Saturday, November 29, 2008

Press Release

A petition for certiorari, case # 08-6378, submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States by William H. Doriss of Yarmouthport, MA was denied last week after a two-month review. Doriss represented himself, without the assistance of any attorney or any nonprofit organization.

An assistant clerk of the Court told Doriss, two months was not an unusually short period of time for review. The rejection letter, dated and postmarked Nov. 17, arrived on Nov. 24 already opened, with no attempt to re-seal.

This was not the first time that official correspondence from the federal courts has arrived previously opened. The Court receives approximately 8,000 petitions per year for review. For the last decade or more, fewer than 100 are granted a hearing. This means that every year, over seven thousand, nine hundred petitioners are denied justice in what they feel are important cases in America. Many of these cases involve issues of Constitutionality and denial of civil and/or due process rights under the Bill of Rights.

Doriss claimed in his federal civil tort claim that he was falsely arrested in the City of New Haven multiple times and maliciously prosecuted by the State of Connecticut in the connection with two separate dog accidents involving his two dogs. The State hit him with thirteen criminal counts and 69 years prison in a classic case of "piling-on." Doriss beat eleven criminal charges, including nine felony, and 67 years prison through trial and jury verdict. This was a clear victory for Doriss, but the State chalked up two misdemeanor "wins" for its side, thus denying Doriss the complete exoneration to which he was entitled.

He walked out of court with two misdemeanor convictions, which he claimed were 'engineered" through tricks of jurisprudence and misuse of legal process employed by the Court in co-conspiracy with the State. Doriss claims seven of his Constitutional rights were violated repeatedly and viciously by the State in order to lock him up, illegally and unlawfully, for a very long time. Doriss claimed no crimes were committed by him in Connecticut. He claimed the State gave him a "kangaroo court," and the State assigned him "incompetent" counsel who were unable to achieve the complete and total exoneration to which he was entitled. Doriss claims, crimes were committed against him by City and State in violation of applicable RICO statutes. He claims the city and state have become a lawless land under governors Rowland and Rell, and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

The City and State have refused to acknowledge multiple mistakes and errors, or to correct them. Doriss was denied justice by three courts at the state level, and now he has been denied justice at three levels of the federal judiciary. Doriss claims the courts in America a broken and in a serious state of disarray when perfect legal storms such as this occur without the possibility of true remediation. He claims the courts routinely distort the English language--in effect using the occult language of legalese which is unintelligible to the average layman--to achieve a predetermined result, or no result whatsever. Doriss characterizes this language as legalistic gibberish and gobbledygook designed to obfuscate the issues and walk away from the responsibility for actually adjudicating cases on the merits and the law.

Doriss has nine years of higher education, including a doctor's degree and a B.A. in Philosophy (Lehigh University, 1966). Doriss claims the State punished him for refusing to plea-bargain under the Alford Doctrine. At Sentencing in New Haven, Doriss told the Court, "These charges are ridiculous, they're false, and they're untrue." Immediately after speaking these words, Judge Bernadette Conway sentenced him to two years prison over two dog incidents which the State either knew, or should have known, were nothing more than unfortunate but commonplace "accidents."

These developments are related to "Training is Scarce for State Prosecutors" and "Citing Workload, Public Lawyers Reject New Cases" (Both New York Times). Recommended reading: American Furies by Sasha Abramsky and the new book by Patrick O'Connor, The Framing of Mumia Abu Jamal. Doriss and family attended a reading by O'Connor and Prof. Johanna Fernandez last week at the New Haven book store, Labyrintine.

Doriss is now an activist for criminal justice and corrections reform, living on Cape Cod, where he sought political asylum from the lawless State of Connecticut. The true story of the persecution of William Doriss can be found at africanindependent.com/LAW_doriss_case1 and 2. He is now looking for an attorney or nonprofit organization which might be able to help him re-pen his cases at the state and/or federal levels. Hopefully, he will be able to do this under a new administration in Washington.

A five page "statement of the case" is available through e-mail or regular mail, pre-paid for $5.00. The entire 39-page petition, plus six cover pages, Questions Presented, and appendix is available through e-mail or regular mail, for $20.00, pre-paid.

Bill Doriss
YarmouthCourt, MA
508 685 0339

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Where's consistency?

Drugstore Error Leads to $350,000 Jury Verdict

A jury in Putnam awarded toddler Madeleine Mirante and her parents $350,000.00 as a result of a drugstore’s error in delivering Prozac to her instead of Prilosec. The jury of four women and two men awarded Madeleine who was one year old at the time of her injury $250,000.00 and $50,000.00 to each of her parents, Renee and Chris Mirante, for their emotional distress. The case was tried by Dale Faulkner and Kara Burgarella.

The above [found here]

Saturday, November 15, 2008

"Live Free or Die"

is the slogan in New Hampshire.

That doesn't take into account, the courts in New Hampshire. If you respectfully question authority, shouldn't you receive some sort of answer, not 100 days in jail?

The below, cut and pasted, [from here]


Liberty Activists Call WKBK’s “Talkback” 2008-11-15

Filed under: Audio, Personal Freedom, Thuggery — toby at 2:57 pm on Saturday, November 15, 2008

Radio TowerLiberty activists called WKBK’s Talkback and others call to discuss Ian being jailed for 93 days for contempt of court and failure to pay a fine for his tenants’ allegedly “illegal” couch. Thank you to Rance Muhamitz for recording this.

Please join us in calling the program with a pro-liberty viewpoint. Get details and discuss on this Free Keene forum thread.

Download the MP3.

Ian Freeman arrested and jailed for 93 days RAW FOOTAGE

Filed under: Free Talk Live, Personal Freedom, Thuggery, Video — toby at 8:57 pm on Friday, November 14, 2008

Ian Freeman from nationally syndicated radio show Free Talk Live has been arrested while in court over a couch and jailed for 93 days. This is live footage.

More to follow…

Keene radio host Ian Freeman jailed over couch

Filed under: Corruption, Free Talk Live, Hypocrisy, News, Personal Freedom, Thuggery — Michael Hampton at 6:42 pm on Friday, November 14, 2008

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Ian Freeman will spend 100 days in jail because he questioned the legitimacy of a system which would penalize him for having a couch in his yard and conduct his trial in secret.

(Read on …)

IAN TO JAIL FOR 3 MONTHS FOR QUESTIONING SYSTEM

Filed under: Announcement, Personal Freedom, Thuggery — nick at 3:45 pm on Friday, November 14, 2008

**preliminary report**
Active FreeKeene blogger Ian Freeman today helped the Keene District Court prove that it is ready to crack down on non-violent peaceful people today. At least 6 officers of various rank were present in court to try and outnumber the liberty activists. Judge Burke was obviously ready to order Ian’s arrest, and did so less than 45 seconds after entering the courtroom. Ian was then taken to a second room where his supporters could not go with him. He was viewed on closed circuit TV as he continued to question the system and not consent, and drew two further contempt of court charges, all three for 30 days in jail.

Watch FreeKeene.com for further updates, articles, videos, and more.

“Thank You For Your Service”

Filed under: Essay, National — nick at 9:44 pm on Monday, November 10, 2008

This Veteran’s Day, like all others, you and I will hear that statement repeated countless times to the so called “men and women in service to our country.” They are credited with “keeping our country free” and securing America from people who hate our way of life. But while security is important to a free society, the military that was established to defend the Constitution is currently undermining the bounds intended by the founding fathers by occupying over 150 countries with a US military presence.

There is no doubt that there are people in the world disgusted by American people, but I’ll leave it up to you to decide if they hate us for McDonalds and freedom, or for a government that can’t stay out of foreigner’s lives. Despite the foreign and domestic threats to personal freedom, who is really responsible for the privileged life most of us are lucky to live here? (Read on …)

Selective Enforcement For Undesirable Speech

Filed under: Anarchy in Your Head, Copwatch, Corruption, Freedom Fest, Hypocrisy, Police, Video — dalebert at 11:13 am on Saturday, November 8, 2008

On Sunday, October 26th, a bunch of different folks interested in promoting liberty gathered (assembled, if you like) in Keene, New Hampshire’s public Railroad Square for what was commonly referred to as The Freedom Festival. A week later, I did this interview with some locals who have been performing for tips in Railroad Square for about 10 months. They’re considering the name Z Squared but haven’t decided yet. I wish them well and hope the police continue to leave them unharassed.

(Read on …)



* * * *

Free Ian Freeman website:

http://93days.com/


* * * *

More injustice blogs:

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/


http://thesrv.blogspot.com/


This blogger's email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com

Thursday, November 13, 2008

"Black and Brown" vs. White learning?

You can't say one person describes the "flavor" of a state, but the below post might just let one know the "flavor" of Connecticut's courts, State Police, legislature, Governor's office, and how most of Official Connecticut acts and thinks.

Manchester School Administrator's 'Racially Biased' Remarks Criticized

By KATE FARRISH | The Hartford Courant
November 12, 2008


MANCHESTER - The local teachers' union has sharply criticized a school administrator for "racially biased" comments she made linking students' learning style to their race.

In a letter to the board of education Monday night, Thomas Alexander, president of the Manchester Education Association, criticized the comments by Diane Clare-Kearney, who also pointed out Oct. 27 that students from minority groups are taught mostly by white women, as "irresponsible and divisive."

"The statement that 'black or brown boys' learn differently is racial stereotyping and an insult to all students of color," Alexander wrote.

On Monday, board members, who had not reacted to Clare-Kearney's remarks when she made them at their meeting Oct. 27, said they disagreed with her comments. They said they received complaints in calls, e-mails, and even in discussions in the grocery store in the past two weeks. Board Chairwoman Margaret Hackett read a statement agreeing with the union's concerns. The district will explore which approaches to teaching work best to close an achievement gap between students of different races by relying on "hard facts and data" from the teachers who work with the children every day, she said.

"As a school system, we will not rely on loose impressions and random generalizations to determine why the achievement gap exists," she said.

Clare-Kearney declined to comment Tuesday. The district's K-12 supervisor for equity programs was recently honored as multicultural educator of the year by the New England Conference on Multicultural Education.

After Monday's meeting, Hackett said board members regretted not commenting about Clare-Kearney's remarks at the time.

"All of us wish we had thought better on our feet" and said something, she said.

Clare-Kearney's comments came during a discussion of a four-year racial imbalance plan she wrote. The district's minority enrollment surpassed 50 percent for the first time on Oct. 1, which means it no longer is required to redistrict to comply with the state's racial imbalance law.

Under the plan, Clare-Kearney, who is black, said teachers will be trained in different teaching strategies for students of color, who, in general, may not learn best with traditional methods. For example, she said, students of color, particularly black boys, generally don't learn well through note-taking, but do better in groups or in hands-on activities.

In response to a question from board member Michael Rizzo, who is white, about why "a black or a brown student can't sit in a chair and learn in a traditional way," she said, "They're more rambunctious. They're late bloomers. ... And look who's teaching them — mostly white women."

Two days after the meeting, she said she had received no complaints and was speaking in generalities backed by research into the learning styles of students of color.

On Monday night, the nine board members unanimously adopted the plan to address racial disparities, which will be voluntarily submitted to the state. It calls for continued training of teachers in "culturally relevant" instruction so students see their lives reflected in the curriculum; more "Courageous Conversations" aimed at changing attitudes about race; and a focus on raising the test scores of minority students.

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Connecticut, under armed occupation

The Connecticut State Police have spent decades making false arrests, manufacturing evidence, beating citizens up, raping women [video testimony] and underage girls, committing thefts, and even murdering citizens who make police misconduct complaints. It is time to end the armed occupation of Connecticut. The below story of Peter Riley is all too typical. Is there still "Gay Bashing" going on within the ranks of the Connecticut State Police? [story]

The Case
of
Peter Reilly

In 1973, 51-year-old Barbara Gibbons of Falls Village, Connecticut was killed in a brutal attack in her home. She suffered stab wounds and broken bones. She was also sexually mutilated. Police immediately focused their investigation on the victim's 18-year-old son Peter Reilly.

American Justice: "A Son's Confession" reveals that Peter told police he came home and discovered his mother lying on the bedroom floor in a pool of blood. At police headquarters, alone and without legal counsel, Reilly was detained and interrogated for over 25 hours. He eventually succumbed to exhaustion, hunger, confusion and grief, and confessed to the gruesome murder.

Friends and neighbors rushed to Reilly's side despite his confession, refusing to believe he was guilty. They raised money for his defense, but to no avail. Peter was found guilty and sentenced to 6 to 16 years. The community was outraged. Playwright Arthur Miller alerted the national press and assembled a new defense team.

But before a new trial could begin, the prosecutor died. His replacement discovered evidence that led the state to drop its case against Reilly. The case has had a poisonous impact on Connecticut law enforcement for more than a quarter century.

Today, new controversy surrounds the case, as Reilly calls for DNA-testing of old evidence that may once and for all clear his name and move police to resume the investigation.


UPDATE: In a move that Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission hearing officer Victor Perpetua likened to a scene from "Alice in Wonderland," State Police argue they cannot release files associated with the infamous Peter Reilly murder case from the 1970s because those files have been "erased." Erasing Innocence

http://www.truthinjustice.org/peter-reilly.htm

* * * *

Bill Collins, the former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, talks about officers wearing ski masks abducting citizens to beat them at waterfront warehouses, officers throwing beer bottles on his porch, vandalizing his house, and putting up police union stickers on his vehicles and house.



* * * *

In Connecticut, the State Police have a "100 Club", where an officer belongs to the special club, and can go on golf outings, if he has more than 100 driving while drunk, or impaired, arrests (DUI, DWI, OUI). [info on 100 club]

* * * *

A campaign manager for the rival party's governor choice, can mean being placed on the secret police "Enemies List". Kenneth Krayeske, also a journalist was placed on "the list", and arrested on sight. [story]

* * * *

Connecticut Police State Register Confidential Informants are giving immunity to break laws, beat people up even police officers who break ranks, rape, sell drugs, drive vehicles with no insurance, no registration, no valid license plates, and no valid driver's license. The below police informant, Todd Vashon, was paid $10,000 to kill Stephen Murzin and Phil Inkel for having made police misconduct complaints. [more information]

Todd Vashon under oath:


* * * *

Ritt Goldstein proposed Civilian Oversight of Police Dec. 1996 at a Special Hearing at the Connecticut Legislature LOB in front of the Connecticut Judiciary Committee, the Hartford Capitol, Connecticut. Richard assembled international experts on policing and victims of Connecticut police misconduct, and brutality, in the state of Connecticut. Ritt was so terrorized by police he fled the US to seek political asylum in Sweden:


* * * *

Police Recruits: young, armed, dangerous, horny

New recruits figure out they can get away with almost anything as long as they don't break ranks. That feeling of "anything goes" lasts entire police careers.

::::::::

The State Police in many, or most, states are White and Male. Connecticut is no exception, and might just show what is most wrong with our nation's policing.



Connecticut State Police Academy Graduation


=====

If women are raped, especially in downtown area, officers can threaten the victims with arrest for making a "false statement", if officers are too lazy to do an actual investigation. When officers rape, assault, rob, murder, and are responsible for murders and mayhem, officers aren't even investigated. [video of hearing testimony]

Bill Collins, the former mayor of Norwalk, Connecticut, talks about officers wearing ski masks abducting citizens to beat them at waterfront warehouses, officers throwing beer bottles on his porch, vandalizing his house, and putting up police union stickers on his vehicles and house. [video of official testimony]

In Connecticut, the State Police have a "100 Club", where an officer belongs to the special club, and can go on golf outings, if he has more than 100 driving while drunk, or impaired, arrests (DUI, DWI, OUI). [info on 100 club]

A false arrest can land a citizen in prison. It can mean job, home, and family loss. Taxes being paid in by an individual stop, and he, or she, is now a burden on taxpayers based on a false report, false arrest, lies to be part of a club!

A prison sentence can mean a citizen is ruined for life, never trusting authorities again. Maybe the citizen will never support a family, be productive, or even pay taxes, ever again. All over "fun in a club".

If police will lie, falsify and manufacture evidence to arrest citizens for driving while drunk and for drugs, they will alter and fix ANY case. If police, police themselves, police aren't policed.

A campaign manager for the rival party's governor choice, can mean being placed on the secret police "Enemies List". Kenneth Krayeske, also a journalist was placed on "the list", and arrested on sight. [story]

Connecticut State Police Colonel Lynch was allegedly asked to change an official police report. The heirs of Neil Esposito, wanted the millions of Neil's money. Esposito and been died driving drunk and Heather Specyalski was allegedly performing oral sex on him at the time of the crash. I assume there was evidence of this as Heather was in coma for months following the accident. [story]










Heather Specyalski










Neil Esposito

So, if an important doner to former Republican Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland requests an official State Police investigation be changed, orders from the top will see that it will. These "law enforcement" can't be trusted when they come up with DNA and other lab results when they can just alter official reports. They're willing to put an innocent woman in prison for manslaughter at the request of the rich and powerful.

If a police officer breaks ranks with other officers by actually protecting and serving the public, caring about the law, he can get felony arrested and his sons can be hauled out of his house to be beaten at the State Police HQ. For police to retaliate against police who break ranks, the courts ALSO, have to be rigged. [story]

Judicial Branch employees can blow the whistle on judges and judicial managers rigging cases, racketeering, obstructing justice, nepotism, bid rigging, the altering of court hard drives, retaliation, and felonies committed. The "public comment" will then be sealed and the "mouthy" employees will be retaliated against. [CT Judicial Branch whistle blower video]

Every citizen who I know who has proposed Civilian Oversight of Police has been terrorized out of the state, into silence, and/or is falsely arrested and imprisoned. Richard "Ritt" Goldstein proposed Civilian Oversight of Police to the Connecticut Judiciary Committee assembling international experts on the subject and victims of Connecticut State Police misconduct and brutality. Ritt fled to Sweden seeking political asylum, so terrorized by police after making [this video].

Police use state registered confidential informants to kill, beat up, and terrorize citizens making misconduct complaints. [video of an informant under oath]

The police misconduct only gets worse with each passing year. There is more technology, more money, more of them, and less and less oversight and accountability. We have "Black Water"-style policing inside the US. God help us all ...

My beefs can be found in "Faces of a Police State".

-Steven G. Erickson

[links to police, attorney, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct stories]

[video, witness to the basics of police retaliation]

I am a freelance cameraman, documentary producer, screenwriter, sometimes journalist, and can and will travel anywhere if the terms are right.



The above re-posted [from here]
stevengerickson@yahoo.com
To share this post, click on white envelope below.

