JOHN DOE 2'S TESTIMONY AT THE MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  John Doe No. 2?

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Good morning, Members of the Supreme Court.  I elect to be known as John Doe 2.  I’m a resident of the state of Connecticut.  On March 4, 2012, the first Supreme Court hearing in 43 years was conducted in this courtroom pursuant to CGS 51-17c. 

               I arrived last year with my videotape camera to record this historic public administrative judiciary committee public hearing governed by the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Connecticut General Statutes, more commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act.

               On numerous occasions, I have been permitted to tape the public administrative committee hearings of the judiciary, including meetings of the Family Commission and the Rules Committee commencing November 17, 2010, when the chief administrative judge in the state of Connecticut, Judge Barbara Quinn, posted a notice that any public meetings conducted in any courtroom of the state of Connecticut would permit the use of video cameras.

               On March 1, 2012, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court and Appellate Court, Attorney Michele Angers, was contacted to confirm that my professional video equipment would be permitted to be used to tape the first public hearing in over 40 years, which conformed with the requirements of 51-14c; however, Justice Flemming Norcott, Jr., informed the security personnel on    March 4, 2012, to not allow my camera into the Supreme Court Chambers. 

               I spoke last year as John Doe 2.  On March 20, 2013, Attorney Melissa Farley was contacted by email to confirm that the same obstruction of the proper implementation of the court rules concerning the use of video cameras set forth by the chief administrative judge in 2010 would be enforced for today’s public hearing. 

               It was not until late on Wednesday afternoon March 21, 2013, that Ms. Farley, the judiciary’s external affairs director, who approved my previous clearances to tape any Rules Committee meeting, notified me that an unidentified judicial authority refused to grant my request to tape the second public administrative hearing conducted in accordance with 51-14c.

               Immediately upon this public administrative hearing required by CGS 51-14c, it is my intent to order a transcript of this public hearing governed by the FOI Act and file a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission to challenge the authority of this panel of appointed judges by Chief Justice Chase Rogers -- excuse me -- will be alleged to have violated my rights as a citizen and a professional to have recorded these proceedings today.

               The abridgments of the FOI Act of the Supreme Court are best captured by the failure in 2007 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Honorable William Sullivan, to have withheld the release of the controversial opinion in FOIC v. GA 7 which Justice Sullivan failed to release a final Supreme Court opinion he authored in order to attempt to shield the legislature from questioning the then nominated Peter Zarella, who was nominated at the time by Governor Jodi Rell, to become the next chief justice of the Supreme Court.

               The lack of integrity of Chief Justice William Sullivan in withholding the release of this controversial FOI decision by the Supreme Court was revealed by Justice David Borden who became the whistleblower on his judicial colleagues.  Justice Zarella removed his nomination in consideration of the legislature for the first time in recorded history of the judiciary of Connecticut and the chief justice of the Supreme Court was subject to the, quote/unquote, grand inquisition of the Judicial Review Counsel and Justice Sullivan was then found guilty of having violated the code of judicial conduct.

               What is amazing is how justices of the Superior Court seem to fall up rather than be punished.  What is amazing  -- excuse me.  Who is the judge who -- who was the judge who also denied me my lawful right to access, the right to tape the first public hearing in 43 years conducted in accordance with the law?  Justice Flemming Norcott, Jr., was also found guilty of probable cause that he had violated the judicial code of conduct.

               Now, the irony of this preamble is that Justice Andrew McDonald will have to answer our questions, why did the senator, Andrew McDonald, as the chair of the -- co-chair of the joint committee on the judiciary refuse to conduct public hearings on the Connecticut Practice Book Rules after the Justice Sullivan debacle?

               Isn’t it true that on June 29, 2007, at the annual judge’s meeting that Justice Zarella cut a deal with Senator McDonald --

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Mr. Doe?

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  -- as a --

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Mr. Doe?

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  -- resolution of --

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Mr. Doe?

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Yes?

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Five minutes is up, sir, and --

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Okay.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  -- I know that you have submitted written testimony --

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Yes.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  -- and we have it.

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Thank you very much.  

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you very much.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/