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.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Recently, we all watched the fiasco of SB #1049 go down where rogue leaders of the CT Coalition for Family Court Reform tried to slip a bill through the Finance Committee rather than the Judiciary Committee. They did this after members of the Judiciary Committee quite sensibly refused to hear proposed bills from The Coalition that were destructive and damaging to women.
The only thing I can say about the Finance Committee at this point is: "What were they thinking?"
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
MICHAEL NOWACKI DECRIES THE WIDESPREAD PERJURY PRACTICED BY JUDGES AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING THE REAPPOINTMENT HEARINGS!
Today, your suggestion and that of Rep. Rebimbas will be challenged through a media strategy to indicate that the Chairs have engaged, personally, in aiding and abetting false testimony to be delivered in your self described "rigorous" review of those re-nominated for judicial reappointments.
I have confirmed by performing due diligence on the Chairs that the six page form of the Judicial Selection Commission have never been secured and distributed to the membership of the entire Judiciary Committee.
While we would agree that it would be important to redact telephone numbers and addresses for judges to ensure you, as attorneys, do not abuse your position to talk to judges on matters under current litigation including appeal.
There is a legitimate and well grounded concern about a far too "cozy" relationship between the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee and ranking members who are attorneys.
We noted the Chief Justice, in the offices of the Judiciary Committee where the Chairs have an office, meeting prior to the start of the re-confirmation process which began on January 11, 2017.
Do you really believe that members of the United States Congress meet to discuss cases which are controversial decisions?
It may be time for the citizens of this State to initiate a change in the State Constitution to change the Connecticut judiciary to an elected---not an appointment position inasmuch as lawyers, as legislators, have consistently voted favorably on all judicial re-appointments.
Your refusal and failure to provide for public inspection copies of the Judicial Selection Commission forms sworn as "truthful" and not distributing that redacted document to the members of your OWN committee raises serious issues of your self-proclaimed "due dilligence" today.
The decision of the Chairs to limit public posting of transcripts to refute testimony of judges is another example of creating a system where "perjured" testimony is not only tolerated but condoned by the chairs who are definitely more interested in coddling judges than "professional skepticism" which is the hallmark of many professions.
The Judicial Review Council needs to be revised so that all complaints, dismissed or not, are a matter of public record.
The comments on "sealing cases" by Judge Buzzuto for judges who go through a divorce is inconsistent with open disclosure of records to ensure that "addresses are redacted" but the decisions an open public record---just as you make our decisions a matter of an "open public record" which is used to humiliate the citizens while protecting the privacy rights of public officials.
Recent surveys done on the judiciary ranks Connecticut as one of the least transparent of any state in the country.
The fact that the judiciary cut $60 million from its budget because it was bloated without services being decreased should be a clear sign that the legislators, in general, don't have the same "access issues" to the courts that the general public has to endure.
The fact that Rep. Rebimbas refused to disclose on her "stump speech" on Judge Adelman that she received appointments by Judge Adelman smacks of an undisclosed conflict of interest.
As you know, the lack of disclosure of the answers to the 32 questions by your Committee Chairs is a clear sign that what you don't know can hurt the citizens you claim to serve.
There will be letters sent to those who you serve who will be randomly selected off the voter roles to expose the failure of the Chairs to have properly investigated allegations of misconduct reported to you by "railroading" controversial candidates within a week of the controversy involving allegations of perjury to be investigated by a select subcommittee which is balanced with lawyers and non-lawyers to review transcripts which the Chairs refuse to post and share with the colleagues on the committee as "equals".
The lack of "professional skepticism" by lawyers serving as legislators is demonstrated by your consistent voting and "unchallenged" public comments by Rep. Tong and Rep. Rembimas.
The Chairs of the Judiciary Committee asked no tough questions about the "Hightower" matter raised by Rep. Tong---who never even asked a question about it to Judge Adelman today.
There is only ONE representative of the people on your committee who asks tough questions and that is Minnie Gonzalez.
I watched all but one interview conducted by your committee and and I am one of five individuals who will have filed by complaints with the Chief State Attorney on five judges who meet the standard of probable cause for arrest for perjury defined in C.G.S. 53a-156 (a).
If the Chief State Attorney Office had a grand jury system in place, then judges would be far less likely to deliver material and false testimony and in written statements provided to the Judicial Selection Commission is provided with a General Release Form.
Until the Chairs take corrective actions to rebuild the trust that only you can restore, the public will exercise our rights to expose "corrupt practices" which the Chairs seem to support.
Have any of you ever sat in a short calendar in family court and watched the meter running?
Have any of you visited a courthouse in Virginia where a help desk directs clients to "calendered" matters in which Connecticut has to run a "pilot program".
The "cattle calls in family courts" is the single, most inefficient way to conduct the public's access to justice.
Despite Rep. Tong's statements that you take these comments seriously, all we need to do is review the voting records of the 19 lawyers on the judiciary committee (if we include one member who had a direct relative on the Supreme Court) and your attempts to deliver Judge Fuger's head on a platter today to show how "tough you are".
At no point in time, since Judge Frazzini sent a "letter of retraction" after I filed a criminal complaint alleging perjury to the Chief's State Attorney's Office has any judge been subject to a delayed vote until a full investigation of allegations of perjury occurs.
There is a section of the Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits a Judge from making a knowingly false statement to a legislative committee.
Until there is either legislative reforms to clean up this system of inefficiencies in due process and remove judges from sitting on administrative committee meetings which take them away from their duties "in court", we will continue to challenge publicly and privately, whether you approve or not, our "professional skepticism" that the lawyers in the legislature are engaging and abetting perjury by refusing to table the vote on any judge who is alleged to have committed perjury under oath.
We will be unrelenting because this "tyranny" creates through the empowerment of "judicial discretion" to rape and pillage the financial resources of parents via a reallocation of our lifetime savings to support your "system of racketeering" by having lawyers sitting in a courtroom for hours and then billing their clients for accomplishing nothing and being paid for it.
I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss with a group of litigants to show us the evidence of perjury---which are now on their way for review by the "probable cause" standards which apply to criminal arrests of those judges who made knowingly false material statements to a committee.
For Rep. Rebimbas to have made a claim that "she has some sort of access to transcripts" to the 3,850 pages of transcripts, is nothing less than balderdash.
We are tired of the "obstruction" by the Chairs to a proper review of evidence by limiting the posting of transcripts on the judiciary committee website.
In the movie "A Few Good Men", Jack Nicholson's line seems appropriate to close this email:
"You can't handle the truth."
January 18, 2017
January 18, 2017
You lied to the public today on CT-N when you said you have the ability to review public records on-line about a judge to evaluate the authenticity of testimony.
Transcripts of court proceedings are not readily available on line and your comments were disingenuous.
You and your colleagues as lawyers have ZERO credibility in the fawning which I am watching on CT-N today regarding judges re-confirmation hearings today in the House.
When my house sells in Connecticut, I may need to reside somewhere for two years and will expose you by taking residence in your district to reveal your conflicts of interest in having been appointed by Judge Bozzuto as a GAL when she was first appointed to the bench.
We will continue to expose you and the other lawyers on the judiciary who don't allow transcripts to be shared on line on the judiciary website to refute the sworn testimony of judges at public hearings.
I have a bag of marshmellows here in my home for a reason today---to toss them at the screen when legislators like Labriola and you stand up and lie to protect judges who deliver knowingly false testimony under oath.
There is a reason why we call Connecticut--Corrupticut--to honor your personal enduring legacy which is causing people to leave the State---30,000 of them last year.
In your entire time of voting on judicial confirmations which I have observed for the last sic years, I am still waiting for you to oppose an re-nomination---even on Judge Parker.
We have no respect for you and your legal colleagues on the judiciary committee who you allow to perjure themselves under oath without consequence.
It is time for citizens to expose you for your undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Look for my LTE in your weekly newspaper exposing your mis-statements about "your access" to public records to review "difficult cases".