* * * *
* * * *

Are Connecticut officers too busy sleeping with prostitutes, organizing criminal gangs, and breaking laws to protect and serve the public. The below video shows all too typical behavior of Connecticut Police Officers. Many continue to cover for each other, and less than 1% of police misconduct complaints in the state of Connecticut actually get investigated.

[CT] Officer Durgin abused database, other crimes - fired


Do you want to score heroin or crack cocaine, find a prostitute, do you want to have someone killed or beaten up? Well, in Connecticut, your needs are close and easy, just having cash on you, and knowing which cop to ask and there you go.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Do you want to score drugs?


Lt. William White (Photo: New Haven Register)

Well, Connecticut cops might have the strongest drugs at the best prices. Want to score "jail bait"? Again you might want to ask a Connecticut Police Officer. There are a greater percentage of good officers, why are they so often silent?

New Haven police officers arrested

[click here for piece]

(New Haven-WTNH) _ At least five people, including two New Haven police officers, were arrested Tuesday. The charges include conspiracy and theft of government funds, and bribery.

The officers are identified as Lt. Billy White, Sr., the head of the department's Narcotics Division, and Det. Justin Kasperzyk.

"I'm disguested, I'm upset, frustrated," New Haven Police Chief Francisco Ortiz said.

White is accused of theft of government funds and conspiracy. In an afternoon court appearance, the FBI said they have video and audio evidence of White that was taken during a sting operation.

The officers are accused in part of taking money from drug scenes. In one piece of evidence, prosecutors showed a picture of someone they say is White holding a bag that contained $27,000 in cash.

Kasperzyk was charged with a misdemeanor crime of stealing less than $1,000.

Authorities say their investigation also led them to Jacobs Bondsman, a New Haven bail bonds business.

The three bondsmen face bribery and conspiracy charges. They are identified as Robert Jacobs, Paul Jacobs, and Philip Jacobs. They are accused of bribing White and other police officers to recapture fugitives who disappeared while on bond.

Both officers were put on administrative leave by Chief Ortiz, and an internal affairs investigation has been launched.

"There's a presumption here of innocence, but from what I've seen and what I hear and my experience tells me, um, folks ought to have known better."

A federal magistrate judge ordered White to undergo a psychological exam after learning that White made statements to police after his arrest indicating he might harm himself.

White is due back in Hartford federal court tomorrow for a hearing on whether he should be detained.

FBI Spokeswoman Marybeth Miklos says White has been with the New Haven Police dept. for about 30 years. His home was searched as part of the investigation.

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano, who was in Washington D.C., said in a news release, "We are attempting to learn more about the charges, and will be fully cooperating with the investigation," said DeStefano.

DeStefano said he's been in contact with Ortiz, and will hold a news conference about the arrests at 9:30 tonight.


[click here] for above story told at CTnewsjunkie blog
* * * *
* * * *

Raped?



[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]

* * * *

Former Connecticut Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland was known as "Johnny" to both Presidents, Bush. Back in the late 1990's I owned 3 rental properties, 2 I had fixed up completely inside, and out, from a boarded up condition. I made Republican State Senators John A. Kissel and Anthony "Tony" Guglielmo and Governor Rowland aware of the problems I was having making a profit and having a quality of life due to being under siege by prostitutes, heroin and crack cocaine dealers, vandals, thieves, and the Connecticut State Police would rather threaten citizens that offer protection and service to downtown business and property owners without political connections. [information here] note: freespeech.com links no longer work.

[click here] for the text of the letter meant to arrive as former Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland started his first day of Federal Prison.

I blame Bush's, Governor Rowland's, and dishonest judges and police for this:

The Steven G. Erickson Mugshot

The above is the Steven G. Erickson Mugshot (taken Oct. 2001), former Political Prisoner, People's Republik of Corruptikut Inmate # 305662

I was so pissed off about being under seige by drug dealers, prostitutes, and other criminals on my property, I wrote the below to President Bush. Click on documents to make bigger.

Why am I upset with George W. Bush?:

I mailed a letter to President Bush on 9-15-01 discussing the problems I was having. I was then attacked on my property 10-11-01 by a police informant. I pepper sprayed my attacker in my dark driveway. Police were right there to arrest me. If the Bush administration was not so deceitful and arrogant, I think I and so many other citizens would not have been ripped off needlessly and abused. Our economy and national reputation would also be better. My letter to Bush:



If you click on it and save it, you can use a view to make it bigger.

The HUD response telling me Bush actually read my letter:


In the follow up report I am called the victim:


I was current on mortgage payments on 3 rental properties. Two of which I fixed up from a boarded up condition spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of my labor. I had also built up a contracting business over 2 decades. My reward was that a strong armed robber, a mugger, a felon, could threaten my life while demanding money in my own dark driveway, beat me, and he is not arrested, I am for using pepper spray and I go to prison.

A short video of my former properties [click]


This blogger's email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com
To share this post, click on white envelope below

In by email:

From: CT.DCF.Watch@snet.net
To: Undisclosed-Recipient:;
Sent: 11/8/2008 2:31:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Bridgeport, CT - Bridgeport Police Fabricate Charges Against Judge.
November 8, 2008
Bridgeport Police Fabricate Charges Against Judge
Domestic Violence is Not Risk of Harm As Ruled by the Federal Court.
Staff Writer
Connecticut DCF Watch
Bridgeport, CT - Bridgeport police wrongfully charged Probate Judge, Paul J. Ganim with Risk of Injury because they saw mom and dad arguing. In the class-action suit of Nicholson v. Williams, witnessing domestic violence or parents arguing is NOT risk of injury of a child or maltreatment or harm to a child as ruled in Nicholson.
Most police departments like all DCF workers are ignorant of the law when it comes to domestic violence. Medical experts gave unrefuted testimony and evidence in Nicholson that children who witness domestic violence are not harmed or at risk of harm or maltreated. In fact, the medical expert stated that it was DCF and the judge who harmed children by the act of removal. Any American has the lawful right to argue in front of adults or their own children.
Under Crawford v. Washington, unless Mrs. Ganim testifies against Mr. Ganim, neither the state or DCF has case. Hearsay statements in domestic violence cases are no longer admissible in court. All statements from the police can not be used nor any statements from any mandated reporters.
Both parents can and should throw DCF and their abusive workers out because they have no jurisdiction where there was no harm to a child. Below is the article that just came out.
Attached is our free handbook with these two rulings along with 300 others in favor of parents. Also there is the recent ruling that DCF workers can not use fear tactics or threats against any parent to gain cooperation.

Connecticut DCF Watch
National Civil Rights Advocates For Families
P.O. Box 9775
Forestville, CT 06011-9775
860-833-4127
Admin@connecticutdcfwatch.com
www.connecticutDCFwatch.com
P.S. For a FREE copy of our Parental Rights handbook with over 300 rulings, send us an email with "Request for free handbook" in subject line. There is also a FREE manual on "reasonable efforts" at our web site.

Paul Ganim faces domestic charges

By DANIEL TEPFER
Staff writer

BRIDGEPORT -- Probate Judge Paul J. Ganim was arrested Friday afternoon on domestic violence charges.

Ganim, 44, of Gilman Street, was charged with risk of injury to a minor and breach of peace. Arrested at his home without incident, he was released after posting $15,000 bond pending arraignment in Superior Court.

The charges were filed after Ganim became embroiled in an argument with his wife in front of several of the couple's five children at home, according to police Detective Keith Bryant, the department spokesman.

Ganim's wife Corrine, 43, then filed a complaint against the probate judge with police.

Ganim, who declined comment, is serving his second term in the $100,000-a-year elected judgeship.

Ganim's older brother, Joseph, served several terms as Bridgeport mayor until his 2003 conviction on federal corruption charges. He was sentenced to a nine-year prison term.

The probate judge had expressed interest in running for mayor in 2007, but decided against entering the race, citing family concerns.

Ganim's younger sister, Mary, recently died of cancer.

In cases involving the kind of domestic violence charges lodged against Ganim, the defendant is generally given the option of participating in a counseling program. Once he completes the program, the charges are dismissed.

Implications?

The below [found here]

District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne

Continuing in catch up mode, On Monday The Supreme Court agreed to hear District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne. The SCOTUSwiki page is here.

At SCOTUS Blog, Lyle Denniston had this initial report.

In the new DNA evidence case, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne (08-6), an implied question is whether an inmate has a right under the Fourteenth Amendment, after conviction, to seek that type of evidence when the right is based upon the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, requiring prosecutors to turn over evidence that would help the accused’s defense.

The Ninth Circuit Court relied upon Brady in ruling that an Alaska inmate may sue under the 19th Century civil rights law, so-called Section 1983, to discover evidence in the government’s possession in advance of filing a free-standing claim of innocence that would rely, at least in part, upon that evidence. The case involves William G. Osborne of Anchorage, who was convicted of kidnapping, first-degree sexual assault and first-degree assault, and sentenced to 25 years in prison with five years suspended. At Osborne’s trial, his defense lawyer made a strategic decision not to seek additional DNA testing of biological evidence found near the scene of the assault. After his conviction, he began pursuing a post-conviction plea for access to that evidence. If the results turned out to be favorable, he planned to file a claim of innocence in federal court.

The appeal by prosecutors contends that the Brady decision created a right of access to evidence only at the trial stage, not in a post-conviction proceeding, and contended that there is no right to pursue a free-standing claim of innocence following a trial that was free of errors.

"Justices Agree to Consider DNA Case," is Adam Liptak's Tuesday report in the New York Times.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether people convicted of crimes have a constitutional right to test DNA evidence that could prove their innocence.

The case pits the value of finality in criminal cases against the possibility of proving an inmate’s innocence long after trials and appeals are concluded.

In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ordered prosecutors in Alaska to turn over DNA evidence that had been used to convict William G. Osborne of kidnapping and raping a prostitute. The appeals court said that biological evidence — hairs and semen — could be subjected to more sophisticated DNA testing than had been used by the prosecution to implicate Mr. Osborne.

Prosecutors in Alaska, in their brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, No. 08-6, said the appeals court had “created from whole cloth” a constitutional right of post-conviction access to DNA evidence. The prosecutors added that the court had made a separate mistake in allowing a right of access to be pursued even if a conviction was not being challenged in a pending case.

The federal government and 44 states — but not Alaska — have laws allowing post-conviction DNA testing.

"Court to decide on convict's right to DNA test," is the AP report via the Boston Herald.

Osborne admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly identified Osborne as having participated in the crimes. The testing would be done on a condom and hairs found by investigators.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, said Osborne has a right to subject the evidence to advanced DNA testing that was not available at the time of his trial.

Forty-three states and the federal government have laws that give convicts access to DNA testing, but Alaska does not.

Osborne urged the court to reject the appeal, saying that because so many states have laws on the topic, it rarely arises in federal court.

Prosecutors argued that even if testing determines that the hairs and sperm are not Osborne’s, other evidence introduced at his trial is sufficient to leave his conviction in place. That matter is not before the high court.

Friday, November 07, 2008

What about arrests and prison for behavior like this?:

Attorney, prosecutorial, judicial, official, and police misconduct is an "art form" in the state of Connecticut and too many other states. There are two classes of people. Those that get taxed, arrested, and live in a "State of Fear" and there are those who run the "State of Fear" with immunity from arrest and prosecution, what US Constitution?


MAUREEN DUGGAN, right, addresses the committee reviewing misconduct charges against her related to a fraudulent letter she wrote in 2004 while a staff lawyer with the State Ethics Commission. The letter led to the firing of ethics chief Alan S. Plofsky. Her lawyer, Hope Seeley, is at left. (BOB MACDONNELL / HARTFORD COURANT / November 5, 2008)

Ethics Case
State Agency Lawyer Apologizes For Faking Identity

By JON LENDER | The Hartford Courant
November 7, 2008


A state agency lawyer apologized Thursday for posing as a parking lot attendant in a letter in 2004 that led to the firing of state ethics chief Alan S. Plofsky, a deed she said was "out of character for me."

"I ... humbly apologize," Maureen Duggan told a three-member committee in Hartford reviewing misconduct charges of "fraud and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice."

The committee, a sub-unit of the Statewide Grievance Committee for lawyers, has 60 days from Thursday's hearing to approve or reject a settlement under which Duggan would accept a reprimand and take nine hours of ethics classes.

Duggan, a $105,000-a-year attorney at the state Department of Children and Families, must keep her law license to keep her state job. The reprimand, proposed by chief disciplinary counsel Mark A. Dubois, would preserve the license and avert disbarment or suspension.

