THE ILLUSION OF CHOICE IN CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURTS!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

I was watching a family court proceeding the other day.  There had been a hearing early in the morning and the parties were negotiating in the hallway.  Then, that afternoon the mother's attorney handed his client a copy of his proposed dissolution agreement and said "I want you to sign this agreement right now as is."  

When the mother expressed concern that there were parts of the agreement she didn't think were in her best interests, her attorney said, "As your attorney, it is my legal advice that you sign this agreement."  Waving to his associate and a friend who was sitting nearby, the attorney said, "I have two witnesses here who can testify that I told you that it is my legal opinion that you should sign this agreement.  If you refuse to sign it, you would be going against attorney's advice"  

Underlying this attorney's words, which in my view were very carefully chosen, was an outright threat to withdraw from the case and leave his client on the lurch.  

So what about this situation?  Can an attorney simply withdraw from a case and leave his client on the lurch, even when they are in the middle of a trial as was the case here?  

My experience is that yes, yes the attorney can do whatever he wants to do.  

Granted this situation where your own attorney can bully and blackmail you into an agreement you don't want, can you ever really say that family court litigants have free choice.  

I say no.

I wasn't always aware of this situation.  No less an attorney than Attorney Debra C. Ruel told me that no judge would allow an attorney to simply withdraw, particularly just before or during a trial.  She said that an attorney wishing to withdraw would have to simply grin and bear it because withdrawing is almost an impossibility.  Within two weeks of her remarks, my attorney had withdrawn with the complete blessing of the family court judge.  

In my experience with family court which is getting to be quite extensive, I have never yet seen an attorney denied a motion to withdraw for any reason.  No matter how ridiculous and obviously trumped up the reason, attorneys always seem to get away with a withdrawal from a case whenever they want to.  

So why the lies?  

I don't know; it seems to be part of the double talk that is fundamental to the profession of the law.  

Officially, the client is supposed to be making the decisions in his or her case.  See Rule of Professional Conduct for Attorneys No. 1.2 "Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer" which states "a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued."  

And further, "a lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to settle a matter."  

The commentary on this section makes the interesting point that this rule "confers upon the client the ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by the law and the lawyer's professional obligations."  Of course, this latter exception seems pretty broad! 

Then the commentary continues on to state that while a client may determine the goals of representation, it is the attorney who ordinarily establishes the means by which those goals will be achieved.  In short, "Clients normally defer to the special knowledge and skill of their lawyer with respect to the means to be used to accomplish their objectives, particularly with respect to technical, legal and tactical matters."  

Further down the line, the commentary also includes the remark that "legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval."  

These guidelines appear pretty clearcut to me.  So how is it possible that with such firm guidelines placing the client in control of the direction of the representation, that the scenario I described earlier could occur, that an attorney could threaten a client to approve a dissolution agreement as is or else and force her to sign it despite her better judgment?  

What about my situation? I had a similar experience where Attorney James T. Flaherty presented me the parenting agreement in my case and told me to agree to it as is or else.  Later, Attorney Flaherty sat silently during the pre-trial on the custody, and when I asked him finally why he wasn't helping me, he stood up, stated he was going to withdraw from my case, and walked out.  And he got away with doing so without any expression of disapproval from the Judge--Judge Solomon--when this happened.

I'll tell you how this happens; it happens because there are so many loopholes built into other areas of attorney's legal ethics that it is laughably easy for any attorney to nullify completely the mandate conferring decision making authority on the client.  

I had three attorneys withdraw in my case, so let me take a look at the reasons they provided for their actions.  Here is the first one, "The movant seeks to withdraw from this case as client fails to cooperate with counsel, thereby rendering counsel's assistance ineffective."  

Fails to cooperate?  What the heck is that?  I see, fails to cooperate by signing this agreement "as is".  That's a pretty big failure in cooperation.  Failure to do what you are told would be rather uncooperative, don't you think?  

Here is another one, "Movant seeks to withdraw from this case as counsel because there has been a breakdown in the attorney/client relationship".  Yeah, because the client refuses to sign the agreement "as is" and do what he or she is told to do.  

These are grounds for withdrawal that one advocate friend of mine once said, "that are big enough to drive a mack truck through."  

For a better sense of how big the loopholes are allowing an attorney to basically withdraw at will from a case, take a look at the Rule of Professional Conduct for Attorneys No. 1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation.  

Naturally, an attorney may withdraw from a case if a client wishes to use him to perpetrate fraud or a crime.  But more specific to this discussion is item (4) allowing an attorney to withdraw if "the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement."  

