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 CORRUPTION. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CORRUPTION. Show all posts

Friday, July 21, 2017

WHAT HAPPENED TO EVERYONE? HOW ABUSED WOMEN IN A DIVORCE END UP ISOLATED AND ALONE!

Three or four months into what I now routinely call "the divorce from hell" I woke up and said, "What happened to Everyone!!!" I mean, what happened to my family, my friends, and all the other people I used to know, because suddenly they weren't there any more. 

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

ATTORNEY ROSA REBIMBAS, ATTORNEY BRADFORD BARNEYS AND THE INJUSTICE OF THE STVAN V. STVAN CASE!

For some time now, I have been trying to wrap my head around the involvement of Attorney Bradford Barneys as Attorney for the Minor Child (AMC) in the Stvan v. Stvan case.   As you all may recall, I had written an extensive series of articles about the Stvan case which are located at the following link:  



Wednesday, June 28, 2017

THE ROLE OF SOME JEWISH PEOPLE IN FAMILY COURT ABUSE. HOW CULPABLE ARE THEY?

In a recent inquiry, one reader asked the following question, "Elizabeth, why do you promote an anti-semite like Paul Boyne? Your father was a Holocaust survivor. Shame doesn't begin to describe what you should feel." That is a good question for Elizabeth, although Cathy will be the person on behalf of the "Divorce in Connecticut" blog to respond, particularly since she formulated the "bigotry free" policy that is fundamental to this blog. 

Thursday, June 22, 2017

FAMILY COURT ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAVE WORSE REPUTATIONS THAN PEDOPHILES!

It was tough to read the May 12, 2017 "CT Law Tribune" article in connection to the Dianne Hart-D'Amato case, particularly as a person who has walked in Dianne's shoes and experienced what she has experienced.  It was angering to read Dianne, and by inference all self represented parties in family court, spoken of as "a disgruntled litigant."  

I wonder how attorneys and judges would feel if I spoke of them automatically as crooked attorneys or crooked judges simply by virtue of the fact that I do not agree with them.  It is not often a bully pulpit such as "The CT Law Tribune" exists as a means to tongue lash the people a particular profession does not like.   

Friday, April 28, 2017

POOR RICHARD DABATE: THERE WERE EASIER WAYS TO GO!

Today, I was at Barnes and Noble ordering my usual cup of tea when I noticed that the two female baristas serving me both wore fit bits. When I commented on the fit bits and made a link from the high tech gadgets to the Connie Dabate case, each one flashed their fit bit at me and announced, "best investment I ever made."  

In a sense now, wearing a fit bit is becoming somewhat of a radical statement, i.e. One: I'm going to be the fittest woman out there, just watch me with my fitbit, and Two: If you try and kill me and lie afterwards, you're going to be in a whole heck of a lot of trouble.  

This is, I guess, what Richard Dabate should have thought of before he killed his wife.  

Seriously, guys, what was he thinking of?

Thursday, February 23, 2017

CALIFORNIA MOM ROISIN CASSIDY: VICTIM OF AN ATTORNEY DISCOVERY SCAM!

Many of us have come to believe that our own attorney was working for the other side. However, when we confronted our attorneys about our suspicions or brought the issue up before the Court, we have been scoffed at and mocked.  

In the letter below, you will see how one litigant, Roisin Cassidy, actually caught out two of her attorneys working in coordination together and with the opposing attorney so that she would lose custody through a scheme that revolved around court rules in regard to discovery.  What the attorneys did was collude with each other in a post judgment custody switching scheme to allow the abusive father discovery, while Ms. Cassidy was prohibited from doing so.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

MICHAEL NOWACKI DECRIES THE WIDESPREAD PERJURY PRACTICED BY JUDGES AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING THE REAPPOINTMENT HEARINGS!

By Email

Wednesday, 
January 18, 2017 
9:16 PM





Rep. Tong:

Today, your suggestion and that of Rep. Rebimbas will be challenged through a media strategy to indicate that the Chairs have engaged, personally, in aiding and abetting false testimony‎ to be delivered in your self described "rigorous" review of those re-nominated for judicial reappointments.

I have confirmed by performing due diligence on the Chairs that the six page form of the Judicial Selection Commission have never been secured and distributed to the membership of the entire Judiciary Committee.

While we would agree that it would be important to redact telephone numbers and addresses for judges to ensure you, as attorneys, do not abuse your position to talk to judges on matters under current litigation including appeal.

There is a legitimate and well grounded concern about a far too "cozy" relationship between the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee and ranking members who are attorneys.

We noted the Chief Justice, in the offices of the Judiciary Committee where the Chairs have an office, meeting prior to the start of the re-confirmation process which began on January 11, 2017.

Do you really believe that members of the United States Congress meet to discuss cases which are controversial decisions?

It may be time for the citizens of this State to initiate a change in the State Constitution to change the Connecticut judiciary to an elected---not an appointment position inasmuch as lawyers, as legislators, have consistently voted favorably on all judicial re-appointments.

Your refusal and failure to provide for public inspection copies of the Judicial Selection Commission forms sworn as "truthful" and not distributing that redacted document to the members of your OWN committee raises serious issues of your self-proclaimed "due dilligence" today.

The decision of the Chairs to limit public posting of transcripts to refute testimony of judges is another example of creating a system where "perjured" testimony is not only tolerated but condoned by the chairs who are definitely more interested in coddling judges than "professional skepticism" which is the hallmark of many professions.

The Judicial Review Council needs to be revised so that all complaints, dismissed or not, are a matter of public record.

The comments on "sealing cases" by Judge Buzzuto for judges who go through a divorce is inconsistent with open disclosure of records to ensure that "addresses are redacted" but the decisions an open public record---just as you make our decisions a matter of an "open public record" which is used to humiliate the citizens while protecting the privacy rights of public officials.

Recent surveys done on the judiciary ranks Connecticut as one of the least transparent of any state in the country.

The fact that the judiciary cut $60 million from its budget because it was bloated without services being decreased should be a clear sign that the legislators, in general, don't have the same "access issues" to the courts that the general public has to endure.

The fact that Rep. Rebimbas refused to disclose on her "stump speech" on Judge Adelman that she received appointments by Judge Adelman smacks of an undisclosed conflict of interest.

As you know, the lack of disclosure of the answers to the 32 questions by your Committee Chairs is a clear sign that what you don't know can hurt the citizens you claim to serve.

There will be letters sent to those who you serve who will be randomly selected off the voter roles to expose the failure of the Chairs to have properly investigated allegations of misconduct reported to you by "railroading" controversial candidates within a week of the controversy involving allegations of perjury to be investigated by a select subcommittee which is balanced with lawyers and non-lawyers to review transcripts which the Chairs refuse to post and share with the colleagues on the committee as "equals".

The lack of "professional skepticism" by lawyers serving as legislators is demonstrated by your consistent voting and "unchallenged" public comments by Rep. Tong and Rep. Rembimas.

The Chairs of the Judiciary Committee asked no tough questions about the "Hightower" matter raised by Rep. Tong---who never even asked a question about it to Judge Adelman today.

There is only ONE representative of the people on your committee who asks tough questions and that is Minnie Gonzalez.

I watched all but one interview conducted by your committee on Wednesday and Friday and I am one of five individuals who will have filed by tomorrow complaints with the Chief State Attorney on five judges who meet the standard of probable cause for arrest for perjury defined in C.G.S. 53a-156 (a).

If the Chief State Attorney Office had a grand jury system in place, then judges would be far less likely to deliver material and false testimony and in written statements provided to the Judicial Selection Commission is provided with a General Release Form.

Until the Chairs take corrective actions to rebuild the trust that only you can restore, the public will exercise our rights to expose "corrupt practices" which the Chairs seem to support.

Have any of you ever sat in a Monday short calendar in family court and watched the meter running?

Have any of you visited a courthouse in Virginia where a help desk directs clients to "calendered" matters in which Connecticut has to run a "pilot program".

The "cattle calls in family courts" is the single, most inefficient way to conduct the public's access to justice.

Despite Rep. Tong's statements that you take these comments seriously, all we need to do is review the voting records of the 19 lawyers on the judiciary committee (if we include one member who had a direct relative on the Supreme Court) and your attempts to deliver Judge Fuger's head on a platter today to show how "tough you are".

At no point in time, since Judge Frazzini sent a "letter of retraction" after I filed a criminal complaint alleging perjury to the Chief's State Attorney's Office has any judge been subject to a delayed vote until a full investigation of allegations of perjury occurs.

There is a section of the Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits a Judge from making a knowingly false statement to a legislative committee.

Until there is either legislative reforms to clean up this system of inefficiencies in due process and remove judges from sitting on administrative committee meetings which take them away from their duties "in court", we will continue to challenge publicly and privately, whether you approve or not, our "professional skepticism" that the lawyers in the legislature are engaging and abetting perjury by refusing to table the vote on any judge who is alleged to have committed perjury under oath.

We will be unrelenting because this "tyranny" creates through the empowerment of "judicial discretion" to rape and pillage the financial resources of parents via a reallocation of our lifetime savings to support your "system of racketeering" by having lawyers sitting in a courtroom for hours and then billing their clients for accomplishing nothing and being paid for it.

I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss with a group of litigants to show us the evidence of perjury---which are now on their way ‎for review by the "probable cause" standards which apply to criminal arrests of those judges who made knowingly false material statements to a committee.

For Rep. Rebimbas to have made a claim that "she has some sort of access to transcripts" to the 3,850 pages of transcripts, is nothing less than balderdash.

We are tired of the "obstruction" by the Chairs to a proper review of evidence by limiting the posting of transcripts on the judiciary committee website.

In the movie "A Few Good Men", Jack Nicholson's line seems appropriate to close this email:

"You can't handle the truth."

Michael Nowacki,
Public Advocate

MICHAEL NOWACKI TO REP. ROSA REBIMBAS, "YOU LIED!"

BY EMAIL:

Wednesday, 
January 18, 2017 
1:55 PM




Rep. Remimbas:

You lied to the public today on CT-N when you said you have the ability to review public records on-line about a judge to evaluate the authenticity of testimony.

Transcripts of court proceedings are not readily available on line and your comments were disingenuous.

You and your colleagues as lawyers have ZERO credibility in the fawning which I am watching on CT-N today regarding judges re-confirmation hearings today in the House.

When my house sells in Connecticut, I may need to reside somewhere for two years and will expose you by taking residence in your district to reveal your conflicts of interest in having been appointed by Judge Bozzuto as a GAL when she was first appointed to the bench.

We will continue to expose you and the other lawyers on the judiciary who don't allow transcripts to be shared on line on the judiciary website to refute the sworn testimony of judges at public hearings.

I have a bag of marshmellows here in my home for a reason today---to toss them at the screen when legislators like Labriola and you stand up and lie to protect  judges who deliver knowingly false testimony under oath.

There is a reason why we call Connecticut--Corrupticut--to honor your personal enduring legacy which is causing people to leave the State---30,000 of them last year.

In your entire time of voting on judicial confirmations which I have observed for the last sic years, I am still waiting for you to oppose an re-nomination---even on Judge Parker.

We have no respect for you and your legal colleagues on the judiciary committee who you allow to perjure themselves under oath without consequence.

It is time for citizens to expose you for your undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Look for my LTE in your weekly newspaper exposing your mis-statements about "your access" to public records to review "difficult cases".

Sincerely,

Michael Nowacki
New Canaan, CT

Monday, October 24, 2016

A MOTHER'S TEARS MATTER: HOW FAMILY COURT BULLIED PROTECTIVE MOTHER, PAIGE STVAN, AND CUT HER OFF FROM THE DAUGHTER SHE LOVES, PART II!

What we have here is a tragic situation where a mother has been separated from the child she raised for 12 years based upon unsubstantiated and untrue representations of mental illness.  Meanwhile, questions regarding her ex-husband's bipolar disorder remain unaddressed.  

Subsequently, Judge Adelman acknowledged that the representations regarding Ms. Paige Stvan's mental health weren't sufficient to justify keeping Paige away from her daughter.  At that juncture, he then claimed that there were other serious allegations that her child had raised which now justified separating Paige Stvan from her daughter. What were those serious allegations?  To be honest, I couldn't see anything in the many documents I reviewed that would explain it.

The allegation the child made that the judge cited in his memorandum as a basis to stop all visits was that Mom was making visits with her uncomfortable.  As Ms. Paige Stvan explained it, she was allowed visits with her daughter once a week for an hour standing in the corridor of a local mall.  To start with, that's a pretty difficult way to conduct a visit.  Next, Ms. Stvan stated that during these visits the father would remain in the sidelines monitoring the entire visit and at the least sign of trouble advise his daughter to simply leave.  As a result, under the pressure of essentially being put between two parents, the child would terminate the visit within ten minutes.  To Paige Stvan, this was simply a situation where the father was using the visits to drive a wedge between herself and her daughter.

Attorney Rosa Rebimbas, the GAL in the case, reported the situation somewhat differently.  She alleged that Paige Stvan insisted upon talking to her daughter about the case during the visit.  But what does that mean "talking about the case?"  Does that mean Paige tried to explain to her daughter what was going on and why she couldn't come home to her Mom?  Was it something else? Attorney Rebimbas didn't specify; she just used trigger words with the judge which she knew would elicit a negative reaction.  Keep in mind, we are getting this testimony from the ex-husband and a biased GAL who appear to be willing to do anything they can to justify a complete no contact order. I also think it makes no sense to have visitation with a child standing up in a crowded corridor in a mall.  What's that all about?

Repeatedly, the opposing attorney in this case, Attorney Nancy Aldrich insisted that Paige Stvan's daughter didn't want to see her Mom, so therefore she shouldn't have to. Attorney Rosa Rebimbas emphasized that the daughter didn't want to see her mother and indicated her belief that the daughter had the right to refuse to see her mother.  Judge Gerald Adelman reported in his Memorandum of January 8, 2016 that "the child was extremely resistant to any contact with her mother" and implied that this justified denying Ms.  Stvan access to her daughter.  However, this is not how state law works. According to Connecticut law, at any age, a child's preference is never the only criterion for making a custody decision in a custody proceeding.  What counts is what is in the best interests of the child.

Further, I am wondering how a 12 year old child who had never before reported being unhappy with her mother, all of a sudden, within two months of being totally cut off from all access to her mother, becomes extremely resistant to seeing her mother.  Keep in mind, these words never came out of the child's mouth directly, and were simply what biased individuals with ulterior motives chose to report. I am also wondering why a 12 year old child has the authority, not only to choose the time and place of the visits, but whether they take place at all.  I don't know of any other case where a pre-teen was given such extraordinary power.  

Perhaps the answer to this lies in observations that Dr. Linda Gunsberg reported on at the time these events were taking place.  In a letter to the court dated January 26, 2016,  Dr. Linda Gunsberg described hearing a conversation that Page Stvan had with her daughter over the phone.  She described this conversation, which took place on November 2, 2015, in the following terms: 

"The most incredible phone conversation occurred when Ms. [Stvan] called [her child] during the court ordered parent telephone access to speak with her.  I asked Ms. [Stvan] to put [the child] on speaker phone so that I could listen.  [The child] was very warm towards her mother, was eager to share with her mother information about projects she was working on for school, and actually wanted to remain on the telephone longer than Ms. [Stvan] could...It was a normal parent-child conversation."

However, Dr. Gunsberg reported that "By December 31, 2015, [the child] was telling her mother either in a telephone message or text that she never wanted to speak to her mother again."  Dr. Gunsberg attributed this dramatic change in the child's attitude towards her mother to father's campaign of parental alienation.  Keep in mind that by December 31, 2015, the child had been separated from her mother and her hometown and friends for three months.  

Again, it is remarkable that Judge Gerald Adelman supported this 12 year old child in making the decision not to see her mother again. A 12 year old child doesn't have sufficient cognitive ability to make such important life decisions.  In fact, you would hardly believe that this Judge Adelman is the very same Judge who, in the Sorentino case, put a mother in jail to force a 15 year old boy to live with the father he adamantly didn't want to live with.  Yet, in the Stvan case, when a 12 year old girl refused to see her mother, that very same Judge Adelman appointed two attorneys to defend her right to exclude her mother from her life?  

How is that OK?  

How come  Judge Gerald Adelman found a 12 year old's decision more credible than that of a 15 year old? 

Do any of you recall how, when Kathi Sorrentino cried at the thought of having to go to jail, Judge Gerald Adelman derided her and made fun of her, calling her tears "crocodile tears"? Why do judges in the State of Connecticut, such as Judge Adelman, only use PAS to deny mothers their parenting rights while excusing fathers who are equally culpable?  Protective mothers in the State of Connecticut would really like to know!  We need a new campaign in this State with the slogan:  A mother's tears matter!

WITH A NOD AND A WINK: HOW CT FAMILY COURT BULLIED PROTECTIVE MOTHER, PAIGE STVAN, AND CUT HER OFF FROM THE DAUGHTER SHE LOVES, PART I!

On September 25, 2015, Paige Stvan was hospitalized for a few days to address negative side effects she had to a new medication she had been taking. Meanwhile, since she was dealing with these medical problems, in a very responsible way, Ms. Stvan asked her ex husband, Thomas Stvan, to care for their 12 year old daughter temporarily. He agreed to do so. However, instead of just taking care of the child as agreed, Thomas Stvan used the incident as a excuse to file an emergency ex parte motion in court granting him full custody.  That motion was granted.  As a result, since that time, except for a few brief encounters at a local mall, Paige Stvan has not been allowed to see her daughter.  

Why?  

Paige Stvan had been taking care of her child for 12 years, and the child was happy and healthy, well fed and with a roof over her head, as well as successful in school. Nonetheless, family court, in a series of dirty tricks and maneuvers, effectively assisted her ex husband in excising the child from her mother's life with the collusion of a CT State representative, Rep. Rosa Rebimbas.  

Now remember, this is the same judicial system which gave career criminal Joshua Komisarjevsky full custody of his 5 year old daughter just weeks before Mr. Komisarjevky participated in the triple slaying of the Petit family.  In Paige Stvan's case, this was a woman who had done nothing other than be an excellent mother to her daughter for twelve years. Still, the Court saw fit to cut her off entirely from the child she had been bringing up so successfully.  

We all want the reason for that, don't we?  Just so you know, you would have no basis for knowing the reason had Ms. Paige Stvan not requested one because, unlike in every other custody case I've ever seen, originally the Court didn't bother to provide a memorandum of decision stating the legal basis for its decision.  

But here we go, I have before me a January 8, 2016 Memorandum provided by Judge Gerald Adelman explaining his decision.  This is what he says.  

The ex parte was granted (see p. 3 of the memorandum) because "it was represented to the court that the defendant had a history of mental health issues which had previously required the plaintiff to temporarily assume primary or sole custody of the minor child, due to the  defendant's inability to care for said child."  Yes, but these, to my knowledge are and were simply representations without evidence.  To this day, I not seen any documents that can back up these claims.  

Not only that, in these documents there was no mention of the fact that the Plaintiff, Tom Stvan, was represented to have a bipolar disorder.  Why?  Because the ex parte hearing only heard one side of the story at that time. That is why the law requires another hearing 14 days later--so that before anything is finalized, you have a fair hearing where both sides have the opportunity to present their arguments.  Mysteriously, in Paige Stvan's case, although such a hearing is required by law, it never occurred.  This is just the first of the kinds of procedural flaws that have plagued this case from the beginning.  

It is also important to note regarding the term "it was represented" that anyone can "represent" anything to anyone in this world. Eventually, in a court of law, you have to come up with proof.  At no time that I have observed during the many hearings that were held in this case was there any kind of legitimate evidentiary hearing in which allegations of this nature regarding Paige Stvan could be either confirmed or denied.  Futhermore, from all the information I have in front of me, there is no evidence at all that Ms. Stvan had any such history.

How can any judge possibly justify removing a child completely from a mother's life based upon "representations."?  

Meanwhile, I have in front of me a letter that Dr. Linda Gunsberg, Paige Stvan's psychotherapist, wrote to the court.  In this letter, Dr. Gunsberg stated that Ms. Stvan has "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of domestic violence within the marriage, after the marriage, and as a result of constant, continuous litigation brought against her by Mr. Thomas Stvan, her ex-husband."  

Dr. Gunsberg also stressed that Paige Stvan is a competent primary caretaker and mother to her child and that the child flourished under her care.  She also stated that the father's behavior of cutting Ms. Stvan off from all access to her daughter constituted parental alienation.  Of course, everyone knows I'm not a fan of PAS theory, but I just point it out for what it's worth. Again, as I've said before, when a mother points out PAS or PA whatever you want it call it, judges couldn't care less.  PAS only matters if a man complains about it.

I also have a letter from a social worker who also provided treatment for Paige Stvan in which she stated, "I can confidently state that...it is apparent that Ms. [Stvan] does not present with psychological deficits that would compromise her ability to care for her child. Furthermore, Ms. [Stvan] has been highly motivated to take advantage of the services that have helped her to gain an understanding of her current circumstances, while seeking a path towards betterment as an individual, as well as a mother."  In addition, on Paige Stvan's behalf, LMFT Linda J. Gottlieb took the time to provide an extensive explanation to the Court regarding the phenomenon of parental alienation and how to identify it.  I think it says a lot for Paige Stvan that three well qualified mental health professionals took the time to speak up on her behalf.

I would also like to point out that Paige Stvan has always been honest and straightforward to her ex husband about any medical issues she has and has always taken responsible steps to address them.  The result has been successful, and it appears as though she is being punished for that very success.

I understand that two sides in a legal case can end up interpreting data differently which is why you end up in Court anyway.  That is the reason why a case like this would end up in family relations for a custody evaluation to determine whether testimony one way or another is credible.  What is striking about this case is that despite the dire consequence where a Mother has been entirely cut off from any communication with the daughter she raised for 12 years, there was no family relations report, no custody evaluation whatsoever, indeed, no investigation whatsoever.

How is that possible?  I have no idea.  

Next, if you have serious allegations regarding a parent's mental health status--i.e. as in this case, that father has bipolar and mother has depression--the most logical and just outcome would be a psychological evaluation conducted by a court approved psychologist qualified to do the job.  Remarkably, there was absolutely no psychological evaluation, no psychological assessment by a legitimate professional in any way whatsoever.  

I just do not understand that.  

When issues were raised in my case regarding my mental health, I ended up having two psychiatric evaluations and one psychological evaluation.  What happened to me was pretty excessive and is testimony to the extremely damaging impact accusations regarding mental health status can have.  Still, the idea that you could cut a mother off from her child based upon allegations regarding her mental health status that have yet to be proved, and, as you have seen from the testimony I provided, have actually been soundly refuted, appears absolutely outrageous and represents a tragic miscarriage of justice for this mother and her child.  

