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

Attn Vermont US Attorney Thomas D. Anderson:

Vermont US Attorney Thomas D. Anderson [click here] for webpage

Subject:
Reporting Federal Law Violations of a Dangerous Psychopath

I believe US Attorneys are America’s last line of defense in individual matters and in Constitutional matters and civil rights. I believe George W. Bush fired US Attorneys that did not join him in an illegal political purge, election fixing scheme. I respectfully request that you have US President George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others arrested and hauled away in handcuffs to face trials for breaking international and domestic laws.

I would like to turn in George W. Bush and lodge a formal complaint. If I save taxpayers tax dollars with this letter to you, I would like to claim my reward, Qui Tam. [more] I believe George W. Bush committed fraud and/or breach of contract when he rose his right hand and swore to uphold the US Constitution before taking office as US President, twice.

I wrote George W. Bush on 9-15-01 and let him know I was under siege in Stafford Springs, Connecticut, as police, their prostitute girlfriends, vandals, and heroin and crack dealers were operating in concert like and organized crime syndicate. I was then attacked on my property in the dark 10-11-01 and Connecticut State Police were right there to haul only me away to be railroaded to prison, ruining my family and my life.

I asked for the fostering of small business and those that renovate downtown boarded up properties. I received an answer from HUD that Bush actually read the letter. A police informant was then sent to attack me on my property. If Bush knew of felonies committed against me and he used his powers to help railroad me to prison to be held as a political prisoner, Bush is guilty of a laundry list of crimes, and please arrest him. I believe he helped the criminal and felon, former Governor of Connecticut John G. Rowland avoid just punishment for obstruction of justice, racketeering, and profiteering.

Both Presidents, Bush, referred to the former Connecticut Governor John G. Rowland as "Johnny". The “TREA” conspiracy was for Organized Crime to franchise “Kiddie Max” prisons for children. Kickbacks would go to Rowland and his cronies. [more]

Children would be officially kidnapped for the bounty of federal tax dollars defrauded out of citizens nationwide at 90 k or so per child, possibly 15o k each for special needs. Spada and Rowland allegedly conspired to rid the State of Connecticut of poorer Whites and minorities as much as was possible using covert and unofficial policies.

Former Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada conspired with Rowland to go after citizens they placed on their Connecticut State Police “Enemies List”. [more]

Journalist Ken Krayeske, campaign manager for Connecticut Governor Rells gubernatorial challenger, was arrested for taking digital pictures of Rell walking in a parade. Ken was allegedly also placed on the "Enemies List" and faces prison in a political retaliation scheme. [more]

A source of mine says a former Officer D’Angelo was involved in enslaving girls into prostitution and was involved in Human Trafficking internationally.

I have posted a YouTube.com video of Ritt Goldstein’s legislative hearing from Dec. 1996 [here] where mothers are raped and beaten by police officers to intimidate them out of testifying in court cases with other citizen abuse. Judges cover up murder for hire plots and punish victims of police retaliation when a citizen makes a police misconduct complaint.

Connecticut Chief Justice William J. Sullivan tried to establish a Monarchy [more] in Connecticut where the infection could have spread nationally, is that a violation of the 13th Amendment and shouldn’t Sullivan be arrested along with others in the conspiracy?

There is a Connecticut conspiracy of judges to go after lawyers that defend their clients and want an honest, public serving judiciary. [more]

Governor Rell of Connecticut is allegedly involved in the cover up of my case and others. Rell allegedly went after the officials responsible for uncovering a fencing operation involving her son. Her aid M. Lisa Moody allegedly was involved in an election fixing, improprieties, and/or fraud scheme to elect Rell. Should Rell be arrested and hauled away in chains and leg irons?

Police allegedly offered operatives a $10,000 bounty to ruin me and set me up for false arrests in prison. [more] I was current on 3 mortgages [property video] and had a small business built up over decades. I have had extreme problems getting a job and am denied most lodging.

Connecticut Police murder for hire plots and judges covering up for official retaliation schemes is not uncommon. [more]

I am looking for justice and compensation.

Will you help me and others that have been likewise abused?

Will you help save our country while there is still time regarding the Bush conspiracy matters?

Thank you,

Steven G. Erickson
[address snipped as physical address has changed]

stevengerickson@yahoo.com

Tel. 802-[snipped]

P.S. I am posting this open email to you at
http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/
to include links.

* * * *

[click here] for post on Presidents, the Mob, and Lawyers

From the Antishenes Blog:

RIP "Rick the Ruler"

It has been almost ten years since the death of Enrique "Rick the Ruler" Ramirez, a Los Solidos Gang leader. But as the recent photo above demonstrates Rick may be gone, but not forgotten.

It was the annual Puerto Rican Day Festival in Pope Park, Hartford, Connecticut that started a series of events that are still unfolding ten years later. Gang members murdering other gang members, federal law enforcement feuding with state law enforcement and many, many people left asunder in the wake of the murder of "Rick the Ruler." Hartford Homicide Detectives disciplined, fired. Federal agents ordered not to investigate Hartford Police misconduct. Lawsuits all around.

June 5, 1997 was a sunny warm day. Hundreds of party goers flocked to Pope Park for the festival, including a good amount of gang members and police officers. Rick was an enforcer for the "Solids" as they affectionately called each other. He was a prick, drunk and bully. And at the end of this festive day, he was dead. Murdered by his own gang. As Robert De Niro who plays Michael Vronsky is famous for saying in the movie, The Deer Hunter "one shot." That's all it took to murder Rick. One shot in the back and this tough guy was dead.

The feds informant, Abdel "Conejo" Rodriguez tipped them off immediately that he knew who shot Rick. He wore a wire for his handlers, he got the killer to admit that he, "went all out for [his]colors." Julio Ramos, a Los Solidos, spilled his guts to Conejo and in turn the feds. He gave up the location of the murder weapon, and shot his mouth off in detail about the murder. He didn't ever explain why he did it. No one asked. Julio Ramos , is now serving a 25 year federal sentence for the murder.

He plead guilty to the murder at the same time Gilberto Rivera, a supposed "offtee" or wannabee of the gang was arrested by the Hartford Police and Hartford State's Attorney James Thomas. Rivera was a patsy for the state officials, ultimately released and awarded $600,000 for his false arrest and imprisonment.

End of story, all is safe in the Insurance City? Not quite.

While the Feds and state argued over who shot Rick, a very important piece of the puzzle was left unanswered. You see, no one gets assassinated in a gang without approval. Julio Ramos didn't wake up that day and decide he was going to murder a gang enforcer. Yet, absolutely no investigation into the genesis of this murder ever occurred.

Hmmm? Could it be that the Federal Authorities lead by Deputy United States Attorney John Durham didn't want to know what their informant "Conejo" really knew?
Was the Hartford Police and Hartford State's Attorney Thomas so bent on showing who was boss that they simply forgot to investigate this crucial part of the murder?

How ironic if FBI informant busting federal prosecutor John Durham actually had a murdering paid informant working for him.

Durham was the federal prosecutor who took down FBI agents in Boston for, among other things, allowing federal informants James "Whitey" Bulger and his Winter Hill Gang to carry out numerous murders and crimes under their watch.

Could Los Solidos leader and federal informant Conejo have ordered the assasination of the troublesome Rameriz?

Who do we get to investigate this one? Rest in Peace Rick.

1 comments:

Rich said...

I've always wondered who put the "Rat Jacket" on Abdiel "Conejo"
Rodriguez by leaking his name,and street name to the Hartford Courant.
The leak had to come from a law enforcement source. Someone with a big interest in seeing him take a dirt nap.

March 7, 2007 11:09 AM

[click here] for Antishenes blog

* * * *

[click here] for http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

Prosecuted for political reasons?

White House Backed U.S. Attorney Firings, Officials Say

By John Solomon and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 3, 2007; A01

The White House approved the firings of seven U.S. attorneys late last year after senior Justice Department officials identified the prosecutors they believed were not doing enough to carry out President Bush's policies on immigration, firearms and other issues, White House and Justice Department officials said yesterday.

The list of prosecutors was assembled last fall, based largely on complaints from members of Congress, law enforcement officials and career Justice Department lawyers, administration officials said.

One of the complaints came from Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), who specifically raised concerns with the Justice Department last fall about the performance of then-U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias of New Mexico, according to administration officials and Domenici's office.

Iglesias has alleged that two unnamed New Mexico lawmakers pressured him in October to speed up the indictments of Democrats before the elections. Domenici has declined to comment on that allegation.

Since the mass firings were carried out three months ago, Justice Department officials have consistently portrayed them as personnel decisions based on the prosecutors' "performance-related" problems. But, yesterday, officials acknowledged that the ousters were based primarily on the administration's unhappiness with the prosecutors' policy decisions and revealed the White House's role in the matter.

"At the end of the day, this was a decision to pick the prosecutors we felt would most effectively carry out the department's policies and priorities in the last two years," said Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse.

Officials portrayed the firings as part of a routine process, saying the White House did not play any role in identifying which U.S. attorneys should be removed or encourage the dismissals. The administration previously said that the White House counsel recommended a GOP replacement for one U.S. attorney, in Arkansas, but did not say that the White House approved the seven other firings.

"If any agency wants to make a change regarding a presidential appointee, they run that change by the White House counsel's office," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "That is standard operating procedure, and that is what happened here. The White House did not object to the Justice Department decision."

The seven prosecutors were first identified by the Justice Department's senior leadership shortly before the November elections, officials said. The final decision was supported by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his deputy, Paul J. McNulty, and cleared with the White House counsel's office, including deputy counsel William Kelly, they said.

The firings have sparked outrage from Democrats and some Republicans in Congress as details emerge about the unusual decision to remove so many at once on Dec. 7, in the middle of the administration's term. The issue escalated this week with the allegations from Iglesias, who has said he will name the two New Mexico lawmakers who called him if he is asked under oath.

The House Judiciary Committee has issued subpoenas for Iglesias and three other fired prosecutors, who are set to testify in both the House and the Senate on Tuesday. Lawmakers plan to press for answers, including what triggered the creation of the list and who else was involved.

Most of the prosecutors have said they were given no reason for their dismissals and have responded angrily to the Justice Department's contention that they were fired because of their performance. At least five of the prosecutors, including Iglesias, were presiding over public corruption investigations when they were fired, but Justice Department officials have said that those probes played no role in the dismissals.

Domenici's office confirmed yesterday that it had raised concerns with the Justice Department about Iglesias's office, particularly on immigration.

"We had very legitimate concerns expressed to us by hundreds of New Mexicans -- in the media, in the legal communities and just regular citizens -- about the resources that were available to the U.S. attorney," said Steve Bell, Domenici's chief of staff.

Domenici and his aides have declined to comment on whether the lawmaker called Iglesias. Any communication by a senator or House member with a federal prosecutor regarding an ongoing criminal investigation is a violation of ethics rules.

The fired prosecutors in San Diego and Nevada are registered independents, while the rest are generally viewed as moderate Republicans, according to administration officials and many of the fired prosecutors.

In a recent briefing with lawmakers, McNulty said one factor in the decision to create the list of U.S. attorneys was the concern raised by various members of Congress and law enforcement officials that some U.S. attorneys were not following Bush administration policies or federal sentencing rules, administration officials said.

The Justice Department received several letters dating to 2005 and signed by more than a dozen California lawmakers, mostly Republicans, raising concerns about then-U.S. Attorney Carol S. Lam's approach to prosecuting immigration cases. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat, also wrote Gonzales in June, saying that the "low prosecution rates have a demoralizing effect on the men and women patrolling our nation's borders."

On the job less than a year, McNulty consulted his predecessor as deputy attorney general, James B. Comey, about some of the prosecutors before approving the list, officials said. Comey, who did not return a telephone call seeking comment yesterday, praised Iglesias earlier this week as one of the department's best prosecutors.

The seven prosecutors outside Arkansas were informed about their ousters on Dec. 7, after the White House counsel's office signed off.

A few days before the firings, administration officials began the traditional process of calling lawmakers in the affected states to inform them about the decisions and to gather early input on possible successors, officials said.

Although the White House approved the firings, two administration officials said the counsel's office did not suggest replacements. But the officials said White House political affairs officials keep databases on potential job candidates that Justice Department officials could have accessed if they chose.

An administration official said White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten does not recall whether he was briefed about the firings before they occurred.

Privately, White House officials acknowledged that the administration mishandled the firings by not explaining more clearly to lawmakers that a large group was being terminated at once -- which is unusual -- and that the reason was the policy performance review.

Staff writer Michael Abramowitz, washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

America's Police State, a World Infection

Montage of opinions on the Patriot Act



" ... maybe we can do stuff we wanted to do the last ten years."

Patriot Act - Hate Crimes Made Legal "Hold until clear policy"



A brief history of the Patriot Act, showing the many deceptions brought in by the Bush Administration, including: requesting total secrecy form public input and swapping at the last moment, the original Bill that Congress agreed to sign, with one manipulated by the Administration. The Administration's version of the Bill contained unconstitutional provisions that had been rejected earlier by Congress.

Regardless, Congress rushed to pass an otherwise, unread Bill which sought to greatly expand all federal law enforcement powers -- far beyond their intended means. Hence, America would later discover that the Patriot Act had little, if anything, to do with fighting the actual "war on terror" and much more to do with bypassing the civil protections, granted under the US Constitution.

1000's of individuals held without even being charged!

Patriot Act - Ethnic Cleansing Begins "Constitution: no person [not citizen] to be denied rights ..."



Remember when Hitler started rounding-up Jews? A similar nightmare took place in America, as the Patriot Act triggered an ethnic cleansing spree of government hate-crimes, amidst the panic of 9/11. US detention camps under operation.

Patriot Act - US Citizen Sentenced Without Evidence


The story of one US Citizen who was wrongfully detained without charges and later sentenced to jail without evidence. It is just one of the many examples of scapegoats produced by the ideological-hatred, indifference and incompetence reflected in both the 'under-the-table' Congressional agendas and the Bush Administration's controversial Patriot Act.

Bush/ Cheney Knee Deep - Senator Levin's Evidence to Impeach



FLASHBACK: Bush and Cheney's Pre-War (Iraq) Intelligence Report cover-up-crimes are brought to light by Senator Carl Levin.

Speech delivered before Congress on 09/08/06.

PNAC/ White House CIA Leak - Story of Joseph Wilson- "... disqualifies Bush as President ..."



Documentary: The story of the intentional White House leak against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and CIA Op, Valerie Plame.

Film: "The World According to Bush" [and his leader, Cheney]

The Neocons - Fear is the Only Agenda

From the ACLU

Real ID: Real Nightmare

Why Connecticut Should Take A Stand Against Real ID.

What is Real ID?

Congress passed the Real ID Act in May 2005 when congressional leaders inserted the legislation in a “must pass” Iraq War/Tsunami Relief supplemental funding bill. Congress did not hold a single hearing on the bill. The Real ID Act federalizes state driver’s licenses by imposing a broad array of regulations on how they are issued and verified – turning them into, for all practical purposes, America’s first-ever national identity cards. Every American will need this new federal identity document in order to enter federal buildings or fly on commercial airlines. With a growing number of states refusing to comply, airlines will face economic hardship if they are forced to refuse access to an entire state’s residents. States have until May 2008 to comply with the legislation. However, the Department of Homeland Security has yet to issue final rules, so no state knows how to comply. Driver licenses should be used to ensure drivers know the rules of the road and have insurance, not to create a national identification card used to track personal data and expand the serious risks of identity theft.

A Real Nightmare for State Government.

Under the Real ID Act, all 245 million existing driver’s license holders will have to apply in person for new licenses. Connecticut will have to remake its driver license, restructure its computer database, and – perhaps most difficult of all – verify the “issuance, validity and completeness” of every identity document presented at DMV offices, including birth certificates, social security cards, utility bills, immigration documents, and any other document that is part of the application. The law does not provide DMV with a way to compel any document issuer, such as utility companies, to cooperate with that verification. If DMV cannot verify documents, citizens will not get licenses.

Beware: The Real Cost of Real ID.

The National Governors’ Association, National Conference of State Legislators, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators have all found that Real ID would cost at least $11 billion to implement. Because Congress ordered but did not pay for these mandates, fees on individuals applying for driver’s licenses will inevitably rise, perhaps steeply. Maine - a state with a population one-third the size of Connecticut’s - has estimated its Real ID cost to be $185 million over 5 years.

A Real Nightmare for Citizens.

Many people who are citizens will not be able to get a Real ID. Some have lost personal records to fire, floods or other natural disasters (such as Hurricane Katrina). Across the country, government offices containing these records have been destroyed, putting millions at risk of being unable to track down birth documents from 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago. Millions of foreign-born U.S. citizens come from countries where no birth records are kept or are impossible to obtain. Some people do not even know where they were born, and some were born at home. Those who are elderly, disabled, poor, homeless or who have mental health issues will be directly affected, since many do not have access or the resources to obtain birth certificates or other approved documents. Without a Real ID, they may not be able to get essential public and private services.

A Real Nightmare for Consumers.

Real ID is a giant, unfunded federal mandate that will create enormous costs for states and consumers. Real ID will mean higher fees, increased taxes, long lines and bureaucratic nightmares for all of us. It will force multiple trips to the DMV office as well as hours on the phone trying to obtain original documents, imposing a substantial burden on all of us in cost and time off from work. And because Congress did not allocate funding for state implementation, the costs likely will be passed on to consumers through fees for new and replacement licenses.

A Real Nightmare of Identity Theft

DMV will be storing for up to 10 years copies of every birth certificate, Social Security card and other documents used to establish identity. Real ID requires all states to share a single database, making driver’s license information accessible from tens of thousands of locations across the country for the taking. Unlike the past, this database will now contain critical information such as your Social Security number, a gold mine for identity thieves. The growing consensus among security experts is that Real ID’s creation of a single interlinked database will be a one-stop-shop for personal data, making each of us a sitting duck for identity theft. In addition, if RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology is used, driver licenses can be read by anyone in close proximity who has an RFID reader.

