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 ADVOCACY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ADVOCACY. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 9, 2018


Sometime in the Summer of 2013, Jennifer Verraneault, a family court reform activist, contacted me and asked to meet with me to discuss family court reform.  Her partner, Jerry Mastrangelo had been engaged in a lengthy court battle to see his three triplets towards whom he had inexplicably been denied access.  

A year prior, she had taken the free Guardian Ad Litem class for the State of Connecticut and had been able to obtain certification despite not being a lawyer or having any background as a mental health professional.  In fact, to my knowledge, I wasn't even clear that she had a College degree.  I had also tried to sign up for that class, but the CT Judicial Branch had refused me admission, perhaps because I did have a college degree.

Monday, March 28, 2016


Megan Spicer of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"Advocates from across the country are rallying behind a Bridgeport mother and domestic violence victim who is on trial for killing the man who allegedly abused her during their relationship..."

Read more:

More on the criminalization of African-American women who are victims of domestic violence and fight back:

Tuesday, June 9, 2015


According to "The CT Post":
"HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Hartford police say they arrested 17 protesters who blocked a major downtown street while calling for changes to the justice system, schools and housing.
Dozens of demonstrators gathered near the Old State House and blocked traffic during the Monday afternoon rush hour, causing traffic jams. Police say the protest was peaceful and only those who blocked the street were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.
Rally organizers say it was in support of the Black Lives Matter movement that has grown in response to the killings of unarmed black men by police.
Moral Monday Connecticut planned the protest. Leaders say they were making a public statement about black people being oppressed and killed by government systems.
Organizers posted on Facebook that all the protesters who were arrested have been freed."

Saturday, May 16, 2015


I am a child of parents who escaped the holocaust.  Many of the most horrible things that Nazis did was done lawfully under the color of German law.  German citizens who attempted to save Jewish children were  violating the law--in fact, they faced the execution of their own children.  

I grew up in the 60s and participated in social activism at the time.  I believe deeply that there are times in history when the moral thing to do is to break the law.  I graduated from law school in 1982.  I don't talk about this much, but the first time I took family law I got a D in the class.  I got a D because the professor asked a question, put up a scenario and asked what would you advise a client in this situation; I wrote a lengthy answer which the professor didn't like.  

I've been confronted sometimes regarding what I said at a meeting such as this.  At one point, a person confronted me and asked, "Did you really say that "Our family court system is intended to give abused children over to abusers."  No what I actually said was "If someone were to create a family court system which was intended to guarantee that a large number of children would be handed over to their abusers it would like like our family court system."  

But I don't assign bad motives.  I don't go out of my way to draw the conclusion that people in the system have bad motives.  It is really one of the most frustrating things, angering things, about our family court system.  There are good people in the system who just don't do their jobs and as a consequence of them not doing their jobs, children are hurt.  

I can understand people who have psychological disorders and they do horrible things because they have psychological disorders.  I can understand they can't control themselves.  I can understand running into some evil people in the family court system.  Yet Family Court is full of good people.  

From my perspective in order to make the system work, this means they have to do their best.  Mom's have to do their best at every level when it comes to choosing a good lawyer, doing their best in taking care of themselves and not being self harming. Evaluators have to do their best and also Judges have to do their jobs.  That is the only way it is going to work.  It is bad how many psychologist are doing what they are doing and yet they know better.  

You folks as you go out and become activists, for many of you, something horrible has already happened.  

I use the cancer analogy, it is nobody's fault when a child gets cancer, but it happens.  Mothers losing custody to abusers is a national health epidemic.  You all have been the victims of it.  You've suffered from it.  You caught it.  You stepped in it.  Yet you are still Moms and you still have to do the best with it, and if you have an hour with your child, you have to make the best with that hour, because that will make a big difference with that child when he or she grows up.  You have to commit yourselves to being with your kids and also to being a part of the movement and working consciously to stop this epidemic.  

One of the things that is very depressing, really upsetting, was when Marilee McLean talked about her case last night and I know because I was at the rally at Denver which was 20, 25 years ago that her daughter was failed by the Court, and that story that Marilee told is still going on.  It has't changed.  

I just talked to a person here today who had the exact same story a month ago.  Whatever we are doing we aren't doing enough and we aren't doing it well enough.  

There aren't as many people doing it as long as I've done it, so it's my failure.  You are newer advocates and now the mantel of activism is handed over to you.  

I will acknowledge that some of the experts witnesses in my day were sloppy and incompetent.  In the 1980s there was a psychologist who acted as a validator; people came to her to verify that there was truly sexual abuse.  She turned out to be doing a bad job.  Perhaps we made a mistake of looking for expertise from bad experts.  Now these bad experts are out of business, but the good experts have been silenced at the same time.  

There are bad experts now out there making fortunes selling quack theories and they get away with it in court.  

I remember when I was starting out there was a brilliant psychologist in VT that everyone used.  But she had one quirk; if you asked her six months in advance what her opinion was in summary, she'd give it and produce a report six months later matching that initial summary.  

Finally, an opposing attorney asked her on the stand why she did a particular test, and she responded, in order to corroborate my opinion. That lost the case.

I had another expert who was considered a good evaluator regarding child sexual abuse.  Good judges wanted to find out what was best for the child.  Good lawyers representing Moms would tell them this Dr. V saw no evidence of abuse so you might as well give up.  Dr. V. had done thousands and thousands of cases.  

I then did a depositions of Dr. V and I asked him how many of these cases included ones in which a child was sexually abused, and he said maybe one.  

You see, nobody had ever asked him that question.  

PAS.  PAS exists and judges know it exists.  And when we spend our time screaming that PAS is junk.  PAS is misused, but it exists.  

A lot of Moms who know from direct first hand experience that their father is a dangerous, violent person.  It isn't necessarily a bad thing for  Mom to let their child know that, that there is some danger here.  But it has nothing to do with a situation where a child has been sexual abused and the mother has also experienced rape and violence from the father.  Further, if a child reports sexual abuse and yet there is no evidence this does not mean a child hasn't been sexually abused.  

I have defended mothers who fled to protect their child.  

What makes me crazy are these cases where the mother has already been determined either by court order or stipulation to be the best parent, where the mother is already the primarily custodial parent, and then the child discloses sexual abuse that hasn't been proven. I don't understand how the mere fact of this disclosure leads good mothers to lose their children. I don't understand the concept of how that leads the court to take that child away from the good mother and hand it over to the abuser who may not be an abuser, but maybe he is.  

I hope that helps you to understand why that is crazy.  

Again, on this theme of good people doing bad things this is what is hard for me to get my head around.  There is this phenomenon where a parent comes to court with the accusation, an evaluator gives a report that he just doesn't know.  Then, it comes up again on emergency docket, and another evaluator does testing which also doesn't show anything, but Mom shows stress.  Or Mom says, "Tell the evaluator what you told me" which comes across as coaching. Still, the evaluator finds nothing. Unsupervised visitation resumes, and then a month later Mom comes back.  Good people don't like believing that sexual abuse might have occurred.  If there is a mistake and it turns out the child is being sexually abused, judges don't like to admit their mistake.  So judges blame the mother.  This is what is happening.  

So for those of you undergoing this, you are not alone.  People make mistakes--that's understandable.  There is a tendency under these situations for mothers to fall apart and stop taking care of themselves.  Keep in mind that you need to survive so that you can be there for your child.  

When I was in VT an attorney called me and asked to meet with me.  He told me and said I think I'd be derelict in my duty if I didn't ask you what you meant by a comment you made, "I can't recall how many times I've been arrested."  I responded, "I can only say that each time that happened I was exercising my first amendment rights."  

There are times when it is necessary for people of good conscience to break the law.  I am not talking about mothers who break the law to protect their children.  I am talking about everyone else who is an activist and talking about building a movement.  Those of you who have lost your children, those of you who know someone who lost their children, keep in mind that no great movement has ever succeeded without people committing civil disobedience.  

I did want to share with you a famous NE story which most of you have heard of.  Henry David Thoreau ended up in jail for not paying his taxes and Ralph Waldo Emerson came to visit him and asked, "What are you doing in there?" and Thoreau answered, "What are you doing out there?"  

When people ask why are you so obsessed with this, you need to ask why are you so complicit?  

Rabbi Prince was a young rabbi in Berlin during the rise of the Nazis and he was charismatic and dynamic.  He was giving sermons against the Nazis even before they took power, and when they took over, he gave sermons ever week telling Jews they have to leave.  Finally, the Nazis deported him.  Keep in mind that in the early years of Nazis they first deported people, but as time went on they killed them, only killed them when other countries refused to accept people and gave tacit approval of the death programs.  

Here is what Rabbi Prince had to say at the March on Washington just before Martin Luther King spoke: the most important thing I learned under those tragic circumstances is that bigotry and hatred is not the most urgent problem, the most disgraceful problem is silence.  

One last repetitive request, become active.  There was a time in the South in this country when people grew up thinking racism was inevitable and the brutal system they lived under would never change and it was unimaginable how quickly things changed.  Who would have imagined that when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, this was the beginning of such a great civil rights movement.  At first, protesters against the war in Vietnam were a handful, and then within a few years the movement swelled into thousands and thousands.  When college students began to protest apartheid no one imagined that this system could change.  In Nazi Germany during the darkest moments during WWII people really didn't think they had a chance--the Nazi's were powerful, they were everywhere.  But these people knew that if they didn't do anything, then evil would triumph.  

They didn't know how long it would take, any more than you do.  But don't give up please!

Friday, April 25, 2014


This report in from Ms. Susan Skipp:
My complaints against Horowitz and Krieger with the Department of Public Health "DPH" have been open for well over A YEAR, and are well stocked with criminal activity. This was after I found out the DPH was giving me false information (on paper) that they needed both parents' release to investigate. Lengthy discussions with the Secretary of State's office as well as Corporate Counsel for DPH revealed this is untrue as the DPH has full subpoena power.
When I inquired recently about the progress of this case, I was told by Maribeth Mendes and Katherine Boulware that the investigation is still open because no one has volunteered to decide it: I believe that is largely due to my insistence that no AFCC affiliated person be involved in the investigation. They usually cover for each other. For example, Dr. Elizabeth Thayer, who was on the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children which has now resulted in bill #494 and was co chaired by to AFCC GALs.  See the article below:

All but three members of the task force were AFCC members. Thayer, who also derives a sizable income via court appointments, finds no wrong doing as does Zazlow in DPH complaints against AFCC members. They are the two of the most often called upon volunteers. 

These kinds of conflicts of interest in connection to the AFCC's association with the CT Judicial Branch has led to numerous ethical violations.  For example, in my case, Judge Lynda Munro did not disclose her shared business interest with two witnesses against me.  Dr. Sidney Horowitz was a fact witness who perjured himself five times during trial. Although, at the time, Munro was purported to be a board member for the Connecticut AFCC, along with Sidney Horowitz, in the national AFCC newsletters; Still, the AFCC was not a registered entity with the state.  This is entirely improper.  Furthermore,  the AFCC ran unlicensed and unregistered for three years in my case, and illegally for almost 30 years prior.  For more information on AFCC ethical violations, see the article below:
AFCC policies and procedures in regard to court programming were and are unregulated because the principals of the now registered entity show two court support services division employees as principals. The third is an often court appointed and of the ilk of Horowitz, Elizabeth Smith. The CSSD workers, one in charge of family relations, implement and evaluate programming in family relations.  What is more, the AFCC does the GAL training which is required of all GALs employed in the State of Connecticut.  So this illegal operation was and continues to operate within the CT Judicial Branch in violation of all ethical principles.

The judiciary has been aware of these conflicts of interest, as has been the state's attorney and Secretary of State for over a year. Still, nothing has been done to stop this outrage, and, as a result, nothing has happened to the mental health providers who bypass state bidding procedures and find ways to avoid signing contracts with standard anti-discriminatory language.  Not only that, nothing has been done to punish the profiteering AFCC trained GALs who take college funds, retirement funds, 401k's, insurance policies", all in the name of the children involved who are left penniless with parents who are facing foreclosure and the loss of their jobs because of constant interference from the CT Judicial Branch.  The power behind this ripoff are the CT Family Court judges who act as collection agencies with the excuse that this forced contract shakedown for assets is justified because the have ruled without any statutory basis that GAL fees are also child support.
The courts receive federal funding that facilitates children being placed with violent, abusive and/or sexually abusive fathers. It's difficult to ascertain exact numbers as the judicial branch does not have a statistician to obtain accurate numbers, but it seems that since 2006, when AFCC programming was put into the Family Court System, and HHS money started pouring into the Family Courts, which spread through the State into Martinez grants, women started losing their children at alarming rates and "high conflict"/ high revenue cases emerged for family law attorneys and the myriad of other professionals. This has led to large number of custody conflicts, where protective mothers are losing children at more than triple the rate than before.
For a good example of how the process works, see the link below:
Many are forced to another unregulated institution of supervised visitation centers, many AFCC run, extending the ability of AFCC related businesses to continue their profiteering activities. These too have no oversight and are not recognized by the Consumer Trade Commission. 

Family court is a broken system that is harming many. The liability for the ADA violations for these AFCC practices can bankrupt the State of Connecticut in sanctions alone should the CT DOJ choose to pursue the many thousands of cases throughout the State. The CT Judicial Branch entered an agreement in 2003 for it's non-compliance with ADA. If the judicial branch wants to live up to the lie on their website "we are Ada compliant" first thing that needs to go is the AFCC which is not compliant with the ADA, and next the discriminatory federal funding that allows these policies to be implemented must go. 

When abusers and victims are placed in the adversarial position of a divorce court, the abuser will usually win.  This came to light by the DOJ commissioned Saunders report and Connecticut's skimpy data also shows that trend.  Attorney Stephen Dembo, a notorious wrongdoer in connection to incentivizing high conflict divorces on behalf of abusers, is ironically on the Family Commission.  FYI, Attorney Steve Dembo and Dr. Sidney Horowitz and been partners together in an extraordinary 68 high conflict cases conducted in Family Court.  Munro and Krieger started RFTD. These are just tiny cogs in a the dirty wheel of justice that spins in favor of the new carpetbagger class that has inundated the CT Judicial Branch in the last few decades.
The state's judicial practices have not just destroyed me and my children, but tens of thousands of others, ensuring future generations of dysfunction with which to reap ongoing revenue. This is a phenomena I imagine many people reading this article are experiencing. 

