To: jk.dcf < email@example.com>; barbara.claire < firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: david.sheldon < email@example.com>; leonard.boyl < firstname.lastname@example.org>; tj.jones < email@example.com>; colleen.murphy < firstname.lastname@example.org>; clifton.leonhardt < email@example.com>; diana.urban < firstname.lastname@example.org>; dante.bartolomeo < email@example.com>; claire.janowski < firstname.lastname@example.org>; bob.duff < email@example.com>; mnowacki < firstname.lastname@example.org>; minnie.gonzalez < email@example.com>; corruptct < firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 11:25 am
Subject: Request to inspect certain public records in the offices of Department of Children and Families as outlined herein
As a lawyer and former Supreme Court Justice, your appointment and confirmation to the highest court in the State, provided you a unique seat on the bench to have observed discussions in the legislature concerning the withholding of the release in 2006 of a decision by Supreme Court Chief Justice William Sullivan to what many believed was withheld from "timely disclosure" of a court decision as a public record, to "improperly" influence the outcome of the confirmation hearings were being conducted in the fall of 2006 on the floor of the General Assembly for Supreme Court Justice Peter Zarella, who aspired to be SC Justice Sullivan's successor. You concurred with a dissenting view of the case placed in the link below:
To "refresh your recollection" the failure of you and others to have timely released a "public record" as a court decision by majority of members of the "en banc" members of the Supreme Court on the above case resulted in a sanctioning of Chief Justice William Sullivan and the withdrawal by Governor Rell of the nomination of your fellow Justice of the Supreme Court at that point in time, Justice Peter Zarella. See the attached legal action filed naming Chief Justice Zarella, and the defendants as Senator Andrew Mcdonald and Representative Michael Lawlor:
In communications with Attorney Claire this week, you were asked to reflect on the "scandal" as described in the Hartford Courant in 2006.. Both concurrence and dissenting opinions ), and to impact on the vote and nomination of Justice Peter Zarella's nomination to become Chief Justice Sullivan's successor, I attach the link to the Judicial Review Council's findings:
Therefore, in light of your experiences as a former Supreme Court Justice, and presuming that you still maintain a unique level of well established legal acumen acquired over your years as a Justice of the Supreme Court, I find it "shocking beyond a reasonable doubt" and rising to the level of "wanton", "reckless" or "malicious" conduct as defined in C.G.S. 4-165 as an appointed public official as the Commissioner of DCF AND as a licensed attorney in the State of Connecticut, that you would withhold the "timely" disclosure of the "clear and unambiguous" language of the Freedom of Information Act and its "open disclosure" public records compliance requirement, to have "knowingly and willfully" withheld the delivery of your in state and out of state expense reports in order to influence the vote on your scheduled re-appointment vote on the floor of the General Assembly to be conducted on Monday, March 9, 2015.
Haven't we seen this horror movie on the abuse of discretion by public officials in "Corrupticut" before, Commissioner Katz?
This communication is being delivered to both State of Connecticut and one federal official in the New Haven office of the U.S. Attorney Office, seeking federal intervention or State of Connecticut supervisory authority to seek an injunction to prevent the vote on the floor of the General Assembly, until which point in time, that there is complete compliance with the requests associated with the Freedom of Information requests sent to your attention via email or fax and email or to the email box of Attorney Barbara Claire.
Many who serve in the legislature are not aware that once your re-confirmation vote is conducted tomorrow, there is no authority which can command an appointed public official to "resign" from office while a matter of alleged public corruption is properly investigated.
Many in the legislature who sit in public office today in Connecticut were not even elected or sitting in public office since 2006, when you concurred on the dissenting 2006 Supreme Court opinion issued in the above link.
As having ruled on matters concerning what constitutes a "public record" and "public inspection" requirements of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, you certainly cannot deny that you are "reasonably aware of these laws,". Neither the Freedom of Information Commission (as defined in the Freedom of Information Act) and the Office of State Ethics have no authority to "compel" you to disclose requested public records such as your in state or out of state expense reports be delivered for "public inspection", before the re-appointment vote tomorrow.
I was refused a meeting by Attorney Claire to meet with her at the DCF offices which was requested on Friday, February 27, 2015 at your offices at 505 Hudson Street to discuss a defined "priority" to certain document disclosures on expense accounts which were not filed with the Office of State Ethics.
Commissioner Katz, It is my assertion in this email and in emails sent to Attorney Claire as your designated FOI compliance officer at your directive, that your refusal to provide public records, solely in your possession or in the possession of "our financial folks" (this was the exact term used by Attorney Claire sent to me via email to me on the morning of Friday, February 27 ostensibly because on that date they were at the LOB on that date.
Despite a clearly articulated timetable provided to you on or about Monday, March 2, 2015 for the delivery of these expense reports of yours, for all in state and out of state expenses from the date of your administration of an oath of Office as DCF Commissioner until the date of compliance, sent to Attorney Claire via email on Thursday, February 26, which Attorney Claire acknowledged that she had "misunderstood" that this was a "new request" for compliance which initiated a new "good faith" delivery timetable from 30 days from February 26, 2015, there has not been ONE single expense reports provided to me via email or made available for "in person inspection" for scanning of those documents.
The purpose of this email is to archive and distribute this email and my communications with Attorney Claire on your behalf since February 24, 2015 to ensure that it is the respondent to an FOI request who is responsible for the "in person" "public records" inspection in records which are in your possession. This emails capture that Commissioner Katz is being alleged of misconduct as a public official.
Only you, and you alone, know what is in the expense reports which you have refused to release in any manner, including any partial compliance since my orginal letter was sent to you by fax at 11:59am on February 24 2015 ..
What is only known as fact at this point in time, is that you have filed only one expense report with the Office of State Ethics, as required by law, while serving in your current capacity as DCF Chair.
Tomorrow morning, it is my intent to file electronically, with the Freedom of Information Commission, a detailed complaint seeking an emergency hearing be posted for a public hearing--as is my right defined in the First Amendment right "to petition the Government for redress of grievances. This FOI complaint will be distributed along with this communications to members of the House of Representatives and Senate, whose chairs of cognizance are copied on this email.
There is little question that I could be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion as a "vigilant citizen" on the "transparent operation" of government agencies through the application of the complaint process detailed in the language and decisional law cases to enforce the Freedom of Information Act, even applied to a former member of the Supreme Court, who is identified as Joette Katz, as the Commissioner of DCF.
Attorney Claire on February 25, 2015, sent me an email in which I was accused of engaging in "blackmail" of a public official whose resignation I sought for "undisclosed" conflicts of interest between your defined responsibilities as DCF Commissioner and your position as Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune. In not turning over the vendor contracts
When you elected to "refuse" (as is your prerogative) to resign from your position as the Chair of the Connecticut Law Tribune a copy of the attached letter was sent to the editors of the Connecticut Law Tribune, Jay Stapleton and Paul Sussman, to test the theory espoused in the email by Attorney Claire dated February 25, 2015 that there is no "business relationship" between the Connecticut Law Tribune's Chair and the "editors" of the Connecticut Law Tribune's Chair. The CLT had the opportunity to print that letter on line, but chose not to do so.
Here is the link for the members of the Connecticut Law Tribune's Editorial Board:
There doesn't appear anyone who is on this list who I could readily identify who could be requested to provide documents requested between February 24, 2015 and the present.
Attorney Claire only sent the Microsoft Outlook calendars of Commissioner Katz from the first year of her appointment as DCF Commissioner in 2011, rather than the 2014-2015 calendars, is another example of an attempt to not disclose more recent Microsoft calendars which would capture how much time DCF Commissioner Katz was spending during "normal business hours" to her responsibilities as Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
Judges meetings involving Commissioner Katz were conducted in 2011 with federal court Judge Droney with Plaintiffs (unnamed and highly unusual for a federal judge to meet with just one party, not both unless by agreement by both parties), Judges Keller (multiple meetings), Judge Knieren (multiple meetings), Judge Emons (at a Brueggers), Judge Borden (by then a trial judge referee), Judge Devlin (sp?) during a one year period. I am aware of no statutory authority for a judge to order a DCF Commissioner to meet on any matter, but especially in a matter of legal dispute.
Noted on the Microsoft Outlook calendars at various times, a "quarterly meeting" to be conducted in Judge Keller's offices. I such a meeting was governed by provisions of the "open meeting" provisions of the FOI Act, then there may be a claimed violation of the FOI Act if a public notice was not posted, minutes taken at such a meeting and publicly posted on the website. Perhaps Attorney Claire can identify what "judiciary committee" Commissioner Katz served upon chaired by Judge Keller (who is now an Appellate Court judge)
Travel noted in 2011, included a trip to the American Bar Association meeting in July 2015. It is this conference which was reported to the Office of State Ethics which contained no expenses declared or paid by any source in the report filed (attached).
Dinners and banquets attended in 2011 captured on the Microsoft Outlook Calendars sent by email to me capture planned attendance by Commissioner Katz, with the Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers at the Quinnipiac Club, a May 10 Bridgeport Bar Association banquet/dinner, a May 19, Norwalk/Stamford Bar Association meeting, and an April 6, Hartford County Bar Association meeting. Since the expense reports of Commissioner Katz have not been produced as of the composition of this detailed email, there may or may not be "probable cause" established for OSE Attorney Thomas Jones to conduct a "probable cause" investigation for potential violations of the guidelines of OSE as to the necessity to have filed reports with the Office of State Ethics.
If dinners were paid for by any of these organizations, a "gift" declaration would have to have been filed. DCF Commissioner Katz has not filed a single "gift" declaration form since she took her oath of office.
There was a mysterious redaction on the date of May 28, a Saturday of the start of Memorial Day weekend which has no definition of what was redacted.
There was also an attendance at a "New Canaan Task Force" meeting conducted on June 9, from 8:30-10am, which has no defined purpose for the attendance of Attorney Katz. I have no information which can be gleaned. I have not yet determined what New Canaan based Task Force which was to meet, unless it was a Board of Education related "committee meeting" which would be governed by "minutes" to be taken as an "open" meeting governed by the FOI Act.
There was also an unidentified meeting conducted by Commissioner Katz with the Peruvian Embassy, which contained no specific details.
Based upon just one year's (2011) cursory review of matters involving issues under the governance of the Freedom of Information Commission and alleged non-compliance when combined with the lack of disclosures of expense reports or gift forms with the Office of State Ethics, it is appropriate that the current Chairs of the Committees of cognizance (the Committee on Children as of January 7, 2015) and the Co-Chairs of the Executive and Legislative Nominations Committee and other representatives of public agencies of cognizance be copied on this detailed email based upon documents provided to me as of Friday, March 6 at 5pm.
In light of the "stonewalling" of certain documents by Attorney Claire of "requested timely compliance" of expense report documents which have been obstructed from delivery by DCF Commissioner Katz who had the responsibilities to have filed such expenses reimbursed to any budget funded by taxpayer funding, whether federal or state, I am seeking the Chairs of the Executive and Legislative Nomination Committee remove the name of Commissioner Joette Katz from the calendar for the General Assembly vote scheduled for Monday, March 9, until all relevant compliance has been delivered by Attorney Claire and Commissioner Katz.
Commissioner Katz has had no contact with me at any point in time in regards her "intent" to comply with the "timely document delivery requirements of the FOI Act.
As to whether the OSE has initiated or will initiate a "probable cause" investigation which can be initiated by OSE will not be known until all of the documents requested can be reviewed.
Therefore, for the above stated, well reasoned and appropriate review of these matters, the Chairs of the executive and legislative nominations committee have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public from "alleged acts of public corruption" in the misuse of federal and state funding, and to appropriately consider my proposal to "postpone" or "table" the vote scheduled for DCF Commissioner Katz for "good cause shown.
To ensure that the co-chairs do not obstruct the delivery of these documents attached to this email, I will make every effort to distribute this email and its contents to members of the free press and members of the legislature of my choosing, unless the co-chairs of the executive and legislative management committee send me a copy of an email to verify the distribution of this message to all members of the General Assembly, Governor Malloy and other prosecutorial authorities who may have an unknown authority to seek "injunctive" relief from the Superior Court in Connecticut, as noted in the actions taken in 2006 naming Chief Justice William Sullivan.
The amount of time and effort being spent on these posted emails indicates the vigilance of citizens to report matters of public corruption.
It should be noted that all that was known on Tuesday, March 3, 2015 of the matters of public corruption concerning the "stonewalling" of public records by Commissioner Katz and Attorney Claire were captured in a 30 minute "intake report" call to the hotline set up for such citizen complaints, 1-800-CALL-FBI.
Early tomorrow morning I expect to read this email into the hotline intake line to create a "public record" of the report of public corruption was also made to the individuals on this email.
Any of those on this email list, also can call the hotline, 1-800-CALL FBI to report receipt of this email.
319 Lost District Drive
New Canaan, CT 06840
(203) 273-4296 or (203) 449-6916