January 18, 2017
It appears that the anonymous person who penned the April 14th op-ed piece run by the Hartford Courant googled the term "inflammatory language", copied all the results, and called it an article. Its dearth of formed opinion notwithstanding, was there a reason why this author could not stand behind his or her words?Governor Malloy then publicly admonished both Representatives Rebimbas and González on April 17th, as if Ms Rebimbas' misdirecting attention away from criminal activity and Ms González' calling out the covering of crimes were the same thing: a spat.It is necessary to provide a foundation of facts to give context to the drama, because there has been so much done to shield the underlying information that brought rise to the altercation.We have a theme going: Attack all critics of the courts. Blame victims. The threadbare "disgruntled litigant" epithet is a warped record loop stuck playing over the propaganda speakers, and Göbbels hasn't realized that the playbook has already been put into evidence at Nuremberg.Representative Rebimbas attacks all critics of the courts. That fact makes perfect sense, given her investment as a GAL in the continued unrestricted looting of assets in all family cases. In hearing, instead of recusing herself on a matter where she stands to profit, she concerned herself entirely with misrepresenting other people's thoughts and feelings and protecting the delicate egos of judges who have done unspeakable harm to the people of Connecticut. Again hearing, instead of recusing herself, she participated in a plan to grind the legislative process to a halt over an apology that was already given. Not once did she speak or act for the interests of the people of Naugatuck who elected her to represent them.Representative González, by contrast, has no financial stake in the administration and operation of the Judicial Branch. She is an impartial member of the Judiciary Committee.In a dirty maneuver while Ms González was out of the hearing room, Ms Rebimbas made some large claims that there was no supporting evidence of the failures of law that Ms Gonzáles raised. In what appears to be a public call for retaliation, Ms Rebimbas went so far as to name a specific litigant who dared to bring to the legislature the transcript of her judge attacking her, fabricating imaginary lawsuits, accusing the litigant in his paranoid delusions of chasing away all professional therapists, and even letting slip that there is a secret tier system of qualified vendors.Here Judge Adelman in D'Amato v D'Amato (July 11, 2014), monologuing from the bench, attacks all critics of the courts, ironically hoisting himself with his own petard:ADELMAN: Have you ever heard the expression being hoisted [sic] by [sic] your own petard?LITIGANT: No.ADELMAN: It's from Hamlet, I believe. The attack on the therapeutic community by litigants who have not been successful in court has, obviously, made many of these therapists adverse [sic] to getting involved in these cases. They're getting sued, and there's plenty of therapy work for people who are not involved in litigation. It's hard to believe that so many PhDs, therapists would refuse the work, but I can understand it when they find out that this is a case that's in litigation and an appeal and why ask for trouble, I guess?That's tragic because you and these girls need some therapeutic assistance in an effort to repair the parental relationship, and now, quite frankly, I'm going to have to go to second tier individual.LITIGANT: What does that mean, Your Honor?ADELMAN: What that means is I'm going to have to use somebody who's not a PhD therapist. I'm going to have to go down the stream to other therapeutic individuals because you and others like you have created a hostile environment to ther --LITIGANT: I would like that stricken, Your Honor, because I did not create this problem, and there's no proof that he contacted anybody. There's no proof.ADELMAN: I have his sworn testimony. What proof do you have? You want to call those ten people into court? You're calling the man a liar?LITIGANT: I'm questioning his credibility, yes I am.ADELMAN: All right. The court finds him incredibly credible. [sic] There's no reason to think he's done anything other than what he said he has done. The environment in Family Court and in family therapy is hostile and becoming difficult -- it's getting very difficult to find people, quite frankly, to even volunteer to be Special Masters to help people resolve their cases before they have to go to litigation, and I hope that the people who are creating the hostility think about that., Ms Rebimbas, however, went on to deny the existence of the transcript, to accuse the litigant of making up the judge's tyrannical behavior, and wrongly claim that the only proper channel for remedy is through the judicial branch, which has been established through now hundreds of individuals' testimony, as not the slightest bit capable of policing itself.The transcript exposes some very serious questions:
- Why would licensed providers be afraid of being sued if everything they are doing is perfectly ethical? Are they engaging in the same unethical practices that victims' evidence to the legislature and federal task force reflects?
- Are judges ordering therapy for children without there being a diagnosis? Is a "custody evaluation" any more credible than peering into a crystal ball? Could this be why these court-appointed providers accept only cash for their services?
- Why do judges have a tier system among state licensed treaters? Are the providers who are members or directors of AFCC along with the judges and GALs given preference, such as the transcript references to CT Chapter president Linda Smith?
- Where are these multiple lawsuits against Connecticut therapists to which the judge alludes, and for which the judge blames the litigant standing before him?
- Was the judge threatening the litigant by referencing an explosive device harming her in his non-sequitur comment?
- Why would Ms Rebimbas try so hard to deny, or at least deflect from, the existence of this transcript?Representative González has spent the past seven years hearing heart-wrenching testimony from hundreds of Connecticut citizens being cannibalized by the scam operating out of the Judicial Branch. She has done exactly what she was elected to do, which is to represent the interests and needs of her constituents and the people of Connecticut -- not to protect the asset-raiding operation of the judges and GALs. She has never backed down from her duties, even in the harshest of fights against lawlessness. She got emotional and angry over the past few days, which proves a well-calibrated moral compass in the face of, at best, unprofessional behavior from a member of the Judiciary Committee. At worst, she defended against a lobbyist installed to ensure that the moneyball game keeps the cash flowing to court-appointees. Anyone with a heart should be very angry.It seem that the Federal Task Force agrees. I'll leave you with their own words about their current operation in Connecticut. Remember to call the hotline and press #6 to report public corruption in Connecticut."U.S. Attorney Daly explained that the Task Force is focused on rooting out not only corrupt elected officials, but also federal, state and municipal employees who use their position for personal gain at the expense of the public good.""The Task Force will also focus on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are distributed annually by federal and state agencies to ensure that taxpayer funds reach their intended recipients without corrupt interference."“Public servants are entrusted by all of us to act in the best interests of the public they serve. It is important for the United States to bring to justice those who betray that trust,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Patricia M. Ferrick. “Public corruption at all levels of local, state, and federal government must not be tolerated, and this task force will leverage the best assets of the task force partner agencies to address the threat posed by corrupt public officials.”The task force includes staff from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Inspector General’s Offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.