Duggan's lawyer, Hope Seeley, asked the panel to approve the proposal, saying she has never had a client "more remorseful ... or more publicly humiliated." Seeley and two witnesses said Duggan is honest, diligent, kind and a "Super Mom."

Duggan said the experience has been "extremely humiliating, embarrassing and humbling."

The Courant disclosed May 18 that Duggan had written the letter in August 2004, when she was a staff lawyer for the State Ethics Commission working for Plofsky. In the intentionally misspelled missive, Duggan claimed to be a parking lot attendant and alleged irregularities at the ethics agency's office but wrote, "I want to be anonimus."

A week after ethics commission members received the letter in 2004, Duggan and two co-workers filed sworn "whistle-blower" complaints alleging misconduct by Plofsky. He was fired the following month based on those complaints, including claims he ordered a tape destroyed and improperly ran up compensatory time.

In her sworn complaint, Duggan referred to her own letter as "an anonymous letter" as if someone else had written it. Thursday's panel members — lawyers Shari Bronstein of Southington and David Channing of Rockville, and non-lawyer John Walsh of West Hartford — asked no questions about that aspect.

Walsh did ask why Duggan hadn't immediately availed herself of "whistle-blower" protections — as she and her two co-workers ultimately did — instead of first writing the letter under the false identity. Seeley said Duggan "was pushed to desperation and her judgment was impaired."

Plofsky denied all charges and appealed to a state panel that reinstated him, but not to his old job. He retired in May.

Seeley argued that issues raised in the "anonimus" letter were found valid by auditors, and Duggan "felt she had no viable alternatives" to hiding behind a made-up character: "She feared retaliation by Plofsky; she was ... concerned about her ability to support her family if she were fired, as her then-husband was not working at the time."

Her ex-husband, lawyer Steven Regula, had a shorter hearing Thursday on misconduct charges related to Duggan's testimony that he mailed the letter to ethics commission members. Dubois recommended dropping the charges because of a "marital privilege" barring her from testifying against him. His lawyer, Richard Brown, said Regula never read the letter. A decision is due in 60 days.

* * * *
* * * *
My Comment posted to the above on Topix:

This is how attorneys in Connecticut act everyday, on and off the taxpayer payroll.

Police, Judge, prosecutors, and too many "working" for taxpayer dollars are getting away with Maureen Duggan behavior everyday.

A post that says it all highlighting Connecticut State Trooper recruits called, "Young, Armed, Dangerous, Horny":
http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/20...

What passes for public service in Connecticut is beyond ridiculous

* * * *

Is the "DCF Specialist" Michael H. Agranoff the worst, most corrupt, and most incompetent lawyer in Connecticut?



[click here] for information on Stafford Springs and Ellington, CT, area Attorney Michael H. Agranoff

Is Connecticut Attorney General too busy having his toenails painted or giving his former law partners millions in no bid contracts to do anything about scheister lawyers? [pic and post on Blumenthal and toenail painting]

My still unaswered complaint to Connecticut Attorney General Richard "Dick" Blumenthal [click here]

This blogger's email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com

Blogger's "Fair Use" of copyrighted materials notice [click here]

Thursday, November 06, 2008

From the Connecticut Local Politics blog:

Lieberman’s Fate Remains Unknown

by Genghis Conn · November 6th, 2008 · 4:46 pm · No Comments

Our junior senator met with Harry Reid today… but nothing seems to have come of it.

Many Democrats want to see him tarred-and-feathered: either run out of the caucus or stripped of his chairmanship of Homeland Security. My guess is that all they’ll strip him of is his parking space, or maybe they’ll make him sit next to Stevens.



* * * *
* * * *

On the Subject of Homeland Security:

Stephen Murzin interview Oct. 10, 2007 unedited.


A 13 year old girl is interrogated by a 6'5 Homeland Security goon at Seymour, CT, High School, grilled and accused of being a lesbian for passing notes to another girl in class. Another child is interrogated by police and Homeland Security about the theft of a sandwich wrap from the school cafeteria, and the officers ask if the kid if he is hungry, and then start to eat the evidence of the theft to taunt the child.

Murzin also talks about the gross Connecticut State Police and Judicial misconduct in Connecticut. In order for Homeland Security to be so out of control in Connecticut, the legislators, State Police, and courts ALSO have to be ...

* * * *
* * * *

From OpEd News, [click here] for "Police Recruits: young, armed, dangerous, horny"

There is a cool video of a Connecticut State Police graduation. All that is missing is white pointy hood/hats and Nazi flags.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Prosecuting George W. Bush for Murder

The below [found here]

ELECTION EVE: CROSS-FIRE CONTINUES BETWEEN DENNETT AND SORRELL ON LAW GOVERNING BUSH PROSECUTION – BUGLIOSI WEIGHS IN WITH REBUTTAL





After inviting [Vermont] Attorney General William Sorrell to a debate on whether or not prosecuting George Bush was possible under Vermont law, Attorney General candidate Charlotte Dennett received a letter from Sorrell telling her that Vermont state law does not govern prosecuting “war crimes,” that she was engaging in “political grandstanding,” and that he found it “curious” that she sought to include renowned prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi in the proposed debate. Sorrell declined Dennett’s invitation.



Today, Dennett responded to Sorrell’s charges, faxing him a letter that read in part:



“You persist in stating that I am looking to prosecute Bush for “war crimes.” I am not. I intend to prosecute Mr. Bush for murder, which is a different crimes subject to different statutes and prosecutable in Vermont. I know the law and explained in a response to you posted on my website [charlottedennettforattorneygeneral.com] on October 24th how I will apply this to the case.”



“You say that you find it ‘curious’ that I would seek to include Mr. Bugliosi in my debate with you…As attorney general, on serious matters of public safety, health and necessity, I would not hesitate to reach out to the most qualified experts I could find to help me...You would have been welcome, had you accepted my challenge to debate, to bring someone of equal caliber to square off against Mr. Bugliosi.”



In his letter, Sorrell also reminded Dennett of the attorney general’s oath of office “to do equal right and justice to all men and women to the best of (your) judgment and ability according to the law.” Dennett responded that on the very day she received his letter, she had learned that Sorrell’s office had helped the health department avoid public hearings after the health department had changed the formula for measuring the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant’s radiation emissions. Under the new formula, higher radiation emissions that would have been previously illegally high, fell under legal limits. “Is it really your ‘best judgment’,” wrote Dennett, “that avoiding public scrutiny on this….is better for Vermont’s citizens?”



Along with her response to Sorrell, Dennett included an addendum on prosecution law written by Vincent Bugliosi that corrected the attorney general’s inaccurate comments.



Bugliosi’s addendum is below.



Vincent Bugliosi’s Response to William Sorrell’s October 28, 2008 letter to Charlotte Dennett Regarding Prosecuting George W. Bush for Murder



Sorrell says that George Bush is not guilty of the murder of Vermont soldiers in Iraq because it could not be seriously contended that he “intentionally killed or intentionally caused the killing of individual Vermont soldiers. Unfortunately for Mr. Bush (and derivatively, Mr. Sorrell), the law of murder is not that simplistic. Moreover, we shall see that even under Sorrell’s own words, Bush is guilty of murder.



Murder is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. There are two types of malice aforethought: express and implied. Express is when there is an intent to kill, which Sorrell alleges is lacking here on Bush’s part. But a jury could well find an intent to kill here, though not in the popular use of the term. By ordering American soldiers into war in Iraq, Bush absolutely knew that this would inevitably result in American casualties. For Bush to defend himself by contending that he was contemplating a war without casualties would only make him look foolish. Such an argument would be rejected out of hand by a jury. What difference does it make if someone intends to kill B or doesn’t intend to kill B, but intends to commit an act that he knows will kill B? It’s a distinction without substance. Further, it is boilerplate law that “since every sane man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act, it follows that if one willfully does an act, the natural tendency of which is to take another’s life, the irresistible conclusion is that destruction of such other person’s life was intended.” So, in this sense, there was an intent to kill.



But even if we reject this fundamental legal principle, Sorrell alleges that Bush did not intentionally kill or intentionally cause (“cause” being the key word) the killing of individual Vermont soldiers. By his use of the disjunctive “or,” even Sorrell seems to stipulate that if it could be shown that Bush intentionally caused the killing of Vermont soldiers, Bush would be guilty of murder. Accepting Sorrell at his word, when Bush invaded Iraq, again, he absolutely knew he would be causing Iraqis, either in self-defense or to repel the invader, to fight back, and that in doing so, American soldiers would be killed. There is no way for Bill Sorrell to get around this reality.



It has to be noted that even if a jury were to conclude that there was no intent to kill (no express malice) on Bush’s part, surely, at an absolute minimum, they would find implied malice, which does not require any intent to kill, only an intent to do an inherently dangerous act with wanton and reckless disregard for the consequences and an indifference to human life. This state of mind is certainly satisfied by Bush taking this nation into a deadly war, and is too obvious to elaborate on.



So Sorrell, the chief legal and law enforcement officer of the state of Vermont, is unequivocally wrong on the law. He is also wrong on the matter of jurisdiction. He has repeatedly said that the state of Vermont has no jurisdiction to prosecute Bush for murder since the killings of Vermont soldiers took place in Iraq, not Vermont. Although the basic rule is that a state only has jurisdiction to prosecute cases in which the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, there is a very well-recognized exception to that rule called the “effects doctrine.” This doctrine provides that if a crime is committed outside a state but has a harmful, adverse effect within the state, that state has jurisdiction to prosecute the crime. Certainly the death of Vermont’s soldiers has had a harmful effect on the state of Vermont. Indeed, the effects doctrine has been applied to crimes whose effects on a state were much, much less significant than the deaths of citizens.



There are many cases that have invoked the effects doctrine under both state and federal law, and several are cited on pages 305 to 307, and 309 to 310 of my book, THE PROSECUTION OF GEORGE W. BUSH FOR MURDER. It is alarming that the chief legal officer of Vermont, William Sorrell, is unaware of the law on this extremely critical matter.



Sorrell really betrays his lack of knowledge and experience in the criminal law when he writes, “experienced, competent prosecutors typically work closely with the families of victims during the period leading up to and through a criminal prosecution.” This is nonsense. Apart from the fact that Charlotte Dennett is not the attorney general at this point, and hence, could not be preparing for a criminal prosecution, prosecutors very rarely “work closely” with the families of victims. Work closely doing what? This would only happen if the survivors were percipient witnesses to matters offered into evidence at the trial by the prosecution. But nine times out of ten they are not, so other than the prosecutor having one or two solicitous contacts with the survivors at the beginning and calling them on occasion (if they don’t attend the trial) to keep them abreast of things, there may very well be no further contact. The only thing a survivor does at a murder trial is identify a photo of the deceased for the jury. That takes less than a minute, and obviously there is no cross-examination.



When Mr. Sorrell further suggests that the survivors should be asked if they believed “their loved ones were intentionally murdered by George Bush,” he betrays an even deeper and disturbing lack of experience in the criminal law. Not only is the survivor’s state of mind on this issue irrelevant, so is that of the victim, even if he or she could talk. Doesn’t Mr. Sorrell know that the legal victim in a criminal case is not the lay person who suffered the harm, but the people of the state? Further, doesn’t he know that the lay victim of a crime like rape, robbery, arson, et cetera, is only a witness for the prosecution? This is why a criminal complaint or indictment in a state reads “People of the State of [name of the state] vs. [the defendant]. It doesn’t read the victim versus the defendant. Is Sorrell confusing a civil with a criminal case? Does he not know that in many important criminal cases, the prosecution goes forward even when the lay victim does not want them to?



That Mr. Sorrell suggests (though he does not say it directly) that the state of mind of the survivors of the Vermont soldiers who died in Iraq is in any way relevant to the issue of whether George Bush should be prosecuted for the murder of their loved ones can only be characterized as unbelievable, particularly for the chief legal officer of the state of Vermont.



In all candor, on the issue of whether or not the state of Vermont should prosecute George Bush for the murder of its soldiers who died fighting Bush’s war in Iraq, Bill Sorrell seems to be woefully out of his depth.



- Vincent Bugliosi

http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/

* * * *

Vincent Bugliosi and Charlotte Dennett, "Team Prosecute Bush"


* * * *

[click here] for OpEd News, "My Break from George W. Bush"

This blogger's email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com

Monday, November 03, 2008

International Crimes, Spying, and Software?

Conspiracy theorists think that there has been a continued link between software, international spying, crime syndicates, and the controlling of governments, assets, companies, and money due to a software system used by lawyers, police, courts, and government.

