Thursday, May 18, 2006

Crooks and Liars


Connecticut Chief State's Attorney and other F'n liars found here

Today's posts on :

The Growing Controversy over the Al Gore Global Warming Video
“An Inconvenient Truth”. Two 60 second tv ads produced by the institute will be played in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006

Your Kid's Justice System
What if it was your kids in the crosshairs as are too many Duke LaCrosse players?

Macs Slamming PCs
The commercial shows two guys, one a Mac, one a PC. One is hype; the other is what you’d expect. The PC character, has to reboot and freezes. This is hinted to, and the 30 second spot is art.

* * * *
From the Don Pesci (blog):

Who Elected Blumenthal Pope
According to a story in a Hartford paper, Catholic hospitals presently offer Plan B pills to women who have been raped -- except under very narrow circumstances, when urine tests show that the victim is pregnant or ovulating. In these cases, said a representative of the hospitals, the Plan B pills "can be equivalent to an abortion and thus the proposed law would violate the hospital's religious freedom.

"During his testimony at a hearing on a bill crafted to force four Catholic hospitals in Connecticut to provide Plan B pills to women who have been raped, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said that Catholic hospitals have a contractual obligation similar to that of Wal-Mart. Recently Blumenthal bullied Wal-Mart into providing Plan B pills to their customers through the threat of sanctions.

Wal-Mart, according to the story, "was required to provide all legal prescriptions to comply with its contract to participate in state health insurance plans." Blumenthal said that Catholic hospitals "which provide care to people insured by the state would have a similar obligation." Pope Blumenthal also said " (ITALICS MINE) the proposed law would not violate the hospitals' fundamental rights to religious freedom (END ITALICS)."But surely there are important differences between Wal-Mart and Catholic hospitals.

Wal-Mart is not a hospital. Unlike Wal-Mart, the Catholic hospitals, according to testimony given at the hearing, already administer Plan B pills.

The hospitals restrict the use of the pills only when they may operate as an abortifacient, in which case their use would be clearly prohibited by the Catholic Church.How does Blumenthal know that the use of Plan B pills, under these very restricted cases, would not violate Catholic precepts and therefore represent a denial of the freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution?

At a minimum, the freedom of religion clause provides that the state should not make laws restricting the practice of religion. And it cannot be constitutional for the state, or its representatives, to decide on behalf of churches which religious practices shall be permitted. The pope has not died, and the attorney general has not yet been elected Pope.

If the use of Plan B pills, under the narrow exceptions observed by Catholic hospitals, is an abortifacient, and if the Catholic Church regards abortion as a sin and a crime in cannon law, then Blumenthal in his testimony seems to be proposing to force Catholics to commit a sin and a cannon law crime so that the Catholic Church may be brought into compliance with the hospitals contractual obligations to the state.

Just a few questions: Does Blumenthal intend to bring suit against the Catholic Church for defying present laws that apply, in the attorney general's opinion, to both Wal-Mart and the Catholic Church?Since the legislature, Blumenthal, and several political interest groups already have involved themselves in the issue, is their anyone on planet earth who can convincingly assert that the underlying issues are not (ITALICS) politically (END ITALICS) driven?Since the proposed bill will deprive the hospitals and the Catholic Church from acting on their religious precepts, is there anyone on planet earth who can convincingly assert that there is no freedom of religion issue involved in this dispute?

The only person who spoke forcefully against the bill at the hearing was James Papillo, the state's Victim Advocate. After his testimony, state Lieutenant Governor Kevin Sullivan called upon Governor Jodi Rell to fire him. Sullivan quickly had second thoughts and withdrew his demand following a reprimand delivered by the governor to Papillo, who apologized for inserting religious beliefs into his testimony.

But how is it possible to have an honest discussion of this issue without adverting to religious beliefs?

Would Blumenthal defend, as ardently as he has defended the state's rights to enforce private contracts, the right of Victim Advocates to exercise their First Amendment rights in public testimony on bills that seek to restrict religious freedom?

Is there any Catholic reporter in this state -- just one, preferably not in full rebellion against the teachings of his church -- who will obtain the answers to these and other important questions? And if that reporter is accused by his editors of smugging into his report toxic religious opinions, may he depend upon Blumenthal to assist him in exercising his First Amendment rights?

May 15
The Whistleblower's Tale
It’s going to be difficult for the usual chatterers to make merry with Christine Ragaglia’s difficulties. True, she’s a Republican, and its always open season on Republicans in Connecticut. But she is also a woman who helped prosecutors put a nail in the devil’s tail. The Rowland prosecution likely would not have been possible without her grand jury testimony.

That testimony, put under seal by prosecutors, has now, thanks to some anonymous leaker, become public property. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, according to an Associated Press report, is promising to “recover millions lost to Rowland-era corruption.”

