Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

The below [found here]


Rule 11. Pleas

(a) Entering a Plea.

(1) In General.

A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or (with the court's consent) nolo contendere.

(2) Conditional Plea.

With the consent of the court and the government, a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal may then withdraw the plea.

(3) Nolo Contendere Plea.

Before accepting a plea of nolo contendere, the court must consider the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice.

(4) Failure to Enter a Plea.

If a defendant refuses to enter a plea or if a defendant organization fails to appear, the court must enter a plea of not guilty.

(b) Considering and Accepting a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea.

(1) Advising and Questioning the Defendant.

Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant may be placed under oath, and the court must address the defendant personally in open court. During this address, the court must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following:

(A) the government's right, in a prosecution for perjury or false statement, to use against the defendant any statement that the defendant gives under oath;

(B) the right to plead not guilty, or having already so pleaded, to persist in that plea;

(C) the right to a jury trial;

(D) the right to be represented by counsel -- and if necessary have the court appoint counsel -- at trial and at every other stage of the proceeding;

(E) the right at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be protected from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and present evidence, and to compel the attendance of witnesses;

(F) the defendant's waiver of these trial rights if the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere;

(G) the nature of each charge to which the defendant is pleading;

(H) any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release;

(I) any mandatory minimum penalty;

(J) any applicable forfeiture;

(K) the court's authority to order restitution;

(L) the court's obligation to impose a special assessment;

(M) in determining a sentence, the court's obligation to applycalculate the applicable sentencing-guideline range and to consider that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); and

(N) the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence.

(2) Ensuring That a Plea Is Voluntary.

Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and determine that the plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement).

(3) Determining the Factual Basis for a Plea.

Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual basis for the plea.

(c) Plea Agreement Procedure.

(1) In General.

An attorney for the government and the defendant's attorney, or the defendant when proceeding pro se, may discuss and reach a plea agreement. The court must not participate in these discussions. If the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere to either a charged offense or a lesser or related offense, the plea agreement may specify that an attorney for the government will:

(A) not bring, or will move to dismiss, other charges;

(B) recommend, or agree not to oppose the defendant's request, that a particular sentence or sentencing range is appropriate or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request does not bind the court); or

(C) agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement).

(2) Disclosing a Plea Agreement.

The parties must disclose the plea agreement in open court when the plea is offered, unless the court for good cause allows the parties to disclose the plea agreement in camera.

(3) Judicial Consideration of a Plea Agreement.

(A) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court may accept the agreement, reject it, or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report.

(B) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the court must advise the defendant that the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.

(4) Accepting a Plea Agreement.

If the court accepts the plea agreement, it must inform the defendant that to the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the agreed disposition will be included in the judgment.

(5) Rejecting a Plea Agreement.

If the court rejects a plea agreement containing provisions of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court must do the following on the record and in open court (or, for good cause, in camera):

(A) inform the parties that the court rejects the plea agreement;

(B) advise the defendant personally that the court is not required to follow the plea agreement and give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea; and

(C) advise the defendant personally that if the plea is not withdrawn, the court may dispose of the case less favorably toward the defendant than the plea agreement contemplated.

(d) Withdrawing a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea.

A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere:

(1) before the court accepts the plea, for any reason or no reason; or

(2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:

(A) the court rejects a plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(5); or

(B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.

(e) Finality of a Guilty or Nolo Contendere Plea.

After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct appeal or collateral attack.

(f) Admissibility or Inadmissibility of a Plea, Plea Discussions, and Related Statements.

The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.

(g) Recording the Proceedings.

The proceedings during which the defendant enters a plea must be recorded by a court reporter or by a suitable recording device. If there is a guilty plea or a nolo contendere plea, the record must include the inquiries and advice to the defendant required under Rule 11(b) and (c).

(h) Harmless Error.

A variance from the requirements of this rule is harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.

(As amended Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. 22, 1974, eff. Dec. 1, 1975; July 31, 1975, eff. Aug. 1 and Dec. 1, 1975; Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Aug. 1, 1979, and Dec. 1, 1980; Apr. 28, 1982, eff. Aug. 1, 1982; Apr. 28, 1983, eff. Aug. 1, 1983; Apr. 29, 1985, eff. Aug. 1, 1985; Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Nov. 18, 1988; Apr. 25, 1989, eff. Dec. 1, 1989; Apr. 26, 1999, eff. Dec. 1, 1999; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)

Sunday, December 28, 2008

"The Branch", out of control

Another Judge's Conduct In Question

Jon Lender | Government Watch
December 28, 2008

Sometimes an accusation of improper behavior by a judge sets off a clamor of publicity, as with the racially charged tirade that Superior Court Judge E. Curtissa Cofield allegedly inflicted on police officers who arrested her on drunken-driving charges in October.

Then there's the quiet case of Superior Court Judge Kevin E. Booth of Niantic.

Booth, 66, has resigned effective this Wednesday after 16 years on the bench, at least partly as a result of a female court employee's unpublicized accusations dating back to 2001 that he made inappropriate comments to her and other women at work.

The accusations show up in Booth's personnel file, obtained from the Judicial Branch through a Freedom of Information request.

While Booth never admitted making them, he seemed to acknowledge last week that they are behind his decision not to seek appointment to senior judge status after his Dec. 31 retirement — a status under which many retired judges hear cases at $220 a day.

Booth said in his written statement: "I had long planned to retire and to take senior status at the end of this year. Although my present term expires in February of 2009, I decided not to seek reappointment as a senior judge when it became apparent that questions would surround my reappointment. ... Even though I looked forward to continuing as a senior judge, I did not want to subject myself and my family to, at best, what was shaping up to be a difficult renomination process."

The questions might have involved Kathleen Shea, once case-flow coordinator at Superior Court in Meriden, who said in 2001 that Booth's conduct and comments at Meriden created a "hostile work environment."

In a 2001 report, a judicial official wrote that Shea said "female staff members are 'freaked out'" by Booth's "inappropriate comments" such as "a remark ... to a female staff member who was wearing patent leather shoes, to the effect that she must not have gone to Catholic school where the nuns would have warned her about wearing patent leather shoes, ... referring to the shininess of the shoes reflecting up the woman's skirt."

The report also said that Shea, who is a lawyer, said:

•That "out of context to the conversation Judge Booth will consistently question female staff members about their marital status, who they live with and where they live."

•That Booth "will bring up the fact that he exercises, and then make a comment to the effect of 'with your figure, you don't need to exercise.'"

•That Booth "will make a female employee come into his office, sit down and shut the door to have a conversation on matters that could easily be handled over the phone."

Shea also "indicated that at least six ... other women in the courthouse have stated that Judge Booth's behavior and comments [make] them uncomfortable." She said there was "a long list of similar complaints against him" by "various female employees ... at various locations [in the] ... Judicial Branch." Shea would not provide names, the report said, although she said one woman told her "that she has made a conscious decision not to pursue a complaint outside and feels that it is in her best interest to 'live with it.' There is a concern about raising a complaint about a judge and the impact that such action could have on one's career."

Shea alleged that after she complained about Booth, her supervisor began retaliating against her and judicial branch higher-ups did not stop it. After pursuing state administrative remedies, she finally sued the judicial branch and the supervisor in 2004. The lawsuit was settled in June 2006 in federal court. The state paid Shea $30,000. Shea, who had resigned, agreed not to reapply for any state judicial branch job for seven years.

Booth came to the Meriden courthouse in fall 2000, after a brief stint in New Haven. Shea claimed he approached her in 2001 and asked if there was "anyone [he] needed to watch out for" — and told her "he meant by his question whether he has to worry about anyone making sexual harassment claims against him."

Booth was originally nominated for the bench in 1992 by then-Gov. Lowell P. Weicker and confirmed by legislators in 1993. He was reinstalled in early 2001 by then-Gov. John G. Rowland and legislators for a second eight-year term. He moved from the Meriden courthouse in September 2001.

In 2006 Booth wrote to the judicial branch's deputy chief court administrator. He forwarded an undated letter in which he thanked two top administrative judges for a "recent meeting" and wrote, "In view of my earlier incident, I know that the immediate move was in my best interest. I do believe that Ms. Shea has an agenda and that her claims are largely unfounded with regard to other women employees being troubled. Several of the women she referred to by position approached me and said how much they enjoyed working with me." He included a June 14, 2001, note from one who said "I really will miss working with you!"

It is unclear what "earlier incident" he wrote of; no details were in the file. "This statement is all I have to say," Booth said in his statement.

Superior Court judges are paid $146,780 a year. After Booth retires, he will receive monthly payments on an annual pension of $102,256.

Booth's file also includes a report from the police department in East Lyme, which includes his home village of Niantic, about a Nov. 24, 2002, incident in which an anonymous female called to complain that "an older heavy set male dressed in dark pants had exposed his male genitalia to her while he was sitting on the wall ... by Crescent Beach."

A police officer saw an SUV parked nearby with a man inside fitting that description, in dark pants. It was Booth, who denied involvement, the report said. In his statement last week, Booth said: "Regarding the East Lyme Police report, I absolutely and unequivocally deny the unsubstantiated allegations."

•Jon Lender is a reporter on The Courant's investigative desk, with a focus on government and politics. Contact him at jlender@courant.com, 860-241-6524, or c/o The Hartford Courant, 285 Broad St., Hartford, CT 06115.

* * * *
* * * *

Scroll down in [this post] for Andrea Wilson discussing what the Connecticut Judicial Branch is really about.

What are other insiders in the judicial branch saying when they feel free to let loose? [more]

* * * *

* * * *

[click here] for:

Sovereign and Judicial Immunity of Judges

There is a raging debate on whether judges should have blanket immunity from prosecution, even for malicious acts. Should a judge be able to stand up from the bench, pull a gun, shoot you dead, and then be immune from prosecution?

Should judges be able to rape, rob, murder, and falsely imprison citizens on their whims? [click here] for a video on the Grand Jury System and the need for a strong one.

Friday, December 26, 2008

The cost of being good and having a conscience?

Or, if you are a true American, stand up for your rights you thought were guaranteed, is this what you really get?:

The below, posted [here] April 5, 2008, on OpEd News

Government Whistle Blowers risk all

by Gallaher

The Congress held hearings this week calling FAA whistle Blowers to testify. It is likely these guys life as a federal civil servant is over. They have dedicated their lives to protecting you. Now they have done the ultimate sacrifice. They have in a sense laid down there life on a grenade to protect the public they served. There will be no medal awarded here, and no recognition by anyone else for their heroic duty.

My hat is off to them.

Jon Hilkevitch - CHICAGO TRIBUNE reported

“One whistle-blower, FAA inspector Douglas Peters, choked up with emotion while describing his conversation with an FAA manager last June about Peters’ concerns over “unethical actions” by FAA personnel in the failure to inspect 47 Southwest Airlines planes. The manager agreed to look into issues that Peters raised in a memo. But walking over to a bookshelf in Peters’ office where he keeps family photos, the manager picked up a picture of Peters’ son standing near a plane and said, “This is what’s important, family and flying.” On his way out the door, the manager added: “You have a good job here, and your wife has a good job [at an FAA facility in Dallas]. I’d hate to see you jeopardize yours and her careers trying to take down a couple of losers.” “

What the FAA manager said was not untrue. I too was a whistle blower and it is why I do not work for the FAA anymore. I still think about my time there as a pilot and systems engineer was well spent as a public servant. But the results of Blowing the Whistle were devastating to mylife, career and ultimately sent me to federal prison.

I recognize now that the U.S. government’s executive branch is broken beyond repair, because of the structure of temporary political appointees, typically figureheads that don’t know anything about the agency they are put in charge of, over life long civil servants that have made the specific agency their life long commitment. Sadly, it makes no difference if it is a Republican or Democrat, so not even an election can cure the problem.

It is not wise as a government employee to bring up a problems or “Blow the Whistle” under this type of structured government. No politician over an agency wants to look like he/she is incompetent at his/her job. It looks bad all the way up to the president. Just look at Browne with FEMA and the effect it had on Bush.

If a problem is bad enough for a public Whistle Blowing, it is going to make the political appointee over that agency look bad. His/her agency is out of his control. This will in turn make the president look bad for selecting someone incompetent and unable to control the conduct of the agency. Presidents and their personal wrecking crews do have control many other executive agencies’ including the IRS, the U.S. Attorney, etc… that can and will do everything in their power to make the whistle blowers life a complete living hell if they have disgraced the executive branch.

When a Whistle Blower case does go to the federal courts for resolution the Congress steps aside and will no longer assist the whistle blower. The Congress will cite, as they did to me in my case, the separations of power, leaving the Whistle Blower at the mercy of the federal courts stacked with more presidential appointees to judge the case. Talk about a stacked deck.

Government agencies are represented by the United States Attorney’s office in federal court. The first tactic is to discredit the Whistle Blower as a disgruntled employee. Attempts are then made to minimize the problem reported.

In my case one of the problems I reported was a safety system that was required to be monitored, I reported it as not being monitored. The FAA said 15% of the system was being monitored and I was therefore not correct in reporting the system was not being monitored because 15% was being monitored. Yes, your government does make bizarre claims like this.

Attacks are then directed as to job performance, questions as to mental stability, or anything else in their play book. In my case I had just been recommended for a national “against all odds” award for my work performance, so that tactic did not work.

If these tactics don’t work, as in my case where the Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia openly stated this to me, they will starve the Whistle Blower out by extending the case for so long the legal bills will drive them under. In my case, I did go bankrupt and was forced to move in with my parents. But I still fought on.

If that doesn’t work they begin to search out anything that can be used against you including an audit with the IRS. If that doesn’t work threaten some type of criminal charge. I’ve seen it all.

Settle your case or else. I have an Assistant United States Attorney on tape telling me to settle my case or they were going to indict me for failure to pay child support amount based on my former position with the FAA. When I still refused to settle and my family paid the past due support I was indicted for failure to pay child support anyway and sent to federal prison for 16 months.

Unable to continue my Whistle Blower case, it was dropped by the court. I did not get anything for my wrongful dismissal.


During the criminal trial, the government was permitted to enter into evidence that, by my refusing a settlement that would have been enough to pay the child support; I was guilty of willful failure to pay my child support. They even claimed I would not settle, because I would have to pay child support. Oddly the AUSA in the FAA case, argued the opposit, that I had brought up the need to pay my child support and not them.

I was not permitted by the court to tell the jury that the child support was paid by my family. And I was not permitted to discuss why I no longer was working for the FAA.

Seem kind of odd, not if you understand the politics of even the judicial branch of the government. U.S. District judges are appointed by the president usually because of party favors. These judges are also looking for promotions to the U.S Court of Appeals or even Supreme Court appointments. Not even God can help you if you get a judge that was appointed by the party you just embarrassed.

In my case I had Judge William J Zloch, the chief judge for the Southern District of Florida appointed by a Republican. It was my bad luck that a Republican, Bush, was new to office and Zloch was looking for a promotion.

Having Judge Zloch was no coincidence, because he also was the presiding judge over the Value Jet case. As Chief Judge for the district he gets to assign the cases. I was also the Whistle Blower in that case that reported the wiring problems with the aircraft used on flight 592 one week prior to the crash. Judge Zloch had just sent two people to prison ruling the accident was the oxygen canisters they had put on the aircraft and not the wiring problem as I had reported.

My case is under its final appeal in the Eleventh Circuit and I will likely lose, because of the actions of my court appointed lawyer during the trial.

To date, I lost well over $1,000,000 in compensations had I been able to stay and retire, and my career in aviation and as a civil servant was completely destroyed. I went to prison and have no decent job prospects with a $30,000 support debt which accrued during my prison term that I must pay or go to prison again.

After all that has happened to me, I can’t say that I have not had second thoughts about whistle blowing. What if I just let the killing continue? It is likely that this will kill me.

I would never advise a government employee to blow the whistle. This is a very personal decision. It is like I said; you are laying your career and your life down on a grenade to protect the lives of people you don’t even know.

The FAA manager was not lying or wrong when he said, “You have a good job here, and your wife has a good job [at an FAA facility in Dallas]. I’d hate to see you jeopardize yours and her careers trying to take down a couple of losers.”

Government Whistle Blowers do risk all for no reward and are soon forgotten.


10 year Navy veteran,

former Federal employee with various agencies

The "immunity" of ex-wives

A Connecticut woman wanted to hire someone to kill her ex-husband for the insurance money. She got a special form of probation where her record could be erased after time. [story]

Another Connecticut woman stabbed her husband during divorce and custody proceedings, and was awarded custody of the 3 children. The ex-husband complained, faced 30 years in prison for checking the wrong box accidentally on a financial form, and gets very little contact with his children. [story]

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Why aren't police arrested for felony theft and fraud when doing this?:

Malverne Police Dept. Loses Out On 22 'Bogus' Holidays

By Rob Hoell

December 18, 2008

[source WPIX]

MALVERNE, N.Y. - It's back to work without the perks for the Malverne Police Department. An arbitrator has ruled the department is not entitled to extra pay for unusual holidays like Elizabeth Cady Stanton Day, Shirley Chilsom Day, and Haym Soloman Day.

"I think it blew everybody's mind when they saw some of the names and some of the days," said John Aresta who took over as Police Chief last year and brought the wild holiday schedule to the village's attention.

Village taxpayers are breathing a sigh of relief. "I work hard all year, nobody gives me so many days off like that," said one resident.

Officers will still get holiday pay for 11 traditional holidays like Christmas and New Years, but gone are 22 additional days, including Gerald Ford Day, National Day of Katrina Remembrance, and a second Mother's Day in September.

Since 2004 new holidays seemed to be added every time a state or national day of observance was declared.

In a statement the union had this to say: "The PBA believed it was contractually entitled to the comp time. We put in for the time and it was approved by a supervisor."

How it got approved, however, is still mind boggling to many. When area residents were asked about the holidays, no one could even identify what the days signified.

"Never, never even heard of them," said one Malverne resident.

The likely reason most people have never heard of the holidays is because they're not listed on most calendars. Looking on the bright side, it can be argued the Malverne Police Department did something good here to raise awareness.

"I actually learned a lot about history when I researched some of these names," said Chief Aresta.

It turns out Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a woman's rights advocate. Shirley Chisolm the first black woman elected to congress and Haym Soloman was George Washington's accountant.

A history lesson for some, an ethics lesson for others.

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for a post on Connecticut State Police Misconduct

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

From the Meriden Divorced Men's Center in Connecticut

emailed in from jdibiasejr@aol.com

Sec. 46b-16. Petition to Superior Court for ex parte order re temporary care and custody of child when parent arrested for custodial interference. Duration of order. (a) When (1) a parent or relative has been arrested for violation of section 53a-97 or 53a-98 or arrested pursuant to chapter 964 for an offense of intentional interference of the lawful custody of a child under the laws of another state or territory, and (2) a child has been in the care of such parent or relative, the legal custodian of the child or the Department of Children and Families may petition the superior court or probate court which has venue over the matter for immediate temporary custody of the child.

(b) If the court finds that there is a substantial likelihood that the child will be removed from the jurisdiction of the court prior to a hearing to determine custody, an order of temporary custody may be issued ex parte by the court granting the temporary care and custody of the child to a suitable person or agency pending a hearing to determine custody pursuant to chapter 815j or 815p. Such hearing shall be held not more than five days from the issuance of the ex parte order or less than three days from the return of service, whichever is later.

(c) If the parent or relative arrested for violation of section 53a-97 or 53a-98 is in custody of the state, the state shall produce such parent or relative for the hearing to determine custody of the child pursuant to chapter 815j or 815p.

(d) The sole duty of the Department of Children and Families under this section shall be to provide care for the child during the period of custody pending determination of the custodial rights of the parents or guardians.

(P.A. 86-311, S. 2; P.A. 93-91, S. 1, 2; P.A. 03-19, S. 102.)

History: P.A. 93-91 substituted commissioner and department of children and families for commissioner and department of children and youth services, effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 03-19 made technical changes in Subsecs. (b) and (c), effective May 12, 2003.

Monday, December 22, 2008

...about judicial activism

From: Nancy Lazaryan (nancylazaryan@yahoo.com)

This is about what I have been saying over and over. Go to this website:


In California the PEOPLE decided to amend their state constitution to ban same sex marriages. The California AG has brought a CHALLENGE to the will of the People before the CA Supreme Court.

Now the CA Supreme Court will decide whether the People can amend their constitution to ban same sex marriages.

If the CA Supreme Court goes against the will of the People in CA, the CA legislature will need to impeach the CA Supreme Court (but they can do that only if their constitution is the same as in MN).

I have said over and over..the constitutions are contracts between the PEOPLE and the government has no authority to tell the People whether the contract is valid, or any law is "unconstitutional". That job is for the JURY, both in court and the Grand Jury.

We MUST get moving on the IMPEACHMENTS as an important part of this work we are doing. The nation is watching us, as I have been sending out updates to the national organizations and media as to our efforts.


* * * *

Nancy on YouTube explaining Grand Juries and the Need for them:

OpEd News piece on the Private Attorney General bill and the need for the passage of that in DC this January. [click here]

* * * *
* * * *


The Purloined Constitution

by David Swanson

Or How to Look Only Forward and Still Look Like an Ass

The wonderful thing about big lies is their kettle logic. The term, of course, derives from the story of the man who offered several mutually incompatible excuses for returning his friend's kettle in damaged condition: "It broke too easily." "It was like that when I got it." "I improved it for you." "I never borrowed the thing." Et cetera. A big lie is not just a beautiful creation because the bigger you make it the more firmly people believe in it, but also because you can tell other big lies to make the same point and the lies don't have to make any sense in combination.

One big lie in circulation at the moment is that we don't know whether Bush, Cheney, Rummy, et alia, committed any actual crimes. Some people believe this, but they believe it in the sense in which one "believes in" a big lie, as one "believes in" a religion. If people actually believed it as an ordinary fact, then they would have to either advocate investigating the topic or determine that it simply didn't matter whether the Cheney-Bush gang had committed crimes or not. Here's Barack Obama: "Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law -- and I think that's roughly how I would look at it." He believes in the idea that there is doubt, but he's not ready to either pursue the matter or to claim it's unimportant.

A second big lie is that the toughest deterrence possible against future crimes is produced by simply learning the facts about past crimes. This lie has been spread by countless sources. Here's Joe Biden's version: "Personally I would like to know exactly what happened because -- more of a past is prologue kind of thing. I would like to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. Torture is going to be a major issue. Torture is going to be a major issue. … And so all that's going to be reviewed." If people believed this in the ordinary sense of belief, they would have to support replacing all police, prosecutors, and jailers with videographers and reporters. And they would have to advocate investigating any crimes they didn't already know about but leaving alone any crimes they already knew about -- the ones they'd already determined they didn't want to see happen again. Because you can't very well want to deter the repetition of something until you've already learned what it was.

A third big lie is that the appropriate way to handle crises created by criminal activity is to ignore the criminality and focus on solving the crises. This is described by thousands of its advocates as "looking forward." Here's Obama: "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve." And here's Biden: "The questions of whether or not a criminal act has been committed…is something the Justice Department decides….That's a decision I'd look to the Justice Department to make." While stating he was "not ruling it in and not ruling it out," Biden underscored that he and Obama are "focusing on the future." "I think we should be looking forward, not backwards." If this passed the smell test, people would smash store windows, calmly make off with expensive goods and coolly advise the cops to focus on the future replacement of the window glass.

A fourth big lie is so huge that it's buried invisibly in the preceding paragraph. It is the claim that Democrats need to work with Republicans. The Democrats are an overwhelming majority in terms of public support with significant majorities in both houses of Congress and possession of the White House. If Democrats did not want Republican senators to be able to filibuster any bills, they would take one or more of the following steps: change the number of votes required for a filibuster, appoint one or more Republican senators from states with Democratic governors to cabinet positions or ambassadorships (aside from the Secretary of Labor nominee, it's not as if they could be much worse than the current cabinet selections), or give Washington, D.C., voting representation in both houses of Congress.

Edgar Allen Poe told of a purloined letter effectively hidden by conspicuously placing it in plain sight. Our Constitution and the very idea of the rule of law now find themselves in a similar situation. There are variations, of course, on the idea of the rule of law. Often the judicial and penal systems are viewed as purely backward looking. For example, many people favor the death penalty in full awareness that it lowers, rather than increasing, deterrence of future crimes and eliminates the possibility of restitution or restoration. But an ethical system of criminal punishment, which indeed looks forward, still deals in every single case with crimes that have happened in the past. To ignore crimes that are in the past is to ignore all crimes, and therefore to permit all crimes in the future.

The corporate punditocracy puts on a show of wondering whether crimes have been committed, while Bush and Cheney are on videotape confessing to authorizing torture, Bush is on videotape confessing to violating FISA, Bush is on videotape being warned about Hurricane Katrina and on videotape swearing he was not, the evidence that Bush and Cheney lied the nation into an illegal war is already public and beyond dispute, and at the same time that great minds ponder whether the water torture is really torture the common Bush-Cheney technique of beating the sh*t out of someone and breaking their bones is being employed against a guy who threw his shoes at the president.

The purloinedness of Bush's violations of law was developed in a manner that would have astounded Poe when Bush ordered the creation of "legal opinions" supporting the violation of laws, such as those against torture, engaged in torturing, signed into law new bills redundantly recriminalizing torture, wrote "signing statements" erasing the new laws as just signed, and went right on torturing without anyone's gaze drifting for an instant from a sharp focus on the latest bread and circuses. If Bush now takes the unprecedented step of pardoning the crimes he authorized, the big lie that this is neither unprecedented nor in conflict with maintaining any system of laws will seize us in its death grip.

But the bigger the lies, the harder they fall. The idea that there is some sort of doubt about Bush and Cheney's criminal records is collapsing rapidly. Support for the idea of actually enforcing laws is spreading as swiftly as at any time since Moses came off the mountaintop. And our next president is going to run hard up against the fact that failure to prosecute violations of treaties is itself a criminal violation of those same treaties. Protecting a predecessor is going to mean endangering, not protecting, yourself. Paradoxical but true, and only the truth has a chance of setting us free.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Prosecute Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

David Swanson is the author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press and of the introduction to "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush" published by Feral House and available at Amazon.com. Swanson holds a master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including press secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as communications coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson is Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, creator of ConvictBushCheney.org and Washington Director of Democrats.com, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, the Backbone Campaign, and Voters for Peace, and a member of the legislative working group of United for Peace and Justice.

The above was found on OpEd News [here]

* * * *


Sunday, December 21, 2008

The Judge "I am God" Complex

Cell phone 'lunacy' prompts N.Y. judge's removal
Posted by Anne Broache

It was a normal enough morning in a Niagara Falls courtroom, with Judge Robert Restaino plodding through his routine batch of domestic violence arraignments. That is, until a ringing cell phone pierced the air.

What followed was "two hours of inexplicable madness," including the jailing of 46 people, according to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In a scathing report Tuesday, that panel recommended the city court judge be removed.

"Now, whoever owns the instrument that is ringing, bring it to me now or everybody could take a week in jail and please don't tell me I'm the only one that heard that," Restaino said on that fateful morning of March 11, 2005, according to the commission's report.

"Everyone is going to jail; every single person is going to jail in this courtroom unless I get that instrument now," he went on. "If anybody believes I'm kidding, ask some of the folks that have been here for a while. You are all going."

When no one fessed up, the judge, who was set to deal with 70 cases that morning, called back the 11 defendants he had already released on their own recognizance and set extra bail. All told, he ordered that 46 defendants be held in custody, according to the commission report. They were ultimately placed in crowded "holding" cells at the county jail, and some weren't released for a couple of hours.

Although Restaino "chastised" at length the defendants who claimed ignorance about the ringing phone's owner and accused the culprit of being "self-absorbed" for not coming forward, he never questioned "any of the prosecutors, defense attorneys, court personnel, program representatives or others who were present in the courtroom," the report found.

The commission concluded Restaino, who conceded he had no legal right to take the defendents into custody, had committed "an egregious and unprecedented abuse of judicial power." One panel member, however, said he was more inclined to pursue a penalty somewhere in between censure and complete removal, suggesting the episode was a fluke ("two hours of viral lunacy out of a person's entire professional life").

Restaino, for his part, attributed his behavior to "certain stresses in his personal life," according to the report.

Restaino plans to appeal the ruling and seek reinstatement to the post, which paid $113,900 per year, according to the Associated Press.

* * * *
* * * *

Chris Kennedy talks about Rockville Superior Court Judge Jonathan J. Kaplan's "God Complex". Get stabbed by your wife and risk 30 years in prison if you complain about Connecticut Judicial Misconduct and Public Corruption.

* * * *

Bill Cosby on Fatherhood and Fatherlessness [click here]

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Programmer who rigged 2004 election dies suspiciously

by Larisa Alexandrovna

The below found on OpEd News [here]

One of my sources died in a plane crash last night...


I don't usually reveal sources, but I think this is incredibly important. Michael Connell died in a plane crash last night. He was a key witness in the Ohio election fraud case that I have been reporting on. More importantly, however, he had information that he was ready to share.

You see, Mike Connell set-up the alternate email and communications system for the White House. He was responsible for creating the system that hosted the infamous GWB43.com accounts that Karl Rove and others used. When asked by Congress to provide these emails, the White House said that they were destroyed. But in reality, what Connell is alleged to have done is move these files to other servers after having allegedly scrubbed the files from all "known" Karl Rove accounts.

In addition, I have reason to believe that the alternate accounts were used to communicate with US Attorneys involved in political prosecutions, like that of Don Siegelman. This is what I have been working on to prove for over a year. In fact, it was through following the Siegelman-Rove trail that I found evidence leading to Connell. That is how I became aware of him. Mike was getting ready to talk. He was frightened.

He has flown his private plane for years without incident. I know he was going to DC last night, but I don't know why. He apparently ran out of gas, something I find hard to believe. I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either. I am no expert on aviation and cannot provide an opinion on the matter. What I am saying, however, is that given the context, this event needs to be examined carefully. If you want to understand the context more broadly, I suggest you read this article I did a while back about the break-ins and arson cases that Siegelman and others have experienced.

Just to be very clear and state again, I am not claiming conspiracy theory or direct relation to Karl Rove or the White House in any of these events. What I am saying, however, is that these possible relationships cannot and should not be overlooked by investigators. There are far too many serious and reasonable questions that must be answered for the public.

I have been to Mr. Connell's home. Mr. Connell has confided that he was being threatened, something that his attorneys also told the judge in the Ohio election fraud case. When I met with Heather, his wife, I did so carefully because of the threats he was getting.

I left a note for her in her mailbox and asked her to meet me in a local park near their home. Heather came and through our conversation I got the sense that these were not bad people or corrupt people. The Connell's really believed that what they were involved in served God's plan. Regardless of of what any of us think about their religious views or allegations relating to Connell's involvement in various things, I do think these were good people who got caught up in something bigger than themselves. My heart goes out to Heather and the children.


Okay children - because that is what I am going to call adults who willfully mis-read information. I will say this AGAIN (as I have twice in the above entry and also used bold case so that no one would miss the caveat), I am NOT - I repeat NOT - saying this was a). a murder, b). that it was in any way connected to the White House or to Karl Rove, and c). that I am convinced of any of the above three.

On the contrary, I have said - AND AM NOTING AGAIN - that I don't know what happened. I am NOT an aviation expert. What I am saying - AGAIN - is that the context is important and must be considered. Investigators must conduct their work transparently on this case as to address the many serious and reasonable (not remotely CT-based questions) relating to this crash and the person who died. The public has a right to know and investigators must address these questions by conducting a very open investigation of the crash.

The facts are not all in yet and so I have no answers for you - AS I HAVE ALREADY NOTED. But I felt it important to share the context, obligated even to share it. Now if you folks (you know who you are) want to read this as me rolling myself in tin-foil, then that is your choice. Obviously that is not my hope, but I cannot help the lunacy that people want to engage in.


Here are the reading materials in case you have not followed any of this closely. These are articles I have done over spanning over a year of investigative work:

Part 1 - Political Prisoner

Part 2 - Siegelman's Daughter Speaks Out

Part 3 - Karl Rove Running Elections from the White House

Part 4 - Mississippi Prosecution, Justice Oliver Diaz

Part 5 - Justice Diaz Speaks

Part 6 - Break-ins plague targets of political prosecutions

Part 7 - Justice for Sale

Related articles:

Judge who denied Paul Minor release was protoge of Karl Rove

DOJ Investigating 2 US Attorneys


60 Minutes Segemant on Siegelman "dropped" in Alabama

Republican IT Consultant Subpoenaed in Ohio election fraud case

Abramoff said he had agreement with White House aide just a month after Bush took office http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Abramoff_said_he_had_agreement_with_1117.html Treasury

Department investigating US Attorney for leaking state Supreme Court Justice's tax returns http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Treasury_Department_investigating_US_Attorney_for_1201.html

Reprinted with permission. Originally posted here

1 | 2


Larisa Alexandrovna; Managing Editor - RS, Investigative News Team Raw Story Media, Inc. http://www.rawstory.com larisa@rawstory.com

Friday, December 19, 2008

Jury Tampering using Official Jury Instruction Videos?

The portions of the tapes being disputed focused, in part, on statements about jurors determining "guilt or innocence" of a defendant.

"They're never instructed to find if a person is innocent," Goodrow said.


Thursday, December 18, 2008

This is the Connecticut Court System in a nutshell:

Probate Judge Told To Pay $23,000

Berlin Colleague Rules Against Him

November 28, 2004 By KIM MARTINEAU, Courant Staff Writer

PORTLAND -- Daniel Kauczka thought he'd be in good hands with Richard Guliani, the lawyer he hired to set up and manage a trust fund for his ailing wife. Who wouldn't? Guliani was also the local probate judge.

But last week another judge confirmed Kauczka's more recent fears that his trust in Guliani had been misplaced. The judge ordered Guliani to pay his client $23,000 for legal work he should have, but did not, perform.

The ruling by Berlin Probate Judge Walter Clebowitz against his fellow probate judge is the latest in a series of complaints about Guliani's performance.

The Statewide Grievance Committee, which investigates complaints of lawyer misconduct, has cited Guliani three times for failing to respond to the committee.

The council on probate judicial conduct has cited Guliani for failing to make timely payments to the probate retirement fund and overpaying himself three years in a row - once by $17,000.

A parental rights case dragged on for months because Guliani failed to transfer the case to juvenile court. Another judge did some of Guliani's work when he disappeared from his probate office for days.

Guliani's conduct has troubled those who two years ago supported his run for judge, a part-time job that pays about $50,000 in salary and benefits. Judge James Lawlor, who oversees the state probate system, is also distressed. He proposed a law earlier this year that would have given him the authority to assign a new judge to cases languishing in a sitting judge's court, but the legislature did not pass it. Currently, he has limited power to act.

"I wish the problems in Portland could have been resolved earlier," he said.

"I don't think it reflects well on the judge, the system or the court."

In several recent interviews, Guliani defended his record as a lawyer and a judge. He downplayed the complaints against him and said he tries his best to respond to clients and those appearing in his court. Although in recent letters to Berlin Probate Court he alluded to an illness, he declined to elaborate.

Guliani stepped down as fiduciary for the Kauczka trust last year. His clients, Daniel and Marilyn Kauczka, spent nearly $28,000 on lawyers and accountants to straighten out the trust.

Clebowitz found that Guliani failed to deposit checks, file annual accountings of his work or even return his clients' phone calls. He ordered Guliani to reimburse his clients all but a $5,000 trustee fee.

"If he had responded to the reasonable requests of the Kauczkas, their accountant and attorney for information, all these fees and costs would have been avoided," Clebowitz wrote in a decision Nov. 22.

Guliani vowed an appeal to state Superior Court. He defended his handling of the Kauczka trust and accused Kauczka's new lawyer, Brad Gallant, of overcharging, calling it "an outrageous money grab."

As an attorney, Guliani has been cited three times by the Statewide Grievance Committee for failing to respond to the committee handling grievances against him. Two of the grievances were upheld, including one from a lawyer who sued Guliani for payment of $5,500 in legal work.

As a probate judge, Guliani was admonished once by the council on probate judicial conduct, which investigates complaints of judicial misconduct. The head of the probate assembly at the time, Newington Probate Judge Sheila Hennessey, complained in 2002 that Guliani made late payments to the probate retirement fund and filed late financial reports, state records show.

Her complaint alleged that Guliani overpaid himself three years in a row, including an overpayment of $17,000 in 2000. The money was eventually returned, with interest. The probate council privately admonished Guliani. When the problems continued, he was publicly admonished a year later.

The Portland Democratic Town Committee endorsed Guliani for a fourth term in 2002.

Chairman Stephen Kinsella said he was unaware Guliani had been cited by either the grievance committee or the probate council, but he said the matter would be discussed when the committee meets next month.

"I wish I had known. I would have taken this up with the town committee a long time ago," said Kinsella, an attorney for the city of Hartford.

"If he's doing anything illegal or unethical, then he needs to step down."

Kauczka and other former clients have indicated Guliani may be running his private law practice, at least some of the time, out of town hall. First Selectwoman Susan Bransfield said she has not received any complaints, but if true, it would probably be considered improper. Guliani acknowledged he sometimes meets with clients at town hall.

"This practice isn't totally unusual," he said.

Probate administration has had to intervene in several cases before Guliani's court in the last two years. In January 2003, his clerk, Janice Visinski, told probate administration that the judge had been gone for days and was not returning calls, state records show.

Someone had come to the court asking for custody of a dead person's remains. Middletown Probate Judge Joseph Marino handled the matter, but also had concerns.

"Janice has a stack of papers, 6 to 10 inches high, awaiting signatures or other action - clearly more than just four days worth," Marino told a staff lawyer, who made note of the call.

In another case, a child custody matter dragged on for months because the file was not transferred to juvenile court promptly, state records show. After his calls were not returned, the juvenile court judge asked state probate court administrators to intervene.

Other complaints were made anonymously. In 2003, a woman claimed she was unable to reach anyone at the court during hours it was supposed to be open.

"This lady did not want her name used as she was concerned that she will have to appear before this judge," another probate administration memo reads.

On Nov. 17, Kauczka, 56, took half a day off from his job as a custodian at the East Hampton library to appear in probate court - in New Britain. Guliani, citing child-care conflicts, did not attend the hearing - one he had asked the court to reschedule twice before.

In court, Kauczka recounted his problems, starting from his first meeting with Guliani, in 1998. Then he began to have trouble reaching his lawyer.

"Basically all he was was an answering machine," he testified.

Unpaid tax bills started arriving at his home, he testified. On the rare occasion he reached his lawyer, he said, Guliani assured him the problems would be fixed. But as time wore on, Kauczka became skeptical.

He hired a new lawyer, Gallant, last year and together they petitioned Guliani to provide an accounting of his work. In November 2003, Guliani provided it. The two-page document accounted for the mutual funds and other assets in the trust. But it showed no record of any work Guliani had done.

"He didn't do any of the things you'd expect a trustee to do," Gallant told Clebowitz.

"You have the poor people relying on him thinking their problems are getting solved, but in fact, their problems are getting worse."

Marilyn Kauczka, 66, has advanced Parkinson's disease and is now in a nursing home. In his decision Monday, Clebowitz found that Gallant's bills, for nearly $23,000, were reasonable and due to Guliani's inattention as a trustee.

More than money, Daniel Kauczka wants an apology.

"I would like him to come up to me and say, `I slipped up on this and I'd like to make it up to you,'" he said. "Evidently I'm never going to hear that."

The above came from the Hartford Courant website.

Fair use of copyrighted material

* * * *
* * * *

A law passed [Private Attorney General bill] to bolster the Grand Jury System might fix the Judicial, Attorney, Official, Legislator, and Police Misconduct problem in the State of Connecticut and other states. It might also curb the police brutality, domestic spying, rape, assault, murder-for-hire, murder, and other crime sprees out of police departments. [example 1] [more examples "The Connecticut State Police Gene Pool"]

* * * *
* * * *


[click here] for more

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for:

The Connecticut State Trooper Gene Pool?

keywords: Connecticut State Police misconduct brutality Judicial Peter Coukos Barbara Sattel Colonel Thomas "The Duck Davoren Attorney Michael H. Agranoff weasel Stafford Springs Enfield Somers Somersville Hartford Stamford Norwalk Wethersfield West East Judge Jonathan Kaplan Rockville Superior Court [more]

* * * *

[click here] for post called, "Taxpayer Paid Liars, Cheats, and Thugs"

[click here] for post called, "End of America"

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Swingers Clubs, Police, Prostitution, and Colluding with Drug Dealers?

A Swingers Club event was busted by cops in Connecticut. Were the cops angry they weren't given some "protection" sex, or did the operators not know which liquor commission official to bribe, not to get shut down?

A Connecticut bar owner told me he was a target of a police sting, and set up, as his father owned the bar previously, and the liquor control agent who the father bribed, retired. The son didn't know who to bribe, and was then allegedly targeted to lose his business and to go to prison. [Peter Griffin's Cadillac Ranch, Southington, Connecticut, story, scroll down]

Police in Connecticut can be too busy sleeping with prostitutes, hanging out with drug dealers, and starting criminal motorcycle gangs to answer citizens' calls into police. [story]

* * * *
* * * *

Investigation Continues, The Hartford Courant:

Three Facing Charges Tied To Swingers' Party In Windsor Locks

December 13, 2008

Hot times among consenting adults at the Beverly Hills Suites hotel in Windsor Locks have suddenly gone cold.

The bar at the 170-room hotel at 383 South Center St., which had been routinely reserved for swingers' events, was visited in early November by undercover town police and state liquor control agents. They found some of the swingers engaging in oral sex and intercourse in the bar, known as Club 91.

"Swingers night" at the suites, a weekly activity that had been ongoing for months and that once boasted more than 300 of the hottest couples in New England, went beyond the generally accepted boundary of social decency and violated state liquor regulations, police said.

The hotel owner, the bar permittee and a Connecticut Department of Correction officer who organized the parties were arrested.

Nicholas Maulucci, a correction officer assigned to the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, was charged with obscenity and public indecency. Maulucci is also manager of Hot Couples Parties LLC in Simsbury, the entity that organized the event.

Sharok Jacobi, 46, of Great Neck, N.Y., owner of the Beverly Hills Suites, and Brian B. True, 42, of Granby, the licensed permittee of Club 91, are both charged with accessory to the same charges.

Jacobi denies the allegations and plans to plead not guilty when he appears in Superior Court in Enfield Thursday, his attorney, J. Patton Brown, said.

True's attorney, Aaron J. Romano, said his client also denies the charges.

On Friday, a DOC spokesman said the department is aware of Maulucci's arrest and is looking into the matter.

The hotel and True also were cited by the state liquor control agents for violating several regulations, including smoking inside the building, nudity, sex acts, not serving food and improper use of a service bar.

Windsor Locks Police Chief John Suchocki said the investigation continues.

Maulucci told police that he rented the hotel for $500 per event under a 2-year-old agreement with Jacobi, according to an arrest warrant. The hotel closed the bar to the public during the parties, and swinging couples paid a $40 admission fee.

A tip to a liquor control agent prompted an investigation in November, the arrest affidavit says. Two Windsor Locks detectives and two agents with the Liquor Control Division registered online with fake names for a swingers' night on Nov. 8 that was attended by 60 or 70 people, the affidavit states.

Partially clothed men and women had oral sex, intercourse, masturbated and simulated sex while a photographer took pictures, the affidavit says. Many of the partygoers scattered when they realized police were in the building, the affidavit states.

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for my beefs with official Connecticut, scroll down


Monday, December 08, 2008

US Perverted Justice?

Afghanistan Producing More Her0in Than Everhttp://www.darkgovernment.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/child-with-poppies-150x150.jpg
Capturing a new, abundant source for heroin was an integral part of the U.S. “war on terror.” Hamid Karzai is a puppet ruler of the CIA; Afghanistan is a full-fledged narco-state; and the poppies that flourish there have yet to be eradicated, as was proven in 2003 when the Bush administration refused to destroy the crops, despite having the chance to do so. Major drug dealers are rarely arrested, smugglers enjoy carte blanche immunity, and Nushin Arbabzadah, writing for The Guardian, theorized that “U.S. Army planes leave Afghanistan carrying coffins empty of bodies, but filled with drugs.” Is that why the military protested so vehemently when reporters tried to photograph returning caskets?
more - Dark Government

The above from the "Kenny's Sideshow" blog [found here]

* * * *

[click here] for: "D.A.R.E. is a scam"

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

"geico does not pay claims"

was google searched, these links came up for first page:


    But this they claim, was also our fault. Bottom line is, you pay Geico for .... NOT BECAUSE I AM A NURSE. THE HOSPITAL STAFF DOES'NT EVEN KNOW US, ...
    www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/138/RipOff0138817.htm - 65k - Cached - Similar pages

    GEICO does have the right to not pay this claim IF the other driver had an unforeseen heart attack prior to the impact. In order for GEICO to pay their ...
    www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/231/RipOff0231487.htm - 55k - Cached - Similar pages
    More results from www.ripoffreport.com »
  3. GEICO | Learn about the Total Loss Process

    GEICO can only pay your claim if you have the appropriate coverage on your policy. ... It does not expand coverage beyond the policy contract. ...
    www.geico.com/claims/claimsprocess/total-loss-process/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
  4. GEICO | Get the Basics on Renting a Vehicle -

    GEICO does not pay for this additional coverage. In many cases, this coverage is not necessary. If you have comprehensive and collision coverages on your ...
    www.geico.com/claims/claimsprocess/vehicle-rental/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
    More results from www.geico.com »
  5. GEICO - denying to pay for legitimate claim

    Jun 8, 2007 ... GEICO - denying to pay for legitimate claim. ... I have reviewed the policy documents Geico has mailed me and it does not mention anything ...
    www.complaints.com/2007/june/8/GEICO_-_denying_to_pay_for_legitimate_claim_145439.htm - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
  6. Geico Car Insurance Complaints - Refused to pay my claim!

    The Geico claims office said that since we did not contact the police, ... and were willing to drive to the adjuster(the adjuster does not come to you) but ...
    www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/geico-car-insurance-c5009.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages
  7. The Stark Raving Viking: GEICO

    Nov 14, 2008 ... If GEICO does not pay, or does not pay timely, claims, they legitimately owe for lost wages and for medical, they can be contributing to ...
    starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2008/11/geico.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
  8. Geico denys claim that court says was other guys fault, what now ...

    Jul 18, 2008 ... Geico still does not want to pay! 4 months ago; (Tiebreaker) ... aware that Geico will probably claim that your wife was partially at fault. ...
    answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718183941AAHULeK - 37k - Cached - Similar pages
  9. Auto Accident | GEICO Claims Process | PlanetFeedback

    Nov 14, 2008 ... All I want is Geico to pay for the damages caused by their insured ... Also, just because your vehicle was in an accident does not mean that ...
    www.planetfeedback.com/geico/claims+process/auto+accident+/313988 - 90k - Cached - Similar pages
  10. » GEICO Paid Out A Fraudulent Claim on Blueprint for Financial ...

    May 31, 2007 ... Just because there is no damage to your car does not mean there is no damage to .... Or would you rather have geico pay the 500.00 claim? ...
    www.bargaineering.com/articles/geico-paid-out-a-fraudulent-claim.html - 74k - Cached - Similar pages

* * * *

If you scroll down in [this post] you can view my complaint with GEICO.

[OpEd Piece]

* * * *
* * * *

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Insurance Company Injustice?

Do insurance companies lobby elected officials to make life fair for them, not you?

Are teams of their lawyers out to keep you from what you should receive, legally and ethically?

GEICO seems to have a growing bad reputation, not paying out claims timely, in full, and possibly not at all? Is GEICO spending it profits on CEO perks, advertising, and their own lawyers? Are the customers and victims of personal injuries and lost wages due to accidents further victims because the insurance company responsible for paying, GEICO? Check out complaint # 12 in [this post].

Don't take the abuse, lodge complaints. Complain to elected officials, your state's attorney general, and insurance commissioner.


* * * *
* * * *

My comments in [this post]:

Blogger The Stark Raving Viking said...

It is not easy for me to get a job as I have a criminal record for having resisted being mugged on my own property. That's another story.

I had contracting work and a regular gig where I was making over a $1000 take home a week. I had a contract to make over $3500 take home for an 8 day contract. So the minimum I was taking home a week was a $1000.

A GEICO insured driver admitted fault where I received brain trauma, multiple injuries, and severe pain. The accident happened in July. I am still in pain and having daily back spasms. I can't get to doctor as I have no car and no money.

I lost my job because of the accident. I have received nothing and their offer is ridiculous. GEICO isn't willing to even cover my losses partially.

My medical bills are still unpaid and was receiving multiple calls a day regarding those unpaid bill that were supposed to be paid by GEICO given their insured was at fault and from what GEICO representatives told me.

I had been working extra hard to get down to the Gulf Coast for hurricane season. I had put about $2500 into the car GEICO totaled and did offer to pay me nine hundred something for that.

I was making $2600 a week after taxes as an insurance adjuster. I can type at speed with all of my fingers, am proficient with a video and other cameras,video editing, and have been certified on various adjusting software after having taken classes.

When I took the Texas Insurance adjuster test, I passed with the 3rd or 4th highest grade out of over 300 people having taken the test.

Also being a licensed contractor made me even more attractive for disaster areas doing insurance claims. I have advanced ladder skills, am not afraid of heights, and from being a contractor I don't have to learn terms and know the ins and outs of residential and commercial property claims.

I teamed up with the Mississippi Attorney General and a number of Mississippi homeowners to get stingy insurance companies to pay out in full, the claims I adjusted.

I have continuing back spasms, pain, and get more and more upset at GEICO everyday. My life has been completely disrupted, yet again, and I am supposed to just take it up the ass. WRONG BITCH!

I have been offered pennies on the dollar for what I am out. Their insured had very little coverage, their minimum won't even cover what I am currently out, and that amount wasn't even offered. MY FUCKING GOD!

So, I may have sustained a life debilitating injury. I don't know if I can even swing a ladder around anymore given that two or three vertebrae were bashed out of alignment. I now own no vehicle for the first time since I was 16.

A boom box caught me in the back of the head. At day two or three after the accident, I could not remember phone numbers and the codes to get into my laptop. I don't know if I have suffered permanent brain injuries or not, but I am still not as steady on my feet as I was before the accident.

Those who know me, noticed that I was completely different after the accident. Maybe I closer to the way I was mentally, but I am not one to ever give up. I love life too much. If I die before my time, suspect foul play.

Anybody who knows me, knows I am never quiet about absolutely being screwed over.

I intend on being in Washington DC to personally lobby US Senators and Congresspersons about doing an investigation into the entire insurance industry, how they pay claims, and their lack of paying out lost wages in real time.

Current policies are causing damage to the economy, to children and families, and is just plain bad business.

-Steven G. Erickson

Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:24:00 AM

Blogger The Stark Raving Viking said...

If GEICO holds back or doesn't pay medical providers and hospitals when they are liable for the full amount, others needing medical attention will be subsidizing GEICO's abuse and rip off of the public.

Doctors offices and medical providers hanging by a thread can go bankrupt and out of business.

Parents and homeowners hanging by a thread, can be harmed permanently if GEICO doesn't pay the fair amount of what they owe, or just drag it out because they can do as they please with their team of lawyers.

Companies, including insurance companies, have personalities if you follow their practices and procedures. GEICO seems to have a predatory personality.

Instead of a GEICO having a gecko as their mascot, maybe it should be a skin tearing, ferocious dinosaur.

I tell how they screwed me over above.

Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:52:00 AM

View My Stats