Friday, November 24, 2006

Arrest and Prosecute this Judge:

WILLIAM SULLIVAN, left, the former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, appears stunned after the Judicial Review Council sanctioned him on two of five counts of judicial misconduct on Friday at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. With him is one of his attorneys, Robert J. Cooney.

Nov. 17, 2006

Copyright 2006, Hartford Courant


A Reputation Stained

Review Council Punishes Former Chief Justice For Delaying Opinion, A First In Judicial History
November 18, 2006
By LYNNE TUOHY, Hartford Courant Staff Writer
For former Chief Justice William J. Sullivan, the harshest sanction Friday wasn't a 15-day suspension for holding up the release of a controversial ruling to help a colleague succeed him as chief justice.

It was the notoriety of being the first judge in the nation ever to be disciplined for holding up release of an opinion.

It was the ugly blot on an otherwise unblemished judicial career of 28 years that threatens to overshadow many remarkable accomplishments.

As he faced the 12-member Judicial Review Council just after 6 p.m. Friday to learn his fate, Sullivan appeared deflated, in contrast to the normally robust former chief justice. There would be five verdicts - one for each of the charges the council lodged against him in July.

He won the first round. The council voted 10-2 that he had not prejudiced the impartial administration of justice and brought disrepute to his judicial office. There was no smile, no evidence of relief.

The council voted 8-4 that Sullivan failed to observe high standards of conduct and preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. It voted 11-1 on what many had called the slam-dunk count: that he allowed his social or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct. The council unanimously rejected charges that Sullivan failed to promptly dispose of the business of the court and that he failed to discharge his administrative responsibilities.

Superior Court Judge Christine E. Keller was the only council member who voted across the board not to convict Sullivan. She cited the lack of precedent and any rules at the court itself about withholding release of a ruling. She noted that the ethics experts who testified before the council - renowned expert Geoffrey C. Hazard and Rutgers University School of Law Professor Robert Leubsdorf - disagreed on whether Sullivan's conduct warranted disciplinary action.

"There was no precedent. There was no rule. There wasn't even a memo about what could be done or not," Keller said at one point. "I've placed strong emphasis on the career of this man - 41 years of public service, 28 years on the judiciary. That should be given extreme consideration."

Sullivan, 67, a man of immense pride and intense loyalty, faced up to a year's suspension for violating two canons of judicial ethics. He had assembled an impressive list of character witnesses, capped Friday by Louis Pepe, the former president of the Connecticut Bar Association.

"Chief Justice Sullivan's character and integrity is of the absolutely highest order, beyond reproach," Pepe testified. He recounted one of Sullivan's accomplishments as chief justice, transforming the swearing-in ceremony for new lawyers from a five-minute cattle call in a crowded courtroom to a dignified, two-hour ceremony held at either the Supreme Court or at the Bushnell Center for the Performing Arts.

The council's deliberations behind closed doors included discussion of the appropriate sanction. Sullivan politely declined to speak to the council before its members retired to discuss his fate. "Everything I had to say has been said," he replied.

And it had. Some rolled their eyes at his testimony on the opening day of the hearings Sept. 6, seeing it as more of a biographical soliloquy than relevant to the alleged misconduct. But it clearly worked to his benefit when it was time to levy sanctions. The council had before it a whole man, one in obvious anguish over the taint he brought on himself and the judiciary.

He hails from a blue-collar family, worked hard labor to pay his way through college and fought in Vietnam. He is personable, self-effacing and plain-spoken. His history of heart problems - one that forced a month's delay in the hearings - is staggering.

Sullivan did not deny that he held up publication of a controversial ruling on public access to court documents, nor that he did it to save Associate Justice Peter T. Zarella from having to answer for the ruling during his confirmation hearings to be chief justice.

Sullivan put a hold on the case March 14, the same week he told Gov. M. Jodi Rell he was going to resign as chief justice and take senior justice status. He knew from a conversation with her four months earlier that if he retired, she planned to nominate Zarella - Sullivan's protege and the only Republican on the high court - to succeed him.

"I had an unblemished record," Sullivan testified last month. "If I thought I was doing anything wrong I wouldn't have done it."

Sullivan also said he would have done it for any member of the court facing confirmation proceedings. Sullivan wrote the 4-3 opinion; Zarella sided with him in the majority.

Sullivan's defense was multifaceted. His lawyers claimed the council had no jurisdiction to review acts of judicial discretion and that a chief justice or the author of a Supreme Court ruling has unfettered authority to hold up release of a decision for any reason.

"There is no evidence that a judge has ever been disciplined for putting a hold on a case," Sullivan's attorney Edward Maum Sheehy argued.

Sheehy, after advising the council to consider the motives behind the actions of other members of the court, questioned why Justice Richard Palmer, who learned of the hold on April 8, did not confront Sullivan until eight days later, April 17.

Sullivan's expert witness, Leubsdorf, testified that Sullivan's actions - "whether or not they were ideal, they did not rise to a level requiring disciplinary action."

Before going into executive session, the council heard testimony by three notable witnesses - Hazard, Pepe, and videotaped deposition by Frank Williams, the chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

Hazard quoted the provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct that bars a judge from "allowing his social or other relationships to influence his judicial conduct."

Hazard then noted, "It seems to me it's pretty straightforward. I don't understand that there is any dispute Justice Sullivan ... exercised his administrative discretion with the view to benefiting the chances of a colleague being considered for chief justice of the state."

Asked about Leubsdorf's opinion that Sullivan's conduct did not warrant disciplinary action, Hazard replied, "Perhaps in days past we would have said this is okay between colleagues, but it is not consistent with the rules." Hazard noted, "The whole thing is tragic."

Williams was adamant that a chief justice has the authority to delay release of a ruling even when the motive is to aid a colleague during confirmation proceedings.

"I don't know that there can be any detriment to the legislature when a chief holds a decision to maintain a level playing field so that the legislature does not home in unnecessarily on one case," Williams asserted. He said a chief justice has "absolute discretion."

Sullivan, asked afterward if he wanted to comment on the council's action, winced and said softly, "No." Sheehy attempted to convey Sullivan's feelings.

"I think it hits him pretty hard," Sheehy said. "As you all know, he's a man of integrity. We don't feel there was clear and convincing evidence on any of the charges."

Sullivan could appeal his disposition to the state Supreme Court, the justices of which would be obligated to disqualify themselves from hearing his appeal. Judges from the Appellate Court would sit in their place, creating a court closely resembling the one that heard the appeal earlier this month on whether the judiciary committee co-chairmen could subpoena Sullivan to testify before their investigation. No ruling has been issued in that appeal.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, the co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said there is little historic framework out of the Judicial Review Council against which to measure the severity of Sullivan's sanction. Only three judges since 1989 have received suspensions - one for five days, one for 15 and one for 30.

"By the precedents of the JRC, this is not an extraordinary penalty," McDonald said. "This was a clear manipulation of a branch's governmental operations for a brazen political purpose, to undermine a constitutional [confirmation] process."

But McDonald acknowledged the intangible penalty Sullivan has paid.

"In many ways, this is the denouement of Justice Sullivan's career," he said. "He's paid a personal price, as well as a legal price now."

Contact Lynne Tuohy at

* * * *

Click Here for

Are there unnamed factions in the US, similar to the KKK?

Click Here, for Connecticut Chief State’s Attorney, F’n Liar

Click Here for my Complaint Letter to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

* * * *

"No Bid Contract Boy", Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

If a State’s Attorney General is the People’s Last Chance Savior

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

Doing the Math, says Judas has that Position

If you divide the total inmate numbers by population, you’ll see that one in ten people gets incarcerated, maybe more. I am going on Connecticut numbers and factoring deaths and the length of time an inmate number system has been in place. Arresting people, putting people on probation, putting people in prison, and breaking up families makes States money in Federal Tax Dollars. Being immoral and irresponsible means job security in the State Government System. There is no incentive to act in the public’s best interest. Do you expect them to be moral and responsible on their own?

My numbers could be right on or slightly off. There are far more put on probation, have their records erased, or enter special programs.

My point is that too much of the population is being “processed’ for monetary gain of State’s being pigs for Federal dollars and in collecting as much as possible above legally declared taxes.

Take out accountability, responsibility, morals, and in any thought of the future, rather than live for today needs of a state, forsaking the future, and you have what you see today, and the hell to pay, tomorrow.
-Steven G. Erickson aka Vikingas

P.S. I just did a google search of Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, not in quotes, and this post rated to be on the first page of 10 links. The Google #4 hit on the first page as of this writing in the “Read More” section.


The below found here on the web.

August 22, 2002, 9:00 a.m.
AG Power Grab
Out of control in Connecticut.

By John R. Lott Jr.

The last decade has seen state attorney generals use the power of the courts to shape public policy in unprecedented ways. Among the most aggressive in litigation ranging from tobacco to guns has been Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal, though for Blumenthal this was just the warm up. Even if the ideas that he is now advancing fail in Connecticut, they provide a dire warning of what other state attorneys general may soon start trying.

In just 12 years, his office has ballooned in size, more than doubling its budget from $13 million to almost $27 million and increasing the number of cases completed by 65 percent. Yet, despite this growth, Blumenthal has gone so far into actions previously reserved for other parts of the government that he often neglects the real duties of his job.

On August 9, the Connecticut supreme court checked Blumenthal for overstepping his authority. The court unanimously ruled that Blumenthal’s jurisdiction is largely limited by state statute to representing state agencies and officials in lawsuits brought by or against them, although the attorney general had claimed broader powers.

Unsatisfied with his traditional role, Blumenthal had gone after the administrator of an academy accused of mishandling state funds. The court noted that it was up to the Connecticut commissioner of education, not Blumenthal alone, to bring the case.

Blumenthal has received harsh words before. For instance, last December, New York state’s highest court found that Blumenthal’s office was “mishandling” and making “missteps” in a paternity case. The Connecticut Law Tribune reported that “the direct criticism by the court raised eyebrows in Albany .…”

The state supreme court pointed out in its decision two weeks ago that the attorney general’s office had been established in 1897 because of the inefficiencies in having “each state agency and department [retain] its own legal counsel.” But in July, the Connecticut Law Tribune reported that because his staff was so busy, the attorneys in Blumenthal’s office “will no longer serve as counsel to state boards or as counsel to agency staffs .…”

Worse, not only is he abrogating his role to advise, represent, and defend the state of Connecticut, his office is now suing the state. The high-profile case involves Cross Sound Cable Co. and represents an unprecedented power grab. Blumenthal sued to stop a cable being laid between Long Island and New Haven on environmental grounds. The suit was brought against the Connecticut Siting Council, the state agency that approved the cable. Just as in the case decided by the supreme court, Blumenthal filed the lawsuit in his own name, not on behalf of a state agency charged with these policy decisions.

Blumenthal claims that there is precedent for state agencies to sue each other, and indeed there is when lines of authority conflict. Try as they might, legislatures cannot foresee all possible conflicts. Courts step in to determine not who made the “correct” policy decision, but who has the actual authority. What Blumenthal wants, however, is something quite different. Instead of having legislators resolving policy differences, Blumenthal would make himself and the courts the final arbiter over policy.

The grab for power also crosses ethical lines. Two of the law firms that Blumenthal contracted with to sue the tobacco companies were run separately by his former law partner and his partner’s wife. Blumenthal’s defenders claim that other law firms simply didn’t want the job. In a Connecticut Law Tribune article, however, a few lawyers disagreed, one complaining that “we didn’t ever get a meeting” with the attorney general’s office and another saying that his firm wasn’t included despite agreeing to the state’s contractual terms. Blumenthal’s former partner, David Golub, acknowledged, “I know how it ‘looks’ — he’s my former partner ...”

Yet, whatever the concerns about Blumenthal giving a contract to a former partner, where did he get the authority at the time the contracts were negotiated to commit the state to pay private attorneys a sum then estimated to be more than $250 million?

During 12 years in office, Blumenthal has grown arrogant. People in and out of state government are afraid of him and are scared to publicly speak about their experiences. The state supreme court has better uses of its time than to monitor the behavior of an out-of-control attorney general.

— John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

* * * *

My open letter to Blumenthal, Nov. 12, 2003

My email:

* * * *

* * * *

added April 4, 2006, 11:30 PM
Kathleen Dickson weighs in:

Complain to Law Enforcement? Go to Jail

Complain to CT Legislators? They’ll forward your complaint to the Imaginary Mr. PotatoHead of the Complaint Department.

Print - Close Window
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:47:46 -0800 (PST)
From: “Kathleen Dickson”
Subject: Bad Cops, Bad DCF- Northeast Magazine

Dear Hartford Courant (Northeast Magazine),

Thanks for your two latest lead articles about DCF and
State Troopers/cops out of control. What’s
unfortunate is that there is no independent agency to
whom we citizens can file complaints or make
suggestions to these two groups. The legislators
never return phone calls and it is clearly pointless
to complain to the DCF or the cops. While cops and
DCF clearly are not known for being especially bright,
they also retaliate. For example, one suggestion I
would make, having seen corrections officers at
“work,” is that I would never allow them to become

They’re all like Chuck Graner- psychopaths.

I would also require that all of DCF potential
employees pass a minimum IQ threshold and take college
courses in health and biomedicine, so you can at least
talk to them without them recording in their stupid
little records only the retarded, lying nonsense that
only “social workers” understand.

There’s no reason we should have to both pay for and
suffer such incompetence. If we want higher standards
of performance, we can’t have morons in management.
It lowers the overall standard. That’s reflected in
the Top 20 Complaints cops have, which you list in the
Jan 8, 2005 NE. These State employees also have to be
told that they are servants of the people and now[t]our
owners or slave masters.

They should be told in plain English that they are
resented because cops and DCF “workers” are well-known
to be stupid, evil, incompetent, and abuse their

And I would like you to note the absense of comments
about these out of control cops and social “workers”

If cops and social workers have a combination low IQ
and aggression problem that is out of control, one
would expect the Commissioner of Mental Health to have
something to say about it.

All four agencies (add Morano’s gang) are simply about
the bodies they process. Their pay and hefty
retirement outcomes depend on their lack of success in
helping people, which is supposedly the reason they

Most people I know have given up on complaining to the
legislators. It is well-known that they never
respond. People of all ages and backgrounds say this
is true: Old people, people with chronic health
problems, and their middle-aged relatives who have to
carefully trailblaze through probate, rules, and
regulations to get some sort of help, because the
point and the goal is to avoid becoming another body
for this Corrupticut Meatgrinder.

At least the newspaper is paying attention and making
some statement towards a performance rating. We
appreciate it, because if us’n plain old regular
citizens and rights activists say something about
their incompetence, we are retaliated against and we
have no legislative body which listens to our

Their staff is paid to say: “Here’s how we don’t do
that,” or “Here’s how you need to complain to someone
else,” or “Here’s how that’s not our job,” or, “Please
let me forward your call to the voicemail box of the
Imaginary Complaint Officer.”

Kathleen M. Dickson
23 Garden Street
Pawcatuck, CT 06379

* * * *

Chris Powell tells it like it really is in Connecticut:

Kristine Blake is a perfect example of a worker for the State of Connecticut that complains about others in the system. There are lies, threats, false accusations, and retaliation, her story:

Chris Kennedy, a father, he and his children still receive the Connecticut Retaliation BBQ, his story Part 1:

Chris Kennedy Part 2:

Connecticut police officer's sons are taken away in the middle of the night and beaten for making a police misconduct complaint against officers that were beating another individual that had made a police misconduct complaint as those same officers were beating yet another individual for having worn "gansta" style baggy pants:

Connecticut Police help husband beat wife, arrest wife:

Connecticut Police vandalize former Norwalk Mayor's house, wear ski masks, beat suspects in abandoned warehouses:

Properties that you the taxpayer paid police to harass me out of. I had complained about police doing little to nothing for downtown property owners and small businesses regarding vandalism, and heroin and crack cocaine dealing in Stafford Springs, Connecticut:

Connecticut's Lyme Disease Fraud:


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

View My Stats