Talking to the press

[NeilTheCop]

There would be no chance of a reversal.
Upon hearing the decision of the Department of Public Safety the police chief wrote them a letter insulting them and telling them they didn't know what they were doing. He also stated that it was only because of his benevolence that I was never criminally charged with unlawfully destroying property and criminal damage.

 

[TigerD]

There is a lot about this story that doesn't ring accurate. That might be why attorneys are less then willing to take the case.

TD

 

[NeilTheCop]

Such as?
I have copies of all the letters, sworn statements, audio recordings etc.

 

[quincy]

Maybe I skipped over this in your posts, NeilTheCop, and if so I apologize, but I need to echo Zigner's earlier question:

Who are you suing, and for what reason are you suing?

 

[NeilTheCop]

I'll be suing the police department. Not directly I have to sue via the city, also the case agent who told me to break the law and the police chief for accusing me of a criminal act. The case would be personal injury from defamation as I was demoted causing lost wages and emotional distress.

 

[Zigner]

I'll be suing the police department. Not directly I have to sue via the city, also the case agent who told me to break the law and the police chief for accusing me of a criminal act. The case would be personal injury from defamation as I was demoted causing lost wages and emotional distress.

It seems to me that most attorneys around you don't believe you have a viable case.

 

[Zigner]

I'll be suing the police department. Not directly I have to sue via the city, also the case agent who told me to break the law and the police chief for accusing me of a criminal act. The case would be personal injury from defamation as I was demoted causing lost wages and emotional distress.

What defamation?

 

[NeilTheCop]

Being cleared of any wrongdoing by the department of public safety and the Attorney Generals Office but still having the chief of police accusing me of a crime. Is that not defamation.
But judging from the good people on this forum you don't think I have much of a chance of pursuing a case in court. So I shall approach the city insurance company directly as it's in their best interests to deal with my claim.

 

[Zigner]

Being cleared of any wrongdoing by the department of public safety and the Attorney Generals Office but still having the chief of police accusing me of a crime. Is that not defamation.
But judging from the good people on this forum you don't think I have much of a chance of pursuing a case in court. So I shall approach the city insurance company directly as it's in their best interests to deal with my claim.

I'm going mostly by the fact that you can't find an attorney who thinks it's worth it...

 

[NeilTheCop]

Not so much that but the number of e-mails I have sent and phone calls I have made, but have not told them any details of my case, yet I still get no reply.
As I said I initially hired an attorney who filed a tort claim against the city within the required 90 days. That was back in September 2014. I called him a few times to find out how my case was progressing and dropped documents relating to my case into his office as I got them. Each time he said that he was still working on filing a suit in Federal Court but was making sure everything was in place.
A few weeks ago I went to his office and found out that he had moved!!!
Tracked his new address down and sent him an e-mail asking how the case was progressing. He replied that he hadn't done anything with my case. He then sent me another e-mail shortly afterwards saying that he didn't want to represent me anymore.

 

[quincy]

Not so much that but the number of e-mails I have sent and phone calls I have made, but have not told them any details of my case, yet I still get no reply.
As I said I initially hired an attorney who filed a tort claim against the city within the required 90 days. That was back in September 2014. I called him a few times to find out how my case was progressing and dropped documents relating to my case into his office as I got them. Each time he said that he was still working on filing a suit in Federal Court but was making sure everything was in place.
A few weeks ago I went to his office and found out that he had moved!!!
Tracked his new address down and sent him an e-mail asking how the case was progressing. He replied that he hadn't done anything with my case. He then sent me another e-mail shortly afterwards saying that he didn't want to represent me anymore.

I think what you need to do, instead of emailing and calling a bunch of attorneys, is to select one attorney who is well-versed in defamation law and make an appointment to speak to him/her in person. This will cost you money so, to control costs, write out in advance of the meeting a time line which includes all important facts. Leave extraneous information out, both from your time line and from your discussion, but include any questions you have that the attorney can address.

I do not know if what was communicated about you was covered by privilege or if you have any claim worth pursuing - but you say your reputation has been injured by the Police Chief's comments and you have been demoted. Contacting an investigative reporter or the news media is not likely to get you anywhere. The attorney you see, on the other hand, might find something that will support a suit.

You will want to balance the pros of a lawsuit against the cons, two major cons of which could be greater harm to your reputation and potentially the loss of your job.

Good luck.

 

[NeilTheCop]

I contacted the city, but as they now have a different city attorney he was unaware of this case. Anyway I found out today that the tort claim had been sent by registered letter to the Mayor and the deputy police chief and the one to the Mayor had been signed for. Checking with my former attorney he said he was never contacted by the city or their insurers. I know there is a 90 day window to file the claim, but I can find no statute that requires the city to even respond to a claim.
Next step is to set up a meeting with the city attorney and the Mayor.

 

[quincy]

I contacted the city, but as they now have a different city attorney he was unaware of this case. Anyway I found out today that the tort claim had been sent by registered letter to the Mayor and the deputy police chief and the one to the Mayor had been signed for. Checking with my former attorney he said he was never contacted by the city or their insurers. I know there is a 90 day window to file the claim, but I can find no statute that requires the city to even respond to a claim.
Next step is to set up a meeting with the city attorney and the Mayor.

The next step should be to see an attorney of your own. From what you have written in your posts, I do not see that you are prepared enough to handle on your own any meeting with the city attorney or Mayor. From what you have written in your posts, I am not even seeing that you have a claim that would survive a motion to dismiss.

But I suppose if you want to play at this some more, it is up to you. I believe New Mexico has a 3 year statute of limitations for defamation claims which gives you some time to do so.

Good luck, NeilTheCop.

 

[NeilTheCop]

I know I'm dragging this thread out a bit, OK, a lot, but there is a lot more to this.
To begin with I have the audio recording of an interview made under oath between the police department IA, two Assistant District Attorneys and two Sergeants from the drug task force They all said that if drug paraphernalia is seized but the suspect is not charged with it's possession, and can show an alternative legitimate use for it, it has to be returned.
Check out State and Federal law and you will find that this is plain wrong, and by 'delivering' drug paraphernalia you are committing a criminal act.
Now here's a script I wrote where you may see some potential problems for a lot of people.
Freddy goes to the police department and asked for his custom hand made $500 glass bong to be returned. Police department says "Not a chance. Anyway we destroyed it"
Freddie then says, "But I was never charged with paraphernalia and I want it to smoke tobacco". Police say "Still not going to happen"
Then Freddie says "Look at this transcript of the interview with two ADA's who both say it has to be returned, and this transcript from two Sergeants from the drug task force which says the same"

So we have the potential to discredit two ADA's and the drug task force, which will cast doubt on their competency and possibly many of their prior, and all of their pending cases, costing the city a lot of money and causing much embarrassment and even possibly civil rights issues.

 

[Zigner]

I know I'm dragging this thread out a bit, OK, a lot, but there is a lot more to this.
To begin with I have the audio recording of an interview made under oath between the police department IA, two Assistant District Attorneys and two Sergeants from the drug task force They all said that if drug paraphernalia is seized but the suspect is not charged with it's possession, and can show an alternative legitimate use for it, it has to be returned.
Check out State and Federal law and you will find that this is plain wrong, and by 'delivering' drug paraphernalia you are committing a criminal act.
Now here's a script I wrote where you may see some potential problems for a lot of people.
Freddy goes to the police department and asked for his custom hand made $500 glass bong to be returned. Police department says "Not a chance. Anyway we destroyed it"
Freddie then says, "But I was never charged with paraphernalia and I want it to smoke tobacco". Police say "Still not going to happen"
Then Freddie says "Look at this transcript of the interview with two ADA's who both say it has to be returned, and this transcript from two Sergeants from the drug task force which says the same"

So we have the potential to discredit two ADA's and the drug task force, which will cast doubt on their competency and possibly many of their prior, and all of their pending cases, costing the city a lot of money and causing much embarrassment and even possibly civil rights issues.

Why wouldn't an object used to smoke tobacco be returned to a person who was not charged with drug paraphernalia?

The more you write, the less of a case you seem to have.