MICHAEL NOWACKI'S LETTER TO JUDGES' CHALLENGING VIOLATIONS OF 51-14; JUDGES ABUSE OF POWER

June 14, 2014

 

Dear Justices of the Superior Court:

 

In 1969, Honorable John Hamilton King was presiding as the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.  He declared in the attached letter that the judiciary was no longer going to seek the approval of the legislature on Practice Book Rules—despite the existence of Connecticut General Statute 51-14.

In short, from 1969 through this year, the Connecticut judiciary has increased both its powers and jurisdiction through the Connecticut Practice Book (which is not a law) despite provisions in Article XX of the Connecticut Constitution which clearly and unambiguously states:  “The powers and jurisdiction of the court is defined by law.”

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of this Land—except in the self proclaimed, “Constitution State.”

 The Constitution of the United States has no relevance to the Practice Book Rules despite a jurist’s solemn oath or affirmation to be bound to “the supreme Law of the Land.”

The Connecticut Practice Book Rules which you are considering today again fail tthe litmus test of open legislative hearings that include the right of the governed to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.  For the last 44 years, the Joint Committee on Judiciary has failed to conduct hearings on the PROPOSED Practice Book Rules, despite a fiduciary responsibility to do so.

Within two weeks of the adoption of these Rules of Practice, we, the people, will file a federal suit seeking the overturning of the Connecticut Rules of Practice adopted since 1969 which  have been designed to be discriminatory to the accommodations required by the ADA laws. 

In addition, with impunity towards those who choose self representation in criminal, civil probate courts and family cases in the State of Connecticut, the judges in this state have adopted rules of practice for video-conference hearings that fail to protect the interests to a self represented parties as equal not subservient to those who have denigrated their sacred Attorney’s Oath.

For the last two years, a number of those aggrieved by the prejudicial “rules of engagement: in courts of law in the State of Connecticut, began attending the public administrative judiciary committees and commissions in the State of Connecticut.  We began to write to the members of the Rules Committee and the Family Commission to “petition the Government for redress of our grievances.”  We videotaped these proceedings to validate that the minutes to these public meetings do not recapitulate the

“open disclosure requirements” of such conclaves removed from the catacombs.

We, the people, have been ignored, retaliated against in adverse rulings, referenced as a “problem” by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and held in contempt of court for challenging this unvarnished fact:  The Connecticut Practice Book is the single, largest set of rules of judiciary self empowerment of any state in the United States.

The imperiousness with which the judiciary has conducted it abuse of administrative endowed increase of powers and jurisdiction is best illustrated in the passage by the legislature of HB 6387 and now memorialized as Public Act 13-0194—A Bill for Court Operations —whose language has been crafted solely by members of the judiciary, despite the Constitutional provisions in Article II, III, IV, V and VI which defines the powers of separation of government.  Writing legislation is NOT a power which the U.S. Constitution provides to “The Constitution State”—but provides the best illustration of the unbridled hubris embodied in the abuse of the powers of separation of government.  Please take the time to review the Connecticut Law Review’s article on the development of the “Code of Evidence”—which is filled with the words which strike fear in the hearts of every lawyer including the self represented—“judicial discretion”.

Despite a requirement in Article VI of the Constitution of the United States that requires, “Members of the several State legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States” shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution: as “the supreme Law of the Land”, the family judges of the State of Connecticut have declared the Constitution a meaningless document worthy of excorciating.

In short, the Constitution State, and its vaunted Connecticut Practice Book has evolved into a document of uncontested seditious construction that represents the ultimate denouement/denigration of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Article XX, Section One.

Included in this envelope are documents which validate the beginning of judicial reform initiative in Connecticut that is modeled upon the patriots who assembled at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia who met to oppose the tyranny of British Rule.

We submitted a series of proposed Rule of Practice to both the Supreme Court on March 25, 2013, only to discover that those documents were never considered for discussion by the Rules Committee at any point in time for a vote for endorsement for adoption at the annual judges meetings scheduled for June 14, 2014.

The Committee on Judicial Ethics, on April 19, 2013, courageously issued four decisions to begin to dismantle the collusion between

1. AFCC members
2. Judges who sit on Connecticut Bar Association Committees,
3. Jurists who engage in advocacy committee positions on the Connecticut Bar Association’s Appellate Committee
4. Judges who were receiving elite national honors and all expense paid trips by members by the Academy of Matrimonial lawyers.

 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1942, any further discrimination perpetuated by members of the Connecticut judiciary upon classes of citizens who are litigants claiming disabilities or upon those who choose self representation in any court in the State of Connecticut, will be vigorously contested in federal court as abridgment of constitutional due process and equal protection protected by the 14^th Amendment.

We will also equally vigorously contest any family court case in which a jurist fails to disclose of a membership the AFCC or any of their affiliated corrupt organizations.

Earlier this month, we note that Justice Zarella addressed the new class of attorneys who passed the Connecticut Bar Association exam.  He spoke eloquently about “zealous representation” without referencing a recent majority opinion he wrote in Simms v. Simms, a case argued by constitutional and civil rights attorney, John R. Williams.

We would like to challenge Justice Zarella to a public debate at a time and place of his choosing, to reconcile his judicial oath, the Attorney’s Oath which he and Justice Rogers are required to uphold pursuant to the unified Code of Judicial Conduct adopted at the annual judges meeting of 2010 with an effective date of January 1, 2011, and the speeches Justice Zarella delivered to the newest of the graduates of the bar exam.

We would like to challenge Justice Zarella to debate  a group of citizens aggrieved by the members of the AFCC in the family court system in the State of Connecticut at a time and place of his choosing and convenience on the topic: 

“Justice” or “Just Us”—How would the framers of the Constitution of the United States review the rights of self represented parties and the rights of disabled as articulated in the Connecticut Practice Book Rules of 2013?

We eagerly await Justice Zarella’s acceptance of this “judicial gauntlet” thrown by the citizens of the State of Connecticut in righteous indignation as a “penalty flag for abuse his judicial discretion in the Simms v. Simms case by granting to lawyers rights as a class of citizens to be absolute immunity for conducting themselves in courts of law in the State of Connecticut in a manner inconsistent with the Attorney’s Oath administered by Justice Chase T. Rogers and Justice Zarella to those who aspire to professionalism in the practice of law in the State of Corrupticut.