BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA TELLS HIS STORY: PART 2!

BILL WINDSOR OF LAWLESS AMERICA TELLS HIS STORY: PART I!

NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE LEGISLATURE TAKES ACTION AGAINST CORRUPT JUDGES!

Citizens in New Hampshire aren't putting up with corrupt judges in child custody cases.  See the link below for the unusual actions of the New Hampshire State Legislature in response to citizen's demands:

http://gaveltogavel.us/site/2012/07/25/nh-house-committee-advances-plans-to-impeach-judges-for-their-decisions-in-domestic-relations-cases-4th-time-in-5-years-nh-judges-threatened-with-removal-from-office-over-custody-or-divorce-case-deci/

SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CRPD)!

Senate Unilaterally Exempts U.S. from International Disability Requirements

In a meeting yesterday, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations dismantled protections intended for the disability community in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is being considered for ratification by the full Senate. The Senate’s actions operated to deprive United States citizens with disabilities of the full benefit of international standards. 

While some of us who are activists in the area of parental rights have been concerned that the treaty would somehow limit our parental rights as parents of children with disabilities, let me say right away that this simply is not the case.  In no way would this resolution limit our parent rights.  Statements to the contrary are simply incorrect and represent a completely wrong headed attempt to undercut this vital international treaty which safeguards the rights of people with disabilities both in America and throughout the world.

In yesterday's meeting – enroute to voting the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities out of committee - it took the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations less than two hours to dismantle the protections offered the disability community by this treaty. In a demonstration of what some are describing as arrogance, Senators simply declared that “current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention.” They also approved a number of additional reservations, understandings and declarations (called RUDs). The combined effect is to deprive people with disabilities in the United States of the benefits of the treaty's standards by limiting United States obligations to enforcing current law and periodic reporting.


The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international treaty ratified by 117 nations. The treaty sets forth comprehensive and integral international standards aimed at protecting the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. A monumental undertaking of international faith and goodwill, the treaty follows decades of effort by thousands of members of the disability community from numerous countries worldwide to change attitudes and approaches impacting persons with disabilities.


The rationale for the Committee's action? To quote Committee Chair Senator John Kerry: “We’re already way ahead of where the Disabilities Convention seeks to go. It simply requires and encourages other countries to come up to where we are.”


“This is outrageous,” says Daniel Hazen, a long-time proponent of Convention and the current director of Voices of the Heart, a human rights organization in the disability sector. Hazen observes: “My rights personally have been violated on numerous occasions. Every day, we hear from people whose rights are being violated within the realms of current law."


Human rights lawyer and disability leader Tina Minkowitz played a key role in drafting the Convention and is considered an expert on its provisions. According to Minkowitz, “The Senate restrictions adopted yesterday appear to mean that the U.S. is disclaiming the obligation to work towards full implementation in the areas where state and federal law do not meet the CRPD standards. This stance is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty and should be rejected by other countries that are parties to the CRPD.”


Sarah Knutson, a disability rights advocate from New York, remarks: “It’s ironic that all this occurred on the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was a landmark piece of legislation that genuinely changed people’s lives for the better. But, let’s not get so full of ourselves that we refuse to even look at what the international community has to offer. How can we say we lead the world in an area when we won’t even hold ourselves to the same standards that are being asked of everyone else?”

The full Senate is expected to vote on U.S. ratification of the Treaty as early as July 31st.

###

For further information contact:

Voices of the Heart, Inc.
http://www.voicesoftheheart.net/
Daniel Hazen 518-932-3137
voicesdirector@gmail.com

TELL CONGRESS WE NEED TO REVOKE IMMUNITY FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES! SIGN THE PETITION!

CAMPAIGN ALERT!

The Campaign for Judicial Reform is an effort led by the 501c3 non-profit Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC) and its supporters to bring about crucial reforms in the family court and foster-care systems across America. Together, we can ensure that the desperately needed changes to bring about fairness and justice for all – not just the system and the elite, but 

children and families – can be achieved.

The problems are many, and the task ahead is daunting. Powerful entrenched interests will fight us every step of the way. But for the sake of the thousands of victims grinded up and spit out by the corrupt system every year – especially innocent parents, children and families – we must do what needs to be done.

The problems are many, and the task ahead is daunting. Powerful entrenched interests will fight us every step of the way. But for the sake of the thousands of victims grinded up and spit out by the corrupt system every year – especially innocent parents, children and families – we must do what needs to be done.

Thank you for checking out our campaign. We sincerely hope that you will help us in this massive undertaking, if not for yourself, then for the countless victims who are being literally destroyed by a corrupt, unaccountable system. Please go to the link to find out what you can do. If we can help you, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

http://fcvfc.org/judicialreform.html?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email

---

View the petition  | 

BILL WINDSOR OF "LAWLESS AMERICA" EXPLAINS HIS MISSION! LET'S GIVE HIM OUR FULL SUPPORT IN WHATEVER WAY WE CAN!

(Bill talks about a call in period at the end of this video. That date is from last January and is not relevant, but all his other remarks are right to the point. Thanks for listening)

MONICA FORE ON THE RIGHT TO AN INTERVIEW IN A COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL AND THE STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE!

July 18, 2012

Joint Committee on Judiciary

Room 2500, Legislative Office Building

Hartford, CT 06106

RE; DUE PROCESS: COMPLAINANTS RIGHT TO INTERVIEW AFTER COMPLAINT

Dear Judiciary Committee:

According to the testimony of the judges during the 2012 Legislative Session, pro se litigants and complainants to the Judicial Review Council and the Statewide Grievance Committee do not know how to file proper complaints with those offices.  Judges have stated that this is a serious problem in their courts but that they understand why pro se litigants are representing themselves for financial reasons.

In response to those hearings, I am coming before the judiciary committee with a solution to the problem as it pertains to filing complaints to the Judicial Review Council and the Statewide Grievance Committee.  In order to provide fundamental fairness there needs to be a required "IN PERSON INTERVIEW" with the complainant and their witnesses (if needed) to a member of the board or employee so that any questions that need to be clarified can be addressed and all necessary evidence can be submitted for review.   This process also allows the complainant the ability to know that they at least have filed a proper complaint with those agencies whether it is in writing or orally. 

This is a huge problem.  There are judges who are abusing their positions as well as some attorneys who are stealing from and abusing their clients.  The constitution affords citizens with a right to due process and equal protection of the law.  As the law stands now, our state is putting complainants in harms way.  Currently, the only right a complainant has is the right to file a complaint.  The judges have testified, under oath, that they know the people do not make a proper complaint.  And yet, the rules of both committees require a proper complaint.  That is how the ball is being dropped and corrupt government officials and attorneys are getting away with their crimes.  It is time for that to stop. 

The people need a fair process. A right to be heard.  By establishing an "in person interview" with the complainant, things that they aren't able to say in writing can be said orally.  That way the individual will know that they made a proper complaint and the committees can move forward in their decision making on the matter.   The interview process (recorded) will also create a verbal recording so the committee reviewing the complaint can have a complete understanding of the issue.  As it stands now, people are only 'thinking" they know the issue because all the facts aren't on the table. 

It is time now for the people, taxpayers, to receive due process as the constitution guarantees. 

Sincerely,

Monica Fore

583 Prospect Avenue, Unit 24

West Hartford, CT 06105

860-206-1440

monicafore@aol.com

ADVOCACY ALERT!

To show your support for Monica Fore's proposal write a letter of support to the Joint Committee to the address listed above or contact your representative.  Your voice counts!

JUDGES 2012 ANNUAL MEETING, INSULTS SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES, CONTINUES TO AGGRANDIZE POWER! SEE BELOW!

HEARINGS ON TANF MONEY WHICH IS FUNNELED INTO THE FATHER'S RIGHTS GROUPS THAT SUPPORT MEN IN TAKING CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEIR MOTHERS!

JUDGES ANNUAL MEETING, BE THERE! LET THEM SEE YOU CARE!

JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

ANNUAL MEETING

Middlesex Judicial District Courthouse

Jury Assembly Room

1 Court Street

Middletown

Friday, June 15, 2012 - 10:00 a.m.

H.B. 5535 BILL PROVIDES HEALTH INSURANCE FOR WOMEN AFTER DIVORCE! IT'S TIME TO PASS THIS BILL, FOLKS!

I am particularly lucky that my ex-husband lives in a state that has passed legislation requiring that the earning spouse who has health insurance continue to provide that health insurance to the other spouse after divorce at no cost or minimal cost.  Were it not for this legislation, my health insurance payments would be crushing and I simply could not afford health insurance.  This could affect my ability to parent, since if I were in ill health I couldn't function fully in my role as a mother.  Also, it could affect my life span as well as the quality of life that I have remaining. 

We in the State of Connecticut have yet to put this kind of common sense legislation in place even though it has been proposed frequently in the past decade, more recently in H.B. 5535 in March 2012 by Representative Geoff Luxenberg of the 12th district, God bless him!  It is legislation whose time has come.  

The fact that it so essential to the wellbeing of women and children is so self-evident, that I have to call into question the intelligence and integrity of those who oppose it. 

There is a good description of H.B. 5535 on the website of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) here in Connecticut which fully supports such legislation.  It goes as follows: 

"H.B. 5535 would allow the Court to order a party who is insured under a group health insurance policy or plan in the state to maintain health benefits for the benefit of the other party.  This bill is significant for women because they are likely to be covered under their husband's health insurance policy." 

The discussion continues on to explain why such health insurance coverage is important,

"According to a study by the University of Michigan, this is due in part to women's higher likelihood relative to men to work part-time, or in low-wage occupations, non-union settings, or smaller companies.  The study also found that if health insurance coverage is terminated post-divorce it has a long-term impact on a woman's economic and physical health.  Rates of insurance remain depressed for divorced women for two years after their divorce has been finalized.  This means that many women likely delay getting the health care they need due to costs or face significant challenges in paying their medical bills (potentially leading to an increase in medical debt).  PCSW supports efforts to ensure that all women have access to comprehensive health insurance coverage." 

Clearly, providing health insurance is a fairly inexpensive way for an earning spouse to provide thousands of dollars in benefits for a former spouse and ensure the health of that spouse for years to come, which ultimately is beneficial to the interests of the children.  This is why the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) supports this effort. 

So, why hasn't this happened yet?  Why hasn't this legislation been passed when other more enlightened states have already gotten this task done?  Do we have to continue living in the dark ages here?  What the heck is going on that this legislation wasn't passed years ago? 

For one thing, I know that the legal profession here in Connecticut has not gotten behind this bill and, in fact, has previously testified against it.  Well, that's not a surprise, is it? 

Another group that opposes the bill is The Connecticut Association of Health Plans.  Some of the concerns this group presents are understandable.  The costs for premiums could be quite difficult to pay for small employers, those who have 50 or less employees.  But I am sure that could be addressed in some manner such as providing tax breaks for small employers that participate or even excusing them from participation altogether. 

Other concerns that the Association expresses, such as the difficulties of implementing such plans, are really pure fiction.  As I have said, I have coverage from health insurance provided by my spouse and it works out just great.  The fact that the employer paying for this "has little ability to promote or encourage wellness activities" is just amusing.  I'm sure such an employer can promote and encourage wellness activities with me the same way he does with my ex, which is not at all.  But if he does want to, flyers, letters, phone calls, all of that works for me the same as it does for my ex.  I mean, seriously. 

I was shocked to find that Ms. Victoria Veltri of the State Healthcare Advocate's Office spoke against this bill.  Talk about being stabbed in the back!  Hello, Ms. Veltri you are supposed to be advocating FOR us, not AGAINST us. 

In her testimony, Ms. Veltri stated that it could be a former spouse might not wish the subscriber spouse to know where they live.  Well, that's OK.  I am sure there are many ways to deal with that other than not providing essential health care. 

Ms. Veltri also says that the Explanation of Benefits would be sent to the subscriber and not the member receiving the care.  This is simply NOT TRUE.  I receive all the Explanations of Benefits.  

Ms. Veltri also expressed concern that there isn't enough clarity regarding when such coverage would end.  However, Item #1 of the bill states that it would limit the coverage to "The period of time specified in the decree" which gives litigants the opportunity to state exactly how long they want the coverage to last.  If litigants fail to put these specifications in their agreements, I am sure they could return to Superior Court for clarification or come to an agreement outside of Court.  Ultimately, this seems to me to be a very sensible approach because it puts the power to make such a decision in the hands of the Parties themselves.  

There is also the problem of what to do when there are multiple ex spouses.  Would all of them receive coverage? From what I see in the bill, it looks as though they could be, but the Trial Court could could apportion the costs of maintaining such coverage between the parties to the decree. 

Nonetheless, these are minimal concerns and could be addressed quickly by legislators who are disposed to resolve such problems.  What bothers me is that instead of urging these legislators to correct the problems quickly and pass this legislation as soon as possible without delay because the need is so great, Ms. Vetri spoke without real conviction and with little concern for the importance of getting health insurance in place for vulnerable women right now, right away, without any further delay. 

It seems to me that there is no perfect wording to a bill and that the wording in place now pretty much addresses all possible scenarios.  At a certain point, you have to just go with what you have got and trust the common sense, and discretion of the people involved. 

The bottom line, to my way of thinking, is that legislators and state agencies who are basically against this bill because they dislike women but don't have the guts to say so are preventing the passage of this bill by fussbudgeting over nonsense and failing to clean up minor problems in this bill which could be resolve with a bit of straight talk. 

SHAME ON THEM!

Do we seriously have time to wait another year?  Haven't we waited long enough?  Take the time to review this bill at the link below and contact your State Legislator.  Tell him or her that we have waited long enough and the time to pass this bill is NOW.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/TOB/H/2012HB-05535-R00-HB.htm

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI UPDATE!

I have been waiting to get some more definitive information regarding Michael Nowacki's situation.  Currently, he is in jail because he violated a restraining order in regard to his wife by accidentally emailing her in a mass emailing and, apparently, he tapped on the window of her car to get her attention, and is now looking at 17 months in jail.  Perhaps there is more detail about this, and I will continue to investigate this question.  

Of course, at this point, litigants such as myself who were struggling with abusive ex-husbands who put nails in the tires of our cars, stole personal property, smeared shit on the walls, put our children at risk, and constantly violated court orders can't figure out why we were never able to get the family court to hold them to account!  

In comparison, this prison sentence Mr. Michael Nowacki has received seems revengeful and petty.  

My understanding is that when the final ruling on Michael Nowacki came out on May 8, 2012 the Judge stated that if the prison authorities felt he required mental health treatment they could impose this treatment on him involuntarily.  I believe that this order is still in place, although it has not thus far been followed through on.  

However, when Mr. Nowacki was taken to court again today hoping to be released on bond pending his appeal, he was told that he would not be released from prison until he signed a stipulation voluntarily agreeing to a psychiatric evaluation and then further agreeing to adhere to the treatment plan that emerged from this psychiatric evaluation.  

This is a pretty intense form of coercion--demanding that you barter your physical freedom for mental imprisonment by the psychiatric system.  

Mr. Nowacki refused to agree to this stipulation.  Even so, apparently, the Judge ordered that Mr. Michael Nowacki undergo a psychiatric evaluation in prison on an involuntary basis.  The bottom line is that Mr. Nowacki has been vocal in his criticism of the family court system which has to be just about one of the most corrupt in our nation. In retaliation, the court is trying to silence Mr. Nowacki with the use of psychiatric "treatment".  And also the court is trying to destroy his influence and his reputation by labeling him as crazy.  Isn't this a common trait of evil doers--when caught declare your accusers insane?

Mr. Michael Nowacki had the guts to challenge the judicial system about why, in violation of State law, it has gone ahead and expanded the power of judges in a power grab that violates the Constitution and the rights of all citizens in this State.  And so, like any good Communist system, the judicial system is using psychiatry as a means to silence him.  

Seeing Mr. Michael Nowacki's fate, we have to ask ourselves, in reality, are we living in a totalitarian system where any attempt at criticism and reform will be met with kangaroo mental health courts that jail people, subject them to unwanted psychiatric care and treatment, which we all know runs the gamut from ECT to dangerous, mind numbing drugs.  

Playing the devil's advocate, let's ask the question, seriously, is Mr. Nowacki crazy?  I would agree he is an angry man, perhaps even an impatient, outspoken, and intemperate man.  But does that make him crazy?

To be honest, I'd like those of you who wonder whether a man like Mr. Nowacki is crazy to spend some time reading my website, to learn about the flagrant injustice to which litigants in this state are subjected to, to read some of the comments where litigants share their own devastating experiences of being abused by the judicial system.  

Just going through these experiences would drive anyone crazy.  But I wouldn't leave it at that.  I would say that the judicial court deliberately manipulates people, verbally and physically abuses them, and punches them around through legal machinations such that they eventually crack.  Being "crazy", "obsessed", "depressed", and full of rage is the natural condition of anyone who ends up being a victim of the injustice that fuels the legal system here in Connecticut, vastly enriching an elite core of attorneys, judges, GALs, and psychiatrists who have an inside track to seizing the peoples' money through nefarious means. 

I don't believe that Michael Nowacki is crazy.  

Grief stricken, perhaps, to see the country he believes in, here in the State of Connecticut, crassly and brazenly violate the fundamental values of democracy, and truth and justice that he thought were the very foundation of the society he lived in.  

Enraged to find his constitutional rights flagrantly disregarded and trampled upon.  

Driven almost to the point of distraction by the fact that so many people who have pledged themselves to a code of ethics that requires them to subordinate all their actions to the very highest values of truth and justice and decency, instead using family court as a means of personal enrichment and the exploitation of the most weak and vulnerable among us.  

Yes, all those things.  But crazy?  I don't think so.  

I just spent a day in trial court supporting a friend who was viciously abused, mocked, and defrauded by a trial court that has the job of doing what is right for families.  It is heartbreaking.  Heartbreaking to endure yourself.  Heartbreaking to watch.  

I have nothing more to say this evening in the face of this tragedy except we will endure.  Michael will endure.  He will one day be free.  We will be free.  The people will be heard.  I will continue to report on the front lines regarding Michael Nowacki and his struggle, and let you know how you can personally become involved and fight for reform.  

Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

For those of you who have been waiting for news about Michael Nowacki who was falsely imprisoned by the Connecticut Judicial System for speaking out against its abuses, I do have some news. 

It appears that Michael is in good health and spirits.  Of course, I will never be satisfied myself until I personally see him and hear that information from his own mouth, but that is what I am hearing at this point.  I will continue on with updates as information comes to me. 

I know this is outrageous and many of you are extremely upset and angry about this situation, but let us maintain our calm and dignity in the face of this injustice.  Our struggle is a nonviolent struggle and we must speak the truth to power calmly and with the authority that our Constitution and our State Laws have provided us with. 

I am sure that Michael appreciates all your many phone calls and expressions of concern.  Justice today! Justice tomorrow! Justice forever!

In Solidarity,

IN CUSTODY DISPUTES, PSYCHIATRY USED AS A TOOL OF THE STATE AGAINST ITS CITIZENS: LISTEN TO THE STORY OF DR. ROBERT FETTGATHER

http://innersites.com/janet/f2f-phalen-fettgather.mp3

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

MICHAEL NOWACKI HAS BEEN JAILED BECAUSE HE CONFRONTED MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM HAS DENIED PARENTS AND CHILDREN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS.  HE SPOKE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT AND JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN THEIR REVENGE. WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

FAMILY COURT EVALUATORS HURT YOU AND HARM YOU WITH LABELS, HERE MEMBERS OF MINDFREEDOM SHOW YOU WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE LABELS!

YOU WERE A FATHER BEFORE, YOU WERE A MOM BEFORE, NOW AFTER YOUR CUSTODY EVALUATION, YOU ARE JUST A LABEL. WATCH MEMBERS OF MINDFREEDOM SPEAK BACK TO THAT LABEL. YOU CAN DO IT TOO!

TELL ME, DOES THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM PUT PEOPLE FIRST? THINK ABOUT IT.

ALL ABOUT MAGISTRATES

I was talking to a friend about a child support issue and she kept on talking about some magistrate, and she also talked about appealing the magistrate in Superior Court.  I was like, what are you talking about, what is a magistrate, and don't appeals go to Appellate Court?  This friend had me totally confused.  I'd never heard of a magistrate before. 

So what is a magistrate? 

This is the story from what I culled from the Connecticut Judicial Website:

"Family Support Magistrates are appointed by the Governor for three year terms to hear cases involving paternity and child and spousal support.  They are quasi-judicial officers. They are not judges, but perform some judicial functions.  Their jurisdiction extends to child support cases which include both welfare recipients and those who have applied for state help collecting child support.  Family Support Magistrates establish, modify and eforce child and spousal support orders and hear paternity proceedings.  Their duties are described in Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections 46b-231." 

So, for all you folks who wrongly informed me that family support magistrates cannot change orders, think again.  See what it says--magistrates ESTABLISH, MODIFY, as well as enforce--that all adds up to making orders.  So be nice to magistrates--they can do a lot of stuff that could impact your life considerably. 

The Connecticut Judicial Website lists as Chief Family Support Magistrate, the Hon. Sandra Sosnoff Baird, for what its worth.  I suppose if you are not happy with how your case is going, you could write to her with your complaint. I'm still on the fence about whether actions of this kind are valuable, but give it a shot and get back to me on the outcome. 

Not only are there family support magistrates, there are also family support referees for the older guys, the same way as there are judge trial referees in Superior Court.  As you may recall, the more complex cases go to the referees, because the greater experience of referees is supposed to make them more able to handle such cases. 

As a point of comparison, regular judges are nominated by the governor, but then the legislature has to approve those nominations, and their appointments last for eight years.  Magistrates are appointed by the governor, do not require any approval from the legislature, and have appointments that only last three years. 

If a magistrate makes a decision that you disagree with, you then appeal that decision to Superior Court, and then move forward from there, rather than appealing directly to Appellate Court. 

There has been an attempt to change appointment procedures for magistrates and require that they also receive approval from the State Legislature.  House Bill No. 6426 introduced during the January 2011  session of the State Legislature,  "An Act Concerning the Appointment of Family Support Magistrates" would have done just that.  It also would have extended the term a magistrate serves from three years to four years. 

The judiciary committee voted unanimously in support of this bill, which was sponsored by Simsbury Representative Nancy Schofield; however, it seems to have died nonetheless and it was not enacted into law.  A very similar bill, Substitute House Bill No. 6700 was also proposed in 2009 and was vetoed on June 19, 2009. 

I can't say that it will make that much of a difference changing the manner in which the State of Connecticut appoints magistrates.  I already observed how judges are appointed and it didn't impress me that much. 

Yes, the judiciary committee holds hearings which allow legislators to ask the nominees questions and the public does have a chance to provide testimony regarding any particular judge or judges.  However, it didn't look to me as though these hearings were anything more than rubber stamp proceedings.  

Yes, they have the potential for more, but is that potential ever tapped?  If there is no true accountability, why go through the pretense, and why expand the pretense even further to include magistrates as well?  Doesn't it just add to everyone's workload and expand the red tape that prevents government from getting its work done?  These are the kinds of questions that I have. 

However, clearly there are enough citizens out there who have kept the issue of the appointment of magistrates before the State Legislature for a number of years.  And they have done so with considerable support.  So it seems to me, isn't it about time to stop fooling around and pass this bill?

AMUSING HOAX!

I recently alerted you to a hearing advertised on the Connecticut Judicial website which was supposed to be held before the Justices of the Supreme Court in regard to Connecticut General Statute 51-14.  This hearing was supposed to solicit feedback from the public in regard to the rules of the Connecticut Practice Book.  It was scheduled for Monday, March 5, 2012 at 10:00 am at the Supreme Court Building.

Apparently, my sources have informed me that when members of the public arrived at the hearing, they were given around five minutes before the justices cancelled the meeting and walked off.  Only a few people were allowed to speak and anyone who came the least bit late was denied the right to speak.  So much for obeying the law or showing any modicum of respect for the citizens in the State of Connecticut. 

I want to tell you, though, from my friend's brief glimpse of the interior of the Supreme Court building, exactly how splendid it appears.  Dark wooden paneling and lots of gold trim.  Rest assured that as your Supreme Court Justices subvert the law and deny you your constitutional rights, they are doing so in the most dignified and resplendant surroundings that the State of Connecticut can provide at your expense.  Why did they feel this charade was necessary?  Beats me!

NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING THE CONNECTICUT PRACTICE BOOK!

There was a recent posting on the jud.ct.gov website as well as in the Connecticut Law Tribune indicating that there will be a public hearing providing citizens with the opportunity to make suggestions for new rules and forms, or changes in existing rules and forms, regulating pleading, practice and procedure in the Courts of the State of Connecticut, i.e. in regard to the Connecticut Practice Book which regulates how the law is practiced in Courts within the State of Connecticut. 

This hearing will be held by the Justices of the Supreme Court, or a committee thereof, pursuant to General Statutes 51-14. 

The hearing will be held this Monday, March 5, 2012 at 10:00am in the Supreme Court in Hartford. 

If you are interested in providing your testimony, you need to sign up with the clerk when you arrive at the hearing and provide her with nine clear copies of your testimony.  I believe you will have around 5 minutes to speak. 

If you have any questions, or need any further information, don't hesitate to contact me at my email address:  slopercathy@gmail.com