Tuesday, February 02, 2010

US Blacklisting and Rigging Federal Cases?

Will the handling of a current federal case prove that the US is the new Soviet style abuse State?

::::::::

If you are a rival candidate for a position, a member of their staff, or a journalist covering the election should you be Blacklisted, put on a State Police Secret "Enemies List" and then arrested on sight, charges made up, evidence manufactured, witnessed coerced, and false police reports originated? Well, it looks like that is the case in Connecticut and probably in ALL US states.

Ken Krayeske might be the individual who proves the United States is not a free country, the US Constitution is null and void, and if you speak out and question the government or about rigged courts, you are to be arrested and held in a US prison as a political prisoner.

Attorney Norm Pattis might just be the best civil right lawyer in Connecticut, was Krayeske's lawyer and may have been terrorized by the State into intentionally dropping the ball. Krayeske, currently a law student, has reportedly obtained a new lawyer.

A confidential source tells me that the Federal Case against state officials in Connecticut seems to have been fixed from the inside to prevent justice. The major perpetrators of the official abuse have allegedly been removed from the civil case by an insider judge in the pending federal case with plaintiff, Ken Krayeske. The Hartford Police Chief seems to be the only one left to be sued civilly by Krayeske. The assumption would be that once the police chief goes to trial, if the case isn't just thrown out without consideration, he'll blame state officials who have already been let off the hook.

I don't have the money or resources to properly report this story. I either need help or I need someone else out there to pick up the ball. I could have major facts incorrect. Krayeske's case might prove there are no checks and balances and courts aren't for the people, there only for citizen abuse, retaliation, for revenue collection, and for protecting the integrity of a government without any hint of honesty or honor.

The reason that I am so concerned about his case is that Ken Krayeske was the Green Party campaign manager for Connecticut Governor in 2006, and I might have been more of a target than Krayeske just for blogging about public corruption. It looks like the Republican Governor, or her staff, may have put rival candidates on the secret enemies "Watch List" to be discredited and ruined, even arrested if an excuse could be found or manufactured. Imagine just running against a candidate with political power and having your life ruined, your family broken up, and having no hope of recourse just for assuming America is American?

I was critical of Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell in my blogs. It looks like I was a more prominent target for the arrest on sight list than was Krayeske. The list is revealing in what is there, and what is not there. A special security detail is given a politically motivated, hunt and ruin, list, and supposed real threats like Al Qaeda, hate groups, and anarchists don't get top billing on an arrest on sight list! Is the terror threat really just manufactured state terror of citizens?

So, the biggest threat to State, and possibly, the nation, are "Idiot Bloggers", like me who expose what we see? So, in the US, free speech can get you a "Go to Jail", "Do not get out for Free", "there is no card", and America being free is just cruel propaganda taught to children?

Do Americans have to fear being hauled off in the middle of the night to face secret detention and any means necessary to extract a false confession? Does anybody out there have any guts and will you do something about this?

Steven G. Erickson is a freelance cameraman, blogger, photographer, documentary producer, screenwriter, sometimes journalist, and can and will travel anywhere if the terms are right. His objective is to reform America's courts, creating a "People's (more...)

stevengerickson@yahoo.com

* * * *

I happened to just do a standard google search on "corrupt courts" not in quotes. This a world search for those words. The first video I see listed below the text choices was:

Connecticut Corrupt Courts Wreck Families and Children

(I uploaded this video Feb. 27, 2007, and it prominently shows up when I do a google search for "corrupt courts" ... on the first page!)

Text with video:
At your tax dollar expense Connecticut Corrupt Courts Wreck Families and Children. Lawyers are out to steal too often. There is no oversight and accountability of judges, lawyers, and prosecutors. Elected Officials can be practicing lawyers. These lawyers can legislater themselves more money at your expense. Judges can commit crime after crime. You pay. Who are the criminals? Peggy Briggs Brooks paid a million and a half dollars and is now broke. Her kids want to see her. Her husband has more money and power. Is this fair.

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspo...

Click here
http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspo...
for information on helping us get a documentary produced on Judicial Misconduct.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dropping Norm Pattis was probably client decision.

Hi, Norm Pattis has been the subject of vocal complaints from his clients for a long time. It's just that these clients have no owned the published page. It is no secret Krayeske struggled with the same problems other clients did.

This struggle burst into public view at least once in Krayeske's case when Pattis excoriated members of the SPJ (press society) in an incredibly crude manner that showed absolutely no duty to protecting the whole interests of his client, a professional journaist. SPJ fought back,and surely were shocked. Krayeske, trying to manage the damage his lawyer utterly gratuitously, unethically, and narcissistically did,apologized for his lawyer to SPJ in an effort to smooth it over. SPJ published it.

Those who follow the courts closely have long had questions about Pattis, including Krayeske.

Credible, reasonable accounts from clients are not so easily dismissed as Pattis thinks - by bashing them in his blogs as sociopaths.

The fact is many approach him anyway because his rates are reasonable and those who do it knowingly, hope for the best, hope that his other clients were wrong.

Krayeske likely was no longer able to tolerate Pattis's frankly atrocious ways.

There has been a big disconnect between Pattis public image and the unanimous rumblings of one reasonable client after another. It has begun to catch up with him, and it should.

Some of his blog entries are timed in such a way and contain enough specific information, after a client has dumped him off their case, that lawyers on the opposing side would not be considered nuts in downloading them for their case file as being about a certain client in an open, ongoing case. Pattis has been pushing it for a long long time and has had ample opportunity to self-correct. He hasn't so far and I don't think it will be long before an outside body will make decisions for him.

It takes maybe one federal judge to get your AV rating.For all we know, that's where Pattis's came from and if so, it was someone with as little regard for clients as Pattis has.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:02:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


View My Stats