Connecticut’s attorney general, who relies on co-operative witnesses and whistleblowers to secure his convictions, has vowed to “seek relief tailored to the individuals like Ragaglia and others who have betrayed the public trust.” The associated press reporter who was given access both to the sealed -- now, obviously unsealed -- grand jury testimony, as well as Ragaglia’s much sought after diary, wryly remarks in the AP report, “Because of grand jury secrecy, however, Ragaglia's 2004 testimony hasn't been filed in the state case.”

Perhaps Blumenthal can get the information he needs to prosecute Ragaglia, a federal informant, from the AP reporter who filed the story – and never mind that the publication of sealed grand jury information may make co-operating witnesses less likely to divulge information to prosecutors in future cases involving political corruption in Connecticut.

It is not yet known whether Blumenthal is seeking to recover funds from Regaglia’s former boss, Larry Alibozak, the sleezball whose grand jury testimony helped to drive a stake through former Governor John Rowland’s heart.

It’s difficult to predict at this remove what bit part some future Pulitzer Prize winning reporter – There are probably dozens of them banging away at computer terminals as I write -- will assign to Ragaglia. From the little that is know so far, she appears to be a woman more sinned against than sinning. Apparently, she suffered from an alcoholic problem, doubtless brought on by Alibozak’s attentions. And, of course, Rowland’s chief aide Peter Ellef and William Tommasso, both recently sentenced for peculation and incurable stupidity, would drive a saint to drink.

Like Mark Twain, Ragaglia told the truth mainly, when put upon her oath. She kicked both Rowland and Alibozak in the groin and shed her alcoholic problem along the way. According to reports I’ve heard from accomplished state fraud investigators, Ragaglia acquitted herself well as Connecticut’s chief fraud investigator and actually managed to facilitate the creation of programs that will save the state some money. Please note: Agency heads that are workaholics and save the state pennies almost always are forced to walk the plank by career leeches hungry for larger budgets. It’s just the way the state generally does business: What you don’t spend in 2006, you will not receive in 2007, and blessed are they who get and spend. Penny pinchers routinely are tossed overboard.

Of course, it is always possible that media folk on the prowl for past Rowland associates to put in their journalistic tumbrels may discover that some of Rowland’s associates were victims rather than perpetrators of a political corruption that appears to have been limited only to Republicans and Ernie Newton. Democrats never steer building projects to their friends and political associates; they never get tipsy; they do not keep diaries; they never go on junkets; they are masterful at warding off the baneful influences of political contributors; they have nothing to fear from federal prosecutors – and certainly they have nothing to fear from fellow Democrat Dick Blumenthal.

So, now the guillotine requires another warm body – this time Regaglia. If you crane your neck over the Democratic crowd of joyous onlookers, you will see her approaching the contraption in the tumbrel, hands tied behind her back, suitably disgraced, soon to get what is due her. It will all be over in a moment. It is no matter to justice that she has co-operated with her judges. Her foot will touch the stair. The blade will be drawn up; an anticipatory silence will follow – and then the crowd will emit a squeal of delight.


The above was found here on the web

* * * *

Institutionalized Racism
Many Judiciaries are “White Boy Only” clubs. Carmen Lopez in Connecticut, a judge that showed she cared about children and the public, had an overwhelming backlash of other judges trying to have her removed, or at minimum out of their hair.

A State's Attorney, F'n Liar

Can cops rape, rob, beat, and murder with immunity?

The Drawbacks for officials having sex with kids

Is Rape not Rape if Committed by a Police Officer?
(an Ellington Officer, took a woman that had too much to drink to a hotel, and then got off duty and went back to have sex with her, and wasn't arrested for rape, What!!!!???)

More on officials and police having sex with children and other illicit sex

A cop liking little boys (like Michael Jackson?)

The Crack (Cocaine) Section at Motel 6

Head Internal FBI Watchdog molested young children

Police easy on Police for Misconduct

Perverts, Rapists, Thieves, Frauds, Liars ? oops, did I mean the police

Police settle excessive force suit with 71-year-old woman

Unelected Absolute Power

US mothers to march against guns

Looking like a bunch of overfed, oversexed, overpaid, and undereducated morons, internationally ?

Hot topics now on Macbook
Da Vinci Code
Crooks And Liars
American Idol

* * * *

Added July 6, 2006, 4:30 PM EST:

Suggesting a Solution

I have had emails into me, asking that I offer solutions to problems, not to just rant and complain.

Well, I think if sensitivity training, requiring knowledge and respect of the US Constitution, Civilian Oversight of all taxpayer paid officials, that would be a good thing.

Without courtesy, the quality of life can be low. If police and other officials feel they can do as they please, they do as they please. There should be reprimands and firings for breaking the rules. There should be honest investigations and punishments for official misconduct.

