List of department defects: 1. Having a Chief that resists city imposition of secondary educational requirements from recognizable accredited learning institutions as prerequisite for promotion. Fish rots from the head down.
2. Having a Chief that hires and promotes based almost entirely on loyalty and willingness to do as instructed, regardless of integrity, as opposed to promotion based on credentials, accomplishments, and meritocracy. Example, officer Charles W. Starnes, Riverside County Sheriffs Department reject and closet alcoholic. Perhaps this is why his wife left him? How ironic it is that the benevolent "Chief” promoted this reject to head the department’s staffing efforts.
3. When a department’s chosen hires fail to graduate the academy, rather than direct scrutiny upon those department members who selected the underachievers, they enact an aggressive policy of recruiting other department graduates, or even in the past, guaranteeing badges to recruits willing to pay their own way through the academy, the latter being the proverbial equivalent of selling badges. Once these "lateral” transfer officers leave their previous department, the deception is complete. Knowing such transfers will likely be barred from returning to their previous department, GGPD has little motivation to honor the pledge that yielded the transfer. On a positive note, GGPD has a reputation for hiring those deemed unfit by other department so disciplinary problem officers are encouraged to apply, just don’t try and "lateral transfer” from GGPD. The traits recognized and honored by this department are valued by no other respectable department or agency.
When the city subsidizes a police department's good reputation at the direct expense of taxpayers, from the city budget, the city endorses police corruption. I've said it, as have others, fish rots from the head down. How does this affect the city of Garden Grove? Several years ago, the city paid an out of court settlement, contingent on the victim and plaintiff sign a disclaimer, basically absolving the police of wrong doing. The problem with this pattern is that it challenges logic, and lacking responsibility, the department lacks motivation to change the systemic pattern of conduct that resulted in the suit and subsequent settlement. When this happens, the city and taxpayers get raped, let me elucidate. This is how it works. A department that practices poor behavior with the support and immunity of senior management, behave with wrecklessness, knowing the "Brass" will back them in trying times of exposure. Despite this poor conduct, the "Brass", upon the inevitable required admission that an underling executed poor judgement, they seek to minimize the damage through denial. They will gladly pay for this privilege or benefit, using other people's money. They try to maintain a sterile image, oblivious to the fact the the offensive event is NOT an isolated event stemming from a single officer's moment of aberrant behavior, but from a defective departmental culture. I'll explain one such defect, in my next post contribution, but for now, let's assume the obvious. By paying a larger settlement payout, requiring the opposing party, victim, sign a document absolving the police department of wrong doing they avoid the need to fix a problem they deny even exists. This premium comes not from their budget, but from the city's budget, at the expense of other more valuable and needed assets like school books, fire service equipment, and other community usable assets. The worst part about this arrangement is when it happens again, and it WILL happen again, the department enjoys the benefit of claiming that they were ignorant of any department misbehavior, due the the lack of prior civil suit verdict, quietly settled at the expense valuable city resources. Until the city refuses payment for civil claim settlements, taking any dispersements directly from the police department's budget, they will never achieve police department accountability. Until then, the city will be forever subsidizing a department that suffers the inevitable consequences resulting from poor leadership and poor judgement.
When the city subsidizes a police department's good reputation at the direct expense of taxpayers, from the city budget, the city endorses police corruption. I've said it, as have others, fish rots from the head down. How does this affect the city of Garden Grove? Several years ago, the city paid an out of court settlement, contingent on the victim and plaintiff sign a disclaimer, basically absolving the police of wrong doing. The problem with this pattern is that it challenges logic, and lacking responsibility, the department lacks motivation to change the systemic pattern of conduct that resulted in the suit and subsequent settlement. When this happens, the city and taxpayers get raped, let me elucidate. This is how it works. A department that practices poor behavior with the support and immunity of senior management, behave with wrecklessness, knowing the "Brass" will back them in trying times of exposure. Despite this poor conduct, the "Brass", upon the inevitable required admission that an underling executed poor judgement, they seek to minimize the damage through denial. They will gladly pay for this privilege or benefit, using other people's money. They try to maintain a sterile image, oblivious to the fact the the offensive event is NOT an isolated event stemming from a single officer's moment of aberrant behavior, but from a defective departmental culture. I'll explain one such defect, in my next post contribution, but for now, let's assume the obvious. By paying a larger settlement payout, requiring the opposing party, victim, sign a document absolving the police department of wrong doing they avoid the need to fix a problem they deny even exists. This premium comes not from their budget, but from the city's budget, at the expense of other more valuable and needed assets like school books, fire service equipment, and other community usable assets. The worst part about this arrangement is when it happens again, and it WILL happen again, the department enjoys the benefit of claiming that they were ignorant of any department misbehavior, due the the lack of prior civil suit verdict, quietly settled at the expense valuable city resources. Until the city refuses payment for civil claim settlements, taking any dispersements directly from the police department's budget, they will never achieve police department accountability. Until then, the city will be forever subsidizing a department that suffers the inevitable consequences resulting from poor leadership and poor judgement.
I know that many people cry police injustice, most of which such complaints are baseless. This complaint is 100% factual, in which everything stated can be supported by evidence associated with its claims. I do this with my consent, but request that if this single act violates site rules, please edit just this feature, rather than delete the entire posting. My name is steven hallsted, the property manager for
A home located on movius drive in garden grove. In 2014, i called the police to remove 4 known drug dealing squatters from said property. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the police were familiar with this property. According to official uncovered city documents, the department had known about this property's reputation for years. The first four officers arrived in less than a minute. They granted the property owner's request to remove non-resident squatters, without hesitation, when suddenly a fifth officer, who identified himself as an officer, yet refused at least 4 request that he identify himself by name, pulled rank on the 4 officers, without even conversing with two of the subjects, and
Determined they could all stay. This officer who name was eventually named han cho, and it was later discovered to be, and i state this under penalty of perjury, fraud, or and other offense this agency might claim, the handler for mr. Robert john johnson. Interestingly, when the police were called, mr. Han cho emerged from a trailer parked across the street in the driveway of a neighbor and retired sheriff's deputy. I especially enjoyed the diversion of having the fifth arriving officer parking to obscure the view of the trailer, in hopes that officer cho's emergence from such trailer, wouldn't be noticed. To make a long story short, ggpd has not only known about the drug dealing on this property, they have not
Only endorsed it, they've literally supported it. The many victims like frank, mike, and billy, who've left the property with drugs, only to be stopped and arrested a short distance later, following bob's notification of officer cho, and other officer's on standby, prove how corrupt government agencies, participating in crime, for the sole benefit of one repeat criminal, cost society as a whole. Not surprising, for his role in playing an informant, bob enjoys near immunity for his continuing drug use, drug sales, and daily violation of numerous government laws, all with the police department's endorsement. According to court records, all public record, the informant bob, had four drug convictions, two in 2011,
One in 2013, and another in 2014, all with multiple failures to appear, corresponding probation violations, two cases originating as felonies, yet he served only one day in jail. So as anyone with a brain cell can ascertain, the misery endured by the neighbors, and property owner, is curable, the police just need to commit to putting their needs and wishes, above that of the individual whom they currently support in crime, not to mention, the individual they openly support for reduction of prison time discount. To the chief and his band of badged criminals, it's never too late to do the right thing, but i'm certainly not holding my breath. You are welcome to place me under surveillance or harass me as
You've done previously uncooperative city council members, but i'm not afraid, nor will i be dissuaded. I will never fear thugs with badges, or guns. Eventually, if you don't change your behavior, i will embarrass you and your department into doing the right thing.
Garden Grove Police Department Reviews
List of department defects: 1. Having a Chief that resists city imposition of secondary educational requirements from recognizable accredited learning institutions as prerequisite for promotion. Fish rots from the head down.
2. Having a Chief that hires and promotes based almost entirely on loyalty and willingness to do as instructed, regardless of integrity, as opposed to promotion based on credentials, accomplishments, and meritocracy. Example, officer Charles W. Starnes, Riverside County Sheriffs Department reject and closet alcoholic. Perhaps this is why his wife left him? How ironic it is that the benevolent "Chief” promoted this reject to head the department’s staffing efforts.
3. When a department’s chosen hires fail to graduate the academy, rather than direct scrutiny upon those department members who selected the underachievers, they enact an aggressive policy of recruiting other department graduates, or even in the past, guaranteeing badges to recruits willing to pay their own way through the academy, the latter being the proverbial equivalent of selling badges. Once these "lateral” transfer officers leave their previous department, the deception is complete. Knowing such transfers will likely be barred from returning to their previous department, GGPD has little motivation to honor the pledge that yielded the transfer. On a positive note, GGPD has a reputation for hiring those deemed unfit by other department so disciplinary problem officers are encouraged to apply, just don’t try and "lateral transfer” from GGPD. The traits recognized and honored by this department are valued by no other respectable department or agency.
When the city subsidizes a police department's good reputation at the direct expense of taxpayers, from the city budget, the city endorses police corruption. I've said it, as have others, fish rots from the head down. How does this affect the city of Garden Grove? Several years ago, the city paid an out of court settlement, contingent on the victim and plaintiff sign a disclaimer, basically absolving the police of wrong doing. The problem with this pattern is that it challenges logic, and lacking responsibility, the department lacks motivation to change the systemic pattern of conduct that resulted in the suit and subsequent settlement. When this happens, the city and taxpayers get raped, let me elucidate. This is how it works. A department that practices poor behavior with the support and immunity of senior management, behave with wrecklessness, knowing the "Brass" will back them in trying times of exposure. Despite this poor conduct, the "Brass", upon the inevitable required admission that an underling executed poor judgement, they seek to minimize the damage through denial. They will gladly pay for this privilege or benefit, using other people's money. They try to maintain a sterile image, oblivious to the fact the the offensive event is NOT an isolated event stemming from a single officer's moment of aberrant behavior, but from a defective departmental culture. I'll explain one such defect, in my next post contribution, but for now, let's assume the obvious. By paying a larger settlement payout, requiring the opposing party, victim, sign a document absolving the police department of wrong doing they avoid the need to fix a problem they deny even exists. This premium comes not from their budget, but from the city's budget, at the expense of other more valuable and needed assets like school books, fire service equipment, and other community usable assets. The worst part about this arrangement is when it happens again, and it WILL happen again, the department enjoys the benefit of claiming that they were ignorant of any department misbehavior, due the the lack of prior civil suit verdict, quietly settled at the expense valuable city resources. Until the city refuses payment for civil claim settlements, taking any dispersements directly from the police department's budget, they will never achieve police department accountability. Until then, the city will be forever subsidizing a department that suffers the inevitable consequences resulting from poor leadership and poor judgement.
When the city subsidizes a police department's good reputation at the direct expense of taxpayers, from the city budget, the city endorses police corruption. I've said it, as have others, fish rots from the head down. How does this affect the city of Garden Grove? Several years ago, the city paid an out of court settlement, contingent on the victim and plaintiff sign a disclaimer, basically absolving the police of wrong doing. The problem with this pattern is that it challenges logic, and lacking responsibility, the department lacks motivation to change the systemic pattern of conduct that resulted in the suit and subsequent settlement. When this happens, the city and taxpayers get raped, let me elucidate. This is how it works. A department that practices poor behavior with the support and immunity of senior management, behave with wrecklessness, knowing the "Brass" will back them in trying times of exposure. Despite this poor conduct, the "Brass", upon the inevitable required admission that an underling executed poor judgement, they seek to minimize the damage through denial. They will gladly pay for this privilege or benefit, using other people's money. They try to maintain a sterile image, oblivious to the fact the the offensive event is NOT an isolated event stemming from a single officer's moment of aberrant behavior, but from a defective departmental culture. I'll explain one such defect, in my next post contribution, but for now, let's assume the obvious. By paying a larger settlement payout, requiring the opposing party, victim, sign a document absolving the police department of wrong doing they avoid the need to fix a problem they deny even exists. This premium comes not from their budget, but from the city's budget, at the expense of other more valuable and needed assets like school books, fire service equipment, and other community usable assets. The worst part about this arrangement is when it happens again, and it WILL happen again, the department enjoys the benefit of claiming that they were ignorant of any department misbehavior, due the the lack of prior civil suit verdict, quietly settled at the expense valuable city resources. Until the city refuses payment for civil claim settlements, taking any dispersements directly from the police department's budget, they will never achieve police department accountability. Until then, the city will be forever subsidizing a department that suffers the inevitable consequences resulting from poor leadership and poor judgement.
I know that many people cry police injustice, most of which such complaints are baseless. This complaint is 100% factual, in which everything stated can be supported by evidence associated with its claims. I do this with my consent, but request that if this single act violates site rules, please edit just this feature, rather than delete the entire posting. My name is steven hallsted, the property manager for
A home located on movius drive in garden grove. In 2014, i called the police to remove 4 known drug dealing squatters from said property. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the police were familiar with this property. According to official uncovered city documents, the department had known about this property's reputation for years. The first four officers arrived in less than a minute. They granted the property owner's request to remove non-resident squatters, without hesitation, when suddenly a fifth officer, who identified himself as an officer, yet refused at least 4 request that he identify himself by name, pulled rank on the 4 officers, without even conversing with two of the subjects, and
Determined they could all stay. This officer who name was eventually named han cho, and it was later discovered to be, and i state this under penalty of perjury, fraud, or and other offense this agency might claim, the handler for mr. Robert john johnson. Interestingly, when the police were called, mr. Han cho emerged from a trailer parked across the street in the driveway of a neighbor and retired sheriff's deputy. I especially enjoyed the diversion of having the fifth arriving officer parking to obscure the view of the trailer, in hopes that officer cho's emergence from such trailer, wouldn't be noticed. To make a long story short, ggpd has not only known about the drug dealing on this property, they have not
Only endorsed it, they've literally supported it. The many victims like frank, mike, and billy, who've left the property with drugs, only to be stopped and arrested a short distance later, following bob's notification of officer cho, and other officer's on standby, prove how corrupt government agencies, participating in crime, for the sole benefit of one repeat criminal, cost society as a whole. Not surprising, for his role in playing an informant, bob enjoys near immunity for his continuing drug use, drug sales, and daily violation of numerous government laws, all with the police department's endorsement. According to court records, all public record, the informant bob, had four drug convictions, two in 2011,
One in 2013, and another in 2014, all with multiple failures to appear, corresponding probation violations, two cases originating as felonies, yet he served only one day in jail. So as anyone with a brain cell can ascertain, the misery endured by the neighbors, and property owner, is curable, the police just need to commit to putting their needs and wishes, above that of the individual whom they currently support in crime, not to mention, the individual they openly support for reduction of prison time discount. To the chief and his band of badged criminals, it's never too late to do the right thing, but i'm certainly not holding my breath. You are welcome to place me under surveillance or harass me as
You've done previously uncooperative city council members, but i'm not afraid, nor will i be dissuaded. I will never fear thugs with badges, or guns. Eventually, if you don't change your behavior, i will embarrass you and your department into doing the right thing.