Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

HARTFORD'S DUMBEST CRIMINALS

Apparently armed robbers attempted to hold-up the Bowtie's Cinema at 330 New Park Avenue Wednesday night at gunpoint. It seems that the robber couldn't multitask, and during the robbery placed his gun on the counter. A quick thinking employee grabbed the gun and turned it on the robber. The robber quickly fled the Cinema without his gun or the loot

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

PORTIONS OF GRAND JURY REPORT RELEASED

Prior to tomorrow's Supreme Court hearing as to whether the Grand Jury report will be remain sealed or be released to the public, preliminary portions of the report have been released.

FINAL REPORT OF FINDING OF
GRAND JUROR PURSUANT TO
C. G. S. 54-47g
I. BACKGROUND
On October 24, 2007, an Investigatory Grand Jury Panel,
consisting of three Superior Court Judges, found that the
administration of justice required an investigation to determine
whether or not there was probable cause to believe that a crime
or crimes had been committed in the administration of the
government of the City of Hartford in its activities and dealings
with persons or firms doing business with the city. Accordingly,
pursuant to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes

(hereinafter referred to as C. G. S.) Section 54-47d (a)(1), the
undersigned, on November 6, 2007, was appointed as a Grand
Juror by the Chief Court Administrator for the State of
Connecticut. The scope of the investigation was "to focus on
corruption and the misuse of public funds in the government of
the City of Hartford in its activities and dealings with persons or
firms doing business with the city."
On April 2, 2007, the Grand Juror applied and was granted a
six-month extension which was scheduled to expire on
November 6, 2008. On September 25, 2008, the Grand Juror
applied and was granted another extension which expired on
May 6, 2009. Pursuant to C.G.S. 54-47 g (a) the Grand Juror
has sixty days from the conclusion of the investigation in which
to file the final report.
On January 13, 2009, the Grand Juror issued an Interim
Report in which the undersigned found that probable cause that
crimes had been committed existed with regard to certain
individuals who either worked in city government or had
dealings with officials in the city government of Hartford. For
the purposes of this Final Report, all findings and
recommendations made by the Grand Juror in the Interim Report
are hereby incorporated in this Final Report and made a part
hereof.
In fulfilling its responsibilities, an Investigatory Grand Juror
is limited by the statutes governing the role and function of an
Investigatory Grand Jury, by the specific charge to the Grand
Juror by the Investigatory Grand Jury Panel, and by the
applicable Connecticut Criminal Statutes.
The function of the Investigatory Grand Juror in this matter is
set forth in and is limited by the charge of the Investigatory

Grand Jury Panel. The Grand Juror's function in the
investigation is to determine, on the basis of the evidence
presented to it, whether there is probable cause to believe that
any crime has been committed in connection with the
government of the City of Hartford in its activities and dealings
with persons or firms doing business with the city. Further, the
Grand Juror was also instructed to focus on corruption and the
misuse of public funds in the government of the City of
Hartford.
In conducting its inquiry as to whether there is probable cause
to believe that a crime or crimes may have been committed, the
Grand Juror was limited further by the terms and provisions of
the potentially applicable Connecticut Criminal Statutes. In
connection therewith, the undersigned Grand Juror directed the
Office of the Chief State's Attorney to conduct an analysis of
the Connecticut Criminal Statutes that may apply to any of the
conduct disclosed as a result of the Grand Jury investigation.
The analysis completed by the Office of the Chief State's
Attorney disclosed seven potential statutes and five potential
crimes that may bear upon the Grand Juror's investigation and
ultimate determination as to whether there is probable cause to
bring criminal charges. Those seven statutes and five potential
crimes are:

(1) Fabricating Physical Evidence under C. G. S.
53a-155
(2) Criminal Attempt to Commit Larceny in the First
Degree By Extortion under C. G. S. 53a-49/53a
122a(2) by 53a-119 (5)(h)

(3) Conspiracy to Commit Larceny in the First Degree
By Extortion under C. G. S. 53a-48/53a
122a(2) by 53a-119 (5)(h)
(4) Larceny in the First Degree By
Extortion under C. G. S.53a-8/53a
122a(2) by 53a-119(5)(h)
(5) Fraudulent Voting under C. G. S. 9-360


In conducting its investigation in this matter, the undersigned
Grand Juror scrutinized all of the conduct disclosed in the
investigation to determine if any of the conduct so disclosed
could form the basis of a finding of probable cause to believe
that any one of the foregoing crimes had been committed.
II. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
The investigation is now completed. The investigation
conducted by the Grand Jury extended for eighteen months.
There were 32 sessions of the Grand Jury at which testimony
was received from 150 witnesses. 316 items of documentary
evidence were received and marked as exhibits. In conducting
this investigation the Grand Juror has been ably assisted by both
the Chief State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorneys,
Inspectors from the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, and a
Detective from the Connecticut State Police. In addition to other

tasks they performed at the request of the Grand Juror, those
Assistant State's Attorneys and Inspectors interviewed witnesses
and potential witnesses and reviewed substantial pages of
additional documentary evidence that were either voluntarily
submitted to the Grand Jury or submitted in compliance with
subpoenas issued by the Grand Jury.
III. DISCUSSION *****END OF PORTION RELEASED*****

Hopefully the discussion portion will be unsealed and released to the public after tomorrow's hearing

Sunday, July 26, 2009

CITY RECORDS 20TH HOMICIDE TONIGHT

Hartford recorded its 20th homicide victim tonight as the result of a shooting at the intersection of Liberty and Brook Streets shortly before 11:00PM.

Hartford Police sources confirmed the 23 year old male victim was declared dead at 11:26PM at Saint Francis Hospital.

Friday, July 24, 2009

MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS AT THE HARTFORD FIRE DEPARTMENT

It has been a while since I posted about the latest drama at the Hartford Fire Department, so I guess it is time.

I continue to get phone calls appreciative of the information and coverage I have provided regarding the Dan Nolan firing. Initially, I realized that Chief Nolan was very well liked at the Hartford Fire Department both as a firefighter and Iraqi veteran, and was (and still am) very suspect of the motives surrounding his termination. I received a large amount of calls alleging that Nolan's firing was only the tip of the iceberg as far as questionable matters occurring at Fire Headquarters. I originally thought that it was potentially "sour grapes" by people supporting Nolan, but the facts and documents have supported their allegations. Whether it was Firefighter John Thomas and his hit and run evading, Lt. Gregory Simon and his arrest for theft of utilities or Firefighter Dion Hightower and the search of his home and his arrest on Child Pornography charges. Some of these incidents , as well as the next one I'll outline here, really seem to add credibility to Nolan's argument that part of his problem was that he refused to turn a blind eye and overlook less than qualified and less than credible persons being pushed through the Fire Academy as Hartford Firefighters. Currently I am waiting for information on FOI requests into several of Hartford's latest hires and academy recruits as well as disciplinary and suspension information for the Department. One incident I am waiting on involves a recruit from the last class , who after returning from a fire call punched a fellow firefighter in the mouth, knocking out a couple teeth and receiving an 89 day suspension. Only a suspension in light of a policy that apparently outlines a "zero-tolerance" policy for workplace violence.

The following outlines the stellar career of recent recruit and probationary Hartford Firefighter Henry Biffle. Biffle, 46 years old, was hired by the Hartford Fire Department in May of 2008 as a probationary Firefighter. Although it doesn't appear that much is currently done as far as selecting qualified applicants from the documentation received other than a basic background check, traditionally a persons prior work experience might raise red flags. In the roughly 14 years prior to his hiring as a firefighter, Biffle rotated through at least 24 jobs, depending on which version of his application you choose to use. Both of his applications are below, one the original Human Resources application that list different previous employers than the second application titled "Hartford Fire Department Application for Firefighters", also below. But even Biffle's basic background check by the Hartford Police Department raised issues of arrests in 1996 and 1997 for Assault, Threatening, and Violation of a Protective Order, not necessarily dis qualifiers, but again, something that should typically raise a red flag. (Biffle's background check below also). Biffle eventually made it through the Hartford Fire Academy and was assigned to Engine Company 15 at Fairfield and New Britain Avenues. According to sources, Biffle's performance was less than acceptable to his immediate supervisor, Captain Theodore Borowski. Biffle received "counseling" for several incidents during his probationary period (copies of those available are below).On December 17, 2008, Biffle's immediate supervisor, Captain Borowski completed the City of Hartford Probationary Employee Performance Evaluation form (copies below). Although Borowski wouldn't comment because it is a personnel matter, the original form he filled out was altered after he submitted it. The box that he checked off was that Biffle's performance was less than satisfactory, but somewhere along the line that box was crossed out and the "satisfactory" box was checked, apparently not by Captain Borowski. The end result of the "unsatisfactory" assessment could have meant Biffle's termination from the Department or requiring him to re-attend the Fire Academy. The altered document was signed by Assistant Chief Michael Parker, Assistant Chief Anthony Milner and finally Fire Chief Charles Teale. This altered document was submitted to the Personnel Department and time and date stamped as an official document April 28, 2009, almost four months after Borowski checked off the less than satisfactory box on the form. Apparently somewhere along the line when word of the altered document began to circulate, a new Performance Evaluation form was generated and, according to sources, pressure was put on Captain Borowski to sign the second, unaltered form. Again, according to sources, Chief Milner made several attempts to have Borowski sign the altered form, even going so far as going to Engine 15 instructing Borowski to sign the form and eventually leaving a copy for Borowski to sign.

Captain Borowski's inclinations that Biffle was not prepared to be a Hartford Firefighter were apparently confirmed on January 26, 2009. After exiting a building from a structure fire, according to Fire Department sources, Biffle failed to remove his breathing apparatus facemask, contrary to Academy training and standard procedure. The mask fogged up due to the cold air, and in his full gear with a fogged up face mask, Biffle failed to see a patch of ice, slipped and broke his leg. According to documents received through an FOI request, Biffle's doctor cleared him to return to work on June3, 2009 "without restrictions". Although Biffle's doctor felt he was ready. apparently Biffle had different ideas and informed Captain Borowski that he felt he was unable to return to work. Apparently Chief Milner agreed with Biffle rather than the medical professional and instructed Deputy Chief Mahoney to order Captain Borowski to consider Biffle off on injury until further notice. Apparently Biffle is still out injured, although the Hartford Fire Department won't confirm this.(the text of the injury memo as well as other counseling incidents are below)

Although there are still many more questions than answers as to how discipline is applied at the Hartford Fire Department, one possible answer is listed on the reference page of Biffel's job application below.

If you have additional information or details on additional incidents and don't wish to post them directly here, feel free to e-mail me at krbrookman@earthlink.net and I will certainly look into them. All information is kept in strict confidence.

BIFFLE ALTERED EVALUATIONS
Biffell Borowski Eval 1 and 2

BIFFLE POLICE BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Biffle Hpd Background

BIFFLE COUNSELING MEMO'S
Biffle Write Ups

BIFFLE REFERNCES
Biffle References

BIFFLE CITY APPLICATION AND WORK HISTORY
Biffle Hr Application

BIFFLE HFD APPLICATION
Biffle Hfd Application

IS THE END NEAR FOR THE PEREZ REGIME ?

On Thursday, July 23, 2009 Superior Court Judge Dennis Eveleigh issued a ruling that his report detailing his 18 months as the Investigative Grand Juror (IGJ) in the Perez corruption case was to remain sealed for the most part. Immediately my phone began ringing from many concerned people that this was a bad development and Perez was going to walk. Most of their minds were eventually changed when I repeated the phrase "the information contained in the report is so damning that the publicity would affect the said individual's right to a fair trial". In addition Judge Eveleigh concludes in his report that there is probable cause that various people have committed crimes. Those statements don't sound like a walk to me, and actually would indicate to most people that the scope of this investigation was much broader than most people realized.

**********UPDATE: Friday evening********** Jeff Cohen at the Hartford Courant has posted on his blog that the Hartford Courant has filed an appeal of Judge Eveleigh's decision. The appeal has been accepted by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The hearing will most likely be held before the Supreme Court this coming Wednesday. Jeff's blog can be seen at http://courant.com/cityline. The text and PDF file of the Courant's appeal can be viewed there also.

IS ANY GOVERNING REALLY HAPPENING IN HARTFORD ?



As the corruption investigation into Hartford City Hall appears to be stepping up to the next level, the war of words between the Mayor and Council continues to escalate.

The following is the text of a letter sent from King Eddie to Councilman Pedro Segarra after Segarra threatened this week to subpoena city documents that Perez has failed to provide the Council:

July 22, 2009

Hon. Pedro Segarra
Councilman
Hartford City Council
550 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06103

Dear Councilman Segarra:

I am in receipt of your letter addressed to the Council President dated to July 20, 2009 concerning the FY’08-’ 09 budget. After reviewing your letter, I am genuinely puzzled by what appears to be fundamental misunderstanding of the city budget process and the copious data we have provided the council.
I would like to correct a few points in your letter so that there is no confusion by your colleagues or the public:

I. Contrary to your assertion, the city is not running a deficit and has not done so since I have been Mayor. As you know, the city’s unallocated fund balance is part of the
calculation in determining the existence of deficit. Even after operational shortfalls are factored in, if the city still has cash reserves there is no deficit.

2. As you well know, I have attempted during my tenure to steadily and responsibly increase the fund balance. In contrast, the council has recently supported efforts to
expend the fund balance on operations as part of the budget process. Though I have opposed these efforts, it is clear you and some of your colleagues have felt very
comfortable in attempting raid “the rainy day fund” instead of making either tough decisions on taxes or cuts in services.

3. The council has been kept up to date in regular reports on the status of the budget with monthly and quarterly reports that have outlined the financial situation of the city in
detail. As you well know like every other governmental entity in the country, we will
have to us our fund balance to reach a balanced budget. Additionally, we have outlined a number of strategies to address both revenue and expense that would mitigate the use of the fund balance to balance the budget. The final closeout numbers for the fiscal year will be forwarded to you shortly.
I do urge you to proceed with the items before your committee. These items are important to the residents of the city and have been explained to the committee in some detail. They deserve the counci1’s support.

EDDIE A.PEREZ
MAYOR

530 Main Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Phone (860) 543-8300
Fax (860) 722-6606

End of Perez letter*************************************

WHAT? There is no deficit as long as the City has money in the bank (cash reserves)?

Perez, through his own admission and 3rd quarter budget documents clearly states the year end deficit could be anywhere from 6 million dollars to as high as 32 million dollars (if not even higher the way this city is being managed). Since the "rainy day" fund currently sits at somewhere around 19 million dollars (I don't think anyone knows an accurate number)the potential for that reserve to be wiped out is entirely possible. What then?

And the question arises as to why Segarra or any Councilperson, or even residents for that matter, should have to jump through hoops to get information from City Hall. Are subpoenas really necessary to get what amounts to public documents? Or does the Mayor and his staff need the time to cook the books to further the Gospel of Perez?

Possibly Eddie is just trying to buy time so that his disaster of an administration and his legacy as a corrupt leader all come together at once in October as the "damning" facts do become public during his trial