Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Official Connecticut, Too Little, Too Late?

From CTnewjunkie:

GAE Passes Krayeske Bill

by Christine Stuart | March 26, 2007 10:38 PM
Posted to State Capitol

The General Administration and Elections Committee passed a bill Monday that would give a legislative panel supervision over law enforcement lists like the one which prompted Ken Krayeske’s arrest during the governor’s inaugural parade.

The bill 6249 was passed 9 to 4 and now heads to the Judiciary Committee for approval.

Rep. John Hetherington, R-New Canaan, one of the four Republicans who voted against the bill, said the legislation is a “disproportionate” response to the arrest. He said the charges against Krayeske were dropped and he now has the right to pursue a civil lawsuit against those involved in the arrest. Using this logic, Hetherington concluded the system is already set up with checks and balanced.

GAE Co-Chairman, Rep. Christopher Caruso, D-Bridgeport, said if a group of legislators hadn’t immediately spoken out on this issue it may have had an entirely different outcome. He advocated the need for legislative oversight.

Comments (1)

Posted by: Steven G. Erickson | March 27, 2007 6:46 PM

Ken has opened up the gates.

For police to feel that comfortable passing out memos of who to arrest and then the subject is arrested on sight, it says they have had a lot of practice at being this arrogant and Unconstitutional, probably for decades.

How many prison cells are filled with those that would not be if they were not on the secret Connecticut State Police "Enemies List"?

What about them?

Should legislation be passed so they get justice and relief?

What about their families and children?

Monday, March 26, 2007

Connecticut's "Worthless" Police

Sex, Violence and Politics, aka The Smolinski Case

by CTNJ Webmeister | March 26, 2007 10:44 AM
Posted to Legal

Jim Brewer photo

Jim Brewer photo

Editor’s note: This column by Jim Brewer is reprinted courtesy of The Cool Justice Report

Police reports about the Smolinski Missing Person Love Triangle Case are scheduled to be released to the public next month, giving Billy Smolinski’s family a shred of hope that the investigation will finally generate some results.

“The worst part is not knowing,” Billy Smolinski’s mother, Jan Smolinski, told The Cool Justice Report during a two-hour interview last month. “When Billy first disappeared, we knew something was wrong, but we couldn’t get the police to do much.

“There are good days and bad days,” she said. “The good thing is that we have met so many others that have experienced the same problems.”

Billy Smolinski, a rugged six-footer at 200 pounds, disappeared from his house on Holly Street in Waterbury on Aug. 24, 2004. He was 31 years old. The tow truck driver was not known as someone who would go away quietly. He was also devoted to his German Shepherd, Harley. “Billy would never have left without taking care of his dog,” Jan Smolinski said.

Andy Thibault, editor & publisher of The Cool Justice Report, requested copies of the Waterbury police file on the Smolinski case on July 28, 2006. Days later, when Thibault followed up with a formal complaint, Waterbury police wrote to the FBI asking for help to solve the case.

Some observers wondered if this was just a ploy to keep the file secret. “They obviously don’t want you to know what they know or how little they actually worked on the case,” a reader commented to The Cool Justice Report.

With the request to the FBI, Waterbury police acknowledged for the first time that they suspected foul play.

Still, not knowing what actually happened wears on the Smolinski’s and isolates them.
“This is what I see and feel and what others who have missing loved ones see and feel on a daily basis,” Jan Smolinski said, explaining the family’s thoughts and feelings about Billy. “It seems as though the broken hearts are never mended, the thoughts of what happened to you: Are you safe or did you suffer are constant reminders that the missing have been swallowed up in a society of people who have pushed us to the corner of the room.”

Most Documents To Be Released

Now, the state Freedom of Information Commission is ordering the Waterbury Police Department to release most of the documents in the Smolinski file.

Atty. Mary Schwind, hearing officer for the FOI Commission, had reviewed 17 documents “in camera” or privately following a complaint by The Cool Justice Report and a hearing last September.

In a decision dated March 9, 2007, Schwind ruled: “Other than a broad assertion of prejudice, the respondent has failed to prove how any of the requested records, specifically IC-2006-389-1, IC-2006-389-3 through IC-2006-389-9, and IC-2006-389-11 through IC-2006-389-17, would prejudice a law enforcement action if released.

“Accordingly, it is concluded that [these] records … are not exempt from mandatory disclosure … and that the respondent violated the FOI Act by denying the complainant copies thereof …

“Forthwith, the respondent shall provide the complainant with a copy of the requested records … at no cost.”

The FOI decision notes the documents requested were “any and all reports … mentioning Madeleine Gleason and / or Christian Sorensen.” Several high-ranking members of the Waterbury Police Department - including Chief Neil O’Leary - had confirmed to Waterbury Observer Publisher John Murray the identities of Gleason and Sorensen as part of a love triangle with Billy Smolinski.

Gleason, a bus driver in Woodbridge, went public with a bizarre legal action. After tearing down handbills about a reward for finding Billy Smolinski, Gleason sued Jan Smolinski and Murray, accusing them of violating her privacy. Murray had published photos of Gleason in public.

Compounding the absurdity and outrageousness of this case, Woodbridge arrested Jan Smolinski and accused her of disorderly conduct for posting reward flyers about her missing son. The case was dismissed.

Sorensen had served on the Woodbridge Board of Selectmen and was considered a frontrunner for first selectman. He resigned last year, saying he needed to spend more time with his family.

Waterbury police have a tape of a threatening call Billy Smolinski made to Sorensen after he learned Gleason and Sorensen were an item.

The FOI Commission is scheduled to vote on Schwind’s finding during its meeting scheduled April 11 at 2 p.m. at 18-20 Trinity St., Hartford.

Schwind also found that the Waterbury Police Department properly withheld two documents which are signed statements of witnesses. She ruled those documents are exempt from mandatory disclosure.

A Life of Constant Anxiety

For Billy’s parents, Jan and Bill, and their daughter, Paula Bell, life has been marked by a sense of constant anxiety. They jump at every phone call. They live a life of suffering and diminished hope.

Our interview was interrupted by a call from another new friend in a missing person’s network. The caller reported progress in another state on legislation to help find missing adults.

Neither vandalism to the flyers about Bill Smolinski gone missing nor harassment by Woodbridge police can deter Jan Smolinski.

“I work on this every day now,” Jan Smolinski said. “I put up signs anywhere I can. When they get torn down, I go back and put it up again. We try to get them up higher on the poles so they won’t be as easy to tear down.

“I can’t give a good reason why anyone would tear them down.”

Despite their troubles, they still hold on to some faith in law enforcement.

“Now that the FBI is investigating,” Jan Smolinski said, “I have to hope they will find out something. They tell me they are actively investigating the case.”

Comments (1)

Posted by: Steven G. Erickson | March 26, 2007 6:43 PM

Missing person, possible murder complaint to the police and they do nothing and then arrest a mother wanting information on her missing son?

If you want law enforcement or investigative work done where do you go in Connecticut? It sounds like police in Connecticut are only armed revenue collectors that retaliate and arrest citizens if they are asked to get off their lazy, arrogant asses.

Police need oversight. If they don't have it, they do nothing, harass citizens, and commit crimes. All things you don't want in a "law enforcement" organization.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[click here] for entire webpage containing the excerpt from below.
Jump to: navigation, search

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on 1878-06-18 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act was intended to prohibit Federal troops from supervising elections in former Confederate states. It generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.

The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. This law is often mentioned when it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

Palmer Raids


The crackdown on radical left-wing political groups had actually begun during World War I. After a series of bomb attacks of court buildings, police stations, churches and homes tied to violent immigrant anarchist groups, the Department of Justice and its small Bureau of Investigation (BOI) (predecessor to the FBI) had begun to track their activities with the approval of President Woodrow Wilson. In 1915, Wilson himself warned of hyphenated Americans who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life. Such creatures of passion, disloyalty and anarchy must be crushed out.[1]

Handicapped by the secrecy of these groups and limited Federal law enforcement capabilities, the Bureau of Investigation significantly increased its workload on anarchist movements after 1917 when the Galleanists (followers of Luigi Galleani) and other radical groups commenced a new series of bomb attacks that reverberated through several major American cities. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was also a background factor: many anarchists believed that the worker's revolution there would quickly spread across Europe and the United States.

On June 15, 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act. The law set punishments for acts of interference in foreign policy and espionage. The Act authorized stiff fines and prison terms of up to 20 years for anyone who obstructed the military draft or encouraged "disloyalty" against the U.S. government. After two anarchist radicals, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman continued to advocate against conscription, Goldman's offices at Mother Earth were thoroughly searched, and volumes of files and detailed subscription lists from Mother Earth, along with Berkman's journal The Blast, were seized. As a Justice Department news release reported:

[click here] for continuation of the above

* * * *

[click here] for:
Rex 84, short for Readiness Exercise 1984, was a plan by the United States federal government to test their ability to detain large numbers of American citizens in case of massive civil unrest or national emergency.


Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Another reason lawyers need more oversight:

From the Connecticut Law Tribune: [here]

Friday, March 9, 2007

E-Mail: Prosecutor Took Money From Union

A state prosecutor under investigation for the possible theft of money intended for crime victims admitted through his attorney to stealing thousands of dollars from the state prosecutor's union, the Connecticut Post reported today.

L. Mark Hurley, supervisory assistant state's attorney in Milford, is treasurer of the Connecticut Association of Prosecutors union.

An initial audit of the union's account found no discrepancies, union president Brian Preleski said in an e-mail to members of the executive board. But Hurley's lawyer, Edward Gavin, admitted that Hurley took between $18,000 and $21,000 from the union's account during the past 18 months, according to the e-mail.

Gavin told The Associated Press today that the funds were "misappropriated" and Hurley would repay them.

Preleski described in his e-mail how Hurley wrote checks on the union's account for certain expenses and then credited the expenditures to certain vendors. He would then endorse the checks himself and deposit the money in his bank account.

The executive board plans to meet Monday to discuss a full audit of the account.

Hurley is in treatment, Gavin said, declining to discuss details.

State authorities are investigating whether Hurley took restitution money from criminal defendants that was intended for their victims, Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane said Thursday.

Hurley, 47, will remain on administrative leave until the probe by state police and the Division of Criminal Justice is completed, Kane said.

Gavin would only say they were cooperating with the investigation.

Hurley, a prosecutor since 1986, earns a yearly salary of $112,452.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Connecticut's Lawyer Mafia Legislating Doom

Lawyers are in control in Connecticut. They are allowed to hold elected offices. That is taxation without representation as lawyers are for the Judicial Branch not the people as they were elected to do under the Legislative Branch. Lawyers are out to protect other lawyers, for red tape, unfairness, protecting rogue judges, prosecutors, police, elected officials, and of course other lawyers, not the people.

So, if you don't want a crooked lawyer representing you, acting with the prosecution and other corrupt officials, representing yourself, you can be labeled a mental case and locked in a mental hospital. Connecticut already drugs elderly, locks them away from their adult children, to appoint lawyers in the "patient's best interests" to divide the spoils between the lawyers and the State of Connecticut. Why live in a state ruled by absolute assholes?

Judge commits minister to psychiatric ward
-NEW HAVEN — A colorful and outspoken minister who was arrested last year after refusing to show police his identification has been committed to a psychiatric hospital by a Superior Court judge after a mental health panel concluded he was not competent to assist in his defense.

But the Rev. Charles Hart of Meriden — who in representing himself over the last 11 months has peppered the court with perplexing legal motions, letters and demands — insists that he is fine. He claims his committal was the judicial system's last-ditch, corrupt effort to railroad him into accepting a plea bargain.

"It's just not fair. I'm not a criminal," said Hart, 48, in a telephone interview from a psychiatric ward at the Connecticut Valley Hospital in Middletown. "Look at me now, how they got me up here in this place to drug me up, to say that I'm crazy.

"I will not take one of their pills. I will not take one of their medications."

He remains unwavering in his effort to have a jury trial, which he asserts authorities refuse to allow because they know he will win.

"This judge has committed treason against the American people," Hart said.

"We come to him looking for justice, and this is what we get from him, thrown into a mental institution and taken out of our homes."

What started last March as a potentially groundbreaking, Fourth Amendment case exploring an individual's right to refuse to show police identification, now appears to have spiraled out of control.

Judge Peter Brown, after more than 20 contentious and sometimes confusing court dates in the case, last week ordered Hart committed for psychiatric treatment for as many as 60 days. A panel of clinicians for the Connecticut Mental Health Center examined the minister and determined he wasn't competent to stand trial.

What preceded that was a series of court motions by Hart citing admiralty law, contract law and the Uniform Commercial Code, personal letters to judges, denunciations of the legal existence of the United States and Connecticut and interjections of "freeman" language often espoused by antigovernment militias in the Midwest. Hart has been thrown out of the courthouse after being beligerent with court clerks, the file shows.

He had steadfastly refused to have an attorney represent him — saying last week that he found no one "competent" enough to handle his case — and said he won't cooperate with the public defender the court this month assigned to him.

Hart was arrested March 5, 2006, after police approached a group of men hanging out in the 500 block of Winchester Avenue, an area known for drug activity. Hart, who said he was merely talking to his brother who lives in the area, refused a request to show ID and challenged the officers to arrest him.

Hart was charged with interfering with police and loitering near a school. He later picked up additional charges of failure to appear in court and driving with a suspended license.

In one of his many filings, in an apparent effort to prove the state had no jurisdiction to prosecute him, Hart last May denounced the "corporate existence," among other things, of the United States, the state of Connecticut, the county, the Police Department, the court system and its agents, all bar associations, himself and "all other corporate members who are, or may be, associated with any complaint against my natural body."

That drew a sharp response from Judge Joan Alexander.

"That has no meaning. When you have a notice on the admiralty side of this court, that has no meaning," she said.

Judge John Blawie, a month later, implored Hart to get an attorney after the minister again began arguing UCC and admiralty maritime law.

"You are a functioning member of society; I think you are smarter than you are trying to make yourself appear, sir. You have to get a lawyer."

Norm Pattis, a prominent civil rights and defense attorney who reviewed a collection Hart's filings at the request of the New Haven Register, said the minister's choice to represent himself is nothing short of "suicide."

In the judge's shoes, he said, "I would ask that the man reconsider the decision to represent himself. This is suicide. ... I can certainly understand why the court made a decision to have him evaluated."

Hart remains unswayed.

He maintains his legal arguments are sound and asserts that the judges know it, too. But if authorities dismiss the case, they know it will open them up to a civil rights lawsuit, claimed Hart, who in addition to his ministry works as an in-take worker for an Access to Recovery program in Ansonia.

He fears he will be unemployed when he finally gets out and worries that his family has lost its breadwinner.

"I'm sitting in a mental institution. I've been taken away from my home, my wife, my children, my job. For what?"

He answered his own question a moment later.

"I'm in here because I wouldn't show two officers my ID because they didn't have probable cause," he said.

©New Haven Register 2007

* * * *

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Putting a Governor, the Judiciary, and Police on Hot Seat?

State Representative
Mary M. Mushinsky
Assistant Majority Leader [website]

Email: Mary.Mushinsky@cga.ct.gov

My open email to her:

Ms. Mushinsky,
I understand that you are a major member of the Program Review and Investigations Committee.

I would like the Governor, her staff, the Connecticut State Police, and the Connecticut Judiciary investigated for retaliation against internal whistle blowers and against citizens interested in receiving their tax dollars' worth with ethics and efficiency in State Government, its agencies, police, and in courts.

I would like you to review victims of the Governor's and Connecticut State Police secret "Enemies List", where victims that are critical of the Governor, her staff, police, and members of the judiciary are targets and then victims of the system.

This is not what our forefathers intended. I am asking for legislation to end this practice, help correct problems caused to children and families, expunge bogus criminal records, and review cases for compensation.

I went to State Senator Tony Guglielmo with my concerns regarding out of control Connecticut State Police Officers. I was then falsely arrested and imprisoned. [more information click]

Are you willing to help citizens in need of honest government and relief?

Thank you,

Steven G. Erickson
972 Putney Rd. #156
Brattleboro, VT 05301
(former CT Political Prisoner # 305662 and refugee out of Connecticut)

* * * *

Program Review and Investigations Committee

[click for member list]

Legislative Program Review and Investigations serves as the General Assembly's "watchdog" over the executive branch of the State government. The committee is a bipartisan statutory group consisting of twelve members. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and Senate and House Minority Leaders each appoint three members to the committee.

