Overview:
A Connecticut contractor claims a recorded phone call with bank executive Patricia Clemente showed misleading loan instructions—but says Judge Kimberly Massicotte ruled the recording inadmissible in a 2021 Superior Court case. Presence News reviews the allegations and how the reported decision changed the way the business owner now operates.
A Connecticut business owner has come forward with allegations that a crucial recorded phone call with Patricia Clemente, an executive at Thomaston Savings Bank, was barred from being used as evidence in a 2021 Connecticut Superior Court hearing overseen by Judge Kimberly Massicotte.
Authenticated
According to the business owner, the recording—professionally transcribed and captured through a RingCentral.com business system—contained clear instructions from Clemente advising him to temporarily stop payments on a commercial loan during the COVID-19 shutdowns. He alleges those instructions were later used against him, leaving him 90 days behind and allowing the bank to call the loan.
Presence News reviewed screenshots of the docket number and ruling, but is withholding all case identifiers to protect the identities of private parties.
The following details represent allegations made by the business owner and have not been established in any published judicial opinion.
Disclaimer: The ruling mentioned occurred under the Biden administration. All claims discussed are allegations.
The Call at the Center of the Controversy
The business owner recounts the initial phone call as cordial—but pivotal.
With government restrictions cutting his revenue “in half,” he says he explained to Clemente that he could make the $2,200 payment but was trying to keep an employee through the winter.
“I told her we could pay, but it meant laying someone off. Every creditor was offering COVID hardship terms. We had the money—we were just trying to stay afloat and keep people employed.”
According to him, Clemente agreed the request seemed reasonable and said the bank would follow up.
But he claims the opposite happened: he was later told not to make payments until the bank completed its internal review. He continued making follow-up calls asking for guidance.
Only later, he alleges, did he realize this pause led the bank to classify his loan as 90 days delinquent, enabling them to call the loan and refuse further payments.
He describes the tactic as a “bait and switch,” saying it positioned the bank to impose additional debt and fees.
A Surprising Moment During the Call
During the recorded conversation, the business owner mentioned that he now had a location near Thomaston and would be happy to meet in person.
He says Clemente responded sharply:
“We aren’t in Thomaston. We are headquartered in Waterbury.”
He replied:
“Then maybe you should change your name to Waterbury Savings Bank.”
The moment stood out to him as tone-setting—an assertion of authority and a distancing from the bank’s community identity.
The Court Ruling That Changed His Business Forever
The business owner says he attempted to introduce the recording—his strongest piece of evidence—during a 2021 Superior Court proceeding in front of Judge Kimberly Massicotte.
According to his account, the judge ruled the recording inadmissible, despite his claim that:
- he was a direct participant in the call
- the recording was legal under Connecticut’s consent laws
- the transcription was professional
- Clemente’s voice was “unmistakable”
Connecticut law restricts certain electronic recordings, and judges have discretion to exclude audio evidence depending on statutory and evidentiary standards. However, no publicly available written opinion confirms the details of this ruling, and Presence News cannot independently verify the basis for the exclusion.
To the business owner, the ruling was devastating.
“Without that call, she was able to add around $50,000 to an alleged debt. That’s basically a year of profit for a small delivery-based business.”
He says the court’s decision effectively prevented him from defending himself against what he describes as misleading instructions from the bank.
From Contractor to Email-Only: The Fallout
As a private government and military contractor for more than eight years, the business owner handled major clients and sensitive deliveries. But after the court ruling, he claims he completely restructured customer communication.
“I couldn’t answer the phone anymore. I had to tell clients: I’m not allowed to talk on the phone. It doesn’t hold up legally. Everything has to be email now.”
He says the shift shocked long-time clients—some of whom he’d spoken with annually for a decade.
He also alleges that, following the dispute, he began experiencing increased law-enforcement scrutiny during local deliveries, something he had never encountered previously.
Broader Issues Raised by the Allegations
While these claims remain unverified and represent one individual’s experience, they highlight several community concerns:
1. Evidence Standards in Connecticut
Many citizens are unaware that even a legally recorded phone call can be excluded in civil court under certain circumstances.
2. Bank Conduct During COVID Hardships
The alleged “pause and penalize” tactic described here echoes other pandemic-era consumer complaints nationwide.
3. Power Dynamics Between Banks and Borrowers
The business owner believes the combination of executive authority and a court ruling left him without meaningful recourse.
4. Community Trust and Identity
The tension between the bank’s Thomaston branding and Waterbury leadership added to the perception of distance and arrogance.
EDITOR’S NOTE / DISCLAIMER
This report contains allegations made by an individual involved in a past court proceeding. Presence News has reviewed supporting screenshots but is withholding identities and docket details for privacy. Waterbury Savings Bank and executive Patricia Clemente have not issued public comment regarding these allegations. Judge Kimberly Massicotte’s ruling is described based on the source’s account; no written judicial opinion detailing the evidentiary decision has been located publicly. Presence News does not assert wrongdoing as fact.
More at Presence News:
