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

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

HARTFORD COURANT OP-ED BY PAUL CHILL, UCONN PROFESSOR OF LAW DECRIES CHILD WELFARE POLICIES THAT TAKE CHILDREN FROM AMERICAN FAMILIES!

Hundreds Of U.S. Children Taken From Home
Paul Chill
"It has been heartening to see such widespread revulsion and opposition, seemingly across the political spectrum, to the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the border. But this is also a potential teaching moment, when it may be possible for people to see through some of the myths and false assumptions that still surround much child welfare practice in the United States.
Contrast the condemnation and outrage over the Trump administration’s policy of removing children from parents who enter the country illegally with the silence over the 700 to 800 forced child removals that occur daily in American cities and towns, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Government agencies take these children from their parents, often in sudden and chaotic circumstances, and the children suffer at least as much damage as those separated from their parents at the border..."
FOR MORE ON THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW:

Friday, May 11, 2018

DID "THE HARTFORD COURANT" AND OTHER CT MEDIA OUTLETS ACCEPT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO SILENCE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH CRITICS?


In May 9, 2018's Op-Ed "Legislature Fails Judge Subjected To Abuse" by Kevin Rennie, a long time "Hartford Courant" opinion leader, we could get the idea that the Family Court Reform movement here in CT is full of anti-semites and wackos. However, this simply makes no sense considering that a good many of the victims of Family Court injustice are either Jewish themselves or of Jewish origin. My own grandfather was incarcerated in the Marienkirche  Concentration Camp in Berlin, Germany. Further, Judge Jane B. Emons was not subjected to abuse. Judge Emons competence was called into question when numerous litigants reported that she had violated the judicial code of ethics.

The reality is that the Family Court Reform movement is made up of considerable numbers of parents who have been harmed and damaged from the misdeeds of Family Court.  They are not anti-semitic.  However, what Mr. Kevin Rennie did was single out one individual--a father who experienced an horrific Family Court case who admittedly has spouted a lot of anti-semitic garbage--and then painted the entire movement with this single individual.  That would be like characterizing the entire Civil Rights Movement by Patricia Hearst!

Likewise, there are many Family Court litigants who believe that if their case is not going well, they should write to their judge, or give him or her a phone call.  What they do not realize is that to do so would be a violation of Court Rules. The majority of individuals have attorneys who quickly caution them not to and the majority listen.  However, apparently, in one situation, one Family Court reform person, who is late to the movement, didn't get the newsflash and called her judge late at night.  Based upon that single individual, Mr. Kevin Rennie of "The Hartford Courant" paints the entire loosely affiliated groups of people fighting Family Court corruption as a bunch of wackos!

Why is there such completely unfair coverage?  Why is it that during the spectacular rise of the Family Court reform movement, "The Hartford Courant" has maintained a media blackout and/or failed to treat the members of this movement in a fair and equitable manner and present their side of the story?  

I took the time to review Transparency.gov recently, and I am beginning to think that the answer is that "The Hartford Courant", let alone other Media Outlets in the State of Connecticut, receive lucrative media contracts or contributions from state government agencies and can't afford to go against them!  

Take a look below at the tens of thousands of dollars which "The Hartford Courant" itself has received from State Agencies from 2010 - 2017.  You will note that the newspaper tends to get a bump up of cash during election years.  In 2016 and 2017 much of the money "The Hartford Courant" received was through its charitable organization "Camp Courant".  Is funneling money through "Camp Courant" an attempt to hide how much they are receiving?  It certainly makes us ask.  The bottom line is that, given the massive sums of money here, given these intimate and cozy financial ties with State government, it is not surprising that "The Hartford Courant" tries to silence and sideline CT Family Court Reformers with labels such as "disgruntled" and "anti-semitic" and "stalkerish", etc. etc.

THE HARTFORD COURANT/ASSOCIATED "CAMP COURANT"
2017     $386,147
2016     $586,800
2015     $333,798
2014     $411,892
2013     $433,746
2012     $903,526
2011     $362,178
2010     $700,375

"CAMP COURANT" ALONE
2017     $323,643
2016     $526,355
2015       $99,440 


The "CT Law Tribune" is interesting because it is generally considered the mouthpiece of the Judicial Department, but it also receives money from the University of Connecticut--I would presume the Law School--and also the State Department of Education.  But it has also received money from other unlikely sources such as the State Department of Environmental Protection, Legislative Management, and the State Office of Governmental Accountability.  Note how in 2014, the year that the Family Court Reform Movement really kicked into gear, the money the "CT Law Tribune" received from State government shifted from $66,217 to $245,060.  I guess the "Tribune" receives whatever money is necessary to articulate a Pro-Judicial Branch editorial slant to the public.

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE, THE LAW TRIBUNE NEWSPAPERS
2017     $256,271
2016     $256,271
2015     $355,858
2014     $245,060
2013       $66,217
2012       $66,217
2011       $66,217
2010       $66,217


Clearly, "The Hartford Courant" and "The CT Law Tribune" are not the only media well paid by our State Government.  If you will look below, you will see over $10 million State Government spends each year to a network of newspapers and print magazines which cover the distribution of information all over the State of CT, and which, for the better part, have not covered the pressing issue of the corruption of our Family Court System.  Payments to 21st Century Media come substantially from the Judicial Department, the Probate Court, the Division of Criminal Justice, among others. Millions of dollars in State Government contracts, a considerable number coming from the segments of the Legal System, make the Legal System in the State of Connecticut too financially rewarding to offend.  Take a look below at the numbers:

21st CENTURY MEDIA NEWSGROUP, 21st CENTURY MEDIA NEWSPAPER
2017     $10,435,097
2016       $8,170,236
2015     $10,435,097
2014     $10,435,097
2013     $10,435,097
2012     $10,435,097
2011     $10,435,097
2010     $10,435,097

21st Century News includes the following news outlets:

The Middletown Press
New Haven Register
The Register Citizen
The Housatonic Times
Litchfield County times
Fairfield Minuteman
The Westport Minuteman
The Dolphin
Shoreline Times
Thomaston Express
Good News About Torrington
Granby News
Canton News
Avon News
Simsbury News
Litchfield News
Foothills Trader
The Milford-Orange bulletin of Orange
The Post-Chronicle of North Haven
West Hartford News of West Hartford
The Connecticut Bride
Connecticut Magazine
Passport Magazine  


Newspapers such as "The Hartford Courant" are making fun of Trump and his charges that they are coming up with fake news.  Yet the reality is that when they exclude information from important social movements such as the CT Coalition for Family Court Reform, and when they misreport on such movements and marginalize them with slurs and misrepresentations, that is what everyone means by "fake news".  

I must say that since President Donald Trump was elected, I have woken up full of fear and anxiety regarding what he is up to now.  Yet nothing he has done is quite as frightening as what I am reporting here, i.e. news reported according to the specifications of State Government.  The actions of "The Hartford Courant", "The Connecticut Law Tribune" and 21st Century News strike at the very heart of Democracy by making it clear to citizens that the news is for sale to the highest bidder.  

This should concern everyone, not just members of the CT Family Court Reform movement.  

Ok, so at this point some of you think what I'm saying is one big ridiculous "conspiracy theory." Maybe so--perhaps as ridiculous as thinking that since one member of the CT Family Court Reform movement is anti-semitic, they all have to be.

For the rest of you who find my numbers persuasive, I urge  you all to question these State Goverment financial ties with our local CT Media, and to demand accountability, not only within our corrupt legal system but in other areas as well.  I'm thinking of the Mathew Tirado case in relation to DCF and in regard to The Whiting Patient in connection to DHMAS.

My father used to tell me the story of how he went to Church and from a balcony he would look down and see S.S. officers taking notes on the Anti-Nazi Pastor Martin Niemuller's sermons.  It seems appropriate to end with his words:


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. 

Thursday, May 3, 2018

TO LEGISLATORS: JUDGE JANE B. EMONS DISREGARDS THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE, BULLIES PARENTS, AND IS UNWORTHY OF REAPPOINTMENT!


A Concerned Citizen speaks up against Judge Jane B. Emons 
Dear Legislators, 
In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the following summaries and attached cases.
Friends and families are concerned about Judge Emons who has displayed unprofessional conduct, especially to minorities who represent themselves in front of her. We are hopeful that you will protect the public interest and VOTE NO on Judge Emons.
In an effort to assist you in making an informed decision, I have summarized 3 of the cases for your convenience and also attached the cases themselves. Even the appellate court has hinted at some underlying problems that exist with Judge Emons, including comments from the appellate court in the Jordan M. v Darric M (2016) case  attached:

-“The record in this case is confusing at best and certain portions of the file appear to have been entered under incorrect docket numbers. “[Appellate Court] -   [Appellate Court] -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- “The court's reasoning for granting the application for the restraining order is not clear, . . . There was no evidence that there was violent or physically threatening conduct on the night of August 21, 2015, and there was no evidence that the defendant presented a threat of physical pain or injury to Jordan. “The plain language of § 46b–15 clearly requires a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury before a court can grant a domestic violence restraining order.” [Appellate Court]  -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- The Appellate Court noted they were unable to review a claim due to Emons’ failure to provide adequate “findings of facts.”  This seems to be a recurrent theme with other cases in which Emons was overturned where she fails to make adequate findings of facts as she is required to do -  perhaps to further insulate her decisions from being overturned on appeal.  The Appellate Court stated:

“Due to a lack of an adequate record, we are unable to review this claim.” [Appellate Court]

In another  line of appellate cases, there is a disturbing trend by Judge Emons to violate the well known "American Rule" where all litigants pay for their own representation. However, Judge Emons has decided to make it onerous for litigants to bring their cases up for appeal by ordering them to pay the opposing side's attorney fees as was done in the Rinfret (appellate court reversing Emons' order to pay $90,000 in attorney fees) and the Lederle case (reversing  Emons' order to pay $30,000 in attorney fees) which are attached.  By doing so, Judge Emons is less likely to see these cases go to appeal and have her decisions overturned.  


In Clark v. Clark, Judge Emons ordered - without motion of either parent - that the parents have their children evaluated at their expense and then, after she reviewed the resulting report, ordered that the report NOT be released to the parents and then made further orders in connection with the children based on the report which she had ordered not be provided to the parents. She did this when in a post-judgment proceeding when one parent had already been awarded custody of the children. How can Emons's acts be constitutional?
In another matter (Sargent v Sargent), when a parent sought to remove the GAL, Judge Emons appointed a lawyer, AT THE PARENT'S EXPENSE and with no legal precedent or authority to do so, to defend the GAL (who has complete immunity) against the allegations of misconduct. This attorney for the GAL then charged $850/hr to defend the GAL. Judge Emons has threatened to remove legal custody of children from a parent as a "judicial sanction" when the parent challenged the conduct of the GAL .

I have also included transcript excerpts that demonstrate the following:
-          Judge Emons' disregard for Rules of Evidence
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for how hearsay evidence is to be considered
-          Judge Emons' steering testimony – perhaps wrongly to achieve the outcome she desires
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for other lawyers and litigants

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important matter whereas she impacts the lives of  many families and friends and her reappointment should not be taken lightly.  Another 8 years of Judge Emons is almost another decade of her continued abuse. The public is owed a duty of respect and well considered decisions in accord with the rule of law.

CONNECTICUT VOTERS CONTINUE TO CALL INTO QUESTION JUDGE JANE B. EMONS FITNESS FOR RENOMINATION!


 Written by a Concerned Citizen
Dear Legislators, 

In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the attached case, Jeffrey Emons, Jane Emons, and Lesley Emons v. RBS Citizens Bank (NNH-12-6030462-S). 

In that case, Judge Emons and her immediate family members brought a lawsuit in a Connecticut court against the bank, RBS, because RBS apparently required Judge Emons and her husband to pay an extra 1.75 points over what RBS initially offered in order for them to secure a mortgage for their daughter. In addition, in that lawsuit Judge Emons and her family also brought a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, because, apparently, Judge Emons and the other Plaintiffs had “to spend dozens of hours on the telephone.” 

In my opinion, the above case drives home many of the concerns already brought to the legislature by a growing number of litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, including the following: 

1. Judge Emons lacks the demeanor, temperament, and resiliency required of a family court judge. 

To prevail in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a Plaintiff must show that they suffered emotional distress severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm. See the case of Olson v. Bristol-Burlington Health Dist., 87 Conn. App. 1, 5, 863 A.2d 748, 752 (2005). 

Here, we must take Judge Emons at her own word, in that having to pay extra points at a real estate closing and spending hours on the phone caused her severe emotional distress, to the point that illness or bodily harm could result to her. If that is the case, Judge Emons cannot seriously contend to have the temperament or demeanor required of a family court judge, who must often make difficult decisions concerning the wellbeing and custody of minor children, all the while operating in the heated environment of divorce proceedings. 

Yet clearly, the many members of the public who have spoken at length reveal that Judge Emons regularly displays those same type of hypersensitive reactions in her own courtroom, whether it be by snapping at and demeaning litigants, issuing orders that are spiteful and/or vindictive, ignoring the law, or simply continuing matters perpetually so that families and children of this State are denied meaningful access to the courts. The claims Judge Emons makes in her lawsuit simply affirm what so many have also stated to this legislature in phone calls, in writing, and by personal testimony: she is not the right person for this job. 

2. Judge Emons lacks the empathy and understanding required of a family court judge. 

In conjunction with temperament issues, we must also consider what this lawsuit says about Judge Emon’s worldview, and her ability to understand or value the position of family court litigants. 

While Judge Emons lives in a world where it is acceptable to be outraged and aggrieved because you are required to pay an extra 1.75 points on a mortgage, family court litigants live in world where everything, from their homes, their financial security, to their very children, could be lost at the hands of an out of touch judge. Sadly, this again echoes what has already been stated by many citizens who have come forward to express their opinions against Judge Emon’s re-nomination. 

Ironically and tragically in this State, family court litigants are expected to tolerate gross procedural violations, abusive treatment, and complete disregard for families and children, all with little to no complaint, lest they be labeled as “disgruntled parents.” 

Yet, in her own (very) different world, Judge Emons expects white glove treatment for her and her children, and is willing to bring a lawsuit when those expectations are not met. That may certainly be her right, but it is also the right of litigants and children in this State to expect much more, and a family court judge who is this tone deaf is simply out of touch with the needs of those in her courtroom. 
At this point, the record is clear:

  •  multiple Federal lawsuits, all articulating egregious violations of constitutional rights, in particular due process, naming Judge Emons:

1:  2011 -3:11-cv-01841-SRU, Roque v. Iannotti et al.

2:  2013 - 3:13-cv-00016-JBA, Nowacki v. Emons et al.

3:  2013 - 3:13-cv-00863-JBA, Sargent v. Emons et al.

4: 2014 - 3:14-cv-01869-JAM,Hansen-Hodgkinson v. Emons et al.

5:  2015 - 3:15-cv-00959-SRU, Whitnum v. Emons et al.

6:  2017 - 3:17-cv-00127-VLB, Manchanda v. Emons et al.;
  • approximately 30 grievance complaints;  
  • a groundswell of Connecticut residents, litigants, non-litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, from all walks of life who have spoken out, sometimes at great personal risk, to prevent this re-nomination. 

Connecticut can, and must, do better. Please vote NO on the re-nomination of Judge Jane Emons.

Friday, March 30, 2018

12 MYTHS THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH USES TO BLAME GAL ABUSE ON FAMILY COURT VICTIMS!

1.  The work of GALs and AMCs reduces conflict and keeps the cost of cases down.

There are approximately 11,000 post judgment cases each year where litigants return to court because they are dissatisfied with the agreements in their cases.  That is approximately 1/3 of the cases settled each year.  These numbers do not represent a success rate.  Further, the GAL is supposed to consider in their "analysis" information gleaned from third party sources such as school records, medical providers, and law enforcement, GALs often do no or little "research" into the real cause of the parental conflict - this failure seems to benefit the GAL financially, as they are able to keep the case going by covering up abusive behavior and pretending both parties are the reason for ongoing conflict. 

Saturday, March 10, 2018

A RANSOMWARE ATTACK ON THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ONE BLOGGER SPECULATES!




“A ransomware attack has knocked the state court system’s computers offline.”!!!!
Really?  That is what gullible reporter Dave Owens of the Hartford Courant propaganda rag is repeating at the request of the [judicial] mafia of the state [of Connecticut].  The concocted explanation by Melissa Farley, the propagandist of the Chief Court Administrator’s Office, is so twisted that it is a self-admitting lie to the public.  Melissa is a brainless puppet on strings of her masters Judge Patrick ‘the crook’ Carroll and the [Deputy Court Administrator], Judge Elliot Solomon.  Any public statement from these two clowns is rather suspect.

Thursday, December 14, 2017

"FATHERING AFTER VIOLENCE" GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PUT ABUSED WOMEN AND CHILDREN AT RISK!

By Doreen Ludwig,
Author of "Motherless America: Confronting Welfare's Fatherhood Custody Program"
website:  www.maccabuse.org


Does Family Court offer protection to mothers and children who are victims of domestic violence? Many believe that the answer is no because father's rights extremists have been able to establish government programs which keep women and children vulnerable to ongoing abuse from violent men.

One such program is the Fathering After Violence Initiative.

Based upon this Initiative, instead of protecting women and children who have been abused, the Family Court System has a government mandate to foster and encourage the violent father's relationship with the children he has abused, regardless of the damaging consequences. Thus, in cases of domestic violence, the primary Family Court service offered to women and children who have suffered from a father's physical violence is supervised visits with the primary end goal of reuniting the father and children, even when these fathers will very likely continue to be violent and abusive.

In other words, according to an assessment prepared by Dr. Jessica Pearson, the Co-Director of the Center For Policy Research, (a part of the Fatherhood Research and Practice Network - FRPN), and the California Access and Visitation report to legislators, violent dads are given “step” visitation, i.e. supervised visits leading to unsupervised custody in as little as ten visits.

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