Sunday, April 20, 2008

Sewage running downhill in the CT Judicial Branch?:

AP Interview: Rogers reflects on first year as chief justice

Associated Press
April 8, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. - As she met with judges during her first year in the state's top judicial job, Chief Justice Chase Rogers heard the same concern over and over: There's a lack of security in Connecticut courthouses.

Judges across Connecticut, particularly those working in older buildings, confided that they don't feel safe.

"They shouldn't," Rogers said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. "There's not adequate security for these buildings."

In some courthouses, judges can suddenly find themselves walking past criminal defendants in the same hallway. Many family courts, where heated debates over child custody matters are commonplace, often have no judicial marshals at all.

"My fear is, we can't wait until something terrible happens before we get this straightened out," Rogers said. "This is the sort of thing that does keep me up at night."

The issue drew attention in 2005, when a retired state trooper killed his estranged wife and seriously injured her lawyer before turning the gun on himself in the Middletown Superior Court parking lot. The incident prompted calls for additional courthouse security, but led to few lasting changes.

"For whatever reason, it didn't stick," Rogers said.

Rogers has asked Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the legislature for $1.2 million, enough to hire a new 35-member class of marshals. But the funding did not appear in either the governor's or the Democrat-controlled Appropriations Committee budget. Lawmakers and Rell have until May 7 to hash out an agreement on a revised budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Officials estimate that the courts need 920 marshals, but there are only about 720. On any given day, that number could be down by 100 due to leaves of absence, workers compensation or vacation, court officials said.

Since she was sworn into office on April 25, 2007, Rogers has focused much of her attention on improving the core functions of the state's judicial system.

She formed a 42-member Public Service and Trust Commission, which has held more than 90 focus group sessions and spent thousands of hours on a three- to five-year strategic plan for the branch that is due to be released soon.

The ideas range from making sure all courthouses open at 8:30 a.m. to reaching out to minority law students and encouraging them to seek judgeships or apply for Judicial Branch jobs.

The group is looking at how the courts can best deal with the state's changing demographics and the need for more language interpreters. The branch is already trying out a new phone system where court proceedings can be translated over the phone.

"It was scary enough for me as a lawyer to go into court. Can you imagine if you don't understand what's happening simply because you don't understand the language and can't read the signs?" Rogers asked.

Rogers has also asked her commission to re-examine how judges are evaluated. The current system has not been changed in about 20 years. She also wants to create a new judicial ethics panel that will help guide judges who have ethical concerns, such as whether it is appropriate to attend fundraisers.

In the meantime, Rogers has created a new mentoring program to help new judges and welcomed news cameras in the state's courtrooms. So far, she said, the experiment has gone well. The first televised trial will likely involved a deadly 2005 truck crash on Avon Mountain.

Rogers acknowledges said one of the most enjoyable parts of her new job has been presiding over the state Supreme Court, where she's written more than 30 decisions.

"It's hard for me to even describe it. It's a life's dream to be able to sit and immerse myself in these cases and think about these cases and write these decisions," she said. "My favorite part of the day is when I get to sit down and start reading and really thinking about the issues and the cases."

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

* * * *

My comment posted to the above Hartford Courant piece:

I was near a Connecticut courthouse last week.

I played a "fly on the wall".

What could have been overheard by others:

Justice Angelo Santanello really runs things in all courts in Connecticut. He may even decide the outcomes of future cases before they are heard. Santanello allegedly works in Chase T. Rogers' office and is # 2.

Judicial Manager Joe D'Alessio or D'Angelo allegedly is an "enforcer", as there are possibly more than half of judicial branch employees that have no duties or responsibilities other than spying on judicial branch employees that actually do work for their pay, tax dollars. Give a judicial "special employee" a dirty work and you will be escorted out of a court or judicial building by a Marshal, fired or put on leave.

Joe's daughter is allegedly Maria Kewer married to high ranking Connecticut State Police Officer William "Bill" Kewer.

This is allegedly just one of the connections where the brass at Connecticut State Police can shepherd trials, criminal and civil, against officers, and their friends and operatives.

Judicial Branch employees are allegedly encouraged to commit fraud and bilk taxpayers anyway possible, so that as they rise dirt can surface. Those that are dirty are team players and will help retaliate against whistleblowers to prevent being fired for legitimate reasons.

"Temporary" judicial branch workers might be encouraged to provide a false address at the other side of Connecticut to where they are working to bilk taxpayers for fraudulent milege charges billed to taxpayers, maybe $1000/month for each temporary judicial branch employee part of this scam. Scams and fraud perpetrated on taxpayers possibly go on with full knowledge and participation all the way to the top.

Bid rigging for court cleaning contracts and the company called Fusco should be looked into.

The "P" Bureau under the head of the former USSR isn't as sleazy and devious as so many members of the Connecticut Judicial Branch.

Possibly related to what could have been overheard this past week is a video I shot of two judicial branch employees blowing the whistle on felonies being committed in the judicial branch:

Everyone shown on the panel of the video should be arrested for these crimes if they did nothing after hearing the testimony:

* * * *

The Judicial Branch sealed "public comment" from an internal evaluation of themselves. It is a taxpayer scam that this "survey" was conducted. Here is a publicly funded farce, a hearing where the Judicial Branch in Connecticut gave themselves straight A's:

this blogger's email:

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Have juries been rendered useless?

[post] on the Stark Raving Viking blog

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Arresting the "Brown Skins"

Arizona Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio is in the news again. Anyone looking Hispanic or with "Brown skin" is a target of Sheriff Joe.

It is not illegal to be of Spanish descent.

This sheriff's activities seem to be racist, Un-american, and Unconstitutional.

* * * *

Commentary: Local police shouldn't enforce immigration law [CNN]

Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Using local law enforcement in immigration matters will end badly.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- The wacky world of immigration reform is full of half-baked ideas, but none has the taste of having spent less time in the oven than letting local cops enforce federal immigration law.

As the son of a retired cop who spent 37 years on the job, and someone who has seen firsthand how much havoc this policy can wreak, let me be clear: No. No. No. It's a dreadful idea that never goes away. In fact, someone should drive a wooden stake through its heart.

Listen to the experts. And I don't mean right-wing pundits, who have never worn a badge. I'm talking about men and women who have spent their careers in law enforcement. Most police chiefs in the country, and many rank-and-file officers, are smart enough to balk at enforcing immigration law. But the law enforcement community isn't monolithic. There are younger officers who are eager to jump into the muck and enforce immigration law. Many of the veteran officers know better and oppose it.

Meanwhile, politicians foolishly rush in. In December 2005, the Costa Mesa, California, City Council made that city the first in the United States to take advantage of a Justice Department program that trains local officers to enforce immigration law.

Now the issue is raging in Phoenix, Arizona, where media hound Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio struck an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, authorizing the training of 100 deputies to arrest illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security or public safety. Among the more than 1,000 people arrested so far: corn vendors scooped off city streets. You know the world is a dangerous place when food vendors are considered a threat to national security.

Things also are heating up in Irving, Texas, where police officers are using -- some say abusing -- an ICE initiative called the Criminal Alien Program, which allows local police departments to detain illegal immigrants who have been accused of a crime. That sounds reasonable enough, except for the complaints streaming in that Irving police officers are engaging in racial profiling by rounding up anyone who looks Hispanic who isn't carrying his papers.

This will end badly. Local immigrant communities need to be able to trust law enforcement, or they'll never cooperate with them as witnesses or report crimes when they're the victims. Word will get out that the immigrant communities are good prey, because the people there never go to the police. An initiative intended to fight crime could backfire and lead to more of it.

Besides, federal immigration officials couldn't care less what trouble local officials get into while playing border patrol agent. If there is racial profiling, and lawsuits start to fly, the feds will leave the locals holding the bag. You see, "interagency cooperation" stops at the courtroom door.

Yet some people still think that law enforcement entities are interchangeable and that one badge is as good as another. For those who believe that, the world of cops and robbers is a delightfully simple place. Law enforcement officers chase down criminals. Illegal immigrants are criminals. Ergo, local law enforcement should chase down illegal immigrants.

Sure. I'll buy that --- the next time I see FBI agents writing speeding tickets.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. You can read his column [here].

* * * *

It is getting scary in America. The "Round-ups" have begun. The supposed snitch in the Texas case of "polygamists", still hasn't surfaced. Does giving supposed groups of criminals, labels, an excuse for sacking the US Constitution?

Shouldn't court proceeding and police procedures be law abiding and Constitutional? Why does the majority of the American people tolerate this? Have we gone soft?

* * * *

A police officer sent this photo to other cop buddies while on duty:

[click here] for story

* * * *
* * * *

Connecticut Educational Apartheid [more]

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 14, 2008

A "Free" America?

“For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling,” the report said. “While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine.”

