SHAMED REP. GERALD FOX KEEPS HEAD DOWN AT LEGISLATIVE SESSION YESTERDAY!

OUTSTANDING REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ WITH ANTI-OLEAR PROTESTERS YESTERDAY AT THE STATE CAPITOL!

PROTESTERS AT THE LOB "SAY NO" TO JUDGE OLEAR YESTERDAY!

ANTI-OLEAR DEMONSTRATORS AT THE LOB YESTERDAY!

SINCE THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THERE WAS NO NEED FOR AN AMBER ALERT IN THE COLLEEN KERWICK CASE WILL THEY RETURN HER LITTLE BOY TO HIS MOTHER'S LOVING ARMS? WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR JUSTICE IN THIS CASE!

NO MORE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY FOR JUDGES?

THIS NEWS JUST IN FROM MS. SUSAN SKIPP:

ON JANUARY 13, 2014 ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RULINGS INVOLVING IMMUNITY FOR JUDGES HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN. ISSUED BY FEDERAL COURT IN CIAVARELLA THE RULING HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT FAMILY LAW.

THE SCANDAL KNOWN AS CASH FOR KIDS THE FEDERAL COURT HAS SAID THAT THE STATE COURT JUDGE'S ACTS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM CIVIL CONSPIRACY CAUSING CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS.

THIS RULING OPENS THE DOOR TO THE POSSIBILITY OF FILING ACTIONS AGAINST FAMILY LAW JUDGES UNDER CERTAIN PERIMETERS. WHILE IT IS STILL TO SOON IN THE PROCESS MANY OF US IN THE FIELD OF FAMILY REFORM ARE MONITORING FOR APPLICATION.

THE LINK WAS SENT TO ME BY COLE STUART FROM CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN. COLE STUART HAS FILED A RICO CASE IN SAN DIEGO INVOLVING FAMILY LAW JUDGES WHICH IS ALSO BEING WATCHED CLOSELY FOR ANOTHER APPLICATION IN SEEKING REFORM IN FAMILY LAW AS WELL.



http://www.weightiermatter.com/judicial-ethics/ciavarella-kids-cash-court-issues-groundbreaking-ruling-state-court-judges-acts-immune-conspiracy-rico-claims/2676/

FOUR NEW JERSEY WOMEN START CAMPAIGN TO IMPEACH CORRUPT FAMILY COURT JUDGE!

THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRACY! HUMAN TRAFFICKING POSTER PRODUCED BY CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

On September 25, 2013, the Connecticut Judicial Branch posted on its website a flyer decrying human trafficking.  The branch is planning on using this flyer in its facilities and has placed it there for our review. 

 

To take a look at this flyer, see the link below:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Human_trafficking_poster.pdf

 

The message on this flyer is as follows:

 

"Human trafficking is modern-day slavery. If you or someone you know is being forced into work or sex and cannot leave, please call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center for help..."

 

For those of us who are aware of how the Connecticut Judicial Branch colludes with corrupt GALS and custody evaluators to put children in the hands of parents who sexually abuse them, the very existence of this poster is a travesty. 

 

How galling that the very system that is allowing the sexual abuse of young children on a regular basis in exchange for power and profit should produce such a poster.  I'm thinking of George Orwell's famous novel "1984" when I say that this poster is a clear cut example of doublespeak. 

 

Here the Connecticut Judicial Branch is asking us to call the National Human Trafficking Resources Center if we know about anyone being "forced into work or sex, and cannot leave". Isn't that is exactly what the Branch is doing even as we speak?

 

I encourage anyone who reads this poster to call the Human Trafficking Center immediately and report the Connecticut Judicial Branch and, in particular, Judge Lynda Munro.  The number is below:  1-888-373-7888.

Additional Followup:  For more information from the CT Law Tribune on why the CT Judicial Branch developed this flyer, please click on the link below. 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202623340135&thepage=1


The bottom line, of course, is that by taking children away from their protective mothers and hanging them over to the fathers who sexual abuse them, the judicial branch regularly breaks Connecticut human trafficking laws.

 

MICHAEL NOWACKI LETTER TO JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL ATTACKS ETHICAL VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY PROMINENT JUDGES WITH TIES TO THE AFCC!

Scott Murphy Esq.
Executive Director
Judicial Review Council
505 Hudson Street
Hartford, CT
 

                                                                   September 16, 2013

Dear Attorney Murphy:
 

As we discussed in July, here are four complaints filed with the Judicial Review Council concerning four judges (The Honorable Lynda Munro, the Honorable Gerald Adelman, the Honorable  Holly Abery-Wetstone and the Honorable Harry E. Calmar) who are alleged in having engaged in conduct which violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 

 

In our July phone conversations, you indicated it was not necessary to produce 14 sets of the identical exhibits to be shared on each of the four complaints which are properly notarized.  I have included 14 sets of the relevant documents to support the claims for the individual complaints—since they all cite the same violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted on January 1, 2011.
 

This letter provides the background on establishing grounds for sanctions for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct for all four complaints.
 

 I am also seeking the recusal of the Honorable Eliot Solomon and the Honorable Julia D. Dewey, who have long standing ties to the four respondents for these complaints inasmuch as they both served for a period of time on the Family Commission and as family court judges during the six year period of time in which the Honorable Lynda Munro served as the Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters from September 1, 2007 to August 30, 2013.

 

The regulations of the Judicial Review Council concerning conflicts of interest state:

 

1.  Any member of the Council who has a conflict of interest in any matter before the Council shall be disqualified from participating in any proceeding of the Council in that matter.
 

2. A member shall have such conflict of interest when such member, his or her spouse, his or her child, or his or her business associate (a) has a direct personal or financial interest in said matter; (b) has a business, personal, or financial relationship with any complainant, witness, or respondent in said matter; (c) has a direct personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary matters before the counsel; (d) is related to a complaint, witness or respondent in said matter; (e) is a judge whom the complainant has made a previous complaint; (f) is an attorney who has any matter pending in a trial court or an appeal court involving a respondent against whom a complaint has been made; or (g) in any other situation, believes that he or she has, or may appear to have a conflict of interest. (emphasis not added).
 

On April 19, 2013, the Committee on Judicial Ethics issued four important advisory decisions that were labeled 2013-2015, 2013-2016, 2013-2017 and 2013-2018.
 

For the first time, the Committee on Judicial ethics provided a jurisdictional and directional opinion that indicated that sitting on the Board of Directors of a not for profit corporation (which was not referenced as the AFCC specifically) , in which contracts have been awarded to Board of Directors firms would violate the Code of Judicial Ethics Rule 3.7 (a) (6) (B).
 

“…Based upon the foregoing, an appearance of impropriety would arise if a Judicial Official serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization or members of the Judicial Official’s staff were to refer clients to the nonprofit organization.  Further the nonprofit organization may use or attempt to use the prestige of the Judicial Official’s office when seeking additional contracts with the Judicial Branch or others.  Accordingly, the Committee, with one member recused, unanimously determined serve on the nonprofit organization’s board of directors would violate Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7.”
 

Despite this clear admonition from the Committee on Judicial Ethics, Judge Lynda Munro continued in her position as a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter and further involved members of the judicial staff in the preparation of materials for the AFCC’s 50^th Anniversary Convention to be conducted in Los Angeles from May 28 to June 1.
 

Judge Munro appeared on a panel she recruited in Los Angeles with Sharon Wicks Dornfeld (the Connecticut Bar Association Chair for Family Relations matters), Dr. Sidney Horowitz (who has been appointed in hundreds of family relations cases as a court appointee doing substantive assigned work in family courts in the State of Connecticut including cases in Judge Munro’s direct supervision), and Dr. Howard Kreiger (who also does outsourced work as a court appointee including in Judge Munro’s courts since here appointment in 2007 as the Chief Administrative Judge in the State of Connecticut).
 

In addition to these four panelists, a number of Board of Directors members of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter, not only are appointed for work by judges in the family courts, but specifically testified in Judge Munro’s courtroom without any acknowledgment of the direct professional, non-courtroom contact with Judge Munro.

