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.
Showing posts with label JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Show all posts

Sunday, May 21, 2017

PUBLIC HEARING ON NOMINATIONS FOR JUDGES!

Judiciary Committee 
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
Monday, May 22, 2017 
9:00 AM in Room 2C of the LOB 

NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW


I. To be an Appellate Court Judge:
1. The Honorable Nina F. Elgo of West Hartford
2. The Honorable Maria Araujo Kahn of Cheshire

Sunday, April 30, 2017

CREATING A CT FAMILY COURT REFORM MOVEMENT THAT EVERYONE CAN GET BEHIND!

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!

By Email

Wednesday, 
January 18, 2017 
9:16 PM





Rep. Tong:

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 on Wednesday and Friday and I am one of five individuals who will have filed by tomorrow 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 Monday 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."

Michael Nowacki,
Public Advocate

Monday, January 9, 2017

PROTEST THE REAPPOINTMENT OF CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURT JUDGE GERARD ADELMAN!


HEARING THIS WEDNESDAY, 
JANUARY 11, 2017 AT THE LOB AT 9:00AM
 TO CONSIDER THE REAPPOINTMENT OF 
JUDGE GERARD ADELMAN!

Please Attend the Hearing and 
Wear RED to show your support! 

WHAT:

It Is Not OK!      

Tell the Judiciary Committee:  

"Do Not Reappoint Connecticut Judge Gerard Adelman!"

Please email and call the co-chairs of the 2017 Connecticut Judiciary Committee  to tell them "It is Not OK" to reappoint family court judge - Gerard Adelman - who dismisses evidence of domestic violence and punishes protective mothers by retaliating and taking custody of their children away! There are 10 cases where mother's lost custody in his courtroom...It is Not OK!

2017 Connecticut Judiciary Committee

WHEN:

Public Hearing is Wednesday January 11 at 10 a.m. in Hartford, LOB Building

WEAR RED TO THE HEARING!

CT Public Hearing Agenda for Judicial Reappointment

WHY: 

Connecticut Family Court Judge Gerard Adelman is up for reappointment as a Trial Referee Judge.  His previous 8 year tenure as a family court judge has torn families apart, bankrupted litigants and allowed and condoned the continued abuse - litigation abuse - of domestic violence victims and dismissal of their traumatic DV experiences from his bench. 

According to an investigative journalist,

“I have been moved by the individual stories of the families and the harm they have suffered at the hands of the courts. The stories of greed and miscarriages of justice, many that have gravely harmed children and parents, are heartbreaking.”

CT Announces Investigation of Corrupt Courts

HOW:  

Call and email the Judiciary committee co-chairs and members  to educate them about how they can protect children in family court from harm by VOTING NO on the reappointment of Gerard Adelman as a Trial Referee Judge.

Co-Chair Paul Doyle     

Legislative Aide:  David Seifel,  David.seifel@cga.ct.gov
860-240-0475 or Toll-free: 1-800-842-1420

Co-Chair William Tong   William.Tong@cga.ct.gov
(860) 240-8585 | 1-800-842-8267

Co-Chair John Kissel

Legislative Aide: Kate McAvoy
Phone: (800) 842-1421  kate.mcavoy@cga.ct.gov 

Mae Flexor     Kerensa.Konesni@cga.ct.gov

Legislative Aide:  Andrew Elash
860-240-8634, or Toll-free: 1-800-842-1420

Friday, December 30, 2016

HEARINGS ON THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JUDGES, LIST BELOW!

THERE ARE GOING TO BE HEARINGS ON THE REAPPOINTMENT OF THE JUDGES BELOW ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2017 AT 10:00A.M. IN ROOMC OF THE LOB.  THE LINK TO THE AGENDA IS BELOW:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/JUDdata/pha/2017pha00111-R001000JUD-pha.htm



SUPREME COURT
Hon. Richard N. Palmer 
Hon. Peter T. Zarella

APPELLATE COURT 

Hon. Bethany J. Alvord

SUPERIOR COURT

Hon. Holly A. Abery-Wetstone 
Hon. Gerard I. Adelman
Hon. Salvatore C. Agati
Hon. Elizabeth A. Bozzuto 

Hon. Mary-Margaret D. Burgdorff 
Hon. Richard E. Burke
Hon. Emmet L. Cosgrove 
Hon. Robert J. Devlin, Jr. 
Hon. Kevin G. Dubay 
Hon. Brian T. Fischer 
Hon. Stanley T. Fuger, Jr. 
Hon. James P. Ginocchio 
Hon. Bruce P. Hudock 
Hon. Corinne L. Klatt 
Hon. Douglas C. Mintz 
Hon. Vernon D. Oliver 
Hon. Sheila A. Ozalis 
Hon. Nicola E. Rubinow 
Hon. Philip A. Scarpellino 
Hon. Jose A. Suarez 
Hon. Carl E. Taylor
Hon. William J. Wenzel
Hon. Dawne G. Westbrook
Hon. Peter Emmett Wiese 
Hon. Glenn A. Woods

Senior Judges

Hon. Angelo L. dos Santos 
Hon. Susan B. Handy
page1image11264 page1image11424 page1image11584 page1image11744 page1image11904 page1image12064 page1image12224 page1image12384


Hon. Kevin P. McMahon
Hon. Patty Jenkins Pittman 

Hon. Susan S. Reynolds
Hon. Jane S. Scholl
Hon. Patricia A. Swords
Hon. Heidi G (deleted in error) 

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR JUDICIAL REAPPOINTMENT, THIS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2016!

Wednesday, February 10, 2016
10:00 AM in Room 2E of the LOB


NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW

I. To be a Judge of the Superior Court:

1. The Honorable William H. Bright, Jr. of Columbia
2. The Honorable Cara F. Eschuk of Naugatuck
3. The Honorable Linda K. Lager of New Haven
4. The Honorable Eddie Rodriguez, Jr. of Easton
5. The Honorable Robert E. Young of South Glastonbury

II. To be a State Referee:

1. The Honorable Charles Gill of Litchfield
2. The Honorable Joseph Licari of North Haven
3. The Honorable Socrates Mihalokos of Southbury
4. The Honorable Joseph Pellegrino of Hamden
5. The Honorable Michael E. Shay of Wilton

III. To be a Workers' Compensation Commissioner:

1. Scott A. Barton of Seymour
2. John A. Mastropietro of Watertown

IV. To be a Boards of Pardons & Paroles Member:

1. Patricia Camp of Bloomfield
2. Jeff L. Hoffman of Madison
3. Christopher B. Lyddy of New Haven
4. Carmen D. Sierra of New Britain

Thursday, February 4, 2016

UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR JUDICIAL REAPPOINTMENT, THIS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016!

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2016
10:00AM IN ROOM 2E OF THE LOB

NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW:

I.  To be a Justice of the Supreme Court
1.  The Honorable Christine S. Vertefeuille of East Haven

II.  To be a Judge of the Appellate court
1.  The Honorable Robert E. Beach, Jr. of Storrs

III.  To be a Judge of the Superior Court:
1.  The Honorable Joan K. Alexander of Cromwell
2.  The Honorable Alice A. Bruno of New Britain
3.  The Honorable William T. Cremins of Middlebury
4.  The Honorable Michael R. Dannehy of Manchester
5.  The Honorable Edward S. Domnarsky of Essex
6.  The Honorable John B. Farley of West Hartford
7.  The Honorable Mathew E. Frechette of Branford
8.  The Honorable David P. Gold of Middlefield
9.  The Honorable Gerald L. Harmon of Southington
10.  The Honorable Barbara Bailey Jongbloewd of Madison
11.  The Honorable Edward T. Krumeich of Greenwich
12.  The Honorable Paul M. Matasavage of Oakville
13.  The Honorable John J. Nazzaro of Pawcatuck
14.  The Honorable John W. Pickard of Harwinton
15.  The Honorable Linda Pearce Prestley of West Hartford

IV.  To be a State Referee:
1.  The Honorable Robert J. Malone of Milford
2.  The Honorable Francis M. McDonald, Jr. of Middleburg
3.  The Honorable Barry Schaller of Guilford

Sunday, April 26, 2015

CT LATINO NEWS SPEAKS OUT IN SUPPORT OF REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

Gerry Garcia speaks out in support of Rep. Minnie Gonzalez as follows:
"I read with sadness and disappointment the Courant’s editorial, Rep Gonzalez Insulting Email Disgraceful. In your zeal to pin blame on Connecticut’s senior Latina legislator, what’s most disgraceful is that the Courant’s editors completely miss the much bigger issue.
We happen to be in the midst of a national conversation on police use of excessive force, of dead black men, of brutality that would never have come to light but for ordinary citizen bystanders with camera phones.  Too many black and brown Americans – from South Carolina to New York to Los Angeles to our own East Haven – fear for our lives when we’re engaged by police.  Rather than blaming the Latina for an inappropriate e-mail, where is the Editors’ righteous indignation that Republican legislators put politics and personal animus ahead of this important national conversation and related legislation?"

For more information on this important issue, please click on the link below:

http://ctlatinonews.com/2015/04/18/op-ed-why-is-rep-minnie-gonzalez-criticized-and-not-republicans/

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 Friday'shearing, 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 on Monday's 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.


On Friday, 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.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

LEGISLATURE TRYING TO BACKUP ON FOOLISH BEHAVIOR WITH REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

Hartford Courant Sharelines reports as follows:

"HARTFORD — Top legislators are working to resurrect many of the 45 bills that died in the judiciary committee this week, the casualty of an email squabble between two legislators that brought the committee's work to an abrupt halt.

Democrats, who control both chambers of the legislature, said that the bill with the highest priority for revival is one that would allow citizens to file lawsuits against police officers who interfere with them as they videotape them while performing their official duties.

That bill and 44 others died without a vote when the email clash led to a filibuster by Republicans leading up to a legislative deadline..."

For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:



MORE HARTFORD COURANT COMMENTARY ON ATTACK ON REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ!

According to Christopher Keating of The Hartford Courant,

"State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez says it's over.


Gonzalez, a Hartford Democrat, vaulted into the headllines this week after writing a highly critical email to Rep. Rosa Rebimbas, a Naugatuck Republican who serves as the committee’s ranking House member. The email dust-up led to a Republican filibuster in the judiciary committee and the failure of 45 bills that had been on the agenda - as the committee failed to take any action by its deadline.

But Gonzales said she is ready to move forward - with no hard feelings and no spillover effects as the legislature heads into the final six weeks of the session.

"For me, this is over,'' Gonzalez told The Courant in an interview. "It's over in my mind.''

The email related to a public clash between Gonzalez and Rebimbas during the previous week over the re-nomination of State Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase Rogers. The Rogers hearing spilled over into a series of issues, incuding the role of guardians ad litem who are appointed in highly contentious divorce cases."


For more information on this article, please click on the link below: