Connecticut Lawyer Arrested for Kissing Judicial Employee in Christmas Greeting

Foxnews ^ | January 12, 2007 | AP

[Army MP Retired]

WATERBURY, Conn. — A criminal defense attorney has been arrested on a disorderly conduct charge involving kissing as a crime.

Ralph Crozier, 55, of Southbury was arrested Thursday for kissing a female judicial marshal at Waterbury Superior Court on Dec. 22.

Crozier said state police investigators told him the marshal did not invite him to kiss her, which was why criminal charges were filed.

"This is the biggest baloney I've ever seen in my life," Crozier said Thursday. "How many tens of thousands of people in Connecticut wished their co-workers and friends 'Merry Christmas' the day before Christmas?"

The incident was captured on security video.

Crozier said the video will prove he meant nothing sexual by the kiss, which he described as a peck on the cheek. He says the incident is an example of political correctness run amok.

"It was a Christmas greeting. I had no intention to annoy or harass anybody," Crozier said. "Every one of us knew we were on camera. This was a peck on the cheek. That was the extent. There was nothing here that was weird or sexual."

The arrest warrant affidavit is sealed until Jan. 24, when Crozier is scheduled to be arraigned at the Waterbury courthouse. He is free on a $10,000 bond.

[Army MP Retired]

WoW! I mean... well, just WOW! We have truly reached a new level of pathetic...

[blau993]

On the surface, I'd be inclined to agree. However, I suspect there is more to this story than what we have read so far.

[Tax-chick]

Sounds like a personal grudge. Or perhaps Mr. Crozier, as a criminal defense attorney, is not especially popular with courthouse staff!

[Mr. K]

I had something similar happen to me...

I was 'friendly' to a secretary I worked with and she complained about being 'sexually harrassed' ...

I talk to her and told her I was just flirting with her because I was interested in her and we were both single-

She dropped the charges, and then asked me to go out with her...

I said no way after what nearly happened to me...

and she tried to have them re-instated and they told her no way-

I think they found a reason to fire her the next year- I think she filed like 12 of these complaints... all unfounded, and took the company to court, and lost...

but all the time and money wasted, and lives almost ruined...

[Mr. K]

oh... and all the women out there? stop wondering why men are afraid to speak to you


(I mean besides the usual reasons that we are essentially scared to death wimps...)

[Kenton]

Ralph Crozier, 55, of Southbury was arrested Thursday for kissing a female judicial marshal at Waterbury Superior Court on Dec. 22.

He just didn't understand the rules. It's OK to do that if you're 25, because then the lady takes it as a compliment. If you do that when you're 55, you're a sexual molester.

Such is Life under Girls' Rules... which are essentially summed up as "girls make all the rules".

[albie]

It's either "WOW! A new level of pathetic PC BS"! OR "WOW! What a Pig"! I don't think there's any in-between on this one.

[dighton]

I recall kissing one girl at summer camp in Connecticut. Please help with bail if in the three or four decades since, she’s come to regret it, and the statute hasn’t run.

[Ben Ficklin]

"If you do it when you're 55"

There's no fool like an old fool.

[yldstrk]

Oh my.

[Bon mots]

Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"? I guess we should change it to "Innocent until proven male".

[yldstrk]

It has truly reached the state of the ridiculous. And I am a female who was in the Army in the early eighties and who attended law school when they were first encouraging women to attend. I have never had any trouble telling a man to drop dead if I wanted him to keep away. Or "hey bud, don't talk that way around me if you know what's good for you." That is all these idiot women have to do. Filing charges is for stupid women.

[Lucas McCain]

I guess if he had known he was going to be charged he would have gone for some tongue.

[Crawdad]

Note to self:

Do not get out of bed tomoorow. It's too dangerous.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Something similar happened to me as well. I was sitting at my desk, working away as usual, when Jessica Simpson came up and laid a sloppy wet one on me. Well, we then went back to my place and had our ways with each other for hours on end.

Oh... wait... sorry. I'm confusing my fantasy life with reality.

Yes, I won't compliment the way a woman looks at work out of fear of being accused of something inappropriate. I actually had one woman ask me why I never compliment the way she looks. Ask the feminazis...

[SuziQ]

I have never had any trouble telling a man to drop dead if I wanted him to keep away. Or "hey bud, don't talk that way around me if you know what's good for you." That is all these idiot women have to do. Filing charges is for stupid women.

Amen, sister!!

[Dr. Scarpetta]

I suspect there is more to this story than what we have read so far.

I agree because this story makes no sense.

[1rudeboy]

Bingo. Safe bet the attorney is a jerk.

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

What about the standard established by Clinton - The One Free Grope Rule? NOW came out and defended The Slick One when he was groping/harassing women saying: Since the woman didn't say no beforehand he was allowed one free grope. If the women said no after the grope, or during a prolonged, probing, becoming intimate grope, Billy would quietly get a finger wagged at him by NOW.

[driftdiver]

This thread sure has a lot of posts being pulled by the moderator.

[neb52]

"Note to self:

Do not get out of bed tomoorow. It's too dangerous."

That made me laugh out loud! Thanks. HAHAAHA

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

The lawyer is not the stand up guy he wants us to believe, at least based on this:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/SGC/decisions/050864.htm T'was a quick search.

JMO

[Shimmer128]

You can kiss me Baby. Don't worry, i won't object, file charges or call the police. The people around us might though.

[Army MP Retired]

eGhads!!! You know, those who used to use information as power must REALLY loathe the internet LOL. Long live the information age.

[L98Fiero]

Wait, now. All those times I had to hug women I didn't want to, I could have had them arrested? Cool!! Never had that kind of "woman power" before.

[TheMole]

Link to original: http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1129194311305

Deceit, Drinking Earn Judge's Wrath

By Amy L. Zitka
The Connecticut Law Tribune
10-17-2005


In a rare display of displeasure, Waterbury Superior Court Judge Eliot Prescott circumvented the Statewide Grievance Committee and ordered a disciplinary investigation against a Seymour, Conn., lawyer who lied to Prescott about the lawyer's consumption of alcohol. Attorney Ralph C. Crozier's deceit has resulted in the six-month suspension of his license to practice law.

Prescott, presiding over a criminal matter involving Crozier, generated his own complaint to the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, requesting it to investigate Crozier for allegedly violating lawyer ethics rules during an evidentiary hearing in the case.

Within Crozier's criminal case, one of his conditions of bond was not to drink alcohol. Prescott's complaint against Crozier was prompted by the lawyer allegedly lying to the judge about obeying that stipulation.

Crozier, 53, of Southbury, Conn., was arrested March 21 and charged with third-degree assault, disorderly conduct and interfering with an emergency call, according to court documents. The charges stemmed from a March 18 domestic violence incident between Crozier and his live-in girlfriend. As part of his conditions of bond, he was ordered not to consume alcohol during the pretrial phase of his case. Prosecution of the matter was referred to Senior Assistant State's Attorney John M. Massameno, out of the Office of the Chief State's Attorney, because Crozier, a criminal defense attorney, had regular contact with the Waterbury prosecutor's office.

During a July pretrial hearing on Crozier's criminal charges, Prescott inquired if Crozier had consumed alcohol since the order was imposed two months before. Crozier said he had not, but his statements were quickly contradicted by Massameno.

According to court documents, Massameno handled a previous case against Crozier involving charges of drunk driving and interfering with police. The charges were dropped because Crozier had benefited from a one-year pretrial alcohol education program.

In the matter before Prescott, inspectors from Massameno's office visited various restaurants and bars in the greater Waterbury area. At the July 6 hearing, Massameno claimed he had evidence Crozier had a gin and tonic the day before at Rolando's Restaurant in Oxford, according to the documents. Crozier's girlfriend later gave a statement alleging other occasions of alcohol consumption by Crozier, including one the same day the bond order was imposed, at Carlita's in Woodbury.

"For the state to obtain such a condition of release for the protection of the public and then to fail to enforce it in the face of information indicating that it was repeatedly and flagrantly violated would simply suggest that the state was not concerned with the welfare of the public at all," Massameno wrote in an objection to a motion to dismiss the charges against Crozier.

WEAK MOMENT

While Prescott was determining whether false statements were made, Crozier wrote a letter to him on July 29 acknowledging his deceit. "I have come to the realization that [the criminal case] situation has escalated out of control," Crozier wrote. "... [I]n a moment of weak, self-preservation, I find that I have made a material misstatement of fact when asked a question by the court. While I was not under oath and I was before the court as a defendant, I am nevertheless, foremost and always a member of the bar." In his letter, Crozier said his bond condition "lapses" were "few and far between."

Crozier told Prescott he would refer himself to the grievance committee, but he never did, Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark Dubois said.

On Sept. 16, Waterbury Superior Court Judge Salvatore Agati ordered Crozier's license be suspended for six months, beginning that day. Agati said Crozier had the right to reapply for admission in 60 days provided he can demonstrate compliance to various conditions. From the date of any readmission, Crozier would be under supervision of an attorney-mentor for one year, officials said.

Crozier is being represented by William F. Dow III, of Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz in New Haven. "I consider this to be a fair disposition because it takes into consideration the conduct, and more importantly, recognizes the purpose of the Rules [of Professional Conduct] to protect the public," Dow said. "This did not occur in the course of a lawyer representing a client. Ralph was speaking on his own behalf."

Waterbury attorney William St. John Jr. has been appointed as trustee for Crozier's cases, according to the disciplinary file. Crozier's criminal matter is still pending.

[Tax-chick]

Good investigation!