It seems as though one attorney is cornering the market on defending Hartford's disgraced corrupt politicians.
Attorney R. Bartley Halloran has filed his appearance as the attorney of record for convicted felon Eddie A. Perez in the State of Connecticut's efforts to revoke Perez's pension. To follow the court proceedings and motions, click here
Halloran has also recently represented former Hartford Police Officer Hector Robles in his departmental hearings that resulted in Robles's termination on numerous departmental charges. Those same charges could potentially result in Robles's arrest on criminal charges depending on the outcome of an ongoing investigation by the State's Attorney's Office.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED ON THIS BLOG ARE STRICTLY THAT, MY OPINIONS.After getting fed up with the lack of openness in Hartford City Hall, I decided to begin a program on Hartford Public Access Television called "WE THE PEOPLE". Through tips received we have been able to expose numerous issues that the Perez Administration would prefer to keep quiet.
Any information received is kept in strict confidence, feel free to e-mail me at krbrookman@earthlink.net or call me at 860-883-2297 with any information.