New Canaan, CT
To the Members of the General Assembly:
By the time you consider the Re-Appointment Votes on Judges of the Superior Court, you should be aware that there have been or will be five criminal complaints filed with the Chief State Attorney's Office that certain judges on January 11 and January 13, delivered sworn testimony which constitutes grounds for "material mis-statements" of "facts" and/or "knowing or willful" sworn testimony in documents provided to the Judicial Selection Commission.
The lack of the willingness of the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee to re-consider an "arbitrary rule" limiting public testimony to five pages, has resulted in an "erosion" in the public confidence in the elected members of the General Assembly to be provided to documents refuting sworn testimony via this "five page rule".
The Chairs of the Judiciary Committee have been unresponsive to emails requesting a "waiver" be issued to allow the public the opportunity to post documents to refute "materially false and misleading" sworn testimony and documents notarized which are required to be submitted to the Judicial Selection Commission.
The Judicial Selection Commission, as noted in the six page form attached to this email, has never provided access to the answers to all 32 questions---even to the members of the Judiciary Committee of this legislature.
This failure to have "full disclosure" of the answers to the Judicial Selection Commission documents for review by the members of the Judiciary Committee erodes the confidence of the public trust placed in the hands of legislators who will be voting today.
We urge you to consider "abstaining" or "voting no" consistent with your "due diligence" responsibilities before casting a vote confirming a candidate today.
LINK TO THE JUDICIAL QUESTIONNAIRE. SEE BELOW:
LINK TO THE JUDICIAL QUESTIONNAIRE. SEE BELOW:
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH REPORT ON MAJOR ISSUES THE CT GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS CURRENTLY FACING!
FROM THE OLR REPORT:
"Every year, legislative leaders ask the Office of Legislative Research (OLR) to identify and provide brief descriptions of important issues that the General Assembly may face in the upcoming session.
This report represents the professional, nonpartisan views ofstaff in OLR, the Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA), and the Legislative Commissioners’ Office (LCO) on possible upcoming legislative issues. It does not represent staff suggestions or recommendations.
We identified issues based on interim studies; research requests; non-confidential discussions with legislators, other legislative participants, and executive branch agencies; and our general subject matter knowledge..."
Sunday, February 21, 2016
This in from Cheryl Martone of CT Concerned Parents:
Please spread the word about this hearing as it is about CPS/DCF trying to get more programs and justify them selves that they are doing alright for the children and families when they are NOT! Come speak your mind
On 9 Bills, we need many here:
I will be speaking on this one:
Sunday, April 26, 2015
Saturday, April 25, 2015
Paul Ryan states as follows:
"Eight years. By our historical temporal scale, eight years is but an instant . . . a veritable flash of light that will barely be noticed on our anthropological calendar. If, however, you are an individual — or worse yet — a family living in Connecticut and need to use the programs, activities or services of our state courts to help you resolve any sort of legal dispute, best if you're wearing a seat belt or something else because it's likely to be a bumpy ride for the foreseeable future.
Either our General Assembly was uninformed, duped, or chose to ignore the full scope of information before them. The Senate had already voted unanimously, as had the Joint Committee on Judiciary, but is it possible that all the public voices would be dismissed, individually and collectively? At this point, it would appear so as the final vote was 139 members of the House voting in favor of the resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Judge of the Superior Court. Just 74 votes were needed for passage, and so the resolution carried. Only 6 legislators voted "Nay" (Representatives Arce, Candelara, Gonzalez, Sanchez, Tercyzak, and Carter), but even among this group, only Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, a Hartford-Democrat, rose to explain her vote in opposition..."
For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Reporter Mark Pazniokas of the CT Mirror reports as follows:
"A noisy path to reconfirmation for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers reached its end with a 139-6 House vote Wednesday, but not before a Latina legislator accused Rogers of slighting the Supreme Court's first and only Latina justice.
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, voted against Rogers' confirmation to a second eight-year term as chief justice of Connecticut's highest court, citing an opinion in which the majority accused the dissenting Justice Carmen Espinosa of dishonoring the court.
