A Glimpse into Chief Wright's Troubled History
Chief Brian Wright, previously a police captain in New London, has been notorious for his unprofessional conduct, which has led to the suffering of innocent civilians. Despite numerous attempts to contact him, he has remained unresponsive to any communication. This article delves into a particular incident involving Chief Wright's excessive use of force, resulting in a harrowing experience for the victim and a subsequent formal disciplinary action presented to the Mayor and select City Council members by the NL Police Public Oversight Committee. To date, New London's Mayor, Mr. Michael Passaro along with two City Council members have failed to respond or acknowledge the existence of the City's Public Oversight Committee despite its current status as a legitimate office of New London's municipal government.
The Confrontation that Ignited Public Fury
Back in 2015, a neighbor misinterpreted a text message from the victim, leading to a false police report. Upon the arrival of the New London Police, the victim clarified that there was no suicidal individual and requested the officers to leave. However, Captain Wright and his squad, armed with full metal body-height shields, semi-automatic weapons, handguns, and a shotgun, were prepared for an intense standoff. When the victim denied entry to the officers, Wright and his team barged into the house, ultimately tackling the victim to the ground. Wright continued to inflict pain by twisting the victim's right arm backward, causing severe discomfort and a feeling of torture.
New London's Police System in Disarray
The victim's cries ceased once Wright released their arm. They stood in handcuffs and informed Wright of the need for a warrant to enter the premises. The incident exposed the dysfunction within the New London police and the GA10 Part B court system as the officers fabricated a tale about the victim's parents fearing their child's suicide attempt.
Police created a false record, including witness statements with photocopied signatures, which didn't match the actual handwriting of the witnesses. This was originally documented on a local police reform website called newlondontimes.com in 2017. Later that same year, the site was hacked, its articles and information were deleted and the domain name, newlondontimes.com found its ownership illicitly transferred to the hacker(s). Given the history of comments left at this site which can be accessed at multiple dates on the timeline
The victim and their family demanded to see the original documents with authentic signatures, but the police failed to produce them. This evidence pointed to the falsification of witness documents by New London's police to justify their unlawful entry without a warrant or any real threat to safety.
Wright's Misconduct and the Need for Accountability
Wright's actions in this case exemplify the unacceptable conduct that plagues the New London Police Department. Law enforcement should comprise individuals who adhere to criminal laws and respect the federal and state civil rights of all residents.
The Call for Reform
Public awareness of Brian Wright's actions is crucial to holding him responsible for his misdeeds. The victim's traumatic ordeal underscores the necessity for change within the New London police system. The fabrication of a false narrative about the victim's parents is an injustice that warrants attention and rectification. Policing is not a playground for immature individuals or action hero wannabes; it is a significant responsibility that demands adherence to ethical practices that guide city police interactions with residents.
Transforming Unwritten Policing Practices
The community must urgently address the unwritten policing practices in New London. Example of policies that are in effect but are unwritten include:
- The "Witness Eraser" Police in New London press charges against residents who refuse searches or home entry. They do so even when multiple witnesses present who could clear a defendant's name by telling the truth in court or pre-trial hearings. One of the methods in use by the New London Police is to allow a resident who has refused a police request to be searched, by allowing the resident to leave without filing a complaint or making an arrest. Five to seven days after the fact, the resident receives a phone call from police intructing him/her to come turn themselves in for a criminal charge of either 'Disorderly Conduct' or 'Breach of Peace.' Prosecutor David Smith at GA10 Court grinned as he explained that this was allowable since new evidence can be uncovered after the fact. In reality, no source of 'new' evidence is even presented in Witness Eraser cases. With no witnesses or crowd to contact, innocent and easily exonerated residents are cast as criminal defendant for exercising their right to refuse searches.
- Three additional types of unwritten policies in effect by the Police in New London, CT are covered in other sections of ths website. All four need to be addressed one at a time using public gatherings for peaceful protest as a tool. Authors of this site have had documented success doing so using vistapribt.com to create impactful 25 x 5 ft banners in front of York Correctional Institute. That example made Connecticut the first and to date, the only state in the union to offer fully free phone calls from all CT inmates to family and loved ones. Previously, these calls would cost CT inmates' loved ones up to $300/month.
The harm caused by these four unlawful, widely used yet unwritten practices is serious and must be stopped at once under the supervision of the newly formed Public Oversight Committee. The damage they are causing to the community and its families underscores the need for timely reform.
A robust public oversight committee is essential to eliminate harmful practices and retrain police officers to adopt legitimate and helpful policing methods. A considerable focus should be placed on upholding residents' civil rights in all situations, without exception. Additionally, transparency and accountability will be greatly increased in the police force by using web3 blockchain technology to handle public complaint forms against the New London Police. See some sample PHP code now in development and read more about how it works here.
In 2019 Tusk Philanthropies launched a blockchain federal and state voting system and deployed it via mobile app in yet another two US municipalities. Four years have passed in the interim with no reports of any ability real or theoretical, to hack alter or suppress any data from votes to public forms when blockchain ledgers are used. As a record keeping technology, the blockchain method is unusual because it is considered the end-point in record keeping or data storage technologies. It's considered an "end-point" because although something new could be developed for the same purpose, you cannot beat an instance of a method already understood to be 100% hack-proof and tamper proof. The most important takeaway point emphasized by hackers, software engineers and mathematicians alike is that all data stored on a blockchain is secured and immutable now and in the future. Blockchain data can not physically be censored, deleted, or altered so long as there are humans and working computers.
To look at this technology in the context of New London's problematic criminal courtroom practices and the respective policing practices that keep it so busy, the reasons not to use it as a voting platform for the Public Oversight Committee vanish. Would there be a good reason not to implement the best and certainly the safest method for data handling and decision making for the whole city? Use the comments section below. If asked for your website you can type "none," or anything else and it will still accept your comment. We are building our own blockchain protocol, interface and storage array here at New London Voice. We plan to make it free and open source as well as to publish every line of code for public inspection when it's done.
What are your thoughts on 1. joining the Public Oversight Committee and 2. using blockchain technology to vote and decide important matters more safely in New London?
When the author above writes about former the Captain’s (Who has been promoted to Chief) victim, I believe this refers to a CT resident of New London, Jonathan Brand. Mr. Brand was also a client of mine when I represented him at GA10 Part ‘B’ criminal Court in New London. His position was that an alleged failure to obtain “discovery” was against the “law.” for reasons he has not specified.
To be fully transparent he attempted to have me recused and then tried to file a “civil action” against me as a public defender. I was not interested in his website here until I read that I really don ‘t up i very many Google searches for anything. I would hesitate to say that Jon is out of line for the quote he attributes to my name in so many places around the web.
The idea that I would be shy of having said this is absurd and I have only Mr. Brand and New London to thank. Can I do it here? Ready for ir? Get set.. The law does not apply. I never get tired of saying that. The admins and I still disagree on whether that constitutes a crime to say it and mean it i court. Who care. I generally mean everything I say and if no one is coming to stop the truth I don”t mind saying it again . You ready? Remember I mean what I say. Ok Ok, The law does not apply.” Who wants to argue that llol?
No I disagree. That just reflect badly on you Attorney Tiernan. The would apply if I were a public defender instead because I’d apply it. What’s Dave Smith really gonna do to me for that if I come to his window there and extend my hand until either he puts discovery in it or I drive to the New London Day and sit for a nice long talk about a dangerous public building in NL. If the law could not apply, someone’s getting prosecuted for sedition and treason against the State. Dave wouldn’t go that far… at what point moving up the ranks of power to they stop, being like David by the way? Were DOES it apply, what’s the first rung where you find laws in effect for CT officials?