Whistleblowers need to be protected within the system and outside of it. The complaint process should be monitored to prevent cover-ups and retaliation.

It should be a requirement that police, prosecutors, judges, DCF, and others that are taxpayer paid, respect and honor their employers, us. We are the employers, THEY are the EMPLOYEES, and we need to not let them forget.

I have found that after having seen much of the US and some of the world, 9 countries so far, Connecticut Police and other officials are by far the rudest and most disconnected that I have ever seen. There will be no change until a change is forced/required.

-Steven G. Erickson a.k.a. blogger Vikingas


This blogger’s email:

A Postass with the Mostass

The below emailed to:


July 6, 2006, at approx 2 PM EST

To Whom It May Concern:

At the Connecticut Judicial Branch. An open email to:
Judge Jonathan Kaplan knowingly sentenced me to prison, after I had tried to have him removed for bias in Civil cases. I had written him a nasty letter telling Judge Jonathan Kaplan of what I thought of him to the general address of the court with the Haas/Erickson docket #.

Kaplan didn’t recuse himself, for the Rockville GA 19 Connecticut Court Case Docket # CR01-0074672 and retaliated against me as he has done probably often in the past. The trial cost taxpayers money to retaliate, a personal vendetta. My small businesses failed and I was forced out of my retirement, home, and out of the sum total of my life’s work, estranging me from my daughter and family, causing untold damage. The economy is being ruined by Judges like Kaplan.

Judge Jonathan Kaplan needs to be arrested and hauled away in handcuffs to be tried in a legitimate court of law, and if found guilty, imprisoned for a long, long time.

I believe Judge Jonathan Kaplan was in contact with former Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada, which is illegal collusion, in railroading me to prison in an illegal trial after a false arrest.
I believe Kaplan and Spada should be prosecuted for Racketeering, Obstructing Justice, and for violating my Constitutional Rights.

Kaplan’s opening statement to me was that I was guilty and going to prison, BEFORE the trial even began. My attorney told me that Kaplan wouldn’t allow him to defend me or to dispute the prosecutor or police. What!!!???

I invested years of my life and 100’s of thousands of dollars, and was attacked on my property and pepper spray the Felon that threatened my life after he jumped me from behind. Kaplan knowingly sentenced me to prison in retaliation for my trying to have him fired and for having upset police by what I wrote in newspapers, printed in letters to the editor, and for having proposed Civilian Oversight of Police to elected officials.

Kaplan also allegedly took Chris Kennedy’s kids away after telling Chris on the record that he is Irish, there is strife in Ireland, and he is taking Chris’ kids away. What!!!???

Please do a word search on my name, “Steven G. Erickson” and you’ll find plenty of information.
I am posting this email to you on:

Thank you,

Steven G. Erickson
PO Box 730
Enfield, CT 06083-0730

P.S. I notified Chief Justice William Sullivan of my complaints against Kaplan and regarding the Racketeering and Obstruction of Justice. If Sullivan didn’t pass it on to an investigating body, Sullivan should be charged with obstructing justice, racketeering, and other crimes. Not investigating citizen complaints about Judges to the Judiciary is illegal and Unconstitutional. Please act in the Public’s best interest and for the US Constitution, please see to it Kaplan, Sullivan, and other criminals in the Connecticut court system are arrested and tried. I would like to see them be tried and convicted for treason and then hung.

* * * *
* * * *
The below emailed to:
July 6, 2006, at approx 4:20 PM EST

Improper Jury Instructions Video Tape

To Whom It May Concern at the Connecticut Judiciary:

I have been told by numerous people that no one to their knowledge ever went to prison for a first offence of Assault 3rd and Breach of Peace, 2 misdemeanors, especially a victim of a mugging on his/her own property where the crime victim, the homeowner is forced to defend him or herself.

The Jury was show a videotape of how to find me guilty, but there was nothing about finding me innocent or about reasonable doubt. The jury was tainted and the trial was not legitimate for this and so many other reasons.

Please read the trial transcripts and remove Judge Jonathan Kaplan Docket # CR01-0074672.

Steven G. Erickson
PO Box 730
Enfield, CT 06083

Jury Duty Tapes Edited To Fix Errors
9:46 AM EST, January 30, 2004 By DIANE STRUZZI, The Hartford Courant

Judicial officials have recalled and re-edited about 65 videotapes used statewide to introduce potential jurors to the court system after a Superior Court judge ruled they contained inaccurate statements about the law.

The videos, called “Pursuit of Justice” and “The Voir Dire,” have been seen by individuals called in for jury duty. “Pursuit of Justice” presents an overview of the judicial branch, including an explanation of the role of juries. “The Voir Dire” talks about the jury selection process, in particular the procedure in which lawyers question potential jurors.

Superior Court Judge Richard Dyer, sitting in Rockville, made his ruling after Public Defender Karen Goodrow requested that the tapes not be shown to potential jurors in a drunken-driving case. Goodrow argued that the videos were prejudicial and wrongly instructed potential jurors about their role and the law.

The portions of the tapes being disputed focused, in part, on statements about jurors determining “guilt or innocence” of a defendant.

“They’re never instructed to find if a person is innocent,” Goodrow said. “You could be in a situation where a jury feels the state has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but feels [the defendant] is not innocent. But because they’re following the law they have to find him not guilty.”

Dyer found that several comments in the videos could undermine the presumption of a defendant’s innocence and ordered that they not be shown to prospective jurors in the drunken-driving case.

“Although the court believes that proper final instructions could completely cure any potential harm caused by the few erroneous introductory instructions referenced above, the court finds that it is improper to knowingly present any inaccurate or possibly prejudicial information to potential jurors,” Dyer wrote in his Jan. 7 decision.

He did not uphold other objections raised by Goodrow, including her objection to the inclusion of the American flag and the U.S. Constitution in one video.

Tolland County State’s Attorney Matthew Gedansky said his office argued against Goodrow’s motion, but respects the judge’s ruling. Judge Jonathan Kaplan, administrative judge for the Tolland Judicial District, immediately suspended the use of the videos and alerted the deputy chief court administrator and chief administrative judge for criminal courts.

“Once I’m on notice that a judge of the Superior Court feels that something we do has some constitutional problems in it, my feeling is it was irresponsible to just ignore that and show the movies in other cases,” Kaplan said.

Dyer’s ruling had an immediate ripple effect throughout the state judicial system. Chief Court Administrator Joseph Pellegrino called on several judges to review the tapes and determine if changes should be made, according to Melissa Farley, a spokeswoman for the judicial branch. The judges decided the tapes should be re-edited, and on Jan. 12 Pellegrino sent e-mails to all administrative judges asking them not to show the tapes. E-mails also were sent to other court officials and to law libraries, requesting they return the tapes.

“We thought we should give the benefit of the doubt to taking out those statements [Dyer] thought were objectionable,” Pellegrino said. “Of course, we could have waited for an appeal, but if the Appellate Court found he was right then there might be some cases that might be overturned ...”

Farley said she believes this is the first time a Superior Court judge has issued a decision regarding the videos. An earlier version of “Pursuit of Justice” was edited after several criminal lawyers voiced concerns about the tape, Farley said. The changes will be the first made to the “The Voir Dire,”, which was produced after the legislature passed a law regarding jury selection in 1996. The late Judge John Maloney largely guided the making of both videos and received suggestions from various lawyer organizations, Farley said.

The changes to the tapes included omitting an announcer’s statement about juries and judges determining “an individual’s guilt or innocence” and a judge’s statement about deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused, according to information provided by the judicial branch.

Changes have been completed on “Pursuit of Justice,” which is being redistributed to courts.

Changes to “The Voir Dire” are expected to be done soon and redistribution completed within the next 10 days, Farley said. Meanwhile , judges will give oral instructions to potential jurors.

Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Paul Murray said that if jurors were prejudiced by the remarks on the videos it was only in a minor way and, as Dyer pointed out, the errors could be corrected by other means.

Several defense lawyers appeared split on the impact of the videos on potential jurors.

Michael Georgetti, chairman of the Hartford County Bar Association’s criminal justice committee, said he typically asks potential jurors what they thought about the tapes, but has never challenged the videos.

“First impressions are lasting impressions, and what they see in the first hour of jury duty is probably what they remember the most,” he said. “If I have to pick a jury between now and the time the tapes come out, I’ll make a motion for a continuance so the jury indoctrination can be reviewed by me.”

Richard R. Brown said he doesn’t believe the videos affect the jurors.

“My primary reason for that feeling is Connecticut has, beyond question, the best voir dire system for the selection of jurors,” he said. “I feel any deficiencies in the videos were cured by an opportunity to thoroughly question prospective jurors before being seated at trial. ... I think in the real world it’s much ado about nothing.”

But Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth called Dyer’s decision “extremely important because it’s difficult enough to get jurors to engage in the presumption of innocence when someone is arrested and charged with a crime.”

“Sometimes jurors are left with the impression that their oath and obligation is to convict the guilty. Their obligation goes beyond that,” he said. “What remains to be seen is whether or not the revised version of the tapes remedies the problems.”

Goodrow said it would be a good time to overhaul the videos using suggestions from defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other court personnel. Some defense lawyers agree. Pellegrino said he isn’t opposed to the suggestion and would be happy to do whatever it takes to create better videos.

Defense lawyer M.H. Reese Norris, who in the past has challenged one of the videos, said he supports the idea.

“If you have everyone’s input,” he said, “you won’t have this problem in the future.”

Share this post click on white envelope. This post accepts anonymous comments


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

View My Stats