MICHAEL NOWACKI CALLS UPON DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ TO RESIGN DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Letter to the Editor:

 

The recent re-appointment hearing conducted by the executive and legislative nominations committee on Capitol Hill concerning DCF Commissioner Joyette Katz failed to address a significant undisclosed conflict of interest of the Commissioner.

No member of the committee addressed the matter of Commissioner Katz serving as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune (CLT).

On February 24, 2015, Commissioner Katz received an extensive Freedom of Information Commission request from me by fax, requesting “public documents” which exist on her email address or were accessed through servers of the State of Connecticut from personal email accounts in which Commissioner Katz was responding to “content based” editorial issues of the CLT in her role as Chair of the Editorial Board.

DCF Attorney Barbara Clare responded to the FOI request via email indicating the “public records” could not be produced by March 5.

Minimally, Commissioner Katz should immediately resign her position as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the CLT inasmuch it creates a considerable conflict of interest.

The General Assembly should defer the confirmation vote on Commissioner Katz which is scheduled for March 9 until a full review of these public documents can be conducted.

 

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

mnowacki@aol.com

(203) 273-4296

MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

Below are the names of the members of the editorial board for the CT Law Tribune:

Joette Katz, Chair
http://www.ct.gov/dcf/cwp/view.asp?a=2534&Q=480380

Dwight H. Merriam, Vice Chair
http://www.rc.com/people/DwightHMerriam.cfm

MEMBERS

Joyce Chen

Proloy K. Das

Robert Farr

Eugene Fidell

Mary Galvin

Elizabeth Gilson

Rachel Goldberg

Robert Holzberg

Wesley W. Horton

Jocelyn Kennedy

David King

James B. Lyon

Eugene Marconi

Sean McElligott

Robert Mitchell

Dennis C. Murphy

Alan Neigher

Louis R. Pepe

Thomas B. Scheffey

Mark Soboslai

James F. Sullivan

Cecil Thomas

Thomas J. Ullmann

Diane Whitney

Steven Wizner

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS NEW ALIMONY RULING CAUSING LOTS OF BUZZ!

The Connecticut Law Tribune reports as follows:

Is alimony a punishment for a divorcing spouse withdrawing the income stream from a marriage?

 

Is it a mechanism to allow the recipient to live in "the style to which she (or he) has become accustomed"?

 

Or is it a short-term jump start of funding to help the recipient train for employment and self-sufficiency?

 

According to top matrimonial lawyers, decades of Connecticut case law gives no clear guidance, and recently, the picture grew more cloudy.

 

A December decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court, Dan v. Dan, held that a sharp increase in income of one ex-spouse, by itself, is not grounds for modifying alimony payments to the other divorced party. That decision has, the experts say, made it more important than ever for lawyers and trial courts to spell out the purpose of alimony payments in the settlement or trial decision, or risk a difficult modification battle later..."

Read more: http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202717427992/Family-Bar-Buzzing-Over-Alimony-Ruling#ixzz3S1D9XuZC

MR. MICHAEL NOWACKI RESPONDS TO CT LAW TRIBUNE PUBLICATION OF INACCURATE OP-ED BY ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS!

Dear Editor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cordially,

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

(203) 273-4296

MICHAEL NOWACKI RAPS ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS ON THE KNUCKLES, CAUTIONS HIM TO STICK TO THE FACTS ABOUT FAMILY COURT REFORM!

“Misrepresentations” versus “Misremembrances”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Submitted,

 

Michael Nowacki

Family Court Reform Advocate

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

 

ACCORDING TO THE CT LAW TRIBUNE THE GOVERNOR HAS ORDERED A $6 MILLION BUDGET CUT FROM THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

According to Jay Stapleton of the CT Law Tribune,

 

"The State budget cut will apparently be felt in the court system.

 

The Judicial Branch will have its current fiscal year budget cut by $6 million as Gov. Dannel Malloy seeks to close a projected budget shortfall.  The spending cuts, formerly known as rescissions, were announced January 23.  In all, the governor ordered $31.5 million in cuts, with social service programs, public colleges and universities and state watchdog agencies also taking a hit.  The cutbacks affecting more than two dozen state agencies follow $54.6 million in reductions ordered by Malloy in November.

 

A Judicial Branch spokeswoman said officials are still reviewing the rescission and won't comment on the matter until at least Monday, Feb. 2.  Legislative Judiciary Committee leaders did not immediately return emails seeking comment."

 

For more on this article, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202716360752/Governor-Orders-6-Million-Cut-in-Court-System-Spending#ixzz3Q9ytASB2 

CT LAW TRIBUNE POKES FUN AT SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S DISABILITY!

On November 19, 2014, "The CT Law Tribune" reported that Adam McNiece of East Lyme, CT was suing the CT Judicial Branch because it denied him the Audiorecordings he requested under the ADA to accommodate his disability of migraine headaches. 

What is interesting about this article is the way it makes fun of Adam McNiece, and mocks and ridicules him for making such a request, as if the fact that he has a disability indicates that he is some kind of wacko who is not worthy of being treated with decency. 

More than anything else, the tone of the Tribune's article says so much about the disrespect that the legal profession has for citizens as a whole, and for those who have disabilities in particular.  Since when is it such a joke that a person has a disability and needs to request a reasonable modification in order to accommodate that disability? 

I also found the general characterization of a Connecticut citizen, Adam McNiece, pretty offensive.  Tell me, is it fair for the Tribune to present a self represented person as a clown simply by virtue of the fact that he or she is self represented.  Really, what is so funny about that? 

The "CT Law Tribune" describes Adam McNiece as being a person with "a reputation for being litigious".  Based on that description, I thought I would find tons and tons of cases listed under Adam McNiece's name.  In fact, this is not the true.  There is one case in 2013 against the Town of Waterford, another lawsuit against the Attorney Firm representing the Town of Waterford, and also this last lawsuit in regard to the CT Judicial Branch and the ADA, the latter two from 2014.  What this essentially adds up to is a single lawsuit with a lot of branches, all starting with an incident where a citizen's civil rights were violated.

I know many people in family court who have just the same amount of lawsuits--one the initial divorce complaint, perhaps an appeal or two on that divorce action, then foreclosures that came upon them as the result of their divorce, plus collection actions against them from former attorneys who represented them.  Does that make them "litigious" as well? 

If you have lived say 40 or 50 years, and you only have a few lawsuits pending from one or two of those years, that can hardly be called litigious!  Except, of course, if you are the "CT Law Tribune" and you like to trash citizens who are clearly defending their civil rights, but have little money to do so and have to represent themselves. 

Mr. McNiece's lawsuit appears legitimate to me.  I would also be pretty upset if the Town of Waterford conducted an illegal search of my home, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly what happened in this case.  I would agree that Adam McNiece has listed on his lawsuits an inordinate number of defendants, but that is what many newcomers to the legal field tend to do.  It is not an indication of eccentricity or wacko-ness, but simply an example of the kind of behavior that is standard among many self represented parties who are new to the court system.  I'm not sure if that is worth ridiculing a man for.  If you did, you'd have to pretty much ridicule the vast majority of self represented parties, which I suppose most attorneys actually do. 

Interesting, isn't it, how the legal field fosters an attitude of contempt and condescension towards average people. 

In regard to Adam McNiece's request for reasonable modifications, that request should have received an immediate response, and one that is in the affirmative.  Instead, what happened is that Mr. McNiece's request was passed on from one court official to another until eventually a court planner, Ms. Heather Collins, sent him a list of six questions for his doctor to respond to before the court would consider his request.  Mr. McNiece then provided that information from his doctor, and still they turned down him down!

This kind of extensive inquiry into the nature of Adam McNiece's disability is a direct violation of the ADAAA of 2008,  a federal law which was specifically designed to prevent mini-trials into the nature of an individual's disability.  According to the ADAAA the appropriate focus of the public entity under Title II should be on meeting the needs of the person requesting the accommodation, not on demanding that such an individual prove that he has a disability. 

In fact, recent court decisions indicate that it is sufficient for the individual to state that he has a disability.  And even further, recent ADA law indicates that he should not even be required to provide a diagnosis. 

The Connecticut Judicial Branch regularly demands that litigants such as Adam McNiece provide extensive documentation regarding their disabilities, but such demands are blatantly illegal and intrusive.  Thus, the focus of the "CT Law Tribune" article should have been not how funny and laughable it is that a person with a disability requests an accommodation, the focus should have been on why the CT Judicial Branch chose to flout Federal ADAAA law. 

Another interesting point the Tribune article makes is that the Attorney General is defending the CT Judicial Branch in this case.  Why is the Attorney General who is supposed to be representing the best interests of the citizens of the State of Connecticut, particularly its vulnerable citizens such as the disabled, defending the illegal actions of the CT Judicial Branch in violating Federal ADA law? 

Altogether, what we have are a series of examples of disgraceful behavior within the legal profession.  1)  the CT Judicial Branch violating federal ADA law; 2) the Attorney General attacking disabled  citizens it should be protecting; and 3) the "CT Law Tribune", the mouthpiece of the Connecticut Bar Association ridiculing and making fun of an individual with a disability.  Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the legal profession generates such a widespread lack of respect.

In 2009 , the CT Judicial Branch established a subcommittee which conducted an extensive examination of the role of audiorecordings during judicial proceedings.  In the report of this subcommittee two reporters who were members of the subcommittee--Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey of the "CT Law Tribune" (ironically) and also Mr. Patrick Sanders of the Associated Press--expressed their view that "what occurs in Connecticut's courtrooms belongs to the people of Connecticut, and therefore recordings made of those proceedings, should be available to the public in the [same] way that official paper transcripts are available."

In regard to personal recordings, Mr. Patrick Sanders further argues that there should be a "presumption of openness".  He continues on to state that an open judiciary is of overriding importance in the courts in the State of Connecticut, and he argues, "I disagree with the court reporters' opinion that their members should have exclusive rights to record court proceedings for sale and distribution for their personal gain.  Courts are a public domain and not a monopoly."  His associate Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey pointed out that tellingly, the U.S. Supreme court has made audiotapes of oral arguments available going back to the 1950s, and that there is even a CD of its "Greatest Hits" available on amazon.com.

As the Judicial - Media Committee determined (of which the above mentioned subcommittee was a part), not only is the concept that what takes place in courtrooms throughout Connecticut the property of the public a wonderful aspirational statement, legally, the CT Judicial Branch's audio recordings of legal proceedings are, in fact, the property of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch is merely the caretaker of these audiorecordings on behalf of those citizens.  Therefore, Adam McNiece's request for access to those audiorecordings is essentially a request for property that is his by right, and the Connecticut Judicial Branch's refusal to hand over those audiorecordings is a violation of that right.

What is interesting is that, when both sides talk about limitations to accessing these audiorecordings, both accuse each other of potential wrongdoing in similar ways.  It is a standard for self represented parties to accuse the Connecticut Judicial Branch of tampering with audiorecordings so as to eliminate any record of sections of the legal proceedings that Judges and their cohorts think might interfere with their rigged verdicts.  Likewise, Judges and attorneys in their statements for the subcommittee expressed concern that members of the public would make bootleg audiorecordings and alter them in order to challenge the official record of the legal proceedings.

Clearly, there is a great deal of tension and distrust between these two groups.  In particular, the "Connecticut Law Tribune's" recent hostile targeting of Adam McNiece provides a very clear example of this disgruntlement from the side of the legal profession.  The bottom line, however, is that the Connecticut Judiciary, Judges, and attorneys who practice the law are supposed to be there to serve the public, and the only way to do this is through openness and transparency. 

As long as the Connecticut Judicial Branch continues to collude in obstructing this openness and transparency, people will proceed on an ongoing basis to engage in lawsuits such as the one that Adam McNiece filed.  The "Connecticut Law Tribune" can go ahead and mock all it wants, but that's not going to stop them.

_____________________

*As a final note, the "CT Law Tribune" journalist, Isaac Avilucea, who wrote the original law tribune article, was previously fired from another job because of his inappropriate reporting.  This is the quality of journalist that the "CT Law Tribune" sees fits to hire for its freelance work.  See the link below:

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/226646/reporter-fired-after-story-cast-aspersions-on-the-academics-of-local-school-compared-another-to-mean-girls/

 

LAUGHABLY FLAWED STUDY ON CT JUDICIAL BRANCH COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA MAKES IT ONTO THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH WEBSITE AND THE PAGES OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

On November 17, 2014 I was struck by an article in the CT Law Tribune stating that the CT Judicial Branch had been cited by the National Center for Access to Justice (NCAJ) as having "the highest overall ranking for any state for its programs aimed at providing equal court access to all citizens." 

 

This was a surprise to me since I have been closely involved in advocacy aimed at getting the CT Judicial Branch to comply with the ADA, which for the better part it does not do.  I then today took note of the fact that the CT Judicial Branch itself is boasting of its great work as well on the front page of its website, also citing the NCAJ. 

 

Wanting to get a better grasp of this absurd announcement, I actually clicked on the link to the National Center for Access to Justice and was not surprised to see that the touted justice index which praises Connecticut so greatly is brand new and was first started on February 25, 2014.  Well, I think then, given how new this index is that it can be forgiven a little idiocy until it catches up with the rest of us more grizzled participants in the field of disability rights! 

 

The next thing I did was take a look at the parameters which earned the Connecticut Judicial Branch such high ratings, despite the fact that it has such a widespread reputation among litigants for obstructing the ADA at every turn.  So, folks, these are the parameters that the Justice Index used as the basis of its determinations.  Mind you, they didn't speak to anybody--either judicial branch employees or litigants with disabilities.  What they did was surf judicial branch websites in states throughout the nation for answers to the following questions:  

 

1.  Are courts required or allowed to charge deaf or hard of hearing for sign language interpreters?

 

2.  Certification of sign language interpreters a. Is there a State statute, rule, or other guidance requiring courts to use only certified sign language court interpreters? b. Are courts required to give preference to sign language interpreters who have training in how to interpret in a legal setting?

 

3.  Does the state judiciary’s web site tell court users: a. How to request an accommodation because of disability or who to contact to request an accommodation? b. How to file a complaint about difficulty accessing court facilities or services because of disability? c. Who to contact to file a complaint?

 

4.  Is there a State statute, rule or other guidance requiring courts to allow service animals?

 

 - See more at: http://www.justiceindex.org/methodology/#sthash.zCSlL2ZX.dpuf

 

Questions one and two out of the four questions are in regard to the deaf.  I would suspect this is directed towards the CT Judicial Branch which signed a settlement with the Department of Justice in November 11, 2003 agreeing to provide accommodations for folks who are deaf.  Hard as it is to believe, prior to that date, they were not doing so. 

 

From the data I have, deafness is pretty much the only disability the CT Judicial Branch accommodates.  So what about all the other various disabilities that need to be accommodated--they don't receive any honorable mention? 

 

Question three appears to indicate that the Connecticut Judicial Branch provides litigants with information on who to contact in order to request an accommodation and who to contact in order to submit a grievance.  In fact, this is not true.  The CT Judicial Branch website tells you to speak to a contact person--and there are over a 100 listed on the website--at the clerk's office for a request for accommodation. 

 

This is hardly a name. 

 

For a grievance, you are asked to submit your documents to the Director of the Human Resources Management Unit. 

 

So you do not actually get the name and contact information of a specific individual, i.e. Designated Responsible Employee, who is in charge of the implementation of the ADA at the CT Judicial Branch which is what the ADA actually requires. 

 

What this comes down to is the fact that this so called justice index has been produced on the most superficial level possible and has no more credibility than, say, a law diploma ordered from the internet for a modest fee. 

 

Apparently, a considerable number of Carbozo Law students were involved in compiling the data used in the making of this justice index.  Oops!  Sorry, I meant Cardozo School of Law students.  Ok, call me a snob, but I would probably have been more impressed with these results if they had been compiled by students from Harvard Law, Cornell Law, or Columbia Law--you know, schools with some actual prestige--but, you know, they would probably not have been willing to participate in such a laughable project no matter how many brib--excuse me--much money you gave them. 

 

Ok, so students from the University of Pennsylvania Law school (ranked 7th or 8th in the country) did some research as well, but what with the Sandusky affair and the kids for cash scandal, I wouldn't credit any institution from Pennsylvania! 

 

The bottom line in any investigation of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act is whether the CT Judicial Branch actually provided accommodations to the litigants who used the court system and whether the Branch actually reached out to litigants to let them know that such accommodations were available.  Yes, item number four regarding service dogs is important, but not half as important making sure that the ADA is applied to everyone.

 

I myself was unaware of the existence of  ADA accommodations  at the CT Judicial Branch until three years after my case was filed, and I am not the only one who has had that kind of experience. 

 

That is a pretty miserable record, in my humble opinion. 

 

From what I can see, the National Center For Access to Justice is largely made up of and funded by -- you guessed it -- attorneys!  I thought it was interesting to see the Pfizer Legal Group is participating since Pfizer is such a major corporation in Connecticut. 

 

Needless to say, when lawyers and their legal institutions start praising themselves and their accomplishments, which they are never too modest to do--see the Super Lawyers website which is equally powered by scuzzy brib--excuse me--financial contributions--you've got to start feeling a little nervous. 

 

I can only assume that this recent desperate ploy of establishing a fake justice index indicates that the Connecticut Judicial Branch and its judges are feeling the heat from several Federal and State ADA Lawsuits which have been filed against it within the last two years for non-compliance with the comprehensive civil rights mandate of the ADA.  My response is only to say one day we shall overcome, we shall overcome.

HECTOR MORERA RESPONDS TO SMEAR POST FROM CT LAW TRIBUNE RE GALS!

Oct 17, 2014
 

Obviously the person(s) who wrote this story ["Misplaced Furor Over Guardians Ad Litem"] did not listen or listen carefully to the Public Hearing Testimony from January 9, 2014 and March 31, 2014 before the CT Legislature.

I was told that this story was not written by the CT Law Tribune staff but by some outside authors. If that is the case, then the newspaper should correct their byline to NOT mislead the public into believing that the contents of the article are the position of the CT Law Tribune.

I‘ve court watched over 30 cases this past year, many after the passage of PA 14-3 and despite promises of change by Chief Justice Rogers, I continue to see violations of case law, Practice Book and basic protocol with respect to GAL‘s.

I realize litigants can be unreasonable at times. I will not deny that, but GAL‘s and Attorneys are responsible for their own conduct. They can NOT use litigant misconduct as an excuse to break rules.

The State Legislature has gone to great lengths to create statutes that provide guidance in Family Matters. Some of these statutes require further revisions to clarify serious abuse of judicial discretion such as in the misuse of Supervised Visitation, improper use of Reunification, ADA violation, etc., but there are many others which are simply overlooked by the courts.

The Judicial Branch has placed many publications on their website (sadly they do not advertise this well enough to many litigants for some reason). These publications provide guidance also which many judges ignore. We live in a common law state, It is very frustrating to be told by a judge that they refuse to follow case law.

Numerous, indisputable violations of Criminal Statutes and Rules of Professional conduct by the GAL‘s have been brought to the attention of the Statewide Grievance Committee and State‘s Attorney but NO GAL has been sanctioned or disciplined, nor have criminal charges ever been pursued.

Again, as I stated many times before I gladly will welcome anyone to discuss this matter with myself as I have talked to hundreds of persons about their horror stories. 1, 2 or a handful of stories can be attributed to human mistake, NOT hundreds. And this is a nationwide problem. I routinely meet with a group out of NY/NJ and they reinforce my position that this is a systemic problem, not just a few rogue individuals.

And the "good" attorneys fear losing their livelihoods if they point out the misconduct. If the good GAL‘s are upset that they are getting caught in the cross fire, then rather than attack persons with legitimate complaints, they should join ranks with those who wish to minimize the rampant misconduct.

Thank you.

Hector Morera
Glastonbury, CT
917-821-6951

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE CALLS VICTIMS OF GAL ABUSE LIARS!

Below is the complete text of The Connecticut Law Tribune's recent article in regard to Guardian Ad Litems in which The Tribune denies the reality of the experiences of those who have been abused by GALs.  See below:

 

"A guardian ad litem is a person who represents children in contested divorces where the parties—the parents—cannot agree on custody of the children. In order to be a GAL in Connecticut one must go through a lengthy training process. Every prospective GAL, even attorneys who have extensive experience in child custody matters and training in child development, must go through the training, as well as periodic updated training.

 

It is a given that the GAL's job is not an easy one. Divorcing parents often lose perspective in the course of ending their marriage; emotions take over where better judgment used to rule. Parties to a divorce sometimes forget their responsibilities as parents and let their bitter disagreements with each other spill over into the lives of their children. These children are already distressed by their parents' divorce and the huge changes that the divorce will undoubtedly cause in their own lives, often including changes in residence, school, and family income, not to mention emotional upheaval.

 

Enter the GAL. In the midst of what can be a bitter battle, the GAL's job is to understand the situation, get to know the children, and speak for them. The GAL represents the best interests of the child when the parents are not doing that. In the course of doing that job, the GAL is lobbied by both parents, intent on getting or retaining control of the children, or perhaps intent only in defeating the other parent. Good, responsible parents do not let their divorce affect their children any more than is absolutely necessary. But other parents, too intent on their own interests, fight fierce divorce battles, not understanding, or perhaps not caring, what collateral damage is being done to their children. The children are caught in the middle of this battle, and so is the GAL.

 

In recent months, some parents have railed out against both GALs and judges in family courts, alleging abuses by both. Perhaps some of their accusations are true, but many, probably most, are not. GALs do important work, and are rarely paid at rates that reflect either their experience or their value. The furor against them has resulted in action by the state Judicial Branch to regulate pay for GALs. The new sliding scale for paying GALs will not solve the problem and it puts a burden on the system that should not be necessary. The new fee schedule appears likely to reduce the fees paid to many GALs; it will not be surprising if, as a result, many former GALs decide to abandon that role.

 

The complaints about GALs at this time appears to us to be largely unjustified. Most GALs are hard-working attorneys who do this work because they believe that it is important and that they can help children avoid some of the damage frequently caused by their parents' divorce. It should be remembered that if divorcing parents handled their divorce in a manner that protected their children, no GAL would be required."

 

This article can be found at the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202673630053/Editorial-Misplaced-Furor-Over-Guardians-Ad-Litem#ixzz3GLx2zYZB

CT LAW TRIBUNE COMMENTS ON THE NEW GAL SLIDING SCALE!

The state has taken a step into the legal fee-setting business.


In wake of heated debate during the last legislative session over the cost of guardian ad litem and related services, the Judicial Branch has created a sliding fee scale in an attempt to control how much low- and moderate-income parents pay for for GALs, attorneys for minor children and other court-appointed lawyers who take part in contested custody cases.


The fee scale, which takes effect Oct. 1, will apply in instances where the combined annual gross income of both parents is between $39,062 and $100,000. Family law practitioners say the market rate for GALs is about $300 an hour, and some parents have complained that's led to total fees in a handful of contested custody cases of $30,000 or more. Under the sliding scale, the hourly fees will be considerably less.


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


http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202670484497/New-Pay-Scale-Restricts-Fees-For-Many-GALs#ixzz3DlfLZNIm

CT LAW TRIBUNE SUGGESTS WE NEED A BETTER WAY TO SUE THE STATE!

CT Law Tribune speaks out about suing the state as follows:

"The Charla Nash case brought national attention to Connecticut's bizarre process for suing the state. Nash was the victim of a brutal attack by a friend's chimpanzee. She suffered horrific injuries and underwent a face transplant along with multiple surgeries that cost millions of dollars. Nash sought to sue the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on the theory that state officials knew that the chimpanzee was dangerous and should not have allowed Nash's friend, Sandra Herold, to keep it in her Stamford home.

It appears rather dubious that the state was, in fact, responsible for Nash's injuries. But that question was never answered by a court of law.

The process for suing the state for money damages in Connecticut is unique and that process was front and center in the Nash case. At common law, the state cannot be sued by one of its citizens without its consent. This principle of "sovereign immunity" routinely has been applied by Connecticut courts to shield the state from liability. Bill Barrante, the late long-time managing editor of the "Connecticut Bar Journal," authored a compelling article in 2005 entitled "Common-Law Sovereign Immunity: Why Connecticut Never Really Had It," in which he explained why this application of sovereign immunity might have been the result of an analytical misstep. However, "sovereign immunity" is the law of the land and continues to be applied to bar lawsuits filed against the state. For claims involving money damages, litigants must first obtain a waiver of sovereign immunity from the claims commissioner or the legislature."

For more information, please click on the link below: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202659894697/Editorial-Conn-Needs-A-Better-Process-For-Suing-The-State#ixzz353jt2Tm8

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE CONTRIBUTES ITS TWO CENTS TO THE GAL DEBATE!

In an recent editorial, the CT Law Tribune states the following:

"By now, everyone is fully aware of the ongoing debate over guardians ad litem, attorneys for minor children, and the various criticisms of judges and virtually all of the legal professionals involved in contested divorce and family matters involving children. In the legislature, bills have been passed. In the Superior Court Rules Committee, changes to the Practice Book are being drafted. Yet amidst all of this newly minted "procedure," the essential question to be answered in every contested family matter involving a child remains the same: What is in the best interest of the child?"

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202658985503/Editorial%3A-In-GAL-Debate%2C-Best-Interest-Of-The-Child-Must-Remain-Top-Priority#ixzz34MyHXmVO

THE APPELLATE COURT COMPLAINS ABOUT SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES!

The Connecticut Law Tribune Reports:


"Non-lawyers used to represent themselves in only the simplest cases. Even that caused challenges for the court system, as trial judges had to slow down and explain procedural matters to these novice litigators.

But things are getting even more ticklish for the Judicial Branch, which now notes that a rising tide of self-represented parties is beginning to inundate the more complex world of the state Appellate Court. As a result, court officials at a recent Pro Bono Summit hope to recruit appellate attorneys to help them.

Chief Judge Alexandra DiPentima said nearly 30 percent of Appellate Court cases involve at least one self-represented party. They aren't a factor in criminal cases, as the Office of the Public Defender provides counsel for low-income parties. But they are a growing presence in "family cases and other civil matters," DiPentima told the audience of 80 in-house lawyers, large law firm partners and regular bar members who attended the summit in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford."

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202656585371/More-Pro-Ses-Appearing-In-Appellate-Court#ixzz32YqcRkFe

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS THAT REP. GERALD FOX LEAVING THE LEGISLATURE, SEN. COLEMAN NOT FAR BEHIND!

This just in from the CT Law Tribune:

"The Judiciary Committee is clearly the legislative panel that has the greatest impact on Connecticut lawyers, with its duties ranging from confirming judicial nominations to holding hearings on cutting-edge legal issues ranging from criminal sentencing issues to family law reform.

It now appears that there will be a major shake-up in the leadership of the committee, as the House co-chair, Rep. Gerald Fox III announced on Thursday, May 22 that he will not run for re-election to the legislature. Instead, the Stamford attorney will campaign for Stamford probate judge, a position currently held by his father.

 

Meanwhile, the Senate co-chair, Eric Coleman, lost the Democratic nomination for his seat earlier this week. In a hotly contested party convention for the 2nd District Senate seat, Coleman, of Bloomfield, was defeated by Hartford City Council President Shawn Wooden, a partner at Day Pitney. Coleman has indicated he plans to run a primary campaign against Wooten."

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202656456541/Judiciary-Committee-Shakeup-Coming-As-Fox-Leaves-Legislature-#ixzz32Ymf4XLQ

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS "ASTRONOMICAL FEES ASSESSED TO LAWYER WHO TESTIFIED FOR GAL REFORM!

According to the CT Law Tribune, "A Connecticut lawyer who publicly voiced his concerns about high costs of guardians ad litem services was shocked by the timing of an Appellate Court decision in his own divorce case.

Just one business day after Gov. Dannel Malloy signed into law a measure that will provide greater oversight of GALs and their fees, the court approved $252,000 in fees for two court-appointed child advocates. Some pro se parents who lobbied for GAL reform said they had been devastated financially by bills that were only a fraction as large.

The appeal was filed by Paul Greenan, a former Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom trusts and estates lawyer who now has a practice in Stamford. He claimed in court documents that the GAL and attorney for minor children appointed in his divorce case collectively spent just four-and-a-half hours with his two children, though that total was in dispute."

For more on this story, please click on the link below:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202655749932/%27Astronomical%27-Fees-Assessed-To-Lawyer-Who-Testified-For-GAL-Reform%0D%0A%0D%0A#ixzz328Fu0lHQ

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS FAT CAT JUDGES PENSION PLANS UNDER FIRE!

Reporting on this situation, the CT Law Tribune states as follows, "As it stands, any lawyer who is nominated for a state judgeship and serves on the bench for even the briefest period is eligible for a pension equal to two-thirds of his or her judicial salary. A Superior Court judge currently makes $154,559 annually, meaning a pension would pay about $103,000 a year, plus benefits.

What was once a simple fiscal fact is now a bone of contention among some state lawmakers who noted that two of the 16 lawyers recently nominated by Gov. Dannel Malloy for Superior Court posts are in their late 60s and will serve only a few years before retiring and collecting a pension that could net them a million dollars or more over the rest of their lives.

A leading Republican lawmaker said he plans to have the General Assembly address this matter before the legislative session ends Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, the ranking Senate Republican on the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said it's not fair to other state employees — not to mention judges who have served for decades — that a newly appointed 69-year-old judges could theoretically serve one day on the bench and qualify for a $100,000-plus pension once they hit the mandatory retirement age of 70. Other state employees do not receive a full pension unless they've worked for 10 years."

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

 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202653365033/%24100%2C000-Plus-Pensions-For-Older-Judges-Under-Attack#ixzz30P5QFHjf