 

The Committee on Judicial Ethics advisory opinions including 2013-15 and 2013-16, (while not definitely binding on the Judicial Review Council by virtue of “adopted” rules governing the operations of the Committee on Judicial Ethics) can be considered a “bright line” guidance in the determination to the whether Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7 were violated as alleged in the filing of four properly filed, sworn and articulated grievances naming Judge Lynda Munro, Judge Gerald Adelman, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone and Judge Harry E. Calmar.

 

As the Chief Administrative Judge of Family matters, Judge Munro had an influence on the direct operations of all family court docketed cases, and then influenced which cases were reassigned to the regional family trial docket.
 

Only Judge Adelman now remains as a judge on matters reassigned to the Middletown Superior Court where Judge Adelman remains on cases referenced to the Regional Family Trial docket.
 

My case FST FA 04 0201276S was without motion transferred to the RFTD and assigned to Judge Harry Calmar, after I began investigating Judge Munro’s operations in the Family Commission—many of whom attended AFCC conferences and ran its operations from their desks as employees of the Connecticut Judiciary.
 

The use of employees of the Connecticut judiciary to produce materials for the CT AFCC meeting on April 12 and for the AFCC National Convention and use federal grant funding for ‘court operations” to expense such a trip to “accompany” Judge Munro to Los Angeles, Orlando and other undisclosed locations from 2007-2013 is an alleged violation of Rule 1.3 which states: “A judge shall not use or attempt to use the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of  the judge or others, or allow others to do so.”

 

In sending out invitations from judicial mailboxes from the Connecticut AFCC Organizing Committee, Marilou Giovannucci operated as the President Elect of the AFCC Connecticut Chapter on behalf of the Board of Directors, who included Judges Munro, Adelman and Holly Abery-Wetstone.
 

It could not be determined as to whether the list of attendees of the AFCC Conference was kept on judicial computers, but it certainly requires the JRC to investigate the use of judicial employees to recruit participation in a private organization which Judge Munro had such a documented relationship having expensed trips to the taxpayers from 2007-2013.

The expense reports to validate these assertions that Rule 1.3 was violated are attached to this complaint.
 

Despite the rulings on these four advisory opinions issued by the Committee on Judicial Ethics, The Honorable Lynda Munro (and members of her administrative staff) continued to utilize judicial financial resources to promote an organization, the Connecticut Chapter of American Family of Conciliation Courts whose Board of Directors have ties to contracts awarded by the judiciary.

 

It was only on March 26, 2013, when it was revealed that incorporation status was filed by the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC, through a member of the Board of Directors, whose name is Robert Zaslow, that three judges were sitting on the Board of Directors of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter.

 

On or about March 14, 2013, a Connecticut judiciary employee, Marilou Giovanucci, (listed on the registration for non-stock corporation status as the “President Elect of the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC) from her judiciary mailbox address, sent an email “on behalf of the Ct. AFCC coordinating Committee to a “Annual Conference” to be held to an estimated 700 lawyers who have been appointed to positions by The Honorable Lynda Munro, The Honorable Gerald Adelman, the Honorable Holly Abery-Wetstone and the Honorable Harry E. Calmar which invited them to the “First” AFCC Connecticut Chapter Conference on April 12, 2013 to be conducted at Quinnipiac University, where Judge Munro also serves as an adjunct professor.

 

The notice of the conference fees for attendees of AFCC failed to note that sales taxes were due for attendees at such the April 12 conference.
 

The list of the “invitees” included over 700 lawyers who have been appointed to assignments as Guardian Ad Litems and Attorneys for the minor children, family court employees, appointed psychologists/psychiatrist and others who completed the GAL and AMC training mandated by Connecticut Practice Book Rule 25-62 and 25-62a.
 

The use of public employees of the judiciary of the State of Connecticut to promote the nonprofit Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC for which Honorable Lynda Munro, Honorable Gerald Adelman and Honorable Holly Abery-Wetstone are listed as members of the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC Board of Directors is alleged herein to be a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1, Rule 1.2.

 

Inasmuch as Judge Lynda Munro’s presentation to the AFCC  meeting in Los Angeles listed four judges who were involved in the GAL and AMC training:  Judge Lynda Munro, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge Harry E. Calmar and Judge Gerald Adelman, there is little question Rule 3.7 (6) (A) and (B).

