Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Blast 2 from the www.freespeech.com past

Justice and Political Influence is For Sale




A blowjob, car crash, politically powerful man dead, and alleged police/court tampering, skewed investigations, and harassment allegedly orchestrated out of a governor�s office. ...

Helen Ubi�as, Hartford Courant (ctnow.com)

Muddied Esposito Case Victimizes All Involved
April 29, 2004

And so it ended the way it began, with talk of sex and influence-peddling.

Five weeks of testimony, dueling scientists and the manslaughter case against Heather Specyalski rested on the same two questions that prompted the case: Was she performing oral sex on Neil Esposito at the time of the crash that killed him? And how much influence did the wealthy and connected Esposito family have in reopening the investigation?

All that time and money - a good $100,000 for expert testimony on each side. All those witnesses - about 60. All those pictures and graphics - so many that defense exhibits were labeled with quintuple letters.

And of course, the dramatic unveiling of the obliterated Mercedes.And in the end, neither the steamy sex-and-subornation defense nor the cold, conflicting facts have gotten us any closer to knowing what happened the night Specyalski and Esposito drove away from a Middletown restaurant five years ago.

Was Specyalski driving the night Esposito died? Or was it Esposito himself? Is the family trying to protect a family fortune from a manipulating gold-digger? Or is an innocent woman going to be railroaded, a victim of their money or power?

It's doubtful anyone will know for sure. Paid experts delivered testimony for their employers. State police investigators reached conflicting conclusions. A governor's office with ethical problems of its own muddied the situation even more.

What should we conclude from the assignment of a state police veteran to remedial training after a well-connected family objects to his findings? Was it because he screwed up the case, or because he came back with the wrong conclusion? "Because it didn't please the Esposito family," said Specyalski's defense attorney, Jeremiah Donovan.

Sex and conspiracy. Prosecutor Maureen Platt dismissed both as diversionary tactics. When you don't have a case, she said, what better way than to appeal to the basest instincts.

Should we pity Poor Heather Specyalski? she asked. What's so poor about a woman who is suing the Esposito estate for $20 million.

The Espositos, she contended, were victims of their own money and power. So what they made calls? So what Gov. John Rowland's confidante responded? Should they be punished for being wealthy? For being connected? For knowing how to get things done?

"I'm not saying people who have money have more rights," she said. But should they have fewer?

If it had been a poor family who had gotten that far, she said, wouldn't we all have applauded?

Well, of course we would. More than that: For a poor family without connections to get that much official intercession would have been a miracle worthy of papal acknowledgement.

About the only thing that is clear after weeks of testimony is that everyone involved is a victim. Neil Esposito lost his life. His children lost a father. Even his parents, who in their own way were trying to protect the reputation of their son, wound up tarnishing his name irreparably.

And of course there's Specyalski, whose life has already been changed forever by the injuries she suffered in the accident, now facing 25 years in prison.

The jury starts deliberations today. Specyalski has already had a talk with her son about the possibility that she might go away for a long time. She said Neil was a good man, and that this was an accident.

* * * *

Specyalski Jury Hears Sex Theory Closings
April 29, 2004
By ALAINE GRIFFIN, Hartford Courant Staff Writer (ctnow.com)

MIDDLETOWN -- The sex act defense that put Heather Specyalski's manslaughter trial in the national spotlight hardly surfaced during 19 days of testimony from 60 witnesses with more than 400 court exhibits.

But during final arguments Wednesday - the last day before jurors would begin deliberating Specyalski's conviction or acquittal in the death of her former boyfriend, Neil Esposito - the unusual defense was the center of attention.

Prosecutor Maureen Platt spent most of her rebuttal discounting the suggestion that Specyalski was performing oral sex on Esposito at the time of the automobile crash that killed him and permanently injured her.

"That comes in now and all of a sudden we're supposed to believe that?" Platt asked jurors.

Specyalski's attorney Jeremiah Donovan listed "sex" as one of 10 things he wanted to discuss with the jury when outlining his closing arguments.

