The Bennett Report
There will be a meeting tonight, January 22, to discuss the investigation on Acting Police Chief William Castro called a Special Public Meeting of the Lawrence City Council, which is anything but public.
It was called by Council President Jeovanny Rodriguez and Vice President Stephany Infante for “Review and Discussion of the October 2024 Bennett Report and Related Investigations. There will be no Public Participation section and no communications from the mayor.
The meeting will be closed when they return, and only the media of their choice will hear their version.
Since the “Bennett Report” was made public, it aroused many criticisms on social media, 99% negative towards the mayor and Chief Castro. Still, I am willing to bet that 90% of them, including members of the City Council, have not read it. I say that because I am in the process of reading it. Most people know how to read but have no reading comprehension.
This report is not easy to understand, it’s 83 pages long and full of legal terminologies that we are not used to reading. It’s been difficult for me, and I’m not finished with it. But I have comprehended that most people don’t know how to read. Yes, they read words, and if anyone asks them what they learned, they can only answer that Castro should be left out.
To be able to grasp some of the statements, I needed to consult the Lawrence Police Department police booklet, particularly what it says about “pursuit policy.”
First, the report is unfinished because the primary purpose was to investigate all of those involved in the pursuit and Chief Castro’s actions, and he was not interviewed. When Bennett emailed Castro’s attorney to set up an interview, Castro’s attorney had a conflict and asked to reschedule. Without providing another day to conduct the interview, Bennett finished his report and forwarded it to the city attorney, Lt. Rossi and POST.
I hope the city sues Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting (CIC) for an incomplete job and refunds the $50,000 the company received. Which brings into question how the mayor was not allowed the opportunity to examine the report before it was sent out incomplete.
On another note, Mayor DePeña did not ask for recommendations. He just wanted the results of his investigation, just like all other investigations have been done. The recommendations will be made at the local level.
Right on page 4, there’s a quote from an email from Octavien Spanner: “To halt the investigation,” not terminate. Then, on page 7, there’s a contradiction of the above. It says to “cease the investigation” when the email didn’t say that. It is fair to say that Bennett’s report has more questions than answers.
Sgt. Michael Simard told the CIC that it is not permissible for a police officer to drive on a sidewalk to follow a car. The investigator asked Simard for a copy of the Pursuit Policy but never got it. The policy doesn’t say that.
According to the report, Simard said that Lawrence Police Department policy requires to alert dispatch and the OIC if engaging in pursuit, but the policy doesn’t say that.
Also on notice, the mayor requested the report to be sent to him upon completion. Instead, this unfinished report, plagued with inaccuracies and unrequested suggestions, was sent to several people, including Lt. Paul Rossi, the POST Commission and the head of the police union, which are Sgt. Michael Simard and Detective Paul MacMillan.
I will continue reading to discover more discrepancies and will be reporting as soon as possible. One recommendation I would like to make to the public is not to go along with the fanatics or people who have a particular interest in this issue. Analyze what you read and come to your own conclusion because following the opinion of ill inspired or just plain ignorant people is very dangerous.
Trump wants to remove “birthright citizenship”
Recently, I wrote about plans to remove United States citizenship from persons born in this country of parents who are not here as permanent residents or citizens.
For decades, a child born in the United States, even if the mother was here as a tourist, her newborn was considered a citizen or birthright citizenship. Fulfilling his promise, on Monday, after his inauguration, President Trump signed an executive order initiating the long struggle to analyze the 14th Amendment protecting those citizens.
The next day, 18 states planned to take legal action against that mandate, including Massachusetts. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell went before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They ask the court to invalidate the order and block any action to implement it.
In a statement, Campbell argued that Trump’s order would withhold citizenship and all of the associated privileges from more than 150,000 children born every year in the United States. Additionally, the states argue the order would require them to modify the operation and administration of benefits programs.
“President Trump does not have the authority to take away constitutional rights, and we will fight against his effort to overturn our Constitution and punish innocent babies born in Massachusetts,” Campbell said.
Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parent’s immigration status. People, for instance, in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.
Next week, I’ll share a story of how it began and became the norm. Trump and allies dispute the reading of the 14th Amendment and say there need to be stricter standards on becoming a citizen.
Be the first to comment