 

In the case of this complainant, the Honorable Harry E. Calmar in March 2010, appointed Dr. Kenneth Robson to conduct an updated psychological/psychiatric examination of the complainant, while at the same time promoting the GAL/AMC training seminars at Quinnipiac University---without acknowledging the connection between the presiding Judge Calmar’s ties to Dr. Kenneth Robson. 
 

Dr. Robson, spent less than three minutes with me, in April 2010, and then Judge Calmar used that opinion of Dr. Robson, as a significant benchmarking tool in my docket file FST FA 04 0201276S.  A copy of that psychiatric opinion of Dr. Robson, who in three minutes, issued a psychiatric opinion which had no validity.
 

Dr. Robson, in the Liberti v. Liberti case, in sworn testimony suggested he could complete a psychiatric evaluation in three minutes or less.  Such “quackery” espoused by Dr. Robson in my family case and in the case of Sunny Kelley Liberti ended her custodial rights as well.

 

The use of judicial employees to carry out the promotion of the private interests of Honorable Lynda Munro in the AFCC Section 3.7 (4) as a fundraising activity for the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC on April 12, 2013, is alleged to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct 3.7 (6) (A) and (B).

 

After the issuance of the opinion by the Committee on Judicial Ethics on April 19, 2013, listed as 2013-15, Judge Munro is alleged in this complaint to have further “sullied” the reputation of the judiciary, by billing her trip expenses to attend the AFCC 50^th Anniversary in Los Angeles to an account identified as SID #22523 ($1,607.65), “identified in the supporting documents as a Court Improvement Grant.”  Also attending the Los Angeles AFCC meeting were Connecticut Judiciary “Court Operations” employees.
 

Judge Munro and others also traveled to Orlando, Florida for the 2012 AFCC National Convention which was also billed to SID #22523—all expensed to various budget centers.    
 

Please see the validation that expenses were also paid to travel to Los Angeles out of the same state funds for the travels of Marilou Giovannucci ($1,195.71) , who lists her title as Manager, Court Services Operation, Johanna Greenfield ($1.062.33) , Caseflow Management Specialist (who also sits on the Family Commission), David Iacarrino ($1,0687.09)  Deputy Director of Court Operations (who also sits on the Family Commission, which Judge Munro served as the Chair), Linda Sabatelli ($1,110.60) and Rhonda Lucino. ($200.00 conference fee).

 

Judge Lynda Munro’s 2012 AFCC trip fees were also “expensed” by Judge Munro for Orlando for the AFCC convention , along with Marth Boyer ($1,159.39) Linda Sabatelli$1,423.38) and Marilou Giovannucci ($1,160.35).
 

Expense reports for the attendance of Judge Lynda Munro and Marilou Giovannucci go back to as early as 2007, charged to SID 22151.    

 

Included on the panel discussion in Los Angeles for the period of time of May 29-June 1 were invited panelists Dr. Sidney Horowitz (who was listed as a member of the Connecticut Chapter and Dr. Howard Kreiger.  It is not known as to whether Dr. Horowitz and Kreiger had their expenses paid through the judiciary or not.
 

So, the question for the JRC is this, how can proper sanctions been put into place to hold these four judges accountable for their conduct in family cases in which AFCC memberships are not able to be traced back to prior years.

 

The appointment of Judge Elliot Solomon to the Assistant Chief Administrative Judge of the State of Connecticut, effective October 1, 2013, creates additional conflicts of interest inasmuch as a Judge Solomon has an administrative role in the training of judges for the proper implementation of the Judicial Code of Ethics.

 

There is little debate at the Committee of Judicial Ethics about the declaration of impropriety of sitting on the AFCC Board of Directors in which contracts were doled out by members of the judiciary.

 

The Auditors for Public Accounts issued reports for Judiciary Branch and Child Protective Services (a division of the judiciary until Public Act 10-48 changed the reporting responsibilities of CPS to the Office of Public Defenders.

 

The reports from the Auditors of Public Accounts clearly defines material weakness in the operation of the judiciary in which there are no receipts or contracts for for millions of dollars of federal funding granted to the judiciary.
 

The minutes to Judge Solomon’s videoconferencing committee record a “grant” was awarded for the expansion videoconference capabilities, but Judge Solomon also said that the funding was not specifically awarded for that use.
 

With Judge Solomon’s recent appointment to the JRC, there are serious credibility issues for the JRC which are inherent in Judge Solomon’s tenure on the Family Commission.
 

In the recent history of the JRC, hundreds of complaints have been issued against family court judges including Judge Munro.
 

There is no way to assess how many judges have been sitting on Connecticut Bar Association Committees (a matter addressed in advisory opinion 2013-16) or the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers (2013-18) because the committee structure of the CBA is not a publicly accessible document.
 

The allegations set forth in these complaints establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the ties to the AFCC violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and sanctions are warranted via the conducting of a public hearing on the allegations set forth in these four complaints.
 

Please do not hesitate to contact me to testify with others at a public hearing at which point in time transcripts will be presented to the counsel which validate that the conflicts of interest in the AFCC and its ties to the AMC and GAL training commenced in 2011 were never acknowledged to the parties engaged in family court litigation in the courtrooms of these four judges.
 

As an aggrieved party, from such bias and prejudice, only sanctions will send a clear message that such affiliations with the AFCC were inappropriate inasmuch as they were never disclosed as a “clear and present danger” to the integrity and independence of the family court system in Connecticut.
 

Cordially,

 

Michael Nowacki

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

 

Enclosures:

 

1. List of Council Members—2 pages

2. Handbook of Committee Regulations—6 pages

3. Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-15 dated 4/19/2013—2 pages

4. Purpose of the CT AFCC Chapter—1 page

5. Email dated March 12, 2013 from Marilou Giovannucci inviting over 700 people listed on the email chain sent from her email address marilou.giovannucci@jud.ct.gov

6.  Four page description of the First Annual AFCC Conference on April 12, 2013 including fee structure

7.  Four page article appearing on Washington Times raising conflict of interest issues for Connecticut judges and history of Connecticut AFCC chapter—4 pages

7.  Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-16 dated 4/19/2013—2 pages

8.  Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-17 dated 4/19/2013—3 pages

9. Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-18 dated 4/19/2013—3pages

10. Copy of Four pages of FOI requests and responses from Melissa Farley—4 pages

11.  Copy of document expensing the membership of the AFCC of Judge Munro—1 page

12.  Copy of 4 pages of emails approving various judiciary employees to attend AFCC meeting on April 4 sent from mailbox of Debra Kulak one of the founding members of the CT AFCC Chapter noted in Washington Times article—4 pages

13.  Expense reports for travel from Judge Lynda Munro, Marilou Giovannucci, Johanna Greenfield, David Iaccarino, Linda Sabatelli, Rhonda Lucino, Mary Kay West, Martha Boyerl

14.  Program for AFCC conference in Los Angeles—Judge Munro was on Panel 64

15.  List of Family Commission members as of September 15, 2013

JOURNALIST COREY DANIELS EXPOSES AFCC ABUSE IN THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

Each year, the CT family courts decide the fates of the State's most vulnerable families, and it is no secret that children are dying while their families are bankrupted by the unethical and illicit services they are ordered to obtain. The purpose of the CT Task Force on Families in the Courts is to assess the systemic problems faced by families who have been victimized by the programs. The task force is supposed to make recommendations that ensure that (a) the court is able to offer fair and honest services that are (b) safe, efficient, and tax dollar friendly.
 

 

It would defeat the purpose of the task force if the professionals who created the problem oversaw it and controlled the outcome of the task force's recommendations.

The CT Legislature and the State Ethics Commission has passed certain laws and regulations requiring State vendors to be free from conflicts of interest, comply with open bidding process when vying to do business with the State, sign contracts and quality assurance and equal access waivers, etc. The reason why these laws exist is to protect consumers from exploitation, ensure that taxpayers are getting the best services for their tax dollars, and to ensure that organized crime does not pervade public services.

