Wednesday, April 27, 2016

L.A. City Hall Is In VIOLATION of Hon. Dean D. Pregerson's FEDERAL ORDER Regarding City Council's CENSORSHIP of The Public (READ APRIL 2016 DRAFT LAWSUIT)

APRIL 26, 2016: First Draft/Notes by @ZumaDogg regarding Public Comment during L.A. City meetings (#LAPD Commission/#LA City Council). This is a work in progress, that I will be updating/adding to, in preparation of a document, to be presented to Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson: 

To: Mike Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office 

Fr: "Zuma Dogg" 

Re: Public Comment During LAPD Commission & City Council Meetings

Dt: April 26, 2016

Dear L.A. City Attorney's Office,

My name is, "Zuma Dogg." On August 08, 2013, I won a Federal ruling, by Hon Judge Dean D. Pregerson, regarding public comment at the Los Angeles City Council meetings. The ruling (declaratory relief) explains what is allowed during public forum meetings, such as Police/City Council meetings, during public comment time. HERE is an excerpt from the ruling: – UNITED STATES/CALIFORNIA/FEDERAL/COURT: FEDERAL RULING (AUGUST 08, 2013) – Zuma Dogg vs Los Angeles City Council: “It is unconstitutional to restrict speakers from making personal attacks in City Council meetings; it chills speech critical of elected officials, which is speech at the heart of the First Amendment. In one of the largest cities in the world, it is to be expected that some inhabitants will sometimes use language that does not conform to conventions of civility and decorum, including offensive language and swear-words. As an elected official, a City Council member will be the subject of personal attacks in such language. It is asking much of City Council members, who have given themselves to public service, to tolerate profanities and personal attacks, but that is what is required by the First Amendment. While the City Council has a right to keep its meetings on topic and moving forward, it cannot sacrifice political speech to a formula of civility. Dogg “may be a gadfly to those with views contrary to [their] own, but First Amendment jurisprudence is clear that the way to oppose offensive speech is by more speech, not censorship, enforced silence or eviction from legitimately occupied public space.” Gathright v. City of 18 Portland, Or., 439 F.3d 573, 578 (9th Cir. 2006). The city that silences a critic will injure itself as much as it injures the critic, for the gadfly’s task is to stir into life the massive beast of the city, to “rouse each and every one of you, to persuade and reproach you all day long.” (‪#‎PLATO, Five Dialogues, Hackett, 23 2d Ed., Trans. G.M.A. Grube, 35 (Apology).) 24 The court GRANTS summary judgment to Plaintiffs on the as-applied challenge to the Rules of Decorum.” (Entire ruling embedded at bottom of this page.)

Since this ruling, I haven't been attending LAPD/Council meetings; but I made a return, Friday, April 1, 2016, to deliver my respects to Councilman Bill Rosendahl, during general public comment time, at the Council meeting. Since that meeting, I've attended every city council meeting (nine meetings, as of April 22, 2016); along with one LAPD Commission meeting, on April 26, 2016.

OVERALL, it is my belief that both meetings (LAPD/Council) are in massive violation of Pregerson's Federal ruling. 

I am currently going through audio/video of all of the council meetings, and LAPD Commission meetings, over past two months; and pulling examples, hopefully for a judge to review. LINK TO L.A. City Council meeting video archives of all meetings described below: (Specific links/audio will also be provided, below.)

Some issues of concern are: 

# OVERALL PUBLIC COMMENT TIME CUT and General Public Comment time cut in half; from two minutes to one minute: In response to Hon. Dean D. Pregerson's Federal ruling, regarding L.A. City Council and public comment time (what is allowed/not allowed), City Council retaliated by cutting overall public comment time, for each meeting, from seven minutes to five minutes. And general public comment time was cut in half; from two minutes to one minute. 

Five minutes is a fixed and arbitrary number. Some agendas have an abundance of items, compared to other days. A floating number of total minutes, for each meeting, based on the number of items (in a percentage, which may have to be determined by the judge) is a more rational and reasonable method of determining overall minutes allowed, by members of the public. It is extremely restrictive, and is indeed a form of censorship; in having to choose between 30-50 (or more) agenda items. 

Though it may be unreasonable to expect council to have to endure fifty Zuma Dogg public comments, per meeting; it is also unreasonable and restrictive for Mr. Dogg (or any member of the public) to have to chose between so many important municipal issues, that will have an effect and impact on myself (and others who I care about).
While the city has paid presentations (non-agenda items/non city business=paid infomercial for people getting the presentation) during all council meetings -- adding an extra one to two hours to each and every meeting -- they then say that they only have time for one minute for general public comment. 


Wednesday, April 20, 2016, council had time for lengthy comments on how much they love the 80's band, Oingo Boingo, during the, "Oingo Boingo Day," presentation (See video of Koretz/O'Ferrel/Huizar: It was beyond superfluous. This was only one of three presentations, this meeting. Here's Mitch O'Ferrell's lengthy comments about his memories of Oingo Boingo:

Additionally, city councilmembers respond to public comment speakers, with more than fifty words, as limited by Brown Act; and speak for more than the three minutes, allotted for councilmembers, per comment. Then, they claim there is only time for members of the public to speak for one minute. 

Members of the public have to take off the whole morning, into the afternoon to attend the meetings. Transportation and parking expenses must be considered, too. Then to have to sit through hours of presentations; to only have a minute of time to speak on complex issues of the city is unreasonable. I, Zuma Dogg, am known to be a most efficient public comment speaker (based on my radio DJ background, probably). 

I can say, it not only disenfranchising, to only have a minute to speak; you really can't tell the story and offer a solution in a reasonable fashion, with only a minute. Even Zuma Dogg gets flustered and feels rushed. It unreasonable to expect a member of the public to be able to present a compelling comment in that short period of time. 


General Public Comment is an agenda item; and all the other agenda items allow for two minutes of public comment time. Why should general public comment time be shorter and more restrictive? LAPD meetings allow two minutes. LAUSD/Board of Supervisors allow three minutes. INSTRUCT COUNCIL TO RETURN GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT TO TWO MINUTES.

#PRESENTATIONS: As mentioned above are paid presentations. Not agenda business. The agenda says the meetings start at 10:15 am. To have an hour, or sometimes two hours, of presentations, during the city council meetings is more than a member of the public, to give public comment should be forced to endure. It's irrational and unreasonable. Members of the public, who must sit in chambers, waiting; can't have food/drinks brought to them, as councilmembers do; and don't have a private room, in back, to hang out and listen to the meeting, like a VIP room -- and the public speakers get burnt out and irritated (which is often times reflected in the comments by the speakers); and many people leave before they get to comment. 

Council weaves in and out of the meeting (agenda items/city business), for presentations. INSTRUCT COUNCIL TO MOVE PRESENTATIONS TO END OF THE MEETINGS, AFTER ALL AGENDA ITEMS ARE COMPLETED. Sometimes, council loses a quorum, before all agenda items have been called; due to lengthy presentations, beforehand. 

# OFF TOPIC: Being called, "off topic," when not, as a form of censorship: The presiding officer/attorney is not expected to have all the specific knowledge/information that all the gadflies are presenting. Just because the city attorney or council president doesn't think a speaker is on topic, does not mean they are not. I didn't understand the correlations my geometry teacher was making, but they weren't off topic. It's too short a trigger being pulled, too often; and the judge has already called this, "censorship of the public." ENGLANDER CALLING ZUMA DOGG OFF TOPIC (AUDIO):

# RESPONSE TO SPEAKER QUESTIONS: Being interrupted by City Attorney/Presiding Officer, when recognized speaker (public comment speaker) asks questions. If the Brown Act allows for a fifty word (or less) response to a speaker's public comment, then of course, the speaker may ask questions, a loud, during their comment. The council/commission may choose to not respond; but, to interrupt and say they are not allowed to ask questions -- and then to cut the rest of their time is a violation of the ruling. Perhaps, the speaker is using rhetorical questions, to make a point, as their form of free speech expression. Again, the board does not have to respond; and speaker should not be interrupted and cut off, for asking questions. 

See April 26, 2016 LAPD Commission meeting video: Speaker Tut Hayes, during public comment time on Item 4.) Zuma Dogg responds, by reminding the commission of the Federal ruling; and clarifying it, for them. See Item 5 for Zuma Dogg public comment. 



# ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEMBERS, DIRECTLY, DURING RECOGNIZED PUBLIC COMMENT: Council Pro-Tempe Mitchell Englander, upon my first public comment he presided over, said, "Our first speaker is Zuma Dogg. And before we begin, I'd like to remind the speakers that they are not allowed to address the councilmembers, directly." THIS IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE RULING, and was the heart of the lawsuit matter.
During this same warning, by Englander; he says, "Speakers must stick to ITEMS under City Council purview." It was GENERAL public comment, specifically for NON AGENDA ITEMS. 
To say speaker must stick to items, during general public comment time, is irrational and confusing for the speaker. A speaker could say, "I think council is doing a poor enough job, overall, that you should all resign, in the name of public safety, you have done such a bad job." That is a general comment, that is allowed, yet not an item.
And, for Mr. Englander to flagrantly make this statement, before Mr. Dogg's comment, may be seen as a poke in the eye to Judge Pregerson, as well. 

During Mr. Dogg's comment, Englander interrupts the recognized speaker (Dogg), to say, "Don’t yell." "Don't yell," is too subjective and vague. Englander's interruption of, "Don't yell," does not indicate to Mr. Dogg, that he is yelling. The vagueness may be interpreted as a preemptive warning not to begin yelling. Even if Dogg's speaking volume were in some kind of free speech violation; Englander needed to say, "you are yelling in violation of (ordinance/law) and stop yelling." AUDIO OF THIS INCIDENT:

# INTERRUPTED FOR SINGING: Cyndi Lauper Star on Hollywood Walk Of Fame: To let people know who Cyndi Lauper is, and the song she is best known for, for her star on Hollywood Walk Of Fame (that needed council approval); Mr. Dogg began singing, "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun," at which time Council President Herb Wesson interrupted Mr. Dogg and said that was enough, even though Mr. Dogg had not even gotten to the hook, yet. (I know this may seem trivial, but it's not to Zuma Dogg. This REALLY is annoying and it all chips away at the nerves of the speaker.) VIDEO:

# Mental Illness Item 26: Zuma Dogg called off topic. Though he was outraged; and his delivery of comment was expressive, of this outrage; he was at no time off topic. Mr. Dogg is someone who was damaged by the city; in a way that affected his income; causing his homelessness; and eventual disability medical diagnosis, regarding mental health issues, that Mr. Dogg correlates to city policy; as he sat through years of council meetings, watching their policies that result in the homelessness that causes mental illness. (Council was making correlation between homelessness and mental illness, which is why I mentioned it, here.) Mr. Dogg stops speaking on the buzzer, and exits the podium area. He is then ejected for the rest of the meeting, losing remaining public comment time (general public comment.) IT MUST BE NOTED that during this council meeting, at some point, the audio of council president and city attorney was not audible in chambers. Mr. Dogg could not hear any of what was being heard on the audio feed. He was taking instruction/direction from the LAPD sergeant at arms, who is seen moving the mic, back and forth; and was looking at the clock that was still ticking, throughout the entire comment, and was not stopped, at any time. Additionally, Ms. Martinez makes audible mention that this is the reason they need this mental health item passed, in reference to Mr. Dogg. This may be interpreted as slander, since Ms. Martinez is not a mental health expert or medical doctor. And, given Ms. Martinez's comment; Mr. Dogg is ready to accept a portion of the money, for this program.

 VIDEO: See Zuma Dogg Public Comment, following Councilman Busciano speech (CLICK ITEM 26): Click ITEM 26. Mr. Dogg comment begins at 2:57:30 (you can foward to start of comment). HERE IS AUDIO (cued to item): Also note, though may not be easily visible; Councilman Paul Krekorian, who does not preside over the meetings, in any way, interrupts Mr. Dogg, during his comment time. Mr. Krekorian was extremely disruptive to the recognized speaker. INSTRUCT KREKORAIN NOT TO VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW and do not disrupt the L.A. City Council meetings. 

# DENIM DAY: Many speakers called off topic and cut off. See Item 30/Denim Day:

# STEPPING ON SPEAKERS WITH, "THANK YOU!": Council President Herb Wesson has a regular habit of thanking speaker Zuma Dogg, while there is still time on the clock. Please instruct Mr. Wesson to wait until the buzzer sounds, before thanking the speaker. It is during the final seconds, when Mr. Dogg has most momentum and is making final points -- many times the points council wants the public to hear, least. It's a form of censorship. Speaker should be able to finish their sentence, upon the buzzer, as well, before any, "thank you, thank you, thank you" on the part of Wesson. 

