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 JUDGE ELIZABETH BOZZUTO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JUDGE ELIZABETH BOZZUTO. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 25, 2017


The April 2017 Addendum on the Judicial Branch Family Court Initiatives reported that the CT Judicial Branch would establish a Standing Committee on Guardians Ad Litem and Attorneys for the Minor Child in Family Matters. The Committee is the result of a change to the Connecticut Practice Book dated June 24, 2016 listed under Sec. 25-61A.  For the exact wording of this section of The CT Practice Book, please see the link below: 

Recently, I was taking a look at the CT Judicial Branch Website and found out that the Committee has now been established.  Its first meeting was held on Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 95 Washington Street.  According to the information provided on the CT Judicial Branch Website, the purpose of this Committee is as follows:

Monday, February 6, 2017


In the early hours of January 19, 2017 a troop of six FBI agents banged on investigative journalist Paul Boyne's door in Virginia where he lives with his elderly parents who are in their 80s.  What were they there for?  The agents had a search and seizure warrant allowing them to take all of Mr. Boyne's computers, computer equipment, and related items based upon the laughable allegation that he had been cyberbullying, stalking or harassing family court Judge Elizabeth Buzzoto.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015



There are parts of the public/media is a bit confused over application of law, free speech, criminal conduct, case law and conduct of Connecticut state courts.

Recently, a federal appellate court, 2nd Circuit, in New York ruled that an NYPD cop is not a criminal for talking about kidnapping and eating specific women.  The judge states that 'fantasizing about committing a not a crime.'

The public is quite aware that the Connecticut judicial mafia has arrested one Ted Taupier and charged him with a crime for ranting about bad things happening to one Judge Bozzutto, the lesbian overlord of the corrupt state family court system.  Judge Gold has convicted this person for expressing his desires/fantasy that bad things happen to a bad judge.  Bullets, sights, trajectory, glass barriers....but no cannibalism, recipes, grilling instructions, seasoning or wine selections.

The public/media is curious to know if it is acceptable for NYPD cops to discuss kidnapping a Connecticut judge, killing it, filleting, barbecuing and hosting judicious buffet for state police.  Obviously this was the issue reviewed by the federal court by Circuit Judge Barrington Parker.

If equal protection applies to NYPD cop's cannibalism, does it not apply to Connecticut lumberjacks? Would a private internet discussion about running Judge Bozzutto feet first through a wood chipper be acceptable under Judge Parker's decision?  Or perhaps an essay on the corruption of state judges titled "A Million Pieces" where a retired NYPD cop moves to Connecticut to fantasize about bringing dietary justice to trafficked children?  If the retired cop has a six burner, double tanked propane grill on the deck along with a butcher block, Henckels professional cutlery, pictures of the judge, address, pork recipes, extensive seasoning and a few bottles of chianti; can the state police arrest this retired cop for risk of culinary crime?

As the constitutional right to free speech is at the heart of the federal decision; limited power of government to criminalize thoughts.  Is it not an issue for DOJ and your staff to address the arrest and conviction of Ted Taupier by lawless state actors under color of state law in deprivation of rights, protections, privileges of federal law?

Or are NYPD cops free to collect pictures of potential menu items, talk of kidnapping them, killing them, cooking them, eating them.....but if a family court litigant in Connecticut talks of Dorthy's house falling on the Wicked Witch of the court and her evil step sisters, then it is criminal only in Connecticut?  DOJ sits idly by, condoning deprivation of rights?

Under 42 USC 1986, do you not have implied ability to remedy such deprivations?  Are you not funded by the federal government to address such tyranny by the states?  Or is fantasy cannibalism by cop not a crime in the New York district but can be a crime in the Connecticut region?  Does your counterpart Preet Bharara operate under different constitutional criteria? 

Or simply do NYPD cops have more right to free speech than a dad getting a divorce in Connecticut?  Un-equal protection?

Surely your office can provide some guidance to the citizens of Connecticut on what criminal law dictates what can and can't be discussed about the judges of the family court.  

Favor of a professional reply appreciated.  Make it a FOIA request for any memos on the subject or guidance information provided by your department.

There is great public interest to understand what thoughts and fantasies are criminal and which are not. Surely it is the duty of your office to educate the populace and their police overlords on the proper limits of speech.

Warm Regards,


Sunday, October 11, 2015


On August 29, 2014, a SWAT team of 75 officers along with two armored vehicles stormed Cromwell resident Mr. Ted Taupier's house with their weapons drawn, threw him to the ground and arrested him. [I am hearing that there was no need to throw him on the ground; he was apparently quite cooperative and just stood there!  Anyone else is welcome to comment!] 

The basis for this arrest?  

Apparently, late in the night on August 22, 2015, Mr. Taupier sent an email to six other friends which appeared to threaten the life of Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto, some of it couched in the language of movies and science fiction and other parts of it appearing to be more serious.  One of the recipients of this email, Jennifer Veraneault, was frightened by the email and so after consulting with a friend, and a failed attempt to reach Mr. Taupier, she reported the email to authorities.  

The result was the absolutely dramatic arrest scene which I have described, and subsequent charges filed against Mr. Taupier for 1) threatening in the first degree; 2) threatening in the second degree; 3) two counts of disorderly conduct; and 4) breach of peace in the second degree.  He was released on bail of $75,000, was required to wear an ankle bracelet and was put on house arrest.  

Did Ted Taupier deserve this dramatic response to his late night diatribe against Judge Bozzuto?

On June 11, 2015, Attorney Norm Pattis, a highly regarded civil rights and criminal attorney blogged about the Ted Taupier case on his website stating, "Just how the state perceives [the email Ted Taupier sent] to be a threat to anyone is beyond my comprehension.  The speech is certainly ugly, even irresponsible, but if there is a specific intent to cause alarm or harm to Judge Bozzuto in the email, I can't see it."  

Commenting on his observations regarding the subsequent trial in the case, Attorney Pattis stated, "there's little doubt that the state failed to prove Taupier guilty of threatening.  His reckless bluster among folks he thought were friends and fellow travelers cannot be construed as an intent to threaten the judge.  No evidence suggests that he intended, or foresaw, that anyone would forward the email to Judge Bozzuto."  

At the very worst, Attorney Pattis anticipated that Ted Taupier would be acquitted of threatening and perhaps be convicted of disorderly conduct or breach of peace.  Instead, much to my surprise, on October 2, 2015 Judge Gold found Ted Taupier guilty of all charges in a 56 page decision that at times comes across as rambling and at other times obscure.  

While I never expected that Ted Taupier would get off scott free from these charges, it does appear excessive and vengeful that the Court convicted him on all charges and he now faces a six year prison sentence simply for speaking in an exaggerated and hyperbolic manner about a family court judge.  This is particularly true when you consider that Mr. Taupier never directly addressed Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto with any vituperative language and anything he said was written in an email sent people he believed were likeminded friends.  

Make no mistake, this Judge's decision was a purely political act, a blatant attempt to silence and intimidate current and potential critics, and has nothing to do with the law.  

I say this because in the last few years there has been escalating political unrest directed towards the CT Judicial Branch, particularly in connection to accusations that the family court system is corrupt. Along with many others, Mr. Ted Taupier, who has played a central role in advocating for reform of the legal system, has faced systematic retaliation from the CT Judicial Branch.  I myself have reported that this blog has also been the focus of vicious retaliation from the legal profession in the last year.  

What can be done when the judges of the CT Judicial Branch use their power within the judiciary to wreak revenge upon their critics?  

First of all, it should be noted that Tanya and Ted Taupier are typical of the kinds of successful couples that the CT Family Court likes to exploit and that in the course of obtaining their divorce they suffered the full gamut of the kind of corrupt behavior standard in family court.  

Tanya Taupier has a high level position at Aetna Insurance Company and Ted Taupier, prior to his arrest, had a solid position with Citicorp.  They have two children -- a son and a daughter.  Ms. Taupier filed for divorce in the fall of 2012 and had sufficient income to hire two divorce attorneys--Attorneys Geraldine Ficarra and Michael Peck--who continue to remain her attorneys.  At the same time, she also hired a criminal defense attorney Chris Morano formerly a prosecutor in the Michael Skakel case, no doubt also highly expensive.   

For his part, Ted Taupier hired in succession Brown, Paindiris and Scott, a highly regarded divorce attorney firm, then Attorney Henry B. Hurwitz, and then finally Lobo and Associates, LLC and then went pro se.  

In addition, the parties hired Attorney Margaret Bozek as the guardian ad litem for the children--Attorney Bozek has been associated with other problematic cases.  Attorney Bozek quickly racked up a bill of $30,000 and counting.  

It took three years before the divorce was final and, from what I've heard, a whole bunch of legal professionals cashed in before the case was over.  

So what happened specifically that so deeply radicalized Ted Taupier and ultimately led him to express his anger so strongly in regard to Judge Bozzuto in a private email to fellow advocates.  We just don't know because there is no information regarding Mr. Taupier's perspective in the entire October 2, 2015 decision. 

This is true despite the fact that Judge Gold stated on page 3 of his decision, "the determination of whether a defendant's allegedly threatening statements may be prosecuted and punished under the law requires that they be examined and considered in the light of their entire factual context and with reference to all surrounding events."  We got something in the Memorandum of Decision of October 2, 2015, but it certainly wasn't the "entire" story.

Instead, the Court summarized two very sanitized and edited stories in which Ted Taupier's perspective is entirely eliminated--one in regard to where the Taupier children would go to school and the other in regard to Mr. Taupier's disposal of his antique gun collection told from the perspective of the prosecutors.  

I certainly experienced this kind of repeated editing in my case and I know many others have experienced this.  What Judges do when they write Memoranda of Decision is simply pick and choose among the facts they like, and ignore or suppress the evidence they don't want to hear or acknowledge.  Along the way Judges often invent several extra stories for good measure just because it fits in with the legal picture they are attempting to develop.  

So even while making pompous and high minded sounding remarks about how all the evidence must be heard, Judges regularly edit or eliminate essential information from the record.

Not only do Judges tamper with court cases by suppressing the defendants side of the story, they also refuse to listen to witnesses at will.  Thus, in Ted Taupier's case, the Court simply dismissed as not credible the witnesses who came in support of Mr. Taupier and put their testimony in footnotes.  Meanwhile, inexplicably the Court stated that the one witness who felt threatened by Mr. Taupier's remarks was credible, even though we all know that she acted out of mixed motives that everyone is well aware of.  

This is not justice.  This is not the "entire factual context." 

What it actually adds up to is a legal exercise in judges using their superior status and the benefit of the doubt they receive from people who have watched too many episodes of "Law and Order" to smear the reputation of a vulnerable citizen who doesn't have anything like the same social and financial resources.  

We should also be troubled by Judge Gold's heavy reliance on the Supreme Court case State v. Krijger which came out on September 2, 2014.  For one thing, the State V. Krijger involves a defendant who made a direct verbal threat to the complainant (an attorney--surprise, surprise!).  In contrast, Ted Taupier never made a direct threat towards Judge Bozzuto--he was merely speaking with several friends in a private email.  And while Judge Gold from his standpoint thinks it was inevitable that one of those friends would communicate with authorities regarding the content of Ted's email remarks, that is not a given in my view.  Despite Judge Gold's insistence that all his conclusions were purely objective, reasonable people cannot help but think that subjective biases might have influenced Judge Gold's thinking process.  Therefore, what we have here are two very different circumstances, yet Judge Gold is treating them as if they are identical, which makes no sense to me.

Another point to keep in mind is that this case wasn't even the law at the time the alleged criminal act had taken place.  In many respects, the timing of when the decision in this case was issued, immediately after Taupier was arrested, bears the mark of case law especially formulated to target a particular individual such as a political activist.

What is additionally troubling when it comes to the State v. Krijger decision that acted as the basis of the Judge's determination in this case is that it essentially eliminates our first amendment right to freedom of speech in the State of Connecticut.  Take a look at the content of this decision on page 24 of Judge Gold's decision: "a state may punish those words that by their utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace....Furthermore, the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except when such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  

This language is so broad that it really encompasses and identifies as illegal, even criminal, pretty much any meaningful political action that is time honored in most democratic countries.  For instance, with a definition of this kind, what would happen to someone like Malcolm X who stated that he intended to gather together an army to defend African-Americans "by any means necessary."  

What happens to someone like Martin Luther King who advocated acts of civil disobedience, i.e. the freedom riders, lunch counter sit ins, thus "inciting or producing imminent lawless action."  What about my friends in wheelchairs who have protested violations of their ADA rights by blockading intersections with their wheelchairs in violation of the law.  Are the discussions they held planning that political demonstration a violation of the law?  If they are, all of us who hope to create social change for the better are in serious trouble.

The bottom line is that when the Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut becomes so afraid of its critics that it creates laws that eliminate CT citizens' first amendment right to free speech and then uses that law to jail possibly for six years the first innocent man it can find, we have a problem!  

More seriously, I question the focus here.  Why are we looking at a citizen's potential threat to a judge, when what we really need to do is look at the threat that is leveled upon many citizens by the actions of that judge.  

Further, we are not just concerned about a single judge; we are concerned about the entire CT Judicial Branch.  As Mr. Michael Nowacki pointed out succinctly a few years ago, the CT Judicial Branch has been creating law for several decades in violation of CT General Statutes 51-14, and in violation of the Constitution which mandates the separation of powers.  

Further, investigative journalists have discovered serious RICO violations within the CT Judicial Branch.  One commentator stated, "We know that an unregistered, sub regulatory corporation has been running through the CT Judicial Branch for 30 years, with member and directors in all positions of administration, from grant writing, program administration, and even regulation and oversight.  We know the judges and professionals they appoint onto cases they preside over are tied in profitable business relationships.  We know that numerous CT agencies, departments, and branches (DCF, DOC, judicial and others) are beholden to an agreement to collude in order to fix case outcomes to maximize funding over all other factors, including constitutional rights, due process, and human rights.  We know that judges are deliberately placing children in the most dangerous homes available to them, including violent pedophiles and murderers, in order to generate endless billing hours for their business partner lawyers, evaluators, and treaters, all of whom judges are appointing in the first place.  We know that many judges have non-profits that contract with the judicial branch, some even list a business address in their chambers.  We know that hundreds of millions of dollars are running through each of some of those non-profits per year.  We know that the Office of Inspector General audited some official judicial accounts in 2010 and found $13 million missing and unaccounted for." 

I'd forget chasing an insignificant (ok maybe not to himself!) individual like Ted Taupier around the block.  What about our State government that fails to protect its citizens? 

I am also aware that there are a considerable number of family court litigants and their children who have spoken about experiencing discrimination against them based upon their disabilities.  They have talked about how the CT Judicial Branch is completely non-compliant with federal ADA law as well as the ADAAA and denies people their reasonable modifications which are required for them to be able to obtain testimonial and participatory access to legal proceedings.  

Yet nothing has been done about any of these illegal activities--not a thing--despite the CT Department of Justice major announcements that they intended to investigate.  

Further, the CT Department of Justice specifically stated they would have a report on the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with the ADA at the end of August 2015, and yet they still have not produced one and it appears have no plan to produce one. Further, they have broken the back of this so-called investigation by stating that they have no intention of looking at the specific complaints that people with disabilities have made against the CT Judicial Branch.  Aren't those complaints with their associated documents essential evidence in regard to whether the CT Judicial Branch has complied with the ADA or not?  Basically, the refusal to investigate complaints represents a complete indifference to the many disabled victims of the CT Judicial Branch's indifference and disregard of their fundamental civil rights.

How is it that all these State resources--police, a 75 man SWAT team, prosecutors, etc. etc. and CT Judicial Branch resources could be used to persecute a single man who made a few off color remarks in a bad moment, yet law enforcement personnel disregards and ignores the widespread human rights and civil rights violations and corruption for which the CT Judicial Branch is responsible?  

How is it that within only a few months of denying Adrianne Oyola a protective order which could have stopped Tony Moreno from tossing Baby Aaden off a bridge to his death, Judge Barry Pinkus is apparently back on the bench in Middletown adjudicating complex DV cases which he is clearly incapable of handling.

Someone please explain this to me.  What can we do as citizens to protect ourselves from the foolish and negligent actions of the Connecticut Judicial Branch when it is that very Branch we are supposed to turn to in order to obtain relief!

I am also surprised that Mr. Taupier's attorney did not argue self defense in this case.  Of course, there could be a very clear cut answer to this as I am not an attorney.  But consider the various ways in which CT Family Court destroyed Ted Taupier's life and cut him off from his relationship with his children.  Yes, it is true the Court made sure none of that evidence made it on the record.  Still, I am pretty sure that what this family went through was pretty devastating.  

Under the circumstances, couldn't Mr. Ted Taupier's remarks be construed as self-defense.  I was reading the 2008 OLR Research Report entitled "Castle Doctrine and Self Defense in Civil Cases."  This report describes the  Castle Doctrine by stating that the doctrine "establishes the circumstances under which a person can use physical force and deadly physical force to defend himself or someone else without being convicted for assault, manslaughter, or murder."  These are so called "stand your ground" laws.  Could stand your ground law apply to verbal defense as well as physical defense?

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a good many family court litigants have reported that the CT Judicial Branch is corrupt and that its employees are doing violence to their families and children, destroying their lives, bankrupting them, putting them out to live on the streets, snatching their children, allowing their children to be medically neglected or physically abused.  

Under these circumstances, couldn't we argue that the true threat here is not to Judge Bozzuto; the true threat here is to Ted Taupier and his family and to all the many family court litigants who have been exploited and taken advantage of in CT Family Court?  Yes, Ted Taupier made a statement which could be considered a threat, but wasn't he grievously provoked?  

Yet I don't believe this Castle Doctrine was ever raised, because the Court System carefully crafts the grounds upon which it will prosecute a defendant; it excludes anything it doesn't want it or the public to hear and then sets out to orchestrate these highly sophisticated show trials carried out as public relations gambits and media spectacles intended to divert attention from their own sordid crimes.  This is how a case which should be about a family court victim attempting to defend himself gets transformed into legal debates over whether a few exaggerated comments made in private to close friends is a true threat to a judge who wasn't even a part of the conversation.

One last point: if you look at the Memorandum of Decision of October 2, 2015 in the Taupier case and attempt to understand the Judge's explanation of the CT General Statutes and the case law which he used to justify convicting Ted Taupier, the more convoluted and incomprehensible it gets--after all it is 56 pages, plus an additional 12 to discuss the recent U.S. Supreme Court Elonis decision.  

If the average person makes the simple assumption that he or she has the right to freedom of speech--and most people do that---how could they possibly comprehend or even know of the Judge's extensive listing of the broad and extensive exceptions he and his pals have made to our Constitutional right to free speech.  Doesn't that make any one of us subject to entrapment within any context that we express ourselves--on social media, in letters to friends, on blogs--pretty much anywhere--because we aren't aware of the many exceptions.  Personally, I consider that thought chilling as should any reasonable Connecticut citizen.

Friday, July 31, 2015


Apparently, Judge Elizabeth A. Bozzuto will be the judge participant in the task force on the exposure of minors to domestic violence.  Below is the overview of Judge Bozzuto available in Ballotpedia:

Elizabeth A. Bozzuto is a judge on the Hartford District Superior Court in Connecticut.[1]She was appointed to the bench in 2000 by Governor John Rowland. Her current term expires February 6, 2017.[2]


Bozzuto earned an undergraduate degree from Manhattanville College. She was awarded a J.D. degree from Western New England University, School of Law.[3]

See also

External links


Thursday, June 18, 2015


Attorney Norm Pattis blogs on Ted Taupier as follows:
"Remind me next time I get a little ticked off about something a judge has done not to send an email to would-be supporters describing how one might sit outside the jurist's home, concealed, and fire a shot into a bedroom.
It just might get me arrested for breach of the peace; it ought not get me arrested for threatening.
Edward "Ted" Taupier is facing threatening charges in Middletown. He sent an email to a group of six folks about Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto's home, and a cemetery behind it, and a bullet. He never sent the email to the judge; he sent it to fellow travelers among aggrieved family court litigants..."

For more on this topic, please click on the following link:

Monday, June 1, 2015


Special Note:  I probably should have reported on this sooner.  However, it is so frustrating to see a frivolous bill like this pass while Bill #5505 for which there was a vital need was simply ignored.  So I was too busy rolling my eyeballs earlier in the month to post this info.
Ken Dixon of The CT Post reports as follows:
"Childless couples could agree to streamlined, amicable divorce settlements in just a few weeks under a bill approved in the House of Representatives on Tuesday.
Currently, the fastest couples can legally split is about 90 days, but under the bill those married for fewer than eight years can have their unions dissolved in 30 days.
The bill passed the House by a 135-12 vote and was previously approved in the Senate. It next heads to the governor for his review. 
The bill would allow a couple to file a joint petition and meet 11 requirements, said Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who explained the legislation..."
For more on this interesting topic, please click on the link below:

Thursday, March 19, 2015


From: Michael Nowacki <>
To: Eric.Coleman <>; William.Tong <>; Doyle <>; <>; John.A.Kissel <>; rosa.rebimbas <>; Al.Adinolfi <>; William.Aman <>; Angel.Arce <>; David.Baram <>; Jeffrey.Berger <>; Toni.Boucher <>; cecilia.buck-taylor <>; Beth.Bye <>; Vincent.Candelora <>; christie.carpino <>; Jeff.Currey <>; Patricia.Dillon <>; Doug.Dubitsky <>; mae.flexer <>; Mary.Fritz <>; Gerratana <>; Bob.Godfrey <>; Minnie.Gonzalez <>; Ernest.Hewett <>; David.Labriola <>; Roland.Lemar <>; Art.Linares <>; Ben.McGorty <>; Michael.McLachlan <>; Bruce.Morris <>; tom.odea <>; Arthur.ONeill <>; Robyn.Porter <>; emmett.riley <>; Robert.Sampson <>; Joseph.Serra <>; john.shaban <>; Caroline.Simmons <>; richard.smith <>; Joe.Verrengia <>; Toni.Walker <>; Gary.Holder-Winfield <Gary.Holder-Winfield@cga.ct>
Cc: melissa.farley <>
Sent: Thu, Mar 19, 2015 6:51 am
Subject: Misremembrances of Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto in non-sworn testiomny on March 11, 2015 in opposition to HB 5505

To all Judiciary Committee members:
On March 11, 2015, members of the judiciary committee in attendance heard prepared testimony of Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters who delivered prepared remarks and then answered questions posed by the judiciary committee members.
I want each of you to take less than ten minutes to review on CT-N archives (published transcript is not yet available), the judiciary committee meeting on the date of March 11.  Please use the cursor on the videoplayer and watch a series of questions posed by Representative Buck-Taylor concerning the subject of Part 1 of the bill, involving the use of supervised visitation.
I have watched the video carefully four times since March 11, and spoke to external affairs director, Melissa Farley about the statements of Judge Buzzuto which is in the process of being refuted with hard data about the "common practice" in family courts to order supervised visitation of long durations, entered as court orders regardless of whether the supervised visitation is affordable. 
Despite Judge Buzzuto's testimony was at times framed by the words, "To be honest with you, my experience", Judge Buzzuto's personal record as jurist and as the Chief Administrative Judge was not "sworn testimony" subject to perjury allegations.
However, the Code of Judicial Conduct does contain language which indicates a judge cannot use the powers of the office in a manner to use the prestige of their capacity as a public official, to make statements on public policy issues such as legislation which are designed to knowingly mislead another public official such as a member of this judiciary committee.
Last Monday, March 16, 2015, I approached external affairs director, Attorney Melissa Farley, indicating that at that time I had reviewed the testimony of Judge Buzzuto three times since March 11, 2015 and Judge Buzzuto had a responsibility to issue a letter of correction--similar to the letter issued by Judge Frazzini, who only issued such a letter of "correction" after I contacted him at his home email address  This email address of Judge Frazzini can be found on documents published on the judiciary website on the date of January 16, 2015, when just Frazzini testified under oath and delivered "material false and misleading" testimony about his CT Chapter AFCC membership.
Yesterday, I sent an email to Attorney Farley seeking a copy of any communication to the judiciary committee members including  letters, faxes, texts, phone calls records to or from any judiciary committee member, email, text or documents defined in the FOI Act which emanated from any personal email or State of Connecticut email address of ANY members of the judiciary, including Judge Buzzuto, which corrected testimony provided to your committee.
Attorney Farley has not acknowledged that FOI request as of this date and she is copied on this communication.
Those, such as myself, who have been ordered to permanent supervised visitation as part of a Memorandum of Decision by a judge are not going to tolerate Judge Buzzuto's attempts to undermine the support of HB 5505, especially in light of the data we are now assembling to provide data to this committee to show the incidence of supervised visitation is not rare, is not short term, and subjects our children and the parents to unjustified humiliation in an environment which Judge Buzzuto described herself on March 11 as "an artificial setting".
Within three weeks time, an excel chart will be sent to this group of legislators to consider as hard evidence to refute Judge Buzzuto's statements, while not sworn were designed to mislead the members of this committee.
We hope to assemble in this document those who have spent as much as $125,000 in supervised visitation which ended only when there were no more financial resources available to a parent.
To suggest, that this committee would provide weighting to certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony because she is a judge and assumed to be "credible and trustworthy" in statements made on March 11, 2015 should be a judgment to be deferred until which point in time we can assemble the data to refute the answers to Representative Buck Taylors questions on supervised visitation.
There are also "speculative " comments issued by Judge Bozzuto which were made on the other three sections of the bill, which parents will refute with hard data which contradicts the published comments made by Judge Bozzuto concerning section 3, 4 and 5 of HB 5505.
Those comments will be reserved for a later point in time in a separate email to the judiciary committee members.
HB 5505 is a bill which will provide much needed restraints on "judicial authority" acquired through decisional law cases and through self empowerment which occurred by the unmonitored adoption of PB Rules without the legislative "hearings" required by C.G.S. 51-14 (a) and (c).
We would ask for your indulgence to allow the citizens of this State to prepare documents to refute certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony.
However, if a letter of correction is issued of any kind concerning the March 11, 2015 judiciary committee hearing on HB 5505, and sent to the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee signed by any member of the judiciary "misremembrances" of Judge Bozzuto, we would ask any such letter be routed immediately to all judiciary committee members AND published on the judiciary committee's published testimony of March 11, concerning HB 5505.
Judge Frazzi's letter to the judiciary committee dated Jan. 28, 2015 was never published on the judiciary committee website which corrected sworn testimony.  I only acquired a copy of the letter of Judge Frazzini by filing an FOI request of Attorney Farley, who did promptly provided a scanned copy of the letter of correction on the Monday after Judge Frazzini's nomination was approved by the members of the General Assembly on the date of January 30, 2015.
Please accept my apologies for the length of this communication, but the judiciary committee will be considering the merits of HB 5505 and deserves to be fully informed before considering the language and amendments of this proposed legislation.
Feel free to contact me at any time concerning any data which has already been collected, but is currently only a "work in progress".
It is the hopes of the parents aggrieved by the financial impact of these process will be able to overcome the "anecdotal" testimony of Judge Buzzuto who provided no "hard data" to support her "experiences" as a member of the bench for fifteen years.  We look forward to Judge Bozzuto's next re-appointment hearing to challenge the authenticity of the statements made on March 11, 2015 that were posited into the public record as non-sworn testimony.  We look forward to Judge Buzzuto's explanations of her "misremembrances" on March 11, 2015---but the next occasion Judge Buzzuto's testimony will under oath in the next legislative session.
I also enclose an attachment of a letter received from Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle sent to me concerning sworn affidavits have been filed alleging perjury by Judge Thomas Parker, Judge Taggart Adams and Judge Stephen Frazzini.  The sworn affidavits involving Judges Adams and Frazzini were posted as public testimony on the date of January 23 of the judiciary's website.
Many in the aggrieved parents group are fearful of retaliation or retribution if they have currently active cases in the family court.  We are seeking permissions from those litigants who harbor legitimate concerns for
"future adverse rulings" to publish docket numbers and litigants.  We are respecting those who wish to publish information anonymously rather than for attribution in the excel document which will be sent to you in three years time.
Hopefully, you can accept these requests for anonymous posting of data on supervised visitation as "properly adjudged concerns."

Michael Nowacki
(203) 273-4296

Thursday, December 11, 2014


"Rebel Pundit" reports that, "A Connecticut family court judge from a politically connected family was able to seal her entire divorce file, even as she asked participants in divorces she judged to perform extraordinary tasks in litigating their own divorces."

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

Wednesday, November 26, 2014


During the hearings in regard to family court reform, we heard members of the judicial branch state that no litigants are threatened with jail in family court.  Here we have another example to the contrary as Mr. Peter Szymonik is threatened with jail if he fails to pay fraudulent attorney's fees to Rhonda Morra, one of the most corrupt GALs practicing in Connecticut today.  For the full story, please go to the Corruptct website at the following link:

Wednesday, November 12, 2014


From "The Rebel Pundit", see the report below:

"Up until two years ago, Ted Taupier didn’t spend much time thinking about the meaning of his first, second, eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights, but as he’s watched all those rights disappear along with his parental rights, Taupier tells RebelPundit he’s had a first hand look at the cruelty of an unchecked and unaccountable court system."

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