Beginning Evidence in the US vs. EHPD Is Weak At Best

So the United States Government’s beginning argument to keep Officer Jason Zullo and Officer Dennis Spaulding out of East Haven is based on the transcripts written below and a statement by Officer Zullo? Is the United States Attorney kidding us or what? While these statements are not the most politically correct words they are certainly nowhere near the level that would constitute racial profiling and or intimidation of Latinos.  So lets look at what these statements could mean?  

·         9 p.m. on Jan. 15, 2009, if Zullo had sprayed a substance referred to as “oc” in Spaulding’s car, Zullo allegedly responded, “NAH, THAT’S ALL THE MEXICANS U GET IN THE BACKSEAT!”

What car are they referring too? Could it be Spaulding’s personal car? Police Car? What is the relevance?  Maybe they are talking about Mexican take-out food? Maybe they are talking about Mexican friends they have? At best, if they are using Town owned computers to transmit these conversations they could receive a written warning and or maybe suspension.  However, where is the policy and procedure that governs this type of computer use?  Does this constitute the violation of someone’s civil rights, which by the way is very questionable?

·         On Feb. 8, 2009, Zullo allegedly reported to Spaulding that La Bamba’s, an Ecuadorean-owned bar on Main Street “only has 5 cars.”
“Thats 5 cars to (sic) many!!” Spaulding responded

Feb 8,^, 2009 was a Sunday. What time of day was this taking place at? Was it after 2am when the bars are supposed to be closed? What do the 911 records show since LaBambas has been opened?  How many calls have made to the Police over the years about LaBambas? Has LaBambas ever had its liquor license suspended?  Certainly these statements mean absolutely nothing without knowing the details! But maybe we can find out why there was only 5 cars…..Here is the weather statement for that day. It was raining and maybe snowed. Maybe they stayed home because of the weather!

http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/CT/East%20Haven/2009-02-08

·         On Feb. 25, 2009, Spaulding allegedly asked Zullo, “Why is (Barra’s, another Latino-owned Main Street bar) empty???”
“havnt been that way yet.....prob cuz of you,” Zullo allegedly responded.

February 25, 2009 was a Wednesday. Again what time of day did this take place at? What does the statement imply? Maybe Wednesday was not a busy day. Maybe Barra’s doesn’t have a happy hump day or half price beers?  Let’s take out the detective Hats and check the weather. Again it was raining and maybe snowed. Maybe no one went there because of the weather! Maybe the statement meant nothing at all but was an observation of good police work.

http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/CT/East%20Haven/2009-02-25

·         Then on Feb. 28, 2009, Zullo informed Spaulding, “That party is at labambas tonight.”
“No one there yet!” Spaulding responded. “You run your guy through ICE?”

Here’s the case cracker. I mean Vincent Gambini would be so proud! It was the third time these two officers worked during rain & snow!!! All three damning communications were held in February of 2009.  What else do we need to prove that they are in collusion and conspiring to profile Latinos? Maybe Labamba needs a marketing plan to effective put fannies in the seats?

Here’s the proof!

http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/CT/East%20Haven/2009-02-28

All of these statements mean absolutely nothing and seem to be reaching to point out what could be the thought of racial profiling. Again these statements went before the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury has a prosecuting attorney that asks questions of witnesses looking for indictments and looking for any excuse to allow the case to move towards an arrest.

 If these statements from the car computers are going to be introduced as key statements and proof that these two officers were profiling then we are going have a very short case resulting in an acquittal if the charges. 

In addition, is this information that US Attorney is relying on to hold Zullo to the Yadanny Garcia case? Where he said that Officer Zullo used his Taser gun on him? If you recall the case, Mr. Garcia avoided a DUI Checkpoint, fled his car and ran into the bushes next to Michaels Cafe and when confronted to be placed into custody, he resisted arrest. The four accused officers, including Zullo, were accused of using excessive force and then Garcia dropped the case because he lied to the Department of Motor Vehicles, unraveling his lawsuit.  Do you see why the civil case is so important to the Defense of the four officers?

These four officers are not the criminals the United States Government is making them out to be and by holding them to a standard of high bonds, frozen assets and restrictions that are given to hardcore repeated criminals it reeks of harsh retaliation. These men are sworn officers, not flight risks or a danger to the community. They certainly know the consequences if they were to re-engage the community that is accusing them and if they did do that it would be monumentally stupid. There needs to a be fair level playing field where our officers are not convicted of crime even before the trial starts. Like I have said for a long time, there are two sides to every story and somewhere in the equation there is the truth. The only way justice will be served is by everyone having a level head, being fair to all parties involved and to stop the drama that is being played out in the media.

Lastly, what I and many others are struggling to understand is the application of the 14^th Amendment in this case especially to those whose reside here illegally. The 14^th Amendment is clearly written as provided in Section 1

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

How do these provisions apply to the some of these defendants if they are not citizens? Why is a judge allowing a Constitutional Right to people who have not naturalized or became a citizen to the United States?

I’m not saying that visitors, tourists or others shouldn’t have protections but to use the provisions that I rely on and pay taxes for is not only an insult but when it’s used as a weapon in the detention of our four officers it becomes deplorable. If anything it seems that the last section of section 1 in the 14^th Amendment applies to Sgt. Miller, Officer Zullo, Officer Spaulding and Officer Cari where the State shall not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws.

Who is looking out for these Officers and their families Constitutional Rights? It’s certainly not the US Attorney’s Office.