By law, the committee is charged with the duty of examining "... State government programs and their administration to ascertain whether such programs are effective, continue to serve their intended purposes, are conducted in an efficient and effective manner, or require modification or elimination."

The committee is further mandated by statute to report to the General Assembly and to make administrative and legislative recommendations or procedures, inaccuracies, waste, extravagance, unauthorized or unintended activities or programs or other deficiencies ... " existing in any agency or program investigated by the committee."

In addition, the committee is authorized to conduct investigations on "any matter" when requested by a joint resolution of the General Assembly or when the legislature is not in session, by a joint standing committee, or at its own initiative, subject to the approval of the Joint Committee on Legislative Management.

The Executive Reorganization Act of 1977 expanded the committee's mandate even further to include performance reviews of nearly 100 boards, councils, committees and commissions scheduled for termination under the "Sunset" provisions of the Act. The first complete cycle of "Sunset" was completed in 1984.

Taxpayer Rip Offs and Family Abuse

Only Official Connecticut can so twist the truth and celebrate embarrassment as a victory.

Connecticut is losing population yet Official Connecticut keeps spending more tax dollars and hires more people to work for the State. Do the math, there is something very wrong here.

People would not be leaving such a pretty state if it they were not some real evil and abuse going on.

There might be ten times more than needed DCF workers. They have to make quota so that means lies, perjury, manufactured evidence where police, prosecutors, and judges aid in the absolute misconduct-fest.

Connecticut Governor Rell is no stranger to going after whistle blowers within the system that are so disgusted with the racketeering and corruption they could yack.

Connecticut’s industrial and tax base has headed South and has just gone poof. High paid positions of privilege and contracts to cronies has gone on for centuries. The shit has hit the fan.

Defrauding Federal Taxpayers by taking away and processing kids makes up for some of absolute waste and corruption. Processing as many adults with arrests, restrain orders, probation, forced tuition in court ordered classes, and putting people in prisons makes up for more of the deficit. What kind of life can you have when you know at anytime state authorities want to break up your family and confine you and your children?

Connecticut Officials, police, DCF, judges, prosecutors, and lawyers have loyalty to each other. When they break ranks they end up financially ruined, arrested, family broken, losing their job and home, facing prison. Where is the incentive for them to act in the public’s best interest?

Answer: there are no incentives. We the People have to get so collectively angry and motivated we have to demand and go to great lengths to get representative government for the outrageous taxes we pay to inefficient, unqualified, and mostly dishonest employees of the State.

* * * *

[click here] for how police target mouthy citizens to pay hit men and informants to beat and kill citizens

[click here] for Official Connecticut and Organized Crime's Dream of going national with the Nightmare of "Kiddie Max" prisons for children

[click here] for:

Served up by Corrupt Officials and Organized Crime?

* * * *


DCF Creates Plan To Boost Services

Agreement Emerges After Negotiations Over Lawsuit Challenging Standard Of Care
March 13, 2007
By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer
The state's child welfare agency has agreed to significantly ramp up services for hundreds of children lingering in foster care, shelters and large institutions as part of its ongoing efforts to be freed from federal oversight.

Officials with the state Department of Children and Families and lawyers representing the approximately 6,000 abused and neglected children in state foster care announced they had reached an agreement on the services Monday.

The 50-page agreement was the result of more than a year of negotiations involving former DCF Commissioner Darlene Dunbar and the attorneys representing foster children as part of a 1989 class-action lawsuit challenging the state's standard of care. The Juan F. lawsuit, named after a child in state care, resulted in an extensive federal consent decree and DCF being placed under federal supervision.

The agreement does not erase the 22-point Exit Plan under which DCF is operating to free itself from federal oversight. That plan, in which DCF has so far met 17 of the 22 court-set goals, stays in effect.

The agreement announced Monday is an elaboration of one of the main goals in the Exit Plan - meeting children's needs - that DCF has repeatedly struggled to achieve. The DCF must meet children's needs at least 80 percent of the time to meet the Exit Plan goal. The agency was at 65 percent as of November 2006, the most recent statistics available.

"Meeting the service needs of abused and neglected children remains a big problem area for Connecticut and DCF deserves credit for committing to this plan," said Ira Lustbader, associate director of Children's Rights, a national watchdog organization representing Connecticut's foster children in the case.

"If this plan is rapidly and thoughtfully implemented, it will be a major step forward in improving these children's lives," Lustbader said.

The new agreement requires DCF to track and provide heightened services to:

  • All children who are kept in a shelter or emergency foster home for more than 60 days to help move them into an appropriate home.

  • All children age 12 and under living in group homes or large residential centers such as the Connecticut Children's Place in East Windsor, Mount St. John's in Deep River or the Lake Grove School in Durham.

  • All children in state custody longer than one year to ensure they are receiving proper supervision and care so they can return home, be placed with relatives or be adopted as soon as possible.

  • Lustbader said the agreement addresses children at risk of getting stuck in the foster care system. Threats by Children's Rights to take DCF to court for its repeated non-compliance on these matters 14 months ago sparked the talks that led to the latest agreement.

    As of November 2006, there were 343 children age 12 and younger living in group homes and large facilities and more than 1,000 kids over 12 living in such large congregate settings, according to Children's Rights.

    At the same time, there were 137 children living in emergency shelters or other emergency housing, and 823 children who had been in state care for more than 15 months. More than 1,600 children living in state custody in November 2006 had no clearly defined personal goal of adoption, reunification with their parents or transfer of guardianship despite such a plan being required under federal law, a fact sheet provided by Children's Rights Monday said.

    Acting DCF Commissioner Brian E. Mattiello said the agency can achieve the additional services with the $70 million in additional funds Gov. M. Jodi Rell proposed for the agency when she released her recommended two-year budget last month. Mattiello said the agency remains committed to helping children and called the latest agreement a "clearer road map for success."

    Contact Colin Poitras at cpoitras@courant.com.

    * * * *

    The Connecticut State Vehicle Inspection system can be shut down for years for being too dishonest. The DMV employees sell driver licenses out the back door of the registries and maybe even terrorists can buy false IDs that are good anywhere for $3000 a pop. The Connecticut State Police got straight F's in a 168 page New York Internal Affairs report. Lawyers, Judges, Prosecutors, DCF, and too many elected and un-elected officials are just ripping taxpayers off and committing crimes. When is enough, enough?

    Monday, March 12, 2007

    Judicial Reform Bill

    General Assembly Proposed Bill No. 6289

    January Session, 2007 LCO No. 2823

    Referred to Committee on Judiciary
    Introduced by: REP. ARTHUR O'NEILL, 69th Dist.

    (Modeled from Congress'' H.R. 5219)
    Introduced by The House Judiciary Committee, authored by Francis C. P. Knize using
    recommendations from U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays, and Raised H.R 5219 at the U.S. Congress'' House Judiciary Committee.

    An Act Concerning Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement and Judicial Reform
    Creation of a State Statute, to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct, illegal activity, undermining of the judicial machinery, and violations of the Judicial Oath to support the U.S. and State Constitutions in the State Judiciary; while acknowledging the review standard of a public officer''s ""Spirit of Restraint"" to infringe upon a party''s fundamental rights. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Jan , 2007

    Francis C. P. Knize, producer, using recommendations from Mr. Christopher Shays during an interview with him, introduces the following bill; which is now referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

    A BILL
    Creation of a new Statute to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct and detection of fraud which does, or attempts to ... defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner, concerning the application in the Connecticut State judiciary.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Connecticut in Congress assembled,

    This Act may be cited as the
    `Connecticut Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007'.

    (a) Creation and Duties-
    0001. Establishment.
    0002. Appointment of Inspector General.
    0003. Duties.
    0004. Powers of the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector Generals
    0005. Powers of the 12 member panel of the Grand Jury
    0006. Reports.
    0007. Whistleblower protection.

    `Sec. 0001. Establishment
    `There is established for the judicial branch of the State Government the Office of Inspector General
    for the Judicial Branch with powers to appoint a Grand Jury Panel (hereinafter in this chapter referred
    to as the `Office').

    `Sec. 0002. Appointment of Inspector General
    `The head of the Office shall be the Inspector General, who shall be appointed by a panel made up of at least 2/3rds non-lawyer/judge/ABA members after consultation with the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives. The Inspector General must have a history of having ""clean hands"". He shall serve a period of two years.

    `Sec. 0003. Duties
    `With respect to the Judicial Branch, the Office shall--
    `(1) conduct investigations of matters pertaining to the Judicial Branch, including possible
    misconduct in office of judges and proceedings under Standards of both Ethics and Law,
    including powers to determine whether laws were broken, whether judicial discretion was
    abused to the level of misconduct, whether abuses were against Public Policy; including issues
    that may require oversight or observation of other inappropriate actions {including fraud and
    malicious prosecution) within the State Judicial Branch. Oversight encompasses judges and clerks engaged in conduct that created an appearance of impropriety and that violated
    provisions of the American Bar Association''s Model Code of Judicial Conduct.
    `(2) conduct and supervise audits and investigations, including Abuse of Power, Fraud upon
    the court; illegal or inappropriate use of discretion.
    `(3) prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse; and
    `(4) recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the Judicial Branch.
    (5) Appoint a 12 member Grand Jury Panel made up of two-thirds non- lawyer/judge/ABA members.
    (6) Ensure that a complaint be set for a hearing within 60 days from entree of the
    complaint, new grand juries will be appointed as case flow becomes constrained.
    Assistant Inspector Generals can be appointed if the Inspector General finds he is
    overloaded to adjudicate all cases himself, where the Assistant Inspector General must then pass the findings and Judgment to the Inspector General for the Inspector General to exercise his duty of reporting and other administrative duties.
    (7) Ensure all Office Members and jury members take an oath to support the State and Federal Constitutions before assuming their respective duties.

    `Sec. 0004. Powers of the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector Generals
    `In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall have the power--
    `(1) to make investigations and reports; `
    (2) to obtain information or assistance from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, or other entity, or unit thereof, including all information kept in the course of business by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the judicial councils of circuits, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States Sentencing Commission;
    (3) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, and the production of such books, records, correspondence memoranda, papers, and documents, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by civil action; `(4) to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit;
    `(5) to employ such officers and employees, governing appointments in the competitive service,
    and the provisions State General Schedule pay rates;
    `(6) to obtain services as authorized by Statute sec_______, at daily rates not to exceed the
    equivalent rate prescribed for like State employees ; and
    `(7) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to
    enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with
    public agencies and with private persons, and to make such payments as may be necessary to
    carry out the duties of the Office.
    (8) to appoint a 12 member Grand Jury Panel to hear all cases.
    (9) to demand that finding(s), order(s) or judgment(s) in question from a judge so charged under
    this office be clarified as to state an authority of law for which the judgment should be based, in
    particular order(s) for denial or dismissal if no written finding was available.
    (10) to instruct the jury to find upon the clarification in (9) as to its legality.
    (11) to ensure that the parties under the judge had their claims and allegations addressed, and that
    the judge had ruled upon the facts of their pleadings.
    (12) to ensure that probable causes are not defeated by a defense of a judge''s right for
    judicial discretion, but rather discretion is always questioned for its legality and constitutionality.

    ``Sec. 0005. Powers of the 12 member panel of the Grand Jury
    1) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers of jury nullification and have the right
    to take it upon themselves to judge the law as applied ethically and constitutionally by a
    judge as well as the facts in controversy surrounding a judge''s decision; under Amendment
    VI of the U.S. Constitution. The Grand Jury will not be limited by the Inspector General to
    examine any facts of law which may apply to the case. A party has the right to enter in the hearing any bearing law upon the charges.
    2) The Grand Jury shall be granted the power for impeachment of a Public Official,
    being a body authorized under the legislature.
    3) The Grand Jury shall be granted power to suspend judicial immunity for acts
    where clear and convincing abuses of power, law, and harmful discretion
    occurred. Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any
    deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process
    of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction,
    blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the
    Constitutions of Connecticut or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law,
    or any other contrary statute. Federalist Paper # 27: Federal Constitutional Authority
    Over Individual Citizens [3] The hope of immunity is a strong incitement to sedition.
    The dread of punishment provides a proportionately strong discouragement.
    4) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers to determine Fraud, as a species of
    deceit well settled in law as a court''s fraud upon the court as defined by KENNER;
    it ""is fraud which does, or attempts to ... defile the court itself, or is a fraud
    perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not
    perform in the usual manner"" Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968);
    7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512,sec 60.23. Charges against
    a Judge for fraud must meet the level of "an intentional plan of deception designed
    to improperly influence the Court in its decision {and} has had such an effect on
    the court " to have changeable effect upon the outcome of the original judgment. 7
    Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, sec. 60.23. Fraud is to be determined as
    judicial misrepresentation which follows the well-settled 5 point test adapted to the
    rulings of a judge:1. a false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact or
    law; 2. knowledge by the public official making the false assertion that it is false or
    ignorance of the truth of the assertion; 3. an intention to induce the claimant to act
    or to justify the claimant to act; 4. the claimant must have been induced to act or
    justified in acting in reliance on the representation or ruling; and 5. the claimant
    must suffer damage proximately caused by the misrepresentation set within the
    the context of the ruling.
    5) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers to determine fiduciary damages to the
    claimant, upon a finding of wrongdoing by a public official.
    6) This initiative will also allow the Office to grant temporary immunity of parties affected by
    the judgment or ruling by the public official; from arrest, prosecution, forfeiture or
    confiscation of property or the deprivation of and/or privileges except in cases of
    conviction for violent felonies involving actual injury to another person; or felony acts of
    fraud, theft or property damage exceeding $3,800, when the Office determines there is
    probable cause to believe that the penalties are the result of judicial misconduct or abuse of authority and power..
    7) The Inspector General will also be empowered to consider and grant the writ of
    habeus corpus in the same manner as the Supreme and District courts.
    Sec. 0006. Reports
    `(a) When to Be Made- The Inspector General shall--
    `(1) make a report to The General Assembly relating to the activities of the Office within 60 daysof any judgment authorized under its office; and
    `(2) make prompt reports to the The Judiciary Committee on matters that may require prompt
    or emergency action by them.
    `(b) Sensitive Matter of National Security or of individual or corporate privacy - If a report contains
    sensitive matter, the Inspector General may so indicate by making a finding on the facts alleged for
    a sensitive matter and receive that report in closed session.
    The burden is upon the Inspector General to prove lives are at stake concerning National Security
    Issues, or that disclosure to the public will severely harm a non-accused individual or Corporation.
    Findings of the Inspector General will be made public in all cases upon a verdict of guilty.
    `(c) Duty to Inform Attorney General- In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall report expeditiously to the State''s Attorney General whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal or State criminal law
    Sec. 0007. Whistleblower protection `(a) In General- No officer, employee, agent, contractor or subcontractor in the Judicial Branch may discharge,
    demote, threaten, suspend, harass or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation of Federal or State law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge or any other employee in the Judicial Branch, which may assist the Inspector General in the performance of duties under this chapter.
    `(b) Civil Action- An employee injured by a violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate relief.'.
    (c) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters for part ____ of the C.G.S , is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    Title____; Inspector General for the Judicial Branch.

    Statement of Purpose:
    To adopt certain recommendations put forth by the model of H.R. 5219 at Congress on Judicial Reform with respect to the transparency, accessibility and accountability of the Judicial Branch. To prevent dereliction of duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." and prevent the committing of "high crimes and misdemeanors." by the Judiciary. "Truth and fairness" are the two cornerstones of our judicial system which must be part of this accountability process.


    Saturday, March 10, 2007

    Connecticut Facilities contributing to Identity Theft


    Our I.D., Their Trash

    Sensitive Records Turn Up In Ohio
    March 10, 2007
    By DANIEL P. JONES And KATIE MELONE, Courant Staff Writers
    Papers with sensitive information about Connecticut residents - Social Security numbers, medical records, names, phone numbers, addresses and bank records began blowing from an Ohio landfill onto nearby homeowner Harry Evans' yard months ago.

    At first he just picked up the litter - dozens of papers in all - and threw it away. But about a week ago, Evans says, he talked with his wife about the personal nature of some of the windblown papers and decided he'd had enough. He called the local media. Soon, newspaper and TV reporters descended on his home in Negley.

    He lives in Negley, in eastern Ohio, close to the Pennsylvania border, along a rail line that has been bringing train loads of waste from at least two Northeast states, Connecticut and New Jersey, to a siding at a Total Waste Logistics landfill next to his house and his adjacent truck garage.

    "You can't believe the stuff that I've thrown away. I've talked to them down there [at the landfill] but they just basically told me to get scrubbed," Evans said in a telephone interview Friday. "When you get into personal things, you know anybody who wanted to commit identity theft, all they'd have to do is walk along the tracks and pick up the papers."

    Jerry Weber, an Ohio Environmental Protection Agency official who monitors the landfill, did not return a call Friday. A call to Total Waste Logistics was not returned.

    Such security breaches are not rare, says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for privacy. "I think the key point in a lot of these instances is that information was maintained that probably shouldn't have been collected or should have been destroyed."

    The papers, for example, include a surgical evaluation form concerning an East Haven patient's "bone density" diagnostic imaging procedure performed by "Yale Diag Imaging." The form, filled out in June 2002, includes the patient's name, home phone number, Social Security number, address, date of birth, and insurance identification number.

    Another paper that blew into Evans' yard: an Oxford Health insurance patient claim form confirming payment to a New Haven-based gynecology group. The form, dated July 1, 1999, includes the patient's name, her doctor's name, and identification and account numbers.

    "It's bizarre because we shred everything," said Tina D'Amico, the practice administrator at County Obstetrics & Gynecology. D'Amico said a copy of such a form would be routinely sent by the insurance company to the doctor and the patient. D'Amico said County Obstetrics & Gynecology has been shredding medical records for years, and in 2003 hired a company to perform the task because of the volume of records. "There are so many places this could've come from," she said.

    Maria Gordon-Shydlo, a spokesman for UnitedHealth Group, which owns Oxford, said that the company takes the matter "very seriously" and would investigate immediately.

    The presence of the papers at the Negley landfill is possibly the result of an unloading zone where solid waste such as paper is separated from demolition and construction debris, the only waste the landfill is approved to accept.

    Evans, a 69-year-old semi-retired truck driver and truck repairman, said his house and garage are about 800 to 1,000 feet from where a crane unloads waste from rail cars when they arrive at the landfill. His yard, he says, is downwind from the operation, and the papers have blown onto his property almost daily since the operation began a couple of years ago.

    It's not unusual for some of Connecticut's trash to find its way to disposal sites in other states, although most waste from Connecticut towns is committed by contract for disposal at one of several in-state trash-to-energy plants, according to state environmental officials and industry representatives.

    Disposal facilities like the one in Ohio are supposed to keep the waste that arrives contained, according to Michael Paine, president of East Granby-based Paine's Inc. and chairman of the Connecticut chapter of the National Solid Waste Association. Such facilities should have a plan for controlling litter and some kind of fence, he said.

    Based on the descriptions of the waste provided by The Courant, Paine said his guess is that the papers Evans found in Ohio came from trash picked up at commercial facilities as opposed to residential trash. But there's no way to be sure, he said.

    Health care providers are required by state law to dispose of records in a way that renders them unrecognizable and maintains patients' confidentiality, said William Gerrish, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Health. The department can take disciplinary action if those requirements are not met, he said. There are federal rules that also govern the disposal of health-related records to ensure confidentiality, Gerrish said.

    And the vast majority of doctors shred documents as a routine practice, said Angelo Carrabba, a physician and the president of the Connecticut State Medical Society.

    Paine advised caution when disposing of confidential paperwork at home. "I rip up the envelopes that I don't want, and I very often create a bucket of stuff that I want to get shredded." He sometimes uses a shredder and other times uses the papers to start a fire in his fireplace.

    Contact Daniel P. Jones at dpjones@courant.com.

    Labels: ,

    Thursday, March 08, 2007

    Attn Vermont US Attorney Thomas D. Anderson:

    Vermont US Attorney Thomas D. Anderson [click here] for webpage

    Reporting Federal Law Violations of a Dangerous Psychopath

    I believe US Attorneys are America’s last line of defense in individual matters and in Constitutional matters and civil rights. I believe George W. Bush fired US Attorneys that did not join him in an illegal political purge, election fixing scheme. I respectfully request that you have US President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others arrested and hauled away in handcuffs to face trials for breaking international and domestic laws.

    I would like to turn in George W. Bush and lodge a formal complaint. If I save taxpayers tax dollars with this letter to you, I would like to claim my reward, Qui Tam. [more] I believe George W. Bush committed fraud and/or breach of contract when he rose his right hand and swore to uphold the US Constitution before taking office as US President, twice.

    I wrote George W. Bush on 9-15-01 and let him know I was under siege in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, as police, their prostitute girlfriends, vandals, and heroin and crack dealers were operating in concert like and organized crime syndicate. I was then attacked on my property in the dark 10-11-01 and Connecticut State Police were right there to haul only me away to be railroaded to prison, ruining my family and my life.

    I asked for the fostering of small business and those that renovate downtown boarded up properties. I received an answer from HUD that Bush actually read the letter. A police informant was then sent to attack me on my property. If Bush knew of felonies committed against me and he used his powers to help railroad me to prison to be held as a political prisoner, Bush is guilty of a laundry list of crimes, and please arrest him. I believe he helped the criminal and felon, former Governor of Connecticut John G. Rowland avoid just punishment for obstruction of justice, racketeering, and profiteering.

    Both Presidents, Bush, referred to the former Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland as "Johnny". The “TREA” conspiracy was for Organized Crime to franchise “Kiddie Max” prisons for children. Kickbacks would go to Rowland and his cronies. [more]

    Children would be officially kidnapped for the bounty of federal tax dollars defrauded out of citizens nationwide at 90 k or so per child, possibly 15o k each for special needs. Spada and Rowland allegedly conspired to rid the State of Connecticut of poorer Whites and minorities as much as was possible using covert and unofficial policies.

    Former Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada conspired with Rowland to go after citizens they placed on their Connecticut State Police “Enemies List”. [more]

    Journalist Ken Krayeske, campaign manager for Connecticut Governor Rells gubernatorial challenger, was arrested for taking digital pictures of Rell walking in a parade. Ken was allegedly also placed on the "Enemies List" and faces prison in a political retaliation scheme. [more]

    A source of mine says a former Officer D’Angelo was involved in enslaving girls into prostitution and was involved in Human Trafficking internationally.

    I have posted a YouTube.com video of Ritt Goldstein’s legislative hearing from Dec. 1996 [here] where mothers are raped and beaten by police officers to intimidate them out of testifying in court cases with other citizen abuse. Judges cover up murder for hire plots and punish victims of police retaliation when a citizen makes a police misconduct complaint.

    Connecticut Chief Justice William J. Sullivan tried to establish a Monarchy [more] in Connecticut where the infection could have spread nationally, is that a violation of the 13th Amendment and shouldn’t Sullivan be arrested along with others in the conspiracy?

    There is a Connecticut conspiracy of judges to go after lawyers that defend their clients and want an honest, public serving judiciary. [more]

    Governor Rell of Connecticut is allegedly involved in the cover up of my case and others. Rell allegedly went after the officials responsible for uncovering a fencing operation involving her son. Her aid M. Lisa Moody allegedly was involved in an election fixing, improprieties, and/or fraud scheme to elect Rell. Should Rell be arrested and hauled away in chains and leg irons?

    Police allegedly offered operatives a $10,000 bounty to ruin me and set me up for false arrests in prison. [more] I was current on 3 mortgages [property video] and had a small business built up over decades. I have had extreme problems getting a job and am denied most lodging.

    Connecticut Police murder for hire plots and judges covering up for official retaliation schemes is not uncommon. [more]

    I am looking for justice and compensation.

    Will you help me and others that have been likewise abused?

    Will you help save our country while there is still time regarding the Bush conspiracy matters?

    Thank you,

    Steven G. Erickson
    [address snipped as physical address has changed]


    Tel. 802-[snipped]

    P.S. I am posting this open email to you at
    to include links.

    * * * *

    [click here] for post on Presidents, the Mob, and Lawyers

    Labels: , , , ,

    From the Antishenes Blog:

    RIP "Rick the Ruler"

    It has been almost ten years since the death of Enrique "Rick the Ruler" Ramirez, a Los Solidos Gang leader. But as the recent photo above demonstrates Rick may be gone, but not forgotten.

    It was the annual Puerto Rican Day Festival in Pope Park, Hartford, Connecticut that started a series of events that are still unfolding ten years later. Gang members murdering other gang members, federal law enforcement feuding with state law enforcement and many, many people left asunder in the wake of the murder of "Rick the Ruler." Hartford Homicide Detectives disciplined, fired. Federal agents ordered not to investigate Hartford Police misconduct. Lawsuits all around.

    June 5, 1997 was a sunny warm day. Hundreds of party goers flocked to Pope Park for the festival, including a good amount of gang members and police officers. Rick was an enforcer for the "Solids" as they affectionately called each other. He was a prick, drunk and bully. And at the end of this festive day, he was dead. Murdered by his own gang. As Robert De Niro who plays Michael Vronsky is famous for saying in the movie, The Deer Hunter "one shot." That's all it took to murder Rick. One shot in the back and this tough guy was dead.

    The feds informant, Abdel "Conejo" Rodriguez tipped them off immediately that he knew who shot Rick. He wore a wire for his handlers, he got the killer to admit that he, "went all out for [his]colors." Julio Ramos, a Los Solidos, spilled his guts to Conejo and in turn the feds. He gave up the location of the murder weapon, and shot his mouth off in detail about the murder. He didn't ever explain why he did it. No one asked. Julio Ramos , is now serving a 25 year federal sentence for the murder.

    He plead guilty to the murder at the same time Gilberto Rivera, a supposed "offtee" or wannabee of the gang was arrested by the Hartford Police and Hartford State's Attorney James Thomas. Rivera was a patsy for the state officials, ultimately released and awarded $600,000 for his false arrest and imprisonment.

    End of story, all is safe in the Insurance City? Not quite.

    While the Feds and state argued over who shot Rick, a very important piece of the puzzle was left unanswered. You see, no one gets assassinated in a gang without approval. Julio Ramos didn't wake up that day and decide he was going to murder a gang enforcer. Yet, absolutely no investigation into the genesis of this murder ever occurred.

    Hmmm? Could it be that the Federal Authorities lead by Deputy United States Attorney John Durham didn't want to know what their informant "Conejo" really knew?
    Was the Hartford Police and Hartford State's Attorney Thomas so bent on showing who was boss that they simply forgot to investigate this crucial part of the murder?

    How ironic if FBI informant busting federal prosecutor John Durham actually had a murdering paid informant working for him.

    Durham was the federal prosecutor who took down FBI agents in Boston for, among other things, allowing federal informants James "Whitey" Bulger and his Winter Hill Gang to carry out numerous murders and crimes under their watch.

    Could Los Solidos leader and federal informant Conejo have ordered the assasination of the troublesome Rameriz?

    Who do we get to investigate this one? Rest in Peace Rick.


    Rich said...

    I've always wondered who put the "Rat Jacket" on Abdiel "Conejo"
    Rodriguez by leaking his name,and street name to the Hartford Courant.
    The leak had to come from a law enforcement source. Someone with a big interest in seeing him take a dirt nap.

    [click here] for Antishenes blog

    * * * *

    [click here] for http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

    Labels: , ,

    Tuesday, March 06, 2007

    Legislative Reforms Needed

    Connecticut State Rep. Tim O'Brien [website]
    [official website]
    emails: Tim.OBrien@cga.ct.gov

    Mr. O’Brien,
    I didn’t like heroin and crack cocaine being sold near the boarded up properties that I bought and fixed up. [video]

    Connecticut State Police were aiding corrupt Stafford Springs politicians and their friends to rid the town of poor whites and minorities and to eliminate business competition for the connected and powerful in town. Should these racist/elitist policies of Separate and Unequal continue in Connecticut?

    I went to Tony Guglielmo [more], my State Senator to tell him what was going on suggesting a solution in proposed legislation, “Civilian Oversight of Police”.

    If citizens can be arrested and put in prison for wanting ethical government, courts, and police, what is Connecticut coming to? When is enough, enough?

    I like, Ken Krayeske, [story pics] was placed on the secret Connecticut State Police “Enemies List”. I have suffered since, for years, and so has my family and daughter. I lost my home, my small business I built over 2 decades, my dog, retirement, health insurance, credit, and ability to get most jobs and housing, all for what?

    Police commit perjury and worse and there are no consequences. Informant funds are used to set up citizens that want ethical police practices. Will legislators review cases of those retaliated against for wanting honest courts, police, and State Government? Will our bogus records be expunged? Will there be compensation?

    Should I and others suffer for the rest of our lives because we were covertly ruined as targets of out of control Connecticut State Police? Should the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services operate like a domestic spying organization?

    Will you help victims of the Official Connecticut Corruption Goon Squads? [pics story]

    Thank you,

    Steven G. Erickson
    972 Putney Rd # 156
    Brattleboro, VT 05301
    (former Connecticut Political Prisoner # 305662)


    I am posting this email to you on:

    * * * *

    HARTFORD: Committee hears proposal on oversight of state intelligence

    Tuesday, March 6, 2007


    Copyright © 2007 Republican-American

    HARTFORD — State lawmakers are proposing greater legislative scrutiny of intelligence gathering in Connecticut. The calls for more oversight come from a Jan 3 arrest of freelance journalist and political activist Kenneth Krayeske during Gov. M. Jodi Rell's inaugural parade.

    Krayeske was on a watch list of potential threats to disrupt the governor's inauguration that state police had circulated. His arrest while photographing Rell brought the list to light and caused a furor.

    The legislature had previously paid little heed to intelligence gathering by law enforcement agencies in the state. Now, committees are asking questions, holding hearings and drafting legislation.

    Three House Democrats want to establish an intelligence oversight committee to protect against the possible abuse of investigative powers. The Government Administration and Elections Committee voted to redraft the trio's bill in January.

    The bill proposed to grant the intelligence committee authority to review confidential documents and procedures of the state's homeland security office and other agencies. Its members would be prohibited from disclosing any secret information.

    Rep. Timothy O'Brien, D-New Britain, one of the co-sponsors, said the legislature needs this oversight to evaluate intelligence gathering and security operations. As originally proposed, the intelligence committee would consist of the co-chairs and ranking members of the Judiciary, Public Safety and Security and Government Admini- stration and Elections committees.

    The Judiciary Committee is separately drafting legislation on the oversight of intelligence gathering by law enforcement agencies.

    Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, the committee's House chairman, said the bill will also propose giving the co-chairs and ranking members of certain committees access to confidential information.

    He said his committee's legislation will likely impose some reporting requirements on law enforcement agencies, including the criteria used to determine when someone poses a risk to disrupt a public event and the number of individuals deemed such a threat annually.

    "This obviously flows from the Ken Krayeske incident," Lawlor said.

    State police denied keeping a political "enemies list" immediately after the Krayeske arrest. However, the department reported it does provide information on individuals considered threats to disrupt public events.

    Additionally, the Program Review and Investigations Committee voted last week to study the state Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. The bipartisan, 12-member committee serves as the legislature's watchdog over executive branch agencies.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Inappropriate Officials

    Too often officials will retaliate against those that turn them in for bad and illegal behavior. Too often officials go unpunished for years of citizen abuse. Connecticut has little oversight and accountability of those that can do so much damage to families and children. Connecticut is making up for an ever shrinking industrial base by parasiting off its weakest and most vulnerable citizens.


    Accountability Issues Probed

    Principal's Case Disturbs Two State Officials
    March 6, 2007
    By JIM FARRELL, Courant Staff Writer
    EAST HARTFORD -- The state child advocate and attorney general announced Monday they are investigating oversight and accountability issues after the resignation last week of an East Hartford principal accused of making inappropriate comments to a 15-year-old girl.

    Kevin Miller, who began work as principal of East Hartford High School in January, had been the subject of four investigations by the state Department of Children and Families during the previous four years while working as a principal in New Haven.

    East Hartford school officials say they did not know about those cases when they hired Miller.

    "These allegations raise significant concerns and questions about how DCF and local education agencies respond to allegations of abuse and neglect by administration and staff," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Child Advocate Jeanne Milstein said in a joint statement. "We are deeply disturbed about possible abuse of power - and subsequent failure to address the allegations."

    Blumenthal and Millstein's offices have since late 2005 been investigating whether the staff at a Southington middle school properly responded to sexual harassment complaints against a teacher who also was the girls' basketball coach.

    Blumenthal and Millstein say the case involving the East Hartford and New Haven districts has prompted them to expand their ongoing investigation into the responses by DCF and school administrators.

    New Haven school officials say none of the complaints that led to investigations in their district were substantiated by the DCF, meaning there was no determination that abuse or neglect occurred. New Haven officials gave no details about the cases.

    Sources with knowledge of the cases, however, said the complaints involved intimidation of students by Miller while he was serving as principal of Clinton Avenue Elementary School and then Fair Haven Middle School.

    For example, Miller was accused of hitting a 7-year-old boy with a belt, according to sources. In another case, sources say, second- and third-graders complained that Miller pushed and shoved them in his office.

    He also allegedly told students in a third-grade class to make sure they didn't grow up to be whores and prostitutes, the sources said.

    At the middle school, a girl reported that Miller touched her face and told her she was pretty, the sources said, and a boy reported being jacked up against a fence by Miller.

    Miller allegedly told investigators that the complaints were all retaliatory against him by disgruntled parents, angry teachers or children unhappy with his policies or practices, the sources said.

    The complaint in East Hartford was made last month by a 15-year-old girl who said Miller made inappropriate comments to her while he was counseling her about her truancy problems.

    The student said Miller held her hand, commented on her appearance and offered to buy her dinner if she improved her grades, according to a police report.

    East Hartford put Miller on paid leave during an investigation that revealed he broke school board policy by driving the girl to and from her home for a meeting at the high school. East Hartford police also investigated but found insufficient evidence to file charges.

    Miller, 44, who was earning $118,775 annually, denied any improprieties but resigned Friday without comment.

    Marion Martinez, East Hartford's superintendent, said she welcomed the expanded investigation. "I am in favor of anything that protects the children we are trying to educate," she said.

    School officials in New Haven could not be reached for comment.

    Staff Writer Colin Poitras contributed to this story.

    Contact Jim Farrell at jfarrell@courant.com.

    Labels: , , , ,

    Sunday, March 04, 2007

    Prosecuted for political reasons?

    White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say

    By John Solomon and Dan Eggen
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Saturday, March 3, 2007; A01

    The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.

    The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.

    One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office.

    Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.

    Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.

    "At the end of the day, this was a decision to pick the prosecutors we felt would most effectively carry out the department's policies and priorities in the last two years," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.

    Officials portrayed the firings as part of a routine process, saying the White House did not play any role in identifying which U.S. attorneys should be removed or encourage the dismissals. The administration previously said that the White House counsel recommended a GOP replacement for one U.S. attorney, in Arkansas, but did not say that the White House approved the seven other firings.

    "If any agency wants to make a change regarding a presidential appointee, they run that change by the White House counsel's office," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "That is standard operating procedure, and that is what happened here. The White House did not object to the Justice Department decision."

    The seven prosecutors were first identified by the Justice Department's senior leadership shortly before the November elections, officials said. The final decision was supported by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, and cleared with the White House counsel's office, including deputy counsel William Kelly, they said.

    The firings have sparked outrage from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress as details emerge about the unusual decision to remove so many at once on Dec. 7, in the middle of the administration's term. The issue escalated this week with the allegations from Iglesias, who has said he will name the two New Mexico lawmakers who called him if he is asked under oath.

    The House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for Iglesias and three other fired prosecutors, who are set to testify in both the House and the Senate on Tuesday. Lawmakers plan to press for answers, including what triggered the creation of the list and who else was involved.

    Most of the prosecutors have said they were given no reason for their dismissals and have responded angrily to the Justice Department's contention that they were fired because of their performance. At least five of the prosecutors, including Iglesias, were presiding over public corruption investigations when they were fired, but Justice Department officials have said that those probes played no role in the dismissals.

    Domenici's office confirmed yesterday that it had raised concerns with the Justice Department about Iglesias's office, particularly on immigration.

    "We had very legitimate concerns expressed to us by hundreds of New Mexicans -- in the media, in the legal communities and just regular citizens -- about the resources that were available to the U.S. attorney," said Steve Bell, Domenici's chief of staff.

    Domenici and his aides have declined to comment on whether the lawmaker called Iglesias. Any communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules.

    The fired prosecutors in San Diego and Nevada are registered independents, while the rest are generally viewed as moderate Republicans, according to administration officials and many of the fired prosecutors.

    In a recent briefing with lawmakers, McNulty said one factor in the decision to create the list of U.S. attorneys was the concern raised by various members of Congress and law enforcement officials that some U.S. attorneys were not following Bush administration policies or federal sentencing rules, administration officials said.

    The Justice Department received several letters dating to 2005 and signed by more than a dozen California lawmakers, mostly Republicans, raising concerns about then-U.S. Attorney Carol S. Lam's approach to prosecuting immigration cases. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat, also wrote Gonzales in June, saying that the "low prosecution rates have a demoralizing effect on the men and women patrolling our nation's borders."

    On the job less than a year, McNulty consulted his predecessor as deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, about some of the prosecutors before approving the list, officials said. Comey, who did not return a telephone call seeking comment yesterday, praised Iglesias earlier this week as one of the department's best prosecutors.

    The seven prosecutors outside Arkansas were informed about their ousters on Dec. 7, after the White House counsel's office signed off.

    A few days before the firings, administration officials began the traditional process of calling lawmakers in the affected states to inform them about the decisions and to gather early input on possible successors, officials said.

    Although the White House approved the firings, two administration officials said the counsel's office did not suggest replacements. But the officials said White House political affairs officials keep databases on potential job candidates that Justice Department officials could have accessed if they chose.

    An administration official said White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten does not recall whether he was briefed about the firings before they occurred.

    Privately, White House officials acknowledged that the administration mishandled the firings by not explaining more clearly to lawmakers that a large group was being terminated at once -- which is unusual -- and that the reason was the policy performance review.

    Staff writer Michael Abramowitz, washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

    Labels: ,

    Saturday, March 03, 2007

    Citizens abused because of the lack of Oversight and Accountability

    There has been a lack of an ethical and effective Police Internal Affairs unit in Connecticut for a long time. Cases aren’t investigated, are fixed, and the public lacks law enforcement protection and service. The courts lack the same oversight and accountability to actually serve the people, so goes another “Black Hole” of injustice. Lawyers police themselves. This leads me to the thinking that if priests can’t police themselves on their own regarding pedophiles in their flock, self-policing doesn’t work.

    Imagine if corporate raiders and the investment houses had no oversight except their own consciences, would we even have a country?

    Abandoned Police Cases Weren't A First
    Files Show Bristol PD Had Same Flap 8 Years Earlier
    March 3, 2007
    By DON STACOM, Courant Staff Writer

    BRISTOL -- It was a troubling discovery for police commanders: A detective's desk filled with files on partly finished investigations, a few dozen pieces of evidence randomly tossed in a drawer, and a pair of confessions signed more than six months earlier by suspects in two felonies.

    The scenario is familiar to the Bristol Police Department, where in 2005 authorities found two dozen files on half-finished cases - some apparently abandoned for years - on the desk of Det. James Palmer.

    But this discovery had been made eight years earlier, and it involved a different detective: James Zalot.

    When the Palmer mess became public last November after a lengthy freedom of information fight by The Courant, Police Chief John DiVenere conceded the botched work was regrettable but called it "an aberration."

    Documents recently obtained by The Courant, however, show that Palmer wasn't the first detective to let casework back up. The Zalot situation had developed under the watch of some of the same commanders in charge when Palmer's cases were getting backlogged. The documents also reveal that blame for the Palmer situation was more widespread than DiVenere had suggested.

    The new revelations have law enforcement experts pointing to a lack of a strong, independent internal affairs department as contributing to the trouble.

    When the city fired Zalot in October 1997 over an off-duty domestic dispute, police cleaned out his desk and found files locked inside a drawer.

    There was a confession, signed months earlier, from the suspect in a Federal Hill house burglary, and another from a man admitting to stealing cars in Bristol and New Britain. There were files from 16 other unfinished investigations; photographs and documents needed to prosecute a man for attempted murder; and video games, cameras and watches - apparently recovered from burglaries - loose and unmarked in Zalot's desk. Later, police found a taped statement from a 4-year-old boy, the victim in a possible child molestation case, covered by dust on a VCR.

