The sheriff of Bristol County in Massachusetts, Thomas Hodgson, is tough when it comes to law and order and how much that is part of being a true patriotic American. He speaks often of the need to follow the law or face the consequences and is not kind in dealing with or speaking of those who ignore that.

However, by his actions his words are erased.

He is a prime example of what many people decried about a law enforcement mentality during the protests and marches for police reform in the summer of 2020. While following the law is required of the citizens in a community and they must accept the treatment at time of arrest as it is meted out no matter how exaggerated and life threatening, and the punishment decided at adjudication, on the other hand, law enforcement is beyond the law, and its actions cannot be questioned, nor any subsequent negative action be taken no matter how clear a violation of policy or law that action is.

In the war to end this division of expectations, the sheriff stands firmly on the side that believes law enforcement’s duty toward the community is not to protect and serve it, but for the community to obey it and behave.

The sheriff has a history of this double standard.

Until the local Department of Health found some violations when it held an inspection the sheriff had claimed his facilities were better kept than most places, and those who criticized him were only motivated by politics. In his defense for those violations, the sheriff’s office released a statement that ignored the head of the DPH’s having said, when asked, that the state typically does not categorize violations as major or minor, and will allow the report to speak for itself, and that said,

“The violations found in the kitchen are minor and will likely be found in any large-scale industrial or commercial kitchen. Our kitchen makes and serves thousands of meals every day, runs 24 hours a day on all three shifts and has roughly 50-60 people working in it daily…Any equipment they found not working was repaired and most of the violations were corrected on site right in front of the inspectors.”

“Right in front of the inspectors” seems less like an admission of proper behavior than admitting to having to do something in front of the people who discovered the offense.

Would those things have been brought up to code without the inspection, and if that were the case, why the violations’ being there to be discovered during the inspection.

And further stated that,

“Any issues the DPH found are very minor and the inspection also presented an opportunity for the DPH and the BCSO to dispel many of the lies and other outrageous claims left-wing political activism groups keep peddling in the media and on social media”.

A dispelling that could not be done as any actions taken to dispel the “lies and other outrageous claims” had  only proven them true.

During the opening weeks of the COVID pandemic, the sheriff, in defending against reports he was falling short of what was needed to keep his facilities safe, had said,

“We have protocols. We make adjustments. We pay attention to the CDC.”

However, the DPH found that, although the manual outlined steps and actions to take on the flu, H1N1, AIDS and other communicable diseases, it had no changes made to it since its last update in 2017 with nothing regarding COVID. The sheriff offered as his defense that

“there was a separate COVID protocol that was constantly changing and evolving as CDC, DPH, and others kept adapting their recommendations and guidance. Typically, we add new sections to the infection control manual after the acute phase has passed because of the frequency of changes and updates.”

One would think someone would have written the protocols down and put them in the file any time there was a change if, as the sheriff insisted, they were being assiduously followed.

And they were followed, but starting after the inspection, again, as if correcting a discovered inefficiency means it had never been there even when it was found 3.5 months after the beginning of the pandemic while all that time concerned people both on the inside and the outside of his facilities demanded and recommended updated protocols be followed with the sheriff claiming they were.

When  Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey called on the secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security in the spring of 2020, weeks before the May 1 disturbance, to investigate the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office citing concerns about suicides and allegations of “harsh or unhealthy” conditions at the two county-run jails based on documents presented to her, Hodgson claimed in characteristic terms that investigating him based on documents presented to her, was politically motivated and an effort to intimidate “those who uphold the laws” even though such an investigation had the possibility of clearing him and silencing critics.   

It was “rank politics on the part of the AG. She ought to be ashamed of herself.”

As advocates addressed releasing non-violent ICE detainees that had not broken any law beyond being here without the proper papers, the sheriff’s spokesperson released a statement saying,

“We suspect these detainees are working with outside political activist groups to use the coronavirus crisis to advance their political agenda.”

And, as Corona virus began to show up at the house of corrections and people’s concerns were being validated, a press release stated,

“Any headlines or press releases from political activist organization claiming infections or outbreaks are completely false and reckless.” 

Even after the earlier report was released, the sheriff’s office released a statement saying,

“These falsehoods are spread in the Letter to the Editor section of The Standard-Times by these political groups, so this inspection report gives us another opportunity to dispel this politically motivated and hateful misinformation campaign directed at Sheriff Hodgson and the correctional professionals of the Bristol County Sheriff Office.”

It was not just radical, progressive, anti-Trump Democrats who were finding fault over the years. I found that in the early years of this century while touting his fiscal responsibility on a Republican website, one person had asked,

     “How can Hodgson claim such when he is unable to manage his finances? Unable to pay medical and utility bills. Need to call in National Guard because he is facing a budget shortfall. A good manager with fiscal conservatism is able to manage the budget and if forecasting a shortfall finds innovative ways to meet the goals of the organization (in this case: Care, Custody and Control)”

This is a man who rather than take responsibility for his actions, welcomes the praise as well deserved and any criticism as someone else’s exercising politics.

It is in the law and order department that his dangerous examples of his selective acceptance of law and his responsibility and what a disservice he is to local law enforcement and members of the community, especially the youth, shines.

In objecting to H 3034, Sheriff Hodgson said the bill would “show once again that personal political agendas are more important than keeping our citizens and legal residents safe.”

In May 2017, the Massachusetts House voted 120 to 35 in support of H 3034 which prevents the use of inmate labor beyond the borders of Massachusetts. Republicans, of which the sheriff is one, may have seen this as tying the sheriff’s hands too tightly and objected because an existing law allows work release programs “within the commonwealth” and allows inmates to provide services for “municipalities within the county”, so this specific limitation was implied.

This being the case, when the sheriff announced at his 2017 swearing in that January,

    “I’m making a formal offer to President-elect Trump, that inmates from Bristol County and from across the nation, through Project N.I.C.E., will help build that wall,”

either the law is not as clear as the Republicans at the State House said it was, or Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson had simply decided to ignore it.

Sheriff Hodgson said the bill would “show once again that personal political agendas are more important than keeping our citizens and legal residents safe.”

However, wouldn’t ignoring the existing law in such a public way also fit this description as his plan was based on his pro-Trump, attention getting political agenda and his example that laws can be simply ignored?

Rather than have a counseling program to help those in his jails who are addicts or suffer from mental illness, while dismissing any calls for or suggestions of the appropriate programs, he believes reading the Bible is good rehabilitation. He once explained that in giving advice to a celebrity inmate, he told him to,

“Always remember that God writes straight with crooked lines. What that means is something’s going to click for you, or somebody’s going to say something, or an experience will happen that you don’t know where it came from but it somehow altered your mood, your attitude, your perspective on life. You won’t be able to understand where it came from, it just happened. So we talk about that kind of thing.”

Yet, when it comes to the psychological needs of those under his watch, he also has admitted,

“I’m not a psychologist — I don’t have any background in it”.

Yet his above stated belief trumps programs that are run by those who are psychologist and have a background in it.

That inmate had to be transferred because of his lawyer’s charges of mistreatment by the sheriff and committed suicide at the next jail.

Not long ago, an inmate was found in his cell at the Bristol County Sheriff’s Ash Street jail and pronounced dead by paramedics. There had been a social media discussion describing a number of signs indicating his intent to commit suicide, but a sheriff’s spokesman claimed that the prisoner

 “didn’t give any indication […] to wanting to take his own life, nor did he have any prior history or exhibit any suicidal behaviors or statements since he arrived in custody.”

In June between the latest suicides, the sheriff boasted of his officers’ participation in “Zero Suicide Framework” training along with the jail’s medical provider, Correctional Psychiatric Services, giving the appearance that things were being addressed. This is a common tactic of the sheriff, claiming programs are in place to address problems, while the reality is that such programs are fluff.

In an appearance on a news outlet in another state, Hodgson spoke about some impending ICE raids.

“These are people that are being targeted because not only did they knowingly violate the law and enter this country illegally, then after doing that, were given due process before the courts, like anyone else in America. And, now they don’t like the decision of the judge that told them ‘you must leave the United States and be removed.’ Now, they’re saying, ‘I’m going to thumb my nose at that too.’

Obey the law and respect the decisions of the judge, is what he wants.

Use him as you example how that is done.

He has self-righteously criticized elected officials and local law enforcement who objected to a federal agency, ICE, creating an unnecessary adversarial and potentially dangerous relationship within local communities between police and people by having raids and representing ICE as the local police saying,

“Now we have elected officials who are saying they’re going to protect them, undermine a judge’s ruling and law enforcement and expose us to even greater dangers when we try and round these people up.”

And about lawbreakers in general he has pronounced,

“We’re a country of laws, a county of laws, and we expect people to abide by the laws, and when you don’t, we expect people to understand that there’s going to be consequences for it.”

In an email sent in August 2017, one of one of 74 emails Hodgson had sent to Stephen Miller at the White House, the sheriff wrote,

“Stephen, thought you might like to see samples of cards I discovered in a holder at the back of [my church]in Dartmouth, MA. While attending mass last Sunday, I noticed a holder on a table near the entrance marked, ‘ICE-Immigration’ and noticed the three stacks of colored cards. Trying to determine if this is an isolated situation or a common occurrence in other parish churches.”

The diocese stance that the church had followed was,

     “The Catholic Church has consistently taught of a moral obligation to provide support and care to newcomers among us. Providing information to non-English speaking persons to help them understand their rights under U.S. law is but one example of a parish putting this teaching into practice at the local level.”

He chose to not only ignore a church teaching by implying that in the local church’s following the Mother Church’s teaching some law was being violated, but in the process, he violated The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

He went on to promise,

“My undercover units are poised and ready for whatever we can do to identify and expedite the arrest and removal of criminal illegal alien. Our discussion regarding a hotline is clearly relevant.”

This violation was not a one-off, but it was going to be, by his own admission, an intentional, on-going violation of the law.

When called on this, his defense was,

“Did I ask the White House to spy on my or any other church? No. Did I say the literature was suspicious? No.”

He might not have asked the White House “to spy on my or any other churches”, but he certainly volunteered his “undercover unit” to do it, and if he didn’t say the literature was suspicious, he certainly acted as if it were, writing to Steven Miller without first talking to the pastor of the church and only then after his emails were uncovered two years later.

Finally, we have him misrepresenting what his job actually is, and how desperate he is to make it something it is not, when he encapsulated it this gem from letter,

“Like our faith leaders, I too have an obligation to save and protect souls, but in a different way as a law enforcement professional.”

As the pandemic was being seen for what it was becoming, Massachusetts prosecutors called for a “cite and release” policy for offenders who didn’t pose a risk to public safety such as those either guilty of minor offenses or awaiting trial for one. District Attorneys of Suffolk, Middlesex, Northwestern, and Berkshire Counties urged “the release of detainees who cannot afford cash bail and those who are vulnerable to infection because of age or health conditions,” hoping that “every prosecutor across the state will take decisive actions to limit the number of cases they bring and keep people out of jail as this unprecedented public health crisis continues to unfold.”

But Sheriff Hodgson’s knee-jerk reaction, precluding any consideration was,

“We have no current plans to release inmates in the manners you described. We continue to monitor the Corona virus situation; it is fluid and changing daily.”

Bristol County for Correctional Justice and the ACLU criticized him for his decision to reflexively reject the proposal to thin the inmate population, and his dismissive response was,

“I wouldn’t much entertain or care about what the social justice groups think about my staff, who come from their homes every day and work in an environment that is dangerous and have extra responsibilities at this time.”

Henceforth, for then buy viagra without rx has given oral jam and delicate tab cases for simpler utilize. cialis with its generic drugs remembers in the 100mg frame along these lines to lets the adequate measure of blood stream to the penile zone. Next, we cheap buy viagra meet the doctors and furnish our medical history report to update them on your own. This report launched a whole new profile of generic soft viagra users. discount viagra pills I did have metastatic prostate cancer and that is why, treatment of prostate cancer which usually involves a complete elimination of circulating testosterone.

No one had criticized his staff, only him.

 Besides, rather than to address the conditions which led to the disturbasnce at the ICE detention center and the subsequent reports that showed the reality of conditions in his facilities ias far from the rosy, fully under control conditions the sheriff consistently presented to the lublic and state government, he would rathis dismiss real concerns as,

 “The motto of the left-wing activist groups, abolish-ICE advocates, Prisoners’ Legal Services and plain anti-Trumpers has always been, and continues to be, ‘Don’t let the facts interfere with your political agenda.’”

What they had actually done was to propose solutions to the problems they saw. They suggested priority be given to

“those with serious medical conditions, others awaiting trial for inability to pay bail, and those who have been jailed for technical probation and parole violations. Anyone who is infected with the virus should be quarantined off site, but not at home, so as not to infect family members and friends.”

But, no, labels are easier than action.

Concerning a court decision about the Bristol County House of correction as a result of complaints, the sheriff was quick to accept the parts in his favor like

“The Court previously noted several protective measures that BCHOC has put in place since February, including restricting contact with outsiders, performing temperature screenings, and splitting up detainees during meals and recreation… The court recognizes the commendable efforts of the BCHOC staff, which have been operating in difficult and risky conditions where much is unknown. It is necessary to point this out given that, while the Court and the attorneys have been conferring remotely due to the pandemic, the dedicated professionals at BCHOC continue to perform their duties on site. That is no small thing,”

which actually praised his staff, not him, and crowed,

“the judge praised the Bristol County House of Corrections for its Herculean efforts in following the CDC guidelines and places themselves at the frontlines of danger every day, unlike anyone in these vocal political activist groups. Contrary to the misleading ramblings of these groups, one only needs to actually read the words of the judge’s opinion to ascertain the truth.”

However, when it came to the negative parts that validated the “misleading ramblings of “these vocal political activist groups” he was quick to say,

“I absolutely disagree with Judge Young’s decision” while also declaring that the judge had “far exceeded his authority.”

If people were to “actually read the words of the judge’s opinion to ascertain the truth” as the sheriff suggests with the hope of no follow up to actually do so, they would see that the court had also ruled:

     “Nonetheless there remains critical safety gaps that establish a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary equitable relief.  Testing of both Staff and detainees has been minimal, so the real infection rate is a mystery.”

      “A related problem is the “insufficient and ad hoc contact tracing of detainees and BCHOC staff who may have interacted with COVID-19 positive individuals.”
       “Of particular concern is the contradictory evidence in the record regarding monitoring of those Detainees who are especially vulnerable to COVID-19.”
      “Had the Court stayed its hand little or no progress would have been made at BCHOC towards accurately determining the virus presence among the Detainees and Staff and towards effectively separating potential carriers from others…”

      “Keeping individuals confined closely together in the presence of a potentially lethal virus, while neither knowing who is carrying it nor taking effective measures to find out, likely displays deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm. That is what the evidence shows here.”

The only response to this report was to allow conditions to continue as they were, resulting in the May 1, 2020 disturbance.

Any concern about COVID in his facilities were dismissed with such statements as,

“Any headlines or press releases from political activist organization claiming infections or outbreaks are completely false and reckless,” and 

“There are lawyers who represent clients in our custody that are spreading lies and rumors around the community to advance their personal political agendas in a time of national crisis,”

As COVID numbers increased.

A lawsuit was filed against the sheriff alleging the phone contract at his facilities was a scheme to get illegal kickbacks, but US District Court Judge Indira Talwani found that the contract was legal under Massachusetts law saying, and this is important,

     “Plaintiffs’ concern that the Sheriff is generating revenue through charges paid by inmates’ families and attorneys for phone service is timely as our communities consider how the criminal justice system may best achieve its stated goals. However, these policy questions are for the Legislature not the court.” 

Although judge made it clearly obvious that the action of the sheriff may not be moral, as it is not prevented by law, he can’t be sued as he is breaking no law.

This distinction was easily missed by Sheriff Law and Order who announced,

“For years, we have had to defend ourselves from unmitigated attacks by political activists who have been non-stop accusing us of ‘illegal kickbacks’ and profiteering on inmate phone calls. Now, the federal court has unequivocally told us that our actions were proper.”

Um, no.

Legal does not mean proper. The law might have been that Escaped Slaves must be returned, doing so was immoral to those who objected to slavery. Hiding Anne Frank was moral, but illegal.

He also stated,

“As usual, I will not hold my breath waiting for any apologies for all the hateful and defamatory comments made about the Sheriff’s Office or myself. Rather, the BCSO will continue to provide top-notch care and custody to the inmates and the community it serves while insuring that every effort is made to minimize the burden on taxpayers.”

And then there was May 1, 2020.

It was discovered that the tie the sheriff sports in his official portrait in the lobby of the House of Corrections has what is known as an “Anglo-Confederate society” design and this was made public. Considering it was during the racial strife of the summer of 2020, the adult thing to do would have been to admit times had rendered it offensive and a picture without such an implied symbol would replace it, apologies, even if weak and empty could be made, and the issue would have died. Instead, ignoring how it was perceived by others, the sheriff denied that any white supremacist, confederate message was being sent by it because he had seen the red of the tie, the blue of the band, and the white of the stars and the borders on the blue bands as the colors of the American flag stating that the design “represents what it means to be American”  and stating,

“I wore the tie in this 17-year-old photo because it had patriotic colors (red, white and blue), and not because it ‘resembled’ some fringe neo-anglo-confederate-whatever group from hundreds of years ago that I’d never heard of until yesterday.” 

 Okay, that was then. This is now.

We grow.

First, the war to keep slavery wasn’t “hundreds of years ago”, and in recent years the use of the Confederate Battle flag has the very meaning of representing fringe neo-anglo-confederate-whatever groups, he knows that, and even if he only heard about this aspect of the tie yesterday, he admitted learning about it, so his taking appropriate action is not too extreme of an expectation.

He knows how people see that tie, but he chooses not to accept that what the tie symbolizes is what had prevented, and still does prevent certain citizens of this country from having opportunities.

It obviously means more to him than just a patriotic piece of clothing or just a nice tie.

He knows it has a meaning and sends a targeted message. And, so it remains.

As talk of Sanctuary Cities and Safe Communities began to increase because of the Miller/Trump policies toward immigrants and refugees, and elected officials and local law enforcement began to object to a federal agency creating an unnecessary adversarial and potentially dangerous relationship within local communities between police and people by having raids and representing ICE as the local police, Hodgson condemned this saying,

“Now we have elected officials who are saying they’re going to protect them, undermine a judges ruling and law enforcement and expose us to even greater dangers when we try and round these people up.”

A statement that, with a few changes, describes the sheriff each time a court or the Attorney general makes a ruling or recommendation that does not promote his chosen image, would become,

“Now we have a sheriff , who says he’s going to protect us, undermining a judge’s ruling and ignoring the Attorney General and exposing us to even greater danger by showing by example and his objections to a judge and an Attorney General that a good citizen who loves God and country can ignore the laws they just don’t agree with.”

In response to Trump’s over the top utterances about having polling places patrolled by the likes of militia groups even though, until he played his fear card, local law enforcement had been keeping order at them, legislation was filed that would bar state and county law enforcement officials at polling places and keeping it to the local law enforcement in each town and city while having state and county respond if needed only. Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson objected, but his pseudo-righteous indignation revealed his disdain for local law enforcement.

He tweeted that the proposed bill is

“one of the most outrageous bills I can remember. …Why would anyone want to prohibit law enforcement from protecting the rights of the citizens of Massachusetts?”,

and in so doing, while crowing about law, he illustrated clearly that he ignored the law that defines his job so that he could appear to be more than he is, the supervisor of inmates and employees at the county’s jails and Houses of Correction, who creates and employs a budget, and makes sure inmates get to and from court, as if without him, local low enforcement would be unable to do the jobs they have successfully done.

Meanwhile a local police chief, when asked,

“what plans have you and your Department considered or have decided to implement on November 3rd (or before) if this situation arises, to keep voters safe and not intimidated?”,

replied,

 “We will have a police officer present at every polling location in town for the duration that the polling location is in operation.  This plan may be amended should specific intelligence be developed that would require a higher level of protection at certain locations.  We have always worked closely with the Town Clerk to ensure that polling locations are safe and free from intimidation.” 

Damn that local law enforcement hating law enforcement guy.

After the Attorney General’s Office completed an investigation of the May 1, 2020 disturbance at his ICE detention center that had been welcomed by the sheriff who had declared immediately after the event,

“If we are falling short, we need to know why and what we can do to fix it,”

but, instead of favoring the sheriff, determined

“Our investigation revealed that the Bristol County Sheriff’s Office violated the rights of detainees by using excessive force and by seriously risking their health and safety. This callous disregard for the well-being of immigration detainees is unacceptable and must be addressed through the significant reforms we outline in our report,”

this paragon of law and order and respect for those who enforce it responded

“shame on Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey for demonizing the corrections and law enforcement professionals at the Bristol County Sherriff’s Office with her latest politically motivated stunt” that was “littered with baseless allegations and assumptions, and was clearly written and released to advance her long-documented anti-ICE, pro-illegal immigrant political agenda.”

And because the report did not agree with his projected image, he told the public that he will take any of the AG’s recommendations about as seriously as trash

“halfway down the sewer pipe. That’s about how much value I put into the attorney general’s recommendations.”

He then demanded to know of the state’s highest lawyer and law enforcement official,

 “How dare she say she expects me to follow them.” ( an  Mmm-Hmmm bobble of the head and a crisp finger snap to the right).

Perhaps in past days when the time was that racism, xenophobia, macho posturing, and finding the little punishments that, although small, if built up over time could really harm someone were what made some authority figures appear tough, what the sheriff does would go unnoticed.

But we, as a society, have grown.

Perhaps there has been a division growing, too obvious to some and totally invisible to others, between the police and the communities wherein they work. Perhaps a cycle has been started where the militarization of the police stimulates a more aggressive response from the community that has become an ever-revolving, ever-expanding chicken or egg cycle where beginning conversations will be rough until humanity enters the discourse.

How can anyone explain away the inequitable application of the law when it comes to community members and the police if the county sheriff has repeatedly shown that with him, anyway, the inequitable is the default mode,

Rather than look at the most recent misstep by the sheriff and look for excuses to let it slide because, well, “That’s our Tom”, those in positions to do so, and that includes his employers, the county taxpayers, should look at the totality of the long outdated racism, xenophobia, macho posturing, and finding the petty little punishments that has no place here.

The best example for us to follow in obeying and respecting law enforcement and judges is to have a very public figure model that behavior.

Sheriff Hodgson is not that example.

Not by a long shot.