Light 'Em Up Phillip Rizzo

On this in-depth, investigative edition of Light ‘Em Up we expose what we maintain is an illegal invasion of your personal privacy and an illegal search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Picture this:  During your annual physical checkup — your doctor draws near to you with the stethoscope and asks you to perform a few deep breaths — is she really listening to your lungs or is she looking for signs of extensive drug use or smelling for the use of alcohol?

This is a very odd dilemma.  The doctor writes a prescription for you, and has been doing so for years. Suddenly, without advanced notice, she has an “issue” with doing so. She says, “We need to run a toxicology screen on you”.   A what?

You may have no clue whatsoever that your rights are even being violated — by, of all people, your primary care physician and local hospital. In an extension of the “War on Drugs” — as it continues to target the poor and the neediest among us, many hospitals across the country have begun drug testing their patients, especially Medicaid recipients, through urinalysis.

The 4th Amendment has been hotly debated since its ratification in 1791.  How much do you know about the rights granted to you by the 4th Amendment?

Subjecting patients, especially poor patients, seeking medication for a health condition to an intrusive seizure of his/her bodily fluids is an intentional act of intimidation. Threatening to withhold essential medications from patients — the use of condescending and coercive, bullying tactics through the use of a “pain contract” or a “controlled substance agreement” — serves only to further damage the quality of care that has already been compromised due to the way insurance companies have rigged the system in their favor.

This bullying and forced compliance are completely contrary to the “do no harm” motto that has served as the foundational pillar of the medical profession since its inception.

Who wants to have a medical doctor who in reality is a “narc” — eager to “report” anything she observes?  What benefit is it to have a “doctor” that violates the doctor-patient trust that is essential and at the core of quality, comprehensive care?

If patients distrust their physician, or feel stigmatized or distrusted by them, this will impact greatly upon the therapeutic relationship and deeply compromise care.

Lacking sufficient financial means should not be a criminal offense — nor should a course of action apply to only one group of people as a “suspect class”, treating them as if they are not  “worthy” to be afforded the same Constitutional rights as others.

At Light ‘Em Up — we have always fought against THIS kind of disparate treatment.

In this episode as we lobby for justice and speak truth to power, we shall:

♦ Dissect the 4th amendment and provide analysis of what the U.S. Supreme Court says about this process as we delve into what a “pain contract” is.

♦ Examine “controlled-substance agreements” for patients on chronic opioid therapy, with a keen eye on “indifferent enforcement” from a criminal justice perspective. Are they binding, or enforceable in a court of law?

♦ Dig into our case study:  Rivers vs The Administration of Children Services (ACS) for the City of New York.

It’s easy to turn a blind eye when the violation of rights applies to someone else. What happens when it happens to you?

Tune in - be empowered!  Check here for bonus content.

Follow our sponsors Newsly &  Feedspot here:

Tonight, on this provocative, incendiary and investigatory episode of Light ‘Em Up.

 We return to the scene of the crime!  Your response was overwhelmingly favorable regarding our first episode with our special guest, the high-ranking police administrator, so we invited him back to the witness stand for another episode.

 With you in mind, we deliver another exclusive, in-depth, behind the scenes, “truth tellin’” session with the Assistant Chief of a small, rural police department in the “Magnolia State”.

To be clear, he's speaking on the promise of his anonymity, identified only by his title. The municipality that he serves has approximately 8,500 people with not a lot of “pass through” traffic in the jurisdiction.  It is staffed by approximately 30 accredited officers.

Throughout his dedicated career in law enforcement, he’s always thought critically about racial disparities, especially stemming from his own personal experiences as early back as being a patrolman and from the training he was given.

He researched and authored a rigorous in-depth white paper study entitled: “Seeing Color in Police Discretion”.

His study interrogates the question ultimately of “what kind of a society do we want to live in”?  It examines unconscious bias and how it may impact officer discretion and decision making. This analysis forces officers to self-reflect on why they are reacting in the style and manner that they do.  This ultimately aides police to sit with and realize the consequences of their actions.

We roll up our sleeves and dig deep on:

♦ Conscious and unconscious bias and we examine how this is more so a human problem and not necessarily solely a law enforcement problem.

♦ How police officers and administrators react to claims like selective enforcement and racial profiling, and he corrects and refocuses our thinking on the fact that racial profiling is pursued under the 14th amendment, not the 4th amendment.

♦His in-depth analysis of several landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that directly impact upon law enforcement and how it is constitutionally bound to carry out its duties on a daily basis with a focus on:

Whren v US — which held that “Any stop as long as it is based on a valid law or justification is a legal stop even if the reason(s) given for the stop is not the true motivation”.  Thus, paving the way for “pretextual stops”.

♦ Terry v Ohio, Delaware v Prouse & Graham v Connor et al.,
♦ The contentious topic of “qualified immunity.”

In 1967, the Supreme Court recognized qualified immunity as a defense to §1983 claims. In 1982, the Supreme Court adopted the current test for the doctrine. Qualified immunity is generally available if the law a government official violated isn't “clearly established.”

From time to time, it is imperative that you pinch yourself —reminding you that this is a high-ranking law enforcement administrator sharing these hard hitting, impacting truths that the majority of officers would stay silent on. He is a man of integrity, and it shows.

Because we think the world of you, our listeners, and you’ve helped us grow to date to 104 countries globally, we’ve included additional in-depth analysis and an expansion of the specific methodology used in the rigorous white paper study for you.  You can use this link to access this exclusive, bonus content.

Note well: Email me at prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.com in order to receive a copy of the white paper statistical study.  In your request, we ask that you share with us one fact from this specific episode.

Follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot here:

All this y mucho, mucho más on this edition of Light ‘Em Up.

Welcome to this incendiary edition of Light ‘Em Up.  We’re now being heard in 104 countries!

We have an exclusive in-depth interview with a high-ranking police administrator with a small police department in the “Magnolia State”.

Speaking on the promise of his anonymity, identified only by his title (Assistant Chief of Police), the municipality that he serves has about 8,500 people, staffed by about 30 accredited officers.

The Assistant Chief mentioned that “working in a small town brings to focus the importance of the development of relationships. The good news is — is that at the present crime is low and it is getting lower” in this growing town.

In this fact-laden episode we explore:

♦ The never-ending challenges of 21st century policing in a small town, including budgeting and the struggle to pay its personnel a competitive wage.
♦ Police “culture” & how retaining staff is a constant struggle.
♦ The findings following a comprehensive, in-depth study on the importance of prioritizing and reducing unconscious bias among officers entitled Seeing Color in Police Discretion.
♦ Unconscious bias and how this can affect officer discretion, views, and perceptions.
♦ The importance of discretion in law enforcement & the wide latitude officers have in their use of that discretion and how this can be relevant to non-law enforcement industries that you may serve.
♦ Systems and standards: The foundational set of good management practices, methods, systems, requirements that must be established to produce high-caliber, top quality, constitutional policing that the citizenry deserves.
♦ How policing changed in his municipality following the killing of George Floyd.  
He emphatically stated that, “The presence of the Black Lives Matter movement absolutely raised the bar for police officers and police leaders to know what they are talking about when it comes to equal protection and racial disparities.  It no longer cuts it to say, ‘Hey we’re out here doing our jobs — leave us alone’”.

He went on to say, “We really have to have real answers for why things look the way that they do and to me it really raised the bar for accountability. It really raised the bar for us — just because you’re not being held accountable internally — doesn’t mean that it’s not going to come externally … so, it is comin’ one way or another. We need to be competent in order to be able to explain ourselves and serve in a responsible manner.”

While mistakes and errors soak up the bulk of media attention locally and nationally, it is imperative to pause and remember that police officers are people too and the vast majority of them serve with dignity, honor and often times in a heroic and valorous manner.

Through many of the direct efforts of the Assistant Chief of Police, it is clear that his department has put a lot of work in internally which clearly shows on the external side of police management and administration into doing an excellent job at serving the good people of the Magnolia State.

Tune in and be empowered and find out about the footballs in each trunk of every patrol car in their fleet and the awesome news about the police department sponsored youth football league.

Share your thoughts with us on this episode and any of our episodes that you’ve listened to.  Email us at:  prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.com

Follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot  here:

Note well:  Email me at prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.com in order to receive a copy of the white paper statistical study.  In your request, we ask that you share with us one fact from this specific episode.

On this educational and explosive edition of Light ‘Em Up, we’re excited to announce that we are being actively downloaded in 103 countries! All thanks to you!

Ripped straight from the headlines from the Atlanta Fulton County Superior Courthouse where Donald J. Trump and 18 of his co-defendants have been indicted under the Georgia Racketeering Act — we’ll take an in-depth, investigative look at the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

RICO was designed by the U.S. Congress in order to “whack” the mob — to be the ultimate “hit man”.

The Act has extremely sharp legal teeth in order to accomplish that task.

This legislation was signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon on October 15, 1970, as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) as a means by which the federal government could combat organized crime. The Act today is covered in 18 USC §§ 1961-1968 and provides the legal means by which prosecutors can identify and convict those who operate illegal businesses.

The roots of RICO, however, extend as far back as 1950, when the problem of criminal infiltration of legitimate business was first documented.  The U.S. was a very different place then than it is today.  Organized crime was a highly sophisticated, diversified and widespread activity that annually drained billions of dollars from America’s economy by the illegal use of force, fraud and corruption.

Congress found that organized crime had extensively infiltrated and exercised corrupt influence over numerous legitimate businesses and labor unions throughout the U.S. and posed a “new threat to the American economic system”.  Congress further established that organized crime derived a major portion of its power through money obtained from crimes such as gambling, loan sharking, theft and fencing of property, the drug trade, and other forms of social exploitation.

While in prison together at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, the then Genovese Crime Family Mob Boss Vito Genevese -- mistakenly thinking that Joseph Valachi was a “rat” -- gave Valachi the “kiss of death”.

That solitary action sent a chilling message to Valachi, putting the fear of death in his heart, mind and soul.  Valachi sought revenge, choosing to “rat out” the mob before the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs, the FBI, the DOJ and the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation. Valachi’s testimony would prove crucial in the government’s efforts to combat organized crime, which would eventually lead to RICO.

As we set the scene — we dive headfirst into:

♦ Defining the purpose, scope and breadth of RICO as well as provide its contextual and historical background and legislative origins.

♦ Comparing, contrasting and highlighting another high-profile RICO case currently underway in the very same courthouse as the former president’s (that case involves the rapper Young Thug, whose real name is Jeffery Williams).

♦ The specific crimes that fall under the vast “umbrella” of RICO.

♦ How a person violates the RICO statute.

♦ The length of sentences for those found guilty of violating RICO.

♦ Important terms and relevant vocabulary words.

We want to hear from you!  Share your thoughts with us on this episode and any of our episodes that you’ve listened to.  Email us at:  prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.com

The pursuit of justice is a slow and methodical process. There are costs involved with seeking justice!

Tune in and be empowered, and follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot  here:
We are here for you and because of you!

All this y mucho mucho más on this explosive, investigatory edition of Light ‘Em Up.

With this comprehensive, investigatory edition of “Light ‘Em Up” we examine the hotly debated subject of consent decrees, pattern and practice investigations and the role the federal government has in trying to bring about just, equitable and constitutional policing.

What appears to be a never-ending national crisis has exposed deep chasms in the relationships between local police departments and the communities they’re charged with “protecting and serving” all across the U.S.

Unfortunately, the facts bear out that the police have a long and checkered track record of not being very good at policing themselves.

When the police can’t or won’t police themselves — who then shall police the police?

In Latin, the phrase “Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes” means exactly that:
Who will guard the guards, themselves?

In 1994 Congress gave the federal government unprecedented power to intervene against police misconduct among state and local law enforcement agencies.

§14141 of the Violent Crime Control & Law Enforcement Act, commonly referred to as the 1994 Crime Bill, declares it unlawful for law enforcement agencies to engage in a pattern or practice that deprives a person of rights, privileges, or immunities protected by U.S. law.

The U.S. Department of Justice is the governmental agency responsible for enforcing the Constitution and the laws of the federal government.

The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ was created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. During those tumultuous times in our nation’s history, the Civil Rights Division focused on protecting the vote.