The six jurors are considering three charges against Specyalski - second-degree manslaughter, second-degree manslaughter with a motor vehicle and misconduct with a motor vehicle. If they convict her of all three charges, she could face up to 25 years in prison.

Specyalski and Esposito were in the "process of reconciling" the day of the accident, Donovan said. They danced closely, kissed and held hands at the Halloween party they attended before the crash.

Then, the Mercedes-Benz they were traveling in on their way to Esposito's Rocky Hill home swerved off the road - for an unknown reason, Donovan said.

"If they had been engaged in this [sex act], we don't know," Donovan said. "But it gives rise to reasonable doubt."

Paramedics at the crash scene testified seeing Esposito's pants pulled down between his knees and ankles. Neither his pants nor his underwear were torn and the zipper was pulled down.

"There are only two people who can tell us if this happened," Donovan said. "Heather can't remember and Neil can't tell us."

Donovan conceded that none of the experts who reconstructed the crash explained their theories with Specyalski's head in Esposito's lap, but the lawyer said she may have been pushed upright in her seat as the speeding car went into a yaw before crashing. Both Esposito and Specyalski had been drinking.

Scott D. Batterman, one of the state's expert witnesses, testified that if Specyalski had been performing oral sex on Esposito, her head and neck would have been pinned in the car. Paramedics found Specyalski on her back, her torso was sticking outside of the broken driver's side window. Her legs were inside the car.

"Don't you think her head would have been in the dirt instead of being sunny-side up looking at the sky?" Platt asked jurors in her rebuttal. She also mentioned photos of Esposito at the crash scene that showed his shirt ripped off his body.

"Was ripping his shirt part of the sex act as well?" Platt asked.

Before the trial began, Platt filed a motion asking Judge Robert L. Holzberg to bar testimony about the sex act without "a good-faith basis for such inquiry." Holzberg allowed the defense, saying a defendant has a right to offer a defense "no matter how outlandish, silly or unbelievable one might think it will be."

News reports about the defense provoked national tittering with Specyalski's case a subject on raunchy radio host Howard Stern's show. Political commentator Rush Limbaugh dubbed it a "Lewinsky defense."

Platt attacked the sex-act theory and defense claims that the politically connected Esposito family used its influence to have the governor's office push for a re-investigation of the crash. She called it "fire setting" by Donovan - an effort to focus jurors on lurid allegations instead of evidence presented in the case.

State police initially ruled that Esposito was driving when his leased Mercedes went out of control on Route 9 in Cromwell and crashed on Oct. 30, 1999. They closed the case.

But Jo McKenzie, Gov. John G. Rowland's longtime aide and political confidant, testified that she personally contacted then-Public Safety Commissioner Henry C. Lee about reopening the case after a member of the Esposito family called her for help. After Esposito's father, Raymond Esposito, wrote a letter to Lee citing inconsistencies in the first investigation, Specyalski was identified as the driver and arrested in November 2000.

Platt pointed out a statement Specyalski's brother gave to a state trooper in which he said, "The driver of the vehicle was my sister, Heather Specyalski." She pointed to injuries Specyalski suffered on her left side as proof that Specyalski was driving. She said Specyalski's left leg was trapped between the steering wheel and a large dent in the driver's side door that was caused when the car hit a concrete block after leaving the road.

Holding up a poster-sized photo of the wrecked Mercedes and pointing to the mangled driver's side, Platt asked jurors: "If I asked a child, `Who do you think had the most injuries?' What do you think they'd say?"

Donovan criticized the left-side injury theory, a fundamental premise Platt has stuck to throughout the trial. He pointed to a gash in Specyalski's left thigh that Dennis Shanahan, a California-based injury expert, said was caused when the gear shift in the car's center console dug into her thigh as her body left the car's passenger seat.

Donovan said there is reasonable doubt simply because of the way the investigation was conducted and the fact that so many experts disagree about who was driving.

He also reiterated an image he has tried to put in jurors' minds throughout the trial: "There is no way on earth [Esposito] flew out that driver's side window past Heather Specyalski."

The prosecution has asserted that Esposito was thrown out the driver's side window in the crash while Specyalski remained behind the wheel.

Holzberg instructed jurors to judge each witness' credibility, including witnesses who may have received payment for testifying for either the prosecution or the defense. A number of expert witnesses received money from lawyers involved in civil lawsuits that have been filed in connection with the crash.

Holzberg singled out former Associate State Medical Examiner Arkady Katsnelson, who testified under oath that he accepted $300 to provide advice to Esposito's family for their civil lawsuit against Specyalski. Katsnelson was suspended the day after his testimony and has since retired from state service.

Stern, Limbaugh, and others have commented on this case

I allege a $100,000 bribe was taken by Connecticut politicians in this post.
Posted by Vikingas on 04/29 at 08:45 AM
  1. This is a disturbing story, thanks for keeping us updated. How do you think the jury will decide?

    Posted by LQ on 04/29 at 10:07 AM #
  2. LQ,
    we are talking about Connecticut here, it all depends on the popularity contest going on behind the scenes not the actual evidence, too often.

    Posted by



    Steven G. Erickson on 04/29 at 03:13 PM #
  3. Johnnie ‘Freebie’ (Governor Rowland) and Cheney may be a liability for Bush in the upcoming election.

    Posted by



    Steven G. Erickson on 04/29 at 03:14 PM #


* * * *

January 06, 2005

How can there not STILL be corruption?





AS SHE BEGAN her State of the State speech Wednesday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, her voice quavering as she closed her eyes, thanked the legislature and state residents for their support during her recent cancer operation and recovery. �Your outpouring of kindness has meant more to me than you will ever know,� she said.
(SHANA SURECK)

Hartford Courant Piece

It has only been months since the former Connecticut Governor, John G. Rowland (post) resigned in disgrace, caught bilking taxpayers, making backroom deals, taking bribes in the form of �freebies�, and was the head of a system that can be an absolute hostile environment to work in if you have any ethics and wanted to speak out about the sleaze.

Call Governor Rell�s (post) office and some or all of the same Rowland aids answer the phones. What !!!???

These same aids probably stood by and enabled the years, the Rowland criminal empire operated, maintaining a wall of silence and retribution. The same system probably still exists. Those corrupt cogs (post) in the wheel, want to keep themselves and others from being punished for wrongdoing, and are still in positions of power.

There are too many Connecticut Blue Bloods that think the spoils of the State, including the ridiculous screwing taxpayers get, should line their and their crony�s pockets and nobody else�s.

Speak out about this Star Chamber of Sleaze involving the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branch and be investigated, arrested, possibly imprisoned, threatened, and absolutely minimized and ruined. Too many little people and not so little people have learned this lesson of the real world, over and over, in Connecticut.

If a Judge (post) can be targeted for harassment, investigations, and a downfall for speaking out about Connecticut State Police Corruption, and get taken down, with the investigations into Connecticut State Police Corruption getting squashed, THREE DECADES ago, and nothing has changed except, with computers and modern surveillance (Police Use of MATRIX), the State Police are much more efficient, ruining political rivals and citizens who get too �mouthy�.

Former Police Commissioner, Arthur L. Spada, seemed to condone, or at least accept, his former Chief of Staff�s (post, click on Senick) illegal behavior, fraud, and in accepting �freebies� as business as usual. What !!!???

Spada got away with demoting the highest-ranking Connecticut State Police Woman (post) out of his office, out of her position, and out of power, just because she is a woman. Minorities haven�t faired well, nor have homosexuals (post) in the ranks of the Connecticut State Police.

I intend to write the new Connecticut State Police Commissioner, Leonard C. Boyle (post), and ask him to investigate the corruption link between the former Gov. Rowland, high ranking police officials, including Spada, and to resolve the problems and the harassment citizens when lodging complaints to Internal Affairs, when officers will refuse to investigate their �friends�.

If Boyle cannot clean-up a State Police Organization plagued with corruption maybe federal statutes used to break-up the Mafia (post), can be used to dismantle the Connecticut State Police, taking them out of the general law enforcement for the state of Connecticut, making them responsible for just the roads and highways, and merely an aid to town and city police organizations.

As is, I think the Connecticut State Police System should be abolished (post). I don�t think judges should be able to barbecue those that try to have them fired or lodge complaints against them or other officials. Judiciary members need to be observed to see if they are following State and Federal Law, respecting the US Constitution, and acting in the Public�s best interest, not theirs and their friend�s.

Civilian Oversight is desperately needed for police and members of the judiciary, nationwide.

Elected Officials are mere puppets (post, an email to Bush asking if the American Justice System is a Sleazy Whorehouse) of the police and members of the judiciary, if elected officials have to ask permission to legislate from top law enforcement and judiciary officials through liaisons. Maybe the system under King George was more Democratic than living in a Police State, Connecticut.

Change is desperately needed. Change is needed now.

Thank you,

Steven G. Erickson
PO box 730
Enfield, CT 06083

Email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com

Other important links

Is Arthur L. Spada the kingpin of a crime syndicate, The Connecticut State Police?

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

The Stafford Springs and Connecticut System of Sleaze

* * * *

Does Leonard C. Boyle, the new police commissioner in Connecticut answer my accusations, line item? (post)

A story on Rell in the Journal Inquirer with my comments on it

Can cops rape, rob, beat, and murder with immunity?
(pictures of young adults brutalized by Hartford Police, a 1978 L-82 Corvette, and the White Victorian I lost to police and judicial corruption/misconduct)

* * * *

December 21, 2004

Pardon me, Governor

(an open email letter)

Dear Honorable Governor, Jodi M. Rell, staff, and to whom it may concern:

Going to a corrupt Governor, Governor Rowland, and his staff, may have led to my false arrest, imprisonment after being a crime victim on my own property, and my being forced out of Connecticut by authorities covering their tracks, so I didn�t spend more time in prison.

Governor Jodi M. Rell and staff, I feel I deserve a pardon and erasure of my criminal record, that I should not have, if their wasn’t a corrupt Governor and his minions in power. (More in “Read More” section)

Links to go with this post (click), scroll down

...

I was going to State Senator Anthony Gugielmo and the former State Representative Mordasky complaining about heroin, crack cocaine, and marijuana being used and sold on and around my property with the Connecticut State Police threatening and harassing me after I would call, name names, and demand something be done, and for writing about the situation in letters to the editor section in the Hartford Courant and Journal Inquirer.

I was informed that the former police commissioner of Connecticut, Arthur L. Spada, was informed and angered every time I called into the Governor�s office and liaisons informed him every time I proposed a law demanding police serve and protect all citizens, equally, and for having proposed Civilian Oversight of Police to elected officials.

The orders to harass and concoct something to arrest me, shut me up, and throw me in prison, I assume, came directly out of Spada�s office.

I have reasons to believe this, and circumstantial evidence, conflicting police reports, alleged perjury on the stand to get me Convicted, of Troopers, Amaral and Langlais, and a pattern of abuse that can be proven from the statements of elected officials and witnesses to the circle and circus of corruption in Connecticut, regarding my case.

Break-ins, vandalism, thefts, when I was threatened, and assaulted resulted in virtually no protection and service from police for me, nor others similarly up against it, as I was told I didn�t get service because I was a landlord and was stupid for investing in and fixing up rental property in a crime area, downtown Connecticut.

I was treated like a criminal by police and the courts and too many criminals got a free pass.
Complaining about this fact to the Governor�s office starting in 1998 probably led directly to my false arrest, false imprisonment, and being forced out of the state of Connecticut so that corrupt officials, could go on undeterred, quietly.

Rowland was investigated and it may or may not have something to do with my having gone to the various media, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, and the Attorney General.

It may have been the same type of outspokenness on my part that got the head of Connecticut State Police asked to resign.

I alleged that Connecticut Judge, Jonathan Kaplan, conspired with the head of the Connecticut State Police to railroad me to prison and teach me a lesson for having proposed laws to elected officials, speaking out in newspapers, and for having been a pain in the ass asking that police and the courts in Connecticut act as advertised, legally, and Constitutionally.

Judge Kaplan was allegedly the head judge of the Rockville district of Connecticut, he was allegedly booted down to part time family court. Does that have anything to do with my accusations, or that of others that have complained about corruption of the courts in Connecticut, and namely, Judge Jonathan Kaplan?

I was illegally arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, shut up, and thrown out of Connecticut losing my retirement, credit, pets, business, family, friends, home, possessions, health insurance, ability to earn money, crippled, and losing the sum total of my life for having complained about drug dealing, crime, and the police and courts fleecing the responsible, working, taxpaying downtown citizens, collecting revenue, with very little criminal correction.

Children grew up in a haze of drugs and alcohol, unabated.

Some died and some are going to be lifelong criminal parasites in and out of prison, a burden on taxpayers, instead of being productive. Policies and individuals are to blame for the misery, waste of funds and life, and in making a poor quality of life for too many Connecticut residents.

Officials and police are to blame for the deaths, lost youth, creating misery, and for lowering the quality of life for too many.

Because I cared and spoke out, should I have been severely punished, harassed, put in prison, and thrown out of Connecticut?

Governor Jodi M. Rell and/or staff please pardon me and see that my criminal record in erased.

Please also see that corruption and the remaining corrupt staff, business people, court personnel, and police officials that are remaining from the corrupt Rowland machine are removed, investigated, and punished accordingly.

I feel I would never have even been arrested and the social problems, dealt with, if Rowland and so many of his associates weren�t so dirty, corrupt, self-serving criminals bent on doing as they pleased.

Rowland and others were out to silence whistleblowers and those that could expose their illegal game.

Please pardon me, I have done nothing wrong and was an asset to my neighborhood, town, and the State of Connecticut.

Should someone who comes to invest in Connecticut, the Amercan Dream, gets active for the benefit of others, works hard, and looks to better him/herself, their families, and their neighbors, be treated as I was in Connecticut?

Please right a wrong for me personally, in the name of Justice, and for all of Connecticut and America.

Thank you,

Steven G. Erickson
PO Box 730
Enfield, CT 06083

P.S. I am posting this open email letter to you on the internet on FreeSpeech (dot) com on a December 21, 2004, post.

Links to go with this post (click), scroll down

* * * *

January 05, 2005

A Judge with Morals, a Target of a Corrupt State Police

Ex-Chief Justice Speziale Dies






Excerpts: Reilly’s exoneration touched off nearly a decade of bitter recrimination between members of the judiciary and senior figures in the Connecticut state police. Police persisted in asserting, despite contradictory evidence, that Reilly, then a skinny 18-year-old, slashed his mother’s throat and ran her over with a car at their home in Canaan in 1973. The case gave rise to two books and a television movie.

The grand juror’s report amounted to a scathing indictment of the state police investigation of Gibbons’ murder.

Detectives were accused of ignoring evidence that pointed away from Reilly.

“Justice Speziale showed great leadership and courage in his handling of the Peter Reilly case by setting aside the verdict,” long-time Hartford defense lawyer Hubert Santos said.

Said Austin J. McGuigan, a former prosecutor: “He did what he believed to be the right thing, regardless of the consequences.”

The consequences continued for years. MORE



* * * *

January 05, 2005

Is the Judiciary, as is, a threat to Freedom and America itself?

There is more and more disturbing behavior of judges coming to light., such as a judge masturbating and operating a penis pump (post) under his robe, in court.