The public expects judges, court staff, and attorneys to not only abide by the law, but to uphold their duty to hold others accountable when they violate these laws. AFCC members, as public servants, have failed to even give the appearance of propriety either inside or outside the court:

(1) The AFCC has a history of illegal activity, running afoul of State and Federal laws in various jurisdictions. Historically, the AFCC has run afoul of the law and been suspended from doing business in multiple states including CA, CT, FL, KS, MS, etc. The AFCC headquarters (located in Courtroom 241 of the LA Family Court) was raided by authorities, and the court employees overseeing the AFCC's accounts in a "pay to play" scam were convicted of felonies and sent to prison. 

(2) It is a conflict of interest for CT to do business with the AFCC and its' CT Chapter. According to the Secretary of State and IRS, the AFCC and its Connecticut chapter are private corporations, family court industry trade associations which are owned and operated by CT judges, Judicial Branch staff who serve them, and the court industry professionals who appear before them. The businesses are is funded by tax payers through the Judicial Branch departments said AFCC affiliates work in to fund court projects and vendors that the AFCC affiliated public employees themselves oversee. The AFCC entities are also funded by "donations" and fees received from the same AFCC affiliated court professionals, but they do not disclose this to litigants or the State when doing business in the CT courts.

• AFCC affiliated vendors are also allowed to run court programs with judges, and at the same time represent clients enrolled in them who frequently appear before those judges. This gives the court and the vendors and interest in the outcome of cases.
  
  

(3) Authorities confirm that in the past and presently, the AFCC operated in CT in violation of State and Federal law.  Most recently in Connecticut the Secretary of State confirmed both the AFCC and its CT Chapter are under investigation by  for failure to properly register to do business in the state. The IRS does not list the CT Chapter of the AFCC as an approved charity and it does not currently have an EIN # registered with the State, but none the less has continued to do business here. 

(4) AFCC Members working in the CT courts steer no bid, unwritten agreements and ill tracked public funding to AFCC programs and professionals. Since the AFCC and its' CT Chapter are improperly registered or unregistered, regulators are not aware that there is a need for them to ensure the State's most vulnerable families are safe. Under the leadership of various AFCC Judicial Branch members, the AFCC has received over $80,000 in funding from the Judicial Branch, yet the Judicial Branch is unable to produce a single contract or agreement with the AFCC to prove that the corporation properly engaged in the State's open bidding process. Therefore, we do not know if the AFCC affiliated vendors are giving taxpayers the best deal, and we do not know if the vendors are safe or discriminating against clients, and if they are, we have no proof that the AFCC businesses are properly insured and equipped to sustain the liability if victims choose to sue the state for violating their rights.

(5) AFCC services and affiliates in the CT courts unsafe. They have helped get serial killers and violent offenders custody of victims, bankrupted parents and children, and created a coercive environment for the honest judges and court professionals who would otherwise help victims of the fraud. It could reflect badly on the private interests of the corporate officers and the court if any member of the AFCC were disciplined for misconduct. No AFCC member in CT has ever been disciplined, despite the following examples of severely questionable services they provide:

• AFCC Presenter Judge Barry Pinkus gave mass murderer Joshua Komisarjevsky custody of his 5 year old daughter, despite the fact that (a) Josh spent the past 5 years in prison for nighttime burglary and never knew the kid outside prison walls, (b) Josh wore a GPS bracelet to the hearing, (c) Josh was living in a halfway house for drug addicts with sex offenders, (d) Josh gave the kid to his parents to raise, even though he admitted on the record his parents facilitated his own rape as a child. A week later, Josh and another career criminal addict on parole he met in the halfway house raped and killed the Petit family women.
• Susan Skipp Case: AFCC judge Lynda Munro gave custody of children to violent addict at the recommendation of AFCC custody evaluator Sidney Horowitz, despite the fact that Horowitz admitted to insurance billing fraud on the stand. Munro ordered Skipp to spend thousands of $ per month to purchase parenting time and counseling services from AFCC affiliates such as Visitation Solutions, Inc. who were also directly affiliated with Horowitz. Skipp filed for bankruptcy and so she has been starved out of her custody rights. Horowitz is now under investigation by the State Department of Health for his alleged misconduct on Susan's case. 
• Paul Boyne Case: AFCC judges appointed AFCC member Horowitz and GAL Susan Hamilton onto the case, and paid them for services that were questionable and perhaps not provided. Munro then approved Horowitz's payment invoices, charged at more than twice the state rate, despite the lack of court order which was required to authorize her to do so.