The system was allegedly originally used to track terrorists and put the "fix" in banking and international business.

If you google "promis software" [this is the # 1 result],

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Inslaw


Inslaw Inc. is a small Washington-based information technology company.

In mid-1970s, it developed Prosecutor's Management Information System (PROMIS) for the United States Department of Justice. The principal owners, William A. Hamilton and his wife Nancy, later alleged that the DOJ modified its contract with their company to obtain an enhanced version of PROMIS, but refused to pay for it once delivered. This allegation of software piracy led to three trials in different federal courts, and to congressional hearings.

Inslaw, once called the Institute for Law and Social Research, was a nonprofit business created by William A. Hamilton in mid-1970s. Inslaw's original software product PROMIS was a database designed to handle papers and documents generated by law enforcement agencies and courts.[1] It was funded almost entirely by government funds; and therefore versions created prior to January 1978 were in the public domain. On January 1, 1978, amendments to The Copyright Act of 1976 took effect, automatically conferring upon Inslaw as the author of PROMIS five exclusive software copyright rights, none of which could be waived except by explicit, written waiver. The U.S. Government negotiated licenses to use but not to modify or to distribute outside the federal government some but not all versions of PROMIS created after the January 1978 effective date of the copyright amendments. In 1981, after Congress liquidated the Justice Department's Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) (which had been the primary source of funds for Inslaw's development of PROMIS), the company became known as Inslaw Inc., a for-profit corporation created to further develop and market PROMIS and other PROMIS-derivative software product(s).

The newly created corporation made significant improvements to the original software. The resulting product came to be known alternately as PROMIS '82 or Enhanced PROMIS, a 32-bit architecture VAX 11/780 version.

[edit] Enhanced PROMIS contract and allegations of theft

In March 1982, the Department of Justice awarded Inslaw Inc. a $9.6 million, three-year, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to implement a pilot program in twenty-two of the largest U.S. Attorneys' Offices using the older 16-bit architecture, PRIME version of PROMIS which the government had a license to use.[2]

While PROMIS could have gone a long way toward correcting the Department's longstanding need for a standardized case-management system, the contract between Inslaw and Justice quickly became embroiled for over two decades in bitter controversy.[3] The conflict centered on whether or not the Justice Department owed Inslaw license fees for the new, 32-bit architecture VAX version which the Justice Department had obtained from Inslaw if the government substituted that version for the old 16-bit PRIME version which had been the subject of the original contract. (The Justice Department had obtained the new enhanced version from Inslaw at the start of the second year of the Implementation Contract by modifying that contract and by promising to negotiate the payment of license fees.)

Edwin Meese

One month after the April 1983 Modification 12 agreement, the government began to find fault with some of Inslaw's services, and with negotiated billing rates. The government then began to withhold unilaterally each month increasing amounts of payments due Inslaw for implementation services.[4] The Justice Department agent responsible for making payments was a former Inslaw employee, C. Madison Brewer.[1] According to published reports, "Brewer was aided in his new DOJ job by Peter Videnieks.[nb 1] Videnieks was fresh from the Customs Service where he oversaw contracts between that agency and Hadron Inc., a company controlled by [Edwin] Meese[nb 2] and Reagan-crony Earl Brian.[nb 3] Hadron, a closely held government systems consulting firm, was to figure prominently in the forthcoming scandal."[1]

Simultaneously with the withholding of payments, the government decided to substitute the enhanced version for the old version originally specified in the contract. However, the government failed to negotiate the payment of license fees as promised in the April 1983 Modification 12 agreement, claiming that Inslaw had failed to prove to the government's satisfaction that Inslaw had developed the enhanced version with private, non-government funds and that the enhanced version was not otherwise required to be delivered to the government under any of its contracts with Inslaw.[3] Enhanced PROMIS was eventually installed in a total of forty-four federal prosecutors' offices following the Modification 12 agreement.[nb 4]

By February 1985 the government had withheld payment of almost $1.8 million for Inslaw's implementation services, plus millions of dollars in Old PROMIS license fees. Inslaw filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.[7]

Elliot Richardson

In his court cases, William Hamilton was represented by several attorneys, one of whom was lawyer Elliot Richardson, formerly the United States Attorney General under President Nixon.

[edit] Federal investigations

Two different federal bankruptcy courts made fully litigated findings of fact in the late 1980s ruling that the Justice Department "took, converted, and stole"[nb 5] the PROMIS installed in U.S. Attorneys' Offices "through trickery, fraud, and deceit,"[nb 6] and then attempted "unlawfully and without justification"[nb 7] to force Inslaw out of business so that it would be unable to seek restitution through the courts.[3]

Three months after the initial verdict, George F. Bason, Jr., the federal judge presiding over the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia,was denied reappointment to a new 14-year term on the bench by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the appointing authority.[nb 8] His replacement, S. Martin Teel, took over shortly after Judge Bason announced his oral findings of malfeasance against Inslaw by the Justice Department; Teel had been the Justice Department Tax Division attorney who had argued unsuccessfully before Judge Bason for the forced liquidation of Inslaw.[8][9]

Leigh Ratiner (of Dickstein, Shapiro and Morin, which was the 10th largest firm in Washington at the time) was fired in October 1986. He had been the lead counsel for Inslaw and had filed the suit against the Justice Department in federal bankruptcy court. His firing came reportedly after the Mossad arranged a payment of $600,000 to his former firm as a separation settlement.[nb 9] In September 1991, the House Judiciary Committee issued the result of a three-year investigation.

House Report 102-857: INSLAW: Investigative Report[3] confirmed the Justice Department's theft of PROMIS. The report was issued after the Justice Department convinced the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on a jurisdictional technicality to set aside the decisions of the first two federal bankruptcy courts.[nb 10][10] The House Committee also reported investigative leads indicating that friends of the Reagan White House had been allowed to sell and to distribute Enhanced PROMIS both domestically and overseas for their personal financial gain and in support of the intelligence and foreign policy objectives of the United States.[11][1][12] The Democractic Majority called upon the Attorney General Dick Thornburgh to compensate Inslaw immediately for the harm that the government had "egregiously" inflicted on Inslaw. The Republican Minority dissented. The Committee was divided along party lines 21—13. The government ignored the recommendations.

[Wikipedia source]



* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for information on the Private Attorney General bill bolstering Grand Juries.

View My Stats