For Protective Parents. Your source for news and information on the broken Family Court System in Connecticut. I am NOT an attorney. This blog does not constitute legal advice. Blog spirit: In the words of Emiliano Zapata,"I would rather die standing than live on my knees!"
PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
MICHAEL NOWACKI RAPS ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS ON THE KNUCKLES, CAUTIONS HIM TO STICK TO THE FACTS ABOUT FAMILY COURT REFORM!
The events of this week regarding Brian Williams and the
posting of an “opinion piece” quilled by Attorney Norm Pattis entitled “Despite
Accusations, Family Courts Aren’t Corrupt” merit a response.
After reading Attorney Pattis scribed observations, I
reached out to Attorney Pattis via phone messages left to his offices, to his
well followed Twitter account and by email.Attorney Pattis suggested that I contact the editors about the concerns
in regards to factual statements which are unsupportable by evidence and in
regards to other “observations” about sworn testimony provided by Judge Stephen
Frazzini’s recent re-appointment hearing on January 23, 2015.
First, Attorney Pattis was not present on January 23 2015
at the public hearing in front of the legislative judiciary committee.I was present as both as an observer and as a
Apparently Attorney Pattis never reviewed the CT-N
coverage available for fact verification before his articulation in the
Connecticut Law Tribune.
Attorney Pattis indicated that that “disgruntled
litigants appeared before the Judiciary Committee where whipped up by the likes
of Hartford State Representative Minnie Gonzalez, they flung as much mud as
they could muster at the man.It was
versus Misremembrance #1:CT-N footage available on line will show not
one “disgruntled” litigant spoke to the judiciary committee in opposition of
Judge Stephen Frazzini on January 23, 2015.Attorney Pattis refused to correct his error and readers can draw their
own inferences about whether that represents a misrepresentation or
versus Misremembrance #2:Representative Minnie Gonzalez whipped up the
“disgruntled litigants” on January 23, 2015.The question here:How can you
whip up an empty bowl?
versus Misremembrance #3:“The Justice Department might be looking into
his failure of memory of some deeper conspiracy.This is tripe, pure and simple.”
On the evening of January 27, 2015 at 8:29 pm, I sent an
email to the address of Judge Frazzini at firstname.lastname@example.org and
copied the external affairs director, Attorney Melissa Farley for good measure,
indicating that portions of Judge Frazzini’s sworn testimony on January 23,
2015 was “material false and misleading” in regards his national only
membership in the AFCC and whether he knew whether the chapter in Connecticut
ever got off the ground.
In this email, I suggested that Judge Frazzini issue a
letter of correction to his testimony because he was listed as #43 on the
Connecticut Chapter’s 2014 membership roster, yet failed to recollect than
I asked him to post such a “letter of correction” on the
public testimony of the judiciary committee.I indicated that if he failed to do so, I would be posting a letter on
his behalf in opposition to his re-nomination because he had delivered
“material false and misleading testimony” under oath, a criminal charge
pursuant to the application of C.G.S. 53a-156.
Judge Frazzini denied that he had conflicts of interest
defined in the Committee on Judicial Ethics ruling in 2013-15 in appointing
AFCC Board members to positions as court appointees as GALs, AMCs and court
appointed psychologists in essence because he correctly stated that the
advisory opinion related to “members of the Board of Directors.
Judge Frazzini indicated however, that he “would
consider” these issues “seriously”.
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015, Judge Frazzini wrote a
letter to the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee to “recant” portions of his
testimony.The problem with the letter
was that it was not posted on the judiciary committee webpage as “public
testimony” and the letter to Senator Eric Coleman and Representative William
Tong was not immediately distributed to all of the committee members.
So, let the record note that the AFCC CT Chapter
membership list and my letter in opposition to Judge Frazzini was sent for
posting on the judiciary committee’s website inasmuch as Judge Frazzini still
had to be confirmed by the members of the General Assembly.That vote was to be conducted on Friday,
versus Misremembrance #4: Representative Gonzalez
spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives concerning a letter received
by the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee which attempted to “correct statements
made” by Judge Frazzini.
As Representative Gonzalez began to speak, the Chamber
had to be “quieted” in order to hear her comments.
The letter from Judge Frazzini contained more
misstatements of fact.Although this
letter was not a sworn affidavit it contained three specific flawed statements.
First misstatement in the letter involved properly
recollecting who had posed questions in the Judiciary Committee hearing
concerning his CT Chapter membership.
To correct the misremembrance of Judge Frazzini
articulated in his letter dated January 28, 2015, it was Representative
Gonzalez, not Representative Dan Fox, who asked questions about his membership
in the CT Chapter of the AFCC.If
Attorney Pattis had reviewed the video on CT-N before defending Judge
Frazzini’s testimony, you would have seen that Rep. Gonzalez held up a list of
the CT Chapter members and tried to present that list to Representative Fox and
Senator Coleman suggested that be done outside of the committee proceeding of
Second, Judge Frazzini incorrectly stated that his
membership to the Connecticut Chapter started in 2012.The Chapter was not incorporated with the
Secretary of State’s Office until March 26, 2013.The list provided to the judiciary committee
was a membership list in 2014.An
additional membership list obtained last week lists judge Frazzini as an AFCC
national chapter in 2010.
Third, Judge Frazzini’s sworn statement on January 23, he
was not aware of whether the “CT Chapter of the AFCC had gotten off the ground”
was either a misrepresentation or misremembrance inasmuch as Judge Frazzini
identified Judge Lynda Munro as a “mentor” and Judge Murno was listed as a
member of the Board of Directors of the AFCC when the incorporation documents
“Plausible deniability” is a principle of law.It is not plausible that Judge Frazzini knew
“nothing” about the existence of a CT Chapter, inasmuch as Judge Frazzini was
sitting on the Family Commission with Judge Munro.
Fourth, and perhaps the most egregious of the gaffes in
Judge Frazzini’s letter of January 28, 2015 is that he called the national AFCC
offices in Chicago.The AFCC
headquarters are in Madison, Wisconsin.Representative Gonzalez called attention to this misrepresentation in
her oratory on January 30.
versus Misremembrance #5:Attorney
Pattis comments concerning whether the DOJ was investigating this issue of
“perjury” misstates a fact.
The Office of Chief State Attorney received a sworn
affidavit from me on Monday, January 26, indicating that sworn testimony to the
judiciary committee of Judges Thomas Parker on January 16, 2015 and Judge
Taggart Adams on January 23, were “material false and misleading.”The sworn affidavit detailing the allegations
of perjury were posted on the judiciary committee website under public
testimony on the date of January 23.
In addition, the Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard
Boyle also acknowledged the receipt of my complaint letter detailing the
perjury allegations made on Judge Frazzini’s testimony on Wednesday, January
28.If Norm Pattis wants to fact check
my sequence of events, he can contact Attorney Boyle at (860) 258-5800.
In addition to reporting the information above to the
Deputy Chief State Attorney, these same allegations were reported to the FBI
Task Force hotline as well last week.
Attorney Pattis has no more knowledge as to whether the
FBI or the DOJ will be considering any actions on the perjury allegations or
other matters of family court corruption being reported daily to the FBI
Hotline.His commentary on that subject
is merely speculation not a fact.
Intakes have been taken by the FBI hotline include judges
failing to include foreign dividend income and foreign assets (including Swiss
bank accounts) in family court utilized financial affidavits or the failure to
report income by court appointed GALs and AMCs.
vs. Misremembrance #6Attorney Pattis has a well-regarded,
well-respected and well-earned reputation as a civil rights advocate over his
Those of us who are involved in seeking “much overdo”
legislative reforms in the operations of the family court system had our views
validated in a “family court satisfaction survey” issued by the judiciary on
Tuesday, February 10, 2015 and available for Attorney Pattis review on
Yesterday, the judiciary committee agreed to move forward
to draft legislation to address the misuse by judges of “pay per view”
parenting issued in orders of supervised visitation as an example of an abuse
of “judicial discretion”.
What Attorney Pattis seems to have “misremembered” is
that “the liberty” interests of parents to the care, custody and companionship
of their children is well defined in federal case law since Yick Wo v. Hopkins
18 U.S. 356 in 1886.
This citizen will assist in the defense parental rights
as an unenumerated right pursuant to the application of the Ninth, Fifth and
In publishing his article yesterday entitled “Despite
Attorney Pattis seems to have “misremembered” his earlier years where “civil
rights” mattered to him as a matter of principle and of law.
We trust that Attorney Pattis will admit to the errors of
factual misrepresentation and issue a proper correction.
Whether Attorney Pattis places any value on the “court of
public opinion” when “misrepresentations” are arm-wrestling in the headlines
with the word “misremembrance”, is “of the moment”.