You cannot simply point at people, call them crazy, and use such unfounded and unproven claims as the basis for denying them their parental rights.  

As the General Statutes Section 46b-46(c), which is the basis for all custody decisions, state, the mental and physical health of the parents involved is a factor in custody decisions, however, the "disability of a proposed custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of custody."  Furthermore, under Title II of federal ADA law, disability based discrimination is against the law in this country.  Certainly, the issue of disability should not be determinative without a fair and just evidentiary hearing where there is an equal playing field.  

However, what it looks like is that the judge and the attorneys in this case think that they can deny Paige Stvan her legal rights by nodding and winking and sweeping everything under the rug, simply by virtue of the fact that they think she has a mental health disability.  Likewise, they think they can smooth over and ignore father's possible bipolar disorder.  Trust me--that's not happening.

More on this case in Part II.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

CT DCF FINDS 1 YEAR OLD BABY ABUSED AND STARVING, DOES NOTHING!

Josh Kovner of "The Hartford Courant" reports as follows:


"A scathing review by the child advocate of the near-starvation of a baby placed with relatives in Groton reveals "staggering failures and omissions" on the part of the Department of Children and Families, and raises doubts about DCF's decisions on child placements beyond this case.

A DCF social worker visited the boy, identified as Dallas C., on at least five occasions over 102 days between late July and late October 2015, but managed never to see Dallas awake, never roused him and never assessed what others who had contact with the family were calling the child's rapidly deteriorating health, according to the advocate's report, released Tuesday morning.

At one point, the social worker reported that he was "able to confirm that [the child] was indeed breathing," according to state Child Advocate Sarah Eagan's report..."

READ MORE:


http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-foster-care-dcf-child-abuse-1005-20161004-story.html

Tuesday, September 13, 2016

ANOTHER CT LAWYER BITES THE DUST: ATTORNEY THOMAS M. MURTHA MISHANDLING FUNDS!


MICHELLE TUCCITTO SULLO OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:

"Longtime attorney Thomas M. Murtha has resigned from the bar amid a state disciplinary action alleging he misappropriated clients' funds.

In one case, a client claims to be owed $100,000. Murtha submitted his resignation and waived his right to apply for readmission to the bar in Superior Court in Bridgeport on Sept. 8.

The state Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel had submitted an application for order of interim suspension against Murtha on Aug. 18..."

READ MORE: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202767300293/Attorney-Resigns-From-Bar-Amid-Disciplinary-Probe?cn=20160913&pt=Breaking%20News&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune&slreturn=20160813185212

Sunday, July 24, 2016

JENNIFER SWIFT OF CT MAGAZINE REPORTS ON 7 REFORMS WHICH COULD MAKE CT POLITICS LESS CORRUPT!

The 7 suggested reforms in Swift's article are as follows:

"1. Limit the power of legislative leaders. 

Connecticut’s speaker of the House and president of the Senate have close to absolute power in deciding what pieces of legislation make it to the floor for a vote in the General Assembly. For a variety of reasons, they can and do kill bills that would pass, sometimes by wide margins, if a vote was actually allowed. Comptroller Kevin Lembo’s bill to bring more transparency to state tax breaks (see No. 4) died in the Senate this year because it was never called for a vote despite widespread support. Last year, former Speaker of the House Chris Donovan blocked a bipartisan jobs bill from making it to the floor in retaliation for the Senate’s opposition to a minimum wage bill he was championing. When “roll-your-own” tobacco shop owners funneled illegal campaign cash into Donovan’s bid for U.S. Congress, they did so based on assurances from his staff that the speaker’s office could block legislation that would have increased taxes on their product..."

READ MORE:

Saturday, June 11, 2016

PLEASE HELP! SIGN THE PETITION: STOP AMERICAN FAMILY COURT BIAS AGAINST IRISH IMMIGRANT MOTHER!

Roisin Cassidy is a protective mother from San Mateo, CA who needs your help.  See the story below: 

"My name is Roisin Cassidy. I was a custodial mother of my two children for 15 years, currently aged 15 and 11. I've always been a devoted mother, and all I have ever wanted to do was to co parent my children. Nonetheless, their wealthy abusive father asked for sole custody and was successful, by means of a custody report that I believe to be inaccurate and biased, conducted by Dr. Ken B. Perlmutter. This report was signed into a court order by Judge Raymond Swope, San Mateo. I was not permitted to present my evidence in court. 
This is not a case of substance abuse, mental illness or parental deficiencies. After leaving an abusive marriage, my children and I were subjected to years of expensive litigation and harassment, as well as two custody evaluations by Ken Perlmutter Phd, Palo Alto. These custody evaluations placed me and the children under a microscope for years to the point where I had to account for every decision I made no matter how small and for each and every incident that occurred in our daily lives no matter how trivial. If I was five minutes late for a doctor's appointment, I had to explain why in detail..."
READ MORE AND SIGN THE PETITION AT THE LINK BELOW:

Sunday, January 31, 2016

HOW THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS DROPPED THE BALL AND PLACED CHILD VICTIM IN THE HANDS OF FATHER WHO SEXUALLY ABUSED HER!

Nestor Ramos and  of The Boston Globe report as follows:


"The bad stuff hurt too much, the girl said, so she took trips in her head. She imagined she was playing in the park, not lying on the basement floor or standing naked in the bathroom where, she said, her father touched her.


He told her not to tell anyone, she said, but she told anyway.


She told her mother, who went to the police. She told her therapist, who wrote a letter. She told the people who supervised her visits with her mother, who filed reports. 

“I tried to tell anyone who would listen, but no one believed me,” said the girl, then 7, during a trauma evaluation conducted last spring. The Globe is withholding her name to protect her identity..."

READ MORE:

Friday, January 15, 2016

HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS CT COUPLE CHALLENGES DCF DECISION TO REMOVE THEIR CHILDREN AT BIRTH!

According to Josh Kovner, reporter at The Hartford Courant:
"NEW YORK — The state child protection agency trampled on the rights of a Connecticut couple by removing two children at birth based on "perceptions and stereotypes" of the parents' mental health, a lawyer told a federal appeals court Thursday.
Lawyer Andrew O'Toole of Hartford was arguing on behalf of Joseph Watley, 61, and Karin Hasemann, 47, who claim that their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act were violated when the state Department of Children and Families terminated their parental rights.
O'Toole and the couple, along with several supporters, were at the U.S. 2nd Circut Court of Appeals to challenge a dismissal of the couple's case by U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny..."
For more on this article, see below:


Wednesday, January 13, 2016

TO THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH--NO ONE IS FOOLED BY THESE ACTS OF RETALIATION!

Yesterday, Mr. Ted Taupier, a father and a good citizen of the State of CT was sentenced to 18 months in jail based upon intemperate comments he made regarding his family court judge in a private email he sent to friends.  I am here to say to the CT Judicial Branch and to Judge Gold who handed out this sentence that none of us are fooled.  

Since dozens of individuals approached the CT State Legislature starting in 2014, and since the Task Force was established to investigate the wrongdoing of GALs in family courts throughout Connecticut, the CT Judicial Branch has been going out of its way to retaliate against CT citizens who have complained about its ill treatment.  I am aware of one prominent family court advocate who had DCF remove his children from his care based upon no adequate justification subsequent to the task force hearings on GALs.  I know of many litigants who complained of ill treatment from judges and family court attorneys who are now subject to gag orders.  

I myself was subjected to more than one threat that I might be put in jail if I refused to reveal the sources of an article I published on this website.   As a result, I had to pay significant attorneys fees and appear in court which was very traumatic for me given my past  experiences.  

I know of one specific individual who was particularly outspoken about CT Judicial Branch wrongdoing who had the local police station file false documents which compromised this person's case in family court.  The stories have been coming in from all over this state reporting that Judges have been retaliating against family court activists, and this ruling in the Taupier case is just one more.  

Judge Gold's harsh ruling is simply another attempt to intimidate and silence family court litigants who have legitimate complaints about the corruption and wrongdoing of family court in CT.  

Things have gotten to be so bad in our State's family courts that the term "Corrupticut" is actually an entry in the free internet encyclopedia known as Wikipedia.  How much more of a joke can CT's judicial system continue on being?  This is the question that we are left with.  

The bottom line is that in the email for which he was convicted, Ted Taupier was exercising his Constitutional right to freedom of speech along with a group of his compatriots in a private email.  He never directly addressed the person he is charged with threatening, i.e. Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto.  

It is interesting that The CT Law Tribune, the mouthpiece of the CT Judicial branch, reported how Judge Gold described Mr. Taupier's email as "frightening in its specificity" but did not mention another aspect of Mr. Taupier's email such as its obvious hyperbole, and its joking, exaggerated references to Charlton Heston's vastly hyperbolic encomium to machine guns in a widely circulated, and widely laughed at speech he made to NRA supporters.  Taking Mr. Taupier's comments out of context and then awfulizing them for your own retaliatory purposes does not make a crime, much as my saying so may disappoint members of the CT Judicial Branch and Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers.  

However, we can debate this extensively, if we'd like.  But this is the bottom line.  For several years, the CT Judicial Branch has colluded with certain profit minded attorneys and judges to develop a system within the family courts of this state which is intended to rip off citizens of this state who seek to obtain a divorce and establish custody arrangements for their children.  

With the cooperation of many of their members, the Judicial Branch has allowed GALs, unscrupulous attorneys, and corrupt mental health professionals to charge families thousands and thousands of dollars for dubious services which have not benefited children, and instead have bankrupted families and emptied college tuition funds intended to give these children a future.  

With the cooperation of their members, this Judicial Branch has subverted the due process of the law, repeatedly violated our constitution, flaunted its refusal to obey ADA law in the faces of vulnerable litigants with disabilities, and insulted their victims, the unsuspecting parents who have entered the family court system, and chewed up and spit them out onto the streets, homeless and childless, calling them "disgruntled" and "angry".  

Are we angry?  You bet we are angry.  We are angry when Judges hide documentary evidence.  We are angry when Judges refuse to allow us to put the witnesses on the stand whom we paid thousands of dollars to appear in court and conduct studies.  We are angry when judges refuse to rule on the motions they are hired to rule on. We are angry when attorneys flout The Practice Book rules and the law, and judges let them get away with doing so. We are angry when GALs who are supposed to be neutral give one or the other party legal advice and inside information regarding how the judge will rule or how family relations will draw its conclusions.  We are angry when attorneys sworn to facilitate discovery hand in documentation by piece meal over a period of years.  We are angry when judges lie, when attorneys lie, when family relations officers lie, when mental health professionals lie, when clerks of the court lie, and on and on.  

We have all walked in Mr. Ted Taupier's shoes.  We all know what it means to become heartbroken and distraught about how we are treated in family court.  Like many, I have worked hard all my life to earn a living.  I can recall my first babysitting job at the age of 10 when I was paid $.47 an hour.  I fought my way through my undergraduate years fighting against severe depression, worked my way through a master's degree and teaching program that took me five years because I worked full time also.  I could continue on with the challenges of bringing up children--mine are in college now--and running a home business.  Yet, I can recall having to stand before a judge for extended periods of time, keeping my mouth shut while the judge went on and on about what a poor character I had.  

How did that happen that after decades of hard work and showing an honorable character, and obeying the law, and bringing up three children who are good citizens, how did I get to be as much of a piece of shit as the judges on those days described me, as the GAL on those days described me, as the opposing attorney in those days described me?  Such things only happen in a CT Family Court system that is drunk on its power and that has lost its compass such that it can only work under the influence of the almighty dollar and has totally lost  any comprehension that it actually has a responsibility to the citizens of this State, the taxpayers who pay their salaries.  

I also want to return today to what this should all be about, what is justice about in situations like this related to family court.  We are told that we should shut up and put up, that we should stop complaining, that we should stop holding court personnel to account in regard to proper legal practices because the only thing that matters is the best interests of the children, and attorneys and judges are always excusing their rotten deeds by saying they are doing everything in the best interests of the children, parents are of no account, apparently, in such an equation.  However, if there was any one particular point many of the friends of Ted Taupier spoke of yesterday it was how putting Mr. Taupier in jail would harm the Taupier children.  

Did that make a bit of difference to this court?  

No.  

Judge Gold had no hesitation directly harming Ted Taupier's children by giving him a lengthy jail sentence.  The only time, really, that it appears that the CT Family Court System starts mouthing off about the best interests of the children is when they are using it as an excuse to defraud family court victims.  

Finally, it has always been the better part of wisdom to temper justice with mercy.  Anyone who knows Ted Taupier knows how much he loves his children, knows how much they mean to him, and how he would go to the ends of the earth for their benefit.  Instead of giving Mr. Taupier the opportunity to be the great father he is, family court ripped him to shreds.  There is something beneath the dignity of a person in power, at least as far as I am concerned, to take a beaten father and beat him further.  When is enough enough?  

The CT Judicial Branch had an opportunity here with the Taupier case to build bridges and to bring healing to a situation where, through its own fault, it has caused considerably more damage to the citizens of the State of CT than ever Ted Taupier did, damage that goes well beyond the minor distress which Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto experienced, as unfortunate as that was.  

Regrettably, in a haze of selfish, self defensive, arrogant shortsightedness, the CT Judicial Branch allowed that opportunity to slip through its hands.  In doing so, the CT Judicial Branch has grievously failed in living up its responsibilities to the people of the State of CT and it will find, as a consequence, that rebuilding its reputation and rebuilding the trust and respect it once had before the family court fiasco will be a long hard road.