The fact that these crimes are well known--Attorney General George Jepson and Attorney John Hughes of the DOJ have been fully informed, and yet do nothing is indicative of the graft, corruption and greed driven practices by many which are subtly and not so subtly tolerated or even furthered by some of the most powerful politicians and government functionaries in this State. I have mentioned twelve crimes in this email and it's being sent to the entities responsible for investigating these crimes.  It is time that fit mothers, protective mothers, finally saw some action and that those individuals who are responsible for holding criminals accountable do something about the crimes that I have described in so much detail here in this email.
Family law in Connecticut, and that in so many states, has become an embarrassment to honest and moral citizens. It doesn't seem that many within the system are reaching into their personal wells of honesty and morality to fix the situation and that too many generally ignore the unlawful and criminal injustices occurring in family court as well as the many civil rights violations that have been documented.
This is a holocaust of our families and children in the State of Connecticut.  Something needs to be done now.  Citizens of the State of Connecticut cannot afford to remain silent.
In the words of the great Holocaust protestor, Pastor Martin Niemoller,
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Ms. Susan Skipp,
Family Court Activist,
Mother of Lost Children

Thursday, March 13, 2014


Opinion: CBA Defense Of Family Law System Is 'Misguided'

Editor's note: The author of this letter is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a former clerk for a federal judge and a former tax lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York City. Last fall, he was involved in legal proceedings in which he and his lawyer challenged the fees and conduct of a GAL involved in his divorce case.

To The Editor:

I read with great interest the recent column ("In Defense Of Family Judges, Connecticut Law Tribune, March 10) by Connecticut Bar Association president Kimberly Knox about the recent debate in the General Assembly regarding the reappointment of Judge Leslie Olear and, more broadly, the need to reform our state's very flawed family court system. While I was not in Hartford for the debate, I followed the matter closely via CT-N. I have no personal experience with Judge Olear, and I share Ms. Knox's concerns about maintaining the integrity of the reappointment process. But I also believe we should maintain the integrity of the public discussion of these issues.

While Ms. Knox wrote that Judge Olear "[b]y all accounts" "is the type of judge that Connecticut deserves and needs," the debate was to the contrary. State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and other legislators spoke of having received a large number of complaints from parents about Judge Olear. In the debate and in related communications, legislators and parents attributed the scarcity of formal complaints about the judge to fears of retribution and frustration with a judicial complaint process that parents view as a waste of time.

Likewise, Judge Olear's positive evaluations from the Judicial Branch are not meaningful if, as I understand, such evaluations are based on lawyers who do business before her but not the pro se litigants who appear in more than 80 percent of family law matters. Sen. Jason Welch based his opposition to Judge Olear on a couple of questionable opinions she issued which were reversed on appeal. And parents protesting Judge Olear distributed flyers detailing concerns specific to the judge. In short, many parties expressed sincere concerns about Judge Olear.

Ms. Knox wrote that courts "occasionally involve guardians ad litem or other professionals to protect the children's interests." Testimony before the Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving Care and Custody of Children and statements by legislators indicate that, in fact: judges routinely assign GALs and an army of other individuals who purport to act "in the bests interest of the children;" that, in practice judges permit those individuals to exploit financially — and even bankrupt — families in difficult situations; and that such individuals and the judges who supposedly supervise them are not accountable in any fashion.

While Ms. Knox wrote that "[t]hose individuals have a thankless job," in fact those individuals have extremely lucrative jobs. Ms. Knox's defense of the current system is a misguided effort to protect those lucrative positions notwithstanding the resulting harm to families.

Ms. Knox's discussion of the task force established to review family court matters was, at best, misleading. The task force was formed to advise the legislature (and not, as Ms. Knox suggests, the Judicial Branch) about three specific issues. However, its hearings revealed the need for complete reform of our family law system.

As Rep. Edwin Vargas noted in the Olear debate, the task force was chaired by two professional GALs and consisted largely of divorce industry workers who have a vested interest in preserving the current system. Ms. Knox suggested that the legislators wait for the Judicial Branch to consider and act upon a task force report written by divorce industry workers. Instead, the legislators should reject the institutions that created the current family law system that destroys so many Connecticut families, including the organization Ms. Knox purports to represent.•

Mark Sargent.

Monday, February 24, 2014

Wednesday, February 19, 2014


Coalition Members Jennifer Verraneault and Michelle Tolmoff take to the air waves and discuss the abuses of family court and talk about family court reform.  See the link below:

Tuesday, January 7, 2014


Dear Director James Comey,

May I provide living witness to Ms. Lori Handrahan's report of epidemic family court corruption which is certainly pervasive within the jurisdictional territory for which the Boston office is responsible.  We accept your oaths of office, and pursuant to which acceptance, we report the epidemic crimes of state civil family court administrators of federal social programs that are earmarked under federal congressional appropriations to aid victims of domestic violence and domestic incest by fathers against the children.  For example, incest is a codified crime under federal and all state statutes within the federal court first circuit that overlaps the USDOJ Boston headed jurisdictional territory.  When criminal reports of incest are made by protective mothers during the course of a civil no fault divorce, the civil state family court routinely, as a matter of official policy, fail/refuse to turn over to federal and state criminal authorities for investigation and prosecution.  Evidence of raw genitals that show physical force on the children, habitual domestic  sexual assault and battery that are criminally codified by all states and under federal criminal codes, are wantonly dismissed with deliberate indifference by state civil family court judges without turning over such physical evidence to the proper criminal authorities, as mandated by law, that is, codified civil law as well as common law.  This pattern and practice of wholesale epidemic state deliberate indifference refusing to enforce prohibitions against incest implicates a federal interest.

Incest, is an age old perverse criminal aberration that is as old as the dawn of mankind, that should not cause public officials to behave now as if this is some modern phenomena.  The word incest has been part of the English language for as long as the civilizations around the world have sought to conform to moral decency and prevent genetic disorder by criminally prohibiting incest, especially along linear family lineages.  By contrast, blarney phrases like "parental alienation" are modern fabrications in the civil family court vernacular that aid and abet the crime of incest.

Worse still, mothers who report crimes of incest are routinely retributed against by a civil codified limited jurisdiction court like family court, who refuse to turn over evidence of reports of crimes to criminal authorities like yourselves, and instead REMOVE the child in question from her protective custody, without any legally sufficient justification, with vernacular court con accusations of "parental alienation."  We all know a mother's rights to her child is a fundamental liberty right protected by the Bill of Rights, and in common law, motherhood is a God-given right of humanity, without whom there would be no birthing or direct care of human offspring.  In our system of laws and justice, no fundamental right is permitted to be removed, abridged or deprived by the government without proper cause, and especially not for the modern civil family court vernacular fabrication "parental alienation" in retaliation for the mother exercising her common law and Constitutional right of reporting the crime of incest, the age old crime, or any crime.
The aforesaid Deliberate indifference is motivated by pecuniary interests.  The mothers are placed in supervised visitation, under color of law, administered by state family court officials and funded by various federal programs earmarked and intended to provide social family services, that are under contract between the federal programs and the states. These social services should therefore be free, BUT not so.  It is an unregulated cottage industry where the visitation supervisor, a family court official, affiliate or subcontractor, who charges whatever rate she desires, all the while double dipping into federal funds for the supervised visitation under various federal programs.  That is a clear cut violation of embezzlement of federal program funds under false pretenses.  A federal interest is purely implicated and a USAG is required to take the case.  I am a first hand victim and living witness.  A Rhode Island GAL Lori Giarrusso demanded that I pay her $50,000 if I wanted to see my children, written in stone in a GAL Report and criminal RICO and Syndicate Scheme to deprive civil rights under color of law complaint I filed with the Boston FBI.  The reason for placing me in supervised visitation?  Because I took my daughters on a weekend trip out of state to Texas.  How was my mother's rights removed?  On ex-parte unstenographed "emergency" petition proceeding alleging merely that it was speculated that I worked out of state.

And when I filed the FBI complaint, what happened?  The Rhode Island family court judge Stephen Capineri sua sponte recused himself.  The RI Chief Judge of family Court Haiganush Bedrosian took my file for review in an administrative capacity, during which time I reported her and Rhode Island's routine incarceration and fine of disabled, minority and English as a second language children in family court's truancy court for status offenses in closed courts without stenographic recordings, concealed these incarcerations in order to continue receiving federal funding under the Juvenile  Justice Delinquent Prevention Act which funds programs administered by the state to deter states from jailing kids for status offenses.  In other words, I reported Bedrosian's policy of embezzling federal funds under false pretenses.  I spoke and reported directly to USDOJ Larry Fiedler, who confirmed I was the only person who made the criminal report.  The Providence Journal contacted me.  Within days of my report, Bedrosian initiated on ex parte domestic violence proceeding against me; I was remarried and 8 months pregnant on the verge of giving birth over 2,500 Miles away in Texas; she alleged I caused "fear of imminent physical harm" to a man 2,500 Miles away in Rhode Island in the first week of January 2011.  Hand written firmly in Bedrosian's handwriting on the ex parte domestic violence order is the Phrase "Protect GAL Report."  There is no federal program that funds prima facie state judiciary criminal fraud that "protect GAL Report" that contains the $50,000 ransom demand for supervised visitation through a Domestic Violence proceeding under the Violence Against Women Act or any other federal social programs, that embezzles in a pattern and practice ever more federal funds and programs, to harm families, children and mothers in syndicated RICO schemes, implicating a federal interest.  This identical ex parte temporary order was renewed consecutively each time upon such type of order's 21 day expiration, an accumulated over 30 times, from January 2011 to the present.  Really, the deplorable public display of a pattern and practice of state family court judiciary's epidemic embezzlement of federal funds is flagrant, with deliberate malice, not mere indifference.

During this federal deficit and debt ceiling debate and election year, and in the context of last year's federal shut down, it is incumbent upon federal law enforcement and the justice department to prosecute a pattern and practice of epidemic state embezzlement of federal funds and programs, motivated by pecuniary gain, and perversely executed by syndicate state judiciaries  unfit to govern.  We accept all of your oaths of office and expect accountability and your fiduciary duty to enforce incest, embezzlement of federal funds, RICO laws and the proper responsible handling of this criminal report/complaint.

Very Truly Yours,
Mary Seguin

Friday, March 1, 2013



See link below for direct information from FIC:

Stop S.B. 374, Mandated Assessments of Children

In all the years FIC has been fighting for pro-family values at the state Capitol, we have never seen as invasive a bill as S.B. 374, An Act Requiring Behavioral Health Assessments for Children. This bill would mandate that public school children in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 and home-schooled children at ages 12, 14 and 17 be given behavioral health assessments, whether or not parents approve.

S.B. 374 will have a public hearing on Friday, March 8th at 11:00 A.M. at Wesleyan University. We need parents to be prepared, to attend the hearing and to help defeat this bill.

No one has the right to force children to have psychological evaluations that are against the will of their parents and possibly unnecessary. This bill may violate Connecticut's HIPPA privacy law. What does the government intend to do with these assessments? If a child gets a "bad" assessment, the state is empowered to do...what, exactly? What will the test be? How will it be administered? These and other questions remain unanswered by S.B. 374.

S.B. 374 is a significant attack on homeschooling and public school families, interference by the government in compelling the upbringing of a child, something the State Board of Education does not have the authority to do.

Here are four ways you can help FIC Action stop the Mandated Assessments Bill and protect our parental rights:

1) Use FIC's Grassroots Action Center to send an e-mail directly to your state senator and state representative by clicking on the link at the bottom of this message (then click "take action" at the bottom of the next screen). We have provided some basic points, but please either put the message in your own words or add a brief introduction and conclusion! Personalized and polite messages have a much greater impact. Let our legislators know that you oppose any bill that forces children to be "assessed" without their parents' permission.

2) Attend the public hearing and testify against S.B. 374. The Public Health Committee will hold a public hearing on Friday, March 8, 2013 at 11:00 A.M. at Beckham Hall, Wesleyan University, 55 Wyllys Avenue, Middletown.
The Committee is accepting electronic testimony via email at
Please submit electronic testimony no later than 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, March 7, 2013. If you are unable to submit electronic testimony, please submit 10 copies of written testimony at the time of sign-up. Sign-up for the hearing will begin at 9:00 A.M. on the Second Floor of Beckham Hall. The first hour of the hearing is reserved for Legislators, Constitutional Officers, State Agency Heads and Chief Elected Municipal Officials. Speakers will be limited to three minutes of testimony.

Thursday, February 28, 2013


Major Victory for All Women: House Passes Inclusive VAWA
Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill
February 28, 2013
With a resounding vote of 286-138, the House passed a bipartisan, inclusive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This is a major victory for all women, including women in the LGBT community, Native American women, women on college campuses and immigrant women. NOW thanks the steadfast champions of VAWA in both the House and the Senate as well as the activists around the country who refused to give up on the countless women who will now be protected in this bill.
We should not have had to work so hard and for so long to get such a bill passed. Since its initial authorization in 1994, VAWA has rightly enjoyed bipartisan support -- until the last Congress, which failed to reauthorize VAWA for the first time in the bill's history. The House GOP leadership was responsible for this delay, introducing a regressive version of the bill in 2012 and again this year. But our friends on Capitol Hill would not back down, and we salute their courage and support.
While we celebrate today's victory, we must begin immediately on the hard work of ensuring that VAWA's authorized programs are fully funded. NOW calls on Congress to appropriate every last dollar authorized in this bill. Women's lives are on the line. How could we settle for anything less?

Wednesday, December 12, 2012


In her own words, Cheryl describes her struggle:
"I have been violated many times by the Westbrook Middle School Principal Mr. House, the SDE, the CPS court in Middletown, CT.(Judge Stuart Bear, who is now in the Appeallate court, HMMM), the West HavenPD(assaulted by them and false reported by my son's fathers girlfiend to)GAL-Sue Cousineau, The Middletown Juvenile court Clerk- Kirsten NIchols Golden, troop F or Ftroop in Westbrook, DCF workers; Jeannine Weiss (Middletown),Nancy Kavanaugh(Norwich), and James Shea (Milford), there's more and everywhere I stand up for my child and I. Please support me at my family court hearing on 12/13/12 at 10AM 235 Church ST. New Haven, CT. 3rd floor and I will continue to support you. Contact me for details:"

Tuesday, December 11, 2012


Have you ever had your constitutional or civil rights abused by a police department, a school district or a public official who has threatened your arrest if you entered public property without permission?

On December 18, at 9:30am at the U.S. District Court in New Haven, the Honorable Janet C. Hall will preside upon a Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiff Michael Nowacki who has sued the Town of New Canaan, Connecticut in federal court for abuses of his constitutional
and civil rights.