The racial disparity for women also is stark. One of every 355 white women aged 35 to 39 is behind bars, compared with one of every 100 black women in that age group.

The largest percentage increase - 12 percent - was in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear highlighted the cost of corrections in his budget speech last month. He noted that the state’s crime rate had increased only about 3 percent in the past 30 years, while the state’s inmate population has increased by 600 percent…

Record-high ratio of Americans in prison
By DAVID CRARY - AP National Writer
Thursday, February 28, 2008

For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America’s rank as the world’s No. 1 incarcerator. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars.

The above [found here]

* * * *

[my beef]

my email:

* * * *

I used to own these Connecticut properties, 2 I had fixed up from a boarded up condition, spending years and 100's of thousands of dollars:

I proposed Civilian Oversight of Police to Stafford Springs Connecticut State Senators Guglielmo and former State Rep. Mordasky, and I was then put on the Connecticut State Police, "Secret Enemies List" and the head of Troop C, now Colonel Thomas Davoren, allegedly offered Barbara Sattal $10,000 to set me up for a police beating, false arrest, and imprisonment. [post]

For resisting being beaten up in my dark driveway at 5 Church St. Stafford Springs, Connecticut, using pepper spray to end the beating I was taking, I was sentenced to a year in prison by Judge Jonathan Kaplan.

Ritt Goldstein proposed Civilian Oversight of Police to the Connecticut Judiciary Committee Legislators in Hartford. He soon thereafter fled the US seeking political asylum in Sweden, so terrorized by Connecticut Police. [Ritt Goldstein video "Under Siege"]

* * * *

I, Steven G. Erickson, interview Elena Sassower of in this video:

Back in January this video was shot to encourage federal authorities to look into now former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Senator Hillary Clinton, and the New York Times for election rigging.

We wanted the financial dealings of Hillary Clinton and Eliot Spitzer invesigated.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Judges showing their true colors

The link for the below found in comments section [here]

Judge, prosecutor at odds over habeas case [the]

Since Thursday afternoon, Circuit Judge Rhonda Wood and Prosecuting Attorney Marcus Vaden have filed court documents compelling one another to take responsibility in the apparent mishandling of an 18-year-old's incarceration sentence for second-degree battery.

Failure to comply with either request could in theory result in the jailing of Wood, or of the deputy prosecutor who handled the case for Vaden.

Wood wrote in an eight-point press release sent Wednesday that when she deals in adult criminal court the prosecutor's office, and not her own, has always prepared the type of judgment form that was necessary to send Myles Lenard Taft Jr. to the Arkansas Department of Correction in 2007, and on Thursday afternoon Wood filed an order instructing the same deputy prosecutor to produce the needed judgment and commitment order by 3 p.m., or to else show up at court and "show cause" as to "why it is not prepared."

Taft was sentenced by Wood in March 2007 to five years' ADC, though he wrote in a letter to Circuit Clerk Rhonda Long on March 20, "I have been sitting here since Feb. 26, 2007, waiting to go to ADC. So altogether I have been waiting a year and (six weeks)." According to Taft, he pleaded guilty under the impression that he was "supposed to do no more than 10 months," though Faulkner County has paid for and facilitated his incarceration for about 14 months now.

Vaden and Wood have indicated in interviews that they would hate to place a blanket of blame on the deputy prosecutor who tried Taft in a March 2007 probation revocation hearing, for the justice system's unusual failure to send the man to ADC. Both Vaden and Wood have asked that the deputy's name stay out of stories regarding Taft's habeas corpus suit at civil court against Sheriff Karl Byrd in his official capacity. The civil case against Byrd says, "There is no allegation that Byrd has committed any wrongdoing," and blames Wood for producing an order that ADC officials can't legally accept.

- Advertisement -
Wood, however, whose press release maintained that either the prosecutor's or public defender's offices were to blame for neglecting to ask her court for relief in the criminal matter, cited the same deputy in writing and ordered Vaden's employee to file a judgment and commitment order in Taft's criminal case, or else to explain in person why it hasn't been filed.

Vaden said Friday he takes umbrage with the order because, typically, when an attorney is served an "order to produce or show cause," the attorney can be held in contempt of court and be arrested should he not comply. Vaden said he saw the order as an unnecessary shot at his deputy instead of the elected prosecutor himself. More so, according to Vaden, the order was redundant, since Vaden had already personally agreed to file the judgment and commitment order and to be done with Taft's criminal case.

"Judge Wood told us, and we agreed: 'I think if we just get a (judgment and commitment) order, and we take care of it and what have you, then this will be the end of it.' So I told her that we'll get that order corrected and do it right," said Vaden, whose deputy according to Wood in an interview on Tuesday allegedly failed to file the order after Wood says she ordered the deputy to prepare it during Taft's revocation hearing on March 14, 2007. Vaden said Friday, "We had gone and we listened to this recording of the hearing, and then when I hear it, I say, 'Well, no judge, you didn't order somebody to prepare that order. And I said, 'OK, we'll get you an order here in a little bit. And (Wood) said, 'Well, I don't know why you can't get one in about 20 minutes.' And I said, 'We've got court, we've got other stuff to do and we've got one of our legal assistants out.' But I told her, 'I'll get you one today.' And so we all left. I'm thinking this thing's fine and will be over with: Much ado about nothing.

"And around 1 p.m. (Thursday) Judge Wood serves an order to produce on my deputy. Not on me, but on my deputy over there to bring to Judge Wood this order by 3 p.m, or to show up and do a show cause and explain why it is not prepared."

"Judge Wood should've served it on me," Vaden said. "Because I'm the one that was over there, and I'm the attorney for the state, not a deputy. And if Judge Wood's going to do that, there's a procedure a judge needs to go through. A judge doesn't have the authority anytime they want something done, anywhere, anytime at the grocery store or whatever, to just issue an order that the rest of us just follow.

"But that's what she did."

In response on Friday, Vaden filed a subpoena ordering Wood to appear and testify at Circuit Judge David Clark's court in a habeas corpus hearing scheduled for 1:30 p.m., Monday, in regard to Taft's civil case against the sheriff's office. Vaden also filed a motion to produce transcript which Clark granted that orders Wood's court reporter "to provide an official, certified copy" of the March 14, 2007, revocation hearing proceedings, which, according to Vaden, depict Wood actually asking the deputy prosecutor or others in the courtroom if a second order needed to be filed. Vaden says the judge and deputy prosecutor suffered a conversational misunderstanding during the revocation hearing.

"The transcript doesn't ever show that she ordered us to prepare an order," Vaden said. "What happened was, Judge Wood says that for juvenile court they do two orders: One order instantly, and they do another order later. Well that's not the way we do it in adult court, and we never have. Taft was originally tried (in 2005) as an adult under Judge (Linda) Collier, who was fourth division circuit judge before Wood.

"So the problem was, I had a new deputy over there, and Judge Wood was new, and when you listen to the tape what you hear is Judge Wood making her ruling, and you can hear her typing on the tape, and then she hands this order over for them to file it like they do in her juvenile cases. And then she says, 'Is there a second order that needs to be done? Does anybody know if there's a second order that needs to be done?' My deputy says, 'Judge, no, I don't think there's another order that needs to be done,' because (the deputy) is used to us having the orders, and us preparing the orders. We (in adult criminal court) don't do two orders.

"We do the judgment and commitment, then after the trial, or if it's a plea, we have the orders there. So my deputy I know is thinking, 'There's not a second order, and I assume the judge knows what she's doing because she just did the order.' It's an honest mistake."

Vaden said of Wood, who didn't return phone calls on Friday, "If I were her, I'd want to come and vindicate myself, and that's what I'm trying to do, is give her the opportunity to explain this order. When she has this order, and has this guy sentenced to five years in ADC, but then she says she's going to have him on electronic monitor requirements, and to comply with terms of probation or what have you, I want her to explain what happened: What is your recollection on what happened? What was I supposed to do? When are you ordering me to produce this second order? Where is this stuff?"

* * * *
* * * *

How did Heroin and Cocaine distribution used to work? How are the police and courts still involved in the conspiracy? [more]

Friday, April 11, 2008

Obstruction of Justice 101

Cheney, Others OK'd Harsh Interrogations

By LARA JAKES JORDAN and PAMELA HESS | Associated Press Writer
11:24 PM EDT, April 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality, The Associated Press has learned.

The officials also took care to insulate President Bush from a series of meetings where CIA interrogation methods, including waterboarding, which simulates drowning, were discussed and ultimately approved.

A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the meetings described them Thursday to the AP to confirm details first reported by ABC News on Wednesday. The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the issue.

Between 2002 and 2003, the Justice Department issued several memos from its Office of Legal Counsel that justified using the interrogation tactics, including ones that critics call torture.

