They post on Youtube as the Subie Sisters aka The Patriot Dames.
Picture courtesy of PC Apostate. Thank you Chris Womak:)
She has been a cop now for 15 years and is apparently close to retirement and a pension. Why she was hired in the first place is a mystery. Back in 1991 the following report was made:
"Undependable, walks off the job (quits) when things don't go her way; job history is deplorable, has not had a steady job for any length of time; several references of insubordination. She claims that she has had so many jobs because she doesn't like direction…
"Has worked 20 years and has nothing to show for it (heavily in debt)," he continued. "Applicant is shallow and does not accept criticism well."
The board's opinion, dated July 31, 1991, was unanimous: Purtee was not acceptable.
On Nov. 10, records show, the city hired her anyway.
She was 100th in her class of 116 at St. Francis DeSales High School, and at the time of her interview was driving an uninsured car.
"Seems to use poor judgment on big decisions," wrote Kim Jacobs, now a division commander.
"Does not like people telling her what to do," wrote Lt. Rickert M. Shewring. "Very opinionated. Is judgmental about people."
Board members noted that she had married and divorced twice, once to a man 32 years her senior and then to a man she met at her first husband's funeral who "left country due to immigration problems," in the words of one reviewer.
After a year of marriage, that husband borrowed all of Purtee's money, $1,500, and left the country because he didn't have his green card, the background report said. They divorced in 1986.
I don't understand why this hasn't made cable news or network news yet. I thought, according to the Subie sisters at least, that the Joooos controlled the media:)
The Utube Blog reports that Purtee has been reassigned to a desk job for now and offers the following opinion about Purtee and free speech:
Analysis: I was interviewed yesterday by a local radio station about whether the officer can be disciplined or whether her speech is protected by the First Amendment. The short answer is: Under Supreme Court case law, I believe the Columbus Police Department can discipline Officer Purtee — even fire her — without any First Amendment problem. (I can’t speak to the City’s internal employee regulations or code of conduct.)
The test under the First Amendment for speech by a public employee is twofold: (1) “Whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” and (2) if so, “whether the government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public,” such as restricting “speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951, 1958 (2006).
In this case, it’s at least debatable whether the speech in the videos involve a “matter of public concern.” If they don’t, then there’s no First Amendment claim for the public employee. But even if they do involve matters of public concern, the government has discretion to restrict speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations. In this case, the Columbus Police Department would have a very strong basis to conclude that racially incendiary videos disseminated by a police officer — even while off-duty — can undermine the public’s trust and confidence in the police department, and in the fair and equal administration of law enforcement. Courts would give a lot of leeway to the police department in this kind of case.
In an audio available at the Vanguard News Network. One idiot white supremacist admits to be in contact with Purtee by email, and stated that in the near future he expects the Subie Sisters to be featured on the network. Vanguard's motto "No Jews, Just Right."
What do you think about Purtee still being on the force?