As you know, Michael Nowacki was arrested on February 22, 2010 and was exonerated from the allegations set forth by his ex-wife Susanne Sullivan and a child care provider which resulted in his arrest.
Nowacki has sued the NCPD and other Town officials for his malicious prosecution on these unsupported allegations and various public officials engaged in a series of retaliations which deprived him of various fundamental First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
On September 7, 2012, Nowacki sued the Town of New Canaan in federal court and then on October 28, 2012 his lawyer John R. Williams filed a Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief.
Five lawyers for the Town of New Canaan who represented the Board of Education and the NCPS, NCPD, and other Town of New Canaan officials argued that this lawsuit was not a matter for federal court jurisdiction in a Motion filed on November 5.
Various legal briefs were exchanged and the Honorable Janet C. Hall ruled on November 20, in Nowacki's favor, setting forth a hearing for injunctive federal court relief to be considered on December 18, 2012.
Nowacki, through his amended federal complaint filed on December 1 in docket 3:12cv1296 TJCH), is seeking a cease and desist order be issued by the federal court at the December 18 to order the Board of Education, the NCPD and New Canaan public to remove these deprivations of his rights that require Nowacki to receive permissions for the Superintendent of Schools to attend public events conducted on public facilities operated by the NCPS system.
Nowacki has asked for a jury trial on the allegations set forth in his federal suit.
Town lawyers, who are being paid through liability insurance coverage by the Town of New Canaan, attempted to also seek a protective order from the federal court, in a Motion filed attempting to obstruct access to information requested by Nowacki pursuant to the application of the Freedom of Information Act. The Honorable Janet C. Hall on November 6, 2012 denied the Town of New Canaan's attempts to block the access to public records to prove widespread corruption in the NCPD, NCPS and the operations of the Town of New Canaan's municipality's operations
Nowacki is seeking the support of this blog's followers and others that have been similarly abused.
He is inviting all those who have an interest in the protection of fundamental constitutional and civil rights of parents to attend the December 18, 2012 hearing in the federal court building at 141 Church Street in New Haven.
There you can observe the testimony of as many as ten public officials and the presentation of the foundation for Nowacki's request for the preservation of fundamental rights which have been deprived since May 20, 2011.
Under such civil rights cases, Nowacki has also filed for the application, after trial for these constitutional and civil rights abuses, to have his Attorney's costs covered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.
Nowacki notified the Town Attorney of New Canaan just this morning, that yesterday he provided a series of documents to the U.S. Attorney's office in New Haven, documents which provide evidence of the corruption in the Town of New Canaan.
Nowacki's plight has been chronicled on his website, where you can find background on the initial federal complaint and other documents supporting his allegations of constitutional and civil rights abuses following his filing of the federal suit.

Friday, November 30, 2012


Dear Attorney Christodlous:

I am writing to you in regard to Mr. Joe Watley whose children were stolen from him through unjust proceedings carried out against him by DCF.  I understand you are representing him in his custody case.
I am a person who has advocated for people with mental health disabilities for many years. I am a member of both MindFreedom and also Psychrights located in Alaska.
I have to say that I am completely puzzled by the discrimination which Joe Watley has faced in regard to his three children, all three of whom are currently in the care of DCF.  Nothing that I have read about this case indicates to me that he would be a harm to his children. 

During the course of my advocacy, I have met many people who have mental health disabilities and I am familiar with the symptoms. My own situation was that 36 years ago I was misdiagnosed with a serious mental illness and was hospitalized with people who had severe mental health problems. So I am good a detecting when a person has a serious issue such as bipolar, schizophrenia, or something of that kind. I do not see problems like this when it comes to Mr. Joe Watley.

Furthermore, I have been in family court in regard to my own high conflict divorce for a considerable period of time.  Yes, there is major discrimination against people with mental illness in family court all the time.  Still, people with addiction problems, substance abuse problems, serious mental illness such as bipolar have the right to  parent their children. In fact, as you know discriminating against people with disabilities, denying them their parental rights, is a violation of federal and state law.
I was particularly bothered by the idea that the Supreme Court voiced in their recent ruling in this case, which is that if Mr. Watley wished to exercise his ADA rights, he would need to have a GAL assigned to him. As you know, people with various forms of mental illness can assert their ADA rights in regard to their mental illnesses without requiring that they be under the supervision of a conservator or a GAL. What is even more absurd, however, is that the State in making this statement has implied that somehow Mr. Watley is disabled by mental illness to the point where he might need one. What nonsense! 
I think what concerns people like me is the outright, blatent, unashamed affirmation our judicial branch makes that they have the right to discriminate at will against people with mental health disabilities despite both State and Federal laws that prohibit them from doing so. This kind of viewpoint the judicial branch espouses, simply that they will violate the law whenever they please, as they please, is completely anarchistic.
My general impression is that the court system is simply playing games with Mr. Watley, making rulings it knows to be improper, then bouncing the case up to the appellate system, then getting it remanded to the trial court again, where there again, rulings are made that are improper and then on and on. The whole intent, it seems, is simply to avoid ruling according to the dictates of the law by bouncing Mr. Watley from court to court and hearing to hearing year after year without end. It is simply, as Langston Hughes so aptly put it, a situation where "Justice delayed is Justice denied. This is a game and everyone knows that it is a game. I suspect even you know it is a game.
I think it is wrong to keep Mr. Watley and his children dangling in regard to this case. I think it is wrong to make a pretense of defending him. He should get a genuine defense. Mr. William Mulready, a researcher and expert on the ADA, has suggested that you use the ADA as the basis for defending Mr. Watley's case. I get the impression that you feel such an approach is useless.
Why is it useless? The ADA is federal law. And our State of Connecticut is thumbing its nose at federal law? By what right?
This is a civil rights issue that folks such as myself who are part of the one in five citizens with a history of a mental health disorder would like to see addressed efficiently and effectively. If this is something you do not think that you are capable of doing you should step down and allow another attorney to do the job, one who believes in this case as much as Mr. Joe Watley's supporters do. 

I do want to point out, also, that Mr. Watley does have a considerable number of supporters. If he were truly mentally ill in the manner the the judicial court tries to make out, then how would it be possible for Mr. Watley to gather together so many supporters? The fact is that he does have a considerable number of backers, and this alone is an indication that the State is simply manipulating the judicial system and using the stigma surrounding the label of mental illness as a weapon to deny Mr. Watley his parental rights.
Thank you very much for reading this email. I urge you to take effective action on Mr. Joe Watley's behalf.

Elizabeth A. Richter,

For more information on this case, see the link below:


Wednesday, November 28, 2012


VAWA Programs Face Uncertain Future -
 Please Take Action
After taking action,
please support our work!
November 28, 2012
Action Needed:

Congress still has not reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. If Congress fails to pass VAWA in this "lame duck" session, we will have to start all over again with the new Congress in January. Even more concerning is the possibility of sequestration, or the Budget Control Act's ability to slash funds across the federal budget, including funds set aside for survivors. If Congress fails to pass a new budget, sequestration will result in nearly 200,000 fewer victims receiving lifesaving and cost-effective services. There is very little time left for this Congress to take action on VAWA.
Please call your House member, and tell her/him that it is critical that the Senate version (S. 1925) of the Violence Against Women Act be passed before the 112th Congress adjourns and that funding for VAWA programs should not be cut in the negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff." House Speaker John Boehner needs to schedule a floor vote as soon as possible. Please send your message NOW.
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) must be reauthorized by this Congress. An inclusive, bipartisan bill (S. 1925) passed in the Senate earlier this year (68-31) contained important improvements that strengthen protections for a number of vulnerable populations, like battered immigrant women, Native American women, LGBT persons and violence survivors on college campuses. A very different House bill (H.R. 4970) was passed that actually reduces services and protections for undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Prior to the November elections, progress on VAWA reauthorization was stymied. As an interim measure to keep VAWA and other federal programs funded at least through March 2013, a continuing resolution was passed. But the time has come to get this bill passed.
We need House members to pressure Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to schedule a vote on the Senate-passed bill. Some House members may think that they have voted for VAWA reauthorization, but you should let them know that the House version was a sham VAWA. In fact, 23 Republicans voted against H.R. 4970, which leaves out protections for anyone who isn't considered a "real" victim. House members cannot possibly be proud of a bill that would ignore improvements for victims of dating and sexual violence at colleges and universities; roll back protections for vulnerable groups, including communities of color; toss out strengthened housing protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; ignore important provisions to improve services and accountability in programs; and leave out prevention initiatives.
We cannot let Congress ignore our call to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act before the end of this year. And we cannot allow negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff" to result in cutting VAWA programs -- these programs are already under-funded and do not provide sufficient resources to meet the need. According to a one-day census conducted by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, nearly 10,000 requests for help are likely turned away each day for lack of shelter space and staff resources.
Check out
for more information.
U.S. House of Representative office phone numbers:
You can also tweet:
» @[your legislator]: What steps are you taking to make sure the real #VAWA is reauthorized in lame duck session? #nowvawa
» @[your legislator]: Make the real #VAWA a lame duck priority – reauthorize it now! #nowvawa

Monday, November 5, 2012














Dear Barbara Ruhe:

I know and have seen you at many places in the state always there for the constituents of CT. lawfully and helping other candidates.

Our biggest problem in state government is the CPS/DCF and unruly behavior and false reporting to kidnap children to make muko dollars off the backs of our children from the federal government, and maybe someone like you can help innocent families with this issue in corrupt government.

I hope you do win and I'm routing for you as I know you are an honest person and lawmaker.

Go get em Barbara Ruhe! I know you can do it because you have the drive. I will blast this out for you as you deserve to win, you are the best and our state needs you. Love you Barbara Ruhe.

I encourage all my contacts in her district to get and vote tomorow, Tuesday, November 6 for
Barbara Ruhe.

Respectfully, Cheryl Martone
P.O. Box 165
Westbrook, CT. 06498
'US Concerned Parents' support group &
Parents MOVEment