(6)  AFCC Programs deliberately misuse funding and place children in homes with violent offenders.  Some of the Responsible Fatherhood, Access and Visitation and Department of Justice funded projects require judges to deliberately and arbitrarily reduce the amount of time fit parents spend with their kids, and instead place children in the custody of violent, unfit, and unwilling parents. Safe children do not need experts to assess and treat them for abuse they do not sustain, and they do not need a GAL or attorney to speak on their behalf, making safe children an undesirable demographic for the court industry professionals paid by these programs. For instance, some programs go directly into prisons to recruit fathers to sue for custody, or look for mothers who are poor drug addicts not willing or able to care for the kids they abandoned.  For these reasons, it is possible that only corrupt court professionals benefit from AFCC programs.

(7) The AFCC is cross affiliated with MANY pedophile advocates and militant fathers rights groups which target victims through the courts. Examples include:

• The Children's Rights Council-Militant Fathers Rights group that has historically had many known pedophile advocates, even NAMBLA members on the board of directors.
• Incest Promotor Warren Farrell, who published his "research" in skin rag Penthouse glorifying family sex, men having sex with their young daughters.
• Pedophile advocate Dr. Richard Gardner, who manufactured the pedophile's legal defense of choice, Parental Alienation Syndrome. PAS is not a legitimate mental health condition, and it is not recognized by the APA or the AMA. PAS is a legal technique that allows pedophiles and violent offenders to shift the blame for their attacks onto victims and the advocates who try and rescue them. He committed suicide by stabbing himself in the heart.

(8) AFCC is a "Set Up To Fail" Business Provider. The following AFCC Directors, Presidents, Board Members, Presenters, and affiliates are also Judicial Branch employees/vendors who are responsible for overseeing the very problematic court programs and funding that the Family Court Task Force now seeks to "fix." Many of them also run the Court's GAL training program or sat on the 2002 Child Custody and Support Task Force which is responsible for much of the dysfunction we see today. *


 

Why is anyone willing to allow the "problem" to profit from manufacturing the "solution" to the problem they created for that purpose?

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/heart-without-compromise-children-and-children-wit/2013/mar/1/immunity-guardian-ad-litem-destroys-connecticut-fa/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/speaking-family/2013/may/20/ct-judicial-branch-vendors-operated-court-employee/

 

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/speaking-family/2013/aug/23/minnesota-court-overturns-moms-conviction-sends-me/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anne-stevenson/top-5-hhs-programs-endang_b_1511613.html

 

 

HEARINGS IN CHAMBERS: THE DISENFRANCHISEMENT OF FAMILY COURT LITIGANTS

I was once helping a friend out during her trial in family court, sitting in the audience, standing around during breaks, making supportive comments, etc., giving my impression of how the proceedings were going. 

What surprised me was that for the first few days we spent a lot of time sitting around the waiting area while the attorneys in the case spoke in chambers with the judge where they had long conversations behind our backs.

For the sake of making this blog more accessible, I will call my friend "Ann".  This is not her real name, but I do want to protect her identity. 

Anyway, weeks before this trial started Ann had spoken to her attorney stating repeatedly that she did not want her attorney to have a meeting in chambers with the judge.  She felt that any conversations, any understandings, any rulings and arguments in regard to any decisions and agreements made in the case should be conducted in open court with a court reporter present.  She wanted everything in relation to her case to take place on the record and also she wished to have the opportunity to express her concerns and not just leave everything to her attorney. 

As I have stated in a prior article in regard to preserving the record, meetings in the judges' chambers are a major problem because they are used as a means to arrive at decisions that cannot be appealed because there is no transcript of the hearing in chambers where those decisions were made. 

Furthermore, it is an opportunity for your attorney to make statements to the judge that you would never approve were you there to hear them, or for the opposing attorney, your attorney and the judge to arrive at agreements without your knowledge, and then just present you with the fait d'accompli.  My friend, Ann, was naturally alarmed by the potential for harm that could result from such meetings in chambers in her case so not only did she tell her own attorney repeatedly that she didn't want any meetings in chambers, she also told the caseflow manager, the ADA Coordinator, and the judge.  She wrote letters regarding this point and also submitted motions.  

