That headline is a title of a classic motion practice document filed before a court in the state of Connecticut. This particular motion will be filed by me, in my litigation against individuals once or currently employed by the state of Connecticut, for actions taken in connection with my arrest on January 3, 2007.
I know, I spent some time on it last week, and who wants to keep reading about Krayeske’s case? Me, for one. I can’t escape it. Sunday afternoon, I’m sitting on my back porch trying to read criminal law cases I need to know for an appeal I am writing for a client, and something in the case reminds me of January 3, 2007.
And the injustice of what happened to me burns. Reggae great Lee “Scratch” Perry sang it like this: “Soul fire, and me ain’t got no water.” The Beatitudes offer little salve: “Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.”
Your impatient columnist wonders when? When will the state, the sovereign, stop acting in such a totalitarian manner? When will the promise of this republic of equal justice under the law be realized?
I apologize in advance, dear reader, for forcing you to sit through the torment of what is happening in Kenneth J. Krayeske v. Leonard C. Boyle, et al, HHD-CV13-5036724-S, filed in the Connecticut Superior Court.
For those new to this column, yes, you read the name of the first defendant right: Leonard C. Boyle is Connecticut’s Assistant Chief State’s Attorney right now, the second highest ranking prosecutor in the state.
But when he was commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Safety under Gov. M. Jodi Rell, he dissembled mistruths to the General Assembly’s Public Safety Committee about my arrest on January 3, 2007.
See, what Boyle told the legislature, and then later to Governor Rell about police conduct the morning of my arrest, has been directly contradicted by the testimony of two other sworn police officers. I want answers.
How does a journalist like myself spend 13 hours in jail on specious charges on outrageous bond, and then see the power elite lie about what happened, and no one is held accountable?
The headline here refers to my attempts to make sure that the individuals currently and formerly employed by the state police who were involved in my arrest and who destroyed documents and concealed evidence are properly before the court.
The state is more than happy to fight procedural technicalities than merits. And if it gets to the merits, the state claims shelter in the evil of sovereign immunity, which I discussed somewhat last week.
This whole case sounds more like a totalitarian state than a democratic republic, more like Soviet Hungary than Hartford, more like Pol Pot’s Cambodia than Connecticut.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said last week the surveillance state revealed by journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, with the aide of Edward Snowden, show the United States is tumbling from democracy.
Greenwald and Poitras then declared in the New York Times they fear returning to their home country because of their reporting on the national security state. This is the place we live in. Take the blinders off, my friends.
Greenwald and Poitras are the Woodward and Bernstein of the Obama Administration’s National Security Administration scandal. Working with their Deep Throat, Greenwald and Poitras have shined a bright light on the lies of the security state.
When Snowden first contacted Poitras, before he revealed who he was or what he knew, he demanded encrypted communications, with the assumption that the federal government’s computers can make one trillion guesses per second.
The gravity of that number renders my passwords for Yahoo! email or blogs or online bank access pointless. Federal super-spy computers can guess the same amount of combinations per second as the number of stars in the Andromeda galaxy.
Dwarfing the trillion guesses per second concern is the revelation that the NSA can watch your computer use real-time, keystroke by keystroke. I’ve seen how technical support from computer companies can move your mouse for you, if you give them permission.
Assume, then, the federal government can access your computer without your permission, and see everything you do at every point you do it. And store this data for an unknown future where they may persecute you for what you have typed or browsed.
Assume further that the federal government can listen to you through your cell phone even if it is turned off. Snowden and Poitras and Greenwald, when meeting in private, reported they removed the batteries from their cell phones and placed both the batteries and the cellies in the refrigerator.
There is no privacy with electronic shackles. Yet we flock to this modern age, content to consume through this fascinating electronic medium. Drawn like moths to the flames which can destroy us, we are, building a database for our persecutors with every typed word.
Don’t think that the feds would use a previous statement you made online to criminalize you? Remember that time I was arrested for suggesting protest on a blog? January 3, 2007?
The media aftermath of my arrest saw very important people questioning my journalistic credentials because I was a blogger. It infuriated me. I had a magazine journalism degree from name brand university. I had a weekly column in the Hartford News. I had run a newspaper for teens. Hell, even Syria recognized me as a journalist with a journalist visa.
But here in my home country, I was a “blahger”. Who decides who is a journalist? Democratic party Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, that’s who. In the aftermath of the Wikileaks and Snowden affairs, Sen. Feinstein proposed a shield law to differentiate between real reporters and bloggers.
“This bill is described as a reporter shield law — I believe it should be applied to real reporters,” she said. We have a real problem in this reality when real idiots like Sen. Feinstein seek to determine who is and who isn’t a real reporter.
Sen. Feinstein worried “the current version of the bill would grant a special privilege to people who aren’t really reporters at all, who have no professional qualifications.” So Greenwald and Poitras would qualify as journalists (despite their very real fear of entering the United States) but Kevin Brookman and I wouldn’t.
Brookman is doing better journalism in Hartford than the Courant, yet according to Feinstein, he does not deserve First Amendment protections.
In Feinstein’s America, bloggers are thuggers, and the consequences of this are real.
For four years during the Krayeske v. Hartford federal civil rights litigation, Connecticut Assistant Attorney General Stephen Sarnoski almost always referred to me in court pleadings as a “so-called freelance journalist” or a self-appointed freelance writer or some other derogatory appellation.
Why? By mocking my journalistic credentials before the court, the Attorney General’s office sought to belittle my free speech activities and justify the position of the police in tracking my online speech, preparing a one page flyer of me prior to the parade, and arresting me based on that.
By ignoring the camera in my hand, they focused on my terrorist potential. Be very scared! I lobbied Perry Zinn-Rowthorn, the head of litigation at the AG’s office, to stop treating journalism so harmfully. The damage was already done, though. Zinn-Rowthorn and the AG’s office belatedly conceded I was a journalist, after the state police defendants were released from the litigation.
As I watch events unfold on a global scale about this national security state, it’s hard not to feel like a canary in a coal mine. I hope one day that we escape from this long national nightmare.
But there is no light at the end of the tunnel, not when official lies remain sanctioned, whether it is President Obama dissembling about the NSA, or the Connecticut AG’s office relying on absurdities like sovereign immunity to protect misrepresenters like Boyle.