A Moot Writ


Sometimes the beast doesn't merely roar. Sometimes it listens.

The writ I posted yesterday did not need to be filed. The Department of Correction has agreed to provide the client with individual transportation to court in the mornings, thus making it possible to get a good night's sleep. And, miracles abound, Mr. Leniart walked into court yesterday with his legal papers.

But just to remind us that there is still a fist in the velvet glove, the Department still plans to return Mr. Leniart to prison each night by means of a circuitous route. He will get direct tranportation only one-way, and not round trip.

The significance of this half-measure? Call it a misguided attempt to be Solomonic.

A member of the Attorney General's office explained to me that the one-way accommodation was done as a courtesy to Judge Stuart Schimelman. Translated: Tell your client to kiss off. We still own his sorry derriere, and we want to make sure he recalls that each night on the way home.

Query? Will officials still taunt my client as a "ripper" at his transshipment point, this encouraging other inmates to assault him?

Comments: (1)

  • The State of CT seldom gives you the whole loaf. T...
    The State of CT seldom gives you the whole loaf. They demand their pound of flesh, and usually get (take) it.
    This case reminds me of Father John Geoghan, a key figure in the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases that rocked Boston Archdiocese in the 1990s. Geoghan was murdered August 23, 03 while in protective custody at Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, Shirley, Mass. by Joseph Druce, a self-proclaimed homophobe who was deliberately placed in the same cell with Geoghan by guards.
    A video showing guards trying to open the wedged prison door where the murder was occurring was released on YouTube, June 07. Officials do not know how the video, taken from the facility's surveillance system, came to be publicly released. No guards were ever charged or reprimanded in this state-sponsored murder of an inmate in 'protective custody'.
    I would follow thru with the submission of the writ, to cover yourself and your client in the event of a similar situation as Geoghan. The question I have is, which court does this request for injunctive relief go to? State or federal? 42 U.S.C. 1983 implies to me Federal Court, but I just don't know. It seems to be the Federal Court would take jurisdiction more seriously than the state. But these days, it could be a toss-up.
    Leniart is lucky to have an attorney of your stature. How many prisoners in CT were under-represented or poorly represented? Quite a few. Perhaps thousands. Amerika has an incarceration rate seven times higher than Europe. CT has an incarceration rate 60% higher than neighboring Mass., and one of the highest in the nation. That gives lie to the false notion that all the law-and-order states are in the South or Southwest.
    Is it a fact that CT has more crime than Mass.? Or is it the case that CT 'solves' more crimes than Mass.? Answer: Neither. It's in the water, and it would appear to be a state-sponsored BUSINESS which keeps thousands of resident officials and employees feeding at the public trough. Let those budget deficits rip!
    Posted on January 12, 2010 at 1:35 am by William Doriss

Add a Comment

Display with comment:
Won't show with comment:
Captcha:
What is 3 X 3?
*Comment must be approved and then will show on page.
© Norm Pattis is represented by Elite Lawyer Management, managing agents for Exceptional American Lawyers
Media & Speaker booking [hidden email]