Dear Judiciary Committee,
I went down to the Statewide Grievance Council to take my notice. I already know the story of what they did. I was told that everyone knew that she wasn’t in good standing. They said that someone in their office (deliberately) filled out the paper wrong to cover up Attorney Johnson not being registered. And still, it was easily visible on the judicial website for all to see. The Hartford G.A. Panel is no dummy. I work with attorneys and know a whole lot of things about what individuals are getting away with. Someone called a friend of a friend to break the law. Trust me, I hear the conversations.
This is clearly what we on the outside (public) are complaining about. If the inside doesn’t have integrity then how in the world can we on the outside be charged with crimes. Now this doesn’t make the whole basket look good.
Monica Fore
—–Original Message—–
From: monicafore <monicafore@aim.com>
To: monicafore <monicafore@aim.com>; christopher.alexy <christopher.alexy@po.state.
Sent: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 9:31 am
Subject: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: ATTORNEY QUINN AND STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE
Dear Judiciary Committee,
I am asking for a full investigation on the following:
DOCKET NO. CV 07-4014410 S : SUPERIOR COURT
MONICA FORE (ERVIN) : J.D. OF NEW BRITAIN
V. : AT NEW BRITAIN
TUNXIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE : October 6, 2011
NOTICE OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE:
STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE PANEL G.A. 13 AND THE TOWN OF HARTFORD
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights, the Plaintiff hereby declares the decision by the Hartford Judicial District Grievance Panel for G.A. 13 and the Town of Hartford unconstitutional as the panel has been dishonest in its actions. The Plaintiff serves as her proof that it was the State of Connecticut - Client Security Fund, who put Attorney Tricia Jessica Johnson on suspension.
According to its website information for the public, the mission of the Statewide Grievance Panel is as follows: “The primary function of the Statewide Grievance Committee is the review and adjudication of complaints. Additionally, the Statewide Grievance Committee investigates reported overdrafts of attorneys’ clients’ trust accounts and takes action, where necessary, randomly audits attorney trust accounts; oversees the roll of more than 35,000 attorneys admitted to practice in Connecticut through the Attorney Registration process; issues certificates of good standing to the bar; oversees multi-jurisdictional practice and regulates attorney advertising.”
Thus the panel, Attorney John Quinn, Et Al, as representing the Statewide Grievance Committee in the case of #11-0488, had clear and convincing evidence that the Complainants complaint was real and that there was a credible reason for the Complainant to be concerned about Attorney Tricia Jessica Johnson. And still, for the panel to have that clear knowledge and proof at their hands, and proof of dates in question as to the suspension of the attorney, and the motion filed by the Attorney General’s Office, the panel could not have honestly come to its conclusion of no probable cause. Thus by being dishonest the panel has participated in the obstruction of justice in this matter. It is evident that some government officials are going out of their way to keep the Plaintiff from exposing what happened to applicants and state employees who applied for jobs at Tunxis Community College. This to include what happened in the housing scam in Bristol.
The panel having participated in obstructing justice in this matter has now assisted in hundreds of state employees and other applicants records to be misplaced and lost to the outside public. Furthermore, the panel by being dishonest has shown that it cannot be trusted with such an honorable task of providing even handed justice when it comes to the public and its attorneys.
The Plaintiff further asserts that the case of Fore v. Tunxis Community College, was in fact a whistleblower case gone wrong. The Plaintiff has tried her best to protect these state employees as well as other applicants who applied for employment. It should be noted that this is a function that should have been done by employees who were hired by the State of Connecticut, more importantly, the Attorney General’s Office. Instead of opposing the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is confused as to why the state is on the opposite side of this matter when it is the state who initially assisted the Plaintiff in filing the complaint. The Plaintiff attaches copies of the Statewide Grievance Committee’s website documents as proof suspension as well as a copy of the Statewide Grievance Committees decision. This now leaves to question all of the panels decisions on complaints referred to them.
Incoming search terms:
- monica fore ct
- hennessy law office of @att net
- charles sarant
- CT office of attorney general stephen Hennessey fax phone number contact
- monica ervin ct
- suzanne colosanto and attorney