I think judges and the heads of police, including each division of a State Police Force, should face election, to be answerable to taxpayers, to adequately protect and serve, and act in the public�s best interest, not in a State or City�s need for quick cash from mostly honest, hard working Americans.

It should be about criminal correction, not revenue collection, but sleaze abounds in our legal system.

Prosecutors, Judges, and members of American Law Enforcement should not be above the law themselves. They can refuse to investigate each other, can act in collusion to silence and punish whistleblowers, and when one among their ranks does get caught in the public eye, doing wrong, the punishment rarely fits the crime. (Post with links to my points)
-Steven G. Erickson aka Vikingas

Judge Jonathan Kaplan (post) of Connecticut needs to be removed in my opinion. I will be contacting legislators to vote on this issue. Find your legislator (here)

Is the Supreme Court For Sale?

Anatomy of the Downfall of the United States of America

Rehnquist Sees Threat to Judiciary
By David G. Savage, LA Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON � Ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said today that judges must be protected from political threats, including from conservative Republicans who maintain that “judicial activists” should be impeached and removed from office.

“The Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law: Judges are expected to administer the law fairly, without regard to public reaction,” the chief justice, whose future on the court is subject to wide speculation, said in his traditional year-end report on the federal courts.

The public, the press and politicians are certainly free to criticize judges, Rehnquist said, but politicians cross the line when they try to punish or impeach judges for decisions they do not agree with.

His comments come as the new Congress faces what many predict will be a contentious battle over President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench. And if Rehnquist’s health forces him to announce his retirement, there would be more partisan wrangling over his successor.

The 80-year-old chief justice has been absent from the Supreme Court since he disclosed in late October that he was being treated for thyroid cancer.

Since 2000, when Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, many conservative critics have focused their ire on “judicial activists” on the bench.

In his report, the chief justice did not name names, but instead spoke of his concern for the “mounting criticism of judges for engaging in what is often referred to as ‘judicial activism.’ “

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), for example, has repeatedly threatened to impeach liberal-leaning judges for their rulings, such as the ban on school-sponsored prayers.

“A judge’s judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment. Any other rule would destroy judicial independence,” Rehnquist said. “Instead of trying to apply the law fairly, regardless of public opinion, judges would be concerned about inflaming any group that might be able to muster the votes in Congress to impeach and convict them.”

As the chief justice of the United States, Rehnquist leads the federal judicial system as well as the Supreme Court. Since taking office in 1986, he often has used his year-end report to set forth his views on controversies affecting the judicial system. The controversy over political leanings of judges and their rulings is one of them.

And despite Rehnquist’s reputation for conservatism, he has been just as willing to fault Republicans as Democrats when their actions and ideas threaten the courts.

In the late 1990s, for example, he faulted Senate Republicans for blocking votes on the judicial nominees of President Clinton. More recently, he faulted Senate Democrats for blocking votes on Bush’s judicial nominees.

In both instances, he said the nominees deserved a hearing and an up-or-down vote.

DeLay has often criticized judges when he thinks they have overstepped their authority.

“Many of these judges begin to grow drunk on their own power. Why shouldn’t the people have a right to impeach these out-of-control judges?” DeLay said in one 1997 statement.

Last year, DeLay called for Congress to enact legislation that would remove certain issues, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

DeLay was reacting to the ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held that Congress’ inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance used daily in the nation’s schools amounted to an unconstitutional official endorsement of religion. The Supreme Court, though divided on its reasons, later set aside that ruling.

Although Rehnquist and DeLay may agree on the preferred outcome on these issues, the chief justice said the proper way to challenge a misguided ruling is to appeal it to a higher court.

“The appellate process provides a remedy” for those who believe a judge has erred, he said.

And over time, the public can change the courts, he said, by electing presidents and senators who reflect their views.

Rehnquist is fond of citing the example of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. In his first term, a conservative Supreme Court struck down many of Roosevelt’s New Deal laws. After winning a landslide reelection in 1936, Roosevelt struck back and proposed to change and expand the membership of the Supreme Court.

