Posted on 10/18/2021 3:39:51 PM PDT by Enlightened1
BREAKING REPORT: Chicago Threatens to Withhold Retirement Benefits From Police Officers Who Retire Rather than Submit to City's COVID Vaccine Mandate..
https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1450220258204258311
Straight from the Illinois State Constitution. There’s now way they can touch previously negotiated retirement benefits. The ONLY way out of them is a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy.
That’s been litigated all the way to ILSCOTUS a number of times.
L
Thanks! Are Retirement Credentials the same thing as Retirement Benefits?
“I believe the Illinois Supreme Court has basically ruled that state government pensions are untouchable.”
Correct. The only possible way out is a Chapter 9 Bankruptcy.
L
“most of the people that took the jab have 2 to 5 years of life left”
Gone from weeks, to months, and now you give us 2-5 years. I’m passionately pro-choice on vaccines, but you need industrial grade tin foil for your hat!
Not a snowball’s chance in hell that sticks.
The phrase is “retired in good standing.”
Vested pension benefits cannot be denied.
What can be denied is retirement credentials, i.e., a retired star and retired ID card.
Officers who retire while under investigation for a violation for which they could be separated from the department will be considered by the department to have left, “not in good standing.” The Mayor’s Office just needs to begin a blanket complaint investigation of non-compliers and if they retire before it is resolved, they will be leaving “not in good standing”.
They wouldn’t be able to carry firearms under HR 218 for starters.
Not sure; never heard the terminology used before.
I looked in the participant handbook for the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago; I think they’re the entity that actually pays the pension. They don’t mention retirement credentials, but it does appear an employee would have to get some documentation regarding service signed off on by a supervisor in the police department. Without that, you’re not getting pension money.
Just a wild guess, but I think ‘retirement credentials’ is referring to the supervisor sign-off. But don’t quote me on that. LOL
Check this out:
https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/qualified-retired-officer-firearm-credentials/
U.S. federal law, under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), requires a retired or qualified officer possess both a photographic identification issued by his or her agency and an annual firearms qualification certification in order to carry a firearm in all U.S. jurisdictions.1 LEOSA also specifies who is eligible or qualified for these credentials. Though there is flexibility in meeting the firearms qualification requirement, how a former officer meets the photographic identification requirement is quite restrictive. Further, LEOSA does not provide policy or mandate issuance of photo identifications, and where no policy exists, problems can arise. Though many agencies have policies in place, discretionary issuance ultimately lies with the chief of police or agency executive.
LEOSA Definition of “Qualified, Retired”
Those who meet LEOSA criteria are considered qualified retired officers:
(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer
(2) before such separation was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest or apprehension
(3)(A) before such separation served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
(B) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;
(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);
(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.2
Providing they meet the above LEOSA criteria, former officers are eligible to receive photographic identification from their former agency. This does NOT include officers who resigned from their agencies in lieu of being terminated for cause or facing criminal charges.
Expected behavior from the wealthy psychopaths running Chicago.
Most people’s Overton Windows prevent them from even considering such a thing. There are plenty of Freepers who fall into that camp.
Wealthy psychopaths are running our federal government and many states and cities.
It sounds as though these stupid bastards are just trying to get themselves kilt.
arrest, *****, whatever.
This is not only illegal but totally unconstitutional! Congressmen and their staff don't have to be vaccinated.....it is not about health, it is about tyrannical power. Stand for Liberty and Freedom!
I think such actions as blanket investigations of all officers who give notice of retirement would be seen as retribution, financial punishment and abuse of power by many judges.
And negotiated contract terms, like retirement, agreed upon voluntarily by all parties are enforceable...I think this would come down to willful breech of contract...
But I’m not a lawyer...although I’ve been a member of the IBEW for over 20 yrs and witnessed contracts be legally enforced..
Officially announcing this possible punitive action as a threat of financial punishment against union members might also be viewed as intimidation or even extortion...
Desperation is the why IMHO. Their Virtue Signaling is not working very well and they are lashing out at whomever can be used. In this case for the Democrats, the police are, well lets say, convenient for them.
The other thing is that they are desperately trying to hang onto control and power. And lots of police officers retiring along with a skyrocketing crime wave would be just enough to topple Chicago's elite.
Yeah...
...piss off a large number of men who have recent weapon training and also know where a LOT of bodies are buried.
Sounds like a plan to me!
It’s no way even sane.
Only a Lightweight could come up with it.
I never eat them, as you have no way of knowing where they’ve been.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.