    "The dilemma of finding confessions from suspects in current ongoing investigations inside Zalot's desk is totally unexplainable. The confessions appear to have been just thrown in the desk and never used for prosecution," reads the summary of internal affairs investigation 97-042, issued at the end of 1997.

    The writer was Det. Lt. Thomas Killiany, commander of the detective division.

    Twice in his report, Killiany acknowledged that he'd seen Zalot violate rules about handling files and evidence in the past. But Killiany, among the four highest-ranking officers in the department, never took disciplinary action. Zalot's career had been riddled with troubles, and his personnel file at city hall fills a 2-foot-long box, yet there's no sign Killiany gave him even a written warning about the sloppy filing.

    In the internal affairs report, Killiany did not question whether supervisors should have kept tighter reins on Zalot or better track of felony investigations. And neither DiVenere nor the city's police commission pursued discipline against Killiany, who had been running the detective bureau for 10 years by the time Zalot's troubles surfaced.

    Years later, the same pattern emerged in the Palmer case backlogs.

    When Palmer was out for medical leave in early 2005, a newly promoted detective sergeant, Kevin Morrell, tried to retrieve case files from Palmer's notoriously messy desk. Morrell reported to Killiany that he was alarmed by what he found: Buried in drawers and under papers were files on years-old rape complaints, child abuse reports, house burglaries and an arson. Some had been ignored so long that the statute of limitations had run out.

    `Comprehensive Failure Of Supervision'

    When Capt. Daniel McIntyre investigated in the fall of 2005, he concluded that the trouble extended far beyond Palmer.

    "No effective system of routinely inspecting case files was in place for at least several years," McIntyre wrote in an internal affairs report. "The primary factor mitigating the case against Det. Palmer is the comprehensive failure of supervision."

    The internal affairs investigation expanded to cover Killiany.

    McIntyre didn't like what he found: memos that Killiany had written years earlier, chastising Palmer for letting felony cases sit untouched for months at a time. But no reprimands or suspensions.

    In a September 2001 note, Killiany criticized Palmer for doing little investigating in many cases that year, writing "Cases assigned several months prior for investigation by you had yet to be started."

    And in February 2002, Killiany wrote a follow-up memo demanding that Palmer work on more backlogged cases - nearly 20 reported rapes, burglaries and thefts, some that he'd been assigned as far back as 1998. Killiany ended the message with an underlined order: "Submit these files completed or a report as to their status by 3/15/02."

    Yet three years later, several of those cases were still open. One file - the 1998 report from a 9-year-old boy alleging an attempted sexual assault - showed no sign that any supervisor had reviewed it again until 2005, even though Killiany had personally ordered Palmer to update it in 2002.

    Palmer insisted to McIntyre that Killiany had overworked him, directing him to fix problems with police computers while he was supposed to handle cases. Killiany refused him overtime to catch up and continued to pile on new assignments, Palmer argued. McIntyre nevertheless recommended a long list of departmental charges against the detective.

    By the fall of 2005, the city had quietly negotiated a retirement deal for Palmer, and McIntyre was conducting an internal affairs probe of Killiany.

    Documents show McIntyre asked the tough questions: Why didn't Killiany follow up after discovering Palmer wasn't getting the job done in 2001? Why did Killiany allow cases to keep languishing for years without a supervisor's review? And how were Palmer and his supervisor disciplined?

    Killiany replied that most of the answers would have to come from Det. Sgt. Peter Barton, the night-shift detective supervisor. But Barton wasn't available: He had resigned a year earlier to take a job in Iraq.

    Killiany acknowledged that he didn't institute a better case-tracking system, but he contended that Palmer's situation was unique. Killiany also wrote that his detective supervisors were stretched too thin, and he emphasized that DiVenere knew it.

    "During several meetings with the chief of police during this time frame, he was advised of the supervisory problem. He stated that he understood and was working on getting additional supervision for the Criminal Investigations Division," Killiany wrote.

    McIntyre wasn't buying those arguments, and he brought departmental charges against Killiany for not supervising subordinates, failing to take necessary actions, and conduct unbecoming an officer.

    DiVenere sustained only the failure to supervise charge and gave Killiany a written reprimand.

    "`Conduct unbecoming' is a serious charge - I don't think it rose to that," DiVenere said last week. "The reprimand was appropriate. ... This was his first discipline in a flawless 30-some-odd-year career."

    DiVenere repeatedly emphasized that he and Killiany instituted computerized case-tracking systems and monthly reports after Palmer left, to ensure that crimes won't go ignored again.

    "We had an overworked and under-supervised detective division. But our detectives are expected to work fairly independently - they always have been, always will be," DiVenere said. "The people directly responsible are gone, and I'm confident nothing like this will ever happen again."

    The union said last week that it's concerned the entire matter shouldn't tarnish the current police force.

    "Many of the things being reported about involve people no longer employed by the Bristol Police Department," said Officer Peter Kot, union president, "and nothing should reflect on the people currently here."

    Kot said the union believes DiVenere handled the situation correctly and that Killiany's reprimand was appropriate "in light of his unblemished record."

    Palmer declined to be interviewed, and Zalot and Killiany did not return phone calls.

    Internal Investigations Procedure Faulted

    The case raises questions about the police department's procedures for policing itself, experts say.

    Before he retired, Palmer filed an internal complaint accusing Killiany of overworking and harassing him. Capt. Daniel Britt investigated and issued a report that cleared Killiany.

    Just 13 days later, the roles were reversed: Killiany was assigned to investigate charges against Britt. A state lawmaker claimed Britt had harassed him while off duty. That investigation, too, ended with a conclusion of "exonerated."

    Their detailed reports show Britt and Killiany each invested substantial time and effort in the investigations, backed up by signed statements they secured from numerous witnesses.

    But two independent authorities who were contacted by The Courant said assigning "cross-over" investigations is never advisable because it may leave an impression of unfairness.

    "The appearance of impropriety cannot be overcome by the ranks of the officers involved. After all, one would never assign two rank-and-file police officers to investigate each other," said Tom Nolan, criminal justice professor at Boston University and former chief investigator for the anti-corruption division of the Boston Police Department's office of internal investigations.

    "It certainly wasn't good policy," said John Doherty, a criminal justice professor at Marist College and former head of internal affairs for the Poughkeepsie, N.Y., police. "The chief should have done it himself or called in the state police."

    In a memo to the police commission last summer, DiVenere acknowledged that "a number of concerns" had been raised about the need for an internal affairs unit as well as more supervision of the detective division. The 125-member department doesn't have a separate division for investigating complaints of misconduct by its officers; instead, DiVenere usually assigns those cases to Killiany, who is also responsible for supervising the detective division. Some are given to other lieutenants or one of the two captains.

    DiVenere proposes creating another detective lieutenant's post to handle all internal investigations and take over the narcotics squad, about half of Killiany's current assignment.

    The police commission endorsed DiVenere's proposal, but it has been stalled at a city council committee, where several members are siding with the union's position that internal affairs work should be handled by a non-union commander to avoid conflicts.

    The police department's internal affairs system has been questioned in the past. In 2005, veteran Officer Bryce Linskey told city hall that Britt had been stopped repeatedly by city police after driving erratically, but no action was taken.

    "Chief DiVenere is aware of some of these incidents, but fails to or refuses to address this problem," Linskey wrote.

    The city hired outside investigators who exonerated Britt in three instances and said they couldn't prove or disprove most of the rest. "We have determined that Capt. Britt either admitted or was observed drinking alcohol prior to many of the police interactions," the investigators wrote. They recommended requiring formal reports of any potential misconduct by city police, whether on duty or not.

    Britt retired in November 2005 amid an investigation into claims that off-duty police were broadcasting racist slurs on a radio station operating from the basement of an officer's home. The city hired outside investigators who found no evidence of racist broadcasts.

    In their Nov. 23, 2005, report, those investigators pointed out problems within the department.

    "The current organizational structure of the Bristol Police Department appears to contribute to a perception that certain officers are held to different standards. Internal Affairs investigations are conducted at the discretion of the chief of police and assigned to superior officers for investigation," they wrote.

    Contact Don Stacom at dstacom@courant.com.

    * * * *

    [click here] for

    The Culture of Corruption Continues?

    Labels: , , ,

    View My Stats