U.S Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
2901 Leon C. Simon Blvd.
New Orleans, LA 70126
504-816-3000
June 12, 2003
June 12, 2003
Mr. Steve W. Carlsen-Crowell
2111 Westbend Pkwy. #233
N.O.,LA 70114
Dear Mr. Crowell,
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) received your letter dated May 25, 2003. After reviewing its' contents we have determined there is no violation over which the FBI has jurisdiction.
If you receive any further information you feel may be evidence of a federal crime, please forward the information to the FBI.
Sincerely yours,
Louis M. Reigel, III
Special Agent in Charge
BY: (signed) Charles L. McGinty
Supervisory Special Agent
“No Federal violation?”
This is hard to believe. In a 1984 letter the USDOT Motor
Vehicle Safety Compliance Safety Director mentions a “trade off of passenger
safety”, with the use of partitions, which are not certified, or in compliance
with Federal Standards. This so-called “trade off of passenger safety” is not
only blatantly illegal under any circumstances, but it is done in the name of
hollow allegations that partitions protect drivers in assault scenarios.
There is a 1997 Federally funded study out of North Carolina
State University authored by Dr. John Randolph Stone, which contends that
partitions are viable because they satisfy a cost/benefit ratio analysis. The
contention asserts that a 20% drop in cab driver assault results in a decline
in emergency medical care expenditure. When that amount of cost is compared to
the cost of partition installation, it is revealed that Stone believes that an
INCREASE in cab driver murder is tolerable and actually beneficial, because it
is less costly.
Of course ‘medical attention costs’ for fatal assault
attempts on cab drivers is costlier than BURIAL. This assertion is nigh on
Genocide.
Additionally, there exists a scenario where widespread
cowardly vicious felonies are bragged about openly by police officers
nationwide. When an officer uses inertia to thrust the handcuffed prisoners’
face into the steel grid of the illegal partition by slamming on the brakes,
what we have is institutionalized police brutality. Is it not the venue of the
FBI to address civil rights violations? Police departments, nationwide, buy
substandard partitions and then assert that because they are in the business of
public safety and law enforcement they have the right to use substandard
dangerous illegal equipment. This is inversely logical and disgusting.
I have started production and sales of a partition design
which addresses all of the drawbacks of conventional partition design only to
be put out of business with unfair bidding practices and illegal restraint of
trade measures committed by police departments.
Police officers have been rendered unconscious in high speed
rear-end collisions by impact with the partition and as a result perish in the
occasional fire because they do not exit the vehicle when it catches on fire. A
less rigid design would help to minimize this likelihood.
Police departments have an obligation to provide a safe work
environment. When they choose partition designs, which do little or nothing to
preclude the intrusion of possibly contaminating bodily fluids from the rear
seat into the front seat area, these departments are not doing all that is
reasonable to provide a safe work environment. Officers and sensitive equipment
are at risk because many of the partition designs allow bodily fluid
transmission from the back seat. My design also addresses this.
If you actually read the letter that I sent on May 25th,
2003, you will be aware of the fact that it is not just I who has noticed these
hazards, which are illegal. The letter also quotes many doctors who are aware
of the hazards.
I know it is not the business of the FBI to see that I can
sell partitions. It is, however, the business of the FBI to be certain that
these current scenarios be addressed. One of your agents once told me that the
‘FBI will never, never, never, never” address this issue. Charles Cunningham
seemed to understand, last April, that this is wrong.
The USDOT should enforcing mandatory standards, not
endorsing their subversion.
Police departments should be aware that what is used is
illegal and they (police departments) should not ban compliant partitions. They
have banned partitions, which are compliant. They have also gone as far as to
require the removal of compliance certification labels.
Will your office please address these issues before more
officers and other members of the public, such as people in cab industry, are
killed because of illegal partition hazards?
Thank you,
Steve Crowell
Crowell Manufacturing Co.
No comments:
Post a Comment