Taught a Lesson

When I lived and owned property in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, local police, called constables, and Troop C, Connecticut State Troopers, would often say, “Big Mouth is going to be taught a lesson.”

Well expecting anything for your tax dollars is a mistake. I was a co-founder of the Stafford Springs Crime Watch. I suggested legislation to deal with youth crime. Officer Prochaska told me to shut my mouth and told me I would be arrested and kicked out of town if I persisted on suggesting legislation to elected officials. So, in reality, a citizen can be arrested, lose his or her home, family, and job just for pursing rights that are supposedly guaranteed in the US Constitution.

My then wife [pictures, freespeech.com links no longer work], fell down the stairs with the flu waking me up. I called her an ambulance. Officer Prochaska showed up and proceeded to slam me into my house, bouncing me off my aluminum siding, saying I was resisting. He called to the firemen and ambulance crew, “See, he’s resisting.”

“Resisting what?” I said.

Prochaska then proceeded to try to goad my wife into lying and telling him what he wanted, that I had pushed her down the stairs. I didn’t, and my wife and I were getting along. Had we not, my life would have been altered from that day on. Domestic assault, resisting arrest, and even a concocted story of assaulting a police officer would have ruined my life forever, then.

My wife and I later traveled all over Europe for an extended period. We came back to Stafford. Peter Panciera, a then local powdered cocaine dealer was so high on his own product, he thought that I was an undercover police officer. So he attacked me, beat me, and bit so far into my ear that I had blood streaming down my neck, across my stomach, soaking my underwear. I dialed 911.

Police showed up and took my statement and interviewed the drug customers about their friend, whom they said they did not know, making a false statement to police. I convinced officers to tour the local bars with me the following weekend. We found my attacker. I demanded that a hepatitis and AIDS test be done on my attacker as he had bit me. Officer Prochaska “re-investigated” the case, the drug customers then suddenly remembered that I had attacked their friend and he was scared of me. A bunch of crap and only I was arrested by Prochaska 6 weeks after the incident in front of my wife. It was ok for a drug dealer to beat me and bite me, but it was not ok for me to be a victim of a beating with a bitten into ear.

I faced the maximum prosecution for breach of peace and assault 3^rd for having been assaulted, getting police involved by dialing 911. Police officers then explained to me that is was stupid to dial 911 after being attacked in a downtown area if you don’t have witnesses other than yourself when an attacker has friends that will make statements together, false or not, believable or not. I beat that wrap as I had refused to get a lawyer and would have had the 911 tape played and would bring up the fact that I was bitten, and the biter was never arrested.

I wrote letters to the editor and contacted local elected officials about how police seemed to partner with prostitutes, vandals, drug dealers, and other criminals, using them as “informants” to maximize revenue collection and asset confiscation, not in aiding downtown property and business owners that desperately needed police protection and service to survive.

State Police Officers would show up and follow me around all day wherever I went. They were escorting me, to and from wherever I worked, concerning my customers as why police were shadowing me. Officers openly told me to shut up and leave Connecticut. Police were out to destroy my life, make me lose [these properties], break up my family, and make me lose my job using taxpayer dollars.

A police informant was offered money to set me up. [click here for more]

Police were openly trying to recruit criminals and others with favors to make false statements and/or to terrorize me out of Connecticut.

I was then attacked by a police informant, Brian Caldwell. Only I was arrested for resisting being beaten in my own dark driveway. Caldwell left messages on my tenants’ and my answering machines telling me and others he would kill me when I came home. He tried. I was sentenced to a year in prison, 3 years probation, by Judge Jonathan Kaplan. Troopers Amaral and Longlois committed perjury at trial saying I never tried to lodge a complaint against Caldwell.

While I was awaiting trial, Caldwell either attacked me, or tried to attack me 6 more times.

I was told by Officer Prochaska and Resident State Trooper Mulcahey that I was kicked out of Connecticut and if I didn’t leave, I would be arrested again. The pair allegedly offered Peter Coukos help in obtaining a gun permit if he threatened and terrorized my daughter and I out of Connecticut. Coukos left a message on my voicemail threatening my daughter’s life. Coukos assaulted me punching and slapping me in the back of my head, in my yard telling me, he wanted my then 14 year old daughter to perform oral sex on him. I didn’t fight back as I would be the only one arrested again. I played the tape of the threats made against me and my daughter by Coukos. Prochaska and Trooper Mulcahey told me that I would be arrested, not Coukos, if I tried to have charges pressed against Coukos.

There is no one to complain to that will investigate violations of civil rights as described above. The courts are fixed and lawyers are intimidated into acting with the official abusers and police, not their clients.

“Big Mouth” was taught a lesson. The US Constitution doesn’t apply and there is no “American Justice”.

-Steven G. Erickson

Should Judges ignore illegal behavior of other judges?

Open Letter to Chief Justice William J. Sullivan of Connecticut

[click here] for more
www.freespeech.com links in above link no longer go to intended posts

Are judges guilty of felonies if they obstruct justice and don't turn in information in on other judges that have committed crimes?

* * * *

[click here] for my yet unanswered letter to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

* * * *

[click here] for my 9-15-01 letter to President George W. Bush. I was attacked on my property 10-11-01.

* * * *

[click here] for a list of all my youtube.com videos

* * * *

State Police Begin New Internal Probe

By TRACY GORDON FOX | Courant Staff Writer
July 18, 2007

State police have begun an internal affairs investigation into a racially offensive video and still photograph that were e-mailed several months ago among troopers assigned to the state police forensic laboratory, including to its commander.

One e-mail shows a still photograph of a black man lying on the street surrounded by watermelon rinds and chicken bones. The headline on the e-mail read "fatal overdose?" Another e-mail had a video attachment of a tow-headed white girl with a lisp, who sat at her kitchen table in a yellow shirt and spewed hateful racial slurs with the encouragement of two adults. The subject line simply says: "Little girl with a speech problem." [more]

* * * *

[click here] for my open letter to Connecticut State Police Commissioner John A. Danaher III



* * * *

[click here] for Faces from a Police State, Connecticut. Police Misconduct is a Connecticut art form.

[click here] Is there still "Gay Bashing" going on in the ranks of the Connecticut State Police?

* * * *

my email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com

A State's Greed and getting poorer Whites and Minorities off the road

Officials in States don't "care" about us, they are out to collect as much as possible in undeclared taxes. They reward their friends with cushy contracts and jobs with little work and high pay. More and more scams are needed to pay for the corruption and waste. Minorities and poorer Whites that can't pay traffic fines risk arrest, violation of probation, possible prison terms, and maybe a lifetime of not being legal to drive. Cell phone and other fines are just scams meant to perpetuate unfairness, racism, bias, separate and unequal, and make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

CONNECTICUT NEWS
Drivers Mailed $700K In Phone Fines
Cases Were Dropped Against 8,900 Others

February 13, 2007
By COLIN POITRAS, Courant Staff Writer

The state took in more than $700,000 last year from people who didn't put up a fight and simply mailed in a $100 fine after being caught driving while talking on a hand-held cellphone, statistics show.

That amount could have been a lot more: Potential fines totaling $900,000 were not pursued because the state chose not to prosecute more than 8,900 other drivers who received tickets for cellphone violations and then showed up for court.

The reasons for not prosecuting the cases vary and are not broken down in statistics provided to The Courant by the state judicial branch.

State law allows first-time offenders to have the fine waived if they can prove they have purchased a hands-free accessory for their phone within 30 days of getting a ticket. In some cases, prosecutors may have accepted a driver's excuse for the violation or proof that using the cellphone was for an emergency allowable under the law.

Whatever the circumstance, the statistics related to enforcement of the law are sure to add grist to the debate over a legislative proposal to raise the fine for a cellphone violation to $250.

A bill calling for a higher fine is currently pending before the Transportation Committee, and one co-sponsor of the legislation is already reconsidering whether a higher fine is the way to go.

State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, who has been pushing the cellphone ban for nearly 10 years, said his first response to learning the amount of money collected in fines was sympathy for those who chose to pay.

"That's a lot of money, money that could be put to good use I'm sure by the people who were fined," Roy said.

Roy said Monday that he is second-guessing the proposal to raise the fine after numerous police officers contacted him about the bill. He now believes lowering the fine might be the better way to go.

"A seat belt violation is $37," Roy said. "One officer said he had no trouble giving out a $37 ticket, but he would have a lot trouble giving out a $200 fine for a cellphone. That takes food off people's tables."

Having a hefty fine wouldn't be effective if it wasn't enforced, Roy said.

Overall, statistics show that Connecticut law enforcement handed out more than 19,000 tickets for violating the state's cellphone ban in 2006, according to the judicial branch. Of that total, 8,901 people or 46.74 percent of those ticketed were not prosecuted.

Another 7,265 motorists, or about 38 percent of the total, pleaded "no contest" to the charge and mailed in a $100 fine. More than 1,800 drivers, about 9.5 percent of those ticketed, were found guilty of a cellphone violation after challenging their case in court. Only 1.5 percent or 285 people had their cases dismissed by a judge. Three people were found not guilty of a violation when they pursued their case in court.

Some 763 individuals, or about 4 percent of the total ticketed, failed to respond to their ticket by mailing in a fine or appearing in court and had their licenses suspended, judicial statistics show.

State Rep. Thomas J. Drew, D-Fairfield, who is co-sponsoring the raise-the-fine bill with Roy, said the statistics, although intriguing, do not tell the whole story.

"The big question here that is difficult to pick up in the statistics is how many times were there violations that police saw but did not issue a ticket?" Drew said. "What we want to do is cause people to comply with the law in the first place and find a sensible way for people to enforce the law in the second."

The president of the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, Norwalk Police Chief Harry W. Rilling, said he believes drivers will take the ban more seriously if they know they risk a substantial fine. He was less sure if it would increase enforcement, saying police officers try to maintain the ban along with a host of other - sometimes more urgent - responsibilities they face on their daily beat.

"The amount of the fine really wouldn't have an impact on a police officer's likelihood of enforcing the law," Rilling said. "What it would do is send a very clear message to those people ignoring the law that the legislature is serious about it and it would have a significant impact on them."

Contact Colin Poitras at cpoitras@courant.com.

Aaron Russo talks with IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen

Click here to watch the full movie: http://video.google.com/vid...

Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America.

Please suport this film, donate here:
http://www.freedomtofascism...

Aaron Russo talks with former Chief Counsel and IRS Commissioner Sheldon Cohen. Mr. Cohen also is the AUTHOR of the TAX CODE!

You WILL NOT believe what you hear! The US doesn't want you know know this!

Article XVI which gives the congress the "power" to have a federal income tax, was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court! How congress can ratify anything found UNCONSTITUTIONAL is BEYOND me!

http://www.claremont.org/wr...
The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1895. Referring to the explicit prohibition against direct taxation in Article I, the court argued that the income tax would excessively enhance federal power in relation to state power.

http://www.usconstitution.n...
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal income tax. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the income tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

http://www.answers.com/topi...
Congress passed the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1909, and the states ratified it in 1913. The ratification of the amendment overturned an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision that had ruled a two percent federal flat tax on incomes over $4,000 unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759). Article I of the Constitution states that "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states ... according to their respective numbers."

What good is the constitution and the Supreme Court if the Senate and House and ratify anything found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL . It is the Supreme Courts duty to overturn this UNCONSTITUTIONAL ratification.

To watch the entire video, go to:
http://video.google.com/vid...