# SPEECH VOLUME: A public speaker does not lose constitutional rights, just because of the city's cheap mic/sound system. Actually, the mic seems to accommodate the speakers', just fine. I don't hear distortion/feedback. It comes off as an excuse/way to interrupt speaker, when they have momentum=a form of censorship.

#RULE 93 (See full Rule 93 (scroll to page 24): Additionally, City Council is in violation of Rule 93 that states, "Cameras shall be operated so that they are focused only on the officially recognized speaker, and on any visually displayed information being shown. No 'reaction' shots will be permitted." 
Council (as aired in chambers and on City TV 35) runs a long shot of the public comment speakers, while council gets close ups. Rule 93 says camera must be focused on recognized speaker. When public comment speaker is speaking, at the podium, during their recognized time; they are the recognized speaker. A long shot of the chambers is a violation of Rule 93. Additionally, with a long shot of the chamber, no visual information (such as graph or picture) that is being displayed can be seen by viewers. When the council president or city attorney interrupts the recognized public comment speaker; the camera cuts to a close-up ('reaction' shot) of the president's/city attorney's reaction. This, too, is a violation. Have Council President instruct TV 35 camera operator to give same camera shots, as the councilmembers/city attorney.  VIDEO OF ZUMA DOGG on RULE 93 (General Public Comment of April 13, 2016 Council Meeting). SEE CAMERA SHOT AND HEAR Mr. Dogg's EXPLANATION: 


I would like to schedule a meeting with City Attorney Mike Feuer (or the appropriate city attorney) to discuss the resolution of these matters. 

Zuma Dogg


Scroll to PAGE 29 (D. Rules of Decorum)

 Click here for full page version of this embedded page.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Zuma Dogg on Los Angeles City Council's Plan To Address Homelessness In Venice, CA

Article in Los Angeles Times ( about Venice Beach homeless crisis; and measures being considered by CD 11 Councilman Mike Bonin (@MikeBonin). 

[Zuma Dogg comments in brackets.]

Los Angeles is considering a new effort to deal with the burgeoning homeless population in Venice that includes 24-hour access to bathrooms, free storage facilities and development of supportive housing on city land.

The measures by L.A. Councilman Mike Bonin, are among the first concrete proposals in what city leaders say will be a $2-billion plan to ease, if not end, homelessness.  Bonin's plan, announced Friday, comes amid a significant increase in Los Angeles' homeless problem in recent years, prompting much debate at City Hall and beyond about how to reduce the problem. Venice has long struggled with a large homeless population, especially in and around the landmark boardwalk.

[$2 billion will not END homelessness (I stick to the term, "reduce"); and sadly, $2 billion is still a drip in the bucket -- but as first measure/step -- NO JOKE, either. It may at least have an organizing effect on the current homeless encampments on the streets. So, yeah; it will sweep some of it (MAYBE a lot) under the rug. For the mostpart; it's a needed start. Q: WHY DOES VENICE GET THIS MONEY, and not have it distributed across the city; in other in-need districts? A: Like it, or not (and if you live in Venice it's, "or not") the world-famous, westside beach (Venice Beach) DOES get hit with the brunt of people from across America; and now, thanks to Obama policy, (action and inaction), never moreso.]

It also marks one of the first times a city leader has proposed specific sites to provide local homeless services as the city continues to craft plans to deal with the larger shortage of housing for those in need. 

[The Zuma Dogg concern, here, is not with this concept; but making sure the money stays with the project; and doesn't get pilferd/ciphoned/racketeered into boondoggle-oblivion. I know it's a big city; and you got mafia-racketeering; but I hope results are produced, as well. Perhaps a, 20% less mafia racketeering corruption pledge, for this ONE project.]

Tensions have increased more recently as the homeless population has grown and the surrounding area has become a favorite of tech companies and employees.

