Friday, December 28, 2007

Are Connecticut Judges Next?

The Connecticut State Police and Connecticut judges have gotten away with fixing cases too long. Appeal and the case is fixed. Go to the Connecticut Supreme Court, the case is fixed. The organized crime, judicial, police, attorney, official, and prosecutorial misconduct has gone on too long in Connecticut. [example]

Convicted of Bribery, Two Former Judges Report to Federal Prison

Holbrook Mohr
The Associated Press
December 28, 2007

Two former judges reported to federal prison Thursday to begin serving lengthy sentences for their roles in a judicial bribery scandal that entangled one of the state's most prominent plaintiffs attorneys.

Wes Teel, 57, surrendered to a minimum security prison camp in Atlanta to begin a nearly six-year sentence, federal prisons spokesman Mike Truman said.

John Whitfield, 45, reported to the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Ky., for a more than nine-year sentence, Truman said. It was not clear what medical condition Whitfield has.

Paul Minor, who was convicted of bribing the judges, is already serving an 11-year sentence in a federal prison in Pensacola, Fla. The 61-year-old Minor was once considered among the top trial lawyers in Mississippi, amassing a fortune from tobacco, asbestos and other litigation.

Prosecutors say Minor orchestrated a complicated scheme in which he guaranteed loans for the judges, then used cash and third parties in an attempt to conceal the fact that Minor paid off the loans. The judges were convicted of giving Minor's clients favorable rulings in civil cases in exchange for the money.

The men were all sentenced in September, but U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate allowed the former judges to report to prison after Christmas so they could get their affairs in order.

Minor had violated the terms of his pretrial bond, including for alleged excessive drinking, and was already behind bars at the time of his conviction.

Minor and the former judges are appealing their convictions. They claim to be the victims of a politically charged investigation by a Republican controlled Justice Department that wanted to bring an end to Minor's financial support of Democratic candidates.

Prosecutors, however, say the jurors made a sound decision in finding the men guilty at the end of a second, three-month trial. The first trial in 2005 ended with the acquittal of Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr. The jurors couldn't come to a decision on some of the charges against the other defendants in that first trial and Diaz was the only one cleared of all charges. Diaz has since returned to the bench.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Labels:

Court Rejects Billionaire's Bid to Obtain Milberg Weiss Work Product

CA shareholder Wyly had sought internal documents to support claim that settlement did not adequately account for company fraud

A Manhattan appeals court has rejected a billionaire investor's bid to obtain the work product of three plaintiffs firms, led by Milberg Weiss, which he claims settled a class action against software maker CA Inc., for too little.

Sam Wyly, a major CA shareholder, had sought internal documents from Milberg Weiss; Stull, Stull & Brody; and Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler to support his claims that the 2003 settlement they negotiated, valued at $134 million, failed to adequately account for fraud at CA, which ultimately landed top executives -- including CEO Sanjay Kumar and general counsel Steven Woghin -- in jail.

But in a decision issued Thursday, the Appellate Division, 1st Department, ruled that Wyly, as an absent class member in the CA suit, did not have the same right to lawyers' files as a client in a traditional "bipolar" attorney-client relationship.

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Eugene Nardelli on behalf of a panel that also included Justices Richard T. Andrias, John W. Sweeny and Bernard J. Malone, the court said the Court of Appeals' 1997 decision in Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose, 91 NY2d 30, which held that clients are entitled to all of their attorney's work product, did not apply to absent class members.

"Sage Realty ... involved an attorney-client relationship in the traditional sense, in that the single voice of a client governs, among other things, the lawyer's conduct; the direction of a case, including any decision on when, if, and under what terms it should be settled; and the attorney's continued employment," Justice Nardelli wrote in Wyly v. Milberg Weiss, 104553/05.

"In contrast," he continued, "it has been observed, by courts and commentators alike, that the relationship between appointed counsel and an absent member in a class action differs fundamentally from that found in the traditional relationship."

The panel said absent class members were entitled to some of the benefits of an attorney-client relationship, such as privileged communications with class counsel, but had no right to direct the course of litigation. The court noted that Wyly had been free to hire his own lawyer in the CA class action, though his role still would have been limited, or opt out of the class action altogether.

The court also said Wyly had not sufficiently shown why he needed access to the lawyers' files.

Nardelli wrote that Wyly appeared to be using the state court proceeding as a "fishing expedition" for evidence that might support his ongoing battle in federal court to have the CA settlement vacated.

Last month, Wyly also filed a legal malpractice suit in Manhattan Supreme Court against Milberg Weiss and the other two class action firms in the CA case. In that suit, Wyly alleges the firms fraudulently induced class members to participate in an inadequate settlement that still paid $40 million in legal fees.

Wyly's lawyer, William Brewer of Bickel & Brewer, Thursday said his client was on firm legal ground bringing a legal malpractice case as class member and would be able to obtain the documents he sought in the course of that case. But Brewer said they would nevertheless appeal the Appellate Division's decision because it was "bad law" that allowed class action lawyers to act against the interests of class member.

Milberg Weiss, which did not respond Thursday to an e-mail request for comment, and the other firms appeared pro se.

Subscribe to New York Law Journal



* * * *

The below found:
http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2007/12/court-rejects-billionaires-bid-to.html

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

The Aftermath of Judicial Abuse:

Surviving Outdoors in Winter


Text with video:
Video, EXPLANATION:
http://thesrv.blogspot.com/2007/12/pr...

Surviving Outdoors in Winter. After fearing more false arrests at the hands of the Connecticut State Police and more judicial misconduct, I decided to hide out in Vermont, and start fighting back, legally.

I started out living like a hermit, burning wood, trying to keep warm and dry. Canned meat, fruits, and jars of nuts kept me fed.

I creatively have worked myself out of the woods but still haven't had a closet of my own since being terrorized out of these properties:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wXNBH...
by the Connecticut State Police.

Monday, December 24, 2007

Another National Attorney Syndicate Scam on Families, Children, Taxpayers

Guardian Ad Litem


Supervised visits means lawyers get more visits and "Mo Money"

Christopher Kennedy of Ellington, Connecticut, talks about lodging a judicial misconduct against Rockville Superior Court Judge Jonathan J. Kaplan, retaliation, and the scam of supervised visitation.

Connecticut State Police misconduct can follow lodging a police or judicial misconduct complaint and in contacting a Governor's staff regarding being abused.

Judges can put information is super sealed files, which means judicial abuse is kept secret from the public and the media. Judges can "code" files for other judges to continue to retaliate against outspoken citizens wanting justice for families, children, and taxpayers.

Paying over a million dollars to get divorced and then suffering further by having supervised visitation:

Sunday, December 23, 2007

The Ku Klux Klan and the Supreme Court


US Supreme Court Justice Hugo La Fayette Black traded in his White KKK robe for the Black Supreme Court robe.

Excerpt:
While watching Brit Hume’s program on religion in America last night, I learned a very interesting nugget of information. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the opinion in the 1947 Everson vs. Board of Education in which religious schools would no longer be eligible for Federal funds, was once a member of the KKK.

The significance, according to the program, was that Justice Black was outspokenly anti-Catholic and was afraid of the growing influence of Catholics in American politics. He resurected a passage in a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association assuring them that he was a protector or religious liberty. The passage alluded to a "wall of seperation" created by the first amendment that prevented the Congress from dictating religious beliefs.

Jefferson’s meaning was clearly not to prevent religion from informing public policy and debate, but to prevent government from influencing religious institutions. But Black used the phrase to politicize a Court that, up until then, had interpreted the Constitution as it was written. Black wrote that the First Amendment “was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State,” and that it “must be kept high and impregnable.”

Most Americans believe that the Constitution calls for a "seperation of Church and State" when in fact, it says nothing of the kind. They might be shocked to realize that our modern understanding was actually the creation of a former Klansman who used the Court to further his own political agenda of attempting to freeze Catholics out of the political process. [click here for entire text]

* * * *

The Supreme Court decided George W. Bush was to be US President in his first election. The people did not decide that outcome. US Judges operate little kingdoms, a monarchy, in the US. It has gone on too long. The judicial open violation of ADA laws might be their undoing. [video]

Two Connecticut Judicial Branch employees blow the whistle on judicial misconduct and taxpayer defrauding by "the branch". [video]

Law to break Connecticut's Patronage System?


427 U.S. 347 (1976), argued 19 Apr. 1976, decided 28 June 1976 by vote of 5 to 3; Brennan for the Court, Stewart and Blackmun concurring, Burger, Powell, and Rehnquist in dissent, Stevens not participating. Five members of the Court, in two separate opinions, imposed a First Amendment barrier to time‐honored party patronage practices. In Cook County, Illinois, a newly elected Democratic sheriff sought to discharge noncivil service employees who were Republican appointees of a previous Republican sheriff. The Supreme Court affirmed a court of appeals judgment for injunctive relief (see Injunctions and Equitable Remedies). Although unprotected by civil‐service laws, the employees were not in policymaking positions, were assumed to be performing their duties satisfactorily, and were being discharged solely because they were Republicans occupying positions now meant for Democrats. Dismissals in these circumstances, the Court declared, severely restrict political belief and association as protected by the First Amendment. More controversially, it also held that such restrictions are not outweighed by any contribution of patronage to the democratic process. Government could serve asserted vital purposes by less restrictive means than patronage dismissals.

Justice William Brennan's plurality opinion seemed to challenge the patronage system so broadly as to raise doubts about even the validity of government hiring of party supporters. Unwilling to join that broad a challenge, Justices Potter Stewart and Harry Blackmun concurred only with reference to the unconstitutionality of discharging nonconfidential, nonpolicymaking employees. In dissent, Justice Lewis Powell wrote an especially strong defense of patronage. It contributed sufficiently, Powell said, so that the state's interest in preserving it is greater than the burden on First Amendment rights.

In Branti v. Finkel (1980), Elrod was extended to protect Republican assistant public defenders from dismissal by a new Democratic public defender. Ten years later, the Court invoked the principles of Elrod and Branti to invalidate patronage practices in promotions, transfers, recalls from layoffs, and hiring in its decision in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990).

See also Assembly and Association, Citizenship, Freedom of; Political Parties.

— Leon D. Epstein

Thursday, December 20, 2007

FOI request to the Connecticut Judicial Branch

I just got off the phone with an aid to Attorney Melissa A. Farley and had asked about making a FOI request. She directed me to write a letter to:

Hon. Barbara Quinn
Chief Court Administor
231 Capitol Ave
Hartford, Connecticut 06106

Melissa A. Farley, Executive Director Tel: (860) 757-2270
External Affairs Division Fax: 757-2215

[click here] for the Connecticut Judicial Branch official website

I plan on asking the Judicial Branch in Connecticut how much they paid and to whom, to come up with these results [video].

I don't believe the results and think that taxpayer money was wasted without a 2nd thought. I also think it may have been an "inside job" where money for the survey, documents and studies, and for holding the meetings found its way to friends and insiders of those in the Judicial Branch in Connecticut.

I made a video of a survey that the judicial branch came up with. [video]

I don't see how that the Judicial Branch in Connecticut can say they and the courts are efficient, ethical, and operate in the public's best interest with an 85% approval rating. McDonald's Hamburger restaurants probably don't have that high a rating, and people WANT and CHOOSE to go there!

Two judicial branch employees let the cat out of the bag on what really goes on behind closed doors at the Judicial Branch in Connecticut. [video]

I think taxpayers are being defrauded by the Connecticut Judicial Branch in more ways than one.