Although his “court packing” plan failed, Roosevelt succeeded nonetheless, Rehnquist noted.

“President Roosevelt lost this battle in Congress, but he eventually won the war to change the judicial philosophy of the Supreme Court. He won it the way our Constitution envisions such wars being won � by the gradual process of changing the federal judiciary through the appointment process,” he wrote.

During his second term, Roosevelt replaced five retiring conservative justices with New Deal liberals and transformed the high court for the next generation.

Though the 18-page report issued today includes passages that blandly recite statistics, much of it expresses the distinctive ideas and writing style of the chief justice.

An amateur historian, Rehnquist has written four books as chief justice, including “Grand Inquests,” a study of the impeachment trials of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1805 and of President Andrew Johnson in 1868.

He concluded that those failed impeachments strengthened the independence of both justices and presidents. Impeachment should not be used as a partisan and political weapon, he wrote, but instead should be reserved for instances of high-level corruption.

By coincidence, shortly after his book appeared, Rehnquist as chief justice was called upon to preside over the Senate impeachment trial of Clinton in 1999. At its conclusion, he announced Clinton’s acquittal on all the charges.

Rehnquist made only a brief reference to his illness in his year-end report.

“On a personal note, I also want to thank all of those who have sent their good wishes on my speedy recovery,” he wrote.

Court officials said he has continued to work at home. And to the surprise of some, he also has announced that he plans to give the oath of office to Bush at his second inauguration on Jan. 20.

The above found (here) on the web

Blogger’s Fair Use of Copyrighted Materials



* * * *

June 30, 2004

A penis pump, disturbing acts going on under a black robe, and the judge accused:

JUNE 24--While seated on the bench, an Oklahoma judge used a male enhancement pump, shaved and oiled his nether region, and pleasured himself, state officials charged yesterday in a petition to remove the jurist.

According to the below complaint filed by the Oklahoma Attorney General, Donald D. Thompson, 57, was caught in the act by a clerk, trial witnesses, and his longtime court reporter (these unsettling first-hand accounts will make you wonder what’s going on under other black robes).

Visitors to Thompson’s Creek County courtroom reported hearing a “swooshing” sound coming from the bench, a noise the court reporter said “sounded like a blood pressure cuff being pumped up.” Thompson, the complaint charges, even pumped himself up during an August 2003 murder trial.

Piece found (here)

* * * *

It sounds like Pee Wee Herman would make a good judge � -Steven G. Erickson (Vikingas)



* * * *

January 10, 2005

Have Morals, get transferred out




Superior Court Judge Carmen L. Lopez

Excerpt: Lopez’s supporters are wondering why a veteran child-protection judge hailed nationally for her ability to combine legal expertise with her professional interest in juvenile justice is no longer handling the state’s most serious family cases. Story

Those within the judicial and law enforcement system risk losing their jobs or being transferred out for exposing corruption, streamlining, and actually acting in the public�s best interest, not selfish interests and for revenue collection.

Citizens speaking out about corruption, poor policies, rogue officials, and being screwed over by law enforcement and/or in the courts face harassment, arrests, prison, and/or other retaliation.

I assume the rest of the country operates similar to the way Connecticut does, but hasn�t gone down as far a path of self-destruction and sleaze.

Both the Judiciary and Law Enforcement top brass are notified of any proposed legislation regarding law enforcement and the courts through liaisons, and these liaisons let elected officials know whether or not they have permission to legislate regarding the police or the courts. What!!!???

So, who is really in charge, and does it even resemble the ideals of a Democratic Republic?
-Steven G. Erickson aka Vikingas



* * * *

Click Here, to go to www.freespeech.com Blast 1 post

Click Here to go to www.freespeech.com Blast 3 post

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

any links in the above post referring to go back to www.freespeech.com do not go to the original posts.

Saturday, August 04, 2007 9:26:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


View My Stats