Senior DCF Hoe Defrauds Once Again- Plofsky- Now everyone knows for sure what they're all about
Mort Zuckerman
kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com, patrick.f...@usdoj.gov,
model...@sbcglobal.net, jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com,
Jgerb...@cdc.gov, len...@courant.com, michae...@po.state.ct.us,
con...@po.state.ct.us, executiv...@nytimes.com, managing-
edi...@nytimes.com, news...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com,
biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com, me...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, ubi...@courant.com, ma...@concentric.net,
camp...@courant.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, cohen...@aol.com,
FalN...@aol.com, brans...@comcast.net, vts...@comcast.net,
o...@po.state.ct.us, da...@davila-dilzer.com,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, hor...@courant.com,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, thomas...@usdoj.gov, amcg...@rms-law.com,
rjmu...@aol.com, paulcrai...@yahoo.com,
sidney_b...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov
Subject: Senior DCF Hoe Defrauds Once Again- Plofsky- Now everyone
knows for sure what they're all about
Date: May 18, 2008 1:52 PM
ARTICLE BELOW IN THE HARTFORD COURANT ABOUT THE DCF CRIMINAL REGULA:
This MAJOR DCF HO was the one who replaced the fired Sarah Gibson:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Hilarious.htm
as "Principal DCF Ho of New Haven."
I got her fired.
Carolyn Martin invented, herself, that I "showed up at her house and
threatened
to slit my own throat," and apparently all the other false
allegations, since
Nancy Martin was NOT EVER THERE when none of this insane bullshit ever
happened
that the Pinhead reported to duh DCF.
Carolyn Martin is completely insane, as now the whole world knows.
(She also has no friends.)
Completely false allegations were filed by my pinheaded sister, Nancy
E. Martin
(21 Redstone Way, Farmington, CT), who all along was on Bob
Bransfield's email
list, MMI, and who knew I was looking for an attorney to file a class
action against
Yale in 2002.
Here we see Gauvin lying to the Police:
http://www.actionlyme.org/GAUVIN_DEATH_PENALTY.htm
and Stealing Richard Blumenthal's RICO mail off of his desk:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BLUMENTHALS_MAIL_STOLEN_BY_JESSICA_GAUVIN.htm
after Blumenthal's staff referred me to O'Connor to file the RICO
complaint:
http://www.actionlyme.org/ANTHRAX_AND_WACKJOB_DCF.htm
Yale's perjuring malpractioner/pervert, James Phillips, who did not
want to
be sued for malpractice (giving me extra brain damage as described by
Karen Forschner):
http://www.actionlyme.org/JAMES_PHILLIPS_HOMEPAGE.htm
and said what I said about Yale meant I was "like Ted Kascynski" after
he said these crimes "should be written up in the New Yorker"- to me.
NUMEROUS CRIMES, including defrauding the court over my complaints to
the Commission
on Human Rights and Statewide Bar Council (the THREE inch databinder)<
which
was also copied to the US Attorney, and is still in his office- about
the criminally
insane behavior of duh DCF:
http://www.actionlyme.org/LEEBENS_DEFRAUDING_THE_COURT.htm
The entire duhDCF first "petition" against me was thrown out, and was
basically a letter also sent by Nancy Martin to Pang Wang, MD. We
found out at
the depositions, that none of these things happened that were made up
by Nancy E.
Martin and her insane "mother" Carolyn Martin:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CAROLYN_VOSSLER_MARTIN.htm
the Witch of Easy Street, Milford, CT.
They were not arrested by Gauvin right then and there for reporting
bizarro false
allegations to the DCF, including beating up the old witch, Carolyn
Martin. We
found out I was "never physically violent to anyone in my life, OR
EVEN AN
ANIMAL." Contrary to the false allegations.
Pang Wang was the idiot who threw me out of his office when I said I
had Chronic
fatigue Syndrome in 1989, and the result was Congenital Lyme and
Congenital Ehrlichiosis:
http://www.actionlyme.org/JAMES_PHILLIPS_HOMEPAGE.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/Schoen.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/DIANE_EHRLICHIOSIS.htm
It should surprise no one, since DCF thinks they can get away with
murder and any
old false arrest. They do not have to prove the allegations to the
police. The
lying sex-obsessed pervert James Phillips did not want to be sued for
malpractice.
One is not supposed to treat an organix delirium with CNS depressing
drugs, since
that's not only brain damaging, but dangerous:
http://www.actionlyme.org/PHILLIPS_AND_MARCUS_PERJURY.htm
Think of the lives ruined in between. I had hoped James Phillips
would help us
against these Lyme criminals, since my self-alleged non-family
refused, repeatedly,
as did everyone else, including duh DCF:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DCF_NANCY_MARTIN_BLOW_ME_OFF_1996.htm
Kathleen M. Dickson
courant.com/news/politics/hc-ethics0518.artmay18,0,1464987.story
Courant.com
Document Accusing Ethics Chief Was A Fraud
By JON LENDER
Courant Staff Writer
May 18, 2008
A mysterious, unsigned letter — which triggered the downfall of state
ethics chief
Alan S. Plofsky and helped to destroy the State Ethics Commission —
was a forgery
and a fraud, court documents show.
It's been nearly four years since local headlines were dominated by
the melodrama
of the good-government watchdog agency's public implosion — and, until
now,
there's been no evidence of the identity or motivation of the person
who launched
the missive that helped demolish the 24-year career of the ethics
director.
There was always suspicion that the anonymous page of allegations from
a state "parking
lot attendant" was a fabrication — perhaps written by someone
connected with
allies of disgraced Gov. John G. Rowland, whom Plofsky had helped
force out of office
only weeks earlier in 2004.
Now, newly uncovered legal documents show that the letter was
concocted by Maureen
Duggan, a staff lawyer who worked for Plofsky.
Duggan dropped a bombshell of an admission concerning the letter
during a Jan. 15
deposition:
"I drafted this," she admitted under oath.
"But you had intentionally disguised it so that it would appear that
it wasn't
written by you?" Plofsky's lawyer, Gregg Adler, asked later.
"That's true," said Duggan, whose married surname in 2004 was Regula.
She has since divorced.
Duggan said in her deposition that her then-husband, lawyer Steven
Regula, mailed
the letter she had written. Duggan said she told him "I couldn't go
through
with" sending it, but he "took that to mean ... that I couldn't do
it and I needed his help. So he sent the letter."
The admission raises ethical, perhaps even legal, questions about the
behavior of
Duggan, who now works as a staff lawyer at the state Department of
Children and
Families for $105,180 a year.
But it also raises more profound questions about her motives.
Why would Duggan use the guise of a parking lot attendant, complete
with such writing
errors as the misspelling "anonimus," to bring up concerns that she
could
have raised on her own — and, in fact, later did — under the
protection of state
whistle-blower laws?
"I have no idea," Adler said — except maybe to "present the ethics
commission members, who were already interested in punishing Plofsky
for actions
related to Rowland, an opportunity to do so — without anyone having to
take responsibility
for initiating the move against him."
After the letter arrived, it took only a month for the commission to
fire Plofsky,
on Sept. 10, 2004. Plofsky still has a federal lawsuit pending over
his firing,
and Duggan's admission was in documents Adler filed Friday in U.S.
District
Court in Bridgeport. Reached Friday, Duggan declined to comment.
Political Turmoil
The phony letter came at a time of historic turmoil in Connecticut,
and of unprecedented
pressures inside the ethics office in Hartford. Intense battles were
fought there
over ethics issues during the corruption scandal surrounding Rowland,
who went to
federal prison the year after he resigned.
Plofsky was so outspoken during the months before Rowland quit that
the commission
told him to leave comments about the governor's case to Rosemary
Giuliano, the
panel's chairwoman and a Rowland appointee. Many called it a "gag
order."
About a month before Rowland's resignation, Plofsky said in a speech
to the
Litchfield League of Women Voters that Rowland had been a liar for
years. Rowland's
lawyer, William F. Dow III of New Haven, wrote to Giuliano in mid-June
2004 saying
Plofsky's remarks violated the panel's order.
"I would appreciate your acting on this promptly," wrote Dow, who had
employed Duggan years earlier at his law firm. The panel did act after
Rowland quit
July 1, and moved to suspend Plofsky.
In the end, Plofsky wasn't suspended. He hired Adler to fight the
suspension,
and negotiated down to a reprimand later in the month. But the tension
in the office
was still thick when the so-called "parking lot attendant" letter
reached
Giuliano and other panel members in the second week of August.
"I want to be anonimus," the misspelled letter went. "I work in the
parking lot and patrol the building where the ethics is-"
The letter alleged that ethics staff members "work strange hours" and
didn't put in a full day. "Also," it added, "on the side of the
refrigerator in the ethics kitchen area there is a time off schedule
that looks
like the staff takes off extra time around state holidays."
It also questioned plans for a California trip, based on printed
travel information
in the same room. It said two desks and "all kinds of computer stuff"
had been delivered to the office and asked: "Why do they get all this
stuff?"
A week later, three staff lawyers — Duggan, Alice Sexton and Brenda
Bergeron — filed
sworn whistle-blower complaints against Plofsky. The documents
depicted a dysfunctional
office where procedures were flouted in an atmosphere of mistrust,
pettiness and
manipulation.
They said Plofsky was a manipulator and played favorites among his all-
female staff
of eight, sometimes calling favored ones "dear" and "sweetie"
and signing notes "XXOO, A" — signifying "kisses and hugs, Alan."
They said he came in late and left early.
In her sworn affidavit, Duggan referred to her own letter as if she
hadn't known
who wrote it. She described it as "an anonymous letter raising issues
regarding
the work practices, expenses and habits of the Ethics Commission
staff."
She said when Giuliano brought it into the office, the three staff
lawyers "decided
it was appropriate to turn the letter over to the Auditors of Public
Accounts."
The three lawyers' whistle-blower affidavits that followed the
"anonymous"
letter proved devastating. Plofsky denied the charges of misconduct,
but they figured
heavily into the firing.
"Without that false 'anonymous' letter as a catalyst, it's possible
that none of the events that followed, and which led to his discharge,
would have
occurred," Adler said Friday.
Events Questioned
Adler points to a series of events surrounding the mysterious letter
that he considers
fishy to buttress his claim that the letter was a sham to set up
Plofsky for firing.
For one thing, he wrote in Friday's brief that a jury could reasonably
conclude
that Giuliano knew the letter was written by Duggan, because Duggan
already had
begun confiding in her and had vented to her about issues the letter
covered.
Duggan said in her deposition that she never told Giuliano or the
other two lawyers
in the office — Bergeron and Sexton — that she had written it.
Bergeron is now a
staff attorney at the state Department of Emergency Management and
Homeland Security;
Sexton serves as a staff lawyer at the Department of Transportation.
Contacted Saturday about Duggan's admission, Sexton said: "I was not
aware
that she wrote it, but it doesn't take away from what I did know about
Mr. Plofsky's
conduct." She declined further comment.
Giuliano, Bergeron and Duggan's ex-husband, Regula, could not be
reached for
comment.
On Aug. 12, 2004, Duggan's letter started the machinery working
against Plofsky.
That day, Duggan, Bergeron and Sexton were scheduled to go with
Plofsky and other
staff members to a Red Sox game in Boston. But the three said in their
whistle-blower
affidavits that they abruptly changed plans and stayed at the office
after Giuliano
called Bergeron and told her she was bringing in a document.
Giuliano then drove to the commission office — the only time she ever
did that on
a day when there was no meeting to attend, Adler said — and gave the
letter to Bergeron.
Giuliano told Bergeron that if the letter were turned over to the
State Auditors
of Public Accounts for investigation, it might not have to be
mentioned at the following
day's commission meeting — thus preserving the "staff's professional
reputations," Bergeron's affidavit said.
After discussing it among themselves, the three lawyers gave the
auditors the letter
and, with it, a cover letter in which they requested protection under
the state's
whistle-blower statute from reprisals and public disclosure.
But Adler says the account doesn't make sense. He wondered why
Giuliano and
the lawyers would all decide that the letter had to be given to the
auditors immediately
to avoid bad publicity. He said they just wanted to take advantage of
Plofsky's
absence and start an investigation against him.
The three staff lawyers offered a different explanation for why, in
the days following
delivery of the letter to the auditors, they came forward with their
own statements
against him.
They said in their affidavits that Plofsky had failed to tell the
truth about his
role in the disclosure to The Courant of a letter that Attorney
General Richard
Blumenthal had written early in July to Giuliano. In it, he had said
his office
wouldn't represent the commission if it disciplined Plofsky over the
Litchfield
speech about Rowland.
At a July 23 meeting of the commission, the issue of Plofsky's
reprimand was
being settled, when a commission member said he didn't think the
Blumenthal
letter should have been disclosed. Adler responded that Plofsky had no
role in its
release.
But that turned out to be wrong. A subordinate had consulted Plofsky
before the
letter was released, and he said he saw nothing wrong with its
disclosure. Plofsky
later acknowledged that to Duggan, but called it "no big deal," Duggan
said in her affidavit.
In their affidavits, the lawyers said they thought Plofsky had a legal
duty to correct
Adler's misstatement to the commission.
Weeks later, the issue was still simmering quietly in the ethics
office when the
"parking lot attendant" letter was received by Giuliano and other
commission
members. And on Aug. 12, the day Giuliano dropped off the letter at
the ethics office,
it boiled over.
The staff lawyers, talking on the phone with Giuliano later in the
day, said they
knew "Adler's July 23 statement, that Plofsky had played no role in
the
release of the Attorney General's ... letter was not accurate," Adler
wrote
in Friday's court filing.
Another commission meeting was scheduled for the next day, Aug. 13,
and the three
told Giuliano that they would give Plofsky a chance to set the record
straight —
and, if he didn't, they'd come forward with statements, Adler wrote.
Bergeron
verified that in a Jan. 14 deposition.
Duggan had helped prepare the official minutes for the July 23
meeting, which included
Adler's misstatement in them. When those minutes came up for a routine
approval
vote on Aug. 13, Giuliano asked if anyone wanted to make "any
corrections"
first. Plofsky was silent.
On Aug. 18, the three lawyers filed their sworn whistle-blower
affidavits, saying
Plofsky had not come clean — but also making their wider allegations.
Adler called the move a "trap" and an "absurd" ploy to justify
moving against Plofsky.
Uncomfortable At Work
In Duggan's recent deposition, she explained some of her thinking.
She said she felt she was "between a rock and a hard place" at the
ethics
agency. She said that she had told Giuliano privately that she was
"feeling
increasingly uncomfortable with Mr. Plofsky questioning me about the
fact that I
did not drink, and that he wanted me to go and have a drink with him."
She also said she mentioned her concerns about ethics office work
hours, and "how
time was being kept in the office."
She said Giuliano suggested that to avoid talk about going out for
drinks, she should
"get a hand-held tape recorder ...[and] every time he came in...tell
him that
I would be taping the conversation."
"I told her that wasn't practical, and that I was ... in a
probationary
period and I was sure I would be let go." Duggan had arrived at the
office
in March 2004 and testified that she was afraid of losing her job with
her husband
then unemployed.
She testified that that she, Bergeron and Sexton agreed that there
were "legitimate
concerns in the letter" — again, the one Duggan had written posing as
a parking
lot attendant — and "there was a consensus that to bring them to the
auditors
would be the most appropriate way to raise the issues."
In the end, the commission fired Plofsky on grounds derived from the
lawyers'
affidavits: that he failed to tell the commission of his role in
releasing the Blumenthal
letter; that he told a subordinate to destroy a tape of a meeting, and
suggested
she might need to lie to a grand jury; and that he improperly
accumulated compensatory
time. He denied all charges.
The fallout from 2004 continues,in the form of Plofsky's lawsuit
against Giuliano
and seven other former ethics commission members. Plofsky is seeking
damages for
claimed violations of his constitutional rights to free speech and due
process.
Meanwhile, the State Ethics Commission is only a memory. The
commission, and the
bitterly dysfunctional ethics agency it oversaw, were abolished by
state legislators.
They replaced it with the new Office of State Ethics and the Citizen's
Ethics
Advisory Board.
Plofsky was reinstated in 2006 to state employment, but not his old
job, after the
State Employees' Review Board decided the commission had fired him
without reasonable
cause. He won about $200,000 in back pay and benefits, and worked in
Blumenthal's
office for about $120,000 a year until going on sick leave months ago.
He has filed for a "disability retirement," and a decision is pending.
Contact Jon Lender at jle...@courant.com.
Copyright © 2008, The Hartford Courant
Greegor
protections a government worker would feel the
need to use a fictitious identity on an anonymous
letter to bring down government corruption?
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ethics0518.artmay18,0,1464987.story
Johnny
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b95e0169-9768-4703...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Isn't it strange how with supposed Whistleblower
protections a government worker would feel the
need to use a fictitious identity on an anonymous
letter to bring down government corruption?
So fucking what?
Dan Sullivan
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well said!
Kathy
> Isn't it strange how with supposed Whistleblower
> protections a government worker would feel the
> need to use a fictitious identity on an anonymous
> letter to bring down government corruption?
>
>
> read more »
stfu, loser
Dan Sullivan
> On May 18, 10:31 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
<<<snip>>>
> stfu, loser
Hilarious!!!
Kathleen the loon puts greg in his place!