A Real Nightmare of Privacy Invasion.

The Real IDs must include a “common machine-readable technology” that will allow for easy, computerized transfer of the data on the cards. That will make it easy for anybody in private industry to snap up the data on these Real IDs. Already, bars often swipe licenses to collect personal data on customers – but that will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg as every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Choicepoint (a private for-profit data mining company) for a dime. Even if the states and federal government successfully protect the data, it could be harvested by the private sector, which will build up a parallel database on Americans and put it up for sale, not subject even to the limited privacy rules in effect for the government.

Real ID Creates a National Identity Card

The standardized national driver’s licenses created by Real ID will become an “internal passport” that will increasingly be used to track and control United States citizens’ movements and activities. There will be a demand that you “show your papers.” And there is no recourse when the information entered on you is false. The Real ID database will inevitably, over time, become the repository for more data on individuals, and will be drawn on for an ever-wider set of purposes. Citizens who cannot obtain Real ID will encounter increasing set of barriers as the card is demanded before obtaining public and private services.

Real ID Turns DMV Offices into Immigration Enforcement Agencies.

The Act bars non-citizens from receiving driver licenses unless they can prove their lawful immigration status and identity. Real ID turns DMV offices into sub-branches of the immigration service, forcing clerks to decide who can or cannot be given a license - despite the complexity of our immigration laws, which rival that of our tax code. Training for motor vehicle employees could not possibly cover all of the technicalities of immigration law. Moreover, citizens who speak with an accent or are not fluent in English (who may “look” or “sound” “foreign”) may have their documents scrutinized with suspicion and be treated as suspects.

Real ID Will Not Protect Us From Terrorism

Determined terrorists will always be able to obtain fraudulent documents. Moreover, all of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally and would have qualified for driver licenses under the Real ID Act.

Other States Are Rejecting Real ID.

On January 29, Maine became the first state to reject Real ID, when its legislature passed a resolution refusing to implement Real ID. Similar measures are under consideration in Arizona, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Missouri, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming.

REAL SOLUTION

Connecticut is not ready to implement Real ID. Without federal rules (and funding) necessary to implement the law and with Congress looking to fix or repeal Real ID in 2007, Connecticut should not pass piecemeal legislation this year. We should wait until the 2008 legislative session to take next steps.

For more information visit: www.realnightmare.org or call the ACLU-CT at 860-247-9823, x219.

Videotape police, risk arrest and having your life altered

Police and prosecutors have "open season" to waste taxpayer money and abuse citizens. Poorer Whites and minorities can be labeled criminals for life with little concern given by authorities for the devastation they leave behind.

I would have rather an abusive, out of control judge sawed my leg off than doing this [click] to me.


Francisco Acevedo Jr., 19, walks into Superior Court in Hartford on Feb.1. Acevedo was acquitted Thursday of disorderly conduct, stemming from a 2006 incident at Conard High School in West Hartford.
(PATRICK RAYCRAFT)

Feb. 1, 2007

Copyright 2007, Hartford Courant

CONNECTICUT NEWS
Acevedo Acquitted Of Disorderly Conduct
3:37 PM EST, February 15, 2007
By DAN JONES, Courant Staff Writer

A state judge Thursday acquitted Conard High School graduate Francisco Acevedo Jr., who was accused of disorderly conduct in June 2006 when he challenged an assistant principal's order to stop video-recording the arrest of another student.

Superior Court Judge Eliot D. Prescott granted a motion for acquittal, ruling that evidence presented earlier Thursday was insufficient for a reasonable person to find that Acevedo committed the alleged crime.

Acevedo, his mother, friends and his lawyer Jon Schoenhorn celebrated the ruling with smiles and pats on the back, as Prescott adjourned the court moments after the acquittal.

Acevedo, 19, says he video-recorded what he viewed as excessive force being used by a West Hartford police officer amidst the chaos sparked when unknown students released scores of crickets in the cafeteria as a senior prank. He put off the start of college to fight the charge.

A jury of six people -- four women and two men – heard testimony in the case, before the judge's ruling ended the court proceedings.

Acevedo, who has been working at a West Hartford gas station, has filed a federal lawsuit, claiming his constitutional free-speech rights were violated. He has claimed that school officials retaliated against him for a school walkout by more than 100 students that Acevedo led last May to protest harsh immigration laws.

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.