Search This Blog

Thursday, November 11, 2010


A few people have noticed the absence of WFSB's Hartford Bureau Chief Len Besthoff on their television screens for the last week and a half. Some people have asked if I knew what happened or where he has been. The answer is pretty simple, and no he is not on some special assignment in an exotic location spending the stations "McMahon" windfall. Rumor has it they are using that money to buy a new chopper and replacing the station managers limousine.

Apparently Len forgot that he will be approaching AARP membership eligibility in a few years and injured his knee recently playing soccer. Hartford's Bureau Chief is recovering at home after surgery and should be gracing your TV screens once again in the near future.

Get well soon Len.


Thank you to those military personnel who have served to make our country the Nation it is today. A country where we are free to express ourselves in formats like this, and so many other ways.S ometimes I think we take our freedoms lightly.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010


I've written about a lot of controversial issues since I began this blog almost two years ago. Not everyone has been happy with what I write about, but even my critics seem to agree that I have the facts before I write about something.

This afternoon I received a phone call from someone identifying himself as Joseph Moniz. Between the yelling and the difficulty understanding his somewhat "slurred" speech, I was able to understand that he was threatening to sue me and he wanted yesterdays posting removed immediately. He asked for my e-mail address so he could send his demands for a retraction and his threat to sue me.

I actually had to repeat my e-mail address several times for him to understand it and he actually called me back several minutes later asking "What's that e-mail address again ?". At first I thought the call was a joke since the caller seemed to , ummm, how shall I politely say this, seemed "impaired".

Well, some time later I received the attached e-mail:

Date: Nov 10, 2010 3:09 PM

I'm demanding that you retract immediately and publicly what you "blogged" about me which is false. And, when and if you do, give an explanation and apology because I have gotten calls from people who care about me who were shocked. Also, look at the underlying order of garnishment - you claim to be "We the People"?

Do your homework. How can a judge in the USA enter a pretrial order without notice to me that says I can't buy food, buy life saving medication, pay my rent or visit my daughters for the holidays?

You cavalierly blog about me without doing your homework. You don't know me or what I have done, so don't slander or lible me without doing your homework. The problem with the way we share information now is that it's mostly though the internet and there are no rules. So, you send this false message about me, and how do I respond? I have no but to sue you, which is expensive, but to do nothing is more expensive.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I tried to ask the caller claiming to be Moniz what was wrong or inaccurate on the blog. He wouldn't respond and just kept saying he wanted it off the blog or else he was suing me.

I tried to explain to Moniz that the truth backed up by facts and documents are neither libelous nor slanderous, they are facts.

I'm not sure if he felt that I would back down under the threat of a lawsuit, but obviously he must not be a regular reader of the blog. As long as the facts back it up, no subject is off limits here, including that of a disgraced former attorney receiving improper payments in defiance of a lawful court order.

If Mr. Moniz does not agree with the garnishment and the trustee order, that's his problem to argue before a Judge, not mine to turn away from and ignore. In the end it will be the people of Hartford that will once again suffer for others incompetence and potentially illegal and fraudulent acts.

Mr. Moniz, who at one time was one of the areas prominent attorneys, has obviously for whatever reason, reached a bump in the road of life and has issues to address. The revocation and suspension of his license to practice law is not my fault, it is a fact. His license to practice law in Connecticut, according to the Statewide Bar Grievance Committee was suspended "indefinitely" on February 19, 2010.

Complaint after complaint, some of them detailed below, accused Moniz of improper and unethical behavior in his practice of law. In most other private sector businesses, actions similar to Moniz's would quite possibly result in criminal charges. This time the victims of Moniz's actions are the people of Hartford who have handed over $65,000 to Joseph Moniz in apparent violation of a Judge's order.

In addition, as you see on the e-mail, Moniz represented himself as "Attorney Joe Moniz". According to the Grievance Committee that is also illegal for Moniz to represent himself as an attorney because as they stated to me, he is not an attorney in good standing in the State of Connecticut. That would require a valid license, which Moniz's was revoked.

And Mr. Moniz, I do not dispute that you may have received calls from "people that care" about you. If they really care, they may try to help identify what has caused you to go from a promising attorney to what is the current Joseph Moniz. Don't kill the messenger, the facts are the facts. Anyone who was "shocked" by yesterday's posting only needs to read the complaints below to realize that there must be some severe underlying issues and I hope they offer you support to address those issues.

And to the commenters who are ready to make their negative remarks, don't bother. This is one posting where I will make sure I remove any nasty remarks kicking someone when he is obviously down.

Here are a sampling of the complaints filed against Moniz over the last few years:

MONIZ 08-0344
MONIZ 09-0673
MONIZ 09-1073
MONIZ 061118
MONIZ 070424
MONIZ 070989
MONIZ 071184


Yesterday's posting regarding the contempt proceedings against Hartford Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges seems to be raising more questions than answers.

I have received several calls with information shining more light on this issue and documents I received today answer a few questions , but raise even more.

Although Saundra Kee-Borges may have seemed unaware of the requirement to make the payment to a Trustee for the $62,500 payment owed to suspended former attorney Joseph Moniz, the paper trail shows otherwise, and at the very least others in the Corporation Counsel's Office seemed to be well aware of the Court Order.

Specifically Deputy Corporation Counsel Carl Nasto seems to be the driving force behind getting the check issued directly to Moniz rather than the Court ordered trustee, Attorney Sidney Schulman. Whether he was doing that on the order of Corporation Counsel Borges or on his own is unknown at this time.

In an e-mail dated Thursday, August 5, 2010 Nasto requested "emergency checks" be issued, in particular one check to "Joseph Moniz, Esq.". In his e-mail Nasto states that "the Court determined that he could be the recipient". For Nasto to address this, he obviously was aware that there was a requirement that the checks be issued to Moniz through the court appointed trustee. Nasto does not mention what "court" determined that the check could be issued to Moniz, rather than the trustee as previously ordered.

Court testimony before Judge Aurigemma on October 5, 2010 seems to contradict Nasto's statements. Other documents also seem to contradict Nasto's request to pay Moniz directly, in violation of the previous court order. In an Interdepartmental Memo dated March 31, 2010, former Corporation Counsel John Rose clearly outlines the payment requirements in writing to City Treasurer Kathleen Palm-Devine.

In the March 31, 2010 memo,Rose specifically stated the July 31, 2010 of $62,500 due to Moniz needed to be paid to "Sidney Schulman, as Trustee for Joseph Moniz". There is no documentation in any court record that Schulman was ever removed as the Trustee, as Nasto stated.
complete text and copy of Rose's memo below

Whether Nasto was confused or intentionally provided misinformation to the Treasurer to have the check issued to Moniz is unclear. His e-mail though clearly indicated that he requested the "emergency check" to be issued to Moniz. More documents have been requested through a Freedom of Information request, although none have been provided at this point.

One further indication that everyone should have known that payments needed to be made to Schulman as the Trustee for the suspended Moniz is the very same settlement agreement that Moniz was being paid for. On page six of the Cintron-Vaughn Settlement Agreement dated February 18, 2020 payments to the attorneys are outlined. The agreement clearly states that the July 31, 2010 payment should be made payable to "sidney Schulman, as Trustee for Joseph Moniz". It appears that no modifications have been made to the terms of the agreement and the terms of the agreement are still binding.
complete text and copy of Cintron settlement agreement below

More will be coming on this, but it seems pretty clear that from all indications the check should not have been issued to anyone except Sidney Schulman as trustee for Joseph Moniz unless Judge Aurigemma or another Judge ordered it. As of now it seems that there are no such orders or modifications. In speaking with several attorneys they all feel that the City is still responsible for making the proper payment to the Trustee account and most likely the City will have to try to recover the improper payment to Moniz.

Rose Cintron Payment Memo

Nasto Emergency Check Email
Cintron Settlement Agreement


Former Hartford Police Officer Rashim Campbell, who was terminated last week by Chief Daryl Roberts, yesterday applied for accelerated rehabilitation according to sources.

The accelerated rehabilitation program, AR, is intended for first time offenders who are not likely to offend again. If the Judge chooses to grant Campbell's request, after a period of probation of up to two years, Campbell's record would be erased if he does not get arrested again during that time.

A/R is a one time deal and can only be used for a persons first arrest.

There could be problem though if Campbell is granted AR. Although no plea is entered on the part of the defendant, it would seem to place his offense in a gray area. If Campbell gets AR, would that mean that he would be "not guilty" in the eyes of the law?

If so, the City would most likely be liable for his legal expenses and quite possibly would be ordered to hire him back. If he is allowed to clear his record with AR, that's fine. If on the other hand, the City would be forced to hire him back if the evidence is there that he abused a prisoner and pay a large sum in attorney's fees, that is wrong.

The Judge can either approve or deny the request and the State's Attorney as well as any victims can oppose Campbell's AR application.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010


On Dec. 22, 1999, at 6:22 p.m., a 4-year-old boy, Kyle Kalik Boone, went to the emergency room of William W. Backus Hospital in Norwich with an earache. Less than nine hours later, he was dead.

Kyle's parents eventually hired Hartford Attorney Joseph Moniz to represent them in their negligience lawsuit against the Hospital and its staff. Moniz has since been disbarred and has had his law license revoked. Prior to being disbarred though, Kyle Boone's parents had sued Moniz for malpractice in the way he handled their case against Backus Hospital and its staff.

The malpractice case against Moniz apparently is still ongoing and since I'm not an attorney, the cases twists and turns can be confusing. To read more about the Kyle Kalik Boone death and the subsequent lawsuit, click here to read it in the Courant's archives

One point clearly detailed in the malpractice suit against Moniz though, was a garnishment of his assets and income to satisfy a potential judgement against Moniz.The attorney for Kyle Boone's parents, Robert Reardon of New London, had obtained the garnishment through the Superior Court. Attorney Sidney Schulman of Bloomfield was set up as the Trustee to handle any assests identified for claims arising against Moniz and his disbarrment.

It all seems pretty clear up until this point. Then the path led to Hartford City Hall and everything changed and now Contempt of Court charges are hanging in the balance against Hartford's Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges, Moniz and Schulman.

The attached Motion for Contempt lays it out in detail. Apparently though, Moniz, before being disbarred, had served as an attorney on the Cintron-Vaughn consent decree case and was owed legal fees for his work. Schulman was also involved in the case and also collected fees. As part of the garnishment detailed earlier, former Corporation Counsel John Rose and the current Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges were advised by Attorney Reardon that the court order for garnishment included any payments to Moniz by the City.

Rose apparently complied with the garnishment at one point and forwarded Moniz's payments to Schulman, acting as the trustee. When time came for another payment of $62,500 from the City to Moniz, according to Reardon's complaint, Kee-Borges ignored the court order and instead paid the $62,500 directly to Moniz.

There seems to be a lot of questions surrounding the City's position, and some of those will hopefully be answered in response to an FOI request I submitted today. In court transcripts it is alleged that Kee-Borges was made aware of the garnishment and went ahead and issued the check to Moniz in defiance of the Court order. Further testimony states a somewhat cavalier attitude by the Corporation Counsel when she was actually served by a State Marshall with the Court Order.

According to the transcripts, Kee-Borges was served by the Marshall with the garnishment and she replied to the Marshall that he was a few minutes too late, Moniz just left with his check.Transcripts of a hearing before Hartford Superior Court Judge Aurigemma are detailed below in the PDF file "Contempt Motion" and begin on page 8.

Much more to come on this.

Contempt Motion

Monday, November 8, 2010


How is it that two neighboring towns can have such widely different standards for their elected officials.

Recently a West Hartford Councilperson announced that he would be teaching law classes in Jamaica for several months as well as being involved with some charitable organizations while he was there. The repercussions were quick to come and the message from his fellow councilmembers was clear.

Essentially, his fellow councilmembers called for his resignation immediately because he was not properly serving the people of West Hartford.

Yet a little bit to the east in the hot bed of corruption known as Hartford, a very different scenario involving elected officials was taking place. A councilmember in Hartford who was involved in the Perez Grand Jury investigation and who was eventually arrested and is now on probation for her involvement, was able to hit the mute button on her fellow councilpeople.

Why is the standard and responsibility for holding public office apparently so much higher in West Hartford? As opposed to the calls for resignation in West Hartford, no conversation has even taken place about the future of Hartford's corrupt Councilperson Veronica Airey-Wilson.

No calls for her resignation, no discussion of her violations of the public trust not even a mention of her violations of the City of Hartford's ethics code. Does this say that Hartford's silence condones corruption? Apparently so if nothing happens.

I know we might not have some of the cleanest hands sitting on the Council when it comes to payoffs and dirty deals, but there are a couple of respectable people still sitting there and saying nothing. How does any Councilmember with integrity sit there alongside Airey-Wilson knowing what she has done and yet they don't say a word?

Why does the West Hartford Town Council obviously understand the awesome responsibility elected officials take on yet Hartford seems as though they could care less? The people of Hartford deserve better from our elected officials.

Those that have been elected by us owe it to us to speak out and set the tone that criminals in City Government are not an acceptable Hartford value.