Reasons

There are reasons the Connecticut State Police should not receive accreditation and be violated on probation and disbanded [click here]. The Connecticut State Police misconduct keeps reaching higher levels and new lows in how disgusting. It is way too prevalent and the Connecticut State Police need to be abolished.

The Connecticut Judicial Branch Vast Conspiracy

(This video is a little over 3 min)

Can CT Judges Commit Felonies without Fear?

(This video runs less than a minute) Christopher Kennedy asks the Connecticut Judicial Branch Public Service and Trust Commission about felonies allegedly committed within the Judicial Branch. Will the allegations be investigated or covered up?

The meeting took place at the Rocky Hill Marriot, 12-11-2007.

Court System / Courthouse Survey

Please be advised that you are only allowed one survey per computer.

1) The Connecticut Court system is delivering justice in a fair manner. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

2) The Connecticut Judicial Branch effectively communicates to Connecticut residents about court function. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

3) The Connecticut Judicial Branch effectively communicates to Connecticut residents about court process. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

4) Residents have equal access to justice in Connecticut. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

5) I was able to find the information I was looking for on the Judicial Branch’s website. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

6) The Judicial Branch’s website is easy to navigate. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

7) The Judicial Branch’s website is aesthetically pleasing. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

If you recently went to a courthouse, please answer the questions below: 8) Did you feel safe in the courthouse? Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

9) The court makes reasonable efforts to remove physical barriers. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

10) The court makes reasonable efforts to remove language barriers. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

11) I was treated with courtesy and respect. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

12) I was able to complete my court business in a reasonable amount of time. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

13) My overall experience at the courthouse today was satisfactory. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

14) My case was handled fairly. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither agree/disagree Agree Strongly Agree Don't know/not applicable

* * * *
* * * *

Judicial Propaganda meeting Held 12-11-07 at the Rocky Hill Connecticut Marriot

(This video runs 78 min) The Judicial Branch examined themselves and gave themselves good marks. What would happen if there was an outside, unbiased survey done of the Connecticut Courts?

The Connecticut Judicial Branch [website], a hostile work environment where officials committing felonies and defrauding taxpayers are protected by their own "Omerta"

(This video runs about 16 min) 12-6-2007, Judicial Branch employee Andrea Wilson and another Judicial Branch Employee expose the Judicial Branch for what it really is. The video was shot at the Bridgeport Superior Court by Steven G. Erickson. The 12-11-07 meeting of the Judicial Branch Public Service and Trust Commission didn't seem to come up when the Judicial Branch was cheer leading for itself 12-11-07 without the public being able to comment.

The 2nd responder at the public hearing 12-6-07 seems to suggest that juries are tampered with by judges.

Should judges be able to hire friends at high pay where they don't even have to show up to get paid? Isn't that defrauding taxpayers, a federal crime, a felony? Are judicial branch hard drives being erased and added to cover up official crimes and preserve outside control which corrupts "The Branch"?

[click here] for all of my videos on youtube.com

My email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com
To share this post, click on white envelope below.

Steven G. Erickson on Connecticut Court Ethics

(Video runs under 6 min) I testified at the Public Service and Trust Commission meeting Dec. 3, 2007, at the Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford.

I supplied this text to the committee at the time I testified. It took me about 5 minutes to type up in the Supreme Court Library in Hartford:

To Whom It May Concern: December 3, 2007

I and those like me that own rental properties, a small business, are a divorced father, or lodge complaints against a judge, prosecutor, or police officer know that the courts are not fair and do not run according to rules, the US Constitution, and there is no consistency of sentencing and treatment of citizens.

I proposed legislation to elected officials in my former town of Stafford
Springs, Connecticut, regarding making the courts more accessible and small business friendly. I proposed Civilian Oversight of Police.

I had tried to have Judge Jonathan Kaplan and Prosecutor Keith Courier removed for bias against landlords and the self-employed. I had a tenant move in without my permission. Prostitute Lana Thompson then went to see Courier in a very revealing dress as I couldn’t get police or the prosecutor to arrest or prosecute Thompson for squatting and damaging my property. Courier told me that I would be arrested and he would prosecute me if I brought any actions against Thompson. I did, I evicted her. I tried to have Kaplan removed over a civil case involving insurance fraud where upon I reported the fraud to Judge Kaplan, Haas vs. Erickson. I wrote Kaplan a very critical letter of his performance with the docket # on it.

I had Kaplan for more small claims cases and he would give me dirty looks as I believe he knew I was active in trying to have him removed. I was told by police, local and state, that I was kicked out of Connecticut for what I wrote in newspapers and for laws that I proposed to elected officials. I refused to leave and sell my home. I later attacked on my property by Brian Caldwell at night. He told me he would kill me if I did not turn over my wallet after beating me. I pepper sprayed him.

I was then arrested, and my assailant was not. Trooper Amaral and Langlois refused to take my complaint against my assailant and refused to get statements from witnesses, my tenants at the scene and then committed perjury at me trial, presided by Judge Jonathan Kaplan. Prosecutor Keith Courier refused to give me AR and told me to plead guilty and I would be sentenced to a year and half in prison with no previous record.

Kaplan told me that I was guilty and going to jail before my trial. I was sentenced to a year in prison, the highest fines, and strictest conditions, and 3 years probation for “overreacting” to being mugged. Kaplan, the police, and the prosecutor were aware that my life had been threatened while my assailant demanded money, and that he had not been arrested and had been given immunity to prosecute me.

This is blanket retaliation. How is anyone to have faith in the system if retaliation scenarios such as mine are allowed to go unpunished? I lost my credit, business, home, dog, and my family has disowned me all due to Kaplan’s misdeeds. Should a judge avoid prosecution and arrest for such evil deeds? I think the Judiciary should remedy my case.

Thank you,

Steven G. Erickson

Private attorney general

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A private attorney general is a private party in the United States who brings a lawsuit that is considered to be in the public interest, i.e. benefiting the general public and not just the plaintiff. The private attorney general is entitled to recover attorney's fees if he or she prevails. The purpose of this principle is to provide extra incentive to private citizens to pursue suits that may be of benefit to society at large. Examples of application Most civil rights statutes rely on private attorneys general for their enforcement. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400 (1968) - one of the earliest cases construing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "A public accommodations suit is thus private in form only. When a plaintiff brings an action . . . he cannot recover damages. If he obtains an injunction, he does so not for himself alone but also as a 'private attorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority." The United States Congress has also passed laws with "private attorney general" provisions that provide for the enforcement of laws prohibiting employment discrimination, police brutality, and water pollution. Under the Clean Water Act, for example, "any citizen" may bring suit against an individual or a company that is a source of water pollution. Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act The U.S. Congress codified the private attorney general principle into law with the enactment of Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Senate Report on this statute stated that The Senate Committee on the Judiciary wanted to level the playing field so that private citizens, who might have little or no money, could still serve as "private attorneys general" and afford to bring actions, even against state or local bodies, to enforce the civil rights laws. The Committee acknowledged that, "[i]f private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights, and if those who violate the Nation's fundamental laws are not to proceed with impunity, then citizens must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court." Where a plaintiff wins his or her lawsuit and is considered the "prevailing party," § 1988 acts to shift fees, including expert witness fees [at least in certain types of civil rights actions, under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, even if not in § 1983 actions], and to make those who acted as private attorneys general whole again, thus encouraging the enforcement of the civil rights laws. The Senate reported that it intended fee awards to be "adequate to attract competent counsel" to represent client with civil rights grievances. S. Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the act to provide for the payment of a "reasonable attorney's fee" based on the fair market value of the legal services.

Federal Justices incriminate themselves in a video that was not supposed to be leaked to the public. In this video, the "judges" refer to sovereigns who try to express their proper rights as terrorists liken unto racist white supremacist. Take note of their claims, for that is what they will say of you. Be advised!

* * * *
* * * *

[check out this website]

An example of what is on it:

December Filings for Congress
These are the documents Eddie wants you to see, as of today, Nov 28, and have ready for filing by Dec 10:

1. Cover (Nov-Dec. Filling)
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

a. in MicroSoft Word (COVER-Template.doc) (instruction example is below)

2. Affidavit (Nov-Dec. Filling)
CITIZEN’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REFORM
a. in MicroSoft Word (AFFIDAVIT-Template.doc) (instruction example is below)