Sunday, September 30, 2007

Brooklyn, New York, national hearing on Judges judging Judges

held last Thursday at Brooklyn, NY, US Federal Court.

I didn't take this footage. It is posted as a teaser, the footage is from back up camera number 3 ... more to come.

I was there and helped film the event as a cameraman. They let me in ... with all sorts of gear, I wasn't asked for my ID and passed through the metal dectectors with my cell phones, with cameras in them, on, and hanging in view. I pushed a case about 4' high on wheels with 4 canvass bags of wire and oddities right through. Nothing was checked ...

The nation needs to see the debacle and across the board citizen and US Constitution abuse first hand. More to come.

My email:

This post accepts anonymous comments. You can add your url, comments, etc.

Excerpt from the link above:

A conversation with a reporter

At the hearing, Dr. Cordero met New York Post Reporter Janon Fisher. I described to him the evidence already collected in 12 federal bankruptcy cases and explained how it points to a bankruptcy fraud scheme supported or tolerated by federal judges acting under cover of the systematic dismissal of judicial misconduct complaints. (Sample Summary infra; pr:15) I proposed to pursue such evidence through Watergate-like investigative journalism that would Follow the money! from financial disclosure statements to concealed assets. The investigation would aim to answer the question whether a federal judgeship has become a safe haven for coordinated wrongdoing. (pr:14)

[click here] for more video and information

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Latin Phrases, Legal Use

By Kevin Fleming
Mental Floss

(Mental Floss) -- Because you weren't going into botany, the priesthood, or coin manufacturing, you thought you were safe to dismiss Latin as a dead language. Obviously, you didn't graduate cum laude.

Latin is about as dead as Elvis (who, by the way, made $54 million in 2004).

Whether you're deciphering a cryptic state seal or trying to impress your Catholic in-laws, knowing some Latin has its advantages. But the operative word here is "some."

The ability to translate The Aeneid probably isn't going to come in handy anytime soon, so we'll start you off with 9 phrases that have survived the hatchet men of time (in all their pretentious glory).

Caveat Emptor: (KAV-ee-OT emp-TOR): "Let the buyer beware"

Before money-back guarantees and 20-year warranties, caveat emptor was indispensable advice for the consumer.

These days, it'd be more fitting to have it tattooed on the foreheads of used-car salesmen, infomercial actors, and prostitutes.

For extra credit points, remember that caveat often makes solo appearances at cocktail parties as a fancy term for a warning or caution.

Oh, and just so you know, caveat lector means "let the reader beware."

Persona Non Grata: (puhr-SOH-nah non GRAH-tah): "An unacceptable person"

Remember your old college buddy, the one everybody called Chugger? Now picture him at a debutante ball, and you'll start to get a sense of someone with persona non grata status.

The term is most commonly used in diplomatic circles to indicate that a person is unwelcome due to ideological differences or a breach of trust.

Sometimes, the tag refers to a pariah, a ne'er-do-well, a killjoy, or an interloper, but it's always subjective.

Michael Moore was treated as a persona non grata at the Republican National Convention. Bill O'Reilly would experience the same at Burning Man.

Habeas Corpus: (HAY-bee-as KOR-pus): "You have the body"

When you wake up in the New Orleans Parish Prison after a foggy night at Mardi Gras, remember this one.

In a nutshell, habeas corpus is what separates us from savages. It's the legal principle that guarantees an inmate the right to appear before a judge in court, so it can be determined whether or not that person is being lawfully imprisoned.

It's also one of the cornerstones of the American and British legal systems. Without it, tyrannical and unjust imprisonments would be possible.

In situations where national security is at risk, however, habeas corpus can be suspended.

Cogito Ergo Sum: (CO-gee-toe ER-go SOME): "I think, therefore I am"

When all those spirited mental wrestling matches you have about existentialism start growing old (yeah, right!), you can always put an end to the debate with cogito ergo sum.

René Descartes, the 17th-century French philosopher, coined the phrase as a means of justifying reality. According to him, nothing in life could be proven except one's thoughts. Well, so he thought, anyway.

E Pluribus Unum: (EE PLUR-uh-buhs OOH-nuhm): "Out of many, one"

Less unique than it sounds, America's original national motto, e pluribus unum, was plagiarized from an ancient recipe for salad dressing.

In the 18th century, haughty intellectuals were fond of this phrase. It was the kind of thing gentlemen's magazines would use to describe their year-end editions.

