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 MICHAEL NOWACKI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MICHAEL NOWACKI. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2017


By Email

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



January 18, 2017 
1:55 PM

Rep. Remimbas:

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".


Michael Nowacki
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.


Michael Nowacki
Public Advocate


Thursday, March 19, 2015


From: Michael Nowacki <>
To: Eric.Coleman <>; William.Tong <>; Doyle <>; <>; John.A.Kissel <>; rosa.rebimbas <>; Al.Adinolfi <>; William.Aman <>; Angel.Arce <>; David.Baram <>; Jeffrey.Berger <>; Toni.Boucher <>; cecilia.buck-taylor <>; Beth.Bye <>; Vincent.Candelora <>; christie.carpino <>; Jeff.Currey <>; Patricia.Dillon <>; Doug.Dubitsky <>; mae.flexer <>; Mary.Fritz <>; Gerratana <>; Bob.Godfrey <>; Minnie.Gonzalez <>; Ernest.Hewett <>; David.Labriola <>; Roland.Lemar <>; Art.Linares <>; Ben.McGorty <>; Michael.McLachlan <>; Bruce.Morris <>; tom.odea <>; Arthur.ONeill <>; Robyn.Porter <>; emmett.riley <>; Robert.Sampson <>; Joseph.Serra <>; john.shaban <>; Caroline.Simmons <>; richard.smith <>; Joe.Verrengia <>; Toni.Walker <>; Gary.Holder-Winfield <Gary.Holder-Winfield@cga.ct>
Cc: melissa.farley <>
Sent: Thu, Mar 19, 2015 6:51 am
Subject: Misremembrances of Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto in non-sworn testiomny on March 11, 2015 in opposition to HB 5505

To all Judiciary Committee members:
On March 11, 2015, members of the judiciary committee in attendance heard prepared testimony of Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters who delivered prepared remarks and then answered questions posed by the judiciary committee members.
I want each of you to take less than ten minutes to review on CT-N archives (published transcript is not yet available), the judiciary committee meeting on the date of March 11.  Please use the cursor on the videoplayer and watch a series of questions posed by Representative Buck-Taylor concerning the subject of Part 1 of the bill, involving the use of supervised visitation.
I have watched the video carefully four times since March 11, and spoke to external affairs director, Melissa Farley about the statements of Judge Buzzuto which is in the process of being refuted with hard data about the "common practice" in family courts to order supervised visitation of long durations, entered as court orders regardless of whether the supervised visitation is affordable. 
Despite Judge Buzzuto's testimony was at times framed by the words, "To be honest with you, my experience", Judge Buzzuto's personal record as jurist and as the Chief Administrative Judge was not "sworn testimony" subject to perjury allegations.
However, the Code of Judicial Conduct does contain language which indicates a judge cannot use the powers of the office in a manner to use the prestige of their capacity as a public official, to make statements on public policy issues such as legislation which are designed to knowingly mislead another public official such as a member of this judiciary committee.
Last Monday, March 16, 2015, I approached external affairs director, Attorney Melissa Farley, indicating that at that time I had reviewed the testimony of Judge Buzzuto three times since March 11, 2015 and Judge Buzzuto had a responsibility to issue a letter of correction--similar to the letter issued by Judge Frazzini, who only issued such a letter of "correction" after I contacted him at his home email address  This email address of Judge Frazzini can be found on documents published on the judiciary website on the date of January 16, 2015, when just Frazzini testified under oath and delivered "material false and misleading" testimony about his CT Chapter AFCC membership.
Yesterday, I sent an email to Attorney Farley seeking a copy of any communication to the judiciary committee members including  letters, faxes, texts, phone calls records to or from any judiciary committee member, email, text or documents defined in the FOI Act which emanated from any personal email or State of Connecticut email address of ANY members of the judiciary, including Judge Buzzuto, which corrected testimony provided to your committee.
Attorney Farley has not acknowledged that FOI request as of this date and she is copied on this communication.
Those, such as myself, who have been ordered to permanent supervised visitation as part of a Memorandum of Decision by a judge are not going to tolerate Judge Buzzuto's attempts to undermine the support of HB 5505, especially in light of the data we are now assembling to provide data to this committee to show the incidence of supervised visitation is not rare, is not short term, and subjects our children and the parents to unjustified humiliation in an environment which Judge Buzzuto described herself on March 11 as "an artificial setting".
Within three weeks time, an excel chart will be sent to this group of legislators to consider as hard evidence to refute Judge Buzzuto's statements, while not sworn were designed to mislead the members of this committee.
We hope to assemble in this document those who have spent as much as $125,000 in supervised visitation which ended only when there were no more financial resources available to a parent.
To suggest, that this committee would provide weighting to certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony because she is a judge and assumed to be "credible and trustworthy" in statements made on March 11, 2015 should be a judgment to be deferred until which point in time we can assemble the data to refute the answers to Representative Buck Taylors questions on supervised visitation.
There are also "speculative " comments issued by Judge Bozzuto which were made on the other three sections of the bill, which parents will refute with hard data which contradicts the published comments made by Judge Bozzuto concerning section 3, 4 and 5 of HB 5505.
Those comments will be reserved for a later point in time in a separate email to the judiciary committee members.
HB 5505 is a bill which will provide much needed restraints on "judicial authority" acquired through decisional law cases and through self empowerment which occurred by the unmonitored adoption of PB Rules without the legislative "hearings" required by C.G.S. 51-14 (a) and (c).
We would ask for your indulgence to allow the citizens of this State to prepare documents to refute certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony.
However, if a letter of correction is issued of any kind concerning the March 11, 2015 judiciary committee hearing on HB 5505, and sent to the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee signed by any member of the judiciary "misremembrances" of Judge Bozzuto, we would ask any such letter be routed immediately to all judiciary committee members AND published on the judiciary committee's published testimony of March 11, concerning HB 5505.
Judge Frazzi's letter to the judiciary committee dated Jan. 28, 2015 was never published on the judiciary committee website which corrected sworn testimony.  I only acquired a copy of the letter of Judge Frazzini by filing an FOI request of Attorney Farley, who did promptly provided a scanned copy of the letter of correction on the Monday after Judge Frazzini's nomination was approved by the members of the General Assembly on the date of January 30, 2015.
Please accept my apologies for the length of this communication, but the judiciary committee will be considering the merits of HB 5505 and deserves to be fully informed before considering the language and amendments of this proposed legislation.
Feel free to contact me at any time concerning any data which has already been collected, but is currently only a "work in progress".
It is the hopes of the parents aggrieved by the financial impact of these process will be able to overcome the "anecdotal" testimony of Judge Buzzuto who provided no "hard data" to support her "experiences" as a member of the bench for fifteen years.  We look forward to Judge Bozzuto's next re-appointment hearing to challenge the authenticity of the statements made on March 11, 2015 that were posited into the public record as non-sworn testimony.  We look forward to Judge Buzzuto's explanations of her "misremembrances" on March 11, 2015---but the next occasion Judge Buzzuto's testimony will under oath in the next legislative session.
I also enclose an attachment of a letter received from Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle sent to me concerning sworn affidavits have been filed alleging perjury by Judge Thomas Parker, Judge Taggart Adams and Judge Stephen Frazzini.  The sworn affidavits involving Judges Adams and Frazzini were posted as public testimony on the date of January 23 of the judiciary's website.
Many in the aggrieved parents group are fearful of retaliation or retribution if they have currently active cases in the family court.  We are seeking permissions from those litigants who harbor legitimate concerns for
"future adverse rulings" to publish docket numbers and litigants.  We are respecting those who wish to publish information anonymously rather than for attribution in the excel document which will be sent to you in three years time.
Hopefully, you can accept these requests for anonymous posting of data on supervised visitation as "properly adjudged concerns."

Michael Nowacki
(203) 273-4296

Thursday, March 12, 2015


Aaron Marsh of the New Canaan Advertiser states as follows:
"New Canaan resident Michael Nowacki claims a trial court violated his U.S. Constitutional rights in two 2012 convictions of him it reached, and the Connecticut Appellate Court has now said it agrees.
In a decision published Tuesday, March 10, in the state’s law journal, the Appellate Court reversed one of Nowacki’s convictions and ordered a retrial for the other, finding in the latter that the trial court violated Nowacki’s rights to present his defense — which he did during the trial himself, without retaining legal counsel.
The Advertiser is now asking what no news outlet thus far to report on Nowacki’s successful appeal yet has. In the charge for which the Appellate Court ordered a new trial — where the appeal judges’ argument largely hinges on one witness not being called and Nowacki’s own attempted, related testimony being limited — what would that witness have said about a key legal point of this case?"
For more information on this article, please click on the link below:

Sunday, March 8, 2015


From: Michael Nowacki <>
To: jk.dcf <>; barbara.claire <>
Cc: david.sheldon <>; leonard.boyl <>; tj.jones <>; colleen.murphy <>; clifton.leonhardt <>; diana.urban <>; dante.bartolomeo <>; claire.janowski <>; bob.duff <>; mnowacki <>; minnie.gonzalez <>; corruptct <>
Sent: Sun, Mar 8, 2015 11:25 am
Subject: Request to inspect certain public records in the offices of Department of Children and Families as outlined herein
Commissioner Katz:                       


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



The Honorable Joyette Katz


Department of Children and Families

505 Hudson Street

Hartford, CT


Freedom of Information Request

                                                                                                February 24, 2015


Dear Commissioner Katz:

Recent publicly televised re-appointment hearings conducted in the Connecticut legislature failed to note that you are currently serving in the capacity as Chair, of the editorial board of Connecticut Law Tribune.

Recent editorial coverage in the Connecticut Law Tribune concerning an article authored by Attorney Norm Pattis, in an opinion piece, published on-line on Wednesday February 11, 2015, entitled: “Despite Allegations, Family Courts not Corrupt” recently was challenged for a lack of authenticity of certain comments authored by Attorney Pattis.

Such “materially false and misleading” publication of information would be potentially a matter of discussion at meetings conducted by the editorial board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

As Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, and as an appointed public official as the Commissioner of DCF with substantial responsibilities relating to family court, probate court and juvenile court proceedings, there is substantial public interest in the matters involving your personal use of computers and servers, owned by the State of Connecticut, in your role as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

If you have used your state provided email address or any personal email address which was accessed through servers owned by the State of Connecticut, the content of the communications contained in such emails are considered “public communications” and subject to the applications of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Decisional cases issued by the FOI Commission are available for your review which have verified that the use of personal email addresses to conduct “business” relevant to your responsibilities as DCF Commissioner are also to be considered “public documents” subject to the application and legislative intent of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Unfortunately, defining potential “conflicts of interest” between your responsibilities as Commissioner of DCF and your role as a Chair, Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, can only be determined by inspecting “public records” pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Your have massive responsibilities as Commissioner of DCF and this request for access to “public records” for “inspection” should not be considered onerous or impinging on your job responsibilities inasmuch as members of your staff and IT departments can be utilized to easily retrieve documents through search codes for key words.

Based upon the above observations, you are herewith required within four business days to acknowledge the receipt of this request to produce “public records” for public inspection and to indicate your personal intent to comply with this FOI request.

  Within thirty days of the acknowledgment of this Freedom of Information request you are required to produce for “public inspection” at your offices at 505 Hudson Street relevant “documents/public records” requested, subject to “redactions” as permissible and defined in the Freedom of Information Act and decisions issued by the Commission.

For the purposes of clarification, “documents/public records” are defined in the Freedom of Information Act and should be considered as the “base line” for providing the “public records” to be provided for inspection in this request.

For the purposes of all of the documents requested, the date span for the production of all “public records” (including personal emails sent or received regarding DCF business matter referenced in any “public record” of communications with fellow Editorial Board members or members of the staff of the CLT), should be considered from the date of your sworn oath as DCF Commissioner to the date of compliance with this request dated February 24, 2015.

The “public records” to be made available for “public inspection” should include” for the date span indicated in the above paragraph should include:


  1.  Any “public records” in your possession sent or received from your State of Connecticut provided email address, state owned fax machine, received at your offices at 505 Hudson Street or your home address authored by you in your capacity as DC Commisioner or sent or received “public records” sent to you by any past or present member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, including but not limited to the following individuals:
    Atty Dwight Merriam    Robert Farr         Elizabeth Gordon    
    Joyce Chen                 Eugene Fidell      Rachel Goldberg
    Prolog K. Das              Mary Galvin         Robert Holzberg
    Wesley Horton             Alan Neigher       Steven Wizner
    Jocelyn Kennedy         Lemis Pepe          Paul Sussman
    David King                   Thomas Scheffer Jay Stapleton
    James Lyon                 Mark Soboslar      Kevin Michielsen
    Eugene Marconi          James F. Sullivan
    Sean McElligot             Cecil Thomas
    Robert Mitchell             Thomas Ullman
    Dennis C. Murphy         Diane Whitney 
  2.  Any “public record” in any communication sent to any of the above individuals issued on DCF Stationery or sent on your personal stationery which references the words “DCF” in any portion of such communication including how you signed such letters using DCF Commissioner.
  3. Any “public record” sent or received in your possession confirming the date of your acceptance to become the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune or to which established a date in which you became a member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
  4. A properly redacted copy of your required disclosure of all statements of financial interests (SFI’s) required by law to be filed with the Office of State Ethics from 2010-2015.  A copy of all expense reports filed by you as the Commissioner of DCF filed with the Office of State Ethics required to be filed with the Office of State Ethics filed from 2010 through the date of compliance with this request.  A copy of all gifts received by you in your capacity as Commissioner of DCF required to be filed with the Office of State Ethics from 2010 to the date of compliance with this request.
  5. Any “public records” in your possession of honorariums or other public speaking engagements which you have made, including appearances you may have made to any law association groups as DCF Commissioner.
  6. Any “public records” in your possession which you have sent or received at the DCF offices at 505 Hudson Street from member of the judicial branch of government, including any Superior Court judges, probate court judges, family court judges or any CSSD employee or Court operations personnel which are permissible for release pursuant to the FOI Act.
  7. Any “public records” in your possession sent or received from any present or past Editorial Board member of the Connecticut Law Tribune to any personal email account or home address you have maintained during your tenure as DCF Commissioner which embed the words “DCF,” “family court docket numbers or family court litigant names”, “juvenile court docket numbers or juvenile court litigant names” or “probate court docket numbers or juvenile court litigant names”
  8. Any “public records” in your possession as DCF Commissioner and as Chair or member of the Connecticut Law Tribune Editorial Board which contain minutes to any meeting convened or attended by you at the Connecticut Law Tribune which would capture any content in such minutes of the meetings of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune concerning discussion of any DCF, family court, juvenile court or probate court legal proceeding in which an employee of DCF would be involved.
  9. Any “opinion pieces”, “letters to the editor” which you may have authored and were published in the on line or print editions of the Connecticut Law Tribune as Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune while you have served as DCF Commissioner.
  10. A copy of your letter of resignation as a Supreme Court Justice.
  11. A copy of any “public records” in your possession which may contain information regarding the proposed consolidation by Governor Malloy of the operations of Court Support Services Division and DCF.
  12. A copy of any “public records” in your possession sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address in which the recent publication of the article “Despite Allegations, Family Courts are Not Corrupt” was discussed by you in your role as DCF Commissioner and Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune
  13. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains the name Michael Nowacki.
  14. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains of the name of Peter Szymonik.
  15. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains references embedded in any “public records” referencing the words “Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children, CT-N coverage of the public hearings of January 9, 2014 or March 31, 2014, SB 494 or Public Act 14-3” while you were serving in the capacity as DCF Commissioner and the Chair or member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
  16. A copy of any resignation letter you might issue as DCF Commissioner to withdraw as the Chair of the Connecticut Law Tribune’s Editorial Board which may ensue from the date of the receipt of this letter by fax and registered mail and the date of compliance with the production of these requested “public records for public inspection.”


If you would like me to speak to any member of your staff who is assigned the responsibilities to compile these requested “public records”, please do not hesitate to have that person contact me via email, phone, or letter based upon the information contained below.

When the public records are prepared for inspection, please know it is my intent to be joined by a group of people who will accompany me to scan public records in the most efficient manner possible so as to not occupy your staff’s valuable time.

I would like to “inspect in person” any partial compliance with any of these “public record’s which can be provided to me from this list requested in this letter no later than Thursday, March 5.

As you may know, the United States Attorney Office has recently announced the creation of a Task Force hotline number to allow citizens to report matters of “public corruption” to a special phone number in which complaints can be made.

Therefore, I am copying Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle and the U.S. Attorney Deidre Daly on these communications to alert them to the importance of compliance with evidence acquired by citizens pursuant to the application of the Freedom of Information Act.



     Michael Nowacki

     319 Lost District Drive

     New Canaan, CT  06840

     (203) 273-4296


     cc:  Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle

             U.S. Attorney Deidre Daly