"If you looked at the timing of the meetings and the memos you'd see a correlation," the former intelligence official said. Those who attended the dozens of meetings agreed that "there'd need to be a legal opinion on the legality of these tactics" before using them on al-Qaida detainees, the former official said.

The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The White House, Justice and State departments and the CIA refused comment Thursday, as did a spokesman for Tenet. A message for Ashcroft was not immediately returned.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., lambasted what he described as "yet another astonishing disclosure about the Bush administration and its use of torture."

"Who would have thought that in the United States of America in the 21st century, the top officials of the executive branch would routinely gather in the White House to approve torture?" Kennedy said in a statement. "Long after President Bush has left office, our country will continue to pay the price for his administration's renegade repudiation of the rule of law and fundamental human rights."

The American Civil Liberties Union called on Congress to investigate.

"With each new revelation, it is beginning to look like the torture operation was managed and directed out of the White House," ACLU legislative director Caroline Fredrickson said. "This is what we suspected all along."

The former intelligence official described Cheney and the top national security officials as deeply immersed in developing the CIA's interrogation program during months of discussions over which methods should be used and when.

At times, CIA officers would demonstrate some of the tactics, or at least detail how they worked, to make sure the small group of "principals" fully understood what the al-Qaida detainees would undergo. The principals eventually authorized physical abuse such as slaps and pushes, sleep deprivation, or waterboarding. This technique involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning.

The small group then asked the Justice Department to examine whether using the interrogation methods would break domestic or international laws.

"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a second former senior intelligence official. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."

The Office of Legal Counsel issued at least two opinions on interrogation methods.

In one, dated Aug. 1, 2002, then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee defined torture as covering "only extreme acts" causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. A second, dated March 14, 2003, justified using harsh tactics on detainees held overseas so long as military interrogators did not specifically intend to torture their captives.

Both legal opinions since have been withdrawn.

The second former senior intelligence official said rescinding the memos caused the CIA to seek even more detailed approvals for the interrogations.

The department issued another still-secret memo in October 2001 that, in part, sought to outline novel ways the military could be used domestically to defend the country in the face of an impending attack. The Justice Department so far has refused to release it, citing attorney-client privilege, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey declined to describe it Thursday at a Senate panel where Democrats characterized it as a "torture memo."

Not all of the principals who attended were fully comfortable with the White House meetings.

The ABC News report portrayed Ashcroft as troubled by the discussions, despite agreeing that the interrogations methods were legal.

"Why are we talking about this in the White House?" the network quoted Ashcroft as saying during one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."


Associated Press writer Pete Yost contributed to this report.


On the Net:

CIA: of Legal Counsel:

* * * *
* * * *

Have the CIA and US Presidents been involved in the facilitating of heroin and cocaine being imported into the US? [more]

If you report felonies to State or Federal authorities, including judges, members of the judiciary, and elected officials, aren't they guilty of [these crimes] if they do nothing?

Monday, April 07, 2008

Judicial, Prosecutorial, Police, and Attorney Misconduct "Help" websites

Some police misconduct websites charge $25 or so to file your complaint with them. The same for those that are complaining about judicial misconduct complaints.

Attorney Michael H. Agranoff of the Ellington Stafford Springs area of Connecticut says he is a DCF, Department of Children and Families "Specialist". I know him to be a liar and a cheat from my experience with him. [my complaint to the CT Atty Gen about Agranoff]

So, some that say they or their organization is out to help you, maybe they are just out for what they can take from your purse or wallet. I came across this video and website:

Secrets of the Legal Industry

Richard Cornforth

Excerpt from his website:
"... Over the next twelve years, my confidence in the integrity of the American court system plummeted from thinking that matters were handled appropriately most of the time to understanding that the courts of America are almost totally corrupt. In spite of the hate-filled, anger-driven abuse that I experienced and witnessed in our court system, I managed to come through my own court experiences a net winner."

So, it this just another profiteer, or is it someone that is out to do something, or it just another individual out to profit from the misery and blood of others?

Text of email, I sent to

To whom it may concern:
I posted a youtube video of yours along with the link to your website here:

There are plenty of profiteers out to just get money out of the glut of citizens abused in American courts.

I would like you to get back to me, and let me know what you are doing to organize citizens, nationally, to attack this problem, legally, for results, and I can post it in the above link, and maybe network with you.

Thank you,

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for my videos

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for a sampling of recent emails

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Legislating against a Police State

Will legislators on the state level do anything before it is too late? [more]

View My Stats