On December 5, APD Chief Harold Medina and Mayor Tim Keller sat down with the Albuquerque Journal editorial board for a joint interview. Chief Medina disclosed he is considering not retiring as APD Chief at the end of December 2025 when Mayor Tim Keller’s second term ends. Keller has made it known he is seeking a third 4-year term in 2025 with the municipal election to be held on November 4, 2025.

Medina told the Journal this:

“There are a lot of things I want to finish accomplishing.  … I want [to make] this clear — I still have a passion for this job.  … I still love this job every day. … I put 30 years into this department, and if there is a strong transition for me to [retire], then yes, [I will] … I need to see where the department is. There’s so many unknowns.”

Medina  said he has more work to be done with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree in bringing the department into compliance with use-of-force standards. Medina said he doesn’t want another chief to finish the work. Medina  also said he wants crime rates to be trending in the right direction. Medina boasted that he’s “boosted morale” in the department despite what critics have said about him.

In 2014, a DOJ investigation  found that a “culture of aggression” existed within  APD and that the department had engaged in a pattern of using excessive force and deadly force, especially when dealing with the mentally ill.  Since 2014, APD has been under a federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) with the Department of Justice mandating the  implementation of 271 reforms. APD has reached 99% in Operational Compliance levels and 100% in Primary And Secondary Compliance levels with the DOJ Reforms. Under the settlement, APD must sustain 95% compliance in all 3 compliance levels for two full years before the case can be dismissed. It’s more likely than not the case will be dismissed by the end of 2025.

Mayor Keller said that upon Medina’s eventual departure the city has a “great pool”  of potential APD Chief successors to pull from whenever needed, no matter who the mayor is. Keller pointed out that he has been through multiple chief searches and “it’s not good governance to not think about transition.”  Keller put it this way:

“I’m very prepared to walk through that and lead the department through an interim transition.”

Keller said Medina has built “a great bench” to replace him, including APD Deputy Chief Cecily Barker for whom Medina voiced support for becoming the next APD chief.  APD has never had a female police chief, and confidential sources are saying Keller is champing at the bit to appointment the first female APD Chief of Police.

RECALLING HOW AND WHEN MEDINA BECAME CHIEF

Harold Medina is the second Chief of Police appointed by Mayor Keller. Former APD Chief Michael Geier was appointed Chief of Police by Mayor Keller in 2017 within one month after Keller was elected Mayor. It was Chief Geier who recruited Medina to return to APD as a Deputy Chief of Field Services. Former APD Chief Geier was forced to retire on September 10, 2020, some would say terminated, by Mayor Tim Keller and replaced him with APD Chief Harold Medina.   A few days after Geier “retired” it was revealed that Geier was indeed forced out by Mayor Tim Keller.  Chief Geier was summoned to a city park by Mayor Tim Keller during the Labor Day Holiday weekend where Geier was told that his services were no longer needed. It was also revealed then First Deputy Chief Harold Medina helped orchestrate Geier’s removal. He did so with the help of then CAO Sarita Nair.  Medina became insubordinate to Geier and learning Geier was going to take disciplinary action against him and demote and transfer him, Medina struck back and orchestrated Geier’s removal.

CHARTER AMENDMENT

On November 5 voters approved a City Charter Amendments giving the city council power to remove a Chief of Police and the Fire Chief without cause, with a 7-2 vote. The amendment requires an employment contract. Before, the charter required no employment contracts and required cause to remove the chief of police and fire chief with a 6 vote majority.  Before the amendment the positions were considered at will employees serving at the pleasure of the Mayor and requiring majority advise and consent approval of the city council.

Mayor Keller argues that the Charter amendment increases his power as mayor. However on Election Night, in a news release, Keller’s office said the charter amendments may have to be reviewed by the courts because they were not  written clearly enough for voters.  Keller told the Journal that his office wasn’t planning on challenging it in court because “it’s the city who actually put that on there.”

APD Chief Medina told the Journal that he likes the charter amendment because if he’s voted out by the council  he gets paid. Medina put it  this way:

“I think the council blundered this. … NFL coaches, college coaches, when they’re released before their contract is good, they get a nice, big paycheck.”

Even if Medina does not retire at the end of December  2025 as he has originally said some still think he will not  be the police chief come 2026. Republican City Council President Dan Lewis said this:

“That’s up for a new mayor to decide, and I don’t think Keller is going to be the next mayor”.  Lewis  said this even though he told Keller  in a text message in October “you’re probably going to get reelected”.  

Conservative Trump Republican Dan Lewis ran against Progressive Democrat Tim Keller in a runoff for Mayor in 2017 and lost. Lewis has already said he will not be a candidate for Mayor in 2025, but he too may have a change of heart.

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/article_2ef10a30-b36f-11ef-8eee-2f6e01287078.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

A YEAR OF APD SCANDAL AND MEDINA PERSONAL CONTROVERSY

APD Chief Medina’s announcement that he wants to stay on after December 31 comes after a year of an APD corruption scandal and Chief Medina violating standard operating procedures and being given preferential treatment by APD and Mayor Keller.  APD  is  under an ongoing investigation by the FBI for alleged corruption related to APD officers’ dismissing DWIs for briberies. In February, Medina crashed a department truck into a vintage Mustang while fleeing gunfire near the International District and placing a man in critical condition.  Medina was given letters of  reprimanded by the Internal Affairs Division, which he assigns personnel, for his handling of the crash, notably for not turning on his lapel camera and violating APD policies and procedures.

CITY COUNCIL EFFORTS TO REMOVE MEDINA

In 2024, there were 3 attempts by the Albuquerque City Council calling for a “vote of no confidence” in Chief Medina and calling for his termination. The most serious attempt was on February 14 when Westside City Councilor Louie Sanchez announced the introduction of a Resolution entitled “REMOVING POLICE CHIEF HAROLD MEDINA FOR FAILURE TO LEAD THE ALBUQUERQUE POLICE DEPARTMENT”.  The Resolution identifies numerous and specific instances of mismanagement of APD by Chief Harold Medina.

Chief Medina severely criticized the city council over the council’s efforts to remove him telling his subordinates during mandatory briefings he called in March that he would be fine because he planned to retire soon. Medina said this:

“Am I pissed [at the city council]?  Yes, I am pissed. But you know what? I’m fine. I’ll go through that [council vote] tomorrow. I have my plan. They have their plan. We will play this game until December 2025, when I decide to retire.”

On April 3, the resolution was withdrawn, and no vote was ever taken by the city council.

APD BRIBERY AND CONSPIRACY SCANDAL TO DISMISS DWI CASES

It was on Friday January 19 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executed search warrants and raided the homes of 3 Albuquerque Police officers and the home and law office of prominent DWI criminal defense attorney Thomas Clear, III.  All 6 are allegedly involved in a bribery and conspiracy scheme spanning a decade to dismiss DWI cases. Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman ordered the dismissal of 196 DWI cases because of the scandal and due to APD officers credibility being called into question.

The DWI bribery scandal to dismiss DWI cases is the largest corruption case in APD’s history. Thus far, a total of 9 APD Police officers, including an APD Internal Affairs Commander and an APD Lieutenant have been implicated in the scandal.  Seven APD officers have resigned during the Internal Affairs investigation. One is on paid leave and one has been terminated. Before becoming APD Chief, Medina was the Deputy Chief in Charge of APD field services overseeing the DWI unit and is was he who  assigned police officers to the unit. At least one of the officers implicated in the scandal has accused Chief Medina of being fully aware of what was going on. The FBI investigation is ongoing, no one has been charged yet, but federal indictments are expected of the police officers and the private criminal defense attorney and his paralegal.

Mayor Keller and Chief Medina made more than a few stunning admissions throughout this sordid APD corruption scandal.  They have admitted that the APD bribery and conspiracy scheme to dismiss DWI cases went on the entire 7 years they have been in charge of APD, but they never detected what was going on.  Both admitted that only after they found out the FBI was investigating APD the decision was made to initiate a city APD criminal and internal affairs investigation as they proclaimed cooperation with the FBI. Medina admitted that he knew about the corruption as far back as December 2022 when APD was first given a complaint relating to the department’s DWI unit in December 2022, yet Medina waited and essentially did nothing for a full year.

Keller’s admissions come from a person who was first elected as the “white knight” state auditor who stopped “waste, fraud and abuse” and held people accountable for government corruption. Medina’s admissions come from a chief who claims he has never looked the other way at police corruption.

Keller and Medina both looked the other way on documented APD corruption involving overtime pay abuses by APD police officers. There have been seven audits in 8 years documenting the corruption, waste, fraud and abuse in police overtime. One of those audits was done by none other than then New Mexico State Auditor Tim Keller.

MEDINA’S CAR CRASH

On February 17 APD Chief Harold Medina and his wife were in a city unmarked APD truck on their way to a press conference with Mayor Tim Keller. Medina decided to stop and call APD to clear a homeless encampment. Medina witnessed two people fighting, a gun was pulled and pointed at Medina’s APD issued vehicle and a shot was fired.

In response Medina fled from the scene and drove through a red light and he T-boned a gold 1966 Ford Mustang driven by Todd Perchert who sustained a broken collarbone, shoulder blade, eight broken ribs, and a collapsed lung and was taken to the hospital in critical condition where he underwent 7 hours of surgery for his injuries. Chief Medina admitted he ran a red light. Medina admitted that he intentionally did not have his lapel camera on and for that reason referred himself to the Superintendent of Police reform for and Internal Affairs Investigation. Medina and his wife were unharmed.

On February 17 during a news conference after the crash, Mayor Tim Keller reacted by heaping highly questionable claims and praises on Chief Medina and he said in part:

“This is actually [Chief Medina] … disrupting an altercation, a shooting, trying to do what’s right. [His actions were] above and beyond what you expect from a chief, and I’m grateful for Harold Medina. … [Chief Medina is] arguably the most important person right now in these times in our city.”

Keller made no mention of the injured victim of the car crash.   

A full week after the crash, Mayor Keller said in an interview that the driver of the Mustang “happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time … and it was also a beautiful gold Mustang.” Again, Keller made no mention of the serious injuries inflicted on Todd Perchert.

On Tuesday, February 20, Chief Medina did  a “special edition” of his Chief’s Corner to discuss the February 17 car crash with APD personnel. Medina said this in part:

“I was the victim of this traffic accident, and it’s a direct impact of what gun violence is doing to our community. And we need to continue to work at it. I did call out I did submit to a drug test, as any officer would.”

Medina said on the video he thought the oncoming gold Mustang would pass through intersection before he got there. Medina said in his video statement “I looked to my left, and the intersection was cleared. … And I thought that the car was going to pass before I got there, and it did not, and unfortunately, I struck a vehicle.”

Medina admitted he was the one responsible for the crash. He admitted he ran a red light and that he did not have the right of way, yet he said he “was the victim of this traffic accident.”  Medina also admitted as before he did not have his body camera on at the time of the crash.

Chief Medina admitted that his wife has not been certified for police ride along with him. Medina asserted that the police ride along policy has been relaxed by Mayor Keller where ride along permission forms to allow relatives to ride along with patrol officers and for personal use are no longer required, yet the original written policy has never been changed.

On February 21, APD released a surveillance video. It shows Chief Harold Medina running a red light and crashing into the Ford Mustang seriously injuring the driver of the Mustang. The surveillance video reveals major falsehoods in Chief Medina’s version of events that he gave in his “Chief’s Corner” video statement. The intersection was not clear as Medina claimed.

The surveillance video shows Medina cutting in front of another car before accelerating at a fast rate of speed through the intersection. The video shows oncoming traffic with Medina first slowly inching between two vehicles traveling West on the North side lanes of Central and Medina then accelerating to cross to the South traveling lanes of Central at a high rate of speed and crashing into the Mustang that was traveling East on the South lanes of Central.

APD Chief Harold Medina could have totally avoided the entire crash by simply turning right to go West on Central as opposed to flooring his vehicle to go forward going South and attempting to turn left to go East. This would  have  had the immediate effect of driving the vehicle out of the line of fire with a motel building providing obstruction.

On July 18, the city announced the results of internal affairs investigation and disciplinary review of APD Chief Harold Medina for the February 17 car crash. Chief Medina was issued  two “letters of reprimand” by Superintendent of Police Reform Eric Garcia.  Chief Harold Medina was found to have violated APD policy by failing to safely operate his vehicle while on duty and not turning on his lapel camera as required by state law.  The letters of reprimand were placed in Medina’s personnel file and no other disciplinary action was taken. Medina was disciplined one other time in 2006 and given a written reprimand. The 2006 reprimand was also issued by then Lieutenant Eric Garcia who was Medina’s supervisor at the time.

The following actions of Chief Medina during the February 17 incident and car crash are believed to be violations of APD Standard Operating Procedures:

• Medina failed to activate his lapel camera in a timely manner as required by state law.
• Chief Medina’s wife was not authorized for police ride-alongs. He involved his wife in a patrol and enforcement action when he decided to report for removal a homeless encampment and it escalated into a felony incident with Medina’s wife being placed in harm’s way.
• Chief Medina failed to take his wife to a safe, convenient location before he attempted to take action and investigate.
• Chief Medina did not have his vehicle’s emergency warning equipment engaged when he made the initial stop to investigate, nor when he took off to flee from the scene.
• Chief Medina did not drive his vehicle with “due regard for the safety of others.” He drove with reckless disregard for the safety of others and ran a red light driving his vehicle without the vehicle’s emergency equipment on.

Chief Medina should have been investigated by another law enforcement agency, such as the Bernalillo County Sheriff or State Police, and he could have been charged with reckless driving. Medina could have been terminated “for cause” for the violations of APD’s Standard Operating procedures, something Medina himself has done with officers under his command who have failed to follow APD policy and procedures. Instead, Medina was given slap on the wrist and preferential treatment by his own department. Mayor Keller refused to hold Chief Medina accountable for his conduct as he heaped questionable praises on the Chief.

LEA-90 COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST CHIEF MEDINA TO SUSPEND OR REVOLE MEDINA’S LAW ENFORCEMENT CERTIFICATION

On August 26, 2024 it was announced that District 1 City Councilor Louie Sanchez has filed a complaint with the New Mexico Department of Public Safety (DPS) to investigate potential misconduct by Chief Medina at the scene of the Chief’s February 2024 automobile crash. The press release reads in part  as follows:

 “[Albuquerque City] Councilor Sanchez submitted a formal request for a state investigation of the conduct of Chief Medina at the scene of the February accident.  The request, known as a LEA-90, comes in the light of Medina’s admission to APD Internal Affairs that he intentionally and purposefully did not activate his body-worn camera when involved in police action. Such action by Medina appears to violate Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s 2020 public safety accountability bill which requires police officers to wear the body worn cameras and record encounters with citizens.

The Law Enforcement Training Act (Section 29-7-1 through 29-7-16), grants the Law Enforcement Academy Board of Directors the power and duty to refuse, suspend, or revoke the certification of a police officer or telecommunicator for just cause as provided for under the Law Enforcement Training Act and Board Rules.

“As the chief law enforcement officer of the state’s largest police department, the chief should hold himself to a higher standard than that of his rank and file, not lower. We are at a crossroads where officer morale is at an all-time low and public trust might even be lower. … Chief Medina’s actions are the type of actions that brought the U.S. Department of Justice oversight in the first place. Here, he openly disregarded state law.”

The request for investigation has been submitted to the Department of Public Safety, Law Enforcement Academy,  and the investigation  will be conducted by the LEA Board of Directors. The investigation is still pending.

The link to the press release is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/council/find-your-councilor/district-1/news/councilor-sanchez-files-complaint-with-nm-department-of-safety-against-apd-chief-medina#:~:text=ALBUQUERQUE%20%E2%80%93%20District%201%20City%20Councilor,Chief’s%20February%202024%20automobile%20crash.

CIVIL LAWSUIT FOR PERSONAL INJURY FILED AGAINST MEDINA AND CITY

On August 26, Todd Perchert, the victim of the February 17 car crash caused APD Police Chief Harold Medina, filed in the 2nd Judicial District Court in Albuquerque a 20 page personal injury lawsuit naming as Defendants the  City of Albuquerque and APD Chief Harold Medina. The lawsuit alleges negligence and that “Defendant Harold Medina battered and/or assaulted Todd Perchert by driving at a high rate of speed and violently colliding with Plaintiff’s vehicle.” The civil complaint outlines personal injury damages, alleges violations of the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, and Violations of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act and alleges “Loss of Consortium.” Perchert’s wife, Danielle, is also suing.

Plaintiff Todd Perchert is seeking damages for the following personal injuries sustained in the car crash:

• Broken collarbone and shoulder blade
• 8 broken ribs (Reconstructed with titanium plates after surgery)
• Collapsed lung
• Lacerations to left ear and head
• Multiple gashes to face
• Seven-hour surgery
• Hospitalized with an epidural painkiller and chest tube for nearly a week
• On going pain and suffering affecting quality of life

With all of the public admissions of liability and admissions against interest made by Chief Medina, it is likely that the case will result in an astonishing large judgement or settlement paid to Todd  Perchert  and his wife by the City because of Chief Medina’s actions.

KELLER MAKES IT KNOWN RUNNING FOR THIRD TERM

It was on August 29, in an exclusive interview with KOAT-TV, that Mayor Tim Keller made it know he is running for a third term. He did so during a wide ranging exclusive interview with Channel 7 on topics including public safety, APD staffing, crime statistics, the homeless and the ongoing controversy where APD Chief Harold caused a crash sending a man to the hospital in critical condition.

The link to the KOAT TV report is here:

https://www.koat.com/article/abq-mayor-tim-keller-i-am-planning-on-another-term-koat-albuquerque-public-safety/62010718

On August 30, Mayor Keller issued the following statement:

“I’ve been publicly asked about once a month for the last year about my intent to run, and I always want to give a straightforward answer.   I plan to ask voters for another term to finish key projects like building out the Gateways, the consent decree, downtown revitalization, solidifying our social service response department, the Rail Yards film school and a dozen or so other critical projects. As I’ve stated in the past, I would formally announce early next year.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/albuquerque-mayor-planning-to-run-for-a-third-term/article_0295f1bc-671b-11ef-b235-930bd12041c1.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

On November 21, Mayor Tim Keller said this when he talked to the Journal Editorial Board alone without Medina:

“The idea is at the end of [my] term, he wants to retire, and he’s earned it. He’s several years past his PERA [Public Employees Retirement Association requirements], but we’ll see.”

It was on December 5, a mere 14 days after Keller’s November 21 meeting with the Journal, that Keller and Medina appeared for a joint interview with the Journal Editorial Board when Medina disclosed he did not want to retire.

Chief Medina’s change of heart and wanting to continue as APD Chief after December 2025 more likely than not caught Mayor Tim Keller totally off guard and was the likely reason for the December 5  follow up joint meeting  with the Journal Editorial Board. It’s believed Medina’s change of heart  surprised the Journal Editorial board as well.

MEDINA IS MAJOR LIABILITY TO KELLER

Despite what Mayor Keller and Chief Medina may say and think, Chief Medina is a major liability to Keller and will be an albatross round Keller’s neck as he seeks a third term. Medina does not have the confidence of the general public, let alone the rank and file of APD.

Confidential sources within APD are saying morale is so bad within APD because of Medina and his management style and team that there will be as many as 120 retirements of sworn police in early 2025. The number of current APD sworn personnel is roughly 920 sworn police and so many retirements will be a crisis.

GREED MOTIVATES MEDINA TO STAY ON

According to the City of Albuquerque listings of the city’s 250  top wage earners, Chief Medina was listed as being paid $204,023  a year in January, 2023.  With pay increases and incentive pay bonuses over the last two years Medina  is making upwards of $225,000 a year. With over 30 years of employment service as a police officer, Medina can retire from the Public Employees Retirement Association earning 90% of his top 3 wage earning years and have an annual pension of approximately $200,000 or more for the rest of his life.

It’s downright disgusting and a reflection of Medina’s sure arrogance and out right greed when he said this:

“I think the council blundered [on the Charter Amendment mandating a contract for Chief’s]. … NFL coaches, college coaches, when they’re released before their contract is good, they get a nice, big paycheck.”

It’s as if Medina wants the benefit of a multiyear contract so that he can continue to offend the city council and force them to terminate him so he can collect “a nice, big paycheck.” The blunt truth is Medina does not have a written contract now and such a personnel contract would have to be approved by the City Council which is unlikely given the current hostility the Council has toward Medina.

LOW APPROVAL RATINGS PLAGUE KELLER AND STILL A LIABILITY

Voters have increasingly made it known they are not at all satisfied with the overall job performance of Mayor Tim Keller.

A year ago on November 3, 2023, the Albuquerque Journal released a poll on Mayor Keller’s job performance. The poll was conducted by its long-time polling firm Research & Polling which is considered the gold standard when it comes to political polls because of its accuracy.

The Journal poll asked the singular question “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Tim Keller is handling his job as Mayor?”

The results of the poll were dramatic:

• 40% said they DISAPPROVE 
• 33% said they APPROVED
• 21% said they had mixed feelings
• 5%  would not say

On October 3, 2024, New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan reported in part as follows:

“Our exclusive sources reveal that Keller’s popularity remains deep under water. They report that recent polling in ABQ legislative districts included a question on Keller and shows his approval rating ranging from the low 30’s with a high point of about 48 percent in one of the districts.  Dissatisfaction with crime and homelessness in the city is widespread but how deep it goes is an open question.”

https://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/2024/10/keller-numbers-remain-under-water-as-he.html

CITIZEN SATISFACTION SURVEY REFLECTS VOTER DISATISFACTION

On April 16, 2024 the results of the annual City of Albuquerque Citizen Satisfaction Survey were released and they are a poor reflection of Mayor Keller’s and Chief Medina’s leadership. Following are highlights of the survey:

A majority of city residents were found to be  concerned about the direction of Albuquerque. When asked how they feel about the direction Albuquerque is going in 2024, 31% of surveyed say they are hopeful about the direction of Albuquerque, while 63% report feeling concerned.

The Survey found that city residents are very critical of the job the Albuquerque Police Department is doing:

“The majority of city residents DISAGREE that APD is doing a good job addressing violent crime with 39% agreeing it is doing good job and 56% disagreeing they are doing a good job.

The majority of city residents DISAGREE that the APD is doing a good job addressing property crime  with 35% agreeing APD is  doing a good job and 60% disagreeing they are doing a good job.

A slight majority of city residents DISAGREE that “the Albuquerque Police Department is ready to transition away from oversight by the federal government and operate on its own” with 39% agreeing APD is ready to transition away from federal oversight and 51% disagreeing APD is ready to transition away from federal oversight.

In addition to disagreeing with the positive APD statements, most city residents disagree that “The Albuquerque City Government is responsive to our community needs” with 35% agreeing that the Albuquerque City Government is responsive to community needs and 61% disagreeing Albuquerque City Government is responsive to community needs.

The link to review the entire unedited survey report is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/progress/documents/albuquerque-yearly-survey-2023.pdf

FINAL COMMENTARY

One thing that can be guaranteed as a certainty is that APD Chief Harold Medina will be a major issue and a liability for Keller in the 2025 Mayor’s race because of all the scandal and corruption involving APD and Medina himself.

Not with standing Keller’s declining job approval ratings, poor job performance and all public criticism of Mayor Keller, he is still favored by city hall observers for election to a third term. This is primarily because no one knows if he will have a serious opponent who can mount an effective campaign against him and time is now running short.

Keller has never lost an election and has won all of his elections by a landslide. He has a built-in advantage with an existing campaign organization in the form of his city’s highly paid department directors and the ability to raise large sums of campaign cash along with a campaign manager who resorts to slash and burn tactics to disparage opposition and win at any and all costs.

Mayor Keller and in turn Medina are likely banking on no well-known Democratic candidate who can mount a serious campaign. Keller is also banking on his lock on the progressive wing of the Bernalillo County Democratic Party that he has relied upon in the past for virtually all of his races, but that may be changing.

The only announced candidate thus far running against Keller is Conservative Republican talk show host Eddy Aragon. Another said to be running is retired Fire Fighter Eddy Varela.  Other names rumored to be looking at running for Mayor are Republican City Councilor Brook Bassan, well known commercial real estate owner and Republican Doug Peterson, Democrat City Councilors Louie Sanchez and Klarissa Pena. Democrat Jeff Apodaca who ran for Governor and who is the son of former Governor Jerry Apodaca is said to be considering a run. Sources are also saying Republican Mark Ronchetti is considering a run. Republican City Council President Dan Lewis could also reconsider and run again. Sources have confirmed that Democrat Bernalillo County Clerk Linda Stover was talking about running and she as much told Keller of her intent but she has since changed her mind.

The local election guide and calendar of deadlines for the 2025 municipal election will be available January 1, 2025.  Soon after  January 1, 2025 you can expect announcements for Mayor in that nominating petitions and public financing qualifying donations will be made available for a qualifying period of time.

The 2025 New Mexico legislative session is a 60-day session.  It begins January 21 and ends on March 22, 2025. Legislation is already being prepared for the upcoming session by the legislature.  Democrats will hold a sizable majority in both legislative chambers.  In the NM  House,  Democrats have  the majority with  44 Democrats to 26 Republicans. In the NM Senate, Democrats have the majority with 28 Democrats to 14 Republicans.

New Mexico Senate President Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, announced that New Mexico Democratic lawmakers are crafting a crime package for the upcoming 60-day session that could include setting up a new trust fund to bolster behavioral health treatment programs statewide. Although  the bills are still being finalized, Stewart said the legislative  package will concentrate  on expanding mental health and substance abuse and drug treatment options. The goal is to have treatment programs all over the state.  Senator Stewart said the legislation will include  bills dealing with firearm safety and the large number of individuals deemed incompetent to stand trial.

According to Stewart, the money needed to expand such programs will come from the creation of a new state trust fund that would spin off annual distributions in future years. Lawmakers have already created such trust funds for early childhood programs, statewide conservation projects and higher education amid an ongoing state revenue boom.  Surging oil production in southeast New Mexico’s Permian Basin has resulted in the state having a projected $13.4 billion in revenue for the coming budget year,  or about $660 million above current spending levels.

CONFLICT WITH THE GOVERNOR

Stewart said the crime package Senate Democrats are crafting has been developed largely without input from the Governor’s Office.  She said it will address many of Governor  Lujan Grisham’s crime-related priorities. It will  include  changes to how the state deals with repeat offenders who are found incompetent to stand trial.

While New Mexico’s violent crime and property crime rates both dropped in 2023 compared to the previous year, the state still posted the nation’s second-highest violent crime rate. New Mexico also had the nation’s fourth-highest suicide rate in 2022. According to Kaiser Family Foundation data more than one-third of adult state residents reported anxiety or a depressive disorder in 2023,.

This past summer, spiking violent crime rates were  a major point of conflict between Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and legislative leaders from both parties. Lujan Grisham called lawmakers into a special session in July, but that session was adjourned after five hours and none of her legislative crime-related packaged passed. Democrats rebuffed several of the governor’s public safety proposals, saying they weren’t ready and could cause more harm than good. That included reforms to what happens to those deemed incompetent to stand trial.  Lujan Grisham said after the special session that legislators should be “embarrassed at their inability to summon even an ounce of courage to adopt common-sense legislation” intended to make New Mexicans safer.

State lawmakers responded to the Governors criticism by highlighting data showing millions of dollars allocated for public safety initiatives over the past 5 years that has gone unspent by the Lujan Grisham administration, due largely to high public safety position vacancy rates and other staffing issues.

Senate Republican Minority Leader William Sharer, R-Farmington, said  he would need to study further the proposed crime legislation before deciding whether he would support it. Sharer said he’s not convinced spending more money on treatment programs will fix New Mexico’s crime problem and he said this:

“Something changed in the last few decades. … The crime problems in Albuquerque weren’t in Albuquerque 20 years ago, at least not at this level.”

LEGISLATORS LOOK AT OVERHAULING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEM

According to the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHW),  the number of behavioral health providers in New Mexico has increased in recent years.  NCHW also found the gap between the projected demand and supply of addiction and mental health counselors is expected to steadily grow over the next decade.

On November 18, the Legislative Finance Committee meet and discussed overhauling the states behavioral health system.  Senator Mimi Stewart, whose Senate district encompasses Albuquerque’s International District said this:

“We just don’t have a good, solid statewide behavioral health system.”

Stewart noted it was  former Gov. Susana Martinez’s dismantling of the state’s previous mental health care system in 2013 that caused the problem.  A decade ago, then-Gov. Susana Martinez’s administration largely dismantled the state’s behavioral health care system by freezing the Medicaid funding of several key providers, alleging fraud and abuse. Martinez brought in 5 out of state providers who eventually failed and left the State. The New Mexico providers were cleared by the Attorney General, but many of them simply went out of business and  the system has never fully recovered.

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FUNDING GOES UNSPENT

In addition to a crime package, state lawmakers will likely do something about New Mexico’s less-than-adequate behavioral health system. It’s clear that New Mexico lawmakers know there’s not enough behavioral health resources to handle the issues. It’s also clear that throwing money at the system is not making it better, especially when its not spent.

Analysts with the Legislative Finance Committee revealed that between 2020 and 2024, state leaders earmarked more than $660 million for behavioral health resources and initiatives but only spent around $46 million, roughly 8%, and that’s only part of the funding identified.  New Mexico state lawmakers have expressed dissatisfaction which was supposed to be a well-funded behavioral health system but which is in fact deficient. Sen. George Muñoz said this:

“I mean, if we had a grade it’d be F, right?  … The [behavioral health] system is failing us, and it’s creating crime, homelessness, a lot of other social issues. So we got to get it fixed, or start that direction really quickly. It’ll be a five-to-seven-year fix, but I mean that amount of money sitting around, not getting used is just unreal. … Out of a billion dollars, can you name one thing that we fixed in mental health?”

Lawmakers learned the “Interagency Behavioral Health Purchasing Collaborative,” which was created in 2004 to oversee the statewide behavioral system, has not had a leader in over a year. State Rep. Jack Chatfield asked this: “Why is the reason that, with that much funding, we don’t have a director?” Legislative Finance Committee analyst Eric Chenier responded  “We haven’t found the right candidate at this point,” said Eric Chenier, a Legislative Finance Committee analyst. House Minority Leader, Rep. Gail Armstrong reacted by saying “Why would we trust them now to do something that they were supposed to be doing for the last 20 years?”

