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 ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS. Show all posts

Sunday, June 11, 2017


A Gutless Editorial Board

A welcome and not altogether unexpected piece of news arrived in the mail. It was from the Grievance Committee. The panel found no further need to investigate a complaint lodged against me. I filed the complaint myself.
I learned a long time ago never to run from a fight. Meet the accusation head on. If you don’t do so, the accuser is empowered. Far better to turn the accuser’s finger back into his own eye, as I do here to the editorial board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Wednesday, January 20, 2016



"Criminal sentencings are a decidedly dismal affair, but rarely do they frighten me. The sentencing of Edward "Ted" Taupier in Middletown the other day did scare me. I had the sense that the center really did not hold any longer, and that warring worlds had converged without hope of doing anything other than colliding.

I attended the sentencing because I have been retained to take an appeal in Taupier's case. After a court trial, he was convicted of threatening and related offenses.

The underlying facts were essentially undisputed: Taupier sent an email to several others in which he described the physical layout of a judge's home, the distance from her bedroom window to a vantage point from which a sniper's shot could be fired, the type of weapon and ammunition it would take to penetrate the bedroom window, and the fact that he possessed such a weapon..."

Read more:

Thursday, June 18, 2015


Attorney Norm Pattis blogs on Ted Taupier as follows:
"Remind me next time I get a little ticked off about something a judge has done not to send an email to would-be supporters describing how one might sit outside the jurist's home, concealed, and fire a shot into a bedroom.
It just might get me arrested for breach of the peace; it ought not get me arrested for threatening.
Edward "Ted" Taupier is facing threatening charges in Middletown. He sent an email to a group of six folks about Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto's home, and a cemetery behind it, and a bullet. He never sent the email to the judge; he sent it to fellow travelers among aggrieved family court litigants..."

For more on this topic, please click on the following link:

Monday, April 27, 2015


Isaac Avilucea reports as follows:

"On March 20, 2014, state child welfare officials took three young children from the Simsbury home of two attorneys who were in the midst of a bitter divorce.

The Department of Children and Families had obtained an order of temporary custody even though there was no conclusive evidence that either parent had abused the youngsters, according to court documents. Now, more than a year later, the children remain in foster care.

That's the bare-bones outline of an unusual case working its way through the state's court system. It would, like most custody battles, be playing out in private but for a document erroneously placed on a public portion of the state Judicial Branch website last October..."

Read more: 

Tuesday, February 17, 2015


March 10, 2015 at Henry Carter Hull Library in Clinton, CT.

He’s known as American’s fiercest trial lawyer, but Norm Pattis is also an impassioned social philosopher. This far-ranging conversation may include commentary on guns, prisons, local and national cases. Norm Pattis’s pleas for personal liberty and commonsense rule of law will surely provoke heated social discourse– precisely his intent.

Copies of his new book, "In The Trenches" will be available for purchase.

Address: 10 Killingworth Tpke, Clinton

Please Note:  Unfortunately, if you want to get a copy of the book in advance, it is currently out of stock on Amazon, so you may wish to call the author directly for a copy at:  203-393-3017.

Sunday, February 15, 2015


Dear Editor:

The “opinion piece” filed on February 11, 2015 by Attorney Norm Pattis on the Connecticut Law Tribune website contained substantial errors, misrepresentations and “misrememberances” in the article entitled:  “Despite Allegations, Family Courts Aren’t Corrupt.”

There was no apology which was posted by the editorial staff of the Connecticut Law Tribune for posting in paragraph three erroneous information in the original story issued by Attorney Pattis, who was immediately contacted by phone, email and his Twitter account to correct these “misrepresentations and misremembrances” of testimony by “disgruntled litigants” at the confirmation hearings on January 23, 2015 involving Judge Stephen Frazzini.

Inasmuch as the transcripts of the public hearings on January 23, 2015 are now posted on the judiciary committee’s webpage which validate there was no “testimony by disgruntled parents” as Attorney Pattis originally reported.

While the CLT staff didn’t post a “corrected information” on line until late in the afternoon, on February 12, 2015, there was no recognition by the CLT editors and management contacted on Friday, February 13, 2015 that the article by Attorney Pattis was a clear violation of Rule 3.6 (a) of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.

Despite the management of ALM being contacted about these concerns seeking the withdrawal of the article both on line and in the print edition of the Connecticut Law Tribune, Paul Sussman, the editor of the Connecticut Law Tribune confirmed by telephone on February 15, 2015 that the CLT on line and print version would contain this story.

Rule 3.6 (a) concerns the subject of Trial Publicity:

“A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

So, inasmuch as Attorney Pattis has used his editorial epee to inappropriately comment on a Judge’s confirmation hearing in attempts to interfere with prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in which Judge Frazzini was participating, Attorney Pattis appears to be “impervious” to his own responsibilities to self enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Statewide Bar Counsel’s Attorney Michael Bowler, and senior judiciary officials, including external affairs director Melissa Farley, Chief Administrative Judge Patrick Carroll and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Elliot Solomon refused to intervene upon my request to seek the removal of the article in both the on line and print editions when contacted on February 15, 2015.

So, the issue of “public corruption” is demonstrated when lawyers protect lawyers when misconduct is alleged, judges protect lawyers when misconduct is alleged, and no one is willing to step forward who has the duty and authority to protect the “public interest in the integrity of the judiciary system”.


Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

(203) 273-4296

Thursday, February 12, 2015


“Misrepresentations” versus “Misremembrances”

The events of this week regarding Brian Williams and the posting of an “opinion piece” quilled by Attorney Norm Pattis entitled “Despite Accusations, Family Courts Aren’t Corrupt” merit a response.

After reading Attorney Pattis scribed observations, I reached out to Attorney Pattis via phone messages left to his offices, to his well followed Twitter account and by email.  Attorney Pattis suggested that I contact the editors about the concerns in regards to factual statements which are unsupportable by evidence and in regards to other “observations” about sworn testimony provided by Judge Stephen Frazzini’s recent re-appointment hearing on January 23, 2015.

First, Attorney Pattis was not present on January 23 2015 at the public hearing in front of the legislative judiciary committee.  I was present as both as an observer and as a participant. 

Apparently Attorney Pattis never reviewed the CT-N coverage available for fact verification before his articulation in the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Attorney Pattis indicated that that “disgruntled litigants appeared before the Judiciary Committee where whipped up by the likes of Hartford State Representative Minnie Gonzalez, they flung as much mud as they could muster at the man.  It was disgraceful.”

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #1:  CT-N footage available on line will show not one “disgruntled” litigant spoke to the judiciary committee in opposition of Judge Stephen Frazzini on January 23, 2015.  Attorney Pattis refused to correct his error and readers can draw their own inferences about whether that represents a misrepresentation or misremembrance. 

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #2:  Representative Minnie Gonzalez whipped up the “disgruntled litigants” on January 23, 2015.  The question here:  How can you whip up an empty bowl?

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #3:  “The Justice Department might be looking into his failure of memory of some deeper conspiracy.  This is tripe, pure and simple.”

On the evening of January 27, 2015 at 8:29 pm, I sent an email to the address of Judge Frazzini at and copied the external affairs director, Attorney Melissa Farley for good measure, indicating that portions of Judge Frazzini’s sworn testimony on January 23, 2015 was “material false and misleading” in regards his national only membership in the AFCC and whether he knew whether the chapter in Connecticut ever got off the ground.

In this email, I suggested that Judge Frazzini issue a letter of correction to his testimony because he was listed as #43 on the Connecticut Chapter’s 2014 membership roster, yet failed to recollect than membership.

I asked him to post such a “letter of correction” on the public testimony of the judiciary committee.  I indicated that if he failed to do so, I would be posting a letter on his behalf in opposition to his re-nomination because he had delivered “material false and misleading testimony” under oath, a criminal charge pursuant to the application of C.G.S. 53a-156. 

Judge Frazzini denied that he had conflicts of interest defined in the Committee on Judicial Ethics ruling in 2013-15 in appointing AFCC Board members to positions as court appointees as GALs, AMCs and court appointed psychologists in essence because he correctly stated that the advisory opinion related to “members of the Board of Directors. 

Judge Frazzini indicated however, that he “would consider” these issues “seriously”.

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015, Judge Frazzini wrote a letter to the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee to “recant” portions of his testimony.  The problem with the letter was that it was not posted on the judiciary committee webpage as “public testimony” and the letter to Senator Eric Coleman and Representative William Tong was not immediately distributed to all of the committee members.

So, let the record note that the AFCC CT Chapter membership list and my letter in opposition to Judge Frazzini was sent for posting on the judiciary committee’s website inasmuch as Judge Frazzini still had to be confirmed by the members of the General Assembly.  That vote was to be conducted on Friday, January 30.

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #4: Representative Gonzalez spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives concerning a letter received by the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee which attempted to “correct statements made” by Judge Frazzini.

As Representative Gonzalez began to speak, the Chamber had to be “quieted” in order to hear her comments.

The letter from Judge Frazzini contained more misstatements of fact.  Although this letter was not a sworn affidavit it contained three specific flawed statements.

First misstatement in the letter involved properly recollecting who had posed questions in the Judiciary Committee hearing concerning his CT Chapter membership.

To correct the misremembrance of Judge Frazzini articulated in his letter dated January 28, 2015, it was Representative Gonzalez, not Representative Dan Fox, who asked questions about his membership in the CT Chapter of the AFCC.  If Attorney Pattis had reviewed the video on CT-N before defending Judge Frazzini’s testimony, you would have seen that Rep. Gonzalez held up a list of the CT Chapter members and tried to present that list to Representative Fox and Senator Coleman suggested that be done outside of the committee proceeding of January 23.

Second, Judge Frazzini incorrectly stated that his membership to the Connecticut Chapter started in 2012.  The Chapter was not incorporated with the Secretary of State’s Office until March 26, 2013.  The list provided to the judiciary committee was a membership list in 2014.  An additional membership list obtained last week lists judge Frazzini as an AFCC national chapter in 2010.

Third, Judge Frazzini’s sworn statement on January 23, he was not aware of whether the “CT Chapter of the AFCC had gotten off the ground” was either a misrepresentation or misremembrance inasmuch as Judge Frazzini identified Judge Lynda Munro as a “mentor” and Judge Murno was listed as a member of the Board of Directors of the AFCC when the incorporation documents were filed.

“Plausible deniability” is a principle of law.  It is not plausible that Judge Frazzini knew “nothing” about the existence of a CT Chapter, inasmuch as Judge Frazzini was sitting on the Family Commission with Judge Munro.

Fourth, and perhaps the most egregious of the gaffes in Judge Frazzini’s letter of January 28, 2015 is that he called the national AFCC offices in Chicago.  The AFCC headquarters are in Madison, Wisconsin.  Representative Gonzalez called attention to this misrepresentation in her oratory on January 30.

Misrepresentation versus Misremembrance #5:  Attorney Pattis comments concerning whether the DOJ was investigating this issue of “perjury” misstates a fact.

The Office of Chief State Attorney received a sworn affidavit from me on Monday, January 26, indicating that sworn testimony to the judiciary committee of Judges Thomas Parker on January 16, 2015 and Judge Taggart Adams on January 23, were “material false and misleading.”  The sworn affidavit detailing the allegations of perjury were posted on the judiciary committee website under public testimony on the date of January 23. 

In addition, the Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle also acknowledged the receipt of my complaint letter detailing the perjury allegations made on Judge Frazzini’s testimony on Wednesday, January 28.  If Norm Pattis wants to fact check my sequence of events, he can contact Attorney Boyle at (860) 258-5800.

In addition to reporting the information above to the Deputy Chief State Attorney, these same allegations were reported to the FBI Task Force hotline as well last week.

Attorney Pattis has no more knowledge as to whether the FBI or the DOJ will be considering any actions on the perjury allegations or other matters of family court corruption being reported daily to the FBI Hotline.  His commentary on that subject is merely speculation not a fact.

Intakes have been taken by the FBI hotline include judges failing to include foreign dividend income and foreign assets (including Swiss bank accounts) in family court utilized financial affidavits or the failure to report income by court appointed GALs and AMCs.

Misrepresentation vs. Misremembrance #6  Attorney Pattis has a well-regarded, well-respected and well-earned reputation as a civil rights advocate over his distinguished career.

Those of us who are involved in seeking “much overdo” legislative reforms in the operations of the family court system had our views validated in a “family court satisfaction survey” issued by the judiciary on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 and available for Attorney Pattis review on

Yesterday, the judiciary committee agreed to move forward to draft legislation to address the misuse by judges of “pay per view” parenting issued in orders of supervised visitation as an example of an abuse of “judicial discretion”.

What Attorney Pattis seems to have “misremembered” is that “the liberty” interests of parents to the care, custody and companionship of their children is well defined in federal case law since Yick Wo v. Hopkins 18 U.S. 356 in 1886.

This citizen will assist in the defense parental rights as an unenumerated right pursuant to the application of the Ninth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

In publishing his article yesterday entitled “Despite Attorney Pattis seems to have “misremembered” his earlier years where “civil rights” mattered to him as a matter of principle and of law.

We trust that Attorney Pattis will admit to the errors of factual misrepresentation and issue a proper correction.

Whether Attorney Pattis places any value on the “court of public opinion” when “misrepresentations” are arm-wrestling in the headlines with the word “misremembrance”, is “of the moment”.




Michael Nowacki
Family Court Reform Advocate
319 Lost District Drive
New Canaan, CT  06840



I know that in many ways I am a person of privilege because I received a top rate education.  And it all began with my Mom. 
When I would return home from elementary school in the afternoon, my Mom would immediately insist that I sit down and do my homework right away.  So while all the other kids were outside playing, I'd be working at my homework.  And if I didn't do my homework properly or didn't appear to be showing sufficient enthusiasm for the task, my Mom had no problem reaching over the coffee table and slapping my face, or else giving me one of her favorite lines which was, "That's not good enough.  Do it again!" 
Those were the good/bad old days of the 60s.  Today I was listening to the hearing on the reappointment of DCF Commissioner Joette Katz, and I can just imagine what she'd make of my mother's behavior.  
Of course, my parents were teachers and so these kinds of high expectations regarding achievement were simply par for the course. 
My father was a Physics Professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey who mentored considerable numbers of graduate students through to their Ph.D.s which is no easy feat.  For those of you who are familiar with the process, it usually takes approximately six years to obtain a Ph.D., and it involves finding an original area of research where you can do an investigation and write up your results in a dissertation of around 100 pages or so. 
The most challenging part of your Ph.D. is when you have to do a defense of your dissertation, which means that a committee of top scholars in the area of your research meet in a Committee.  You are then required to stand before this Committee and field a broad range of questions that they level at you regarding the content of your dissertation and the significance of the discoveries you made in your original research.  You have to stand there, on your feet, and from your memory defend criticism of your ideas from all sides by some of the most elite and challenging scholars in your department. 
If you do a good job, you can then obtain approval for your dissertation and move forward to receive your Ph.D. and take your place among the self same scholars who challenged you.  Notably, some people will do the original research, write up their thesis, and then refuse to defend their dissertation--a well known example of this behavior would be the poet T.S. Eliot, one of the greatest poets of the 20th century.  The point is that not everyone makes it because not everyone has what it takes to make it to the end.
Once I graduated from College, like many English majors I then decided to proceed with teacher training and eventually taught at a local community college here in Connecticut for 12 years. 
During my teacher training, I was subjected to classroom observation by the teacher who was mentoring me.  I also had my College professor come in and observe my work.  Both of these individuals wrote up detailed evaluations at the end of my student teaching providing feedback regarding areas of strengths and weakness and suggesting approaches to how I could improve my teaching skills. 
Eventually, I ended up before a classroom and at the end of each semester the students in my class would write up teacher evaluations responding to detailed questionnaires regarding my performance in the classroom.  In addition to that, the Chairman of the Department regularly came to my classes, observed me, and then wrote up her insights regarding my strengths and weaknesses as a teacher and submitted reports to the administration regarding my work. 
As a teacher of these young people, and as an employee of the Community College I was held accountable for maintaining a high quality of performance as an educator.  Try to be stupid or ill prepared in front of a classroom--trust me, students have no problem confronting you about that!
As a writer, I don't think you can begin to imagine the constant scrutiny that I've been subjected to from the beginning of my career.  As a student, drafting and redrafting my papers was fundamental to my process; I'd receive commentary from my professors on the margins of my papers, take them home, redo them, hand them in, receive more commentary and go through the process repeatedly until I had gotten it right. 
When it came to the first article I had published in "Glamour Magazine" years ago I recall having to write and rewrite the article at least fifteen times before the editor found it acceptable.  And even then I remember how she called me on the very day the magazine went to the printing press saying, "We need you to rewrite the final paragraph because it isn't quite right yet.  Get it to me in an hour." 
I continue to face accountability and feedback from my readership on this blog who comment all the time in regard to the content of my blogs.  If I make a misstatement or I am not accurate about my facts, or my argument is weak, you can be sure that someone reading my work will contact me and bring me up to speed. 
If you doubt me, look at some of the comments on the website yourself.  I am by no means free to shoot my mouth off.  So I may not have a single editor, but I do have 100s and 100s of very earnest persons who consider themselves in charge of me, and who follow me around waiting for me to make a mistake.  
Imagine my surprise then, to read this opinion piece by Attorney Norm Pattis, "Despite Accusations, Family Courts Aren't Corrupt".  So let me get this straight about what he was saying. 
Judge Stephen Frazzini was up for reappointment, and was undergoing a process of evaluation before a Committee to see if he met the standards for reappointment, a process very similar to a Ph.D. candidate defending his thesis, and somehow it was "disgraceful" of committee members to hold him accountable by asking him tough questions. 
I have just one thing to say and that is "why?" 
If you ask any taxpaying, Connecticut citizen, do you face performance evaluations at work, do you have to answer for the quality of your work, I'd bet the vast majority would answer "yes." 
It is part of what's involved in being a mature, adult employee. 
And yet Attorney Norm Pattis and his ilk thinks that judges and attorneys should be excused from this process? 
They are too special for that?  Again I ask, "why?" 
You see, we have laws, and one of these laws dictates that Judges must come up for reappointment before a Committee, and when they come before that Committee they must be held accountable for their actions during their prior terms.  It is supposed to be an opportunity to evaluate their performance, not just a "love-in" although the sycophancy of some members of the Judiciary Committee might make it appear so. 
Ok, so Judge Stephen Frazzini "forgot to list his membership dues in a professional organization of family lawyers and judges on a disclosure form." 
How conveniently Attorney Norm Pattis avoids naming this particular organization, the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts, which family court reform advocates have repeatedly identified as packed with the names of judges, attorneys, mental health professionals, and judicial branch employees who have been identified as associated with fraudulent billing practices, cheating their clients, perverting the law and colluding together in order to siphon massive amounts of money from unwitting family court litigants, and destroying their families. 
And how convenient that Judge Stephen Frazzini had a memory blank about his membership in that group and ended up providing false testimony to the Committee as a consequence.  If I'd been standing before Judge Frazzini in Court and had memory loss like that while providing my testimony, I doubt he'd be that merciful!  
Indeed, Attorney Norm Pattis is correct.  "There is no evidence to suggest that the Justice Department has convened a task force to investigate the corruption in the Connecticut Judicial Branch."  But how disgraceful that they have not after years during which litigants have regularly reported that the CT Judicial Branch is exploiting and defrauding family court litigants and violating the law.  And yet nothing has been done. 
I have reported on many of the details of this corruption on this website; the evidence of corruption is overwhelming.  In fact, if you talk to anyone in the family court reform movement, the first thing they will show you is the documentation of the wrongdoing that happened to him or her.
So let us not go through some pretense of talking about "principled disagreement".  There is no principled disagreement here, only judges and attorneys such as Attorney Norm Pattis who prefer to live in a childish fantasy land where they are considered too special to be held accountable for obeying the law the way the rest of us are. 
The news is, family court reform is here to stay, and like the revelers in Nathanael Hawthorne's "Maypole of Marymount" it is time for attorneys, judges, and court personnel to grow up, rejoin civilization and restore justice and order to our Family Courts.