Francis C. P. Knize, frankknee@aol.com, has informed me about upcoming hearings in Connecticut if citizens mobolize to ask legislators to amend the Connecticut Constitution upcoming in 2008. This opportunity only comes around every 20 years in Connecticut. I hope that Francis, I, Chris Kennedy, and others get on the stick, and mobilize to take this chance to better the courts and life for all, making precedent.

What Connecticut does, usually makes precedent nationally, such as Eminent Domain. [video]

How the courts have obeyed ADA laws nationally and how judges shouldn't be judging judges might help to reform the courts, nationally. [video]

Check back here, we'll try and keep you informed.

stevengerickson@yahoo.com

I think this is what Official Connecticut would like to do to the average citizen after the kids are taken away, the house and assets confiscated by lawyers and the Connecticut courts, do you think you should, "Shut up and Like it"?



[click here] for post

Lawyer Deserves Disbarment

December 20, 2007 Hartford Courant Editorial:

Lawyers have a duty to protect their clients' interests — but not by destroying evidence of child pornography, as attorney Philip D. Russell of Greenwich did. For that, he must be disbarred.

Mr. Russell was charged February with obstructing justice by smashing a laptop computer onto which a choirmaster for a Greenwich church had downloaded child pornography.

An employee of the church had discovered the pornography on Robert Tate's laptop last fall, and church officials quickly hired Mr. Russell as their attorney. Unaware that Mr. Tate was under investigation by the FBI, Mr. Russell referred him to a defense lawyer, then destroyed the laptop without reporting what was on it, to avoid a scandal

The failure to report the find gave Mr. Tate time to remove his collection of child pornography from his apartment, a prosecutor said. Eventually, the FBI found that Mr. Tate had traveled to the Philippines and Thailand to have sex with young boys. "I've never seen such an extensive history of child abuse," said U.S. District Court Judge Alan H. Nevas.

Mr. Russell said he couldn't be guilty of obstructing the investigation because he didn't know about it. The Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association took his side, arguing that he would have violated his confidential relationship with his client if he had turned the computer over to authorities.

But he went way beyond representing his client when he took a sledgehammer to the computer that is believed to have held more than 2,000 images of naked boys. Mr. Russell had sworn under the Connecticut attorney's oath to "inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge."

Christ Church Greenwich was evidently only too happy to avoid the scandal. It should have relied on conscience more than legal advice and turned to law enforcement officials rather than a lawyer.

Mr. Russell pleaded guilty Monday to a reduced charge of failing to report a crime. U.S. District Judge Alan H. Nevas was kind in sentencing him to six months of home confinement rather than prison. Mr. Russell gave up his law license temporarily in an agreement with the judicial branch's Statewide Grievance Committee. The committee will now decide whether he should be disbarred.

Considering the evidence he destroyed, he should be. He delayed the investigation of a man with such an extensive history of child sexual abuse that Judge Nevas said "it turns your stomach."

Lawyers have obligations to their clients, but they also have an obligation not to put more children at risk by crushing evidence of a heinous crime.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

A good thing

Committee Schedules Another Meeting To Discuss Judge's Ethics

POSTED: 1:35 pm EST December 17, 2007
A disciplinary committee that heard the case of a New Hampshire judge who admitted violating ethics rules has scheduled another hearing to consider further issues. The Judicial Conduct Committee announced that it has scheduled a special meeting on Thursday of the panel that heard Superior Court Judge Patricia Coffey's case. It's the second special closed-door meeting for the panel since a source said it voted to recommend that Coffey be suspended for helping shield her husband's assets as he was being disbarred. A person familiar with the deliberations told The Associated Press last week that the committee voted to recommend Coffey be suspended for less than six months. Recommendations go to the state Supreme Court, which decides punishment. The committee has not made any disciplinary vote public. It met several days after the reported vote last week to discuss the confidentiality of its proceedings.Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Is there a 3 strikes you're out policy for the Connecticut Judicial Branch?

[click here] for a post on the Cheshire Connecticut Home Invasion and Connecticut State Police running a prostitution protection racket.

UST Manual Volume 5: Chapter 5-9: Other Bankruptcy Related Crimes

5-9.1 MISPRISION OF A FELONY, 18 U.S.C. § 4
"Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and, does not, as soon as possible, make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined not more that $500 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."


5-9.3.2 Conspiracy to Violate Laws of the United States


The second part of this statute covers any agreement between at least two people to violate any law of the United States, followed by at least one overt act to accomplish that violation. It is not necessary that the actual substantive violation be completed or that the overt act itself be illegal. An agreement to violate state law is not covered by this statute. Conspiracy charges often may be combined with substantive violations that are completed because of favorable rules of evidence. It also will allow a conviction in some cases even though the jury finds the defendant did not complete the substantive act charged.


5-9.3.1 Conspiracy to Defraud the United States


Where two or more individuals agree to defraud the United States or any agency thereof, and then do at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement, the crime of conspiracy is completed. There is no requirement that the actual fraud be accomplished. Interference or obstruction of a legitimate government function is a violation, just as is a scheme to obtain government property or money by fraud.

This section is useful when more than one defendant is involved and the scheme is not fully carried out. Because of favorable rules of evidence in conspiracy cases, the United States Attorney often uses this statute.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Should wronged citizens go after Connecticut using the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871?

Except:

The remaining civil provisions of the act were later codified under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3), where they have been referred to as the conspiracy statute. These provisions hold, in part, that when two or more persons "conspire or go in disguise on the highway or the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving … any person or class of persons of the EQUAL PROTECTION of the law," they may be sued by the injured parties. The civil provisions, or § 1985(3), remained generally unused until the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S. Ct. 1790, 29 L. Ed. 2d 338. In Griffin, the Court reaffirmed the original intention of § 1985(3) and ruled that the statute may allow a civil remedy for certain private conspiracies. The Griffin case concerned a 1966 incident in Mississippi in which a group of white men stopped a car out of suspicion that one of its three African–American occupants was a civil rights worker. The whites proceeded to beat and threaten the African Americans. The Court upheld one victim's claim that, under § 1985(3), the whites had engaged in a conspiracy to deny him the equal protection of the laws of the United States and Mississippi.

In making its decision, the Court was careful to restrict § 1985 claims to those involving actions motivated by "some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus." This standard meant that the conspirators in question had to be motivated against a class of persons, not a particular political or social issue. By creating this standard, the Court sought to prevent § 1985(3) from becoming a "general federal TORT law" that would cover every type of private conspiracy.

The above found [here]

Judicial Branch employees last Thursday eluded to a possibly Statewide conspiracy to defraud taxpayers. Where there is conspiracy to defraud taxpayers, there is also obstruction of justice, racketeering, and the going after individuals that blow the whistle, inside and outside, the system. I would like to see Official Connecticut shut down using the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. I would also like to see those wronged by the Judicial conspirators to have their rights restored, be compensated, and have their criminal records expunged.





This blogger's email:
stevengerickson@yahoo.com

Sunday, December 09, 2007

Magistrate won't release ex-cop in enticement case

By:Alex Wood, Journal Inquirer
12/08/2007

A federal magistrate judge has refused to release former East Windsor [Connecticut] police Officer Darren E. Seligman from jail while an Internet child enticement case is pending against him.


In a written ruling issued this week, Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith called Seligman, 38, "a serious suicide risk" as well as a risk to the girl he is accused of trying to entice into sexual activity and to her mother.

Seligman and his lawyer, William H. Paetzold of Glastonbury, had temporarily agreed to Seligman's being held without bail after FBI agents arrested him at the East Windsor police station in late October.

But they sought his release at a hearing Monday before Smith in U.S. District Court in Hartford.
In support of the application they filed a psychological report by Dr. Leslie M. Lothstein, which was sealed from public view. A federal prosecutor cross-examined Lothstein about the report at Monday's hearing.

"During his interview with Dr. Lothstein, the defendant explained that he did not realize that the victim was only 11 years old, but, rather, believed she was post-pubescent," Smith wrote in his two-page ruling, dated Wednesday. "Dr. Lothstein appears not to have believed this; neither does the court."

The judge wrote that Lothstein acknowledged on cross-examination that Seligman "poses a risk to the victim in this case as well as to her mother. In addition, Dr. Lothstein indicated that the defendant poses a risk to himself.

"Indeed, during the hearing and as noted on the record, the defendant appeared to be severely distressed," Smith continued.

The judge wrote that the proposed release conditions "would facilitate the defendant's harming himself."
Paetzold couldn't be reached for comment Friday evening.

The girl Seligman is accused of trying to entice into sexual activity once lived near him in Mansfield. But the communications at issue occurred after her family moved away in August.

Against Paetzold's advice, Seligman stood up at an early court hearing in his case and apologized for his conduct, even as he maintained that he never intended to meet the girl.

The latter claim could represent a legal defense to the criminal charge he is facing. But Seligman said he "will likely be a convicted felon and sex offender."

He subsequently resigned from the East Windsor police force.
Seligman can appeal Smith's decision to a U.S. district judge, who is appointed for life rather than serving an eight-year term as Smith does.

If convicted of the charge he is facing, trying to entice a minor into illegal sexual activity via an "interstate facility," Seligman could face a minimum of 10 years in prison. The charge carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, but actual sentences for first-time offenders like Seligman tend to be at or near the minimum when it is as severe as 10 years.


©Journal Inquirer 2007

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Mistresses of Judges paid with Tax Dollars?

Are judges doing cocaine in chambers or taking cocaine as bribes to fix cases? Are court employees erasing judicial hard drives, adding, and deleting information illegally? You decide:


Two Connecticut Judicial Branch employees let the cat out of the bag, 12-6-2007, at the Bridgeport Superior Court, the #2 meeting of special hearings on ethics in the Connecticut courts.

[click here] for all of my videos

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, December 06, 2007

High Bail to make the innocent plead guilty

A Hartford Connecticut Defense Lawyer let's the cat out of the bag on a Connecticut Scam:


You are put in jail, not able to raise bail, and have to plead out, just to see daylight. Is your state as bad and corrupt as Connecticut? Louisiana is losing out to Connecticut as the corruption capitol.

[click here] for more videos like the above

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Again, Connecticut State Police Terrorizing Each Other!

It would be comical if it weren't so appalling. The Connecticut State Police Internal Affairs Unit seemed to help bad officers harass and terrorize the good, caring ones. The Connecticut Internal Affairs Unit had to be taken over by the Unit in New York by the New York State Police as Connecticut officers were abusing other officers to such an alarming extent. The official 168 page report that New York State Police issued regarding the Connecticut State Police, paints troopers in Connecticut as a Mafia-like organized crime syndicate, not law enforcement.

More proof that the Connecticut State Police needs to be dismantled for a Connecticut State Highway Patrol, town and city departments bolstered, and there needs to be Civilian Oversight of Police.


* * * *

Internal Investigation Into Threat
Supervising Sergeant Found Note And Bullet With Badge Number


By TRACY GORDON FOX | Courant Staff Writer
December 1, 2007

BRIDGEPORT - State police are investigating whether one of their own threatened a sergeant at the Bridgeport barracks who found a bullet with his badge number engraved on it along with a menacing note tucked in his desk drawer.

Internal affairs investigators have been called to the barracks to look into whether another trooper wrote the note, and the evidence has been sent to the state police laboratory. Investigators have done interviews and taken fingerprints from the bullet and the note, sources said. The note suggested the sergeant would be shot, sources said.

The investigation comes as other troopers who were whistle-blowers in the investigation of the department's internal affairs unit said they had been targeted for retaliation for making complaints.

