Thursday, August 7, 2008

Ask Sean Williams?



Sean Williams [webpage], a Connecticut State Representative on the Commerce Committee [webpage], says:
"Listening to our fellow citizens and responding to their concerns with common sense solutions to protect individual freedoms and provide a better quality of life for all of Connecticut."


Subject of email I sent to him: Connecticut's Reputation Harming Commerce?

I am posting this open email to you [here].

I read the quote under your picture in your webpage [here], and wanted to see if you are willing to back up your own words.

If Police in Connecticut act [like this], and members of the judiciary are [doing this], why should anyone move to, stay in, have a business in, retire in, raise a family in, own a home in, or even drive through Connecticut?

Are you willing to propose an official Commerce Committee hearing be held to discuss [this]?

Thank you,
Steven G. Erickson
stevengerickson@yahoo.com

The above to be sent to all members on the CT Commerce Committee:
LeBeau@senatedems.ct.gov, Jeffrey.Berger@cga.ct.gov, Crisco@senatedems.ct.gov,Linda.Gentile@cga.ct.gov,
Dan.Debicella@cga.ct.gov, John.Stripp@housegop.ct.gov,
Duff@senatedems.ct.gov,
Handley@senatedems.ct.gov,
Rob.Kane@cga.ct.gov,Robert.Russo@cga.ct.gov, Mike.Alberts@housegop.ct.gov,Joe.Aresimowicz@cga.ct.gov,
Vincent.Candelora@housegop.ct.gov, Shawn.Johnston@cga.ct.gov,
John.Mazurek@cga.ct.gov,
Joe.Mioli@cga.ct.gov,Russell.Morin@cga.ct.gov,
Brian.OConnor@cga.ct.gov,jason.perillo@housegop.ct.gov,
Kelvin.Roldan@cga.ct.gov,
William.Tong@cga.ct.gov,Sean.Williams@housegop.ct.gov

[click here] for Mary Ann Handley on Ethics, Trust, and Government

The Judicial Branch in Connecticut sealed public comment [like this] and gave themselves straight A's in a taxpayer paid hearing [like this], after rigging a survey [like this].

* * * *

Want to see more in this blog? [click here], scroll down

http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/


http://thesrv.blogspot.com/

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

* * * *

[click here] for:

Merits-relatedness and misconduct complaints

This is typical of an email that I receive everyday:

Re: Merits-relatedness and misconduct complaints‏
From: Barbara C. Johnson


Barbara C. Johnson is a former candidate for Massachusetts Governor [post]

* * * *

[click here] for:
Connecticut Constitution Convention Campaign
there needs to be work done on the Connecticut Constitution [website]

* * * *

Grand Juries and the need for them, explained:


Judge Arthur L. Spada, and former Connecticut State Police Commissioner, was "an only member" of the Connecticut's grand jury system. Citizens, such as myself, that want Spada investigated, might end up in jail, and Spada isn't investigated. Should officials that fear prosecution and who are known to retaliate against those that break ranks within the system, and that are known to target "mouthy" citizens be the ONLY checks and balances citizens and officials have when they try and complain about public corruption?

* * * *

[click here] for:

Subject: "Gay Bashing"



Connecticut Judiciary Committee, Co-chairs, Andrew J. McDonald and Michael P. Lawlor

The below text sent to: Mark.Dupuis@po.state.ct.us, Governor.Rell@ct.gov, MLawlor99@juno.com, McDonald@senatedems.ct.gov, Looney@senatedems.ct.gov

My email to them, subject: "Gay Bashing"

[click here] for more

keywords: homosexual rights Connecticut State Police Misconduct Prosecutorial Attorney Official Judge Judicial Judiciary committee legislator hearing brutality class action legal civil rights abuse rape sodomy ass masters child porno pornography sex video x-rated free pizza Connecticut restaurants vacation travel virgin naked nude stripper rash big brother patriot act domestic spying nsa drug war crack cocaine heroin prostitute Peter J. Coukos Frank Prochaska Mulcahey Amaral Longlois Micheal Langlois Colonel Davoren Barry Connecticut State Police Commissioner John A. Danaher III Arthur L. Spada Governor M. Jodi Rell John G. Rowland scandal corruption


* * * *

added August 11, 2008, 10:30 AM EST:

To the Connecticut Program Review and Investigations Committee:

To whom it may concern:

Should any Connecticut citizen be put on a "target list" if she or he is dating or married to if a police officer, judge, prosecutor, or powerful official want their perceived romantic rival out of the way? Should any Connecticut citizen be put on a "target list" if they refuse to date or break off a relationship with a police officer, prosecutors, judge, or powerful official? Should a citizen that proposes laws to elected officials or exposes public corruption, should that citizen end up on a "target list"?

A Stafford Officer seemed to be enamored by my former European lingerie model wife when I co-founded the Stafford Springs, CT, Crime Watch. Officer Prochaska told me that if I proposed laws regarding youth crimes to elected officials that I would be arrested and run out of Connecticut. A drug dealer knew I reported drug dealers to police so he beat me and bit into my ear, I bled down to my underwear. Peter Panciera fled the scene as I was dialing 911. His cocaine customers told police they didn't know who bit and beat me. I found the culprit for police. Officer Prochaska re-interviewed the drug customers, and they suddenly remembered him, contradicting their former statements saying only I attacked the cocaine dealer. I was facing prison for having been bitten and beaten left to bleed down to my underwear. Officer Prochaska arrested me.

I beat that rap as I had refused to get a lawyer and would have demanded the ape that attacked me, stand next to me in any proceeding and the 911 tape be played.

A Connecticut State Police Informant Barbara Sattel, had been assigned to target me by State Police after I divorced. She admitted that she had been offered $10,000 allegedly by Col. Thomas "The Duck" Davoren to set me up for a false arrest to keep me from proposing Civilian Oversight of Police and Connecticut court reform. Sattel told me that the orders to do me in came from the very top, which I assume is former Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada, who allegedly conspired with Judge Jonathan Kaplan to railroad me to prison. If you want evidence and more information, please contact me.

Trooper Langlois and Amaral committed perjury saying I never asked to make a complaint when I was attacked by their operative, Brian Caldwell, at the rigged trial. Review my trial transcripts to see what passes as "justice" in Connecticut.

I believe Arthur L. Spada was the only man on a one man Grand Jury that would have heard evidence against police, himself, the prosecutor, and judge Kaplan. Should a Grand Jury member be able to rig the only check and balance right of citizens? I have a proposal for a private attorney general and citizen run grand jury system, would you like to hear it?

Sattel broke down and confessed to me what she had been asked to do as she wanted a relationship with me. I broke the relationship off. She threatened me with losing my $500,000 in Connecticut real estate, losing my daughter, being kicked out of Connecticut, AND going to prison if I didn't continue to date her.

The scandal of the Green Party Campaign Manager for Connecticut Governor being arrested on sight for being on the Connecticut secret "Enemies List" proves the existence of the list.

Should citizens face a lifetime of harassment, imprisonment, and have their lives dismantled over personal vendettas and retaliation for exposing public corruption? Should political targets be put on terrorist and "no fly" lists?

Should State Police officers be able to rape and sexually assault women, underage girls, and former girlfriends and wifes terrorizing them into silence?

Should tax dollars be used to ruin the lives of taxpayers to take them offline and unable to own a home or get a job? Should tax dollars be used to break up families?

Will you call a special hearing to hear from victims and to hear proposals of solutions?

Please act for justice to restore American freedoms and the US Constitution to Connecticut.

-Steven G. Erickson

emailed to: Meyer@senatedems.ct.gov, Julia.Wasserman@housegop.ct.gov, Fonfara@senatedems.ct.gov, John.A.Kissel@cga.ct.gov, Mary.Mushinsky@cga.ct.gov,Anthony.Guglielmo@cga.ct.gov, Rob.Kane@cga.ct.gov,Maynard@senatedems.ct.gov,
MaryAnn.Carson@housegop.ct.gov,
Marilyn.Giuliano@housegop.ct.gov,mlawlor99@juno.com,
Brendan.Sharkey@cga.ct.gov

* * * *


Steven G. Erickson before being railroaded to prison for exposing public corruption in the Connecticut State Police and Courts.

To share this post, click on white envelope below

3 comments:

Kathleen M. Dickson said...

You simply have to contact the embassies of foreign nations, Steve. Corrupticut truly is hopeless.

Tell them not to do business with Americans.

Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org

Anonymous said...

Erickson, Dickson? Check your behavior

Anonymous said...

July 18, 2006
Feudal Connecticut Topples A Chief

Connecticut is essentially a feudal state. Although the state has counties, there is no county government. All 169 cities and towns guard their independence ferociously. So do the state's 13 regional state's attorneys. Yesterday, the prosecutorial lordlets toppled their chief. There must be glee in their gloaming castles today.

Chief State's Attorney Christopher Morano announced yesterday he would not seek appointment to a full term as chief. Why? Well, in part there was a revolt in the ranks. Eleven of thirteen of the state's regional state's attorneys wrote a letter to the commission that appoints prosecutors saying they had no confidence in Morano. The prosecutors never really said why. So take that, King Morano

Morano, a veteran state prosecutor, has been serving as either acting chief state's attorney or chief state's attorney since 2002, when his predecessor, John Bailey fell ill and then died. During that time he has been a visible and vocal leader of the state's prosecutors. His office's cold case squad solved some old homicides. Indeed, Morano co-chaired the prosecution of Michael Skakel for the Martha Moxley homicide. Morano has also been a steady presence in the state capitol. He has also sponosred a pilot program on electronic recording of confessions. And did I mention that his public integrity unit has been unsparing in its investigation of the governor's office?

So why give him the axe?

Under the state constitution, the thirteen regional prosecutors are independent. The chief cannot force them out, and the chief may not require them to do anything. If they do not want to be led, then, by golly, they won't be led. It is an inefficient and anachronistic system. Sort of like denying a governor the right to hire, fire and direct the work of commissioners of state agencies.

Morano's sin? He tried to act like a leader. He was visible. He took risks. He created new units with new mandates. Put another way, he stepped on some toes. Hence the opposition to him without even the courtesy of a bill of particulars.

In his place, the lordlets have selected from their ranks one of their own number. They now want him annointed shadow king. Sir Kevin Kane of New London is a quiet, hands-on prosecutor in his early 60s who will, most likely, implode due to boredom if he chooses to where run his office as a mere figurehead. That is assuming he views the new job as more than a pre-retirement sinecure designed to bolster a mediocre pension.

I say amend the state constitution. We don't need 13 minilords and a figurehead chief cluttering up the courts. Centralize control of the state's prosecutors: It will yield efficiency and savings.

In the meantime, give me a call if you are looking for work, Chris. Plenty of work here on the darkside. As you know, some of the state's prosecutors swing first and ask questions later.

Posted by NormPattis on July 18, 2006 | Permalink

Digg This | Save to del.icio.us
TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/88673/5462778

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feudal Connecticut Topples A Chief:
Comments

First, I will confess that I'm not Kevin King. Norm will understand the alias. I'm a senior-level Connecticut prosecutor not yet willing to abandon my future ambitions by attaching my real name to this comment. I freely, but with some shame, admit my cowardice. I don't have any stake in who is appointed the next Chief State's Attorney nor did I have any particular interest in seeing Chris Morano reappointed. I know, both socially and professionally, many of the individuals involved. I am writing because I am deeply troubled by the fashion in which this reappointment has been handled and my feelings are shared by almost all of the many other prosecutors with whom I've spoken. Unfortunately, the only comments being made are behind closed doors in our offices. It's time someone said in public what most of us are saying in private.

In my estimation, Chris Morano has been a fairly average Chief State's Attorney. He has not been extraordinary, but we've never had anyone you could call an extraordinary Chief State's Attorney. He has also not made any major blunders. Norm has pointed out some of his accomplishments, and although laudable, none can be considered truly significant. However, he has done a difficult job during a tumultuous period and been a fairly steady hand at the wheel. Unlike prior Chief State's Attorneys, Morano was a trial lawyer with extensive courtroom experience. He was generally respected for his understanding of the problems faced by trial prosecutors. If he were to get a letter grade for his performance, most prosecutors would give him between a C- and a B-.

So does an average job performance warrant reappointment? Who knows. The appointing authority in Connecticut, called the Criminal Justice Commission, is appointed by the Governor and has no formal standards beyond the statutory requirement that the appointee be admitted to the Connecticut bar for three years. It would seem that someone serving as Chief State's Attorney should be given an implicit presumption in favor of reappointment. At the very least, this sort of presumption would serve to encourage independent decision-making in politically charged cases, of which Connecticut has had its fair share as of late. Unfortunately, no such presumption operates in the reappointment process for the Chief. To the contrary, only one Chief has ever won reappointment to the job and the reappointment process is unusually and brutally political.

The concept of an implicit presumption of reappointment is not foreign to Connecticut. Just such an implicit presumption of reappointment seems to be applied to the reappointment of the individual State's Attorneys. They are generally reappointed as a matter of course and only one State's Attorney has failed to win reappointment since our current system was implemented in the mid-80's. This implicit presumption of reappointment is also applied to Connecticut's Judges who are reappointed by our legislature every eight years as a matter of course. It would seem to me that if we really seek a Chief State's Attorney who is willing to make hard decisions, he or she should receive the benefit of the same implicit presumption of reappointment.

In Morano's case, an eleventh hour letter signed by 11 of the 13 State’s Attorneys derailed his reappointment. The letter is shocking for both its harsh conclusions and its lack of any specifics to support them. Ultimately, it is little more than an ad hominem attack on Morano timed so as to preclude him from effectively responding. For instance, the State's Attorneys accuse Morano of engaging in conduct that "inappropriately vilifies" them in the media. They cite no example, and as someone who keeps a fairly close eye on news stories dealing with the Division of Criminal Justice, I don't think they can cite an example of Morano doing any such thing. It would seem to be an absurd allegation wholly unsupported by any reference to facts.

The effect of this letter was to short circuit the reappointment process and anoint a successor handpicked by the State's Attorneys. Although the individual they've collectively endorsed, New London State's Attorney Kevin Kane, is an honorable man and a fine prosecutor, this was not a fair process to Chris Morano, and more importantly, it was not a fair process to the people of Connecticut.

It is the view of many prosecutors that the eleven State's Attorneys signing this letter should be called upon both to provide specifics concerning the allegations in their letter and explain why these concerns were never before raised. If, as they claim in their letter, "the administration of justice" has suffered under Morano's leadership and the Division of Criminal Justice has declined as an agency, why haven't they taken affirmative steps to address it before now? If the Titanic really was sinking why did they wait to sound the alarm until the Captain was getting his performance evaluation?

Norm suggests abolishing the local State's Attorneys and establishing central control. That's a lousy idea. All we have to do is look at the Department of Justice to see how that system works. Federal prosecutors are completely subservient to Washington bureaucrats who neither understand nor care about local criminal justice issues. Connecticut's system is a generally sound one. Local State's Attorneys have the flexibility and the freedom to respond to specific needs within their communities. They also have the discretion required to ensure a non-mechanistic application of the criminal law. It is not the entire system that is flawed, but rather the reappointment process that needs revamping.

So how do we remedy the current situation? First, it will take quick action on the part of Justice Richard Palmer, the current Chairman of the Criminal Justice Commission. It is important that the Commission have the eleven State's Attorneys provide the actual facts upon which their conclusions are based. Have them explain why they've been silent until now. Morano should have been judged by his actions not their conclusions. Next, reopen the application process. The dynamic has changed since Morano has withdrawn and there will certainly be a number of additional, qualified applicants from within the Division who would apply. Reopening the application process will also let the State's Attorneys know that they won't be allowed to short-circuit the appointment process and select the next Chief themselves. The Criminal Justice Commission should also establish rules to prevent the future timing of similar letters. The Commission should require that written comments be received twenty days prior to the scheduled hearing to ensure that whoever is seeking the appointment has a meaningful chance to respond. Lastly, an implicit presumption of reappointment should be given to the Chief State's Attorney similar to that given to the individual State's Attorneys upon reappointment.

The letter sent by the eleven State's Attorneys has been widely perceived by prosecutors within the Division of Criminal Justice as unfair and inappropriate. Its tenor and timing is fundamentally inconsistent with our collective notions of due process and they appear to have succeeded in self-selecting the next Chief State's Attorney. The Criminal Justice Commission should act quickly to assert its independence and restore integrity to the selection process

Posted by: Kevin King | July 18, 2006 at 07:34 PM

Kevin King:

A much better take on the situation than mine. Thanks for writing.

Norm

Posted by: Norm Pattis | July 19, 2006 at 10:58 AM