So what if the lawyer finds it repugnant, as clearly the attorney in my initial example did, that his client won't sign an agreement "as is."  What then?  

This provision is closely allied to one in item (6) which states that a lawyer can withdraw if "the representation...has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client." Right, by not doing as the client has been told and signing the agreement, or else try Item (7) "other good cause for withdrawal exists", which I assume means anything else that an attorney can come up with.  

This latter item, by the way, is another example of why an attorney can stand in public in the open corridor and loudly threaten his client because, as we just read, there is absolutely nothing in the attorney's code of ethics to stop him.  

It is even more absurd to think that family court litigants have even a modicum of choice when you consider that they aren't even entitled to "informed consent" which is a fundamental component of decision making.  Again, when it comes to the concept of informed consent, the attorney's code of ethics gives it to their clients in one location, while taking it away in another.

Thus, according to the Rule of Professional Conduct No. 1.4 "A lawyer shall promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent...is required..."  Further, "This means the attorney should provide sufficient information to the client regarding the tactics the attorney intends to use and whatever information is necessary to understand what is going on."  

Item (b) of this rule specifically states again, "A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation."  Also, under "Explaining Matters" the rules state, "The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued..."  

And then here comes the loophole! 

The end of the sentence says, "...to the extent the client is willing and able to do so."  

Thus, if a client says anything vaguely like "I am not willing or able to listen or understand what you have to say at the moment." how often, or how long, is an attorney required to continue explaining?  Who is the one who is going to assess objectively the extent of a client's willingness and ability?

Isn't this additional phrase another great big opportunity for excuse making when an attorney bypasses the client by misrepresenting or not mentioning the facts essential to making an informed choice and then resolves a case contrary to the wishes of his client?  

And that is not the only area in the Rules of Professional Ethics for attorneys where clients are denied their right to informed consent.  Try a later commentary on this section entitled "withholding information" where it states, "In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication".  

So if your client might "imprudently" refuse to sign an agreement "as is" if he or she were aware of some vital fact, as an attorney, you would be allowed to delay telling your client about it until the agreement was signed.  Isn't this the meaning of that particular clarification?  Again, we have a loophole that is so big, it encompasses the entire Atlantic Ocean as far as I am concerned.  

What is interesting in regard to this part of the commentary on informed consent is that the text singles out people with mental health disabilities as an example, and describes them as not entitled to informed consent.  This written policy is a direct violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act as well as an outright denial of civil rights to people with mental health disabilities.

When you have rules of conduct which are effectively cancelled out later on in the text by extraordinarily large loopholes and/or extensively detailed exceptions, these rules are effectively, to all intents and purposes, eliminated.  

What this means is that the implementation of coercive tactics is a reality in Connecticut family court, particularly the coercive tactic of an attorney threatening to withdraw the day before, or even the day of trial unless the client writes up a substantial check on the spot.  

The coercive tactic of demanding a client sign an agreement based upon the threat that the attorney will withdraw, this is a daily occurrence in family court.  

Then, in the most hypocritical fashion ever, clients who have been bullied and coerced in public in the open hallway in front of friends, court employees, and any stranger that walked by at the time, have to undergo a procedure called the "canvas" where they swear under oath on the stand in open court that they were NOT coerced.  

Not only that, in such agreements there is normally an additional provision detailing the fact that the client was not coerced when, in fact, everyone, often including the judge, knows that the client was bullied all the way down the line.  

What this means, of course, is that the illusion of choice for family court litigants is just that--an illusion.  The bottom line is that the attorneys make the agreements; they do the negotiations.  Then they lie, bully, blackmail, or manipulate--whatever it takes--in order to get their clients to rubber stamp them.  Regrettably, based upon the wording of the current rules of professional conduct for attorneys in the State of Connecticut, family court litigants have absolutely no recourse when that happens.

THE MARITAL AGREEMENT FROM HELL: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART VI

I will grant the fundamental belief that Colleen Kerwick goes by, that in order for a child to be safe and healthy, he or she requires the positive involvement of both parents.  In situations where parents get along reasonably well and live closely to each other, it is possible to put together a very effective shared parenting plan.  This would be in the the best interests of the child in most circumstances.  

However, if an abusive parent simply uses the  close proximity to the other parent and the extensive access to the other parent that comes along with shared parenting, as a means to continue the abuse, the end result can be disastrous.  Unfortunately, this is what took place in the Savino v. Savino case.  

The shared parenting plan was in place from the beginning and then was memorialized in the Marital Settlement Agreement of March 25, 2013.  

I bring this agreement up because it is the mean spirited nature of this agreement that set up Colleen Kerwick to continue being embroiled in legal disputes well beyond its signing.  

In this agreement, the access schedule was established as follows:  the mother would have the child from after preschool Wednesday until Friday preschool in the morning.  Father was to have the child from every Monday at pickup from preschool until Wednesday morning at preschool.  Then each parent was scheduled to have the child every other weekend.  

I find this a pretty demanding schedule for a three year old child who has some physical challenges, and I would more have been interested in reducing the overnights until he was older.  

Both parents had joint physical custody, and when it came to legal custody, father was given final decision making authority. This makes absolutely no sense in the light of the fact that, according to Dr. Sidney Horowitz, Colleen was the more involved parent and father's judgment was in question given that he was in denial of his child's development delays and medical challenges.  

But just in general, even without those issues, in my opinion, giving one parent decision making authority to the exclusion of the other is the kiss of death.  It pretty much means that any time Colleen wanted to do anything important with her son, she was required to ask for her ex-husband's permission.  Aside from being a humiliating position to be in, sole decision making gives an abusive ex endless opportunities to cause trouble with that kind of power.

I asked Colleen why she agreed to it and she said that she simply didn't want to continue battling with her ex.  I understand that.  It is unfortunate when good people who would really prefer not to fight end up getting taken advantage of.        

Of course, this was not simply the consequence of trying not to fight; there was also a financial factor at play here.  Kenneth Savino had millions and millions of dollars at his disposal to continue the legal battle, while Colleen Kerwick only had the $220,000 she'd agreed to as a settlement in her prenuptial agreement.  This small sum of money which Colleen might have used to rebuild her life after the divorce pretty much ended up being consumed entirely by attorneys fees.  

The bottom line is that Colleen Kerwick wasn't street smart.  She'd had a very amicable divorce from her first husband of six years, and she assumed that she could count on fairness from her second husband--Kenneth Savino.  She had gone into the marriage believing that Mr. Savino was the person he presented himself to her as--a person of good character.  Thus, when she signed the prenuptial agreement, Colleen had not anticipated what would happen in an extended high conflict divorce, and had not ensured in that agreement or subsequent agreements that her ex would pay for her attorney's fees and related divorce costs.  I mean, why would she.  She wasn't out to take advantage of him.

Of course, this point exposes the fact that Kenneth Savino is high deceptive in his dealings.  In speaking to Dr. Sidney Horowitz during the evaluation, Mr. Savino stated, I will "pay her somewhere between $75,000 and $400,000" and this is "okay."  Well, no, that isn't true at all.  By the time Kenneth Savino was done Colleen had nothing and all Mr. Savino did was pay her attorneys.  He knew that at the time he made the remark because he was already scheming to drown her in legal maneuvers at the time he said it.

When it comes to child support, based on the agreement Colleen was allotted $465 per week which is considerably low given Kenneth Savino's resources and lifestyle. Then $65.00 of the child support was taken out to cover the cost of health insurance, which Mr. Savino was amazingly enough willing and able to obtain from the Connecticut HUSKY program, which is intended for people with low income, despite being so wealthy.  You can be sure Mr. Savino has a far better health plan than his son has.

I'm not sure why a businessman with such extensive resources would be interested in using among the most limited health plans in the state.  I mean, to me, that decision alone speaks volumes.  I am also somewhat puzzled because in these situations, it was my understanding that, according to the law, the child is supposed to live in reasonably equivalent circumstances when he goes from one household to the other.  How is he supposed to do that if Colleen Kerwick ends up with nothing, and Kenneth Savino gets everything?  

Further, it is quite striking that the Marital Agreement divides all expenses 50/50 down the line, disregarding Colleen's current low income, which was the result of having to stay in CT due to her extensive legal problems when her job is in New York.  In addition, all other expenses such as medical co-pays and extra-curriculars were also to be divided 50/50 between the parties.  Yes, Colleen is highly educated and there was no doubt she could build up her legal practice for the future.  However, it would have been only reasonable to provide a respite period to allow her to get on her feet before dumping so much of the financial responsibility upon her.  

So what we appear to have is an extremely stingy, punitive agreement put together by a legal team determined to pound Colleen to the ground on every level.  

Of particular interest in regard to this agreement, in terms of details, is the notation under provision 13.2 "International Travel" that "The Father shall hold the child's passport." and also another notation at k.ii indicating the "The Christmas vacation shall begin on December 22."  

The agreement requires that mother go to counseling and well as the father, but in provision n.vi I do note that mother will specifically lose access time if she shows evidence of any "alienating behaviors".  You knew that particular nugget would be directed at the mother and not the father!  There is no indication that any bad behavior on the part of father will result in a loss of access.  So the only person who bears any consequences here is the mother.  Talk about gross unfairness--here you have a fundamental example, one that is very typical in the father friendly State of Connecticut.  

I also have to say, I consider it a very unfortunate approach to punish the child for the sins of the mother.

Finally, there is also section 21 which indicates "A modification or waiver of any provisions of this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and executed with the same formality as this agreement."  A provision of this kind literally guarantees that the parties will return to court repeatedly.  When you are parenting young children, there are constant small emergencies where you have to change plans and head in a different direction.  

The car breaks down, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

The child vomits all over the back seat, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

The child wants to say a special good bye to the new friend he met in preschool and gets into a big conversation about dinosaurs while he is doing it, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

You are half way to the drop off point when you realize you left the child's medication on the kitchen table, forget your agreed upon meeting time.

I mean, what, are you going to go to court for each and every one of these instances?  Well, yes, if you are going to go strictly by a provision of this kind.  But if you have any kind of common sense, you will let it go.  Of course, if the provision is there so you can continue to persecute your ex-wife on an ongoing basis, then forget what I said.  In that case you have crafted just the Marital Agreement from Hell that you always wanted, and you can keep on wacking your ex with that legal stick as long as you want.  

To be continued...

HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS ON FREEWHEELING JUDICIAL MARSHAL ARRESTED FOR THE FORTH TIME!

Christine Dempsey of The Hartford Courant reports as follows:

"WATERBURY — A former judicial marshal who already faces child pornography and prostitution charges has now been accused of human trafficking, the state police said.

Michael Connelly, 53, of Sharon Road in Waterbury turned himself in about 6:15 a.m. Thursday at the Troop A barracks in Southbury on charges of trafficking in persons. He also was charged with three counts each of impersonating a police officer and coercion.

Connelly's lawyer, Leonard Connelly's lawyer, Leonard Crone, came out Crone, came out swinging during Connelly's arraignment Thursday afternoon In Waterbury Superior Court, calling the prosecution of Connelly a "sham," "weak" and a "vendetta played out" by state police and the chief state's attorney's office.

Crone said those agencies "had problems" with his brother, former Waterbury state's attorney John Connelly, and now law enforcement officials are "taking it out on him."

For more information on this important matter, please click on the links below:

Fourth arrest for human trafficking:
http://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-waterbury-connelly-judicial-marshal-arrest-0508-20150507-story.html

15 year history of causing trouble:
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-michael-connelly-judicial-marshal-work-problems-20150208-story.html#page=1

ATTORNEY JAMES T. FLAHERTY ATTACKS ANOTHER FORMER CLIENT IN CIVIL COURT!

Last Wednesday, April 29, 2015, I joined Elizabeth Sinatro

at the Civil Courthouse in Hartford, CT as she faced the 

Flaherty Legal Group--Attorney James T. Flaherty and 

Attorney Sandi Girolamo--who were suing her in

collections for fees related to her late father's divorce. 

A graduate of Yale Law School, Ms. Sinatro's Dad was

a well respected Mechanical Engineer and patent

attorney who worked in the area of intellectual

property. 

Not only did he work in private practice for forty years

in Hartford, CT, he was also the President

of the West Hartford Town Planning and Zoning

Committee. As an avid golfer and a very friendly, 

considerate individual, Elizabeth Sinatro's 

father was extremely well liked and well respected

by his peers. 

Ironically, both he and Attorney James T. Flaherty

knew each other quite well. Ordinarily, in

the legal profession you would extend a level

of professional courtesy to another legal

professional. However, in the case of Ms. Sinatro's

father, who was dying at the time, Attorney Flaherty 

entirely disregarded this professional understanding

and victimized his client the same way he had

victimized so many others.

Ms. Sinatro, who was acting on behalf of her father, 

is one of the dozens of former clients Attorney 

James T. Flaherty has taken to Court to collect legal fees. 

At this court hearing, Flaherty and his crew were hoping

to obtain a pre judgment remedy to put a lien on the 

property from the estate to guarantee his fees. This

is the standard operating procedure for Attorney

James T. Flaherty which he has been carrying out

now for at least a decade.

Jim Flaherty and his legal group have a track record

unlike any other attorney or legal practice. How this

group has avoided being disbarred is a mystery, 

perhaps, a mystery that only a thorough investigation

of the CT Judicial Branch could solve.

In this particular case, Attorney Flaherty has taken on an 

entire family. Ms. Sinatro's brother Paul explained the 

circumstances to me in a recent letter, which went as 

follows:

"My late father’s health was declining and his wife filed for 

divorce. Jim Flaherty and the Flaherty Legal Group (FLG) 

represented my father and my sisters and I had Power of 

Attorney and were closely involved with the case. Per FLG
this was a simple case; an uncontested divorce, with one 

home, no businesses to divide and straight forward assets 

(checking, savings, retirement, investments).  FLG 

estimated the cost for the case to be $5-10k. 

However, in violation of standard procedures in these

kinds of divorce cases, FLG did not do any discovery

on the household assets; did not put any protective

orders in place to protect his client and as we learned

after the case was over, they even agreed with the

ex-wife when she refused to turn over financial

statements, something FLG was warned would 

occur. 

FLG's representation bordered on malpractice and, 

when it comes to Attorney James T. Flaherty, in no 

way did he live up to his oath to represent his client

to the best of his abilities. 

In the end, our father was coerced into a settlement

that equated to 36% of the entire estate and FLG

billed him over $60,000 for the expedited divorce

that had one deposition and no hearing. 

When I questioned the final bill, Jim Flaherty became 

hostile and aggressive. When we refused to pay the 

trumped up bill, he “fired” our father as a client (charging 

$5,800 to file the paperwork with the court) and put a 

charging lien on my father’s portion of the net proceeds of 

the sale of his house (this was recently deemed illegal by 

the CT Supreme Court) and has filed suit against my sister
as executrix of the estate.

Following our experience we have come to understand

what a monster FLG is and we have learned of

numerous clients' lives that have been harmed by

this man and his team. As you probably know, FLG

has sued over 69 clients. Through my rudimentary

research I cannot find a Marital Law practice that

has sued anywhere close to that number of 

clients during the same period of time. Even large,

active firms with 25+ attorney’s don’t sue at this pace. 

Currently, Jim Flaherty has 3 open cases, two are where

he is suing clients (we are one of them) and I am not

sure about the other. His legal team of Sandi Girolamo

and Pamela Magnano do not have any active clients.

This firm is not the business of law.

At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, Judge Peck 

decided to grant a continuance in the case even though it 

was clear that, based upon the evidence, the case should 

simply have been dismissed. Even more troubling, from 

what I have heard, is the fact that at the same time 

Judge Peck gave Attorney James T. Flaherty fairly
detailed instructions on what legal steps he needed
to take in order to overcome the technical legal
problems in the case. 

She indicated that she was troubled that Attorney

Flaherty might be hindered in obtaining an outcome

that would benefit him. To me, it seems unlikely that

Judge Peck or any other judges at the Civil Court are

unaware of Attorney Flaherty's blatant misuse of

the Civil Court as his own private collection agency, 

and as a means to manhandle and blackmail his

former clients. That it has come to the point 

where the judges are taking their preferential

treatment of Attorney Flaherty to the level of 

providing him with legal advice, this is unconscionable. 

Has it come to the point where justice is for sale in the 

courtrooms in the State of Connecticut, and

influence triumphs over doing what is right?

BLOODY, BUT UNBOWED: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART I!

In 2008, Colleen Kerwick, a citizen of Ireland and aviation attorney who had been living in New York City, married her second husband, Kenneth Savino, an American citizen living in Connecticut and involved in Wealth Management.  The two had their first child in 2009.  Despite this auspicious beginning, on July 4 2011 Colleen Kerwick served   her then husband with papers for separation and relocation to NY, to which her ex responded by filing for divorce in Connecticut Family Court on July 11, 2011.  Two years later, on December 20, 2013, Ken Savino obtained sole custody of their son, then four years old.  In contrast, Colleen was barred from seeing her son for several months.  

How did Colleen Kerwick, a bright, well functioning, successful individual and loving responsible mother lose all rights her child?  The answer to this question lies in understanding the legal machinations of our corrupt family court system here in Connecticut.

Before proceeding with this discussion, I think there are some important factors that I think anyone looking at the Colleen Kerwick case needs to keep in mind.  I present them in no particular order of importance.

First, of all, Colleen Kerwick is not an American   She was born and raised in Ireland, graduated from high school and law school in Ireland with honors.  It was only subsequent to her graduation from law school, at the age of 24, that she immigrated to the United States.  

Ms. Kerwick speaks with an Irish accent, she is a native Irish speaker, and remains with the attitudes and presumptions of a person who for whom American culture is a taste acquired later in life.  As several prominent examples have shown--the Amanda Knox case comes immediately to mind--we must always take particular care when attempting to process a citizen of a foreign country through our legal system.  

We must ensure that a grave injustice does not occur simply on the basis of the profound cultural differences that exist between countries.  I came to this country at the age of 4 and I still have problems with this issue.  

Simply based upon this factor alone, the Colleen Kerwick case is a particular embarrassment to the citizens of the State of Connecticut and to the legal system itself.

Second, Colleen's ordeal began when she served her ex-husband, Ken Savino with papers on July 4, 2011 for separation and relocation to New York, to which he responded by filing for divorce on July 11, 2011.  Her decision to leave Mr. Savino arose after a considerable period of neglect and absenteeism in her life and that of their child.  During the marriage he was very controlling, was highly critical of her looks and behavior, and tried to restrict her access to sleep, even after their son was born.  Once Colleen made it clear that she could no longer stay in the marriage, this appeared to trigger Mr. Savino into a rage to the point where he has been extremely vengeful towards Colleen, has sought to destroy her relationship with their son and has filed several complaints with the police in an attempt to have her arrested.  Luckily, these attempts have failed.   

Third, Colleen Kerwick was/is a victim of domestic violence as was her child.  Thus, I have before me a letter dated October 12, 2011 written by Shanthi Rao, MSW of Interval House West in which she states, "[Ms. Kerwick] contacted our agency [on] July 2011 and was found appropriate for our services.  Ms. Kerwick shared her personal history and incidences of occasions of physical, emotional and verbal abuse by her husband during the course of their marriage, especially when she was pregnant with their son."  

Further, Ms. Rao stated, "As a domestic violence counselor, it is my professional opinion that Ms. Kerwick is a victim of very serious intimate partner violence/domestic violence and abuse.  These are extremely difficult issues and I wish to express my appreciation of your capable sensitivity to the complexities of this situation."  

I say this with confidence particularly because Ms. Shanthi Rao is a highly respected domestic violence worker who is very reliable in her judgments.  I have personally met Ms. Rao and if she has assessed Colleen Kerwick and concluded that she is a victim of domestic violence, I find that very persuasive.  Shanthi Roe is well respected among women's advocacy circles, not only by her colleagues, but also by her clients.

I also base this assessment on the psychological report dated November 6, 2012 of neuropsychologist Dr. Rimma Danov who concluded that, along with having many other admirable qualities, that Ms. Kerwick is "an emotionally stable, mature, well-adjusted and responsible individual..." This is hardly the kind of person who would just make something up.

Finally, I just have to look at the behavior of Colleen's ex-husband, Kenneth Savino and his attorneys to know that they are simply not good people.  When Ms. Colleen Kerwick lost her child as the result of a fabricated Amber alert in 2013, the incident was reported in several articles posted on this blog. 

Not long after they were posted, an individual who was clearly an attorney representing the father, Kenneth Savino, posted several aggressive, bullying and factually inaccurate comments regarding Colleen Kerwick and family court reformers underneath these articles.  This alone reveals the abusive character of Colleen Kerwick's ex-husband.  

In addition, if you look at the case detail for the Savino case, it appears that Mr. Savino essentially hired two of the most unscrupulous and warlike attorneys practicing in Connecticut Family Court today, i.e. Budlong and Barrett, LLC and Attorney Steve Dembo.  

If Kenneth Savino was serious about co-parenting his child, Nicholas, he would never have hired such litigious counsel.  You just have to see two attorneys jumping up and down and giving speeches on one side of the courtroom while Colleen Kerwick is on the other side representing herself to know exactly who is the victim here.  And I might add, ridiculing and mocking Colleen Kerwick because of her use of words which arises from her background as a citizen of Ireland.  

I want to add that not only has Budlong and Barrett, LLC been bullying towards Colleen Kerwick, it has also been bullying towards me.  

For instance, this law firm has submitted a complaint to the West Hartford police department because I cut and pasted a section from the law firm's own website and pasted it onto mine.  

In addition, Budlong and Barrett, LLC sent me a threatening letter indicating that it may at some point sue me on the basis of "incitement to violence" if I don't stop blogging about them.  

Nothing like honest words to scare bad people to death and put the fight in them.  In a recent incident where Divorce in  Connecticut reporter, Elizabeth Richter was court watching for a friend, Attorney Michael Budlong stood before Judge Jorge Simon and made false statements about her and persuaded Judge Simon on the basis of those lies to remove her from the courtroom.  If Kenneth Savino condones behavior of this kind, there is no doubt in my mind what kind of abuse he is capable of personally himself, and in regard to directing others to perpetrate it on his behalf.

To be continued...

PAUL RYAN SPEAKS OUT ON THE REAPPOINTMENT OF CHASE T. ROGERS: MORE CORRUPTION AS USUAL!

Paul Ryan states as follows:

"Eight years. By our historical temporal scale, eight years is but an instant . . . a veritable flash of light that will barely be noticed on our anthropological calendar. If, however, you are an individual — or worse yet — a family living in Connecticut and need to use the programs, activities or services of our state courts to help you resolve any sort of legal dispute, best if you're wearing a seat belt or something else because it's likely to be a bumpy ride for the foreseeable future.

Either our General Assembly was uninformed, duped, or chose to ignore the full scope of information before them. The Senate had already voted unanimously, as had the Joint Committee on Judiciary, but is it possible that all the public voices would be dismissed, individually and collectively? At this point, it would appear so as the final vote was 139 members of the House voting in favor of the resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Judge of the Superior Court. Just 74 votes were needed for passage, and so the resolution carried. Only 6 legislators voted "Nay" (Representatives Arce, Candelara, Gonzalez, Sanchez, Tercyzak, and Carter), but even among this group, only Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, a Hartford-Democrat, rose to explain her vote in opposition..."

For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:

http://ctsupremecourt.blogspot.com/2015/04/ct-house-representatives-confirm-chase-t-rogers-chief-justice-2015.html

IN LETTER TO CT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, ACTIVIST SCOTT BUDEN DECRIES ATTACKS ON REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ AND MEMBERS OF THE CT FAMILY COURT REFORM MOVEMENT!

It appears that the anonymous person who penned the April 14th op-ed piece run by the Hartford Courant googled the term "inflammatory language", copied all the results, and called it an article.  Its dearth of formed opinion notwithstanding, was there a reason why this author could not stand behind his or her words?

http://www.courant.com/opinion/editorials/hc-ed-minnie-gonzalez-should-be-sanctioned-20150414-story.html

Governor Malloy then publicly admonished both Representatives Rebimbas and González on April 17th, as if Ms Rebimbas' misdirecting attention away from criminal activity and Ms González' calling out the covering of crimes were the same thing:  a spat.

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-minnie-gonzalez-its-over-20150417-story.html

It is necessary to provide a foundation of facts to give context to the drama, because there has been so much done to shield the underlying information that brought rise to the altercation.

We have a theme going:  Attack all critics of the courts.  Blame victims.  The threadbare "disgruntled litigant" epithet is a warped record loop stuck playing over the propaganda speakers, and Göbbels hasn't realized that the playbook has already been put into evidence at Nuremberg.

Representative Rebimbas attacks all critics of the courts.  That fact makes perfect sense, given her investment as a GAL in the continued unrestricted looting of assets in all family cases.  In Friday'shearing, instead of recusing herself on a matter where she stands to profit, she concerned herself entirely with misrepresenting other people's thoughts and feelings and protecting the delicate egos of judges who have done unspeakable harm to the people of Connecticut.  Again on Monday's hearing, instead of recusing herself, she participated in a plan to grind the legislative process to a halt over an apology that was already given.  Not once did she speak or act for the interests of the people of Naugatuck who elected her to represent them.

Representative González, by contrast, has no financial stake in the administration and operation of the Judicial Branch.  She is an impartial member of the Judiciary Committee.

In a dirty maneuver while Ms González was out of the hearing room, Ms Rebimbas made some large claims that there was no supporting evidence of the failures of law that Ms Gonzáles raised.  In what appears to be a public call for retaliation, Ms Rebimbas went so far as to name a specific litigant who dared to bring to the legislature the transcript of her judge attacking her, fabricating imaginary lawsuits, accusing the litigant in his paranoid delusions of chasing away all professional therapists, and even letting slip that there is a secret tier system of qualified vendors.

Here Judge Adelman in D'Amato v D'Amato (July 11, 2014), monologuing from the bench, attacks all critics of the courts, ironically hoisting himself with his own petard:

ADELMAN:  Have you ever heard the expression being hoisted [sic] by [sic] your own petard?

LITIGANT:  No.

ADELMAN:  It's from Hamlet, I believe.  The attack on the therapeutic community by litigants who have not been successful in court has, obviously, made many of these therapists adverse [sic] to getting involved in these cases.  They're getting sued, and there's plenty of therapy work for people who are not involved in litigation.  It's hard to believe that so many PhDs, therapists would refuse the work, but I can understand it when they find out that this is a case that's in litigation and an appeal and why ask for trouble, I guess?

That's tragic because you and these girls need some therapeutic assistance in an effort to repair the parental relationship, and now, quite frankly, I'm going to have to go to second tier individual.

LITIGANT:  What does that mean, Your Honor?

ADELMAN:  What that means is I'm going to have to use somebody who's not a PhD therapist.  I'm going to have to go down the stream to other therapeutic individuals because you and others like you have created a hostile environment to ther --

LITIGANT:  I would like that stricken, Your Honor, because I did not create this problem, and there's no proof that he contacted anybody.  There's no proof.

ADELMAN:  I have his sworn testimony.  What proof do you have?  You want to call those ten people into court?  You're calling the man a liar?

LITIGANT:  I'm questioning his credibility, yes I am.

ADELMAN:  All right.  The court finds him incredibly credible.  [sic]  There's no reason to think he's done anything other than what he said he has done.  The environment in Family Court and in family therapy is hostile and becoming difficult -- it's getting very difficult to find people, quite frankly, to even volunteer to be Special Masters to help people resolve their cases before they have to go to litigation, and I hope that the people who are creating the hostility think about that.

On Friday, Ms Rebimbas, however, went on to deny the existence of the transcript, to accuse the litigant of making up the judge's tyrannical behavior, and wrongly claim that the only proper channel for remedy is through the judicial branch, which has been established through now hundreds of individuals' testimony, as not the slightest bit capable of policing itself.

The transcript exposes some very serious questions:

• Why would licensed providers be afraid of being sued if everything they are doing is perfectly ethical?  Are they engaging in the same unethical practices that victims' evidence to the legislature and federal task force reflects?

• Are judges ordering therapy for children without there being a diagnosis?  Is a "custody evaluation" any more credible than peering into a crystal ball?  Could this be why these court-appointed providers accept only cash for their services?

• Why do judges have a tier system among state licensed treaters?  Are the providers who are members or directors of AFCC along with the judges and GALs given preference, such as the transcript references to CT Chapter president Linda Smith?

• Where are these multiple lawsuits against Connecticut therapists to which the judge alludes, and for which the judge blames the litigant standing before him?

• Was the judge threatening the litigant by referencing an explosive device harming her in his non-sequitur comment?

• Why would Ms Rebimbas try so hard to deny, or at least deflect from, the existence of this transcript?

Representative González has spent the past seven years hearing heart-wrenching testimony from hundreds of Connecticut citizens being cannibalized by the scam operating out of the Judicial Branch.  She has done exactly what she was elected to do, which is to represent the interests and needs of her constituents and the people of Connecticut -- not to protect the asset-raiding operation of the judges and GALs.  She has never backed down from her duties, even in the harshest of fights against lawlessness.  She got emotional and angry over the past few days, which proves a well-calibrated moral compass in the face of, at best, unprofessional behavior from a member of the Judiciary Committee.  At worst, she defended against a lobbyist installed to ensure that the moneyball game keeps the cash flowing to court-appointees.  Anyone with a heart should be very angry.

It seem that the Federal Task Force agrees.  I'll leave you with their own words about their current operation in Connecticut.  Remember to call the hotline and press #6 to report public corruption in Connecticut.

"U.S. Attorney Daly explained that the Task Force is focused on rooting out not only corrupt elected officials, but also federal, state and municipal employees who use their position for personal gain at the expense of the public good."

"The Task Force will also focus on the hundreds of millions of dollars that are distributed annually by federal and state agencies to ensure that taxpayer funds reach their intended recipients without corrupt interference."

“Public servants are entrusted by all of us to act in the best interests of the public they serve. It is important for the United States to bring to justice those who betray that trust,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Patricia M. Ferrick. “Public corruption at all levels of local, state, and federal government must not be tolerated, and this task force will leverage the best assets of the task force partner agencies to address the threat posed by corrupt public officials.”

The task force includes staff from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation Division, the Inspector General’s Offices of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.