The DOJ has a number of tools that are effective in bringing about lawful and fair policing. One process is a “pattern-or-practice” investigation.  The first step in this very detailed legal process is to conduct a thorough and independent investigation to bring to light any persistent patterns of misconduct within a given police department.

George Floyd’s death in May 2020 reignited a national conversation about how to reduce unconstitutional policing harms, especially the disproportionate unconstitutional harm some styles of policing can cause and impact upon minorities.

Our learning objectives for this episode will be to:

♦ Define what a consent decree is.

♦ Challenge you to think critically on how the federal government might play an effective role in reining in police excesses and abuses and work to reshape policing.

♦ Examine the role and purpose that consent decrees serve in 21st century policing.

♦ Provide the historic background on why The U.S. Congress gave the DOJ authority to address systemic police misconduct.

♦ Explore the details on how the DOJ opens a pattern or practice investigation and what exactly do such investigations involve?

♦ Shed light on the role of a “monitor” and their duties and expectations as they oversee the consent decree process.

♦ Highlight arguments of a vociferous group of nay-sayers and detractors of the DOJ — who with their conspiracy-filled rhetoric foment and further hatred for the Federal Government just as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers do. They not only want to halt the practice of consent decrees — but their venomous ramblings sound as if they want to hurt career professionals within the DOJ — which is clearly against the law.

The truth is essential to our democracy!

These cities and entities are currently under consent decrees.

Tune in and be empowered, and follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot  here:
Thanks and enjoy!

Tonight, on this intensively focused, informative, investigative journalistic edition of Light ‘Em Up we focus our spotlight on a problem that is often described as an unfortunate, intractable, unavoidable and daily reality among the members of law enforcement in the criminal justice system.

We reveal the story behind the story on “Testi-lying”— when police lie.

Blue Lies Matter!

It’s unfortunate, but law enforcement officers lie.

One of the most notorious lies told by police took place just a few years ago, when the Minneapolis Police Department initially described George Floyd’s death as resulting from a “medical incident during police interaction”.  Police departments all over the world have engaged in and been caught in illegal lying to bolster their conviction rate.

A Brooklyn, NY District Attorney has publicly named 7 blacklisted officers whom have been found to NOT be credible.  Evidence suggests that police officers commit perjury or other forms of testimonial deception more often than the public and juries have realized.

The term “testilying” was coined by police officers in New York City. It usually refers to perjury committed by a police officer; however, it has also been used to describe other forms of in-court deception.

The lies of the police hurt people. Such lies have the potential to ruin a person’s life — by putting them in prison for a long, long time or by even taking their life.

Law enforcement officers are bound by an oath to protect all citizens equally.  Doing so requires consistency, compassion and respect for the dignity of all people and the adherence to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.

An officer dishonors the badge by using excessive force, lying under oath, falsifying their paperwork.  The investigator who lies about evidence loses credibility, risks false confessions and undermines the appearance of fairness in court. Trust is essential to police-community relations and public safety. The use of deceptive tactics can only serve to undermine these relationships, bringing us to the present-day reality where cops who were once revered are now held in contempt and treated with suspicion due to the damage that they themselves have done to their reputations and the profession as a whole.

The fact of the matter is that the reputation of the entire law enforcement profession is tarnished when one single solitary officer betrays their oath to protect and serve in accordance with the laws that govern our great nation, not extrajudicially.

In this explosive episode we dig deep and deliver on:

♦ The 4 Big Lies that police often tell.

♦ What the legal term “habeas corpus” means.

♦ What is a suppression hearing and the purpose it serves in the criminal justice process.

And as education is always a key component of Light ‘Em Up …

♦ We examine another Supreme Court landmark case, Frazier v Cupp 394 U.S. 731 (1969). In this case the court held that “On its own, police deception in interrogations did not automatically constitute misconduct.”  This case pretty much gave law enforcement the green light to lie and use deception.

The truth is certainly under attack! The truth is well worth fighting for!

Truth is something to be leveraged; not concealed.

We want to hear from you!  Share your thoughts with us on this episode and any of our episodes that you’ve listened to.  Email us at:  prizzo@rpgconsultingltd.com

Tune in and be empowered, and follow our sponsors Newsly & Feedspot  here:

We are here for you and because of you!

Thanks much! 
Phil Rizzo 
Executive Producer