Commissioner John A. Danaher III said the investigation is not a criminal one, but is being conducted internally.

"There is some confusion about how we are approaching it. I have gotten some word from some individuals who believe it is a criminal investigation and it is not," Danaher said Friday. "It is an inquiry."

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called for a criminal investigation Friday, saying, "These reports are very deeply disturbing."

"They should almost certainly be the subject of a criminal investigation as well as an internal affairs investigation," Blumenthal said, adding there is also the possibility of a whistle-blower investigation by his office. "I have no information as to why [Danaher] may be proceeding in one direction or another. Clearly there is a very direct and imminent threat in this message."

The threat was directed at Sgt. Matthew Satkowski, known as a demanding patrol supervisor who is a stickler for detail and regulations.

Union President Steven Rief questioned whether the department is doing enough to prevent intimidation in the workplace.

"It is a call to the agency that whatever they are doing, they need to redouble their efforts," he said. "This is not conduct the rank and file would condone."

Danaher said the department's harassment and retaliation policy has been posted at barracks, on the Internet, and every employee has had to acknowledge receiving it.

"It is something we are going to continue to work on. We are not going to slack off in any sense," he said.

Rief said the incident may be the work of one individual who decided to act out against a supervisor.

"People should be asking questions," he said. "How can something like this happen?"

Rief said the union has offered support to Satkowski, who "has been on the job for a number of years and is a very good supervisor and does his job every day."

"I think anyone who had received a threat, either at the workplace or outside the workplace would be concerned," Rief said.

Contact Tracy Gordon Fox at tfox@courant.com.

Copyright © 2007, The Hartford Courant


* * * *
* * * *

Police in Connecticut are acting as a domestic spy ring. If you contact legislators regarding reforming police or the judiciary, instilling accountability, ethics, and the US Constitution, the citizen is put under surveillance, phones are tapped, internet use monitored, and a plan is hatch to dismantle a citizen's life, family, to discredit the citizen, falsely arrest citizens, and to have them falsely imprisoned as political prisoners. [proof]

Labels: , ,

Saturday, December 01, 2007

More out of control judges need to meet this fate:

Panel gives judge a ringing rebuke (CNN)

From Janine Brady
CNN



NEW YORK (CNN) -- A judge in Niagara Falls, New York, has apologized for jailing nearly four dozen people over a ringing mobile phone in his courtroom, his attorney said Wednesday.

In removing City Court Judge Robert Restaino from office Tuesday, the state Commission on Judicial Conduct called his decision to lock up 46 people after no one claimed ownership of the phone "a gross deviation from the proper role of a judge."

But Restaino's lawyer, Terrence Connors, said Wednesday the judge "profoundly apologizes for his actions" during the March 2005 hearing and will appeal the panel's ruling.

"It is our hope that the Court of Appeals will measure those few hours against a decade of exemplary conduct on the bench," Connors said in a written statement.

But the commission found Restaino's conduct so egregious that his 11 years of service and clean record did not matter.

"We conclude that respondent's behavior ... warrants the sanction of removal, notwithstanding his previously unblemished record on the bench and the testimony as to his character and reputation," the panel ruled.

According to the commission report, Restaino was presiding over a domestic-violence case when a ringing mobile phone interrupted proceedings. When no one took responsibility for the ringing phone, Restaino ordered that court security officers search for the device.

About 70 defendants were in the courtroom that day to take part in a monitoring program for domestic violence offenders. When no one admitted to owning the phone, Restaino heard the remaining cases and then recalled the cases of defendants who had already been released to question them about the phone, according to the commission report.

After all the defendants denied having the phone or knowing who it belonged to, Restaino sent 46 people to jail. Fourteen who were unable to make bail were handcuffed and jailed for several hours.

According to the report, Restaino decided to release defendants only after learning reporters were inquiring about their incarceration.

Labels: ,


View My Stats