[NOTHING is going to stop the growing of the homeless population in Venice. Beyond the perception of Venice Beach and it's reputation for a 70's, all-good, homeless hangout vibe; it DOES have to do with the fact it is more open and spacious, because of the beach....they are already here; and more and more are visibily noticeable, on the streets; by the day. Today, April 18 2016; the homeless encampment that Mishkoff Tephilio (206 Main St) allows on it's private property has NEVER been more populated. So, it's FIRST thing ALL the Main St/Google/Hi-Tech/GoldsGym/Tourists see when they cross the, "WELCOME TO VENICE/LOS ANGELES" sign.]

The Westside councilman described his plan as a “street strategy” to help more than 1,000 homeless people drawn to the coastal community, and said the measures would mitigate the effect of street encampments on neighborhoods and business districts.

The provisions include:

Developing the Pacific-Dell site, currently a city-owned parking lot, as housing for homeless people and public parking. The lot is at 200 N. Venice Blvd.

Reopening the vacant Westminster Senior Center at 1234 Pacific Ave. for homeless storage, bathroom access and office space for a case manager to connect people to housing and other services.

Providing 24-hour access to restrooms at Venice Beach. Bonin also called for exploring other ways to increase bathroom facilities, including the use of portable toilets.

Giving $50,000 in city funds to Steven and Regina Weller, whom Bonin said had teamed with Los Angeles police to place homeless people in substance abuse treatment programs and in shared or permanent housing. The money will come from the Venice surplus real property fund, the motion said. 

[I gotta check these two out. Probably good folks, trying to be helpful/benevolent; but this is where shadiness can creep in. BUT AGAIN...not saying that is the situation, here.]

Advocates applauded the proposals, saying the bathroom and storage plans could move quickly, if the council supports them.

“These are really positive steps forward,” said Becky Dennison, executive director of Venice Community Housing. [Yea, Becky/VCH!]

Other community members questioned some of the plans. 
[Mark Ryavec (see below) IS a community member; but a highly politicized one; who seems to be the only quote, used by LA Times, representing the community.]

Mark Ryavec, president of Venice Stakeholders Assn., said homeless storage should be in an industrial zone, not the residential neighborhood surrounding the old senior center.

[KINDA misleading to call it residential neighborhood, even though residential is around it. It's on PACIFIC AVE, a block from the boardwalk. It's the MUNICIPAL BEACH AREA, with residential neighborhood around it. City CANNOT lose use of this facility cause of the streets around it. SORRY. Do not move a block from the beach if this bothers you. RE: Have it in an industrial zone: Is Mr. Ryavec gonna run a free shuttle service for people and their belogings, to and from this industrial zone? Gotta get REALalistic, people.]

“The focus should be on intake, a road to a bed,” Ryavec said. “It's ludicrous to do it in a residential neighborhood.”

[The term, "residential neighborhood," needs to be amended to, "municipal beach community."]

The costs of the Westminster access center could be covered by funds set aside for storage and emergency shelter during the now-fizzled El NiƱo season, Bonin said.

Dennison said building the Pacific-Dell housing on city land was crucial to overcoming the Westside's high land prices. Bonin, in his motion, said the project could maintain or increase the amount of public parking in the area.

Ryavec, however, said the Pacific-Dell lot should be redeveloped as a parking structure and warned that the housing project could exacerbate the community's severe parking shortage. 

[I'm starting to REALLY think this guy Ryavec is a purposeful troublemaker. He needs to move to Perfect-Worldville. I think he is just here to say outrageously, dumb stuff; to make Bonin sound good.]

He also said opening the bathrooms overnight would encourage homeless people to continue camping on or near the boardwalk. 

[Keeping bathrooms closed encourages them to use your tree lawn/sidewalk as the bathroom. AND, GOTTA ACCEPT THIS LAW OF PHYSICS: The people are gonna gather SOMEWHERE! It's just not EVER gonna change. Looks like the bathrooms by the boardwalk are where the homeless people gather. OR, maybe Ryavec can let them sleep on his lawn.]

“Santa Monica closes their beach restrooms at night,” Ryavec said. “It's going to ensconce folks exactly where they are.”

[RE: ALL OF RYAVEC COMMENTS: All good points; and I can take a hardline approach; and hop on this bandwagon; because all of this stuff; is VERY close to my own street. I see it EVERY SECOND OF THE DAY. IT WEARS ON MY NERVES. I AVOID VENICE, ENTIRELY AND STICK TO SANTA MONICA...BUT, again; this isn't going away/it's only gonna get worse/Santa Monica has different zoning/layout/not as commercial around the beach/harder to access/not a lot of stores/etc. AND, VENICE BEACH is where they come to. SOMETHING needs to be done. Better to some some organization of the situation. Trying to to achieve a perfect world scenario, like Ryveck wants means NOTHING will happen. Go to Main Street, today. It has NEVER looked worse than it does, today. Gotta do something. This is something. Hope it isn't too corrupt on the contracts.]

The proposal is part of a larger debate about homelessness in Venice. Late last year, activists sued the city to strike down Los Angeles' 27-year-old overnight beach curfew. Some community groups fear lifting the curfew could worsen crime. [The beach curfew is WRONG/ILLEGAL. The coastal commision says the beaches are open 24/7.]

There have also been some controversial clashes between the LAPD and Venice homeless people. Last year, a police officer fatally shot Brendon Glenn, an unarmed homeless man, generating criticism of the LAPD and a lack of city resources for homeless people. [No offense, getting homeless people into homes, doesn't mean they sit in them, 24/7. People leave their units and go to the beach. He wasn't screaming for homeless services.]

The city’s Police Commission last week ruled that the shooting was unjustified, and Chief Charlie Beck has publicly called on the district attorney’s office to prosecute the officer who shot Glenn. [The term, "unjustified," makes it seem like it was done in bad spirit/on purpose. My intel says it was a REALLY nice guy (the cop) who got scared and made a mistake, in a split second. IT'S TRAGIC/BAD that it happened. BUT, it's not like cops are running around shooting people, with evil intent. Again, it's my understanding the cop made a terrible mistake, while scared.  But, NOW; there's going to be added tension. In a city this size; anomolies will occur.]

Thursday, April 14, 2016

BIll Rosendahl - A Celebration of Life (Sat., April 16, 2016) Mar Vista Park - 2p (SEE FLYER)

SATURDAY, APRIL 16th: Mar Vista Park - 2pm: Organized by L.A. Councilmember #MikeBonin. Eulogy by L.A. Mayor #EricGarcetti. Public Comment Tribute by #ZumaDogg. Lots of other people you'll know; and OVERALL, HUGE COMMUNITY GATHERING! Meet us, there. - ZD (

Friday, April 8, 2016

COURT RULING: Los Angeles County Supervisor Candidate Mitch Englander Was PURPOSEFULLY DECEITFUL & MISLEADING, Calling Himself A "Police Officer" (Englander is an L.A. City COUNCILMEMBER!!!)

[PICTURED: The FAKE Barney Fyfe of #LAPD=Mitch Englander (Aka:  Bitch Dicklander). Judge ruled he was purposefully decietful and misleading to claim he is a police officer. What crime is this small fry, shrimp going to stop? He'd get pushed over by a high school kid, like Barney Fyfe, at first glance.)]
SHAME ON DECEITFUL #MitchEnglander for INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING claim that he is a "police officer," when he is an L.A. City Councilmember. REALLY COWARDLY THING TO DO. A judge had to get involved to STOP Mr. Englander from disgracing cops, who risk lives, daily; as their full time job. Englander is trying to hide from voters that he is a LOS ANGELES City Clowncilmember. SHAME ON ENGLANDER! (His daddy bought him his council seat, to begin with.)  
A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge agreed with L.A. City Hall gadfly, Zuma Dogg ( and sided Wednesday with candidates running against Los Angeles City Councilman Mitch Englander in a race for county supervisor, ruling that Englander can't call himself a "police officer" on the ballot.
Englander is one of eight candidates running to replace retiring longtime Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. He described himself as "Councilmember/Police Officer" in his ballot designation.
The judge agreed with Mr. Dogg, that it was intended to mislead voters into thinking Englander was a full-time cop, when he is actually a volunteer reserve officer and full-time LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. They sought a court order blocking the description from the ballot.

Judge Robert H. O'Brien agreed at Wednesday's hearing that the "police officer" ballot designation was misleading and called it "inappropriate."
He also said the word "reserve" should be added to a section in Englander's candidate statement, which now reads, "As a Police Officer, I patrolled our streets for over a decade." 
He agreed that Mitch Englander deliberately tried to mislead the voters ... by trying to say he's a full-time police officer when he's not," he said. "Englander did a disservice to all men and women who wear the badge full time."