Still, the judge simply ignored her repeated requests that there be no hearings in chambers and went ahead and had several. 

When the court specifically ignores a litigant's reasonable request asking that the court forego certain optional proceedings, this simply disenfranchises that litigant.  It sends a signal, basically, that the court does not care what the litigant wants or thinks. 

Like many litigants in this situation, Ann was absolutely upset and traumatized by this blatant disrespect for her wishes and she expressed her dissatisfaction about the situation at every opportunity she had. 

My question is, what is the matter with the judge in this case that he would ever disrespect a litigant's request for an open, transparent hearing on the issues instead of secret conferences behind closed doors?  

My opinion is that the Judge simply wanted to drive my friend, Ann, into a frenzy so that she would act in such a way as to discredit herself. 

So much for justice.  

Since that time I have investigated the concept of hearings in chambers.  The first thing I did was look up hearings in chambers in The Connecticut Practice Book and was referred to Chapter 20.  Chapter 20, just so you know, is incomprehensible.  I have no idea what it means. 

However, I did go further online and found some guidelines to hearings in chambers from the State of Louisiana.  They are as follows: 

[Please note that in Louisiana a hearing in chambers is scheduled upon the consent of the parties.  So if a party does not consent, it should not be held.  Please also note that a clerk and a court reporter would ordinarily be present at such a hearing so the contents of the hearing would be on the record and available for purposes of appeal.  Further, it is worth noticing that these guidelines from the State of Louisiana are comprehensible.  Wow!]

Again, see below:

LOUISIANA STATUTES AND CODES

RS 9:302 Divorce proceedings; hearings in chambers; procedure

§302.Divorce proceedings; hearings in chambers; procedure

A.  In addition to any hearing otherwise authorized by law to be held in chambers, the court by local rule, and only in those instances where good cause is shown, may provide that only with mutual consent, civil hearings before the trial court in divorce proceedings may be held in chambers.  Such hearings shall include contested and uncontested proceedings and rules for spousal support, child support, visitation, injunctions, or other matters provisional and incidental to divorce proceedings.

B.  A motion for hearing in chambers pursuant to this Section may be made by either party or upon the court's own motion.

C.  Except for being closed to the public, the hearings held in chambers pursuant to this Section shall be conducted in the same manner as if taking place in open court. The minute clerk and court reporter shall be present if necessary to perform the duties provided by law.

D.The provisions of this Section shall not be construed to repeal or restrict the authority otherwise provided by law for any hearing to be held in chambers. Acts 1990, No. 1009, §§7, 9, eff. Jan. 1, 1991.

What I find amazing is that Louisiana, despite being a Southern State--OK, that IS a joke--, figured out how to handle meetings in chambers in family court cases in an equitable fashion as far back as 1991, while we in the Constitution State of Connecticut still can't seem to figure it out! 

Or shall I say, the Connecticut Judicial Branch knows very well that holding hearings in chambers off the record independent of the litigants involved and making major decisions in family court cases behind the backs of litigants is absolutely wrong.  But the Branch has found that these kinds of hearings go a long way towards getting rid of litigants that they find troublesome and/or have the nerve to stand up for their rights. 

So it is going to be a long, long time before they stop taking advantage of these kinds of secret methods of disposing of litigants.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen.

What I find interesting about this is how many times I've been in court in Connecticut when Judges have articulated the Open Court Principle--the principle that all hearings in Court should be open and transparent to the public. 

I was sitting in on a hearing where one of the litigants turned out to be a member of my Church and she asked to have me removed. I was embarrassed for this person and immediately got up to leave.  But the judge took that as an opportunity to reprimand the litigant and articulate how important it is for all hearings to be free and open to the public. 

Right, free and open, except when the judges choose to have their secret meetings behind everyone's back. 

Judges do this to people.  They violate litigant's rights, drive people into extreme emotional states by taking away their children, their livelihoods, their lifelong savings, etc..  Then Judges call them crazy.