Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

HOW MUCH MORE CORRUPTION CAN THE HARTFORD CITY COUNCIL CONDONE?

Back in July after former Council President Pedro Segarra became Mayor, there was a lot of political posturing going on when it came to selecting Segarra's replacement on the Council. Much of the posturing was done to attempt to secure the Council President's position by two Councilmembers, rJo Winch and Jim Boucher.

As an observer of the process, I felt that very little thought was given as to who was the best candidate. Rather, it was based on who would swing their vote to either side to sway the sixth vote needed.

We even heard State Representative Minnie Gonzalez speak openly about "the Rule of Two's" during the public session of a Council meeting. Simply, the "Rule of Two's" as explained by Gonzalez, was established during the Perry Administration and was an agreement that there would be 2 Hispanics, 2 Whites and 2 African Americans on the Majority side of the council. No mention of finding the best candidates to fill Council seats, but as Gonzalez explained that Segarra's seat "belonged" to a Hispanic. That's a topic for another post, but can anyone believe that as we are debating Racial Profiling ordinances for the City we still fill Council seats based on racial quotas?

At the time, the one who seemed most likely to swing his vote in support of Winch was Alexander Aponte who also happened to be a Hispanic so automatically he was a great fit.

Prior to the vote to select Mayor Segarra's replacement, I received a call from a source advising me that Aponte was most likely involved in a Federal investigation related to allegations of Food Stamp fraud as well as he was being investigated for possible suspension or revocation of his law license. I related this information to several Councilpeople and provided them with the information as it was explained to me. Councilman Kennedy, Ritter, Boucher, Deutsch, Winch and Corporation Counsel Saundra Kee-Borges were all made aware of the allegations before any vote was taken.

Most of them had at least 24 hours to research the matter on their own, or at least ask for a period of time to look into the matter on their own. Mayor Segarra was also made aware of the pending investigation. The only person to apparently take the matter seriously was Councilman Deutsch who eventually voted against Aponte's appointment.

Councilman Ritter apparently asked Aponte if the allegations were true and Aponte replied to Ritter, in Councilman Cotto's presence, that the allegations were totally untrue and that it was "all about the money" on the part of the person filing the claim.

The motion went forward and Aponte was appointed to fill the vacant seat.

Now, new court documents filed last month in Hartford Superior Court shed light on the allegations and the existence of the Federal investigation Aponte denied. If proven, the allegations could end up in some serious charges criminally against all parties involved.

In addition to the lawsuit against Aponte for malpractice and fraud, Aponte is also facing disciplinary action by the Connecticut Statewide Grievance Committee which oversees claims of improper or criminal behavior by attorneys as it refers to their license to practice law in Connecticut.

Although no one on the Council, except for Dr. Deutsch, chose to pay attention to the allegations, it seems like it may be very difficult for them to ignore the evidence now.

The allegations against Aponte are detailed in the court filings below, so much for "leadership by example".But then again in Hartford with this Council maybe it is the example that our aspiring "leaders" do follow.

APONTE MALPRACTICE -FRAUD COMPLAINT

DO YOU WONDER WHY WE HAVE A DEFICIT?

Time and time again cash handling procedures and "misappropriated" revenue have been highlighted here, including thousands of dollars "missing" from the Tax Collectors Office. Now the latest revenue drain is apparently the Department of Public Works according to a report issued by the City's Auditors.

The report speaks for itself and can be read below. How many DPW employees could be hired back if the money was actually being accounted for and making it into the Treasurer's coffers?

Department of Public Works Revenue Accounts and Operations - Final Special Review Memorandum

Thursday, November 11, 2010

WHERE IN THE WORLD IS .... LEN BESTHOFF



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 WHO HAVE SERVED AND THOSE THAT CONTINUE TO SERVE

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

JOSEPH MONIZ IS NOT HAPPY WITH "WE THE PEOPLE"

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:

From: attorney.joe.moniz@gmail.com
To: krbrookman@earthlink.net
Subject:
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

MORE DOCUMENTS, MORE QUESTIONS...IS IT CONTEMPT OF A COURT ORDER?

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