Complaint Against VCPD Chief Gabriel "Huntsman" Adams

[danigold]

Report against: Chief of Police Gabriel "Huntsman" Adams

Name(s) of those reporting: Jerry and Terry Swindle

Reasons: Breaking Vice City Criminal Law / Crimes Against Justice

Evidence: Chief Adams' statement in Jerry Swindle's Appeal To Supreme Court
Demotions against several VCPD members handed by Chief Adams

Other Details:
Recently, I, ARPD Officer Jerry Swindle was charged with 2 charges, 1 of Impersonation, and another for Perjury due to a stupid mistake on my part.
In an attempt to reduce the hefty fine I was given by the court, I decided to prepare and appeal to the supreme court, and in order to prove my point of being a positive addition to the city and the police, I had my brother, Terry, talk to several people, among them VCPD members who had gotten to work with me and got to witness my work, to hand over character testimonies, where they explain what they think about my character.

The VCPD members in question, who are witnesses, gave very positive and thoughtful testimonies (included in the OP of the first evidence link).
Unfortunately, Chief Adams upon finding out, decided that he will request the court to invalidate the testimonies, and then went ahead and explained to the court, that he gave these fine officers (Andrew Williams, Rafael Johnson, Hazard) disciplinary actions (which can also be seen in the second link of the evidence).

By doing that, Chief Adams broke the criminal law of Vice City, specifically, Section 10: Crimes Against Justice, Article 5, which reads:

Dissuading A Witness Or Victim - A person who knowingly and maliciously prevents or encourages any witness or victim from attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law with the use of bribery, fear, or other tactics.

By giving the kind officers disciplinary action and demoting them for simply giving testimony at my appeal, Chief Adams clearly is knowingly attempting to dissuade several witnesses in court to retract their testimonies at the appeal proceeding, by using disciplinary action upon these men.
I would go even as far as to say that by doing so, he is also instilling fear in any other law enforcement member who might think of giving testimony that isn't specifically ordered by himself.

[Huntsman]

I will keep myself short:

The testimonies posted by members of VCPD were posted using VCPD signatures, and in officer Hazard's case: VCPD insignia. This implies it is the official statement of the VCPD.

It is not, and it was never approved by the High Command. For this reason, they broke the Chain of Command by not alligning their positions with High Command before masquerading their VCPD ranks (and logo) to post their statements which express a stance conflicting with that of VCPD, which also put us in a direct conflict with the FBI.

They were never told that they cannot post their opinion, but were told to do so as citizens and to keep VCPD out of it unless that position is alligned with VCPD High Command and they receive permission to post it as such.

The whole situation and case are sensitive issues I would rather not have officers commenting on while representing themselves as VCPD, which is understandable, as it can cause a PR nightmare. Representation of the police department on such issues is delegated to High Command only, as High Command are the only ones permitted to take part in court in the name of the state/police department.

Sergeant Johnson has already aknowledged their mistake. The warning against Captain Nylez was dropped as they did not use their VCPD rank to sign the statement (which was my mistake). Officer Hazard is yet to aknowledge their warning.

Nobody would have cared what they had to say had they not involved their VCPD ranks and logo into it.

In addition, the statements presented are not witness statements, but rather character "evaluations" or "opinions" about the complainant asked by the complainaint of the officers involved, and are not "witness" statements, nor can they be defined as such. I think it is important to note that for this reason the article quoted by the complainant does not apply here.

Even in the case of above, the officers were free to post these "evaluations" or "opinions", but not while representing themselves as VCPD.

Furthermore, no officer was ever demoted as the complainant claims, they were merely issued warnings and a disciplinary talk explaining why what they did was inadequate and damaging for the department's image.

That's all.

[danigold]

My mistake, I got confused due to the name of the "Suspensions & Demotions" topic.

This does not however change the fact that by giving warnings and disciplinary talks, you still dissuaded witnesses from providing testimonies which are a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law, by using fear.

[Huntsman]

My mistake, I got confused due to the name of the "Suspensions & Demotions" topic.

This does not however change the fact that by giving warnings and disciplinary talks, you still dissuaded witnesses from providing testimonies which are a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law, by using fear.

I believe I already provided the explanation above, and why these warnings were valid as they were for misrepresentation of the department due to these officers, without authorisation, implying they were representing the VCPD.

They were free to express their opinions as citizens without getting the VCPD involved.

I have no further comment.

[VCPR]

Greetings,

By giving the kind officers disciplinary action and demoting them for simply giving testimony at my appeal, Chief Adams clearly is knowingly attempting to dissuade several witnesses in court to retract their testimonies at the appeal proceeding, by using disciplinary action upon these men.
I would go even as far as to say that by doing so, he is also instilling fear in any other law enforcement member who might think of giving testimony that isn't specifically ordered by himself.

First of all, I'd like to point out that Chief Adams never prevented any of us from taking part nor testifying in your appeal, Mr. Swindle. His only concern was using VCPD signatures as if we were talking on behalf of VCPD as a whole which is the case with my own recommendation letter. Such action is considered to be violating the Chain of Command which lead to disciplinary actions being taken. However, Chief Adams kept insisting that everyone has the right to have their own opinion and express themselves the way they like.
I wasn't treated unfairly by Chief Adams, the warning I received could have been avoided if I consulted the command beforehand so it was fair enough.
In short, I received that warning because I signed with my VCPD rank not because of my words themselves.

As for my letter, I was asked for a recommendation letter for Mr. Swindle as a fellow officer and I wrote it with sincerity and I genuinely meant every word I said. These words came from my experience with you on the field and have got nothing to do with the case itself as I almost know nothing about its details.
However, I'm a bit concerned about this complaint of yours. How I'm feeling is that your prior dispute with VCPD/FBI was the motive that led you to file such complaint against Chief Adams, since to me he didn't break any laws by requesting that only the testimonies issued on behalf of VCPD (as an organization) to be invalidated (aka mine and hazard's).
He had no problems whatsoever with Captain Arthur "Nylez" Williams' testimony which I believe got the strongest words in your defense. Yet you're here pointing fingers at Chief Adams saying that he broke the law, when he just did what was supposed to be done.

My advice for you is to focus on your main appeal and try to avoid getting dragged into side business that won't benefit your case in my opinion. I wish you all the best.

[Klaus]

The testimonies given, were not from witnesses involved with said court case, but rather written references of one's character. The people who chose to post those references had no actual relevance to the court case in question. For that reason they cannot be defined as witnesses. I'll presume for all involved that we agree they are also not victims either. For that, Section 10: Crimes Against Justice, Article 5 is irrelevant in this case.

The choice to give disciplinary action was explained internally to those involved, in which I see no reason to overrule. Huntsman explained his reasoning, breaking the Chain of Command and using VCPD insignia without permission. Those involved have not personally argued against their disciplinary action, which further enforces the idea that they understand and adhere to what Huntsman has ordered.

I don't see Huntsman's actions are dissuading anyone from giving character references where requested. They simply put, are not allowed to make official statements on behalf of the VCPD, and must act as an individual in these cases. Both Huntsman's and Rafael's statements below leave no evidence of threats, or instilling fear.

Case closed.