“A chief justice should not condone or support such an attack,” Gonzalez said during a brief debate in the House. “She should exercise moral leadership.”
Gonzalez choosing to make an issue of intemperate language struck some in the House as odd, given that Gonzalez' insults of a Republican colleague recently prompted a newspaper's call for her censure and the GOP minority's demand for an apology..."
For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
IN LETTER TO CT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ACTIVIST SCOTT BUDEN DECRIES ATTACKS ON REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE CT FAMILY COURT REFORM MOVEMENT!
It appears that the anonymous person who penned the April 14th op-ed piece run by the Hartford Courant googled the term "inflammatory language", copied all the results, and called it an article. Its dearth of formed opinion notwithstanding, was there a reason why this author could not stand behind his or her words?Governor Malloy then publicly admonished both Representatives Rebimbas and González on April 17th, as if Ms Rebimbas' misdirecting attention away from criminal activity and Ms González' calling out the covering of crimes were the same thing: a spat.It is necessary to provide a foundation of facts to give context to the drama, because there has been so much done to shield the underlying information that brought rise to the altercation.We have a theme going: Attack all critics of the courts. Blame victims. The threadbare "disgruntled litigant" epithet is a warped record loop stuck playing over the propaganda speakers, and Göbbels hasn't realized that the playbook has already been put into evidence at Nuremberg.Representative Rebimbas attacks all critics of the courts. That fact makes perfect sense, given her investment as a GAL in the continued unrestricted looting of assets in all family cases. In hearing, instead of recusing herself on a matter where she stands to profit, she concerned herself entirely with misrepresenting other people's thoughts and feelings and protecting the delicate egos of judges who have done unspeakable harm to the people of Connecticut. Again hearing, instead of recusing herself, she participated in a plan to grind the legislative process to a halt over an apology that was already given. Not once did she speak or act for the interests of the people of Naugatuck who elected her to represent them.Representative González, by contrast, has no financial stake in the administration and operation of the Judicial Branch. She is an impartial member of the Judiciary Committee.In a dirty maneuver while Ms González was out of the hearing room, Ms Rebimbas made some large claims that there was no supporting evidence of the failures of law that Ms Gonzáles raised. In what appears to be a public call for retaliation, Ms Rebimbas went so far as to name a specific litigant who dared to bring to the legislature the transcript of her judge attacking her, fabricating imaginary lawsuits, accusing the litigant in his paranoid delusions of chasing away all professional therapists, and even letting slip that there is a secret tier system of qualified vendors.Here Judge Adelman in D'Amato v D'Amato (July 11, 2014), monologuing from the bench, attacks all critics of the courts, ironically hoisting himself with his own petard:ADELMAN: Have you ever heard the expression being hoisted [sic] by [sic] your own petard?LITIGANT: No.ADELMAN: It's from Hamlet, I believe. The attack on the therapeutic community by litigants who have not been successful in court has, obviously, made many of these therapists adverse [sic] to getting involved in these cases. They're getting sued, and there's plenty of therapy work for people who are not involved in litigation. It's hard to believe that so many PhDs, therapists would refuse the work, but I can understand it when they find out that this is a case that's in litigation and an appeal and why ask for trouble, I guess?That's tragic because you and these girls need some therapeutic assistance in an effort to repair the parental relationship, and now, quite frankly, I'm going to have to go to second tier individual.LITIGANT: What does that mean, Your Honor?ADELMAN: What that means is I'm going to have to use somebody who's not a PhD therapist. I'm going to have to go down the stream to other therapeutic individuals because you and others like you have created a hostile environment to ther --LITIGANT: I would like that stricken, Your Honor, because I did not create this problem, and there's no proof that he contacted anybody. There's no proof.ADELMAN: I have his sworn testimony. What proof do you have? You want to call those ten people into court? You're calling the man a liar?LITIGANT: I'm questioning his credibility, yes I am.ADELMAN: All right. The court finds him incredibly credible. [sic] There's no reason to think he's done anything other than what he said he has done. The environment in Family Court and in family therapy is hostile and becoming difficult -- it's getting very difficult to find people, quite frankly, to even volunteer to be Special Masters to help people resolve their cases before they have to go to litigation, and I hope that the people who are creating the hostility think about that., Ms Rebimbas, however, went on to deny the existence of the transcript, to accuse the litigant of making up the judge's tyrannical behavior, and wrongly claim that the only proper channel for remedy is through the judicial branch, which has been established through now hundreds of individuals' testimony, as not the slightest bit capable of policing itself.The transcript exposes some very serious questions:
- Why would licensed providers be afraid of being sued if everything they are doing is perfectly ethical? Are they engaging in the same unethical practices that victims' evidence to the legislature and federal task force reflects?
- Are judges ordering therapy for children without there being a diagnosis? Is a "custody evaluation" any more credible than peering into a crystal ball? Could this be why these court-appointed providers accept only cash for their services?
- Why do judges have a tier system among state licensed treaters? Are the providers who are members or directors of AFCC along with the judges and GALs given preference, such as the transcript references to CT Chapter president Linda Smith?
- Where are these multiple lawsuits against Connecticut therapists to which the judge alludes, and for which the judge blames the litigant standing before him?
- Was the judge threatening the litigant by referencing an explosive device harming her in his non-sequitur comment?
- Why would Ms Rebimbas try so hard to deny, or at least deflect from, the existence of this transcript?Representative González has spent the past seven years hearing heart-wrenching testimony from hundreds of Connecticut citizens being cannibalized by the scam operating out of the Judicial Branch. She has done exactly what she was elected to do, which is to represent the interests and needs of her constituents and the people of Connecticut -- not to protect the asset-raiding operation of the judges and GALs. She has never backed down from her duties, even in the harshest of fights against lawlessness. She got emotional and angry over the past few days, which proves a well-calibrated moral compass in the face of, at best, unprofessional behavior from a member of the Judiciary Committee. At worst, she defended against a lobbyist installed to ensure that the moneyball game keeps the cash flowing to court-appointees. Anyone with a heart should be very angry.It seem that the Federal Task Force agrees. I'll leave you with their own words about their current operation in Connecticut. Remember to call the hotline and press #6 to report public corruption in Connecticut."U.S. Attorney Daly explained that the Task Force is focused on rooting out not only corrupt elected officials, but also federal, state and municipal employees who use their position for personal gain at the expense of the public good.""The Task Force will also focus on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are distributed annually by federal and state agencies to ensure that taxpayer funds reach their intended recipients without corrupt interference."“Public servants are entrusted by all of us to act in the best interests of the public they serve. It is important for the United States to bring to justice those who betray that trust,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Patricia M. Ferrick. “Public corruption at all levels of local, state, and federal government must not be tolerated, and this task force will leverage the best assets of the task force partner agencies to address the threat posed by corrupt public officials.”The task force includes staff from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Inspector General’s Offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Monday, January 5, 2015
CT-N reports as follows: "Hartford, CT – Starting at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, January 7, the Connecticut Network (CT-N), will kick off live coverage of the second inauguration of Governor Dannel P. Malloy and the first day of the 2015 Legislative Session as it hosts CT-N Inauguration and Opening Day 2015 on television and on their website at CT-N.com
CT-N Inauguration and Opening Day 2015 will be led by CT-N's Diane Smith who will host live guests – including historians, political commentators and legislative leaders – throughout the day. Diane will guide viewers through one of the busiest days on the 2015 state government calendar and discuss the important legislative issues that are expected to be brought up during the upcoming session.
CT-N will provide live coverage of the inauguration ceremonies for Governor Dannel P. Malloy, who will be entering his second term as Connecticut's governor after his victory in the November 2014 Gubernatorial Election. As is custom, Governor Malloy will walk in the Inauguration Day Parade (scheduled for 11:30 a.m.) along Capitol Avenue in Hartford to his ceremony at the State Armory, where the Oath of Office will be administered at 1:30 p.m."
For more information on this subject, please click on the link below: