Actually, none of the officers were demoted or fired. The most harsh penalty was they lost their vacation time and had an official slap on the wrist. When I interviewed a capt. at Internal Affairs, he said that he couldn't tell me exactly what their penalties were, but as I asked we removed things from the list of what could have happened to them.

BTW - Our goal was to have the law changed so it would be public knowledge when a police officer behaves in such blatantly egregious ways...but if it happened today and no video camera caught it, the "incident" would be considered "confidential." So though many people will say what they think, unless you go to the source, you can be told anything. As a researcher and educator I have no stake in this except to hold people accountable. The same exact way I expect my students to me accountable when they do something wrong. Otherwise, they're not laws, they are control factors for some and others are allowed to live their lives above the law.

Happy New Year! :)- s6k:I sat down with William Rodwell, ex-tenant assoc. pres. of the 111 Arts building in Jersey City, NJ. He was one of the original artists in that building and provides a very vivid account of the issues surrounding the death of the "The Powerhouse Art District." This ongoing investigation has been taking some interesting turns. We are pouring through the piles of documentation that has been provided to us. It has been on hold while we have been covering an eminent domain case in Long Branch, NJ. You can take a look at our eminent domain work at s6k:Investigates
Our intent is to follow this wherever it leads. Take care and we hope you all are well, s6k Media

Happy New Year! :)- s6k:I sat down with William Rodwell, ex-tenant assoc. pres. of the 111 Arts building in Jersey City, NJ. He was one of the original artists in that building and provides a very vivid account of the issues surrounding the death of the "The Powerhouse Art District." This ongoing investigation has been taking some interesting turns. We are pouring through the piles of documentation that has been provided to us. It has been on hold while we have been covering an eminent domain case in Long Branch, NJ. You can take a look at our eminent domain work at s6k:Investigates
Our intent is to follow this wherever it leads. Take care and we hope you all are well, s6k Media

During the early 2000's there was a battle in Jersey City, New Jersey. It was a defining moment in the largest NJ Arts facility as well as being representative of what happens to arts communities throughout the U.S. We are thrilled to have brought this issue and documentary into the light. It documents what was behind the scenes of the "Drunk Cops" video. This story still needs to be told...for the first time. We intend to make sure it is. In peace and service, s6k Media

In this s6k:I exclusive, we have been provided with the honor of talking to the person who filmed the "Drunk Cops" video in Jersey City, New Jersey. We thank Lee Perry for coming forward and talking with us. For us, the key fact is the events happened without the public ever being properly informed. In a democratic society, without proper oversight AND an informed public, the facts often become blurred into opinion or disappear all together. This conversation answered some questions for us, while it has introduced a number of others. He's also a very soft-spoken individual, which is nothing like the way he was framed earlier in this public conversation. Complete information, www.s6k.com/leeperry In peace and service, s6k Media

Hi All,
To those who say this is a past issue, remember that if it were to happen tomorrow, you wouldn't know because NJ state law REQUIRES that it be kept confidential. Also, as stated in a previous message, JC IAU told us that there have been more cases. How many; 3, 5, 20? The attorney general's office also mandates the phrase, "Upon being found guilty, appropriate discipline was applied." We were told by IAU, that phrase covers everything from a verbal reprimand to dismissal. That is just unacceptable.

We want to have the CURRENT rules changed so this could NEVER happen in private again. After a case is considered closed by Internal Affairs, it should be made public; relevant facts discovered, names, punishment applied. We also want to have a statute created so police will face criminal charges if they are found to be intoxicated, while on duty and possessing a firearm. Both of these are VERY important for the future of police conduct in NJ. We should not have to wait until something tragic happens before we act.

We have been in contact with the person who filmed the video and we'll be able to present this to you soon.

As for the Pink Floyd, Aphex Twin or Meatbeat Manifesto usage, usually in situations where there's no fee being charged, as in the case of DJ'ing, of which I'm a veteran turntablist, no one would bother. They mostly see that as free promotion.

Thanx for the heads up on the typo!

In peace and service,
s6k Media

"As someone else you quote says, it's hard to know what the officers really were drinking, let alone prove that in court." [s6k Media] That's a great question. In my interview with Jersey City Internal Affairs, the police admitted what they were drinking, so that's really not a debate. The questions, for me are: Did the police make information about this case (possibly with the names removed, if necessary for privacy reasons) available to the public at the time it occurred? If so: case closed. [s6k Media] No. It is NJ state policy that the process be confidential. That's one of the things we are pushing on to change. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that the JCIAU is so concerned about making that process public either, which was surprising to me quite frankly. As far as JCIAU is concerned, the case is closed. To be clear we aren't pursuing additional charges against the officers. We are working to make their names public. If the JCPD broke the rules by failing to file public reports on the case: Why not? How often does this happen? [s6k Media] Great question. This happens all the time because the state attorney generals office and civil rules dictate this happen behind closed doors. So really, it is more the fault of the NJ AG than any specific police dept. If the JCPB kept the case confidential in accordance with whatever disclosure laws and regulations apply: are those laws and regulations adequate? [s6k Media] We believe the answer is clearly no! If anyone who has posted here was caught drunk and visibly drinking in public, during work hours, we'd be punished by work by being fired, then we'd be brought up on criminal charges, which would most certainly result in having our names splashed in the local papers. We are going at this from that angle. We want to have the names released and then get the rules changed so if it ever happens again, there would be criminal charges that would be applicable. It seems to me that those questions might still be valid, even now, and you don't have to cause more grief for the officers in the video to look into those questions. [s6k Media] We don't believe those elements are mutually exclusive. As we've stated, we should know the names just as if we'd done it and our names would have been made public, even if we'd been fired from our job. Simultaneously, we should also work to make sure that the public is never endangered again by police that blatantly disregard the duty to uphold the public trust and laws. JC IAU told us that there have been more instances of this since, though he couldn't be specific, of course. We are extremely elated that the discussion is now civil, respectful and based on public concern instead of insults that serve no purpose. Thank you all. We will be calling on you soon to help us help you change these ridiculous rules and protocols. The police should be held to a hirer standard than the public they serve, not lower. Here's the new edit of the video that includes some of the information that has come out since we started this investigation. In peace and service, s6k Media

This is the official statement we received from Jersey City Internal Affairs Unit. They have been very helpful in helping us get to the bottom of this matter. We've recently had a interview with them that also illuminates a few things for us that we'll be posting on our site soon.

btw - As we receive statements, we will continue to post them here and supply links to our complete investigation on our site s6k.com. We will no longer respond to posts regarding any other matter than the facts at hand.

----------
Dear s6K Media,
Thank you for agreeing to send IAU the video, I look forward to reviewing it and comparing it to the video that we have on record.

Although I do not believe it necessary, and would very much like to talk to whoever witnessed this incident in person, I understand there can be reasons the provider of the video chooses to continue to remain anonymous. I also understand your obvious and justified concerns when such incidents as that depicted on the video occur.

Although civil service rules consider much of the discipline process to be confidential, I am sure that I can provide you with the following information. The incident occurred in October of 2004. A video was provided to Mayor Healy, who forwarded it to this Office. Upon investigation, the individuals depicted on the video were identified as Jersey City Police Officers and Supervisors. Those Officers and Supervisors were charged with violating a variety of rules and regulations. Upon being found guilty, appropriate discipline was applied.

Since the process has been complete, it is technically considered a closed matter. However, I would like to compare your video to ours to determine if there is any additional footage that we may be able to take further action on.

In general, IAU has no comment or interest in the conduct of the professional media and/or the posters at various internet web sites. The posted video is an exception to that rule only because IAU knows it to be legitimate, and is interested in any possible additional information it may contain.

Thank you once again for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,
Captain Brian O?Callahan

Hello All,
We've been in contact and have gotten statements from a number of official sources that tell us a story that contradict many of the posts here. Since we are a news service, we will refrain from the banter and stay focused on the facts as we can find them...not as we can create them to prove our own point[s].

In the next 72-hours, many people will owe apologies that I'm sure we'll never receive.

Stay tuned...
s6k Media

Since you've gone to our site and pulled one program from literally 34 programs, I felt the need to address this. You could have just as easily pulled a quote from Veterans For Peace or Vicky Virgin or Sexual Harassment Intervention Team or Good Hair Gone Bad or any number of myriad of things that we do FOR FREE at our own costs.

We ask that anyone who believes that we are trying to drum up $'s, go to our site and try to find where the quote was pulled from. Nowhere on our homepage are we asking for dollars...because we have well-paying careers! The site is a labor of love that has thousands of documents and links to verifiable information sources.

Nowhere in our posts was it implied or stated that we were trying to drum up money or clients. Clients come to us because of the other work that we do. If you REALLY looked at our site you would realize that only a certain type of politician would want to be associated with us...and it is obvious that we aren't political kiss-asses to demo-republi-crats. They've both worked against what we've stand for and work towards.

As for this being some kind of "political hatchet job," who exactly would we be working for and what hatchet? I'm sure if this were brought out into the light of day one would find both dems and reps involved.

A good political strategist working for a campaign would have avoided such a topic that would probably negatively effect your clients party...unless you already knew who was involved. Since everything posed in the video came in the form of a question, you could hardly attach us to either party or a candidate. Nice try...but "swiftboating" us won't stop the truth from getting out.

I will end my communication with this...Anyone who has a problem with the unvarnished truth has an agenda that is against the notion and spirit of living in a "democratic society." Never in our post do we slander anyone, present false information or try to get you to believe our thoughts.

Never stop asking questions...
Good Night and Good Luck

How is this an irresponsible post? Just as photos in Iraq, which were taken well before anyone in the American public realized what we were paying for or the COINTELPRO documents which surfaced well over a decade after some of the events happened, s6k Media only wanted to put the video out in the public. I can't stress that enough. If everyone were to follow your concept of "journalism," Loose Change [and subsequent versions] should have never been created. Martin Luther King Jr's murder wasn't solved, in court, until 1999, over 30 years after.

When s6k posts to anything, we present additional information by supplying the direct information [relevant links, documents] in question, not only our opinions and say "I wrote it so believe what we say.".

BTW - We work with block associations to make them more responsive to the community...We created a sexual harassment program that has addressed those issues in NYC...We work to supply resources to many organizations to help them with creating better strategy...We produce educational documentaries that are being featured in festivals around the world and have sold thousands of them internationally. Plainly stated, we don't need anyone telling us that there are more relevant current issues. We spend OUR OWN money to work with orgs that couldn't afford it otherwise. We put our money and lives were our hearts, minds and mouths are. It's things like this that make my choice of moving out of NJ the best life-change I could have made.

Also, could you inform this thread with the current community works you personally are responsible for? If not, you really do not have anyone by anything.

That said, for those who've turned this into an argument, seemingly because they've nothing better to do, with all the posts you blessed us with, none actually answers the core questions. As previously mentioned, vague tips, which have been contradicted by other posts, aren't facts.

Before you decide to post again, please provide us with a link to any news story that features this issue and states the outcome. At that point, we'll add it to the posting on our site, for the many people who hadn't known about it prior and we'll continue to do EVERYTHING ELSE we do.

As for the other things that are more important, your tone certainly doesn't sound like someone who works to motivate anyone. It just seems that you ride the keys, looking for an argument to jump into. You can type until your blue in the fingers, but until you provide the requested information, we'll refrain from further feeding your digital tavern argument.

In peace and service,
s6k Media / s6k.com

Someone had said that s6k Media didn't have the right to sell the video. We had no intention of selling the video. As a matter of fact, the intent was to make sure that the raw video was sent to the right people who seemed interested...at our cost. No money was ever mentioned or inferred.

Hopefully that can put that part of things to rest.

Hello,
I am the creator of s6k Media. Dreadstar and I had the intent of getting the word out to people who had't known about this video, which there seem to be many. As for the "half-assed" comment, I simply say that growing up in NJ, born in the 60's, I've had my fill of angry people with no facts behind their empty words. I had no idea that people would get angry for us posting it.

We weren't trying to get people to do our research for us. We were hoping that someone might have the other pieces to the puzzle.

BTW - I though that's what these types of lists were for; someone posts something and others provide relevant information. We aren't interested in the opinions of those who say "this is old news." We are only interested in people who provide facts; what were their names?...how long were they on the force?...why don't more long-term JC residents know about this?...ect.

In the video we clearly asked; if they were cops...are they still on the force...and could someone else look into this? We were expecting that we could honor the brave person or people responsible for the creation of the video by distributing it through our channels. We had no hidden agenda.

As for the "terror" title...it's an opening sequence that was created for ALL of our new s6k:I videos...not just this one. We also feature Michael Ruppert, famous 9/11 researcher & "Terror Timeline" originator and 1978 whistleblower. Should we have ignored him since he busted the CIA allowing cocaine into LA nearly 30 years ago? Just so you know, we have another video to be released that discusses past and present racism in NJ hospitals. Our source might mention something that happened years ago. You can rest happy because it's not a hospital in JC, so it won't appear here...because we happily follow the rules of JClist.

If you have information that the interested people here can see [and be able to independently verify] what happened and see that justice was truly served...THEN LET'S SEE IT.

And lastly, why are some of you seeming so angry about us posting it? Old news is certainly nothing to get in a huff about. Should everyone clear their posts with YOU to make sure they aren't discussing things YOU already "know" about or have read? Your tone from the very start seemed hostile. You took to slandering Dreadstar and myself without providing anything that others could validate, which is your burden since you decided to enter this thread with a contrary "this isn't worthy because it has already been covered" vibe. Since one of you is an "old-timer" here, since September, the fact of this being my first post will make me a target of your rage I'm sure. You should definitely read #5 in the rules of JClist because you've been neither.