But the term made its first appearance in Virgil's poem "Moretum" to describe salad dressing. The ingredients, he wrote, would surrender their individual aesthetic when mixed with others to form one unique, homogenous, harmonious, and tasty concoction.

As a slogan, it really nailed that whole cultural melting pot thing we were going for. And while it continues to appear on U.S. coins, "In God We Trust" came along later (officially in 1956) to share the motto spotlight.

Quid Pro Quo: (kwid proh KWOH): "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"

Given that quid pro quo refers to a deal or trade, it's no wonder the Brits nicknamed their almighty pound the "quid."

And if you give someone some quid, you're going to expect some quo.

The phrase often lives in the courtroom, where guilt and innocence are the currency. It's the oil that lubricates our legal system.

Something of a quantified value is traded for something of equal value; elements are parted and parceled off until quid pro quo is achieved.

Most recently, Arizona Senator John McCain co-opted the phrase to describe campaign finance and influence pedaling because he believes that one doesn't give major milk to a campaign without expecting major cheese in return.

Ad Hominem: (ad HAH-mi-nem): "To attack the man"

In the world of public discourse, ad hominem is a means of attacking one's rhetorical opponent by questioning his or her reputation or expertise rather than sticking to the issue at hand. Translation: Politicians are really good at it.

People who resort to ad hominem techniques are usually derided as having a diluted argument or lack of discipline. If pressed, they'll brandish it like a saber and refuse to get back to the heart of the matter. Who said the debate team doesn't have sex appeal?

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam: (ad-MA-yor-em DAY-ee GLOR-ee-um): "All for the Greater Glory of God"

Ad majorem dei gloriam is often shortened to AMDG. In other words, it's the WWJD of the Jesuits, who've been drilling the mantra into their followers since (Saint) Ignatius of Loyola founded the Catholic Order in 1534. They believe all actions, big or small, should be done with AMDG in mind.

Remind your Jesuit-educated buddies of this when they seem to be straying from the path. (Best used with a wink and a hint of irony.)

Sui Generis:(SOO-ee JEN-er-is): "Of its own genus," or "Unique and unable to classify"

Frank Zappa, the VW Beetle, cheese in a can, that feeling you get when the Red Sox win the World Series: Sui generis refers to something that's so new, so bizarre, or so rare that it defies categorization.

Granted, labeling something "sui generis" is really just classifying the unclassifiable. But let's not over-think it. Use it at a dinner party to describe Andy Kaufman, and you impress your friends. Use it too often, and you just sound pretentious. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend

For more mental_floss articles, visit

Will Connecticut Judges sue to work as little as possible?

Probate judges spar over hours as association threatens lawsuit
By Keith M. Phaneuf, Journal Inquirer

For the past two years, judges and state legislators have worked to improve standards and professionalism in Connecticut's 300-year-old probate court system.
But a coalition of judges is threatening to sue the state over a new standard it claims is unfairly forcing probate courts - especially in small towns - to remain open at unnecessary times.

The Connecticut Probate Judges Association for Local Courts says a new standard issued this summer by Judge James J. Lawlor, the state's probate court administrator, improperly forces all courts to remain open at least four hours per day, Monday through Friday.

That had requirement had been spelled out in a bill approved this past spring by the legislature's Judiciary Committee.
But the final language adopted by the full House and Senate and signed into law but Gov. M. Jodi Rell said probate courts must be open a minimum of 20 hours per week.

And while that final language did not set a daily requirement, it did add that "the probate court administrator may, for good cause shown, modify the requirements."

Lawlor sent a memorandum to Connecticut probate judges on July 26 indicating that courts must be open at least four hours each weekday, but judges could seek a waiver from that standard if special circumstances arose.

Brookfield Probate Judge Joseph P. Secola, who is president of the roughly 40-member association, said Lawlor is ignoring legislative intent and is potentially forcing local courts to run an inefficient schedule.

For example, Secola said, some town halls in smaller communities - where probate courts often are located - aren't even open five days per week.

Lawlor's "position is not king," Secola added. "The judges aren't serfs that have to go to him on their knees to request a waiver from a standard that the law does not require."

The Brookfield judge added that his association is prepared to file a lawsuit unless the standard is reversed.

"I know why the final language was developed," Secola said. "The goal of the lawmakers was to give the local courts some flexibility within a 20-hour-per-week standard. Lawlor is acting as if his original language became law. This is causing chaos and confusion in mid-sized and smaller courts."

Lawlor couldn't be reached for comment, but in an Aug. 22 letter to Secola the probate court administrator defended his policy, arguing that state law does provide him with discretion for enforcing minimum court hours.

"I believe that we must encourage the courts to make their best efforts to respect the act," Lawlor wrote, noting that judges can request a waiver if the standard is especially troublesome for a community.

Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he believes Lawlor's actions do comply with the new statute, provided there is a waiver system to help courts that have a real problem being open four hours each weekday.

"Certainly the goal was to provide ready access on a regular basis to the public," McDonald said. "And ultimately the legislature conferred that discretion on the chief probate court administrator. "I do understand there can be circumstances where that's not practical for one reason for another."

The future direction of Connecticut's 300-year-old probate court system has been somewhat murky for the past two years.
Ever since studies raised concerns about waste, inefficiency, and professionalism, legislators have looked for options to enhance and preserve the community-based system.

Probate judges are elected to four-year terms by voters in the towns they serve. Besides helping families settle estates, probate courts make decisions about guardianships for the mentally ill or mentally retarded, whether to commit such patients, and about termination of parental rights.

Each court manages its own finances and is expected to be self-sustaining through fees charged for its services. Most revenue comes from settling estates. Each local probate court district also must pay a fee to support the state's Probate Administration Fund and to the office of the probate court administrator, which oversees the system.

©Journal Inquirer 2007

Monday, September 17, 2007

Rockville Connecticut Superior Court should be closed

Review finds problems with monitoring by Rockville court

Associated Press
August 31, 2007

VERNON, Conn. - Workers at Rockville Superior Court failed to properly oversee defendants who are under electronic monitoring while out on bond awaiting trial, according to a review by the state Judicial Branch.

The review concluded that there were "serious problems" with the court's monitoring program, but did not find similar troubles at other courthouses, WTIC-AM reported Friday.

Judicial Branch officials looked into the issue in response to the case of Scott Shefelbine of Tolland, who was charged in June with going into a West Hartford teenager's bedroom and kissing her after meeting her on the Internet. At the time, he was free on bond in connection with other sexual assault charges involving teenage girls.

Shefelbine had been on electronic monitoring and was supposed to stay at his home, with some exceptions for church, counseling and visits with his lawyer. Officials say that when he called in as required to tell court staff that he was leaving home, the staff never checked with doctors, ministers or lawyers to verify where he went.

William Carbone, the Judicial Branch's court support services executive director, said an employee at Rockville Superior Court failed to follow up when the monitoring equipment showed the defendants had improperly left their homes.

"It raises some questions about the monitoring of these offenders and does have some implications for public safety, so there's no question that they need to improve their performance there," Carbone said.

Carbone said the review also turned up other instances of lax supervision of defendants.

One employee faces a three-day suspension as a result of the review, the radio station reported. Another was counseled about her organizational abilities.

Staff members have been told to monitor defendants every morning and follow up if there are violations. The review also found that the work area where employees oversee electronic monitoring needed to be cleaned up, and files needed to be put in order.


Information from: WTIC-AM,

More articles

Copyright © 2007, The Associated Press

* * * *

My comment in the Courant Forum:

Rockville court is a free for all.

It is politics and corruption in a nutshell.

Judge Jonathan Kaplan brought up a man's race, made fun of his ancestors homeland, and used stereotypes to take away the man's kids. His wife with a politically powerful lawyer had stabbed her husband.

The ex-wife was awarded the children. The husband has never been convicted of anything and can only see his children now after 3 years if he pays to see them while guarded.

By the way he tried to have Judge Jonathan Kaplan removed.

I tried to have Kaplan removed for bias in civil cases. He then sat on my criminal trial for having resisted a mugger that attacked me on my property using pepper spray.

I got prison from Kaplan.

So, Rockville is about public abuse, retaliation, greed, inefficiency, incompetence, and in not serving taxpayers.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Judicial Heresy in New England

Morris Dees, part 1

"It would be total heresy for a judge judge in Alabama to speak to a group of trial lawyers like you just spoke to this group. Probably get recused out of every case he ever tried ..." -Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center

* * * *

There seems to be a club of legislators, judges, prosecutors, police, and trial lawyers. We the people, lose, and aren't part of the "special club".

Cindy Robinson Introduction of Judge Nadeau, part 1

Judge Nadeau, part 1

Rep. Themis Klarides

Rep. Themis Klarides receives the CTLA Civil Justice Award

* * * *

The justice system does not protect everyone. There is no integrity. There is no public service. Lawyers have become the scourge of the nation. Lawyers should not be involved in controlling every aspect of our lives. Lawyers can legislate unfairness, abuse, red tape, and racism while lining their pockets. Don't vote for lawyers. Legislators, the judicial branch, the executive branch, and law enforcement have their ethics challenged by being involved with the lawyer mafia.


Disparity of Justice

Police, prosecutors, and judges will bend over backwards to give each other a break. Imagine an ordinary citizen doing this ... :

Drunk District Attorney hits and runs from teenager.

text with video:
Borger, Texas Police dash cam video showing the arrest of DA Clay Ballman after hitting another vehicle driven by a teenage girl who followed the intoxicated DA while calling 911 until his car came to a stop. The police were forced to break out glass to open the door. Count the number of times the police ask the "Boss" to get out of his car. Is this resisting arrest? Would the police be that patient with an ordinary citizen who pays their salaries through tax dollars?

Friday, September 14, 2007

Eminent Domain Abuse Verdict: $12.4 Million

Bad Faith In Branford?
Eminent Domain Abuse Verdict: $12.4 Million

By LYNNE TUOHY | Courant Staff Writer
September 14, 2007

A private development company and the former owners of a 77-acre parcel have secured a staggering $12.4 million verdict against the town of Branford in an eminent domain abuse case that appears to be unprecedented nationally.

A Superior Court jury in Waterbury determined that Branford officials acted in bad faith when they voted in 2003 to take the land, which had been earmarked by the Monroe-based New England Estates development group for multiple-family housing in the range of 268 to 354 units.

Town officials cited an adjacent landfill and concerns about potential soil-contamination lawsuits from the residents of new housing as their primary motive; the possibility of building playing fields on the site was also discussed.

"The crux of the case was that they fabricated reasons for taking the property, and when we proved to the jury the reasons were baseless, the jury acted accordingly," plaintiffs' attorney Timothy Hollister said of this week's verdict. "They did not want housing on that property."

Branford is expected to appeal the ruling, and attorney Kerry R. Callahan, who represents the town, said the case is rife with legal issues that make the verdict "extremely vulnerable" to reversal.

"The portrayal of the town as this power-abusing monster was not accurate," Callahan said.

Aside from the core issue of eminent domain, the Branford case bears no resemblance to the highly publicized challenge brought by homeowners on the Fort Trumbull peninsula against the city of New London and the New London Development Corp. That case, forged by Suzette Kelo and her neighbors, turned on whether the city's seizure of homes for economic development by a private developer is a valid application of the "takings" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 ruled by a 5-4 margin that it is.

At the heart of the Branford case is the process surrounding the taking of the land, and whether the reasons for doing so were valid. The Kelo case didn't challenge the process itself, but its results. New London and the state had done numerous studies and held countless public hearings on the massive redevelopment plan that was designed to bring more jobs and tax revenue to economically distressed New London.

"The contrast in the process between this case and Kelo is just incredible," Hollister said.

He said the Representative Town Meeting group - whose 30 elected members have the final say on major issues in Branford - met for six minutes before approving the acquisition of the land by eminent domain from owners Frank Perrotti Jr. and Thomas Santa Barbara Jr. New England Estates had an option to buy the land for development, and later became lead plaintiffs in challenging the taking of the land.

The jury's verdict Wednesday awarded New England Estates $11.2 million in lost profits and an additional $1.2 million in development costs the company had invested in the property. Santa Barbara and Perrotti were awarded $340,000 in lost option fees they would have collected. Hollister also said his law firm of Shipman & Goodwin and co-counsel James Bergenn will ask to have Branford pay $1.5 million in legal fees. Assessment of legal costs is standard in civil rights/government abuse cases in which the plaintiffs prevail.

But who ultimately prevails in this highly unusual case will probably be left to another day and another court. It is a case rich in anomalies.

Most eminent domain cases get the chaff sorted from the wheat early on, so to speak, through injunctions - court orders to halt the proposed land taking. If a court senses red flags, an injunction is imposed. The government agency in question, reading the writing on the wall, typically abandons the plan. Few eminent domain cases go to trial.

The only other prominent case in which a developer prevailed resulted in a $1.4 million verdict in California, a ruling that was upheld a decade ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Hollister said of Branford: "This case is unique, maybe in the country."

Branford prevailed at the early stage of its case. Superior Court Judge Trial Referee Anthony V. DeMayo in December of 2003 all but mocked New England Estates' claims of a conspiracy by town officials in his ruling denying the developer's petition for an injunction to stop the town from taking the land. It wasn't until after DeMayo's ruling that Branford consummated the deal and took the land, paying its owners about $1.1 million. But DeMayo also granted the owners and New England Estates the right to appeal, which paved the way for the next oddity.

The plaintiffs appealed on two fronts. First, they claimed that the town hadn't adequately compensated them for the value of the land and the potential profits. At the same time, they also claimed the taking of the land was an abuse of government power under the Civil Rights Act. Both cases were transferred to the complex litigation docket at Superior Court in Waterbury.

Superior Court Judge William T. Cremins ruled earlier this summer on the first case, saying the value of the land - all things considered - was $4.6 million. Both sides have appealed that ruling. The second case, on the eminent domain abuse claim, resulted in this week's $12.4 million verdict. Callahan, representing Branford, says the plaintiffs can't have it both ways.

"It makes no sense that a party gets to prosecute two claims based on the same transaction and run them on parallel tracks, and pick and choose what part of the remedy you like best," Callahan said. "The basic concept is, you don't get to do it twice."

Branford changed lawyers several times during the course of the litigation, and Callahan's firm of Updike Kelly & Spellacy, based in Hartford, was brought in just months before the trial began. As a result, the town missed a crucial deadline to submit its list of expert witnesses to the court and opposing counsel, and was barred from calling expert witnesses to counter the testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. "The jury only got one side of the story," Callahan said. But that sort of lapse in adherence to court rules is seldom entertained on appeal.

Contact Lynne Tuohy at

Copyright © 2007, The Hartford Courant

* * * *

[click here] for:

5 to 4 in the Supreme Court, THE DAY FREEDOM DIED

A SIGN painted on a Smith Street apartment building in New London opposes the city�s plan to use eminent domain in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The sign is addressed to an admiral with the Coast Guard, which had considered using the property. Above the sign, Efrain Caraballo looks out from the window of his second-floor apartment.

Author Says He Was Told O.J. Book Was Confession

O.J. Author Was Told 'If I Did It' Was a Confession

Pablo Fenjves, author of O.J. Simpson’s controversial book, “If I Did It,” says the book’s original publisher told him it was a confession.

Fenjves writes in a prologue to the book, obtained by this column exclusively, that Judith Regan, then of ReganBooks/HarperCollins, told him:

“He wants to confess, and I’m being assured it’s a confession. But this is the only way he’ll do it.”

The book, which was canceled by HarperCollins and is today being published by Beaufort Books after a court battle, now belongs to the family of Ronald Goldman. A civil jury found Simpson responsible for the 1994 slayings of Goldman and Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown. A criminal jury acquitted him of murder charges.

[click here] for full post from Fox News

* * * *
* * * *

Most defendants don't get a dream team. They get an overpaid possibly lazy lawyer. In most cases if a lawyer goes against the wishes of police, the prosecutor, or a judge, the lawyer can be disbarred, arrested, and ruined. Just ask former Attorney Jim Brewer in Connecticut that defended good cops against the bad ones.

[click here] for:

The Less than Honorable Chief Justice William J. Sullivan?

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

The Continuing Saga of the Rogues in the Connecticut State Police

Connecticut, A Police State

Probe Of Trooper Underway

By TRACY GORDON FOX | Courant Staff Writer
September 12, 2007

The state attorney general's whistleblower unit is investigating allegations that a state police pilot threatened to kill other troopers and to crash the Trooper One helicopter into airplanes at the department's aviation unit in Hartford, state officials said Tuesday.

The pilot, Trooper Matthew McCullough, a decorated pilot who has flown missions in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army Reserve, continued to fly the helicopter despite the alleged threats, which were reportedly made at least 2½ years ago.

The complaint surfaced within the past few days when Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's office was notified in the wake of a new allegation that McCullough recently made a more vague threat, state officials and sources close to the investigation said. State police would not comment on whether McCullough is currently flying.

The complaint to Blumenthal's office alleges that McCullough made the more specific threats to other members of the aviation unit about what would happen if he was ever removed from the unit.

One incident was documented to state police commanders in 2005, but was never the subject of a full internal affairs investigation, sources within the agency said.

"We have received a whistleblower complaint concerning a threat of physical violence at the Department of Public Safety's aviation unit at Brainard Field [in Hartford]," Blumenthal said Tuesday. "The threat relates to conduct that happened about two years ago, and then may have been repeated a different time more recently."

"Certainly the nature of the complaint and the threat to public safety heightens its urgency and immediacy, and we are taking the appropriate investigative steps," Blumenthal said.

Public Safety Commissioner John A. Danaher III said the department has addressed public safety concerns, but declined to give specifics about whether McCullough was still flying. Blumenthal said the state police have responded appropriately to the complaints.

"We have opened an internal affairs investigation. We have begun interviews," Danaher said. "We have separated the individuals involved, and they are under enhanced supervision."

Danaher said a complaint of a more recent threat "was a vague, non-specific threat. It was not documented or reported to a supervisor. We are trying to run it down."

Blumenthal said the fact that the initial threat 2½ years ago was not the subject of an internal affairs inquiry is also being investigated by his office. He said the current investigation into the state police internal affairs unit will deal with the department's "failure to investigate problems that should have thoroughly been addressed."

"Part of our investigation is whether that threat was properly investigated at the time because it may have never been referred to internal affairs then," Blumenthal said.

Danaher said there were comments made 2½ years ago, "and they were addressed at that time by my predecessor." Danaher took over as public safety commissioner earlier this year.

Danaher said he reviewed how the complaint was dealt with 2½ years ago, and "I know it wasn't glossed over in any way." But he said that under his administration, "this would be and is the subject of an internal affairs investigation."

McCullough could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Union President Steven Rief declined to comment, saying he was not aware of the investigation or the whistleblower's complaint.

McCullough has been with the aviation program since the $2 million Bell 407 helicopter, named Trooper One, was put into service in August of 2001. He and several other pilots have been called thousands of times by troopers and local police officers on the ground to help catch escaped criminals and speeding cars, and search for missing children or adults.

The 41-foot helicopter has a heat-sensing camera to help it search for people, and it can shine an intense spotlight on crowds, such as at the UConn spring weekend event.

Contact Tracy Gordon Fox at

Copyright © 2007, The Hartford Courant

* * * *
* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for blogger's fair use of copyrighted materials, notice.

[click here] for Connecticut's "Wall of Shame" with pictures.

[click here] for:

Fucking and Sucking out of not being prosecuted?

[click here] for:

Are U.S. Courts still racist, but now just a little more slick about it?

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Debra LaFave

Why should a female teacher be able to have sex with a 14 year old boy and receive no punishment?

Why should police be able to view and take pictures of Ms. LaFave, naked, for "research"?

I think it sick that there would be those that would celebrate the exploitation of children, sexually, male or female as does this video:

Debra Lafave Interview - Part 1 of 4

The Investigation of William Mandel by Sen. Joseph McCarthy

text with video:
THE COMPLETE VERBATIM SOUNDTRACK OF THE HEARING: On March 23, 1954, at the height of the Cold War, with the US fighting China in Korea, and the Rosenbergs facing electrocution, Senator Joseph McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, investigated William Mandel, author of several scholarly books about the USSR which were in State Department Information Service Libraries. Mandel's unprecedented critical responses to McCarthy's interrogation were seen on nationwide television by an estimated 40 million viewers.

Former School District Attorney Faces Sex Charges

text with video:
Wade Cleveland, who was the Greenville County school district's staff attorney for more than 20 years in South Carolina, was charged with keeping child pornography on his office computer.

* * * *

Pictures and stories of police misconduct [click here]

Too many lawyers feel they are above the law

Lawyer Found Naked With Girl, 14, Pleads no Contest

Monday, September 10, 2007

PHILADELPHIA — A defense attorney who was found naked with a 14-year-old girl in a city courthouse pleaded no contest to charges of sexually assaulting the teen and five other girls.

Larry Charles, 50, entered the pleas on Monday, the day his trial was scheduled to begin.

Authorities have said a sheriff's deputy making his rounds in the courthouse on Jan. 15, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, looked into a lawyers' lounge and discovered Charles and the girl.

Charles, who often worked in the courthouse as a criminal defense attorney, was charged with rape and related offenses in that case.

After his arrest, five other girls came forward and testified that Charles assaulted them. Some of the girls testified they were assaulted multiple times over several years.

The girls — who were ages 5 to 10 at the time of the alleged attacks and are now ages 11 to 17 — testified the encounters occurred in motels, Charles' office, on the street while trick-or-treating at Halloween, and in the lounge and a court anteroom.

Charles was charged in those cases with multiple counts of rape, sexual assault, corruption of a minor and other charges. He pleaded no contest to all the counts.

After entering the no contest pleas, Charles' bail was revoked and he was sent to prison, pending his sentencing on Dec. 20. Prosecutors said they plan to recommend a sentence of 25 to 50 years in prison.

An attempt to reach Charles' lawyer, Angelo L. Cameron, for comment was not successful. A woman answering the phone at his listed office telephone number said that he did not live there, then hung up.

* * * *

Connecticut Attorney Michael H. Agranoff allegedly had an improper relationship with a young female client. Agranoff might have owed judges and prosecutors favors for not being disbarred. [click here] for more on the lawyer that claims he can save your children from DCF abuse ... crap!

[click here] for pictures with stories of Connecticut State Police misconduct

This blogger's email:

Monday, September 10, 2007

The US Judicial Circle F...

Continuing Education Credit Prejudices Judges


The Anti-Government Movement Handbook [PDF] is a training manual for judges and court staff against pro-se litigants, published in 1999 by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia. This book, along with Dealing With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff, published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, February 5-7, 1997.

The curriculum and manuals for this course were prepared with a grant from the State Justice Institute: Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, “The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, the Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond.” The State Justice Institute (SJI) is a non-profit, 501C(3) corporation that was started in 1986 and funded by Congress to develop courses and training manuals for state courts and judicial training organizations.;

This course and training manuals were developed by a group of 27 judges, court clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors in Arizona who examined the history and procedures of the Common Law Court Movement (CLC) and created the training curriculum and responses that courts, judges, and court administrators can use when dealing with common law courts in their own jurisdictions. My contact at the conference said that one of its goals was to identify ways the courts can make preemptive strikes against the CLC movement.

Some of the keynote speakers who helped produce the CLC course in Arizona were Chief Justice Thomas Moyer of Columbus, Ohio, T.C. Brown of Columbus, Ohio (a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer), and Jonathan Mozzochi, Executive Director of the Coalition for Human Dignity in Seattle, Washington. Mozzochi, who distributed Guns and Gavels, a publication of the Coalition, was listed as “a nationally recognized expert on militias and hate group activity.” The Coalition is like a west coast version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). [click here for more]

A Scheme to enrich Judges and their Legislator Friends

Southern Hospitality, Tulane Style

Diverting Taxpayer Money Into the Hands of Legislators and Judges

How Tulane's scholarship scheme works

Instead of paying taxes to the state, Tulane is obligated by an old Louisiana law to place scholarship waivers into the hands of state legislators and the mayor of New Orleans, who then select the awardees. The law's original purpose was to make a college education available to qualified citizens who could not afford the cost. However, revelations made possible by lawsuits to divulge the names of scholarship recipients showed that many judges and legislators and their relatives have been the beneficiaries of Tulane scholarship gifts. These same judges and legislators have gone on, respectively, to sit in cases in which Tulane was a party and to engage in legislative processes in which Tulane had an interest. Ethics and judicial propriety are among the casualties of this scheme insofar as the indebtedness created by the scholarship gifts has influenced court judgments in cases in which Tulane was a party. This relationship, illustrated schematically in the following figure, complements Tulane's sponsorship of trips for judges and appears to violate federal statutes. [more]

Labels: , ,

It May Take A Constitutional Amendment To Rein In Judiciary
September 17, 2006

Events this year have convinced some people that something is wrong with the relations between the courts and the other branches of government, between the courts and the press, and between the courts and the public.

Richard S. Kay
Richard S. Kay

Richard S. Kay is Wallace Stevens Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law
(Photo courtesy U. of Conn.)

In the spring, the state Supreme Court held that computerized case schedules were not open to public examination under the Freedom of Information Act. The chief justice delayed publication of that decision to influence the confirmation of his successor. This summer, a legislative committee subpoenaed the chief justice, but a trial judge, citing the independence of the judiciary, ruled he need not testify. Now the retired chief justice is facing the Judicial Review Council on charges that he violated the judicial code of ethics.

Two commissions, one named by the senior presiding justice of the Supreme Court, the other by the governor, are soon to report on possible judicial reforms. Several questions are on the table - what judicial records should be public, how should judges and lawyers be disciplined, who may draft rules of procedures.

But there is a more fundamental issue - not what things to change, but who may change them. That issue cannot be resolved by anything less than an amendment to the state Constitution.

About 30 years ago, the Connecticut Supreme Court started taking a new and assertive view of its own constitutional authority. It held that the legislature had no power to regulate the operations of the courts. These holdings were, to put it charitably, arguable as a matter of constitutional law.

The Supreme Court has never defined this exclusive judicial authority with much precision. In fact, in recent years, it has gone out of its way to avoid invoking it. Instead, the courts have found ways to protect judicial turf without actually holding legislation unconstitutional.

Sometimes, this takes the form of stretching (even to the breaking point) the meaning of a potentially encroaching statute. Sometimes, the courts and legislatures quietly compromise disputed matters before a law is enacted. Of course, in such discussions, the threat of the courts holding unwelcome legislative initiatives unconstitutional is always the 800-pound gorilla in the corner.

However, some issues cannot be evaded, obscured or finessed. The chief justice's attempt to influence the legislative power of judicial confirmation has forced the governor and General Assembly to face the implications of the Connecticut judiciary's bold claims of immunity from external regulation of any kind.

This may be the moment to reconsider the central problem of constitutional authority. If we do, we will need to think again about the meaning and value of "separation of powers."

Judicial openness, procedural rules and judicial discipline raise important questions of public policy. In our system of government, such questions are matters of law-making and have been committed to representatives who are accountable to the people.

The legislature, of course, acts subject to the rules of the state Constitution. Among those rules is the commandment that state power must be divided between three independent branches. Legislation may not impose requirements on the judiciary or on the governor that make it impossible to carry out their essential functions. For courts, those functions are hearing and deciding legal disputes. We might disagree on just what laws would have such a destructive effect, but it is obvious (from the experience of other states and the federal government) that no Connecticut statute in memory has remotely approached that level.

In fact, in the American version of separation of powers, judicial, legislative and executive functions are never exercised in isolation. They inevitably collide with, or require the cooperation of, the other departments. Judges need legislation to organize and fund the courts; they need police and prisons to enforce criminal convictions.

At every turn, each "independent" branch relies on the other branches. That is no accident. It is part of a constitutional plan to make the exercise of state power more difficult. "Ambition," as James Madison said, "must be made to counteract ambition."

This design has been put at risk by judicial insistence on broad, exclusive powers. Since this position has been deployed in un-reviewable constitutional terms, there is no way to overcome it except by constitutional amendment.

Such an amendment would reserve to the legislature the authority to make law governing the general operations of the courts - not the decision of cases. It might mention court rules, judicial organization or the openness of proceedings.

All these matters are regulated by elected legislatures elsewhere without notable damage to the rule of law.

It would be a great mistake to leave untouched Connecticut judiciary's vague and restless claim to final say. That is the problem that has produced all the others. The process of constitutional amendment is slow and difficult, but this may be a perfect time to start it.

Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant

From: Hartford Courant, Hartford, Connecticut, September 17, 2006, p. C-6. Reprinted in accordance with the "fair use" provision of Title 17 U.S.C. § 107 for a non-profit educational purpose.


Saturday, September 08, 2007

Jerry V. Leaphart, Danbury, CT, sues to know more about 9-11

The above link to the pdf file is an interesting read. It has interesting implications. If you think it does, too, pass it on. Click on white envelope below to share with a friend. This post accepts anonymous comments. Let us know that you stopped by. Thanks.

[click here] for "Restoring Justice in America"

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Connectiucut's abuse of Families and Children

Dear Governor Rell,

I have received written confirmation from Melissa Farley, External Affairs, Judicial Branch, that she has investigated my complaint and confirmed that Judge Sword of Rockville Family Court has sealed a judicial complaint and added it to my case file.

In February and again in June 2006 Judge Swords ordered two separate complaints to the JRC sealed from the public and added to my court folder. No action has been taken, the complaints dismissed. She terminated access with my children identifying complaints against judges and refused to hear my motions for the next 1-1/2 years, only those filed by other parties.

The Judicial Branch publically claims the courts open, yet privately continue with sealing complaints against judges and denying access to the court.

This is an impeachable offense for a judge, blatant retaliation, blacklisting me to any judge who reviews my file.

The court has now increased the cost to see my children from $45/ 1 hr a week to $160 for 2 hrs per week supervised visits. This is the fourth year without open access with my children with no allegations of abuse or harm or unfit parenting, every report extremely positive.

I am safe with my 7 month old but not my 11 or 14 year old daughters. Will you target my infant son next?

Is it the policy of the state to torture the children of fathers who file complaints against judges? I do not have the ability, legally or financially to defend myself from this corruption as long as it remains acceptable. Corruption and child abuse is well within your jurisdiction.

Christopher Kennedy
The Connecticut Civil Rights Council
314 Jobs Hill Rd
Ellington CT 06029

* * * *

Attorney Barbara C. Johnson fought for Father's rights, she ended up disbarred and in jail. [more]