Should Blumenthal be arrested and removed as CT Atty Gen?

Blumenthal settlement draws group's ire

BY JOHN O'BRIEN

HARTFORD, Conn. -- According to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the "pay-to-play" principle of business extends beyond the insurance companies against which he has so actively litigated.

The leader of an antitrust research and education center, however, says it's just another case of attorneys general inappropriately wielding the power of federal antitrust laws.

Blumenthal settled Thursday with Healthcare Research and Development Institute, which will pay the state $150,000 and disband its group of health care industry vendors and chief executives from the nation's premier hospitals and health care institutions.

Blumenthal, known for his role in leading investigations into bid-rigging by insurance companies and recently named the worst state attorney general in recent history by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said that HRDI was charging vendors $40,000 for a membership, "enabling them direct access to the hospital CEOs who wielded immense purchasing power."

HRDI will now dissolve its organization under terms of the settlement and create a new one that excludes vendors or their representatives.

"HRDI is history," Blumenthal said. "It is replaced by an organization that returns to its fine roots and goals of improving health care. The new network will have a drastically different dynamic and culture, as well as formal structure."

Skip Oliva, president and founder of the Voluntary Trade Council, said that Blumenthal's behavior has been improper.

"The federal antitrust law gives people like him the additional power to wave his stick around," he said.

"I thought Blumenthal's conduct was particularly outrageous, given that if you actually read the text of the voluntary assurance -- and that's a real B.S. phrase by the way --- there's no finding of guilt or liability. It's very clear that (HRDI) just wanted (Blumenthal) to go away.

"And then you read the press release, and Blumenthal makes it very clear that he thinks they violated the law."

No papers were actually filed in court, and the voluntary assurance does not provide that Blumenthal will not later attack the group's successor, Oliva said.

"There are a lot of lines saying Blumenthal can take this thing and turn it around and go after them if he wants because he's not happy with their compliance. It's a very one-sided agreement," Oliva said. "The successor to HRDI and the individuals have nothing to go on but Blumenthal's word that he will not prosecute, when we've already seen him issue a press release saying that they're guilty."

In his release, Blumenthal said the settlement "shatters an anticompetitive secret society -- an elite and exclusive club -- of premiere hospital executives and select health care supply businesses."

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum joined Blumenthal in the agreement. Florida is HRDI's home state.

Oliva, who says he is not a lawyer by trade but has worked for years analyzing antitrust policies, claims it is business-as-usual for the attorneys general.

"I think that the general problem -- and it's certainly not specific to Blumenthal -- is the whole notion of prosecutors commencing investigations, forcing the targets of investigations to shell out legal costs just to comply with documents and other processing fees," Oliva said.

"Then when there is no finding of guilt and the target signs the settlement to obviously avoid the costs of trial, then the attorney general turns around and issues a press release saying they violated the law.

"A lot of the AGs engage in that sort of practice, as well. Blumenthal is one of the more publicly obnoxious people."

The above [found here]

* * * *

More on Blumenthal [here]

* * * *

[click here] for pictures and post on a Manchester Connecticut prostitution sting

* * * *

[click here] for:

HPD Officer Robert Lawlor, "The Teflon Badge"

The "Teflon Badge", Hartford Connecticut Police Officer, Robert Lawlor

Email sent to:

staffordtownhall@staffordct.org, attorney.general@po.state.ct.us, sgtduncan@staffordct.org, news@journalinquirer.com, Anthony.Guglielmo@cga.ct.gov

Subject: international panel on injustice

To whom it may concern:

[This video] is being passed around to US Senators and Reps, to international advocates to address injustice, and elected officials in Connecticut.

To see how Stafford Springs Connecticut's reputation is being spread all over the US and abroad, do a google search on "Peter Coukos"

Public Corruption costs us all

no matter where we live in the US.

[click here] for a post on the Connecticut Attorney General

* * * *

Are campaign contributors buying justice?

Sunday, September 21, 2008

By Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

For 10 years, Hugh Caperton, a financially debilitated coal producer from southern West Virginia, and the Pittsburgh attorneys who represent him have waged a courtroom war against Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, one of West Virginia's most powerful businessmen.

Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship, one of West Virginia's most powerful businessmen.

---

Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard recused himself after damaging pictures of him and Mr. Blankenship on a 2006 Mediterranean vacation were filed with the court.

---

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals Justice Brent Benjamin cast the decisive vote against Mr. Caperton's business.

---

Their next battle could be fought in the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Caperton claims he was denied a fair hearing in West Virginia's highest court, which he says was under the influence of Mr. Blankenship.

"Personally and professionally, it's pretty well ruined me," says Mr. Caperton, a cousin of former West Virginia Gov. Gaston Caperton. "To go through that battle for 10 years and to lose on a 3-2 decision in a certain Supreme Court that in my opinion obviously had an agenda is dispiriting and disgusting."

Before the dispute started, Mr. Caperton was the owner of Harman Development Corp., whose 150 workers produced 800,000 tons of coal annually.

"Today, that operation is in shambles. It's gone," he says.

Since suing a Massey affiliate in 1998, Mr. Caperton has divided his time between trying to put his business back on its feet and pursuing Mr. Blankenship. The Daniels, W.Va. resident has survived a bout with kidney cancer and, in December, a fall that broke bones in his back and foot.

"There's a tremendous amount of pressure and tension in what we've done," said Mr. Caperton, who gives his age as "an old 53."

The constitutional issue Mr. Caperton wants the court to hear -- whether the integrity of the nation's courts is threatened by campaign contributions to judicial candidates -- transcends his problems.

Reformers backing his appeal say money is jeopardizing justice in many more places than West Virginia. They want the high court to issue clearer guidance on what circumstances require elected judges to disqualify themselves from hearing cases that involve contributors to their campaigns.

"Where outsized judicial contributions ... create the perception that legal outcomes can be purchased, economic actors will lose confidence in the judicial system, markets will operate less efficiently and American enterprise will suffer," lawyers for the Committee for Economic Development wrote in a brief supporting Mr. Caperton's request for a hearing.

Enormous sums

The business group is not the only party concerned by the increasing sums being contributed to judicial candidates. Nationwide, state supreme court candidates raised over $165 million between 1999 and 2007 compared to $62 million over the previous six years according to the Justice at Stake Campaign.

The Washington, D.C. coalition of judicial reform groups ranked Pennsylvania fifth, with contributions totalling $13.4 million compared to $36.4 million in No. 1 Alabama.

"The court has to be concerned with things like this," says Duquesne University law professor Ken Gormley. "If they [the Supreme Court] are going to face this issue seriously ... [the Caperton case] seems like a very attractive case to do it."

Mr. Caperton's complaint involves $3 million in campaign contributions made by Mr. Blankenship and the candidate who benefited from them: Charleston attorney Brent Benjamin, who won a seat on West Virginia's Supreme Court of Appeals in 2004.

Nearly $2.5 million of Mr. Blankenship's money went to "And For The Sake Of The Kids," an organization that wanted to oust incumbent Justice Warren McGraw, saying his decisions were soft on crime and hurt the state's business climate. Mr. Blankenship also spent more than $500,000 on newspaper and television advertisements and other activities directly supporting Mr. Benjamin.

Three years after the election, the W.Va. Supreme Court overturned a 2002 lower court decision that ordered a Massey affiliate to pay $50 million in damages for fraudulently interfering with Mr. Caperton's business. Justice Benjamin cast the decisive vote in the 3-2 decision, announced in November.

Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard recused himself while the court was considering rehearing the case, after damaging pictures of him and Mr. Blankenship on a 2006 Mediterranean vacation were filed with the court in January. So did Justice Larry Starcher, who had publicly criticized Mr. Blankenship's campaign contributions. After Justice Benjamin appointed two justices to take their place, the case was reheard, with Massey winning by the same 3-2 margin.

Along the way, Justice Benjamin denied three requests to disqualify himself. The requests were made by Mr. Caperton's attorneys, David Fawcett of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney and Reed Smith's Bruce Stanley.

Justice Benjamin's refusal to recuse himself in light of Mr. Blankenship's contributions "created a constitutionally intolerable appearance of bias," the attorneys wrote in a July 2 petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Long, costly battle

Mr. Fawcett says Mr. Blankenship typifies "everything that is wrong with Corporate America today."

Mr. Fawcett, 50, is the son of a former president of the Allegheny County and Pennsylvania bar associations. He was a public high school teacher before earning his law degree from the University of Pittsburgh. As a Republican member of the Allegheny County Council, the Oakmont resident cast the deciding vote approving the controversial 10 percent drink tax.

Mr. Stanley, 48, filed the pictures of the justice and Mr. Blankenship with the court. He is a former journalist from Mingo County, W.Va., the same coal mining area that produced Mr. Blankenship and Chief Justice Maynard. He left journalism to study law at West Virginia University, where he was editor of the school's law review.

Mr. Caperton's opponent is not one to shy away from a fight. Mr. Blankenship organized enough opposition to defeat West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin's 2005 pension bond referendum and sued the Democrat, claiming his coal companies were singled out by state regulators because of his political activities. Mr. Blankenship is also suing the West Virginia Supreme Court over the way justices decide whether to disqualify themselves.

"It's been a great challenge to stand up to a company willing to devote enormous resources to derail or delay justice," says Mr. Fawcett, adding that witnesses testified Mr. Blankenship warned Mr. Caperton not to sue Massey because the company would drag the case out for years.

Mr. Fawcett also sued Massey on behalf of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corp., which accused Massey of violating terms of a coal supply contract. The steelmaker, now owned by Russian producer Severstal, was awarded a $240 million verdict in July 2007. West Virginia's supreme court declined to hear Massey's appeal, an action the coal producer is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The fight against Massey has been a big chunk of my time, a lot more than I expected the first day I met Hugh Caperton back in 1998," Mr. Fawcett says.

Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Stanley have enlisted powerful allies to overcome the long odds of getting their case before the U.S. Supreme Court by hiring former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson as their lead counsel. Mr. Olson's Supreme Court credentials include representing George W. Bush in the contested 2000 presidential election and a 1986 case that provided the last major ruling on the recusal issue.

That case involved an Alabama judge who reviewed a decision against an insurance company while he was pursuing a similar claim against the same insurer. The court ruled judges must disqualify themselves if they have a personal interest in the outcome of a case.

Grounds for recusal

Forty-seven states, including Pennsylvania and West Virginia, require judges to recuse themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Interpretations of the guideline vary. Some, including Justice Benjamin, believe a judge should be disqualified only when there is evidence of bias.

"Disqualification of a publicly elected judge is appropriate when the motion is supported by a factual basis," Justice Benjamin wrote in denying one of Mr. Caperton's recusal motions.

In a brief asking the Supreme Court not to take up Mr. Caperton's appeal, Massey's attorneys stated that Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Stanley did not allege that Justice Benjamin was biased, "which is required to trigger recusal under due process." Justice Benjamin had no financial interest in the outcome of Mr. Caperton's case so he was not required to disqualify himself, they argued.

Chief Justice Maynard said he would have been fair and impartial. However, he recused himself from Massey cases because "the mere appearance of impropriety, regardless of whether it is supported by fact, can compromise the public confidence in the courts."

Studies analyzing whether campaign contributions taint a judge's impartiality have produced mixed results, according to Malia Reddick of the American Judicature Society, a judicial reform group in Des Moines, Iowa.

"But it doesn't matter whether you can establish that methodologically or not. It's the perception that's going to be there and that's what matters," Ms. Reddick says.

There's also the issue of what amount of contributions should trigger disqualification. Legal scholars say there can be no strict standard because the costs of running a campaign vary from state to state. The $3 million Mr. Blankenship spent in West Virginia would not have had the same influence if others had contributed more to the race or if the campaign had been waged in a larger state, they say.

There's no way to tell if the Supreme Court will agree to hear Mr. Caperton's case. Last year, it refused an appeal involving campaign contributions thatindividuals and organizations associated with State Farm Insurance made to an Illinois supreme court justice in 2004. The next year, that justice cast the deciding vote when the court threw out $456 million of a more than $1 billion verdict against the insurance company.

That case involved many contributors who accounted for a smaller percentage of overall contributions, while Mr. Caperton's case involves one executive who provided more than half of the money used to elect a judge.

"That's why this is a good clean case," Mr. Fawcett says. "As soon as people start to think there's a possibility justices can be affected by campaign contributions, quickly you're at a point where the pillars of the system can collapse."

Shortly after the Supreme Court returns to work next month, Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Stanley expect to hear whether justices will consider Mr. Caperton's case, which began Aug. 5, 1997 when a Massey affiliate started a chain of events that Mr. Caperton alleges resulted in the bankruptcy of Harman Development.

Five days later, Mr. Caperton's daughter was born. She is now 11 and in the sixth grade, proof that the wheels of justice can turn slowly.

"It's been a long journey and a long ordeal, but we're still fighting," says Mr. Caperton. "I'll continue to fight for what is right for as long as it takes."

Len Boselovic can be reached at lboselovic@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1941.

First published on September 21, 2008 at 12:00 am

CT Divorced Men.com

http://www.ctdivorcedmen.com/

* * * *

[click here] for the "Scourge of Lying Lawyers"

From Rick Green's CT Confidential blog:

Gov. Rell Should Stand up for Julie Amero

By

Rick Green

on September 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If Gov. Rell is so willing to jump into the the business of our superior courts, why can't she speak out on a case that really matters? I'm talking about Julie Amero, the Norwich teacher who was falsely charged and convicted after she was unable to stop pornographic images from appearing on her classroom computer.

Instead of speaking out on a real injustice, Gov. Rell last week was busy demanding that the court send a convicted rapist back to court for violating his probation. The problem was, David Pollitt had not violated his probation.

We know that Julie Amero was convicted based on erroneous, and quite possibly false, testimony. Why isn't the governor saying anything? Maybe she doesn't want to admit that the schools, police and courts were all wrong.

Categories:

• Julie Amero

Tags:

• Jodi Rell,
• Julie Amero

Email this • Add to Mixx! • Stumble It! • Technorati Links • Save to del.icio.us • Digg This! • Share on Facebook • Discuss on Newsvine • Submit to Reddit

2 Comments

By Steven G. Erickson on September 16, 2008 8:39 AM

I agree Rick.

But, if Rell does something for one person admitting the courts and the whole "process" is majorly flawed, Pandora's Box would be opened.

All those that have been wrongly accused, falsely arrested, and wronged in Connecticut meat grinder turnstile courts would also want their cases reviewed and fixed.

The problem is just too great to be fixed internally. Judicial whistle blowers have their complaints and accusations hidden from the public and then they are retaliated against.

The Judiciary Committee Legislators are supposed to be the gate keepers. If about 2/3 are lawyers whose side are they really on?:
http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/2008/09/scourge-of-lying-lawyers.html

By Rick Green on September 16, 2008 8:52 AM

The problem is that in Julie Amero's case, the entire process was flawed. Somebody has to speak up.

* * * *
* * * *

[click here] for Steven G. Erickson's past post on Julie Amero

What about Julie?

http://blog.state-v-amero.com/

The Scourge of Lying Lawyers

The above video highlights Connecticut Representative Michael Lawlor and Stafford Springs/Ellington area Attorney Michael H. Agranoff the self proclaimed "DCF Specialist"

[click here] for explanation and details for above video

* * * *
* * * *

Connecticut Judiciary Committee Legislator Michael P. Lawlor inaccuracies:



Click on document for a larger view. I contacted Congressman Shays' office regarding the public corruption in the Connecticut Judicial Branch, courts, and Connecticut State Police.

Here are my points regarding the above letter:

I have brought NO legal action. I have not been to a Connecticut court on ANY matter since the criminal railroad job by Judge Kaplan in Rockville.

I have complained and have got NO RESPONSE back regarding any complaints made.

The Statewide Grievance Committee refused to schedule a hearing even though Atty Michael H. Agranoff did not give me my legal file, did not file a reason or appeal my case, could not explain financial discrepancies, and could not produce or find paperwork INCLUDING the attorney/client agreement where he ASKED ME for a copy of mine as he had lost his! Tell me the lawyer overseeing lawyers in Connecticut is fair!

I complained about Judge Jonathan Kaplan to the Judicial Review Council. They refused to investigate. Tell me judges judging judges is fair!

Atty Gen Blumenthal's Office refused to answer Congressman Simmons letters and calls asking Blumenthal to just read my trial transcripts. Tell me the Attorney General serves the people before his law partners, friends, and others in offices with something to hide!

The Connecticut State Police Internal Affairs Officer, LT Wack refused to take my complaint against his "Friends". Tell me police can police police!

* * * *
* * * *

Operation SoRoarFul

RSOL - The Why

Posted in Child Exploitation, Pedophilia, Schemes and Scams by Boycott Amazon on September 8th, 2008

How a prominent Ware attorney preyed on troubled boys - and why some people in town continue to stand by him.

Joel Pentlarge was a pillar of the community. A lawyer by trade, he built himself a reputation as a civic missionary, donating hour upon hour to Ware’s governmental boards, first as a selectman, then on the conservation commission, where he fought to protect the old mill town’s fragile wetlands and foothills.

Social activism came second nature to Pentlarge, a sign of his pedigree in an affluent New England family. His mother, the late Frances “Effie” Eaton Pentlarge, taught by example: An esteemed member of Maine’s politically progressive circles, Effie Pentlarge crusaded for social justice. In the early- to mid-1990s she helped revive a decades-old political movement to extend civil rights to gay and lesbian Mainers and co-founded Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays in Maine to build bridges between gay and straight people.

Effie Pentlarge’s oldest son also professed a deep concern for social justice. Joel Pentlarge directed his altruism toward down-and-out children and families. The primary beneficiary of the lawyer’s largess was Valley Human Services, a not-for-profit social services agency in Ware that provides a range of support services, including sexual abuse counseling, to low-income clients. Pentlarge not only offered pro bono legal work to the $1.8 million-a-year state-funded agency, he also served on its board for 18 years. He was one of VHS’s most loyal champions and benefactors.

On the side, he took a special interest in young street toughs, boys who had trouble with the law or at school and, quite often, with their families. He employed them as handymen at his various rental properties in town. But more than that, he took them under his wing.

Sure, there were whispers: What did Pentlarge really want with these troubled boys? He was an out gay man, out and proud. When accusations of child molestation surfaced in the mid-1980s, Pentlarge and his friends deflected them by crying prejudice and homophobia. Well-meaning people were intimidated by the insinuation that questioning Pentlarge’s motives was an act of bigotry, that it fed into a detestable stereotype that suggests gays are pedophiles at heart.

But the whispers persisted. By the early 1990s, the volume grew loud enough to reach the ears of the state police. And then, investigators say, the boys themselves balked. They agreed to tell their stories, but hesitated to testify — out of fear and shame and, perhaps, admiration. Or even love.

“He raised children to a level of understanding and respect that all kids want,” said Assistant District Attorney Alex Nappan, who prosecuted Pentlarge last summer on five counts of child rape, sex crimes that began in 1985 and ended in 1998 just before a grand jury returned the first of five indictments against Pentlarge.

[more from source]

* * * *

Prisons as birth control and the downside of having a huge percentage of a nation's males run through prisons:

Robert Amsterdam
Perspectives on global politics and business

RG: One Quarter of Russian Males Pass Through Prison

Rossiyskaya gazeta is the official organ of the government of the Russian Federation, so you can safely assume that anything printed in it represents the official party line. Below we offer our exclusive translation of a recent opinion piece, in which a retired senior Russian Supreme Court judge discusses the social ramifications of the fact that one quarter of Russian males have been through the prison system, and offers solutions that sound suspiciously liberal, although he quickly backtracks and insists that they are actually quite the opposite. Our translator has intentionally tried to preserve the heavy-handed Soviet linguistic style of the original. Of particular interest is the introduction, which may very well have been added recently, after the rest of the article was written, since it reeks so heavily of the current party line. What are the most important reasons why a large number of prisoners and ex-cons is bad for the "social structure" of the motherland? The surprising answer is that lots of prisoners mean a lower birthrate, since people are prevented from reproducing while behind bars, while persons with criminal records are prohibited from serving in the Russian military, so the more ex-cons you've got, the smaller your pool of cannon fodder for your latest expansionist adventure. Josef Stalin didn't have such qualms - he simply sent zeks straight to the front during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). [More from source]

* * * *

From the "Grits for Breakfast" blog, will a man be executed after obvious judicial and prosecutorial misconduct? [more]

* * * *
* * * *

Standing up to the "Judencia", The Attorney Mafia

One of the alleged Connecticut Kingpins of the Judencia, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

Attorney General Blumenthal and other co-conspirators are allegedly using your tax dollars to high jack the people's voice, spewing propaganda about how honest reforms in the Connecticut Constitution will some how harm the citizenry. I believe the Constitution has already been altered dissolving the Sheriff system, because it is a Patronage System, to be take over by the Judicial Branch which is even more of a Patronage System, operated illegally by taxpayer paid organized criminals with the "boss" allegedly being "Uncle Joe D." So, if the Connecticut Constitution has already been altered without proper procedures, why not have an honest way to amend it to fix the major holes in it that currently exist?

The Grand Jury System has been rendered useless to the people, but works well as a retaliation machine.

When Judge Arthur L. Spada became Connecticut State Police Commissioner he was also, allegedly, the one man Grand Jury system of Connecticut, the people's really only remaining check and balance.

So when Spada was allegedly committing fraud, possibly forgery, and felony theft by doing such things as putting in official logs that he was being chauffeured to golf outings by logging the theft of taxpayer funds on official logs, appointments with "Dr. Flog", "Golf" spelled backwards. If a Connecticut police officer can be felony arrested and hauled off in handcuffs for using taxpayer paid for gas to go a mile or two home for lunch, why hasn't Spada been charged with felony theft, arrested, and hauled off in handcuffs?

If you wanted to complain about Spada, you had to complain to Spada.

I proposed legislation to elected officials to clean up Connecticut Courts and Connecticut State Police. I believe I was then put on the secret State Police "Enemies List" as was Ken Krayeske.

I believe Spada conspired with Judge Jonathan J. Kaplan to railroad me to prison to shut me up, ruin me financially, break up my family, and make me unemployable, poor, and unable to get most housing.

I contacted your office about this issue, Mr. Blumethal, and got no response. Congressman Simmons' staffer told me that Simmons contacted you by phone, email, and by letter asking you to review my trial transcripts for crimes committed. You allegedly failed to respond, ignoring felonies, allegedly committed, reported to you officially. If you are to defend the state against lawsuits, that is a smart move. It also proves you are not the people's Attorney General, so we the people need to be our own Connecticut Private Attorney Generals when laws have been broken and there is no action through standard channels.

We need to be our own, Attorney General, when there is public corruption or laws broken by anyone where police and official investigators drop the ball. We should be able to walk into any courthouse, find a grand jury room, and give evidence of crimes being committed orally, by telephone, by letter, by email, and then if the independent from all 3 branches of government and the "Judencia", panel of Grand Jurors with the power to have citizens and officials arrested, hauled away in handcuffs, independently investigated, and prosecuted in legal proceedings, unlike a large number of case currently handled in Connecticut's rigged court system.

If Judges "pay to play", as former Judicial Marshal Jim Parks claims, these Judges should be investigated for their crimes, removed if found to be guilty, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law possibly doing hard jail time.

I wish to meet with you, Mr. Blumenthal, and wish to ask you questions regarding the Connecticut Constitution, live on television, and will ask you, under oath, have you ever awarded former law partners, friends, or family, millions or any amount, in no bid contracts? If so, would you be in charge of investigating and prosecuting yourself?

Thank you,
Steven G. Erickson

A link to this post emailed to Richard Blumenthal.
attorney.general@po.state.ct.us

* * * *

http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/

http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/

http://thesrv.blogspot.com/

The Connecticut Judge policy of "Ha-ha, I wrecked your life." [here]

My complaint to Blumenthal about Attorney Michael H. Agranoff [here]

Voters in Connecticut need to voice their opinions in the upcoming Connecticut Constitution Campaign [information]

George W. Bush, "The War Crime President"?

The below from the BBC [found here]

Polish agents tell of CIA jails

By Adam Easton BBC News, Warsaw

Szymany airport is said to be where CIA interrogations took place

Polish intelligence sources have for the first time confirmed that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ran a secret prison facility on Polish soil.

The admission comes after a report found the CIA had operated prisons for terror suspects in Poland and Romania.

Polish and Romanian officials denied the claims, but last month Warsaw launched a new inquiry into the matter.

In 2006, US President George W Bush admitted the CIA had held suspects in secret jails but he did not say where.

Two anonymous intelligence officers made the claims about facilities being located in Poland in the daily Dziennik.

One of them states that between 2002 and 2005 the CIA held terror suspects inside a military intelligence training base in Stare Kiejkuty in north-eastern Poland.

The officer says only the CIA had access to the isolated zone, which was used because it was a secure site far from major towns and was close to a former military airport.

'High-value detainees'

Both the then Prime Minister, Leszek Miller, and President, Aleksander Kwasniewski, knew about the base, the newspaper reports.

However the officer says it was unlikely either man knew if the prisoners were being tortured because the Poles had no control over the Americans' activities.

Both leaders have always denied the existence of any such base.

Last year a Council of Europe report quoted unnamed CIA sources as saying that "high-value detainees", including Khalid Sheik Mohammed - the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001 - had been interrogated in Poland.

The current Polish government says it has no knowledge of the base but it has sanctioned a new investigation into the claims.

* * * *

[click here] for my youtube videos

The internal version of War Crimes in the US, Domestic Spying and Citizen Abuse:


Why would the Connecticut State Police protect downtown home and business owners, but instead foster, protect, and interact with heroin, crack cocaine dealers, thieves, prostitutes, and other vermin? The explanation would be the subject of an entire book. Connecticut State Police misconduct is part of the culture of corruption in Connecticut and too many US States.

The "use" of police informants is one of the biggest affronts to freedom in the US. [more]

This blogger's email:stevengerickson@yahoo.com
To share this post with a friend, click on white envelope below

The Question of Police Informants

Are they being to used to abuse citizens? Is domestic spying really ok?

[more, click here]

* * * *



I was told by a police informant that I could either keep dating her and get a good citizen award for my community service and life would go on, or I could lose contact with my daughter, lose my home, and get railroaded to prison by the Connecticut State Police if I refused to continue dating her. [more]