Kroll( the firm that covered up for Harvey Weinstein for years)does consent decrees for LAPD and other police departments undergoing allegations of corruption? Make it make sense to me, mommy!

 https://josephsonsexemplarypolicing.com/2016/06/lapd-consent-decree-2/

* This article also appeared in the February issue of the Thin Blue Line

The LAPD has been under the federal Consent Decree for six years now, and has performed remarkably. We are in substantial compliance with almost all of the requirements. However, the Department still has many officers who are consumed with the minutiae of auditing and auditing and auditing. Meanwhile, the chosen federal monitor, Kroll Inc., continues to enrich itself with millions of taxpayer dollars by nitpicking items that have zero to do with public safety or police integrity.

The time has come for the City to stand up and say the LAPD is done with the Consent Decree. In these tough budgetary times, the City cannot afford to waste taxpayer dollars for incessant, meaningless auditing that does nothing to enhance public safety or “reform” the LAPD.

Lifting the Consent Decree will allow the LAPD to use funds for public safety the way they are intended— namely, putting cops on the street. It will improve public safety by freeing up large numbers of officers to do what they were hired to do: concentrate on crime prevention and make our neighborhoods safe — not worry about the right boxes being checked on forms.

Our accomplishments of the last six years, combined with the ongoing threat of terrorism and the other issues facing the City of Los Angeles, make a compelling case for the Department of Justice to agree with lifting the Decree. The 95% compliance standard set by the Decree was, on its face, an unrealistic goal for a large organization, but we have met that mark for almost every single requirement.

Unbelievably, both Kroll and the federal judge have rejected the LAPPL, City and Department of Justice’s compromise on financial disclosure. In March 2006, following culmination of collective bargaining between the League and the City, a binding agreement was reached. The agreement terms were consistent with applicable California laws and acceptable to the Department of Justice, and achieved the underlying objective of the federal Consent Decree on the issue of financial disclosure. The agreement included the following components of a comprehensive financial disclosure policy:

• Regular and periodic anti-corruption sting operations on gang and narcotics officers;
• Existing polygraph examination expanded for selection of officers to include questions related to financial issues;
• Enhanced supervision and training; periodic review of TEAMS records for selection and advancements within the concerned units.

Throughout the five-year interactive process in this matter, the League has demonstrated a genuine and sincere effort to exchange information and proposals to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

The rejection of our compromise efforts highlights both the moral bankruptcy of Kroll and the fanatical commitment to form over substance by an unelected federal judge. Common sense says that a corrupt officer would not put ill-gotten funds in an account where they would be scrutinized, especially if the account were to be regularly monitored. Historically it has been proven in incidents of police corruption that funds are spent, not deposited in plain view. Thus, the blind insistence to an unprecedented financial disclosure requirement is rooted not in common sense, or the desire to actually accomplish something, but a continuation of the tyrannical determination by Kroll and the judge to show that they will be running the LAPD — and for Kroll, the added incentive of continuous financial reward.

The LAPD already has a surveillance unit that has the capability to sting officers. There are a myriad of tested and effective ways to ferret out any corruption by officers, from rotation in units to strong field supervision. This McCarthyite insistence on financial disclosure accomplishes nothing, and ignores ways to realistically attack suspected corruption.

Who Is the LAPD Monitor?

On June 15, 2001, the City of Los Angeles and the LAPD entered into a Consent Decree with the Department of Justice. Kroll was hired to act as the independent monitor to ensure that Consent Decree reforms are implemented in an effective and timely manner. It is strange that Kroll was tasked with monitoring a police agency, as Kroll has a rather interesting and undistinguished past history.

Kroll began in 1972 as a detective agency. In the 1980s it became known as “Wall Street’s private eye.” One of its clients was Drexel Burnham Lambert, the widely discredited junk bond/takeover firm run by soon-to-be-convicted felon Mike Milken. In 1988, the Securities and Exchange Commission accused Drexel, Milken and others of insider trading, fraud and stock manipulation among other offenses. Drexel pleaded guilty to six felonies and paid $650 million in fines. In 1990, Drexel filed for bankruptcy and Milken was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

According to Connie Bruck, author of The Predators’ Ball, Kroll was first hired to do background checks on Drexel clients. James B. Stewart, author of Den of Thieves, wrote that Drexel hired Kroll to dig up dirt on Ivan Boesky, a Milken collaborator who also went to federal prison. While the government was investigating Drexel, big-time entrepreneurs with gambling industry and organized crime backgrounds took out full-page ads lauding the firm.

After Drexel’s demise, the firm, then called Kroll Associates, ran into financial troubles. It was bailed out by insurance giant American International Group (AIG). A Kroll spokesperson acknowledged in 1993 that AIG had a minority position in Kroll and remains a client today.

Jules Kroll, the company founder, stayed close to Frederick Joseph, former head of Drexel. Joseph, now with another firm, assisted Kroll Inc. in its 2003 buyout of Zolfo Cooper, as well as the deal in which insurance broker Marsh & McLennan purchased Kroll for $1.9 billion.

Corruption charges soon swirled around both AIG and Kroll’s parent company, Marsh & McLennan (Marsh Mac), as they were being investigated by New York’s then-Attorney General (now Governor), Eliot Spitzer. In October 2004, Spitzer accused Marsh Mac of fraudulent self-dealing and bid-rigging. In early 2005, Marsh Mac settled the charges with a payment of $850 million, but the investigation is ongoing.

After Marsh Mac bought Kroll, it ousted its chief executive and put Kroll executive Michael Cherkasky [Editor’s note: In late December, Marsh Mac announced that Cherkasky would be resigning as CEO, as soon as a replacement is found.] in the top position. Cherkasky, formerly Spitzer’s boss in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, is his tennis pal and has contributed to his campaigns. This strange turn of events raised eyebrows. Forbes magazine asked the question, “Did Marsh Mac buy Kroll thinking it was an insurance policy against an impending crackdown by New York Attorney General Spitzer?”

A Google search revealed that Kroll charged the City of San Diego $20.3 million for an investigation that accomplished nothing — an investigation that was initially bid at $800,000! I urge you to look at what San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre said about Kroll. It is clear that Kroll has found a new source of revenue — municipal governments — from which it collects a steady stream of fees for little substance. So who  needs financial disclosure? To read more about Kroll in San Diego, go to the SanDiego Times website and download the pdf.

me talking: google San Diego and kroll and the first few pages are all about some unfunny sketch calleld "San Diego Diet" by jules kroll's eyesore son, Nick Kroll. hmmmm. Also I never did yet go into how insanely a federal judge acted in my case. Just too bonkers to easily believe.