PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label CT LAW TRIBUNE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CT LAW TRIBUNE. Show all posts

Monday, March 16, 2015

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE WAXES ELOQUENT ON CLIENT SATISFACTION!

According to Patricia King of the CT Law Tribune,

"One of the discussions in my ethics class at Quinnipiac Law School involved asking the students to articulate how they would compete with the Internet once they were admitted to the bar and trying to make a living at the law. These are twenty-somethings, with a few thirty-somethings sprinkled in, who have grown up in the digital age. It was interesting to hear their responses, which boiled down to a list of all the advantages of a personal relationship with a lawyer over an impersonal transaction done via the Internet.

It turns out that my students were right—what clients want from their lawyers is what they cannot get from the Internet. In his article, "What Do Clients Want From Their Lawyers?," in a recent edition of the Journal of Dispute Resolution, Clark D. Cuningham, who holds the W. Lee Burge Chair in Law & Ethics at Georgia State University College of Law, examines several studies about the relationship between corporate clients and their attorneys..."

Thursday, February 26, 2015

MICHAEL NOWACKI MAKES FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ IN CONNECTION TO HER ROLE AS CHAIR OF EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!


The Honorable Joyette Katz
Commissioner
Department of Children and Families
505 Hudson Street
Hartford, CT

 
Freedom of Information Request

                                                                       February 24, 2015

 
Dear Commissioner Katz:

Recent publicly televised re-appointment hearings conducted in the Connecticut legislature failed to note that you are currently serving in the capacity as Chair, of the editorial board of Connecticut Law Tribune.

Recent editorial coverage in the Connecticut Law Tribune concerning an article authored by Attorney Norm Pattis, in an opinion piece, published on-line on Wednesday February 11, 2015, entitled: “Despite Allegations, Family Courts not Corrupt” recently was challenged for a lack of authenticity of certain comments authored by Attorney Pattis.

Such “materially false and misleading” publication of information would be potentially a matter of discussion at meetings conducted by the editorial board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

As Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, and as an appointed public official as the Commissioner of DCF with substantial responsibilities relating to family court, probate court and juvenile court proceedings, there is substantial public interest in the matters involving your personal use of computers and servers, owned by the State of Connecticut, in your role as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

If you have used your state provided email address or any personal email address which was accessed through servers owned by the State of Connecticut, the content of the communications contained in such emails are considered “public communications” and subject to the applications of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Decisional cases issued by the FOI Commission are available for your review which have verified that the use of personal email addresses to conduct “business” relevant to your responsibilities as DCF Commissioner are also to be considered “public documents” subject to the application and legislative intent of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Unfortunately, defining potential “conflicts of interest” between your responsibilities as Commissioner of DCF and your role as a Chair, Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, can only be determined by inspecting “public records” pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Your have massive responsibilities as Commissioner of DCF and this request for access to “public records” for “inspection” should not be considered onerous or impinging on your job responsibilities inasmuch as members of your staff and IT departments can be utilized to easily retrieve documents through search codes for key words.

Based upon the above observations, you are herewith required within four business days to acknowledge the receipt of this request to produce “public records” for public inspection and to indicate your personal intent to comply with this FOI request.

  Within thirty days of the acknowledgment of this Freedom of Information request you are required to produce for “public inspection” at your offices at 505 Hudson Street relevant “documents/public records” requested, subject to “redactions” as permissible and defined in the Freedom of Information Act and decisions issued by the Commission.

For the purposes of clarification, “documents/public records” are defined in the Freedom of Information Act and should be considered as the “base line” for providing the “public records” to be provided for inspection in this request.

For the purposes of all of the documents requested, the date span for the production of all “public records” (including personal emails sent or received regarding DCF business matter referenced in any “public record” of communications with fellow Editorial Board members or members of the staff of the CLT), should be considered from the date of your sworn oath as DCF Commissioner to the date of compliance with this request dated February 24, 2015.

The “public records” to be made available for “public inspection” should include” for the date span indicated in the above paragraph should include:

 

1.     Any “public records” in your possession sent or received from your State of Connecticut provided email address, state owned fax machine, received at your offices at 505 Hudson Street or your home address authored by you in your capacity as DC Commisioner or sent or received “public records” sent to you by any past or present member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, including but not limited to the following individuals:

 

 

Attorney Dwight Merriam    Robert Farr                Elizabeth Gordon    

Joyce Chen                          Eugene Fidell           Rachel Goldberg

Prolog K. Das                       Mary Galvin               Robert Holzberg

Wesley Horton                      Alan Neigher                        Steven Wizner

Jocelyn Kennedy                 Lemis Pepe               Paul Sussman

David King                            Thomas Scheffer     Jay Stapleton

James Lyon                          Mark Soboslar          Kevin Michielsen

Eugene Marconi                  James F. Sullivan

Sean McElligot                     Cecil Thomas

Robert Mitchell                     Thomas Ullman

Dennis C. Murphy               Diane Whitney

 

2.     Any “public record” in any communication sent to any of the above individuals issued on DCF Stationery or sent on your personal stationery which references the words “DCF” in any portion of such communication including how you signed such letters using DCF Commissioner.

 

3.    Any “public record” sent or received in your possession confirming the date of your acceptance to become the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune or to which established a date in which you became a member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

 

4.    A properly redacted copy of your required disclosure of all statements of financial interests (SFI’s) required by law to be filed with the Office of State Ethics from 2010-2015.  A copy of all expense reports filed by you as the Commissioner of DCF filed with the Office of State Ethics required to be filed with the Office of State Ethics filed from 2010 through the date of compliance with this request.  A copy of all gifts received by you in your capacity as Commissioner of DCF required to be filed with the Office of State Ethics from 2010 to the date of compliance with this request.

 

 

5.    Any “public records” in your possession of honorariums or other public speaking engagements which you have made, including appearances you may have made to any law association groups as DCF Commissioner.

 

6.    Any “public records” in your possession which you have sent or received at the DCF offices at 505 Hudson Street from member of the judicial branch of government, including any Superior Court judges, probate court judges, family court judges or any CSSD employee or Court operations personnel which are permissible for release pursuant to the FOI Act.

 

7.    Any “public records” in your possession sent or received from any present or past Editorial Board member of the Connecticut Law Tribune to any personal email account or home address you have maintained during your tenure as DCF Commissioner which embed the words “DCF,” “family court docket numbers or family court litigant names”, “juvenile court docket numbers or juvenile court litigant names” or “probate court docket numbers or juvenile court litigant names”

 

8.    Any “public records” in your possession as DCF Commissioner and as Chair or member of the Connecticut Law Tribune Editorial Board which contain minutes to any meeting convened or attended by you at the Connecticut Law Tribune which would capture any content in such minutes of the meetings of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune concerning discussion of any DCF, family court, juvenile court or probate court legal proceeding in which an employee of DCF would be involved.

 

9.    Any “opinion pieces”, “letters to the editor” which you may have authored and were published in the on line or print editions of the Connecticut Law Tribune as Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune while you have served as DCF Commissioner.

 

10. A copy of your letter of resignation as a Supreme Court Justice.

 

11. A copy of any “public records” in your possession which may contain information regarding the proposed consolidation by Governor Malloy of the operations of Court Support Services Division and DCF.

 

12. A copy of any “public records” in your possession sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address in which the recent publication of the article “Despite Allegations, Family Courts are Not Corrupt” was discussed by you in your role as DCF Commissioner and Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune

 

13. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains the name Michael Nowacki.
 

14. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains of the name of Peter Szymonik.

 
15. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains references embedded in any “public records” referencing the words “Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children, CT-N coverage of the public hearings of January 9, 2014 or March 31, 2014, SB 494 or Public Act 14-3” while you were serving in the capacity as DCF Commissioner and the Chair or member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

 
16. A copy of any resignation letter you might issue as DCF Commissioner to withdraw as the Chair of the Connecticut Law Tribune’s Editorial Board which may ensue from the date of the receipt of this letter by fax and registered mail and the date of compliance with the production of these requested “public records for public inspection.”

 
If you would like me to speak to any member of your staff who is assigned the responsibilities to compile these requested “public records”, please do not hesitate to have that person contact me via email, phone, or letter based upon the information contained below.

When the public records are prepared for inspection, please know it is my intent to be joined by a group of people who will accompany me to scan public records in the most efficient manner possible so as to not occupy your staff’s valuable time.

I would like to “inspect in person” any partial compliance with any of these “public record’s which can be provided to me from this list requested in this letter no later than Thursday, March 5.

As you may know, the United States Attorney Office has recently announced the creation of a Task Force hotline number to allow citizens to report matters of “public corruption” to a special phone number in which complaints can be made.

Therefore, I am copying Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle and the U.S. Attorney Deidre Daly on these communications to alert them to the importance of compliance with evidence acquired by citizens pursuant to the application of the Freedom of Information Act.

     Cordially,

 

     Michael Nowacki
     319 Lost District Drive
     New Canaan, CT  06840
      mnowacki@aol.com
     (203) 273-4296

 

     cc:  Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle
            U.S. Attorney Deidre Daly

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
(203) 273-4296

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

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..."

Sunday, February 15, 2015

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

Thursday, February 12, 2015

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

 

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

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 

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

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,