PROPOSED SOLUTION

During the November 18 meeting of  the Legislative Finance Committee,  LFC  analysts proposed a solution to address the failure to spend monies allocated and restructure the States Behavioral Health System.  Specifically, it was propose  to restructure the state’s behavioral health system into several, regional districts that will focus on figuring where the gaps are and how to fix them. Adrian Avila, a Legislative Finance Committee analyst said this:

“The reality is, the tailoring of the system needs to be done at the local, regional level. They know what their gaps are, and if they don’t, let’s facilitate them to figure out what those gaps are.”

State lawmakers suggested there’s still a lot of work to be done ahead of the legislative session, but there’s hope two months out.  Said state Rep. Meredith Dixon said this:

“I’m very optimistic. We have heard that a number of committees in the interim are working on proposals, very expansive proposals. They’ve had the time to really dive deep into these issues and work together”

Links to quoted and relied upon news source material are here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/news/senate-democrats-crafting-crime-package-with-focus-on-expanding-behavioral-health-programs/article_78ec01c6-a078-11ef-9e08-df607138e74e.html#tncms-source=home-featured-7-block

https://www.kunm.org/kunm-news-update/2024-11-12/tues-bernco-commissioners-consider-off-duty-weed-use-more

https://www.kob.com/new-mexico/state-lawmakers-discuss-overhauling-behavioral-health-system-in-new-mexico/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

According to one study, more than 3,200 people charged with crimes since 2017 in New Mexico have been released back into the community after being found incompetent to stand trial. More than 5,350 of the 16,045 dismissed charges were felonies. The dismissals include those charged with first-degree murder, trafficking controlled substances, kidnapping and abuse of a child.

During the 2025 session, the Legislature should seek to create a “mental health treatment court” to function as outreach and a treatment court for the drug addicted and the mentally ill, in a mandatory hospital or counseling settings, and not involving jail incarceration. There is a major need for the construction and staffing of mental health facilities or hospitals to provide the services needed for the mentally ill and drug addicted.

Defendants charged with lesser crimes have been repeat offenders caught in a cycle of being charged, released, arrested again, charged again, and let go after court-ordered evaluations showed they cannot participate in their own defense and ruled they were mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and the Legislature must strengthen and expand New Mexico’s mental health commitment laws, coupled with full funding for mental health facilities and the courts. District attorneys and public defenders must be made a part of the solution by expanding the state mental health commitment laws and allowing the filing of civil mental health commitments that go beyond existing 3-day, 7-day and 30-day evaluation commitments and mandate prolonged mental health treatment.

District judges should be required to order district attorneys to file “involuntary commitment” proceedings against criminal defendants who are found incompetent to stand trial and who would be released without further criminal prosecution for crimes committed.

The 2025 Legislature should enact the governor’s proposal for the involuntary civil commitment of criminal defendants charged with a serious violent offense, a felony involving the use of a firearm, and those defendants who have also been found incompetent to stand trial two or more times in the past 12 months.

The Legislature should also enact the governor’s proposed bill that will broaden the definitions of danger to oneself and danger to others in New Mexico’s involuntary commitment statute that mandates involuntary treatment for people with mental illness. The law should mandate district attorneys to initiate involuntary civil commitments and allow a judge to mandate outpatient treatment.

It should allow individuals, whether first responders, family members or community members who work with mentally ill individuals on the streets, to request involuntary outpatient treatment.

New Mexico has historical surplus revenues with an astonishing $3.6 billion in reported surplus revenue. Now is the time to create a statewide a mental health court and dedicate funding for the construction of behavioral health hospitals and drug rehabilitation treatment facilities.

Funding for district attorneys and public defenders with dedicated personnel resources for the filing and defending of civil mental health commitments must be included.

A statewide mental health court with mandatory civil commitments will get treatment to those who need it the most, help get the unhoused off the streets and help families with loved ones who resist any mental health treatment.”

Far more needs to be done. Warehousing the mentally ill, drug addicted or the unhoused who are mentally ill or drug addicted in jails for crimes committed is simply not the answer. It does not address treatment, nor is it much of a solution.

Isaac and Sharon Eastvold are long time community activists.  They founded the Fair Heights Neighborhood Association on October 11, 1993.  Both have been residents of City Council District 7 since its inception and residents of City Council District 5 which became District 7 because of redistricting. They have also been members of the Neighborhood Stormwater Drainage Management Team since May 31, 2021.  Isaac and Sharon Eastvold were the founding members of the Friends of the Albuquerque Petroglyphs (FOTAP).  This organization was instrumental in securing city council and community support for the establishment of Petroglyph National Monument on June 27, 1990.  Isaac was awarded one of two pens used by President George H.W. Bush to sign the establishment act.

GREEN STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE DEFINED

Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) is a method of sustainable stormwater management that focuses on treating stormwater runoff prior to it entering waterways by mimicking and working with living, natural systems. It is an approach to managing stormwater runoff in ways that mimic the natural environment as much as possible, using plants, soil, and stone to filter and manage stormwater more effectively, reducing how much enters our sewer systems, and protecting our rivers and streams.

Urban areas have lots of hard surfaces  such as roofs, roads, parking lots, etc.,  that don’t allow water from rain, snow, and ice to soak into the ground naturally, so the runoff collects pollutants and litter on its way down the drain, and overwhelms our sewer systems, which can overflow into our rivers and streams.

Green stormwater infrastructure tools allow runoff to get soaked up by plants, filter into the ground, or evaporate into the air. Some systems also slowly release the water into a sewer once wet weather and the threat of overflows have passed.

https://www.bernco.gov/public-works/public-works-services/water-wastewater-stormwater/stormwater/green-stormwater-infrastructure-and-post-construction-stormwater-management/

https://water.phila.gov/gsi/

The link to read the city ordinance to include Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) in city medians and landscaping buffers is here:

Click to access O-2024-008.pdf

EDITOR’S DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest column by Isaac and Sharon Eastvold are those of the Eastvolds  and do not necessarily reflect those of the www.petedinelli.com blog. The Eastvolds have not paid for and they have not been paid any compensation to publish their guest column.  They  have given their consent to publish their column  on www.PeteDinelli.com as a public service announcement especially to the residents and voters of District 7 to enlighten them on what is going on in District 7.

Following is the  guest column Isaac and Sharon Eastvold submitted for publication:

HEADLINE: GREENWASHING ALBUQUERQUE

             The City is moving ahead with another so called “green” project. They also called the ART (Albuquerque Rapid Transit) project on Central Ave.“green.” That project cut down over 500 trees, and got rid of electric busses. There seemed to be no end to cost overruns.

             Like ART, the new Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) “Pilot Project” being touted by Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn proposes to retrofit older neighborhoods with an impossible, destructive burden. Costs are already running into millions and headed for even greater overruns. The money for all of this is coming from, you guessed it, your tax dollars.

             Directly affected residents were not informed by Councilor Feibelkorn that millions for this GSI Project were hidden in the Municipal Bond election. These bonds never fail to pass. Impacted residents seldom know all the things tucked out of sight which are part of their vote. Factual concerns, questions and petitions have been ignored by Councilor Feibelkorn and City consultants. Written comments which opposed putting GSI in the bond mysteriously disappeared when mailed to the full council and the Mayor.

             GSI involves excavations of streets for what are called “bump outs” or “bio swales.” These would be nine feet wide from the curb, nine inches deep and of varying lengths between driveways. The city claims that these excavations will capture stormwater and infiltrate it to groundwater below the swale. 

             However, according to USGS data report 1162 (https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/dr1162), the water table depth in this project area varies from 150-500 feet. The preferred placement of bioswales should be 5-18 feet over the water table (EPA.com).

             In addition, the City’s own GeoTest,Inc, (https://fbtcloud.com/s/izff5nDTydLa03Z) has found clay levels 6 to 9 feet down that would prevent infiltration. It could spread stormwater laterally, with time, and cause subsidence of adjacent streets and structures.

             Albuquerque is not an area known for heavy rain. In fact, meteorologist have been calling our yearly rains “non-soons” instead of “monsoons.” The last significant rain occurred in 2021 with 3, one-inch separate rain storms. Some stormwater went over the curb on a short stretch of Summer between Alvarado and La Veta NE. This was not caused by heavy rains. Instead, it was caused by two improperly resurfaced sections of street key to normal, mid-heights gravity flow: 1) Summer and 2) Marble. Correcting the resurfacing of these two short sections of street would restore the intended gravity flow of stormwater to the San Mateo (8 ft) and San Pedro (4 ft) main drains.

              The GSI “Pilot Project” also proposes cement underground stormwater storage tanks. As an example, one tank is planned on La Veta Dr. between Summer and El Encanto. This will not be connected to the city’s storm drain system. This captured water has no way of infiltrating to the groundwater table. The “bump outs ” and tanks can not meet the Rio Grande NM/Texas Compact rule of returning withheld water to the river in 96 hours (4 days). 

             The dark, moist place, of underground tanks would provide inviting habitat for the Aedes Aegypti mosquitoes now plaguing Albuquerque.

(https://www.cabq.gov/environmentalhealth/urban-biology/mosquitoes/aedes-aegypti-the-yellow-fever-mosquito)

             Politicians, including Mayor Keller and Councilor Feibelkorn, if they hope to be re-elected, should learn from the “greenwashed” and miserably failed ART disaster on Central Blvd. Cost overruns were monumental. The GSI “pilot project” promises to be yet another expensive misuse of tax payer’s municipal bond money. 

            Concerned citizens can support any beautification of the neighborhood or city that is well researched and truly environmentally sound. They can not support ignoring good alternatives that efficiently resolve real problems.

             Good alternatives do exist, but have been ignored.  What the city is proposing will only benefit the bottomless pockets of a small cadre of consultants. The result will be the degradation of long established mid-heights neighborhoods. 

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of residents of mid heights District 7, who City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn represents, are unaware of how the so called Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) “pilot project” will impact their property and neighborhood. The “pilot project” is being imposed by the Keller Administration on mid-heights neighborhoods east and west of San Mateo. District 7 residents essentially were never informed that millions were in the city’s municipal bond election for this “pilot project.”  District 7 residents feel their concerns and questions have been largely ignored by City Councilor Tammy Feibelkorn and the Keller Administration.

MAYOR KELLER AND CITY COUNCILOR TAMMY FIEBELKORN

During the last  three years she has been an Albuquerque City Councilor, Tammy Fiebelkorn has exhibited a pattern of downright hostility towards constituents who oppose or who disagree with her votes on policy and legislation.  Although known for attending the District 7 Neighborhood Coalition meetings to give updates on what is happening in her district, she repeatedly takes issue with those who disagree with her at the meetings and who ask her to reconsider positions.  She simply refuses to change her mind and then goes out of her way to offend.  She has told the officers of the District 7 Neighborhood Coalition, which boasts membership of 10 neighborhood associations, that the coalition is not reflective of District 7 needs and concerns.

What is the most troubling is that City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn, in addition to promoting Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) “Pilot Project” as describe by the Eastvold’s, she promotes her own personal agenda with little or no concern and many times with no input from  her constituents.

There are  7 major examples of City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkcorn promoting her own personal agenda at the expense of her constituents:

Progressive Democrat Fiebelkorn teamed up with then Progressive District 6 City Councilor President Pat Davis, who left the council, to sponsor a City Council Redistricting map. The new map would have gutted both her own District 7 and Davis’s District 6. The redistricting map carved out a large portion of District 7 that was clearly more conservative or in order to add the more progressive Nob Hill area in District 6 to Fiebelkorn’s District 7 in order to enhance her own reelection chances. It was classic gerrymandering, but thankfully the City Council rejected the redistricting.

Fiebelkorn is a staunch supporter of Safe Outdoor Spaces which are city sponsored managed homeless encampments with 40 designated spaces for tents that allows for upwards of 50 people, require hand washing stations, toilets and showers, require a management plan, 6 foot fencing and social services offered.  She voted for the changes to the city zoning laws that now allow Safe Outdoor Spaces in all 9 City Council Districts. Fiebelkorn  sponsored legislation that failed that would have empowered the City Planning Department to unilaterally approve all Safe Outdoor Space Applications and totally eliminate the public’s right to challenge and appeal the applications and eliminated City Council intervention. Mayor Tim Keller supported the legislation as part of his ABQ Forward Plan.

Fiebelkorn supported and voted for major amendments to the city’s zoning laws that would have allowed the development of both “casitas”and “duplexes” in all existing residential developments and areas of town as permissive uses eliminating  appeal rights of adjoining property owners in order to double or triple the city’s density. Mayor Keller wanted the doubling or tripling of density in all quadrants of the city to address the city’s so called housing shortage and it  would have disastrous effects on the character of  established neighborhoods.  All the amendments to the city zoning laws Fiebelkorn voted for and advocated for  and Mayor Keller advocated for favored developers at the expense of homeowners and especially historical areas of the city. Mayor Tim Keller supported the legislation as part of his ABQ Forward Plan.

Fiebelkorn sponsored the “Residential Protection Ordinance” which was voted down by the city council. The ordinance was nothing more than an attempt at rent control which has been rejected by the New Mexico legislature repeatedly and which Fiebelkorn unsuccessfully promoted. Mayor Tim Keller supported the legislation.

Fiebelkorn sponsored the “Residential Rental Permit Ordinance” which was voted down by the city council. The resolution was an attempt to limit and place caps on ownership of short term rentals and enact regulations of  the “bed and breakfast” rental  industry in the city. Mayor Tim Keller supported the legislation.

Fiebelkorn is sponsoring  legislation to amend the city’s building code that will  require all rental housing units in the city be equipped with cooling systems that can keep temperatures at or below 80 degrees in the summer. Fiebelkorn  said what  was being done was  adding cooling to the list of basic necessities  in rental structures. Fiebelkorn said “I’ll point out that 80 degrees is still pretty warm, but that is just the baseline that everyone in our community should expect, no matter how much or how little they can afford to pay for rent.” The problem is the 80-degree threshold would essentially ban the use of swamp coolers and require installation of A/C refrigerated air or conversions averaging a cost of between $5,000 to $15,000 per unit. More than 43% of Albuquerque apartments buildings were constructed before 1980 and many have not been retrofitted with central air conditioning. Fiebelkorn showed her ignorance by not realizing any costs associated with upgrades of cooling systems will be passed on to renters contributing to the shortage of affordable housing. The bill was given a “do not pass” recommendation in committee and remains to be voted on by the full council.   The Keller Administration objected to the committee’s do not pass recommendation.

City Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn is a very staunch and very vocal animal rights advocate. Twice  she has complained about the city’s treatment of animals. The first was in June, 2022 when she alleged that farm animals at the Albuquerque Bio Park Heritage Farm  were being neglected, not being properly fed nor given appropriate veterinarian care and suffering from poor conditions she claimed she witnessed.  An investigation concluded the accusations were false. The most recent complaint occurred November 2024 when she complained of the city’s program, authorized by city ordinance and funded by city council, to eradicate and kill pigeons nesting and which were posing a health risk at city hall

2025 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mayor Keller has already made it known he is running for a third 4 year term as Mayor in 2025 with at least 2 candidates mulling a race against Keller  and one other who has announce. Republican Eddy Aragon, the right wing radio talk show host who ran against Keller 4 years ago has already announced his candidacy.

It is more likely than not that Tammy Fiebelkcorn will be seeking a second term to the Albuquerque City Council in 2025. Informed sources are saying that dissatisfaction with her has become so great by many of  her District 7 constituents that they are actively seeking a candidate to run against her.

Let’s hope strong candidates are found to run against both Mayor Tim Keller and Tammy Fiebelkorn and their collaboration on legislation will come to an end.

Albuquerque City Councilor Renee Grout has introduced for city council enactment 3 city ordinances and amendments to make major changes to how the city is dealing  with the homeless encampments.  She has introduced legislation that will change rules about public camping, abandoned shopping carts, and the use of public parks in general.  Grout says the 3 measures are intended to curb the effects of unhoused encampments, make public spaces safer and improve the quality of life of all residents.

The blog article is an analysis of all 3 measures.

AMENDMENTS TO  THE PARKS ORDINANCE

The first amends the existing ordinance on the use of city parks and prohibits camping, fires, shopping carts, and  deals with  use of playground equipment and vandalism. The public encampment regulations further define the prohibitions on public camping in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks.  The changes are  intended to curb littering, vandalism, drug use,  and illegal camping.

The amendments to the Parks Ordinance contain the following prohibitions:

1. No Camping. No person will be allowed to camp or construct or erect any tent, building or other structure whether permanent or temporary, in a park  for the purpose of staying in the park  overnight or be allowed extension of electrical utilities except by written permission of the Mayor. An exception would be allowed for youth organizations camping with adult supervision for one night only and with written permission or a permit  from the Mayor and the  Director of the Parks & Recreation Department.

2. Shopping Carts Prohibited.  Shopping carts would be prohibited in all  City parks,  city open spaces, and the parking areas that serve these facilities. Any shopping  cart, whether empty or containing any merchandise or belongings, may be confiscated and either returned to the cart owner, recycled, or otherwise disposed of.

3. Wrongful Use of Playground Equipment. Unless otherwise posted, the  use of playground equipment is reserved for children. Adults would be allowed in playground areas or within 50 feet of playground areas only when  accompanied by a child under the age of 12, unless the 50-foot buffer extends  beyond the Park boundary. This buffer may include gazebos, benches, and  tables,

4. Children Park Designations. The Mayor may designate certain parksas “Children’s Parks” and restrict access by adults unless they are  accompanied by a child under the age of 12. Users must follow playground  guidelines and restrictions. During park operating hours, no person shall  engage in any conduct that deprives park visitors of the intended use of the  playground equipment.

5. Vandalism of Park Grounds. The existing law provides “No person in a park shall damage, cut, carve, transplant or remove any tree or plant or injure the bark or pick the flowers or  seeds, of any tree or plant.”  The ordinance will be amended to provide (in bold and italicized)  that  “No …  person [shall] attach any rope, wire, hammock, or other contrivance to any tree or plant. No person shall damage grass by leaving personal items in grass areas for extended periods.”

6. No Feeding of Wildlife. No person in a park shall give or offer or attempt to give to any animal or bird any food, tobacco, alcohol, or other known noxious or injurious substances to any bird or wild animal. Park users shall clean up and  remove all food scraps and wrappers that could attract wild animals.

7. No Fires. Fires would only  be allowed in permanent grills  provided by the City for cooking.

8. Vending of Merchandise. Vending would be  allowed only  by  licensed vendors in designated areas only with a valid permit from the Department of Parks & Recreation. Food vendors must carry all other permits required by the Environmental Health Department, the Fire Marshal, and any  other regulatory agencies.

9. Advertising signs and 2 banners may be allowed only on outfield fences in baseball and softball parks. The “batter’s eye” portion of all outfield fences, defined as the area directly behind the pitcher from the batter’s perspective, shall be kept clear of all  signs, banners, and other visual distractions.

• Dog Exercising. Any person may exercise dogs with or without leash in parks designated by the Mayor with times prescribed.

The link to review the entire ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-56-673abd707d89b.pdf

Councilor Grout said this about her proposed changes to city park usage ordinance:

“We should be able to go and play catch with the ball, play soccer, have picnics in the park and not worry. Sometimes, people use them to sleep. You know, you can take a nap in the park, that’s fine. But there’s not supposed to be overnight camping. …  Parents should be able to know that the children can run around and play in … playground[s]. There shouldn’t be a fear of stepping on a needle, that has happened. … There have been children that have stepped on needles in parks. … They see people that are passed out in parks. … Our children should not be subject to seeing this in a public park. … We just want our children and our grandchildren and neighbors to be able to enjoy our beautiful, public spaces.”

“SHOPPING CART ABANDONMENT” PREVENTION ORDINANCE

The second ordinance deals with shopping cart theft and abandonment. Shopping carts are stolen from grocery stores and businesses and often used by the homelessness to transport their personal belongings.  Metal shopping carts range in price from anywhere from $159 to $250.

Abandoned shopping carts can pose safety hazards and contribute to neighborhood blight.  This ordinance would make it illegal to possess shopping carts outside of a retailer’s property. Possession of a cart would result in a petty misdemeanor and could include fines or jail time. However, a judge would be able to give a community service sentence instead. The resolution would place far more responsibility on businesses to prevent shopping cart thefts and would require businesses to submit a plan to the city on steps they’re taking to keep carts secure.  The ordinance would allow the city to collect abandoned shopping carts and hold them for up to 30 days before being considered “forfeited.”  Businesses would have 7 days to pick up their shopping carts for a $25 fee. An extra $5 will be tacked on for every day after. Forfeited carts would be recycled, donated, or repaired and sold.

City Councilor Grout said this about the shopping cart ordinance:

“As a business owner, we are responsible for what makes our business tick, and they just need to be more responsible for the carts. … We see them all over. We see abandoned carts. … We don’t want it to be a burden on businesses, but they should be responsible for, what makes the business go around. Shopping carts are part of that, and so they need to take care of them.”

The link to review the entire shopping cart ordinance is here:

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/o-57-673abd7d003f8.pdf

PUBLIC CAMPING ORDINANCE

The third ordinance makes illegal “public camping” in unauthorized areas such as parks, streets and sidewalks.

The ordinance defines “CAMP”  as “ To occupy an area for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a  permanent or temporary place to live, or to occupy an area with an apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.”

CAMP FACILITIES are defined in the act as “Tents, huts and any other temporary structures or shelters.”

An ENCAMPMENT is defined as “An area where an individual or individuals have erected  one or more tent or structures or placed personal items on public property with the apparent intent to remain in that location for 24 hours or more.  An  area will not be deemed an encampment merely because any individuals are  present on public property or because individuals have temporarily placed  personal items on public property.”

The ordinance is straight forward making it unlawful to camp on public property and it states:

“Except as otherwise authorized by ordinance or by rules issued by the Department of Parks and Recreation, it shall be unlawful for any person to camp, or maintain an encampment, in any publicly owned area, including any street, sidewalk, right of way, park, or open space. It shall further be unlawful  for any person to refuse to remove an encampment from public land after  receiving a notice instructing them to remove the encampment, or to set up an  encampment after being ordered to remove one from a particular location.  A  person does not violate this ordinance if the person is merely sitting, sleeping  or lying on public property on a temporary basis.”

The new ordinance will also make it unlawful for any person to maintain personal property, including camp facilities or camp paraphernalia, on public property after that person has received a notice instructing them to remove the items.

Violation of the ordinance is a petty 5 misdemeanor and, upon conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or both (§ 1-1-99)

The link to review the camping  ordinance is here:

Click to access o-58-673abd810f065.pdf

All 3 ordinances have been referred to the City Council Finance, Government and Operations Committee for hearings. Final action on the measures will likely occur after January 1.

OBJECTIONS RAISED AND RESPONSES

Anami Dass, chair of the city’s Human Rights Board, had harsh words  of the  measures dealing with prohibitions on public camping saying  the measures amount to little more than an “attack on rights.”  Dass said this:

“Life for some of us is hard enough — we don’t need the individuals we elected to represent all of us introducing ordinances designed to take tents away from people who literally have no alternative. … These ordinances are going to be up for final action around Christmas, and the Council will be debating Grout’s proposals to make life even worse for unhoused people … I think it’s time we consider what it is we are becoming, and who we would rather be instead.”

Councilor Grout said this in response to the criticism:

“It is not an attack on the homeless community at all. The taxpayers have been very generous with their money. We have spent millions of dollars on contracts with nonprofit providers to help them with services, getting them into shelters, getting them into housing.”

“We spent $85.9 million from 2020 to 2024 on contracts with social service providers — that doesn’t even include federal funding.  We just budgeted $4 million to operate the Gibson Gateway Center and we’ve spent $100 million rehabbing it. In fiscal year 2024 we spent $13.5 million in housing vouchers. We’re also remodeling the Gateway West — the Westside shelter.”

“We need to help our less fortunate people, but we can’t allow them to just run amok in our community. …  Families often tell [me] they feel unsafe in their neighborhood parks. … We all have to live by rules whether we like it or not.”

“Homelessness is not a crime — but a lot of the behavior is. We need to get them into safe shelter. We need to get them into safe spaces, because they deserve better than just being on the street in my opinion.”

“There’s nothing wrong with having boundaries. … If somebody wants to camp out or live outside, that’s their business — but they have to do it in certain areas. It can’t just be anywhere they want.”

“We’re codifying it because it’s documented in several places, in the traffic code, in the [Integrated Development Ordinance], the criminal code, it’s in the open space [code] — it’s even mentioned in the parks ordinance. … It’s mentioned, but not really defined. This is getting it better defined.”

Links to quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/tents-shopping-carts-park-use-proposed-rules-could-change-how-albuquerque-addresses-the-homeless-crisis/

https://www.koat.com/article/city-council-proposals-to-make-public-spaces-safer/62932205

https://citydesk.org/2024/trio-of-ordinances-seeks-to-curb-effects-of-encampments/

Click to access o-58-673abd810f065.pdf

EXISTING STATE STATUTES AND CITY ORDINANCES

The State of New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque have enacted 8 laws and ordinances enacted to protect the general public health, safety, and welfare and to protect the public’s peaceful use and enjoyment of property. The specific statutes and ordinances are:

1. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-1 (1995), defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
2. NMSA 1978, Section 30-14-4 (1969), defining wrongful use of property used for a public purpose and owned by the state, its subdivisions, and any religious, charitable, educational, or recreational association.
3. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-3, defining criminal trespass on public and private property.
4. Albuquerque City Ordinance 8-2-7-13, prohibiting the placement of items on a sidewalk so as to restrict its free use by pedestrians.
5. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-10, prohibiting being in a park at nighttime when it is closed to public use.
6. Albuquerque City Ordinance 12-2-7, prohibiting hindering persons passing along any street, sidewalk, or public way.
7. Albuquerque City Ordinance 5-8-6, prohibiting camping on open space lands and regional preserves.
8. Albuquerque City Ordinance 10-1-1-3, prohibiting the erection of structures in city parks.

All the above laws are classified as “non-violent crimes” and are misdemeanors.  The filing of criminal charges by law enforcement are discretionary when the crime occurs in their presence. The City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Police Department have  agreed that only citations will be issued and no arrests will be made for “nonviolent crimes”  as part of a federal  court approved settlement agreement  in  a decades old federal civil rights lawsuit dealing with jail overcrowding.

US SUPREME COURT CASE GRANTS PASS V. JOHNSON

 On June 28, the United State Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson where the court held that local laws effectively criminalizing homelessness do not violate the U.S. Constitution and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The case challenged a municipality’s ability to bar people from sleeping or camping in public areas, such as sidewalks and parks. The case is strikingly similar in facts and circumstances and laws to the case filed against the City of Albuquerque over the closure of Coronado Park.

The case came from the rural Oregon town of Grants Pass, which appealed a ruling striking down local ordinances that fined people $295 for sleeping outside after tents began crowding public parks. The homeless plaintiffs argued that Grants Pass, a town with just one 138-bed overnight shelter,  criminalized them for behavior they couldn’t avoid: sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go.

Meanwhile, municipalities across the western United States argued that court rulings hampered their ability to quickly respond to public health and safety issues related to homeless encampments.  The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the nine Western states, ruled in 2018 that such bans violate the Eighth Amendment in areas where there aren’t enough shelter beds.

The United States Supreme Court considered  whether cities can enforce laws and take action against or punish the unhoused for sleeping outside in public spaces when shelter space is lacking. The case is the most significant case heard by the high court in decades on the rights of the unhoused and comes as a rising number of people in the United States are without a permanent place to live.

In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court  reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the United States Constitution. The majority found that the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not extend to bans on outdoor sleeping in public places such as parks and streets.  The Supreme Court ruled  that cities can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors, even in West Coast areas where shelter space is lacking.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness. … Cities across the West report that the 9th Circuit’s involuntary test has crated intolerable uncertainty for them.”

Gorsuch suggested that people who have no choice but to sleep outdoors could raise that as a “necessity defense,” if they are ticketed or otherwise punished for violating a camping ban.

A bipartisan group of leaders had argued the ruling against the bans made it harder to manage outdoor encampments encroaching on sidewalks and other public spaces in nine Western states. That includes California, which is home to one-third of the country’s homeless population.

Homeless advocates argue that allowing cities to punish people who need a place to sleep would criminalize homelessness and ultimately make the crisis worse. Cities had been allowed to regulate encampments but couldn’t bar people from sleeping outdoors.

Progressive Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketangi Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor read from the bench the dissent and said this:

“Sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime. … Punishing people for their status is ‘cruel and unusual’ under the Eighth Amendment. … It is quite possible, indeed likely, that these and similar ordinances will face more days in court. … It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles. … [But the majority instead] focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass before the high court, applauded the ruling, saying the 9th Circuit decision had “tied the hands of local governments.”  Evangelis said this:

“Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

The Supreme Courts ruling comes after homelessness in the United States has peaked and grown 12% last year to its highest reported level, as soaring rents and a decline in coronavirus pandemic assistance combined to put housing out of reach for more people. More than 650,000 people are estimated to be homeless, the most since the country began using a yearly point-in-time survey in 2007. Nearly half of them sleep outside. Older adults, LGBTQ+ people and people of color are disproportionately affected, advocates said. In Oregon, a lack of mental health and addiction resources has also helped fuel the crisis.

The Link to a quoted and relied upon news sources are here:

https://www.koat.com/article/supreme-court-oregon-homelessness/61453397

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is a fine balance between assisting those experiencing homelessness while also enforcing laws that are designed to protect public health, safety and welfare and the peaceful use and enjoyment of public lands by the public such as parks. The Albuquerque City Council and Mayor Keller are on opposite sides on many issues, with one notable exception and that is how to deal with the unhoused and that unhoused encampments should not be allowed.

The Keller Administration has gone so far as to implement a formal homeless encampment removal policy that establishes the priority of what encampments to target first. The policy provides a timeline for which individuals must be notified of an encampment clearing. It provides for storage of personal belongings by the city free of charge. It authorizes the city to dispose of personal property seized that is abandoned.

The proposed ordinances and amendments to the existing ordinances as proposed by City Councilor Renee Grout represent a good faith effort to deal with problematic encampments. However, her proposals are in fact an overlap or a redundancy to existing state laws and city ordinances calling into question what will be accomplished, if anything, if enacted. As it stands under existing law, unhoused squatters or campers can be charged with criminal trespassing, unlawful use of public property, interference with sidewalk usage and street rights of way and unlawful nighttime camping in public parks. The city also has an aggressive encampment clearance policy.

The shopping cart abandonment ordinance is somewhat unique and clever at the same time, but it essentially places burdens on businesses who are victims of crime and stolen property when it’s the thief that needs to be charged. Victims of stolen shopping carts should not be required to pay the city $25 for the return of their stolen property and an extra $5 a day thereafter when they are told to pick up their property.  Metal Shopping carts cost anywhere from $150 to $250  and unhoused who pilfer them could be charged with theft or possession of stolen property, but that in fact never happens.

https://shopcarriage-trade.com/shopping-carts/metal-shopping-carts?srsltid=AfmBOooTNUlOWTnmaowgzlgrL2YLx5ZHAamn23Sx0ACJo-QUq9euP_VJ

The United States Supreme Court has given cities the green light to enforce vagrancy laws when it comes to the unhoused. Unhoused who have no interest in any offers of shelter, beds, motel vouchers or alternatives to living on the street force the city to make it totally inconvenient for them to “squat” anywhere they want and must force them to move on. After repeated attempts to reason with them to move on, citations and arrests are in order. Until the problem is solved, the public perception will be that very little to no progress has been made despite millions spent to deal with what Mayor Tim Keller proclaims as the “challenge of our lifetime.”

Links to related blog articles are here:

Mayor Tim Keller Creates 5 Separate Gateway Shelters To Deal With “Challenge Of Our Lifetime”; City’s $200 Million Financial Commitment To Unhoused; Keller Embellishes By Doubling Unhoused Numbers As He  Fails To Deal With Those Who Refuse Services And Getting Them Off Streets

City Revising Removal Of Homeless Encampment Policy; South Central And International District Area New Target  For Clean Ups; Action Long Overdue To Enforce Existing City Ordinances

City Creates “Shelter Connect Dashboard” Identifying Unhoused Shelter During Winter Months; City’s Unsheltered Data Breakdown; City’s Financial Commitment To The Unhoused; Given City’s Commitment To Homeless, Crisis Should Be Manageable But Has Only Gotten Worse Under Mayor Tim Keller

On November 1  President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter Biden for federal felony gun and tax convictions reversing his pledge not to pardon his son or commute his son’s sentence after convictions in  two cases one in Delaware and the other in California. The pardon itself is sweeping in scope and goes way beyond the two recent federal felony convictions and covers the time frame of January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.

The pardon comes weeks before Hunter Biden’s sentencing was to happen after his trial conviction in the gun case and guilty plea on tax charges. The pardon also comes less than two months before  Donald Trump is set to return to the White House. The pardon ends a long running saga that began in December 2020 when Hunter Biden publicly disclosed he was under federal investigation.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/01/politics/hunter-biden-joe-biden-pardon/index.html

Following is the full statement released by President Biden on the pardon of his son Hunter Biden:

“Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter. From the day I took office, I said I would not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making, and I kept my word even as I have watched my son being selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted. Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form. Those who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions, but paid them back subsequently with interest and penalties, are typically given non-criminal resolutions. It is clear that Hunter was treated differently.

The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election. Then, a carefully negotiated plea deal, agreed to by the Department of Justice, unraveled in the court room – with a number of my political opponents in Congress taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process. Had the plea deal held, it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.

No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.

For my entire career I have followed a simple principle: just tell the American people the truth. They’ll be fair-minded. Here’s the truth: I believe in the justice system, but as I have wrestled with this, I also believe raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice – and once I made this decision this weekend, there was no sense in delaying it further. I hope Americans will understand why a father and a President would come to this decision.”

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

The pardon reads in full as follows:

Executive Grant of Clemency
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
President of the United States of America

To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greetings:

Be It Known, That This Day, I, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, Pursuant to My Powers Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution, Have Granted Unto

ROBERT HUNTER BIDEN

A Full and Unconditional Pardon

For those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted (including any that have resulted in convictions) by Special Counsel David C. Weiss in Docket No. 1:23-cr-00061-MN in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and Docket No. 2:23-CR-00599-MCS-1 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF I have hereunto signed my name and caused the Pardon to be recorded with the Department of Justice.

Done at the City of Washington this 1st day of December in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-four and of the Independence of the United States the Two Hundred and Forty-ninth.

The link to the news source is here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/12/01/statement-from-president-joe-biden-11/

In June, Biden categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters as his son faced trial in the Delaware gun case, “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.” As recently as Nov. 8, days after Trump’s victory, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre ruled out a pardon or clemency for the younger Biden, saying, “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is no.”

President Biden and First Lady Jill Biden have repeatedly and publicly stood by  Hunter Biden as he descended into serious drug addiction and as he  threw the Biden family life into turmoil. First Lady Jill Biden attended the first trial while the President maintained his distance. The president’s political rivals have long used Hunter Biden’s myriad mistakes as a political weapon against his father.  One Republican law maker in a congressional  hearing, displayed photos of the drug-addled Hunter Biden  half-naked in a seedy hotel.

House Republicans sought to use Hunter Biden’s years of questionable overseas business ventures in a since-abandoned attempt to impeach President Biden, who strenuously denied involvement in his son’s dealings or benefiting from them in any way.

HUNTER BIDEN REACTS

Hunter Biden has signed his name on a legal acknowledgment of the pardon and he issued the following statement:

“I have admitted and taken responsibility for my mistakes during the darkest days of my addiction — mistakes that have been exploited to publicly humiliate and shame me and my family for political sport,” Hunter Biden said in a statement to Fox News. “Despite all of this, I have maintained my sobriety for more than five years because of my deep faith and the unwavering love and support of my family and friends.”

“In the throes of addiction, I squandered many opportunities and advantages,” he continued. “In recovery we can be given the opportunity to make amends where possible and rebuild our lives if we never take for granted the mercy that we have been afforded. I will never take the clemency I have been given today for granted and will devote the life I have rebuilt to helping those who are still sick and suffering.”

On November 1 Hunter Biden’s legal team filed “Motions to Dismiss” the federal cases in Los Angeles and Delaware asking the judges handling his gun and tax cases to immediately dismiss them, citing the pardon.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-says-he-never-take-his-clemency-granted-after-receiving-pardon-from-his-father

REPUBLICANS REACT

Not at all surprising, many Republicans were down right hostile and  quick to condemn the pardon on social media, calling it an effort to “avoid accountability” and casting President Joe Biden  as a “hypocrite.”

“His FBI and DOJ raided Barron’s bedroom and Melania’s closet at Mar-a-Lago,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., said on X, referring to the federal search of Trump’s home in Florida in connection with the now-dismissed classified documents case against him. “Joe Biden is a liar and a hypocrite, all the way to the end.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said on X that Biden “will go down as one of the most corrupt presidents in American history.”

Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chair of the House Oversight Committee, said on X, “It’s unfortunate that, rather than come clean about their decades of wrongdoing, President Biden and his family continue to do everything they can to avoid accountability.” Comer’s committee has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department recommending charges against Hunter Biden.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the decision “shocked” him.

“I’m shocked Pres Biden pardoned his son Hunter  whe said many, many times he wouldn’t & I believed him.  Shame on me,” he said on X.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/congressional-reaction-president-joe-biden-pardons-hunter-rcna182375

DEMOCRATS REACT

Some Democrats weighed in on the pardon. Governor Jared Polis, D-Colo., criticized Biden’s decision and said this on X:

“While as a father I certainly understand President @JoeBiden’s natural desire to help his son by pardoning him, I am disappointed that he put his family ahead of the country. …  This is a bad precedent that could be abused by later Presidents and will sadly tarnish his reputation.”

Similarly, Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton of Arizona said he thought Biden “got this one wrong” and  said on X.:

“This wasn’t a politically-motivated prosecution. … Hunter committed felonies, and was convicted by a jury of his peers.”

Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland spoke about the possibility of a pardon and offered  a possible explanation of what a pardon’s basis could be. Raskin  said this to CNN:

“There is a defense called selective prosecution. …  If you can show that the government has a set of cases that all look alike, but they pick one person out to prosecute based on, say, a political animus towards the person, which essentially is the claim that Donald Trump has been making about why he was targeted, the power exists for the president to show mercy for people who have committed crimes and either suffered some kind of injustice in the process or the punishment is disproportionate.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/congressional-reaction-president-joe-biden-pardons-hunter-rcna182375

TRUMPS REACTION TO PARDON AND HIS OWN RECORD OF PARDON ABUSE

Biden is not the first president to deploy his pardon powers to benefit those close to him.  He learned that lesson from none other than Donald Trump. In his final weeks in office, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, the father of his son-in law, Jared Kushner, as well as multiple allies convicted by  special counsel Robert Mueller’s in the Russia investigation. Trump over the weekend announced plans to nominate the elder Kushner to be the U.S. envoy to France in his next administration.

Trump said in a social media post on December 1  that Hunter Biden’s pardon was “such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice. …  Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump asked, referring to those convicted in the violent Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

People need to be reminded of what Trump’s record on pardons really is as outlined in this MSNBC report by Steve Benen:

“First, Jan. 6 criminals are not “hostages.”

Second, if we’re going to talk about pardons, abuses, and miscarriages of justice, Trump might not like where the conversation ends up.

… Trump’s record on pardons is arguably the worst in American history. During his first term, he effectively wielded his pardon power as a corrupt weapon, rewarding loyalists, completing cover-ups, undermining federal law enforcement, and doling out perverse favors to the politically connected.

Trump’s list of scandalous pardon abuses is so long, it could be a lengthy book. The names should be familiar: Paul Manafort. Michael Flynn. Steve Bannon. Roger Stone. Seven different Republican members of Congress who were locked up for corruption crimes.

Trump saw presidential pardons as get-out-of-jail-free cards for his friends and associates, engaging in the kind of brazen corruption that would’ve defined his term were it not eclipsed by other breathtaking scandals.

If prominent GOP voices want Biden to pay a political price for pardoning his son, fine. He said he wouldn’t do this, then he did it anyway, and in the process, he invited political attacks that are rooted in fact for a change.”

But if Trump thinks he has the moral high ground on the issue, that’s bonkers.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/problem-trumps-reaction-hunter-biden-pardon-rcna182413

THE HUNTER BIDEN CHARGES REVIEWED

Hunter Biden was convicted in June in Delaware federal court of 3 felonies for purchasing a gun in 2018 when, prosecutors said, he lied on a federal form by claiming he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.  He had been set to stand trial in September in the California case accusing him of failing to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. Hunter Biden agreed to plead guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges in a surprise move hours after jury selection was set to begin.

David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware who negotiated the plea deal, was subsequently named a special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland to have more autonomy over the prosecution of the president’s son. Hunter Biden said he was pleading guilty in that case to spare his family more pain and embarrassment after the gun trial aired salacious details about his struggles with a crack cocaine addiction. The tax charges carry up to 17 years behind bars and the gun charges are punishable by up to 25 years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines were expected to call for far less time and it was possible he would have avoided prison time entirely.

Hunter Biden was supposed to be sentenced this month in the two federal cases, which the special counsel brought after a plea deal with prosecutors that likely would have spared him prison time fell apart under scrutiny by a judge. Under the original deal, Hunter was supposed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses and and would have avoided prosecution in the gun case as long as he stayed out of trouble for two years. But the plea hearing quickly unraveled last year when the judge raised concerns about unusual aspects of the deal. The younger Biden was subsequently indicted in the two cases.

Hunter Biden’s legal team this weekend released a 52-page white paper titled “The political prosecutions of Hunter Biden,” describing the president’s son as a “surrogate to attack and injure his father, both as a candidate in 2020 and later as president.”

The younger Biden’s lawyers have long argued that prosecutors bowed to political pressure to indict the president’s son amid heavy criticism by Trump and other Republicans of what they called the “sweetheart” plea deal.

https://apnews.com/article/biden-son-hunter-charges-pardon-pledge-24f3007c2d2f467fa48e21bbc7262525

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Many are condemning President Joe Biden for issuing a pardon of his son and some going so far as saying that it will taint his entire legacy as President. That is highly doubtful and ridiculous at best. In all likelihood the pardon will be nothing more than a footnote in history.  No one should be surprised by President Joe Biden’s pardon given Trumps repeated threats to go after his political enemies as he rewards his loyalists. Trump has vowed to pardon what he calls the J-6 Hostages who stormed the capitol at his urging to overthrow the 2020 election and where as many as 5 people were killed. When Trump pardons his J-6 convicted felons, it will be a clear gross misuse of power and a miscarriage of justice by Trump.  Congressional Republicans will no doubt applaud his actions as the compassionate thing to do, even though people got killed as members of congress coward in fear as the the doors of the Senate Chamber were being breached and Vice President Mike Pence was swept to safety.

On November 25, the following news story was posted by the national news agency CNN:

HEADLINE: Special Counsel Jack Smith Drops Election Subversion And Classified Documents Cases Against DonaldTrump By Paula Reid, Tierney Sneed and Devan Cole, CNN Staff Reporters

“Special counsel Jack Smith is dropping the federal election subversion and the mishandling of classified documents cases against President-elect Donald Trump, seeking the cases’ dismissal in court filings Monday.

Trump has said he would fire Smith once he retook the office, shattering previous norms around special counsel investigations.

“The [Justice] Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote of the election subversion case in a six-page filing with US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”

Chutkan formally dismissed the case without prejudice Monday afternoon.

Smith’s criminal pursuit of Trump over the last two years for trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election and his mishandling of classified documents represented a unique chapter in American history: Never before has a former occupant of the White House faced federal criminal charges.

Though the election subversion case culminated this summer in a landmark Supreme Court ruling that said Trump enjoyed some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, Trump’s strategy of delay in the case ensured that a trial never got underway before the November election.

In the election case Trump faced in Washington, DC, Smith charged the former president over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, a plot that culminated in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

“The Government’s position on the merits of the defendant’s prosecution has not changed,” Smith said in the filing.

Chutkan had been deciding how much of Trump’s conduct at the center of the case was shielded by immunity after prosecutors last month laid out their arguments for why the Supreme Court’s ruling should have no impact on the case. After Trump won reelection this month, prosecutors asked Chutkan to pause a series of postelection deadlines in the case as they weighed their next steps.

In the documents case brought in Florida, Trump was indicted for allegedly taking classified national defense documents from the White House after he left office and resisting the government’s attempts to retrieve the materials.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases.

Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung in a statement called the move “a major victory for the rule of law. … The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country. ” 

TRUMP EMPLOYEES STILL FACE APPEAL

Smith, in a filing with a federal appeals court, said that prosecutors were keeping their case on mishandling classified documents alive against two of Trump’s employees.

The case is before the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is reviewing Judge Aileen Cannon’s order dismissing all charges.

The co-defendants are Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, who work for Trump and are accused of helping the former president obstruct a federal investigation into sensitive government documents taken from his first administration. Both have pleaded not guilty.

“The special counsel’s decision to proceed in this case, even after dismissing it against President Trump, is an unsurprising tribute to the poor judgment that led to the indictment against Mr. De Oliveira in the first place,” John Irving, a defense attorney for De Oliveira, said. “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If they prefer a slow acquittal, that’s fine with us.”

A lawyer for Nauta, Stanley Woodward, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Smith said he was seeking to drop the charges against the president-elect “without prejudice,” which would keep the door open for charges to be brought again in the future, calling the presidential immunity Trump will have as “temporary.”

Smith said he consulted with Justice Department lawyers on the question and that they also weighed the possibility of pausing the case until Trump no longer had the immunity of the presidency protecting him.

Ultimately, however, the department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the bar on prosecuting sitting presidents is “categorial,” including for indictments handed up before a defendant enters office.

“Accordingly, the Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. And although the Constitution requires dismissal in this context, consistent with the temporary nature of the immunity afforded a sitting President, it does not require dismissal with prejudice,” Smith wrote.

In her ruling on Monday, Chutkan noted the unusual circumstances.

“Dismissal without prejudice is also consistent with the Government’s understanding that the immunity afforded to a sitting President is temporary, expiring when they leave office,” the judge wrote.

STATE CASES WILL CONTINUE AGAINST TRUMP

As president, Trump will not have the power to interfere with the prosecutions brought against him by state authorities in Georgia and New York. However, the courts in those cases will still have to work out immunity questions and issues raised by his return to the White House.

Last week, the judge overseeing Trump’s criminal hush money case in New York postponed his sentencing indefinitely. A jury in the state convicted Trump earlier this year on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment made during the 2016 campaign to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who alleged a prior affair with the president-elect. (Trump denies the affair.)

And Trump is still working to stave off prosecution in Georgia, where he is a defendant in a sprawling case that accuses him and several allies of trying to overturn his 2020 election loss in the Peach State.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/25/politics/trump-special-counsel-jack-smith/index.html

Links to other news stories are here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jack-smith-files-drop-jan-6-charges-donald-trump-rcna181667

https://abcnews.go.com/US/special-counsel-jack-smith-moves-dismiss-election-interference/story?id=116207758

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

It was inevitable with the landmark Supreme Court Case giving Trump immunity from prosecution that Special Council Jack Smith would dismiss both federal cases against Trump.  The Trump 6 Supreme Court disciples of John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett  succeeded in undermining  our federal criminal justice system and ensured that Trump returned to the White House with unfettered power. The 6 did so at the expense of our democracy and history will not be too kind to them laying  much blame on the damage they have done to our democracy.

All six Supreme Court Justices know full well that no one is above the law, yet they carved out a special  exception to benefit Donald Trump claiming the decision is for the benefit of all  future Presidents. They knew if the two federal criminal cases against Trump proceeded to trial after the election he would simply  order the Justice Department to dismiss the cases or simply pardon himself. They also knew if Trump was not elected, he would have likely be tried, convicted and do jail time on the Federal charges.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2024 presidential election was in fact  one of the most consequential elections in our history. Control of the Presidency and congress is now Republican as is the United States Supreme Court.  It was the economy and inflation that swept Trump to a decisive victory. Exit polls showed that the voting public were extremely disgruntled if not downright hostile with the direction the country is going, with inflation out of control. Voters were far more were concerned about making a decent living, angered over grocery and gas prices, as opposed to any threat Trump posed to democracy. Voters simply believed they were better off when Trump was President the first time believing all his lies. Voters chose to forget the 4 years of total chaos Trump brought upon the county and his failure to deal with the pandemic that killed millions worldwide and in the United States and that had a strangle hold on the country and that destroyed the economy.

In the end, voters simply ignored Trump’s flawed character, the multimillion dollar civil judgements against him for sexual assault and slander, his criminal conduct in the private sector and while in office, his fraud in securing millions in loans in New York, the  multiple state criminal convictions and pending federal criminal charges, his two impeachments, his misogyny and racism, his threat to democracy, his attempt to overthrow the government with all his lies that the election was rigged and stolen from him, his attacks on woman’s rights and civil rights, his partiality to racists groups such as the Proud Boys, his promotion of racist policies and his cult following of Christian fundamentalist who totally ignored his immorality, multiple marriages and affairs and praised him as the second coming.

Trump and his Republican Party will overreach declaring they have a mandate to do whatever they damn well want with no guard rails. There will be no intervention from the Trump appointed Supreme Court of right-wing conservative disciples who have given him immunity from prosecution making him above the law. As the saying goes elections have consequences. But that includes unintended consequences. Trumps agenda will go way beyond what people thought they were voting for. It’s not at all likely voters will be any better off financially than they are now in two years under a Trump second presidency let alone the 4 years to come.

It’s only a matter of time before the general public turns on Trump as they did 4 years ago once they realize they have been had once again. Stupid is as stupid does. The public turned on Republican President George W. Bush after he was elected by a popular vote and the Republicans lost congress. It will happen again. Voters have now voted for the return of chaos. Based on Trump’s agenda, and his cabinet appointments, chaos is exactly what we will get with millions getting hurt in the process. This is what happens when the big lie replaces reality and personal finances outweigh preservation of our democracy.