

5. Adam Smith (D-WA): $201,000 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations.
Smith is the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services committee, and has served on that committee since he entered Congress in 1997. He is a centrist, “ New Democrat."
Like every other member of the House, save Barbara Lee, Smith voted in favor of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). He  voted against a bill calling for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2011, but now says he believes it's time for the war to end. In 2002, Smith joined 80 House Democrats and 215 House Republicans to vote in favor of going to war with Iraq. Smith voted for the Patriot Act in 2001, against the reauthorization in 2005, but reversed himself again and voted in favor of the reauthorization in 2011.
In 2011, Smith voted against banning the president from using ground forces in Libya – that is, Smith wanted to leave the option of using ground forces open to Obama.
He voted in favor of the 2012 NDAA, which, as mentioned earlier, critics say allows for the indefinite detention of US citizens by the military. Smith wrote a letter urging for the bill's passage and arguing that the scope of NDAA is more limited than critics allege. Several months after the passage of the 2012 NDAA, Smith co-sponsored legislation that would ensure due process rights to any individual detained on US soil, and, according to a statement Smith released, “prohibit military commissions and indefinite detention.” That bill died after it was referred to committee, while the NDAA is currently facing a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality.

6. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX): $199,500 in 2012 cycle defense sector donations (lost in primary).
This member of the House has received more donations from defense contractors than from any other industry.
Reyes was defeated in a primary challenge by Beto O'Rourke, who now represents Texas' 16th district. Reyes was on both the House armed services and select intelligence committees, making him a powerful ally for defense contractors. So it should be no surprise that those very same contractors attempted to rescue him from O'Rourke's primary challenge at the last minute by flooding his campaign with contributions.
Reyes is a full-on drug warrior, even suggesting sending armed drones into Mexico to kill drug cartel leaders.
Despite being on the House intelligence committee, Reyes often appeared clueless about basic elements of foreign policy. He incorrectly referred to al Qaeda as “predominantly probably Shi'ite” (it is Sunni) and couldn't identify which of the two sects dominated Hezbollah. (The answer is Shi'ite.) [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/weekinreview/17cave.html]
Beto O'Rourke, for his part, has come out in favor of legalizing marijuana, and received virtually no funding from the defense sector.

2013-01-17 "Pennsylvania: Police Accused of Retaliatory Arrests"

by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/pennsylvania-police-accused-of-retaliatory-arrests.html]:
The Philadelphia police have shown a pattern of wrongfully arresting people who videotaped officers in public, according to a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday. The complaint by the American Civil Liberties Union was drawn up on behalf of a Temple University photojournalism student, Chris Montgomery, 24, who was charged with disorderly conduct for using his cellphone to record the police during a large altercation. The phone was confiscated and the video erased, the lawsuit said. The complaint is the first of several that the Pennsylvania A.C.L.U. plans to file alleging retaliatory behavior by officers, said Mary Catherine Roper, a lawyer for the organization. It seeks monetary damages and confirmation of the public’s right to videotape the police, she sai

2013-01-08 "Feds to mediate community meeting with Vallejo police representatives"

 by Irma Widjojo from "Vallejo Times-Herald" []:
[Northbay Copwatch asks: Why do I get a feeling the following is just a feel-good measure to mollify Vallejo's people, and find witnesses of police brutality to investigate and harass? Because that's what the Vallejo Police have done to witnesses. They kill, harass, tear-up voter registration cards, brutalize senior citizens and teenagers of all races...]
---The U.S. Department of Justice on Saturday will lead the first in a series of meetings to address, in part, a controversial spate of Vallejo officer-involved shootings in 2012.
Saturday's community meeting, the first of many, will address specific issues for the Lofas-Lakeside neighborhood in North Vallejo, said organizers, who added that issues in many other neighborhoods will be addressed in future sessions.
The first meeting will be in the same neighborhood where the most controversial officer-involved shooting, that of Mario Romero, occurred last Sept. 2. On the program are a number of concerns raised since that incident about police-community relations.
The meeting will include a presentation by the Vallejo Police Department, a brief question and answer session, and an open dialogue with community members. All meetings will be facilitated by a mediator from the U.S. Department of Justice's Community Relations Service division. The mediation is provided at no cost to the city.
"They are not here as an investigative body; they are here to facilitate," coordinator Liat Meitzenheimer said of the Justice Department.
The meetings are meant to help rebuild the relationship between the community and the police department, she said.
"It became clear there's a gap in a lot of issues," Meitzenheimer said. "The more recent police-related shootings brought (the gap) to the forefront. ... The larger problem is the distrust in the community of the police department."
Police representatives plan to attend and address some concerns, said Vallejo Lt. Sid DeJesus.
"With the change of (police) administration, we realize the importance of restoring that relationship with the community," DeJesus said. "It was lacking for a long time, which is why we are here now."
Late last spring, Police Chief Robert Nichelini retired. He has since been replaced by Chief Joseph Kreins, who has promised a number of reforms to improve the relationship between local residents and police.
DeJesus, who will be one police representative Saturday, said he will discuss changes ranging from an information dissemination process to those involved in officer-involved shootings, as well as how citizen complaints are handled. The citizen complaint form is now available in the lobby of the Amador Street headquarters.
"We don't want to talk about what we can't do anymore. But, what we can do," DeJesus said.
Information from the community meetings will be compiled into a report for the City Council, Meitzenheimer said.
Although Saturday's meeting is open to the public, Meitzenheimer advised residents to attend meetings organized in their own neighborhoods.
All the meetings, which will cover most of the city, are planned to continue until the end of summer.
Future meeting dates and locations will be posted on the city's website, www.ci.vallejo.ca.us, she added.
For more information, contact Meitzenheimer at Liat132@comcast.net or Carol Russo of the Department of Justice at Carol.Russo@usdoj.gov or (415) 744-6584.

If you go:
What: Community meeting addressing Lofas-Lakeside neighborhood
When: 10 a.m. to noon Saturday.
Where: Union Baptist Church, 128 Encerti Ave., Vallejo.
Contact: Liat Meitzenheimer at Liat132@comcast.net or Carol Russo, of the Department of Justice, at Carol.Russo@usdoj.gov or (415) 744-6584.

Activist Survivor's Guide to the Weapons of Repression

"How to Escape from Zip Ties"
2009-09-26 from "ITS Tactical, Inc." [http://www.itstactical.com/skillcom/lock-picking/how-to-escape-from-zip-ties/]:
In our How To Escape and Evade in an Urban Environment article, we briefly discussed escaping from zip ties.
There are quite a few hasty methods of illegal restraint, and zip ties are a method that’s available to any would-be kidnapper.
A few of the other methods seen are duct tape, rope and phone cord, but with a little education you’ll see that all of these methods can easily be defeated.
There are two things you’ll need in any escape situation, and without these two things, nothing we’ll show you will work.
Those two things are time and opportunity. You’ll have to first have the time to be able to put one of these escape methods into action and the opportunity to do so.
Your captors are most likely not going to have the resources or the patience to keep eyes on you constantly, and when they don’t, it’s time to make your move.


How Zip Ties Work -
The best way to defeat any type of restraint is to first analyze how it works.
Zip ties consist of a sturdy Nylon tape that contains small teeth running lengthwise down one side, and a ratchet with small teeth housed in a small open case.
The ratchet is molded to allow downward pressure to be placed upon it as the tape is threaded through the open case, then springing back up to position as the valleys of the tape align with the teeth of the ratchet, locking the zip tie.
At this point further forward movement will continue to tighten the zip tie, and backwards movement will lock it.
The particular zip ties we used in all our demonstrations were the most heavy-duty zip ties we could find at Lowes or Home Depot, the Zip Ties shown in the photo with a 175 lb. rating.
We chose these because realistically if someone was determined to go out and buy zip ties to use to illegally restrain someone, they’d likely hit the local hardware store and find the toughest ones they could.

To defeat zip ties, you can either completely break the zip ties, shim them, use a friction saw or with a little forward thinking just be able to slip right out of them.

Breaking Zip Ties -

Breaking Zip Ties (Rear) -
Shimming Zip Ties -
Friction Sawing Zip Ties -
Slipping Out of Zip Ties -
Dual Zip Ties -

Hand Positions -
Now that we’ve gone over these four methods in detail in the videos, let’s talk briefly on how you’ll be bound, because it’s equally important as the method you choose to escape.
For an exercise, so that we’re all on the same page, put both of your hands straight out. Now touch your wrists together. This will be called “wrists together, horizontal.” This position is the easiest to escape from by slipping out.

Next rotate your wrists so your right hand turns clockwise, your left hand turns counterclockwise and your wrists touch. This will be called “wrists together, vertical.” This position is not preferred, but as shown on the breaking videos, can be defeated.

Now, from the “wrists together, vertical” position, rotate your hands so the backs of them touch together. This will be called “wrists together, inboard.” This is the hardest position out of the four, but can still be defeated by breaking.

The final way you could be bound is by crossing your hands at the wrists, making an X. This will be called “wrists together, crossed.” This position is a bit harder than the first for slipping out of, but it’s still possible.


Passive Victim -
The first thing you should always do in any restraint situation, is remain passive.
Let your captor know that there’s no fight in you, that you’re scared and helpless. This will psychologically lead your captor to believe that you have no plans to try to escape, and thus make what we’re about to tell you easier.
You want to make every effort to present your hands to your captor before they use force to restrain you. Essentially you’re presenting the wrist position of your choosing to them, hoping they’ll use it.

Notes -
Using the information we’ve provided to your advantage, you can put yourself in a better position to escape or determine which of the methods presented will work best in your circumstances.
We hope at the very least you watched the videos we’ve made, so you have the information stored somewhere in your mind, tucked away just in case you ever have to use it.
Let us know your thoughts and any questions you still have about escaping illegal restraints.

UPDATE 3/9/2010: We’ve just released this article explaining our position on the content of this article and why this information is important to get into the public, in the article we also talk about an important safety alert on a product called Jersey Cuffs. More Here [http://www.itstactical.com/2010/03/29/an-important-announcement-from-its-tactical/].

Fullerton (CA) Police Officer breaks the "Blue Code of Silence"

2012-12-04 "Ben Lira Interview: Ben Lira speaks to the Fullertonian about his experience at the Fullerton Police Department" by Mark Stouffer
[http://thefullertonian.com/Article/Details/750]:
 Open the MP3 file. [http://soundcloud.com/markstouffer/012a-121204-1107-ben-lira]
This is the raw audio from our interview with officer Ben Lira from the Fullerton Police Department. We are presenting it unedited because we think the citizens should have access to this information.
Ben Lira -

 Lira alleged to KFI on Thursday, November 29th, that Officer Dan Hughes played a key role in keeping officers silent following the beating of Kelly Thomas, in addition, Lira made allegations of racism and nepotism within the department. An email sent to Joe Felz on July 20th described the allegations in detail [http://thefullertonian.com/Article/Details/745].
 The Fullertonian presented the case for transparency from the very begining of the Kelly Thomas issue in our articles [http://thefullertonian.com/Article/Details/430] and [http://thefullertonian.com/Article/Details/436]. Transparency was a buzzword of the recent City Council campaigns. It is in the interest of transparency, and that our local government serves its citizens, and that the citizens should therefor be informed, that we publish this unedited interview. Mr. Lira's statements are his own, and are not confirmed or validated by the Fullertonian or its contributors.
 Lira recently released a letter that he sent to city manager Joe Felz in April in which he complained about Dan Hughes's management of the police dept. He claims that there is a subculture of racism and nepotism among some members of the police department, and that some PD management suppress complaints.
 We spoke to Joe Felz and he told us that the process of administrative action followed the normal course and was not affected by any outside influence.
 We have contacted Dan Hughes but have not heard back from him yet.


2012-11-30 "Officer Benjamin Lira Breaks the Blue Code of Silence; The first allegations regarding corruption within FPD to come from a cop themselves" by Alex Stouffer
[http://thefullertonian.com/Article/Details/745]:
 KFI began reporting yesterday, Thursday November 29th, on a letter that had been sent to City Manager Joe Felz by Fullerton officer Benjamin Lira. Within the letter below, Lira alleges misconduct that has been occuring with the higher ups at FPD including Acting Captain Dan Hughes who is at the top of the list to become the new permanent Chief of Fullerton Police Department [http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/billcarroll.html?article=10605753]:

From: Ben Lira
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 12:42 PM
To: jfelz@ci.fullerton.ca.us; City Manager
Subject: message/information from Benjamin Lira
 Mr. Felz,
 My name is Benjamin Lira, and although we've never met, I've been a nearly 17 year dedicated employee of the Fullerton Police Department.  Recent events have left the city, the Police department and it's employees in turmoil.  I'm saddened to think I've had anything to do with that.
 I apologize for reaching out to you via email but myself and my colleagues have stood quiet long enough.  I ask that you PLEASE take the time to read this email and reflect on it's contents.
 If my name doesn't ring a bell, then let me introduce myself and tell you I am the person who drafted the email to solicit bail funds for Manuel Ramos.  I'm not writing you to debate the KT events; they speak for themselves.  I've said all along that I didn't condone the actions of the Officers, but Manuel Ramos is my friend and I did it to help a friend.  Not only did I try to help a friend I checked with then Acting Chief Hamilton who told me, "I can do whatever I want as long as I do it on my own time."  Employees at the PD were confused because having not seen the video were told by Captain Crum, "that's what happens when you fight with the Police."  On my own time I drafted an email and distributed via PORAC.  I didn't have any intentions other then to solicit donations through union members.  Unfortunately, someone from LAPD put the email on his facebook page, Big City Cops.   I do not have any affiliation with BCP nor do I agree with their views.
 Since drafting this email I've been demoted.  After my demotion I was placed on paid leave for a text message I did not send and was distributed by members of the FPD.  It's unfortunate that I and on my own time am held to higher standards then some of the members of the FPD while on duty.  Many in the public refer to the "culture of corruption" in the FPD and I'm here to tell you it exists.  I've resisted long and hard the "culture of corruption" and I can no longer sit back and allow this to ruin the reputation I spent long and hard building with the community, my co-workers and my colleagues in the LE profession.  Which was once a childhood dream to become a Police Officer has now become a nightmare.
 Up until now I've decided to remain silent, mostly at the advice of my attorney's.  I can no longer remain silent and my passion to clean up the Police department and restore its reputation remains stronger then ever.  I feel it's ironic the person now in charge of the Police department, Dan Hughes, has led the way in the culture of corruption and now makes the decisions for the Department.  I implore you to please continue reading and know that against my attorney's wishes I'm reaching out to you to give you information you may find useful.
 When I first began my career in 1995 I was eager to make a difference and that difference started in my assignment at the FPD jail.  While working in the jail I watched then Senior Officer Dan Hughes slap an inmate 6-8 times in the face.  I thought to myself this person doesn't need to be a Police Officer and never did I ever imagine this person would one day be in charge.  The assault was investigated and as a probationary employee and only 19years old I feel as though I was told what to say and not asked what I saw.
 During my career I worked up the ranks from Cadet, Sr Cadet, Jailer, Reserve Officer, Police Officer and Corporal.  I attended CSUF and obtained my Bachelors degree in hopes of one day promoting.  Sadly I was wrong because I soon realized there was a culture at FPD where a group of White Officers would promote and then promote their friends leaving the rest of us on the outside looking in. If you look at the make up of the PD it's made up of Supervisors, their family members and friends.   I know it's hard to believe but as you continue to read on I hope you see the evidence I show to support my claim.
 In my nearly 17 years as an employee of the Fullerton Police Department I have received one citizen complaint and it was at the beginning of my career.  I personally think this is impressive because all of my career but 2 years has been spent in patrol because I've never been given a chance to prove myself in details, assignment, training, etc.  This frustration grew into depression and in 2005 I took a leave of absence.  Embarrassed as to how I was feeling I didn't tell anyone.  I did what I had always told people and that's if your not feeling well then seek counseling, and that's exactly what I did.  Unfortunately, this didn't meet the mold of the culture at FPD because when I returned to work I had 46 metal hangers intertwined on my locker preventing me from opening it.  I reported this, but of course nothing ever happened.
 Throughout my career I watched as this Culture of Corruption grew and they became increasingly racist.  Mexicans would be referred to as "wetbacks" and African Americans would be referred to as the "N" word.  I voiced my displeasure but to no avail.  On July 22, 2008 a departmental photo was scheduled and during individual photos a group of Mexican Officers were called, "wetbacks," "where's your oranges,""Where's your Chiclets."  For the first time in my career, while in uniform and not on the scene of a tragic crime, I wanted to cry.  I filed a complaint and my frustration grew when the FPD brass deemed my complaint "spirited bantering."  I was mortified and couldn't understand why this could be.  From then on I suffered even more ridicule by colleagues teasing me for making a complaint.
 Since this time I've continued to suffer discrimination.  I've reported this and ultimately then Chief Sellers scheduled an independent investigation.  RCS investigating and consulting ultimately met with me and the results of this investigation have never been given to me.  During this investigation I reported how supervisors would leave early and go drinking downtown.  I reported how the supervisors would then have Officers take them home in Police/City vehicles.  Ironically these same officers who would give them rides home would begin to get promoted and preferred details in the Department.  I reported how then Captain Petropolous would teach at FJC and allow FPD members enroll in his class and never show up and get A's in the class.  Doesn't sound like much until you consider Officers would use these credits which led to certificates and increase pay.
 This investigation went on and I reported a laundry list of incidents which largely alleged supervisors were derelict in their duty.  I reported how supervisors would go and teach at FJC academy when they should be working at the PD.  I didn't feel it was fair to the citizens that the watch commander was getting paid to teach at FJC instead of being at the PD, but this was the norm and til this day hasn't changed.
 10 days after this interview I was called in on a Sunday to the Watch Commanders office.  I was met by an angry Dan Hughes.  Hughes told me I was ordered not to talk about the above mentioned investigation and that someone had filed a complaint against me.  I was never given a copy of the complaint, I was never told what the complaint was and a follow up investigation took place.  I later learned from the Association that it was Dan Hughes attempt to cover up the interview which in turn led to his promotion to Captain.
 The more I look around I can't help but feel Dan Hughes is the common theme amongst corruption that has occurred.  For instance, the city is being sued by Clarke, a citizen who said he was assaulted on St Patrick's day 2010.  All those involved know it was Dan Hughes who initiated this contact and took Clarke down to the ground causing him injuries yet no record of this ever exist.  In fact, this arrest was followed by Officer Cary Tong purposely slamming on the brakes and while recorded on DAR you can hear Officer Tong allowing the inmates face to slam on the "cage" three times in the Police car.  I think it's sad and ironic how now the city is being sued but up until now Hughes' involvement is not known.  To me this shows what kind of person he really is.  In addition to that during this investigation he had Sgt Chocek secretly/privately go up to each officer involved and promise them lenient discipline in return for not reporting Dan Hughes' involvement.
 These are just my stories and quiet frankly I have several more and so do other members of this department.  There's employees that are afraid to come forward in fear of risking their career like I have. There's a lot of good employees at the FPD, one being Captain Lorraine Jones.  Sir, whether you agree with me or not I ask that you please consider the common goal we have and that's to clean up the Police Department.  It breaks my heart to have to listen to the advice of my attorney's and prepare for lawsuits because that's not what I'm about.  If you question my intentions please ask my friend, Captain Lorraine Jones.  She speaks highly of you and it's for that reason I've chosen to reach out to you.
 On May 17 I met with the FBI and reported what I've said along with other things.  The FBI, like yourself, have the opportunity to make a difference for this city, it's citizens and it's employees and I urge you to please consider that.  I think at the very minimum I've given you some evidence of the misdeeds perpetrated by Dan Hughes and I'm hoping it's enough to launch an investigation and place him on administrative leave.  I hope that if at any point you want to meet with me and or use me to help, that you know I'm committed to you and this city and it's citizens.
 I'm sorry for any inconvenience any of my actions have caused.
 Sincerely,
 Benjamin Lira


2011-08-24 "Common Ground: Ethics and Politics" by Mark Stouffer
[http://thefullertonian.com/Article/Details/430]:
Politics in our town is changing. It is going through a quite painful process of introspection in our Police Department and our City Hall. The sequence of events that followed the tragic beating of Kelly Thomas have revealed a uncomfortable lack of accountability and an almost total lack of transparency.
Reports of confiscation of witness video, initial misinformation, total lack of disciplinary action until publicity required it, legal moves against local publications that reported the incident, a “hush fund” offer to the victims father, and a stern refusal to release high-quality video of the incident or any other evidence, all flies in the face of campaign promises of “transparency”.
These events have lead two city council members to demand the release of the video tapes and also the resignation of Police Chief Michael Sellers.
Video of bystander accounts during and immediately after the incident, along with the gruesome picture of Kelly Thomas after the beating, have sparked outrage in national and international press.
The DA is refusing to release the city’s high-quality video of the incident, but when asked on CNN about the contents of the tape DA Chief of Staff Susan Kang Schroeder chocked up and said, “Your heart…, your heart is … sad, watching what was on the tapes.” She claimed that releasing the video could cause witnesses or jurors to be swayed by “what they saw in the media” instead of the truth.
It is because of the painful nature of this process that it is important that we keep a civil tone. What needs to be said must be said but a direct identification of the nature of the problem is more important than veiled threats or offensive language. In civil discourse the best defense is not “a good offense”.
We present these notes to you because we should be prepared as the world turns their eyes towards Fullerton. A wise man once said, “When you are going through tough times, keep going!” That sounds like good advice. Now it is time to shine a light on our guiding institutions and look directly at them. If we make the effort to fix these problems the right way we can see a newer, brighter future for all Fullertonians.


2011-08-10 "Common Ground: Transparency in Government" by Mark Stouffer
[http://thefullertonian.com/Article/Details/436]:
One word that was mentioned regularly during the most recent City Council campaign season was “transparency”. Interestingly, it has returned to the front of the newspapers because of a lack of transparency in the Kelly Thomas beating case. But what is transparency? And why is it good?
Transparency can easily be understood by contrasting it with what is called a black box. A black box is a term used to refer to a system that is opaque. You can see what goes into a black box and you can see what comes out of it, but you can’t see what it does to the inputs to produce the outputs. An ATM machine is one example. You can log in to an ATM (inputs) and get money and a receipt out (outputs) but you can’t look inside.
It’s not important to look inside the ATM because you don’t need to trust it. The trust required for the transaction lies with your bank. You can instantly check the amount that was withdrawn from your account by inquiring with your bank and getting a full report. And you can trust that your bank authenticates the devices that are allowed to submit transactions. This is why you can use a debit card scanner at a small liquor store without worrying about how the scanner works.
Sometimes you need to trust the system that provides you a  service, such as the bank. This is why banks spend a lot of time telling you how they work. They need to establish a trust relationship with you. Banks produce reports, publish policies and staff names, and the staff is often eager to answer questions. Banks establish trust through a process of transparency.
For decades organizations have been touting the curative properties of transparency. Gorbachev used “glasnost” (openness) to promote freedom in the former Soviet Union (it worked beyond his wildest dreams). But transparency does not just benefit outside observers. CEO’s of large companies read press reports of the workings of their subsidiaries. The US administration has used CNN for years to see instant news of it’s remote operations. Even smaller organizations find that transparencies reveal insights. This is not possible with a black box where there is only one route for information to get to the top.
Opaqueness blinds the leaders as well as the observers.
E.D.Kain, writing about the Kelly Thomas beating on Forbes.com said, “Who [benefits] the most from increased police transparency? The answer is simple: honest cops. Honest cops who have nothing to hide benefit the most from police transparency and an end to police abuse. Honest police work is hard – much harder than the overt displays of power and aggression.”

Bad Cop: Norman Wielsch of Contra Costa County

2012-12-03 "East Bay cop to plead guilty in drug case" by Justin Berton from "San Francisco Chronicle"[http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/East-Bay-cop-to-plead-guilty-in-drug-case-4088040.php]:
The former commander of an elite Contra Costa County police squad will plead guilty this week to charges that he stole narcotics from evidence lockers and tried to sell them back on the street with the help of a private investigator, court records show.
Under a plea deal filed Monday in federal court, Norman Wielsch, 51, will admit to five charges in a 2011 federal indictment in exchange for a lighter sentence.
The charges allege that he stole marijuana and methamphetamines, falsely arrested a suspected drug dealer, and stole cash and cell phones from prostitutes, his attorney said.
The terms of the deal require Wielsch to agree not to argue for fewer than 10 years in prison when he is sentenced by a judge in February, his attorney, Michael Cardoza, said. Wielsch was facing more than 25 years behind bars. Federal guidelines recommend that he serve 14 to 17 years, but the judge has wide discretion on the length.
 "After a full evaluation of all the evidence," Cardoza said, "he decided that it would be in his and his family's best interest to plead guilty."
Before his arrest, Wielsch was an agent with the state Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement for 12 years, and most recently served as commander of the Central Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team, an elite multi-agency team that conducted drug raids and shut down prostitution rings.
The change of plea ends one story line in a saga that began in February 2011, when authorities arrested Wielsch and his friend, Concord private investigator Christopher Butler, 51.
Those arrests came after one of Butler's most trusted employees wore a concealed wire and video-recorded the two men making a drug deal. The video appeared to show Wielsch counting money and voicing concerns about selling confiscated drugs.
Butler, who pleaded guilty in September and is serving an eight-year prison term, earlier told authorities about a raft of dirty deeds that allegedly involved four other local lawmen.
The ensuing investigation led to the imprisonment of Wielsch's second-in-command, San Ramon officer Louis Lombardi, 40, for stealing cash and drugs from crime scenes and lifting two stolen guns. Two Richmond police officers with ties to Butler were sentenced in August on charges that they illegally purchased guns for minors and tried to obstruct a federal investigation.
And former Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriff Stephen Tanabe, 48, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he participated in Butler's "dirty DUI" stings, where prosecutors say the officer arrested men who were targeted and set up for drunken driving arrests. His trial is pending.
In addition, Butler told authorities that Wielsch assisted him when he opened a Pleasant Hill massage parlor to front for a brothel. The private eye said Wielsch shared in the profits and used his law enforcement position to protect the operation, while ordering raids on competing brothels.
Cardoza said his client's alleged connection to the parlor was not among the charges he'll admit to Wednesday, when he is scheduled to appear in an Oakland courtroom before he is taken into custody.
"He spent the weekend with his church group," Cardoza said. "He understands from that day on he will be serving a lengthy amount of time for the crimes he committed."
In interviews after his arrest, Wielsch said he was deeply stressed from his job when he decided to steal the drugs and regretted the dishonor he brought to law enforcement.
"Norm certainly hopes other police officers are paying attention to what went on in this situation," Cardoza said, "and if they are ever tempted to do anything that they give it a second thought and not do it."


2012-12-04 "Ex-police officer will plead guilty in drug case" from "Associated Press"[http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Ex-police-officer-will-plead-guilty-in-drug-case-4089494.php]:
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — A disgraced former commander of an elite Northern California drug task force will plead guilty to stealing drugs from evidence lockers and trying to sell them on the street with the help of a private investigator.
Under a plea deal filed Monday in federal court, Norman Wielsch, 51, on Wednesday will admit guilt in an Oakland courtroom to five drug and corruption charges stemming from a 2011 indictment, the San Francisco Chronicle reported (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/East-Bay-cop-to-admit-guilt-in-drug-case-4088040.php).
"After a full evaluation of all the evidence, he decided that it would be in his and his family's best interest to plead guilty," Wielsch's attorney, Michael Cardoza, said Monday.
Wielsch was the commander of the now-defunct Central Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team, an elite multi-agency task force that conducted drug raids and shut down prostitution rings.
Last year, the FBI arrested Wielsch and private investigator Christopher Butler after a grand jury indicted them for stealing drugs, operating a brothel and conducting phony sting operations to rob prostitutes.
Those arrests came after one of Butler's most trusted employees wore a concealed wire and recorded the two men making a drug deal. A video appeared to show Wielsch counting money and airing his concerns about selling confiscated drugs.
As a private investigator, Butler also acknowledged setting up so-called "dirty DUIs" for wives in divorce cases. The scheme involved hiring attractive women to lure the husbands into cheating and drunken driving. Butler orchestrated the arrests after he was hired by ex-wives, prosecutors said.
At the time, Butler also was trying to land a cable reality show, "P.I. Moms of San Francisco," that featured a crew of female detectives tracking down and videotaping cheating husbands.
Butler pleaded guilty in September to similar criminal charges and is serving an eight-year prison sentence. He said his crimes involved several other officers, including Wielsch.
Butler told authorities that Wielsch aided him when he opened a massage parlor in Pleasant Hill to front for a brothel. Butler added Wielsch shared in the profits and used his status as a law enforcement official to protect the operation, while ordering raids on competing brothels.
Cardoza said Wielsch's alleged connection to the parlor was not among the charges he will be pleading to on Wednesday.
"He understands from that day on he will be serving a lengthy amount of time for the crimes he committed," Cardoza said about Wielsch. "Norm certainly hopes other police officers are paying attention to what went on in this situation, and if they are ever tempted to do anything that they give it a second thought and not do it."
Under terms of the deal, Wielsch, who was facing more than 25 years in prison, could spend up to 17 years behind bars when he's sentenced in February.