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 REAPPOINTMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REAPPOINTMENT. Show all posts

Thursday, May 3, 2018


A Concerned Citizen speaks up against Judge Jane B. Emons 
Dear Legislators, 
In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the following summaries and attached cases.
Friends and families are concerned about Judge Emons who has displayed unprofessional conduct, especially to minorities who represent themselves in front of her. We are hopeful that you will protect the public interest and VOTE NO on Judge Emons.
In an effort to assist you in making an informed decision, I have summarized 3 of the cases for your convenience and also attached the cases themselves. Even the appellate court has hinted at some underlying problems that exist with Judge Emons, including comments from the appellate court in the Jordan M. v Darric M (2016) case  attached:

-“The record in this case is confusing at best and certain portions of the file appear to have been entered under incorrect docket numbers. “[Appellate Court] -   [Appellate Court] -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- “The court's reasoning for granting the application for the restraining order is not clear, . . . There was no evidence that there was violent or physically threatening conduct on the night of August 21, 2015, and there was no evidence that the defendant presented a threat of physical pain or injury to Jordan. “The plain language of § 46b–15 clearly requires a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury before a court can grant a domestic violence restraining order.” [Appellate Court]  -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- The Appellate Court noted they were unable to review a claim due to Emons’ failure to provide adequate “findings of facts.”  This seems to be a recurrent theme with other cases in which Emons was overturned where she fails to make adequate findings of facts as she is required to do -  perhaps to further insulate her decisions from being overturned on appeal.  The Appellate Court stated:

“Due to a lack of an adequate record, we are unable to review this claim.” [Appellate Court]

In another  line of appellate cases, there is a disturbing trend by Judge Emons to violate the well known "American Rule" where all litigants pay for their own representation. However, Judge Emons has decided to make it onerous for litigants to bring their cases up for appeal by ordering them to pay the opposing side's attorney fees as was done in the Rinfret (appellate court reversing Emons' order to pay $90,000 in attorney fees) and the Lederle case (reversing  Emons' order to pay $30,000 in attorney fees) which are attached.  By doing so, Judge Emons is less likely to see these cases go to appeal and have her decisions overturned.  

In Clark v. Clark, Judge Emons ordered - without motion of either parent - that the parents have their children evaluated at their expense and then, after she reviewed the resulting report, ordered that the report NOT be released to the parents and then made further orders in connection with the children based on the report which she had ordered not be provided to the parents. She did this when in a post-judgment proceeding when one parent had already been awarded custody of the children. How can Emons's acts be constitutional?
In another matter (Sargent v Sargent), when a parent sought to remove the GAL, Judge Emons appointed a lawyer, AT THE PARENT'S EXPENSE and with no legal precedent or authority to do so, to defend the GAL (who has complete immunity) against the allegations of misconduct. This attorney for the GAL then charged $850/hr to defend the GAL. Judge Emons has threatened to remove legal custody of children from a parent as a "judicial sanction" when the parent challenged the conduct of the GAL .

I have also included transcript excerpts that demonstrate the following:
-          Judge Emons' disregard for Rules of Evidence
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for how hearsay evidence is to be considered
-          Judge Emons' steering testimony – perhaps wrongly to achieve the outcome she desires
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for other lawyers and litigants

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important matter whereas she impacts the lives of  many families and friends and her reappointment should not be taken lightly.  Another 8 years of Judge Emons is almost another decade of her continued abuse. The public is owed a duty of respect and well considered decisions in accord with the rule of law.

Tuesday, February 20, 2018


Reappointment for Judge Emons
I do not support reappointment of Judge Emons due to my personal experience which has been far from the best interest of a handicapped child, and has left the child to continuously be psychologically abused for years and the custodial parent unable to provide safety from this abuse for the child.
In a case with blatant incidences of negligence of the family unit and the child’s best interest by the non-custodial parent, Judge Emons ignored all the clear evidence of Domestic Abuse, Parental Alienation and Coercive Abuse throughout the unnecessary 2-1/2 yrs. of court process.  


Friday, February 9, 2018


Judiciary Committee 
Friday, February 16, 2018 10:00 AM in Room 1E of the LOB


I. To be a Judge of the Superior Court:

1. The Honorable Jon M. Alander of Hamden
2. The Honorable Laura F. Baldini of West Hartford
3. The Honorable James M. Bentivegna of Avon
4. The Honorable Susan Quinn Cobb of West Hartford 

5. The Honorable Susan A. Connors of Old Lyme
6. The Honorable John A. Danaher of West Hartford
7. The Honorable Maureen D. Dennis of Southport
8. The Honorable John C. Driscoll of Norwich
9. The Honorable Jane B. Emons of Woodbridge
10. The Honorable Robert L. Genuario of Norwalk
11. The Honorable James T. Graham of Bloomfield
12. The Honorable Arthur C. Hadden of Branford
13. The Honorable John F. Kavenewsky of East Norwalk

II. To be a State Referee

1. The Honorable Thomas A. Bishop of North Stonington 
2. The Honorable Richard F. Comerford, Jr. of Stamford 
3. The Honorable Thomas J. Corradino of Madison
4. The Honorable Dennis G. Eveleigh of Hamden
5. The Honorable Johnathan J. Kaplan of South Windsor 

6. The Honorable Joseph Q. Koletsky of Waterford
7. The Honorable Karen Sequino of Woodbridge
8. The Honorable Joseph M. Shortall of Bloomfield
9. The Honorable David R. Tobin of Old Greenwich 

Wednesday, January 17, 2018



The terms of the following Judges of the State of Connecticut will expire during the year 2019 and the nominations by the Governor will come before the Judicial Selection Commission for review commencing in February 2018.

There are 7 judges with terms expiring in 2019:

Hon. Alexandra D. DiPentima


Hon. Barbara N. Bellis
Hon. Hunchu Kwak
Hon. Lisa K. Morgan
Hon. John M. Newson
Hon. M. Nawaz Wahla
Hon. Robin L. Wilson

Comments regarding the reappointment of any of the Judges on the Reappointment List for 2019 may be submitted to the Judicial Selection Commission, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT 06106 on or before January 31, 2018. Reappointment interviews of the listed Judges will commence in February 2018 and continue through June 2018. Accordingly, comments received after January 31, 2018 will be considered if received prior to a Judge's reappointment interview. Anonymous submissions will be considered but afforded less weight than signed submissions. 

Robert S. Bello

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


Monday, January 9, 2017



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


It Is Not OK!      

Tell the Judiciary Committee:  

"Do Not Reappoint Connecticut Judge Gerard Adelman!"

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

2017 Connecticut Judiciary Committee


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


CT Public Hearing Agenda for Judicial Reappointment


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

According to an investigative journalist,

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

CT Announces Investigation of Corrupt Courts


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

Co-Chair Paul Doyle     

Legislative Aide:  David Seifel,
860-240-0475 or Toll-free: 1-800-842-1420

Co-Chair William Tong
(860) 240-8585 | 1-800-842-8267

Co-Chair John Kissel

Legislative Aide: Kate McAvoy
Phone: (800) 842-1421 

Mae Flexor

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

Wednesday, April 22, 2015


Reporter Mark Pazniokas of the CT Mirror reports as follows:

"A noisy path to reconfirmation for Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers reached its end with a 139-6 House vote Wednesday, but not before a Latina legislator accused Rogers of slighting the Supreme Court's first and only Latina justice.
Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, voted against Rogers' confirmation to a second eight-year term as chief justice of Connecticut's highest court, citing an opinion in which the majority accused the dissenting Justice Carmen Espinosa of dishonoring the court.
“A chief justice should not condone or support such an attack,” Gonzalez said during a brief debate in the House. “She should exercise moral leadership.”
Gonzalez choosing to make an issue of intemperate language struck some in the House as odd, given that Gonzalez' insults of a Republican colleague recently prompted a newspaper's call for her censure and the GOP minority's demand for an apology..."  
For more information on this matter, please click on the link below: