I know prosecutors, police officers who have committed multiple state and federal crimes. I've tried contact dozens of media outlets and they are all like "Mmkay".
Lots of people "know" law enforcement that have "committed" multiple "crimes." But when asked what the crimes were, they can't actually articulate any specific acts, or what they do articulate aren't crimes, or they don't have any evidence supporting their claims.
Media outlets love to report on public corruption. It's what gets journalists awards and fame. If they don't believe you, it's not because they're part of some conspiracy, it's because you haven't given them enough evidence to make it worth their while to investigate.
There's no conspiracy, it's just that one single person going to the papers with a story usually isn't that compelling. You don't have enough weight to make them interested.
I guarantee I gave them enough evidence. I've got over a decade of courtroom experience litigating cases, I gave them citations to the statutes down to the paragraph with supporting documentation for all claims. I also had signed confessions from two of the officers. Due to litigation over the matters they were pulled into court, but refused to take the stand under oath and sat outside the courtroom. As an alternative they suggested just signing a confession so they could leave. They didn't want to get cross-examined as it could potentially open up a larger can of worms -- if you're hiding a lot of dirty laundry you don't know what questions will come up under examination; you don't know what the lawyer might know and surprise you with.
Two of them did resign, which protected their pensions/benefits. One of the prosecutors made a come-back as a state legislator though, so a win there for him. (On a side note, while I managed to force that prosecutor to admit to perjury and he was investigated for it, after that incident the state bar regulator seems to have given up -- I got a letter from them regarding another prosecutor stating that they no longer investigate misconduct by prosecutors, only by defense attorneys)
Sorry but I stopped believing the story when you said "I had signed confessions" since that's not something two cops would ever just do to avoid getting cross examined when they could just plead the 5th without consequence, especially given that signed confessions would cause serious consequences.
refused to take the stand under oath and sat outside the courtroom
you don't know what the lawyer might know and surprise you with.
??? This seems like a Hollywood-based vision of how trials work. In real life, there are no such surprises at trial because both sides already know what the other side knows; it all comes out in discovery. See, e.g., the Epic v Google trial right now, where all of the "surprise" testimony by the witnesses is actually stuff that both parties learned in discovery months ago. Any dirty laundry should have been investigated during the discovery phase of litigation...any litigator with even a year or two of experience would know that...since the type of dirty laundry that would lead to "signed confessions" would be the kind of dirty laundry that lets you avoid the expense of having to go to trial.
I especially don't believe the part about the letter where the state bar supposedly admitted to only investigating misconduct by prosecutors, since even if that was a policy by any state bar (it's not) it's not something they would ever admit in writing.
At this point, you'd need to name names, because everything sounds like a poorly-written L&O knockoff.
