Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund

35 Comments

Tags:

This week's road to Roguedom stretches all the way from Oregon to our nation's capital, where the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund has sent out a gut-wrenching plea for contributions that doesn't pass the sniff test.

The unmistakable scent of skulduggery emanates from a 10-page LELDF letter signed by Mrs. Alice Mohr, the mother of a suburban Washington, D.C., cop.

According to the letter, which recently surfaced in Oregon, former Prince George's County police officer Stephanie Mohr faces 10 years in federal prison on bogus charges stemming from a "textbook" 1995 arrest using a police dog. "She lost her savings. She lost her career," writes Stephanie's mom. "And now she could lose her...beautiful 2-year-old son, Adam."

We'll ignore the fact that Alice Mohr's account of events leaves out a few key details, including testimony from a fellow officer that Stephanie Mohr released the dog on two homeless men at the urging of a colleague who wanted the dog to "take a bite" out of the burglary suspects, who were not resisting the officers.

We'll ignore the fact that during the 1990s the Prince George's police dogs bit, on average, 100 people a year, prompting a federal investigation.

What really makes this sales pitch roguish is that even if you believe that Stephanie Mohr deserves some cash, the LELDF is not the way to get it to her. According to tax records filed with the Oregon attorney general's office, the D.C.-based nonprofit received $2.42 million in contributions in 2000 and spent only $182,353 defending cops. That means if you sent them a $10 check for Stephanie, she and other cops could expect to get about 75 cents.

Victoria Cox, who monitors charities for the AG's office, says she has received an inquiry about the solicitation but can't do anything because the LELDF (which doesn't have a listed phone number) does give away some money. So, it seems, the only way to stop the group is to cut off their cash supply and ignore Ma Mohr's plaintive come-on.

02.06.2003 at 05:50 Reply

Story Forum Archive

Whoever wrote this story must be a Clinton-Gore bleeding heart liberal. In other words, you're on the outside looking, wouldn't dare go to a 7-11 after dark..unless a police officer was there....you're a coward....any problems you can speak to me face to face. —Sgt. Richard Spencer

05.22.2003 at 07:35 Reply

Liberal police hater, stop crying I read your brief article regarding Stephanie Mohr and the LELDF. Your article must have been written for the New York Times with its lies and innuendos. Its truly unfortunate that you never bothered to get the facts before posting such an inaccurate story. There are too many inaccuracies in your tart letter to address them all; However, an impartial reader must remember that Stephanie was tried twice. In the first trial she was acquitted of one charge and the jury voted 11 to 1 NOT GUILTY on a second charge. But the liberal, Clinton-apponted judge, declared a mistrial so the government could re-try Stephanie. In the second trial, race was made the issue and Stephanie was convicted. You and your liberal friends should be happy. PG County is a more violent place thanks to your great work. Meanwhile, I just sent off another big $$$$ donation to LELDF. God Bless America! GOD BLESS STEPHANIE MOHR! —Tim Cordero

05.23.2003 at 11:50 Reply

alice mohr leldf Obviously you don't have the true facts of this case. The "fellow" officer that you talk of whose testimony led to the conviction had reaons to testify as he did. (He was charged with another crime and told he would receive a lesser sentence in return for testifying against the k-9 officer). Please keep your newspaper on the west coast, we have enough liberal papers in Washington, D.C. area already. —pfc. Long

06.01.2003 at 12:51 Reply

Smells like Skulduggery in your editorial also! Please, make sure you have the facts correct when you pen an editorial about a subject. You state that "Alice Mohr's account of events leaves out a few key details". So does your one sentence in your story about the whole incident. You should have checked your research a little better. If you knew the full story, you would know what it's like in this county; you would have known the facts of this case, and you would probably be donating money to the cause through the LELDF. I also find it hard to believe that you throw in the LELDF does not have a listed phone number, leading your readers -- at least the ones who are missing some brain cells -- to believe that this is some kind of a scam -- they must not be legit if the Willamette Weekly can't find their phone number. If you really wanted to provide a well written editorial, you could have with no problem. But you didn't. You chose to write an editorial without knowing all the facts. You should take more responsibility and remember you are affecting family members and friends when people read incomplete opinions like this. —Debbi

06.02.2003 at 12:32 Reply

LELDF What you write is absolutely shocking. I have been supporting the LELDF for years, but I never suspected that they were just keeping almost all the money for themselves. Can you send me documentation of this? I would be very grateful! —Carl Goldberg

12 3 4 5 6 Next »

A Lovers' Guide to Tonight's Blazers/Wizards Game: An Almost Live Special Report

Valentine's Day in the Naked City: Couple Arrested After Sex Role-Playing in Grocery Parking Lot

Washington State Senate Approves CRC Tolls

Sam Adams is on Yelp

Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund