Skip to main content

Statement as Delivered by Special Agent in Charge Diego Rodriguez on This Morning’s Arrests

Early this morning, FBI agents and detectives from the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau effected the arrests of 12 men, all but two of whom are current or former law enforcement officers. The arrests are the culmination of a long-term FBI undercover investigation.

The criminal complaint lays out a scheme of brazen misconduct that include the illegal transportation of stolen cigarettes and stolen slot machines, the illegal transportation firearms, and the illegal transportation of defaced firearms.

The weapons included three M-16 rifles, one shotgun, and 16 handguns.

All of these crimes were seemingly committed for one simple reason: money. For their participation in the various schemes—cigarettes, slot machines, guns—the defendants were paid handsomely.

What they didn’t know was that two of the key members of the conspiracy were an FBI informant and an undercover operative introduced by the informant.

It goes without saying that crimes of this sort are reprehensible—particularly conspiring to import untraceable guns and assault rifles into New York.

When sworn public servants of any stripe—but especially sworn law enforcement officers—abuse their positions and commit crimes, it undermines public confidence in all of us.

Law enforcement officers are rightly held to a higher standard of conduct than the public at large. We accept that and embrace it. It is fundamental to the work we do.

At a very minimum, the public has the right to expect that those sworn to enforce the law will themselves abide by the law.

I want to thank the U.S. Attorney and his staff. And I want to emphasize the strong partnership with the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, Chief Campesi, and Commissioner Kelly. And I want to commend the work of FBI case agents Kenneth Hosey and William Inzerillo and supervisors Robert Hennigan and Gavin Shea.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...