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.

Tuesday, May 9, 2017



Public Hearing on Practice Book Revisions Being Considered by the

Rules Committee of the Superior Court

On May 15, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., the Rules Committee of the Superior Court will conduct a public hearing in the Supreme Court in Hartford for the purpose of receiving comments concerning Practice Book revisions that are being considered by the Committee. The revisions proposed by the Rules Committee are posted on the Judicial Branch website at

Pursuant to subsection (c) of section 51-14 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Supreme Court has designated the Rules Committee to conduct this public hearing also for the purpose of receiving comments on any proposed new rule or any change in an existing rule that any member of the public deems desirable.

Comments may be forwarded to the Rules Committee by email at or may be forwarded to the Rules Committee at the following address and should be received by May 11, 2017:

Rules Committee of the Superior Court 
Attn: Joseph J. Del Ciampo, Counsel 
P.O. Box 150474
Hartford, CT 06115-0474

Each speaker at the public hearing will be limited to five minutes. Anyone who believes that they cannot cover their remarks within that time period may submit written comments to the Rules Committee. If written comments are submitted, ten copies should be provided. 


1 comment:

  1. The public hearings on revisions to the Practice Book rules are a just an illusion of the democratic process in this state. Last year I submitted testimony that Rule 1-10 (re requests for litigants to bring electronic devices to the courtroom). should be modified to make it ADA compliant. Presently it calls for discretion of the judicial authority. Because of my difficulties in traveling, Michael Nowacki was kind enough to read it for me to the Committee (having been given permission to do so). The Committee members appeared to agree there should be a modification to the rule. However, it was thought it should be referred to the Chief Court Administrator, and that the Committee would table the matter and take it up at its Sept meeting. The minutes of that meeting show it was agreed to refer it to the Chief Court Administrator. Was there a change to the rule? No.
    There was a new Practice Book rule last year regarding teleconferences for hearings. Calling for discretion of the judicial authority. When I requested a teleconference as an ADA accommodation for my appellate oral argument, they circumvented it by having the AC issue a notice that the case was selected to be considered without oral argument, per PB 70-1. The rule only applies if there were recent decisions on the same issues and if the briefs were adequate. Then I get an opinion that says that my major issues didn’t merit consideration because the briefs weren’t adequate. The caselaw wasn’t considered. I had a 39-page brief, 2 reply briefs, over 90 citations to authorities and 6 transcripts.
    Michael Nowacki got a change to the rule dealing with subpoenas issued for self-represented litigants. Subsequently, as a self-represented litigant, I followed that rule in completing the forms for applications for subpoenas for an upcoming hearing in my civil case and submitting them to the court. Did the rule work for me? No. The judge was supposed to consider the applications ex parte, and then if he denied any of the applications I could have a hearing on the denial. When I filed a motion for continuance of my hearing until the subpoenas could be issued for the witnesses I wished to call, adverse counsel objected and requested I first disclose—at the hearing—my reasons for needing to subpoena the witnesses. I replied that it was in violation of the rule. My motion for continuance was denied. At the hearing I objected to the judge. He said he hadn’t denied my right to the subpoenas. Then I had to tell the hearing what I wanted the subpoenas for (I already told the court on the applications). Neither counsel for 2 sets of defendants offered any objection. The outcome? The court denied my pending motions--which of course denied my applications for subpoenas—on no relevant authority.
    I filed a motion for reconsideration. Before it was even responded to by adverse counsel, so before I could file a request for adjudication in the Complex Litigation Docket, the judge issued a one-word denial. I don’t refer to him as the “court”, because according to the Standing Orders of the CLD he couldn’t consider or act upon a matter without a request for adjudication. Who cares about rules when it’s a self-represented litigant? Who cares about due process for a pro se? Not the Judicial Branch. Why go through the farce of public input on Practice Book changes?
    Oh, one other thing. The judge disclosed that he was represented by counsel for one of the defendants in my case in a case against him that recently settled, and told me I could file a motion for his disqualification. I didn’t do so. But I couldn’t find the case on the state or federal dockets. Probably sealed. How could I make a decision without knowing what it was about? The Courant reported several years ago that there’s no other state in the union with a system of sealing cases like ours in Connecticut.