Thursday, December 06, 2007

Steven G. Erickson with a Camera in a Courtroom

Are Connecticut Judges being bribed in cocaine to fix cases in chambers, Ex Parte? Are judges snorting cocaine when they are sentencing minority drug dealers to decades in prison? Are judges getting sexual favors to give female workers cushy jobs where they don't serve the public, "supervise", and are highly paid and under worked?

[click here] for continuation of above video

I brought a video camera to the Bridgeport, Connecticut, Superior Court where the Connecticut Judiciary was holding a special hearing on Ethics in Connecticut's Courts. Maybe they'll rethink letting me in any court with a camera.

Are court employees destroying judicial hard drives, tampering with evidence, altering official transcripts and files, and the owing of favors for giving out cushy, no work judicial positions with high pay?

The citizens are calling upon THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND TRUST COMMISSION to facilitate immediate testing for drugs of all Judges in Connecticut.

My email:

[click here] for all of my videos on

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL!!! I bet they were checking security when you walked in!!!

Friday, December 07, 2007 10:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Judge Harrigan is rumored to have knocked up his much younger secretary. I wonder if he got shafted in his divorce, the same as he has down to most divorced men. Judges in Connecticut think that they are gods. They think they can use taxpayer dollars to pay for their whores. It is a federal crime and these judges need to be hauled away in handcuffs for stealing from taxpayers.

Are we supposed to pay for their golf games, vacations, half work week, expensive cars, AND their whores?

Friday, December 07, 2007 11:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The cops in Connecticut can get paid for overtime not worked. That should be prosecuted as a felony. The judges and their crew usually outrank police, so if police can do it and nothing happens, nothing is going to happen to anyone in the Judicial Branch.

It has been going on before Connecticut was even a state. These people do what they want and if you get in their way, they will go medieval on you.

Politicians and their friends take what they want, do what they want, and do to whomever they want. It is just reality.

Nothing is going to change.

Monday, December 10, 2007 10:28:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Subject: Mark Adams Hearing on Tuesday 12/11 @ 10:00 AM
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 21:46:08 -0500

I have a hearing before Chief Judge Paul Glenn on Tuesday, 12/11 at 10:00 AM. It concerns motions filed by the Battaglia firm whose members claim to be able to improperly influence members of the judiciary.

Judge Glenn has improperly entered orders in their favor on an ex parte basis and found that expired summons which were served on me over 4 months after they were issued are just fine to confer jurisdiction. The Battaglia scum are trying to enforce the sanctions judgment that they got Judge Crockett Farnell to issue even though he had approved my withdrawal without any reservation of jurisdiction months before the Battaglia firm ever moved for sanctions.

I am moving to have the hearing video taped. I could certainly use some witnesses. Please pass this along, and let me know if you can make it. Also, if you are interested, I will send you a copy of my motion to allow video coverage of this hearing.


Mark A. Adams JD/MBA

For information about my experience with the corrupt Florida judiciary, see

Florida Bar v Adams Website:

Rule of Law has the background of my story at:

Tulane Link has a good overview of my story at:

Fintan Dunne’s interview of Mark Adams on

Monday, December 10, 2007 7:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 11:06:31 -0600
Subject: [AMOJ_MAIN] Law of the Land

I am anticipating the passing of HR 1955, The "Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." One of the provisions of the
bill in its current form is that Committees will be formed to hear civil
liberties concerns, from different groups.

Over the years I have accumulated a lot of data, and material relevant to
what this committee may address, should this bill be enacted. A lot
of this data went to other Congressional Committees, and has the Libertarian
Party of Oklahoma name on it.

One, I submitted a study to the Congressional Committee on Militias, and
have a letter from the Committee Chairman which confirms they accepted my
material as 'evidence.' This was after the OKC bombing. There is a book
called, ''Terrorists Among Us," by Snow, which documents almost every
contact BOAP, made with Militias, Patriots, etc., and calls people like J.J.
Johnson, 'dangerous.'

Another study I did that was sent to the Attorney General's office, and
A.G. of Texas was the 'Republic of Texas,' chronology. I documented the
whole Republic of Texas, incident over a two week period, and concluded that the
body of the organization didn't have anything to do with the Ft. Davis
incidents. The material also showed that the R.T. was not a militia, or violent
organization at all. I actually met the organization and gave a BOAP lecture to
them in Dallas.

In preparation for any Committees that may come from the passing of the HR
1955 bill, I have written an essay which can be used to define, Law of the Land
rights, by a standard which would be hard to deny. By combining the
Constitutional provision with 'stare decisis' case law, for each of the
following, I establish these rights as "Law of the Land" rights.

1. Protection from laws that plunder life, liberty, and
property, both individual and collective.

2. The right to security in your home, family, and
3. The right of free speech, and free expression.

4. The right to be free from unreasonable searches.
The safety net of judicial warrant requirements, and habeas corpus.
The right of free assembly, and association.

7. The right to a trial by a jury of your peers in a system of due
8. Reasonable bail and recourse for false arrest, and the
right to redress grievances.

9. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

10. The right to own private property over the right of the
'government' to 'steal' it.

At this point I have about 15 pages, which document the Constitutional
provisions, and I have case law relevant to the Const. provision. I need
more cases to reinforce some of the "Law of the Land'' rights I can 'prove'
Congress has an obligation to protect for American citizens. Please
examine number 1. as to how I show the "Law of the Land" standard....

1. Protection from laws that plunder life, liberty, and

Constitutional, and Legislative Statutes, Case

Article One, Section, Nine, and Ten of the United States Constitution
states that "No Bill of Attainder, or Ex-Post Facto Law" shall be
passed. Under the United States Code, Article One, Sections Nine,
Clause Three.

The United States Code, Article One, Section Nine provides the legal cases
and establishes the following declarative judgments. These are the cases of
stare decisis for bills of attainder, used to define the term in the United
States Code.

U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 448-49 (1956), ''What are known at
common law as bills of pains and penalties, are outlawed by the ''bill of
attainder'' clause.''

Communist Party of U.S. v. Subversive Activities Control Board, (1961).
''The singling out of an individual for legislatively prescribed punishment
constitutes a bill of attainder whether the individual is called by name or
described in terms of conduct which because of its past conduct operates
only as a designation of particular persons.''

U.S. v. Lovett, (1946). Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that
apply to either named individuals or easily ascertainable members of a
group in such a way as to inflict punishment without a judicial trial, are bills
of attainder under this clause.

Cummings v. Missouri (1867), states, "A bill of attainder, is a
legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes
any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a
particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the
legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment." (Cited in
the United States Code, as defining cases, Art. 1 Se.9, U. S. C.)

Re: Yung See Hee, 36 F. 437, (1888) Supports that the doctrine of
pains and penalties as punishment without trial, is inclusive as a bill of

The following is a list of cases that may also be used as case law sources
in bill of attainder actions.

See; Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 468-84,
(1977) This case reveals the use of eminent domain, when the Supreme Court
ruled that Nixon had the right ownership of papers that were confiscated
from his belongings. See also; McFarland v. American Sugar refining Co.,
241, U.S. 79, 85-86, (1915) Note: This case deals with 'pains and
penalties' as bills of attainder.) Losier v. Sherman, 157 Kan 153,138 p 2nd 272,
273. State v. Graves, 352 Mo. 1102, 182 S.W. 2nd 46, 54. United States v.
Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 315-16, (1946). Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163
(1996) Note: This is an asset forfeiture case where the accused lost the
family car when the husband was caught soliciting a prostitute. Ex Parte
Garland, 71 U.S. 333, 374 (1867). FORETICH v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, OFFICE
OF THE MAYOR (12/16/03 - No. 02-5224) Congress violated the constitutional
prohibition against bills of attainder by singling out plaintiff for legislative
punishment. In enacting the Elizabeth Morgan Act, Congress determined that
plaintiff is a criminal child abuser and singled him out for punishment on that
basis, targeting him for application of the Act's unique child custody standard.
Pierce v. Carskaden, 83 U.S. 234, 239, (1877).

Law of the Land:

The "Law of the Land" in the case of laws that plunder life, liberty, and
property would suggest that a 'Bill of Attainder' is a law or legal device that
outlaws people, suspends their civil liberties, confiscates their property,
punishes or puts them to death without a trial." (Saunders) The passing of asset
forfeiture laws, and other laws that plunder life, liberty and property, can be
seen as a breach of the Ninth Amendment, ''The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'' Before
the ruling of the Court in Calero-Toledo, asset forfeiture did not exist in its
current form.


For some of the other 'rights' on the list I do not have the case law I
would like to have. I don't have any trouble showing what a bill of
attainder is, or that any Congressmen on any Committees don't have a clue
as to their obligation to protect us from them.

I have an agenda for the passing of this bill, and should not have much
trouble entering material as evidence to any future Committees reviewing civil
liberties concerns. I would suggest that AMOJ, is very capable of
presenting evidence to this Committee on Judicial matters.

If any cases come to mind, I would appreciate knowing them, and if you
would like to have a copy of my work just E-mail me.

Tom Saunders

Monday, December 10, 2007 11:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, Steven Erikson and fellow balls-out realist rights CT men of action. Amazing. How ever did you get approved for videothe taping? Thanks for enlightening us. Every meeting we pay for deserves to be seen by the taxpayers and public.

Saturday, March 02, 2013 10:14:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats