The Piercing Truth

This is right from the dictionary and seems to describe Albuquerque, Berry and Schultz. Fascism (f ash ,izem) noun An authoritarian right wing system of government and/or social organization. (in general use) extreme right wing, authoritarian, chauvinistic and/or intolerant views or practices. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one group over another, national, ethnic, especially social strata or monetarily; a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. Compliments of one of our Eyes

Aug 29, 2012

Schultz uses Cronies to his Advantage

As expected, New Mexico’s LEA board rubber stamped and accepted APD Chief, Ray Schultz’s proposal to automatically have a law enforcement officer’s certification be placed in suspended status when that officer is charged with a felony crime. As our Eyes reported, fellow board member and “citizen at large” Nate Korn, and owner of Albuquerque city police contract supplier Kaufman’s West, also voted in support of this measure.

“The misconduct definitely occurred, but the officer on a technicality slipped through the cracks.” For these reasons, Chief Schultz apparently thinks its ok to subvert, and side step, the Constitution of the United States. As Chief Schultz stated in an interview, an officer’s certification is like a license and failure to meet certain requirements may lead to its suspension. Yes, thank you Chief Schultz we are aware of that. And like your statement about officers needing probably cause in order to stop a person for DWI, you are once again wrong. A person’s driver’s license gets placed in suspended status when they fail to do certain things or are to have been found to have committed certain violations NOT when they are accused of wrong doing. A “certain thing” necessary to deprive a person of their license is more than a suspicion. As with a criminal indictment, an officer facing felony charges is again accused of doing something. While Chief Schultz seems to routinely forget we are not in 1933 Germany. Under OUR laws, a person is presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. Our Legal Eyes tell us that what Chief Schultz and Mr. Korn are proposing is simply a violation of due process in an effort to remove a person’s property interest in their job. With an officer’s certification suspended, the means by which Chief Schultz can terminate the officer’s employment is clear and fast. We are not saying people have a “right” to be police officers. What we are saying is that once a person is employed, the courts recognize one’s employment as their property. And you cannot take away a person’s property without due process.

Look, we recognize that if an officer has been charged with a serious misdemeanor or felony crime, their ability to function as a police officer is all but impaired. However, remedies exist to deal with this scenario in order to respect the presumption of an officer’s innocence. The officer is relieved of their badge and gun and they are assigned an administrative duty outside of sworn officer responsibilities. In some cases administrative leave without pay may be justified. The case the media loves to point out is former APD officer Levi Chavez. But our Eyes tell us endless supervisors tried to have Mr. Chavez disciplined up through termination before the suspected murder of his late wife. There’s only one person who kept Mr. Chavez from being terminated: Chief Schultz. Now, Chief Schultz wants to put the cart before the horse and terminate officers before they’ve had their case adjudicated. There is considerable precedent where officers have been cleared of charges who have been reinstated because it was found that their termination was unjust. Chief Schultz likes to say “a prima facie showing” is all that is necessary. Maybe that logic works in his office but it doesn’t work in court or the real world. Ask former officer Timothy Chavez who was charged with rape and later cleared. He continues to collect payment from the city because APD terminated his employment unlawfully.

Given the mass exodus of the most senior and talented personnel from within APD we have to wonder to what lengths Chief Schultz will continue to go to deflect his failure upon people other than himself. Our Eyes tell us the lieutenant who has all but coordinated the Albuquerque Balloon Fiesta will be retiring. Instead of anticipating this event, Chief Schultz assigned rookie supervisor Dodi Comacho as the balloon fiesta coordinator. Our Eyes tell us that her depth of experience in managing large scale events (remember the Downtown fiasco she was responsible for last winter?) has resulted in Chief Schultz assigning Commander Harold Medina and Lieutenant Fernando Aragon to assist her with this project. Instead of having one lieutenant manage the event, we now have two commanders and a lieutenant. And people wonder if the loss of experience and talent will cost the taxpayers??? Let’s also not forget the myriad issues other commander leaders have within Chief Schultz’s inner circle: DCOP Warfield has one confirmed excessive force judgment against him and one more pending. Commander Gonterman also has a judgment of excessive force against him which resulted in a bill of over $400,000 to the city’s taxpayers. Are these people going to be subject to the new LEA policy? Our Eyes tell us of course not because they are sworn to protect Chief Schultz.

