Executive Director
Judicial Review Council
September
16, 2013
Dear Attorney Murphy:
As we discussed in July, here are four complaints filed with
the Judicial Review Council concerning four judges (The Honorable Lynda Munro,
the Honorable Gerald Adelman, the Honorable
Holly Abery-Wetstone and the Honorable Harry E. Calmar) who are alleged
in having engaged in conduct which violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In our July phone conversations, you indicated it was not
necessary to produce 14 sets of the identical exhibits to be shared on each of
the four complaints which are properly notarized. I have included 14 sets of the relevant
documents to support the claims for the individual complaints—since they all
cite the same violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted on January 1,
2011.
This letter
provides the background on establishing grounds for sanctions for violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct for all four complaints.
The regulations of the Judicial Review Council concerning
conflicts of interest state:
1. Any member of the
Council who has a conflict of interest in any matter before the Council shall
be disqualified from participating in any proceeding of the Council in that
matter.
2. A member shall
have such conflict of interest when such member, his or her spouse, his or her
child, or his or her business associate (a) has a direct personal or financial
interest in said matter; (b) has a business, personal, or financial
relationship with any complainant, witness, or respondent in said matter; (c)
has a direct personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary matters before the
counsel; (d) is related to a complaint, witness or respondent in said matter;
(e) is a judge whom the complainant has made a previous complaint; (f) is an
attorney who has any matter pending in a trial court or an appeal court
involving a respondent against whom a complaint has been made; or (g) in any
other situation, believes that he or she has, or may appear to have a conflict
of interest. (emphasis not added).
On April 19, 2013, the Committee on Judicial Ethics issued
four important advisory decisions that were labeled 2013-2015, 2013-2016,
2013-2017 and 2013-2018.
For the first time, the Committee on Judicial ethics
provided a jurisdictional and directional opinion that indicated that sitting
on the Board of Directors of a not for profit corporation (which was not
referenced as the AFCC specifically) , in which contracts have been awarded to
Board of Directors firms would violate the Code of Judicial Ethics Rule 3.7 (a)
(6) (B).
“…Based upon the foregoing, an appearance of impropriety
would arise if a Judicial Official serving on the board of directors of a
nonprofit organization or members of the Judicial Official’s staff were to
refer clients to the nonprofit organization.
Further the nonprofit organization may use or attempt to use the
prestige of the Judicial Official’s office when seeking additional contracts
with the Judicial Branch or others.
Accordingly, the Committee, with one member recused, unanimously determined
serve on the nonprofit organization’s board of directors would violate Rules
1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7.”
Despite this clear admonition from the Committee on Judicial
Ethics, Judge Lynda Munro continued in her position as a member of the Board of
Directors of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter and further involved members of the
judicial staff in the preparation of materials for the AFCC’s 50th
Anniversary Convention to be conducted in Los Angeles from May 28 to June 1.
Judge Munro appeared on a panel she recruited in Los Angeles with Sharon Wicks Dornfeld (the Connecticut
Bar Association Chair for Family Relations matters), Dr. Sidney Horowitz (who
has been appointed in hundreds of family relations cases as a court appointee
doing substantive assigned work in family courts in the State of Connecticut
including cases in Judge Munro’s direct supervision), and Dr. Howard Kreiger
(who also does outsourced work as a court appointee including in Judge Munro’s
courts since here appointment in 2007 as the Chief Administrative Judge in the
State of Connecticut).
In addition to these four panelists, a number of Board of
Directors members of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter, not only are appointed for
work by judges in the family courts, but specifically testified in Judge Munro’s
courtroom without any acknowledgment of the direct professional, non-courtroom
contact with Judge Munro.
The Committee on Judicial Ethics advisory opinions including
2013-15 and 2013-16, (while not definitely binding on the Judicial Review
Council by virtue of “adopted” rules governing the operations of the Committee
on Judicial Ethics) can be considered a “bright line” guidance in the
determination to the whether Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7 were violated as
alleged in the filing of four properly filed, sworn and articulated grievances
naming Judge Lynda Munro, Judge Gerald Adelman, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone and
Judge Harry E. Calmar.
As the Chief Administrative Judge of Family matters, Judge
Munro had an influence on the direct operations of all family court docketed
cases, and then influenced which cases were reassigned to the regional family
trial docket.
Only Judge Adelman now remains as a judge on matters
reassigned to the Middletown Superior Court where Judge Adelman remains on
cases referenced to the Regional Family Trial docket.
My case FST FA 04 0201276S was without motion transferred to
the RFTD and assigned to Judge Harry Calmar, after I began investigating Judge
Munro’s operations in the Family Commission—many of whom attended AFCC conferences
and ran its operations from their desks as employees of the Connecticut
Judiciary.
The use of employees of the Connecticut judiciary to produce
materials for the CT AFCC meeting on April 12 and for the AFCC National
Convention and use federal grant funding for ‘court operations” to expense such
a trip to “accompany” Judge Munro to Los Angeles, Orlando and other undisclosed
locations from 2007-2013 is an alleged violation of Rule 1.3 which states: “A
judge shall not use or attempt to use the prestige of judicial office to
advance the private interests of the
judge or others, or allow others to do so.”
In sending out invitations from judicial mailboxes from the
Connecticut AFCC Organizing Committee, Marilou Giovannucci operated as the
President Elect of the AFCC Connecticut Chapter on behalf of the Board of
Directors, who included Judges Munro, Adelman and Holly Abery-Wetstone.
It could not be determined as to whether the list of
attendees of the AFCC Conference was kept on judicial computers, but it
certainly requires the JRC to investigate the use of judicial employees to
recruit participation in a private organization which Judge Munro had such a
documented relationship having expensed trips to the taxpayers from 2007-2013.
The expense reports to validate these assertions that Rule
1.3 was violated are attached to this complaint.
Despite the rulings on these four advisory opinions issued
by the Committee on Judicial Ethics, The Honorable Lynda Munro (and members of
her administrative staff) continued to utilize judicial financial resources to
promote an organization, the Connecticut Chapter of American Family of
Conciliation Courts whose Board of Directors have ties to contracts awarded by
the judiciary.
It was only on March 26, 2013, when it was revealed that incorporation
status was filed by the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC, through a member of
the Board of Directors, whose name is Robert Zaslow, that three judges were
sitting on the Board of Directors of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter.
On or about March 14, 2013, a Connecticut judiciary
employee, Marilou Giovanucci, (listed on the registration for non-stock
corporation status as the “President Elect of the Connecticut Chapter of the
AFCC) from her judiciary mailbox address, sent an email “on behalf of the Ct.
AFCC coordinating Committee to a “Annual Conference” to be held to an estimated
700 lawyers who have been appointed to positions by The Honorable Lynda Munro,
The Honorable Gerald Adelman, the Honorable Holly Abery-Wetstone and the
Honorable Harry E. Calmar which invited them to the “First” AFCC Connecticut
Chapter Conference on April 12, 2013 to be conducted at Quinnipiac University,
where Judge Munro also serves as an adjunct professor.
The notice of the conference fees for attendees of AFCC
failed to note that sales taxes were due for attendees at such the April 12
conference.
The list of the “invitees” included over 700 lawyers who
have been appointed to assignments as Guardian Ad Litems and Attorneys for the
minor children, family court employees, appointed psychologists/psychiatrist
and others who completed the GAL and AMC training mandated by Connecticut
Practice Book Rule 25-62 and 25-62a.
The use of public employees of the judiciary of the State of
Connecticut to promote the nonprofit Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC for which
Honorable Lynda Munro, Honorable Gerald Adelman and Honorable Holly
Abery-Wetstone are listed as members of the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC Board
of Directors is alleged herein to be a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct Canon 1, Rule 1.2.
Inasmuch as Judge Lynda Munro’s presentation to the
AFCC meeting in Los Angeles
In the case of this complainant, the Honorable Harry E.
Calmar in March 2010, appointed Dr. Kenneth Robson to conduct an updated
psychological/psychiatric examination of the complainant, while at the same
time promoting the GAL/AMC training seminars at Quinnipiac University
Dr. Robson, spent less than three minutes with me, in April
2010, and then Judge Calmar used that opinion of Dr. Robson, as a significant
benchmarking tool in my docket file FST FA 04 0201276S. A copy of that psychiatric opinion of Dr.
Robson, who in three minutes, issued a psychiatric opinion which had no
validity.
Dr. Robson, in the Liberti v. Liberti case, in sworn
testimony suggested he could complete a psychiatric evaluation in three minutes
or less. Such “quackery” espoused by Dr.
Robson in my family case and in the case of Sunny Kelley Liberti ended her
custodial rights as well.
The use of judicial employees to carry out the promotion of
the private interests of Honorable Lynda Munro in the AFCC Section 3.7 (4) as a
fundraising activity for the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC on April 12, 2013,
is alleged to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct 3.7 (6) (A) and (B).
After the issuance of the opinion by the Committee on
Judicial Ethics on April 19, 2013, listed as 2013-15, Judge Munro is alleged in
this complaint to have further “sullied” the reputation of the judiciary, by
billing her trip expenses to attend the AFCC 50th Anniversary in Los
Angeles to an account identified as SID #22523 ($1,607.65), “identified in the
supporting documents as a Court Improvement Grant.” Also attending the Los Angeles AFCC meeting
were Connecticut Judiciary “Court Operations” employees.
Judge Munro and others also traveled to Orlando , Florida
Please see the validation that expenses were also paid to
travel to Los Angeles out of the same state funds for the travels of Marilou
Giovannucci ($1,195.71) , who lists her title as Manager, Court Services
Operation, Johanna Greenfield ($1.062.33) , Caseflow Management Specialist (who
also sits on the Family Commission), David Iacarrino ($1,0687.09) Deputy Director of Court Operations (who also
sits on the Family Commission, which Judge Munro served as the Chair), Linda
Sabatelli ($1,110.60) and Rhonda Lucino. ($200.00 conference fee).
Judge Lynda Munro’s 2012 AFCC trip fees were also “expensed”
by Judge Munro for Orlando for the AFCC convention , along with Marth Boyer
($1,159.39) Linda Sabatelli$1,423.38) and Marilou Giovannucci ($1,160.35).
Expense reports for the attendance of Judge Lynda Munro and
Marilou Giovannucci go back to as early as 2007, charged to SID 22151.
Included on the panel discussion in Los Angeles
So, the question for the JRC is this, how can proper
sanctions been put into place to hold these four judges accountable for their
conduct in family cases in which AFCC memberships are not able to be traced
back to prior years.
The appointment of Judge Elliot Solomon to the Assistant
Chief Administrative Judge of the State of Connecticut
There is little debate at the Committee of Judicial Ethics
about the declaration of impropriety of sitting on the AFCC Board of Directors
in which contracts were doled out by members of the judiciary.
The Auditors for Public Accounts issued reports for
Judiciary Branch and Child Protective Services (a division of the judiciary
until Public Act 10-48 changed the reporting responsibilities of CPS to the
Office of Public Defenders.
The reports from the Auditors of Public Accounts clearly
defines material weakness in the operation of the judiciary in which there are
no receipts or contracts for for millions of dollars of federal funding granted
to the judiciary.
The minutes to Judge Solomon’s videoconferencing committee
record a “grant” was awarded for the expansion videoconference capabilities,
but Judge Solomon also said that the funding was not specifically awarded for
that use.
With Judge Solomon’s recent appointment to the JRC, there
are serious credibility issues for the JRC which are inherent in Judge
Solomon’s tenure on the Family Commission.
In the recent history of the JRC, hundreds of complaints
have been issued against family court judges including Judge Munro.
There is no way to assess how many judges have been sitting
on Connecticut Bar Association Committees (a matter addressed in advisory
opinion 2013-16) or the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers (2013-18) because
the committee structure of the CBA is not a publicly accessible document.
The allegations set forth in these complaints establishes
beyond a reasonable doubt the ties to the AFCC violated the Code of Judicial
Conduct and sanctions are warranted via the conducting of a public hearing on
the allegations set forth in these four complaints.
Please do not hesitate to contact me to testify with others
at a public hearing at which point in time transcripts will be presented to the
counsel which validate that the conflicts of interest in the AFCC and its ties
to the AMC and GAL training commenced in 2011 were never acknowledged to the
parties engaged in family court litigation in the courtrooms of these four
judges.
As an aggrieved party, from such bias and prejudice, only
sanctions will send a clear message that such affiliations with the AFCC were
inappropriate inasmuch as they were never disclosed as a “clear and present
danger” to the integrity and independence of the family court system in Connecticut
Cordially,
Michael Nowacki
319 Lost mnowacki@aol.com
(203) 273-4296
Enclosures:
1. List of Council Members—2 pages
2. Handbook of Committee Regulations—6 pages
3. Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-15
dated 4/19/2013—2 pages
4. Purpose of the CT AFCC Chapter—1 page
5. Email dated March 12, 2013 from Marilou Giovannucci
inviting over 700 people listed on the email chain sent from her email address marilou.giovannucci@jud.ct.gov
6. Four page
description of the First Annual AFCC Conference on April 12, 2013 including fee
structure
7. Four page article
appearing on Washington Times raising conflict of interest issues for
Connecticut judges and history of Connecticut AFCC chapter—4 pages
7. Committee on
Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-16 dated 4/19/2013—2 pages
8. Committee on
Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-17 dated 4/19/2013—3 pages
9. Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-18
dated 4/19/2013—3pages
10. Copy of Four pages of FOI requests and responses from
Melissa Farley—4 pages
11. Copy of document
expensing the membership of the AFCC of Judge Munro—1 page
12. Copy of 4 pages
of emails approving various judiciary employees to attend AFCC meeting on April
4 sent from mailbox of Debra Kulak one of the founding members of the CT AFCC
Chapter noted in Washington Times article—4 pages
13. Expense reports
for travel from Judge Lynda Munro, Marilou Giovannucci, Johanna Greenfield,
David Iaccarino, Linda Sabatelli, Rhonda Lucino, Mary Kay West, Martha Boyerl
14. Program for AFCC
conference in Los Angeles
15. List of Family
Commission members as of September 15, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment