MICHAEL NOWACKI SENDS A LETTER TO THE EDITOR RE DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ!

Dear Sir/Madame:

The recent re-appointment hearing conducted by the executive and legislative nominations committee on Capitol Hill concerning DCF Commissioner Joyette Katz failed to address a significant undisclosed conflict of interest of the Commissioner.

No member of the committee addressed the matter of Commissioner Katz serving as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune (CLT).

On February 24, 2015, Commissioner Katz received an extensive Freedom of Information Commission request from me by fax, requesting “public documents” which exist on her email address or were accessed through servers of the State of Connecticut from personal email accounts in which Commissioner Katz was responding to “content based” editorial issues of the CLT in her role as Chair of the Editorial Board.

DCF Attorney Barbara Clare responded to the FOI request via email indicating the “public records” could not be produced by March 5.

Minimally, Commissioner Katz should immediately resign her position as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the CLT inasmuch it creates a considerable conflict of interest.

The General Assembly should defer the confirmation vote on Commissioner Katz which is scheduled for March 9 until a full review of these public documents can be conducted.

 

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

mnowacki@aol.com

(203) 273-4296

MICHAEL NOWACKI WINS APPEAL!

For those of you who are interested, Michael Nowacki won his appeal and the link to the decision is below:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP155/155AP196.pdf

MICHAEL NOWACKI MAKES FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ IN CONNECTION TO HER ROLE AS CHAIR OF EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

The Honorable Joyette Katz

Commissioner
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:

 

 

Attorney 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.

     Cordially,

 

     Michael Nowacki

     319 Lost District Drive
     New Canaan, CT  06840
      mnowacki@aol.com
     (203) 273-4296

 

     cc:  Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle

            U.S. Attorney Deidre Daly

MICHAEL NOWACKI CALLS UPON DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ TO RESIGN DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Letter to the Editor:

 

The recent re-appointment hearing conducted by the executive and legislative nominations committee on Capitol Hill concerning DCF Commissioner Joyette Katz failed to address a significant undisclosed conflict of interest of the Commissioner.

No member of the committee addressed the matter of Commissioner Katz serving as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune (CLT).

On February 24, 2015, Commissioner Katz received an extensive Freedom of Information Commission request from me by fax, requesting “public documents” which exist on her email address or were accessed through servers of the State of Connecticut from personal email accounts in which Commissioner Katz was responding to “content based” editorial issues of the CLT in her role as Chair of the Editorial Board.

DCF Attorney Barbara Clare responded to the FOI request via email indicating the “public records” could not be produced by March 5.

Minimally, Commissioner Katz should immediately resign her position as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the CLT inasmuch it creates a considerable conflict of interest.

The General Assembly should defer the confirmation vote on Commissioner Katz which is scheduled for March 9 until a full review of these public documents can be conducted.

 

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

mnowacki@aol.com

(203) 273-4296

MR. MICHAEL NOWACKI RESPONDS TO CT LAW TRIBUNE PUBLICATION OF INACCURATE OP-ED BY ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS!

Dear Editor:

The “opinion piece” filed on February 11, 2015 by Attorney Norm Pattis on the Connecticut Law Tribune website contained substantial errors, misrepresentations and “misrememberances” in the article entitled:  “Despite Allegations, Family Courts Aren’t Corrupt.”

There was no apology which was posted by the editorial staff of the Connecticut Law Tribune for posting in paragraph three erroneous information in the original story issued by Attorney Pattis, who was immediately contacted by phone, email and his Twitter account to correct these “misrepresentations and misremembrances” of testimony by “disgruntled litigants” at the confirmation hearings on January 23, 2015 involving Judge Stephen Frazzini.

Inasmuch as the transcripts of the public hearings on January 23, 2015 are now posted on the judiciary committee’s webpage which validate there was no “testimony by disgruntled parents” as Attorney Pattis originally reported.

While the CLT staff didn’t post a “corrected information” on line until late in the afternoon, on February 12, 2015, there was no recognition by the CLT editors and management contacted on Friday, February 13, 2015 that the article by Attorney Pattis was a clear violation of Rule 3.6 (a) of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.

Despite the management of ALM being contacted about these concerns seeking the withdrawal of the article both on line and in the print edition of the Connecticut Law Tribune, Paul Sussman, the editor of the Connecticut Law Tribune confirmed by telephone on February 15, 2015 that the CLT on line and print version would contain this story.

Rule 3.6 (a) concerns the subject of Trial Publicity:

“A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

So, inasmuch as Attorney Pattis has used his editorial epee to inappropriately comment on a Judge’s confirmation hearing in attempts to interfere with prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in which Judge Frazzini was participating, Attorney Pattis appears to be “impervious” to his own responsibilities to self enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Statewide Bar Counsel’s Attorney Michael Bowler, and senior judiciary officials, including external affairs director Melissa Farley, Chief Administrative Judge Patrick Carroll and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Elliot Solomon refused to intervene upon my request to seek the removal of the article in both the on line and print editions when contacted on February 15, 2015.

So, the issue of “public corruption” is demonstrated when lawyers protect lawyers when misconduct is alleged, judges protect lawyers when misconduct is alleged, and no one is willing to step forward who has the duty and authority to protect the “public interest in the integrity of the judiciary system”.

Cordially,

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

(203) 273-4296

MICHAEL NOWACKI RAPS ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS ON THE KNUCKLES, CAUTIONS HIM TO STICK TO THE FACTS ABOUT FAMILY COURT REFORM!

“Misrepresentations” versus “Misremembrances”

The events of this week regarding Brian Williams and the posting of an “opinion piece” quilled by Attorney Norm Pattis entitled “Despite Accusations, Family Courts Aren’t Corrupt” merit a response.

After reading Attorney Pattis scribed observations, I reached out to Attorney Pattis via phone messages left to his offices, to his well followed Twitter account and by email.  Attorney Pattis suggested that I contact the editors about the concerns in regards to factual statements which are unsupportable by evidence and in regards to other “observations” about sworn testimony provided by Judge Stephen Frazzini’s recent re-appointment hearing on January 23, 2015.

First, Attorney Pattis was not present on January 23 2015 at the public hearing in front of the legislative judiciary committee.  I was present as both as an observer and as a participant. 

Apparently Attorney Pattis never reviewed the CT-N coverage available for fact verification before his articulation in the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Attorney Pattis indicated that that “disgruntled litigants appeared before the Judiciary Committee where whipped up by the likes of Hartford State Representative Minnie Gonzalez, they flung as much mud as they could muster at the man.  It was disgraceful.”

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #1:  CT-N footage available on line will show not one “disgruntled” litigant spoke to the judiciary committee in opposition of Judge Stephen Frazzini on January 23, 2015.  Attorney Pattis refused to correct his error and readers can draw their own inferences about whether that represents a misrepresentation or misremembrance. 

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #2:  Representative Minnie Gonzalez whipped up the “disgruntled litigants” on January 23, 2015.  The question here:  How can you whip up an empty bowl?

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #3:  “The Justice Department might be looking into his failure of memory of some deeper conspiracy.  This is tripe, pure and simple.”

On the evening of January 27, 2015 at 8:29 pm, I sent an email to the address of Judge Frazzini at stevefraz@comcast.net and copied the external affairs director, Attorney Melissa Farley for good measure, indicating that portions of Judge Frazzini’s sworn testimony on January 23, 2015 was “material false and misleading” in regards his national only membership in the AFCC and whether he knew whether the chapter in Connecticut ever got off the ground.

In this email, I suggested that Judge Frazzini issue a letter of correction to his testimony because he was listed as #43 on the Connecticut Chapter’s 2014 membership roster, yet failed to recollect than membership.

I asked him to post such a “letter of correction” on the public testimony of the judiciary committee.  I indicated that if he failed to do so, I would be posting a letter on his behalf in opposition to his re-nomination because he had delivered “material false and misleading testimony” under oath, a criminal charge pursuant to the application of C.G.S. 53a-156. 

Judge Frazzini denied that he had conflicts of interest defined in the Committee on Judicial Ethics ruling in 2013-15 in appointing AFCC Board members to positions as court appointees as GALs, AMCs and court appointed psychologists in essence because he correctly stated that the advisory opinion related to “members of the Board of Directors. 

Judge Frazzini indicated however, that he “would consider” these issues “seriously”.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015, Judge Frazzini wrote a letter to the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee to “recant” portions of his testimony.  The problem with the letter was that it was not posted on the judiciary committee webpage as “public testimony” and the letter to Senator Eric Coleman and Representative William Tong was not immediately distributed to all of the committee members.

So, let the record note that the AFCC CT Chapter membership list and my letter in opposition to Judge Frazzini was sent for posting on the judiciary committee’s website inasmuch as Judge Frazzini still had to be confirmed by the members of the General Assembly.  That vote was to be conducted on Friday, January 30.

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #4: Representative Gonzalez spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives concerning a letter received by the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee which attempted to “correct statements made” by Judge Frazzini.

As Representative Gonzalez began to speak, the Chamber had to be “quieted” in order to hear her comments.

The letter from Judge Frazzini contained more misstatements of fact.  Although this letter was not a sworn affidavit it contained three specific flawed statements.

First misstatement in the letter involved properly recollecting who had posed questions in the Judiciary Committee hearing concerning his CT Chapter membership.

To correct the misremembrance of Judge Frazzini articulated in his letter dated January 28, 2015, it was Representative Gonzalez, not Representative Dan Fox, who asked questions about his membership in the CT Chapter of the AFCC.  If Attorney Pattis had reviewed the video on CT-N before defending Judge Frazzini’s testimony, you would have seen that Rep. Gonzalez held up a list of the CT Chapter members and tried to present that list to Representative Fox and Senator Coleman suggested that be done outside of the committee proceeding of January 23.

Second, Judge Frazzini incorrectly stated that his membership to the Connecticut Chapter started in 2012.  The Chapter was not incorporated with the Secretary of State’s Office until March 26, 2013.  The list provided to the judiciary committee was a membership list in 2014.  An additional membership list obtained last week lists judge Frazzini as an AFCC national chapter in 2010.

Third, Judge Frazzini’s sworn statement on January 23, he was not aware of whether the “CT Chapter of the AFCC had gotten off the ground” was either a misrepresentation or misremembrance inasmuch as Judge Frazzini identified Judge Lynda Munro as a “mentor” and Judge Murno was listed as a member of the Board of Directors of the AFCC when the incorporation documents were filed.

“Plausible deniability” is a principle of law.  It is not plausible that Judge Frazzini knew “nothing” about the existence of a CT Chapter, inasmuch as Judge Frazzini was sitting on the Family Commission with Judge Munro.

Fourth, and perhaps the most egregious of the gaffes in Judge Frazzini’s letter of January 28, 2015 is that he called the national AFCC offices in Chicago.  The AFCC headquarters are in Madison, Wisconsin.  Representative Gonzalez called attention to this misrepresentation in her oratory on January 30.

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #5:  Attorney Pattis comments concerning whether the DOJ was investigating this issue of “perjury” misstates a fact.

The Office of Chief State Attorney received a sworn affidavit from me on Monday, January 26, indicating that sworn testimony to the judiciary committee of Judges Thomas Parker on January 16, 2015 and Judge Taggart Adams on January 23, were “material false and misleading.”  The sworn affidavit detailing the allegations of perjury were posted on the judiciary committee website under public testimony on the date of January 23. 

In addition, the Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle also acknowledged the receipt of my complaint letter detailing the perjury allegations made on Judge Frazzini’s testimony on Wednesday, January 28.  If Norm Pattis wants to fact check my sequence of events, he can contact Attorney Boyle at (860) 258-5800.

In addition to reporting the information above to the Deputy Chief State Attorney, these same allegations were reported to the FBI Task Force hotline as well last week.

Attorney Pattis has no more knowledge as to whether the FBI or the DOJ will be considering any actions on the perjury allegations or other matters of family court corruption being reported daily to the FBI Hotline.  His commentary on that subject is merely speculation not a fact.

Intakes have been taken by the FBI hotline include judges failing to include foreign dividend income and foreign assets (including Swiss bank accounts) in family court utilized financial affidavits or the failure to report income by court appointed GALs and AMCs.

Misrepresentation vs. Misremembrance #6  Attorney Pattis has a well-regarded, well-respected and well-earned reputation as a civil rights advocate over his distinguished career.

Those of us who are involved in seeking “much overdo” legislative reforms in the operations of the family court system had our views validated in a “family court satisfaction survey” issued by the judiciary on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 and available for Attorney Pattis review on jud.ct.gov.

Yesterday, the judiciary committee agreed to move forward to draft legislation to address the misuse by judges of “pay per view” parenting issued in orders of supervised visitation as an example of an abuse of “judicial discretion”.

What Attorney Pattis seems to have “misremembered” is that “the liberty” interests of parents to the care, custody and companionship of their children is well defined in federal case law since Yick Wo v. Hopkins 18 U.S. 356 in 1886.

This citizen will assist in the defense parental rights as an unenumerated right pursuant to the application of the Ninth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

In publishing his article yesterday entitled “Despite Attorney Pattis seems to have “misremembered” his earlier years where “civil rights” mattered to him as a matter of principle and of law.

We trust that Attorney Pattis will admit to the errors of factual misrepresentation and issue a proper correction.

Whether Attorney Pattis places any value on the “court of public opinion” when “misrepresentations” are arm-wrestling in the headlines with the word “misremembrance”, is “of the moment”.

 

Submitted,

 

Michael Nowacki

Family Court Reform Advocate

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

 

RULES COMMITTEE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT PUBLIC HEARING, MONDAY, MAY 19, 2014

MICHAEL NOWACKI LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE! PARENTS ARE NOT THE SOURCE OF CONFLICT IN FAMILY COURT! COURT APPOINTED "EXPERTS" GO FOR THE FINANCIAL JUGULAR OF FAMILY COURT LITIGANTS! AND MANY MORE DISGRACES! SEE BELOW:

Members

Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor
            Children
Connecticut Legislature
c/o Legislative Judiciary Committee Office
Legislative Office Building/Office 2500
Hartford, CT  06106

November 6, 2013

 
Dear Task Force Members:

            Like many other parents whose custody rights have been severed through the efforts by those who have been appointed by the courts as AMC’s, GAL’s and court appointed court evaluators, we hold hopes that the “invited” testimonial you have permitted to be provided to date by Attorney Sarah Stark Oldham will not be given inordinate weight in the early deliberations of recommendations to be made by this task force.

            The focus on the November 7 hearing is to be centered on the role of AMC’s in the custody evaluation process. 

            I submit this letter as a matter of public record to be posted as testimony.

We witnessed last week testimony from Attorney Sarah Stark Oldham on the manner in which these GAL appointments have been ordered.  Attorney Oldham provided one person’s assessment that generally most GAL assignments do not result in “economically” devastating fees.

In addressing the issue of these court appointed “experts”, Attorney Oldham made no mention that a judge first looks at the financial affidavits of the parents to determine the “affordability” of these appointments and that the attorneys are allowed access to that financial information. 

Attorney Oldham made no mention of retainers and per hour fee schedules which the court orders the parties to pay, and sign contracts to pay, as an accumulated amount.  Attorney Oldham made no references to the statutory authority of the court to order the liquidation of “retirement funds”, “college education funding”  or the tax consequences of these ordered liquidations to the parents.

Attorney Oldham made no reference to the difference between a post judgment orders or pre-judgment orders for these appointments and the impact on the potential liquidation of the primary home of the children in order to pay these ordered fees.

At no point in time did the task force ask a question about whether GAL’s advocates for joint legal and physical custody—one of the three assessment prongs of this task force’s legislative mission.

            Many of us have been watching the coverage of the hearings of this task force on CT-N either live on our local cable channel or on the internet replay.

            We would encourage the task force hearings to continue to be cablecast as a matter of public interest.

            This letter provides a specific recounting of my case in Stamford, FST FA 04 0201276S and the abuse of the limited statutory authority of an appointed AMC, Attorney Veronica Reich of firm of Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss and Mulcahey.

C.G.S. §46 (b)-129a(2) defines the role of the attorney for the minor child (AMC):

“The primary role of any counsel for the child including the counsel who also serves as guardian ad litem, shall be to advocate for the child in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When a conflict arises between the child’s wishes or position and that which the counsel for the child believes is in the best interest of the child, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.  The guardian ad litem shall speak on behalf of the best interest of the child and is not required to be an attorney-at-law but shall be knowledgeable about the needs and protection of children.  In the event that a separate guardian ad litem is appointed, the person previously serving as both counsel and guardian ad litem for the child shall continue to serve as counsel for the child and a different person shall be appointed as guardian ad litem, unless the court for good cause also appoints a different person as counsel for the child.  No person who has serve as both counsel and guardian ad litem for a child shall thereafter serve solely as the child’s guardian ad litem.

            In re:  Tayquon H. 76 App. 693, 821 A. 796 (2003), the Appellate Court stated:

“It also is clear…that the obligation of the person appointed as counsel is shaped by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which in pertinent part, obligate counsel to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representations…It is when counsel perceives that this obligation is in conflict with the child’s best interest that counsel must bring that to the courts’ attention, and the court, in turn, must appoint a separate guardian ad litem to protect and to promote the child’s best interests in the process.”

            C.G.S. 46b-56a(b), modified in 2007 states:

“There shall be a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interests of the minor child where the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage.  If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody pursuant to this subsection, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.”

            From June 29, 2005 until December 2, 2009, by agreement of the parents in a shared joint legal and physical custody plan in place signed on January 18, 2005, my children had in place the equal access to the love and devotion to both of their parents.

            On December 2, 2009, Attorney Veronica Reich, without authority or consultation from either of her clients, filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order to Modify Custody without a hearing—despite a statutory obligation of Attorney Reich to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct that involves providing children with the same rights of an adult—for advised consent.

            The task force needs to consider this one fact (gleaned from a Freedom of Information request made of Michael Bowler of the Statewide Grievance Committee, which is required to investigate upon sworn applications, violations of the Code of Professional Conduct): 

“Despite hundreds of complaints made against court appointed attorneys who serve as AMC’s over the years, there has never been a finding of lawyer misconduct by the Statewide Grievance Committee for violating the “advised consent” rules on the representation of children in custodial matters.”

            In my case, FST FA 02 0401276S, after she was appointed by the family court at a fee of $425.00 per hour, Attorney Veronica Reich of Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss and Mulcahey, abused the limits of her statutory authority defined in C.G.S. §46b-129a(2) with malice.

Attorney Reich, over the course of her nearly two year appointment as an AMC, without regard for the respecting the objectives of the stated representations of her clients, engaged in the “malicious neglect” of the rights of her clients to “advised consent” at ages 13 and 15.

Attorney Reich filed motions in family courts in both Stamford and Middletown, Connecticut, which violated the Rules of Professional Conduct because she pursued a course of legal action to interfere with the established joint legal and physical custody rights of one parent, without any consultation or permission from her clients.

Despite the conflicted agenda of Attorney Reich with her clients objectives of representation,  it wasn’t until February 2010, that Attorney Reich applied to the court for the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem.  That motion for a GAL appointment was never marked “ready” for a hearing--- which violated the provisions in the General Statutes that required her to seek such an appointment.

The billing records of Attorney Reich demonstrate she had no consultations with her clients regarding the filing of Ex Parte Motions in December 2009 and February 2011. 

Attorney Reich operated with shameless disregard for the economic and emotional impact on her clients during the course of her representations and made every effort to destroy the loving and devoted relationship of this father with his two children—with no accountability for her actions.

During her two years of misrepresentations of the well-articulated objectives of representations outlined by her clients in September 2009 (which were to leave the custody arrangement in place) Attorney Reich deemed her “lawyer-client confidentiality” relationship with her clients as superordinate to the “confidant” relationship this father had with his children.

Despite the filing in September 2010 of a highly detailed 57 page attorney complaint citing a litany of violations by Attorney Reich of the Rules of Professional Conduct with the Statewide Bar Counsel, the grievance against Attorney Reich was dismissed without a panel assignment.

There has been no enforcement of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the Statewide Bar Counsel—thus promoting the abuse by AMC’s such as Attorney Reich of the mandates of C.G.S. §46b-129a(2).

Attorney Reich in May 2012 sought the incarceration of me for the refusal to pay the $154,066 (80%) of outstanding fees (which included a compound interest of 10% per annum) for the misrepresentation of the informed consent of my children for profit of her firm.  Because this extorted payment was made from IRA holdings (not liquid assets as Attorney Reich suggested in her pleadings), the taxes owed on the distribution of these funds totaled another $50,000 in federal and state income taxes.

I was in jail for seven days in May 2012 until the extortion of payments was completed under the threat that the court would fine me $10,000 per week if the payments were not made.

Add in the $14,500 (one half of the fees) paid previously to Attorney Reich in 2009, the nearly $12,500 (one half) of fees assessed by Dr. Robson (at $350.00 per hour) and Dr. Frank Stoll (for psychological testing) and another $7,000 (half) to the GAL, Dr. Harry Adamakos, ($275.00 per hour) appointed in March 2011, and you can begin to understand that the system of family court injustice resembles “racketeering”.

After investigating Dr. Kenneth Robson’s credentials submitted to the court in his “curriculum vitae,” it turned out that his “hospital appointments” with the Hartford Healthcare Corporation had been severed in 2004. 

In addition to the above, I hired my own forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Douglas Anderson, who largely contested Dr. Robson’s assessment, for $10,000.

Attorney Oldham suggested last week at your hearings that parents were the source of the conflicts resulting in fee escalations. 

No, Attorney Oldham, perhaps you should review the Connecticut Law Tribune article posted by your partner Arnold Rutkin which suggested that the very spirit of the legal profession involves “conflict”.

There would be little question, my home and entire lifetime retirement savings would have been liquidated to pay legal fees had I not chosen self-representation in these post judgment modification hearings.

During the course of her representation, Attorney Reich amassed combined fees from this one assignment of nearly $250,000 in combined fees for both parents for herself, the court appointed psychiatrist/psychologist and the GAL.

Now the question is for this task force to consider:  How did any of this advance the best interests of the children? 

There has been no contact between Attorney Reich with my two children since she was “removed” at the end of the custody proceedings.

Couldn’t these funds, which were extorted from these court appointees for their unmonitored and egregious fees, have been better served in educating my two children?

Couldn’t these funds which are now in their pockets, have been better utilized in my children’s ability to fund their their children’s educations rather than court appointees who have no legal authority or involvement in children’s lives after the age of 18?

It is the failure of our legislators in the judiciary committee to have held public hearings since 1969, concerning the Connecticut Practice Book Rules, which were required by C.G.S. §51-14, which assisted in the promotion of the growth of family court system filled with corrupt practitioners.

The unlawful seizure of family assets by these court practitioners, who have no accountability for the economic and emotional harm inflicted on parents and children in the State of Connecticut is unprecedented.

The suggestion by Attorney Oldham that parents are at the root cause of these escalating legal fees is refuted by reviewing the thousands of pages of transcripts, court motions, Ex Parte Motions for Order, denial of due process and equal protection rights of just my case file FST FA 04 0201276S.

This task force needs to look no further than the third prong of your legal review to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Childre .

This task force needs to focus its attention on the adoption of legal mandates in the State of Connecticut for any court appointed official to forge joint legal and physical custody parenting plan in the State of Connecticut--for all parents who represent no risk of harm of from physical or emotional abuse to their children.

By adopting such a legal reform, by filing motions for an appointment of a GAL or AMC (or any sua suponte order of the court), the courts and parents will be committing themselves to joint parenting plans as the outcome favorable for our children and bring an end to GAL’s and AMC’s profiting from the creation of custodial conflict for profit.

I look forward to watching the task force hearings and look forward to my three minutes to testify at a public hearing in January 2014.

Cordially,

 

Michael J. Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive
New Canaan, CT  06840
(203) 273-4296
mnowacki@aol.com