Then, our Eyes tell us the APOA and FOP are all but silent in this matter. While we know many of our readers do not value organized labor, and we respect healthy dialogue, having labor push back on issues such as this is important to maintain balance. In the absence of balance, city and department leaders run amok and the effects of a demagogue such as Schultz are being seen in the spiraling debasement of a once fine agency. Now, under the reign of Chief Schultz, APD is the embodiment of arbitrary and disparate treatment of its officers. And the citizens are feeling the effects of this with poor policing, lack of trust, loss of experience and expertise, and constant scrutiny.

Remember that, in Chief Schultz’s own words, your civil rights are a mere technicality.

Aug 24, 2012

The Truth; Schultz Can’t Handle the Truth (Tonight Channel 5 @ 7 PM)

Our Eyes have come to us with some more truths about Mayor Berry’s Chief of Police, Ray Schultz. Apparently, a former retired APD supervisor was contact by Channel 5 and was asked to speak the truth about Schultz and APD. This former supervisor is held in good standing by those who know him and he is a person who has worked diligently in retirement for officers and other public servants.

Here is a little bit of history that will become more relevant as you read this story. This retired supervisor’s has a son whom served us and the Country well while assigned overseas in the military. This person is now a member of law enforcement. Out of what we are told is “fear of retaliation,” this retired person has opted not to be interview.

Fortunately, one of Albuquerque’s most respected retired captains stepped up to the plate and was interviewed. This interview will be aired on tonight on Channel 5 at 7 O’clock P.M. We hear Schultz was seen at Wal-Mart purchasing some salt and A-1 Steak Sauce to add flavor to all the crow he will be consuming. If anyone seeing Schultz coughing up black feathers; you will know where they came from.

Our Eyes tell us the biggest question that lingers after the interviews is; will Schultz be FIRED? The choice seems obvious to everyone in Albuquerque except for Mayor Berry. Why it is that Berry can’t admit he has made a heinous mistake retaining Schultz for the past three years? Keep that in mind when you vote next year; no more fruits or berries.

Aug 23, 2012


Last Friday, August 17th was scheduled to be the final day of the Doyle v. Ray Schultz labor hearing. If you recall, former APD officer John Doyle is challenging APD’s Chief Ray Schultz’s termination of Mr. Doyle’s employment with APD. The hearing once again failed to conclude as Chief Schultz’s lawyer, Kathy Levy, once again moved to vacate the hearing to a later date. Ms. Levy’s reputation for delaying and failing to comply with deadline precedes her and she is known for her shortcomings (no punt intended) by those who have had to deal with her. But notwithstanding Ms. Levy’s propensity to stall, our Eyes found this unsurprising because the investigator who Chief Schultz assigned to investigate Mr. Doyle was Internal Affairs Sergeant Jason Peck. And that is where fate asserts irony of the greatest order…

On August 6, Sgt. Peck shot a suspect who was involved in an undercover drug deal. Hours later, APD released officer mounted lapel camera footage showing undercover officers struggling with the suspect moments after he had been shot by Sgt. Peck. Despite the fact Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Paul Feist provided to the press significant details about shooting and released the video PRIOR to completion of the shooting’s investigation and PRIOR to Sgt. Peck’s interview. Our Eyes tell us Sgt. Peck’s incident is eerily familiar to Mr. Doyle’s incident with wanted felon Nicholas Blume. The deputy chief even mentioned the sergeant’s fear of a second suspect and the concern of a possible ambush scenario. In fact, Sgt. Peck’s incident is so similar to Mr. Doyle’s incident we wonder if the City is trying to toss Mr. Doyle’s case because of the uncanny similarities.

You see, our Eyes tell us Sgt. Peck, for reasons unknown, ran up to the car, and as he closed in on the suspect, the undercover detective and the suspect engaged in a physical confrontation. The undercover detective is reported to have alerted Sgt. Peck that the suspect was going for a gun. At this point Sgt. Peck pulled out his gun and shot the suspect in the lower abdomen. Our Eyes tell us that Sgt. Peck states he did not see the gun and relied on the undercover detective’s statements as they struggled in the car. In light of the events it seems Sgt. Peck was reasonable in his actions. However, we wonder why the same consideration is NOT extended to Mr. Doyle. If you recall, then Officer Doyle arrived on scene while then Officer Woolever was on the ground struggling with an identified known and wanted recidivistic felon, Nicholas Blume. Officer Woolever exclaimed to Officer Doyle that Blume was reaching for something in his waistband. Relying on Officer Woolever’s assertions, knowing that Blume was wanted for homicide, along with other multiple violent felonies, was frequently in possession of a gun, considered armed and dangerous, and there was a second outstanding suspect in the immediate vicinity that could have ambushed them, Officer Doyle used the least amount of reasonable force and deployed physical force tactics measured best for the scenario facing him. Despite Chief Schultz’s sworn testimony that Officer Doyle kicked Blume in the head “6-8 times” the now infamous video shows Officer Doyle targeted and repeatedly and intentionally struck Blume in the upper shoulder and arm area. While Sgt. Peck deployed his gun and discharged his firearm against the offender; Officer Doyle maintained a superior position and refrained from exercising deadly force. Given the statements by Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Feist concerning Sgt. Peck’s shooting, it seems Officer Doyle could’ve deployed his firearm and shot suspected murderer Blume. However, Doyle refrained from deadly force. This restraint clearly showed control as one would expect from an officer with 20 plus years in law enforcement who came from one of the most violent cities in the country to work in Albuquerque. While Sgt. Peck’s actions are hailed as heroic by APD’s 5th Floor, Mr. Doyle’s unblemished reputation is attacked and tarnished by a group of individuals with less police experience, less experience with violent encounters, and a less than ethical motive. As a matter of fact this individual assigned to investigate Mr. Doyle only had only a year in Internal Affairs at the time he was assigned this case, and only a few years of actual street experience. These facts make one wonder why they would assign such an inexperienced sergeant to investigate this case. Additionally, it makes one wonder even more why Chief Schultz would say a 20 plus year commander was incapable of conducting the same investigation. We at the Eye highly doubt Sgt. Peck's police experience even approaches Mr. Doyle's and we know his investigative experience doesn't even come close to that of retired Commander Murray Conrad. It seems that qualifications are not in order when selecting a loyal subject to carry out Schultz's dirty work, only ones willingness to give up all of their integrity to support Schultz and his dirty mission.

Yet, as Sgt. Peck’s actions are hailed as necessary and proper, Officers Doyle and Woolever are fired, and summarily smeared in the media as an example of APD’s police brutality culture. Officer Doyle and Officer Woolever are even tossed to the DOJ in an effort by Chief Schultz to appear “in control” of his department. Now our Eyes tell us Chief Schultz’s attorney has vacated Mr. Doyle’s effort to prove his termination was unjustified if not unlawful. Can anybody else see the double standards here? Can anybody else see the total disparity in treatment by Chief Schultz? Is this how a law enforcement agency is to act by exhibiting bias and prejudicial conduct?

We at the Eye have asked this before and will ask this again, If Chief Schultz acts with such prejudice, bias, and irregularity with his own sworn personnel, how does he act with regular citizens? How does he act when subject to events that truly tests his integrity? I think we all know the sad and painful answers to these serious questions…

Aug 17, 2012


“…and weird” is how retired APD Lieutenant Jay Gilhooly described the current state of affairs in an interview that opened up this week. If there was any confirmation of how weird things are with Mayor Berry’s police department and his police chief, Ray Schultz, one only has to look at Chief Schultz’s press conference yesterday as he released the now infamous SE Bike Cop videos. Whatever one’s take is on the officer’s actions in the video, we at the Eye are troubled by the threatening behavior and intimidating actions asserted by Chief Schultz in yesterday’s press conference. As Chief Schultz is in violation of the state’s Inspection of Public Records Act, Chief Schultz is the last person of any standing to reprimand the media for wanting to break a story before alerting law enforcement to possible criminal violations by officers. As he has an endless history of chronic abuse of his authority, information manipulation and deception, and a “leadership” style despotic in nature, Chief Schultz should keep the finger waiving to his own defects. Yet, Chief Schultz tries to deflect his by stating reporters had inside information and were trying to play a game of “gotch ya.” There are no requirements in IPRA which compel a justification for desired records. There are however requirements within APD’s SOPs that mandate APD personnel to investigation wrongdoing committed by personnel. Our Eyes tell us the officers involved in the video were subject to an IA investigation but the investigation was tied down, if not sat on, by none other than DCOP Banks.

Chief Schultz clearly needs a reminder that it is NOT the media’s job to do his job. If Chief Schultz was doing his job the media clearly would have little to report. And in the midst of this mess where is Mayor Berry? While APD once again makes negative national news, Mayor Berry is at the city zoo discussing an increase of tickets by over 30%. Apparently not satisfied with his destruction of the annual balloon fiesta, Berry seeks to destroy one of the few remaining city run attributes as well.

However, just when we thought things could not get any weirder with APD, they continue to do so. While Chief Schultz was falsely reprimanding the media for doing their job—holding him responsible for suppressing public records and violating state law—several of our eyes alerted us to a very troubling matter concerning firearm shed by APD. On any given week, guns are tagged into evidence by APD personnel. Not all of these guns are related to crimes but are often stored for “safekeeping” or “found.” As such, owners/responsible parties may retrieve the weapons from APD. However, APD is bound by federal and state regulations that require a background check to ensure compliance with laws before releasing the weapons to citizens. For instance, it would be unlawful for APD to transfer a gun to a person who is a convicted felon, has a diagnosed mental illness, is an unlawful user of controlled substances, is not an illegal alien, has not had a dishonorable discharge from the military, that precludes them from possessing a firearm.

Our Eyes alerted us to the pictured emails coming from none other than APD’s lawyer, Kathy Levy. In these emails Ms. Levy states that APD need only “…limit the check to the parameters of the Brady requirements.” Prior to then, APD had completed what is called a Triple I check which reviewed a citizen’s criminal history on a national scale and not just limited to local matters. Ms. Levy adds that “I had an opportunity to speak with the Chief and he, too, was unaware of the depth of the investigations we have been conducting…This new approach should free up a lot of resources.” Per the Brady statute, a transferor is required by law to ensure that the person seeking the gun does not fall into any of the above listed categories. However, our Eyes tell us Ms. Levy and Chief Schultz have ordered APD evidence to perform a local background check ONLY ensuring that the citizen simply has no outstanding warrants. Why would Ms. Levy want to be so quick to release guns to citizens we wondered? Our Eyes tell us that once again inventory in evidence is being mismanaged and they are running out of storage space for guns. And that Triple I checks cost money.

So in an effort to save space and reduce costs, Ms. Levy and Chief Schultz are allowing more firearms to be released without conducting a full investigation to see if a citizen satisfies the Brady law. As all officers know, a limited local check is extremely narrow and does not include a review of all of the criminal records which may exist on a given citizen. Only a Triple I does this. Once again, Chief Schultz and Ms. Levy either are ignorant of the very laws they are subject to OR they are intentionally trying to circumvent them. Given the recent active shooter tragedies around the country, we at the Eye demand that APD go back to full Triple I background investigations before any guns are released and transferred to citizens. This is an unsafe and an unethical practice that frankly, defies belief given recent events in Colorado and all the police shooting that APD has been involved in.

Chief Schultz stated he wanted to be briefed before the release of any story involving possible misconduct. Well, in the United States of American we are free to brief public officials in PUBLIC and in a manner supported by the Constitution. And that is exactly what we are doing here. And we know where Mayor Berry will be while this mess gets worse….

Aug 13, 2012

Caught Lying (AGAIN)

Several days ago our Eyes broke the story about how Albuquerque Police Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Feist committed egregious violations of department procedural SOPs by releasing officer lapel camera video of the recent officer involved shooting prior to the completion of the investigation. Now KRQE-13 has filed a lawsuit against the city for the APD’s violation of the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) stemming from an incident back in May 2012. You see, reporters routinely request copies of video and audio footage recorded by officers and that material is subject to the IPRA. In this case, it seems there is some controversial footage that APD does not want released to the public despite the fact they have no protections in this case to withhold it. Our Eyes tell us the video involves a suspect who is surrendering and gets Tazed anyway. The department and the city have asserted because there is an on-going investigation into the officer’s conduct, they have an exception to the IPRA requirements. The chief attorney for the city of Albuquerque, David Tourek, stated:

“The City is withholding the video at this time under the law enforcement records exception of the Inspection of Public Records Act due to the fact that law enforcement is currently interviewing witnesses in a criminal case. The release of the video prior to their statements being taken could compromise what they say and the integrity of the investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the full video will be released."

Excuse us? Did Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Feist not just release video footage of an officer involved shooting just days ago? Was that video not released before the completion of the criminal investigation? Were the statements by Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Feist of such detail and particularity because they were spoken before all of the witness interviews were completed the integrity of this latest shooting is now completely compromised? And from being compromised has APD not just once again failed the officers who were involved in this latest dangerous incident AND compromised the criminal investigation against the heroin dealers who were the targets of the original investigation? Are Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Feist going to be held accountable for actions monumentally against the city’s interest and in direct conflict with the City’s Chief Attorney Tuorek and the City’s Chief Administrative Officer Rob Perry?

The media and other bloggers, Joe Monahan in particular, wonder why all the states around New Mexico seem to have their economies revitalized and growing in prosperity while stagnation runs rampant in Albuquerque and most of New Mexico. Could it be that when hypocrisy is this gross and obvious it impedes any hope or optimism? If they lie about the simple policy regarding videos, what else will they lie about? If they choose to violate state statutes like IPRA, what else will they violate? Of course Mayor Berry is nowhere to be seen in this, for that would require leadership. We’d say it could not be more obvious that the leaders of APD are out of control and are not interested in doing what’s right but only in evading responsibility for their mess. But our Eyes tell us, it is going to get worse. And the citizens and businesses are clearing enduring fatigue from this on-going miscreant behavior by many of the state’s leaders.

P.S. We at the Eye wish to congratulate former Officer Tank Guenther for being cleared of all of the heinous charges brought against him. We applaud the Santa Fe county District Attorney, Angela Pacheco, for dropping the criminal action against Mr. Guenther. Of course APD was quick to terminate Mr. Guenther for the unsubstantiated felony charges. But now, as Mr. Guenther ponders the effort to restore his name with the department, PIO Officer Robert Gibbs asserts that Mr. Guenther was not fired because of the charges but because of “administrative issues.” We at the Eye would like to know what exactly those other “administrative issues” are because our Eyes tell us, no other issues were asserted during Mr. Guenther’s Lauder mill hearing. Could it be that once again, APD’s Chief Schultz is caught lying???

Aug 8, 2012


The Albuquerque Police Department’s standard operating procedures covering officer involved shootings are outlined in Procedural Orders 2-31. 2-31 details the necessary actions investigators MUST do to secure the scene of the shooting, manage the scene, manage witness, manage evidence, and manage the principal actors. Following these procedures is crucial, and mandatory, because the integrity of the investigation is at stake. It’s important to remember that all police shootings are treated as criminal investigations and NOT administrative investigations. Given the microscope APD is under for each incident where an officer shoots a subject, one would think the folks on the 5thfloor would strictly and obediently follow their own SOPs regarding officer involved shootings…

Some the more essential elements of Procedural Orders 2-31 include:

A. Place all witnesses, including principal personnel, in separate locations to ensure witness credibility.

B. Ensure all principal personnel remain in the same attire and do not dispose of any items, which were in his/her possession at the time of the shooting until authorized by Criminalistics personnel.

2-31-3 A. The on-call PST is responsible for all phases of the criminal investigation, with the exception of processing the scene and the collection of evidence

2-31-7 E. Control the release of information relating to the incident. Any information to be released to the media must have prior approval of the Commander of the on-call PST or the Deputy Chief of Police.

2-31-8 G. Ensure the case is completed and submitted to the District Attorney's office.

H. Take responsibility for the principal personnel upon completion of collection
of physical evidence by Criminalistics personnel.

I. Within seven working days, schedule a debriefing with the investigators of
the PST, OMI and the District Attorney's office to discuss the status of the criminal investigation.

2-31-10 C. Principal personnel will remain separated and will be removed from the scene as expeditiously as possible and transported to an appropriate police facility as directed by the on-call PST commander.

Following these procedures is crucial in order to keep evidence and witnesses from cross contamination and thus jeopardizing the investigation. Remember, this is a criminal investigation that ultimately is submitted to the District Attorney’s office for review. Criminal liability is on the table as is civil liability on part of the city, the department, and the parties involved.

Chief Schultz and his minor deputy chief’s seem to think an officer involved shooting is a public relations opportunity. In the hours after the shooting, Deputy Chief Paul Feist stated that the subject shot was waving a gun and threatening undercover officers during an undercover narcotics operation. The following day the department released lapel camera footage showing undercover officers rushing in and the undercover sergeant’s lone shot sounding off in the background. Chief Schultz returned from yet another out of state trip to respond and detail elements of the incident in yet another push to justify the department’s latest officer involved shooting. Within thirty-six hours of the incident, Chief Schultz had an officer’s lapel/body camera video of the event released to the media.

Yet as of Wednesday, August 8, 2012, the sergeant involved in the shooting had yet to be interviewed. As that officer is a principal in this investigation we fail to find any basis for the disclosure of such highly detailed and sensitive information, never mind video evidence, before witness interviews are complete. Feist’s statements are prejudicial and suggest witness intimidation, evidence tampering and jury pool tampering. They defy belief when you consider the investigation is far from complete. Even more staggering is the department’s release of video evidence of the incident. As the above SOP’s indicate, none of these actions are to even be considered before the case is turned in to the district attorney’s office. If an officer obtains evidence of a crime and were to commit these actions I think we all know how quickly they would not only be fired but prosecuted.

Ask former officer Brad Ahrensfield who was tipped off by former detective Ron Olivas concerning an investigation by the FBI whether or not people are prosecuted for tampering with an investigation. With this most recent incident there is a multi-agency “shoot team” whose investigation was just compromised by the direct and intentional actions of Chief Schultz and Deputy Chief Paul Feist. Who will hold them accountable for flagrant violations of the above SOPs? By their actions and statements, Schultz and Feist have failed to ensure witness credibility, tampered with evidence, deviated from guidelines required by the district attorney, identified parties before interviews, and disclosed sensitive elements regarding department undercover tactics. How likely is it, the officer involved in the shooting will provide a statement consistent with the assertions made by Schultz and Feist? And what of the deviations?

Given that the department is under intense scrutiny for its handling of critical incidents and major crime scenes, one would think Chief Schultz would do everything imaginable to support an objective and lawful investigation. Instead, we have this tainted mess. One thing however is completely obvious, when the department wants to spin something in its or Chief Schultz’s favor, it will do anything to get video, reports, or records out before the public. When the information is damaging…they hide and lie.

Aug 7, 2012

“Raymundo” Schultz Orders News Black Out

It appears Berry’s police chief, “Raymundo” Schultz, ordered a news black-out in a feeble attempt to buy time. You ask; time for what? Time to come up with a marketable story and by allowing time to pass, dulls the story.

Well, “Raymundo,” it looks like the only people who can control the media in this town are you and the Los Zetas drug cartel. Your menacing behavior is repulsive and you are a disgrace to the badge and this City.

Perhaps this is a legitimate police involved shooting. However, hiding the truth and playing the waiting game is a cheap shot at the public who pays your salary. Your attempt to insult the intelligence of the public is despicable.

It is hilarious that Schultz actually believes his own baloney. No one bought into this except Schultz and his followers. Everyone else knows what Schultz was doing and no one trust Schultz.

Berry, you’re time is limited too! You will be put out by the curbside with the rest of the trash this coming election.

It is shameful that our local media allowed themselves to be lead to the slaughterhouse like a bunch of dumb sheep. The media should have never accepted this “stalling strategy” of “Raymundo” Schultz. The media in Albuquerque has failed the public as well.

Apparently Schultz controls most of the big dogs in Albuquerque.


PS--We here at the Eye know Schultz is in full control of the dogs at the Police Union as well. Berry can have Schultz running the kennel as well for the City. Seeing Schultz in rubber boots and galoshes, clean stalls is more tell-tail of his true fabric. Yes, Schultz, Kathy Levy can join you also.

Aug 5, 2012


This past week has been busy for our friends on APD’s 5th Floor. Busy in that Mayor Berry’s police chief, Ray Schultz, has seen his attorney Kathy Levy defeated in hearing after hearing. For the first time in Schultz’s career, good citizens have breached his crooked castle walls and his armor seems to be brittle and weak. Schultz’s personality, long familiar to officers in APD, reared its snarling mean head and showed how indignant he’ll act when he cannot control the questions or dictate the setting.

In the latest installment of the Doyle v. Schultz employment, many revelations came to light regarding process and procedure. Most significantly was of course the use of force. If you recall, Chief Schultz fired Officer Doyle in late 2011 in an effort to stay off a US Department of Justice inquiry into APD’s patterns and practices. While there is much to discuss regarding the hearing our Eyes tell us, one thing remains abundantly clear regarding the incident Blume initiated with Mr. Doyle—it is anything but clear.

Our Eyes tell us that testimony by city called witnesses asserted Mr. Doyle:

- Kicked Blume for over five minutes

-That he kicked Blume repeatedly in the head and shifted around to continue increase his angle to kick Blume in the head even harder

-Mr. Doyle should have drawn his gun and simply held on Blume until Mr. Woolever handcuffed Blume (without covering Mr. Woolever of course)

-Mr. Doyle should’ve have abandoned his alertness for the 2nd subject and joined Mr. Woolever in the wrestling match

-Mr. Doyle kicked Blume 6-8times in the head

-Mr. Doyle’s effort exceeded LAPD’s efforts against Rodney King and lasted longer

-Mr. Doyle should’ve used his Taser even if he hit Mr. Woolever

-Mr. Doyle should have deployed his baton

-And from Chief Schultz himself…that Mr. Doyle should have gotten on top of Blume and put his knee on Blume’s lower neck.

Use of force experts consulted by the Eye tell us, all these scenarios are nonsense in that they would’ve resulted in either increased jeopardy to the officer or increased injuries to Blume. In fact, we’ve been told that Mr. Doyle’s efforts were consistent with the necessary force one would take if a subject wanted for felony crime were prone on the ground, had a hand or hands in his waistband and was actively resisting another officer while a 2nd subject was unaccounted for. In other words….that which exactly happened that night when a recidivistic felon was apprehended with minimal injuries.

Meanwhile, across town, a skilled lawyer defeated city lawyer Kathy Levy’s deceptive litigation efforts in District Court. Judge Nash justly ordered APD to produce records it denied it existed. Judge Nash also ordered APD to preserve digital cell phone data that it also denied existed. We wonder who will investigate Chief Schultz as the leader of APD for his failure to tell the truth about records kept in his department and the lies represented to the court by his lawyer agent Kathy Levy? Chief Schultz once remarked that he is bound to uphold the “laws and Constitution of the United States and the State of New Mexico.” We here at the Eye would like to remind Chief Schultz that in that statement he commits to upholding Section 1 of the 14th Amendment which states:

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It’s clear that, as a state agent, Chief Schultz’s due process violations of Mr. Doyle are nothing short of a game of “hide the ball” and “move the line.” It’s also clear that when it comes to misconduct by people in the upper echelon of APD and the city of Albuquerque, Chief Schultz will not honor his duties to enforce equal protection of the laws.

This is a difficult question to ask, but we here at the Eye must ask the obvious…If Chief Schultz is so willing to violate the very Constitution he routinely says he’s sworn to protect, what else has he broken?