"COUNTERPUNCH" ARTICLE ON WHY THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS CORRUPT!

John Barth, Jr. in "Counterpunch" states as follows:

"We all would like to believe that, as when we were children in a family, there is in our society a final authority to whom we can turn in case we are seriously wronged. We are not predisposed to believe the accusers of the judicial process any more than the detractors of Santa Claus. Perhaps critics are merely sore losers or angry convicts, and perhaps judicial misconduct would be exposed by appeals courts or the mass media, and corrected. Why guess our way without the facts? Such pre-dispositions held by many otherwise educated adults allow pervasive institutional corruption of the judicial branch to remain hidden.

Judicial corruption is invisible to citizens, because lawyers are trained and motivated to deny and cannot safely speak of it, because mass media corporations agree with judicial prejudice and live in fear of judicial whims, because non-lawyers cannot obtain the facts without prohibitive cost and effort, and because the infantile myth of judicial salvation has broad appeal and is propagated as an opiate by the mass media. Judicial corruption is discovered by those of its victims willing to do years of tedious research, and only they will speak of it..."

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

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/10/why-judicial-corruption-is-invisible/

THE COLOR OF JUSTICE

ATTORNEY JAMES T. FLAHERTY SEEKS TO AVOID A DECISION IN NAPPO MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST HIM!

In a prior blog, I spoke about Attorney James T. Flaherty's legal abuse of his own clients.  He has a pattern of taking on cases where individuals are in considerable distress.  He then concocts major bills in the case, often double billing by working in tandem with his associates Attorney Sandi Girolamo and Attorney Pam Magnano.  Then because he often has little idea of what he is doing, Attorney Flaherty will wreck the case and leave his clients on the lurch.  

Some believe that Attorney James T. Flaherty simply doesn't know how to practice the law.  I actually believe that Attorney Flaherty blows off his cases in order to discredit his clients so that they are unable to retrieve their losses either through a complaint to Statewide Grievance or through Civil Court.  

Often, as their cases approach trial, either the day before or the morning of the trial, Attorney Flaherty will approach his clients and demand an immediate large payment.  When it came to me, Attorney Flaherty asked for an immediate $30,000 or else.  Then using one pretext or another, Attorney James T. Flaherty will withdraw from the case and then sue for payment of his inflated bills in civil court and then foreclose on your house.  

Attorney Flaherty has had several of these collection cases which he usually finds a way to settle.  However, the recent malpractice case of Mr. Jeffrey Nappo versus Attorney James T. Flaherty is apparently evading the usual script.  The case, which was originally filed on September 26, 2011, is still underway over four years later.  There will be a hearing in the case on April 22, 2015 and then a trial management hearing on June 9, 2015.  Of course, these have been scheduled before and have not been followed through on.  So what is going on with this case?  

Early in 2009, Jeff Nappo's mother had a post judgment matter in family court that simply needed to be resolved having to do with the release of a bond.  Jeff Nappo wasn't even a party to the case--he was just helping out his mother.  Mr. Nappo spoke to two well respected law firms before approaching Jim Flaherty, both of whom stated that they could handle the matter for approximately $2,500.00.  

When Jeff Nappo spoke to Attorney Flaherty, Flaherty stated that he would expect to receive a $10,000.00 retainer, but he anticipated that he wouldn't even come close to that amount in resolving the legal issue.  Fast forward, Jeff Nappo received a walloping bill because Attorney Flaherty had carried out his usual trick of adding Attorney Sandi Girolamo to the case and was essentially double billing by having her present during hearings and depositions.  

Later on, Jeff Nappo received a bill for November and December of that year which was an exact duplicate of earlier bills that he had received except there were different dates and a higher balance.  When Jeff confronted the accountant about these bills, reportedly she stated, "You're right.  We just make bills up for Jim."

Eventually, Jeff's mother's case went to a hearing and during a break in the hearing, Attorney Flaherty went up to Jeff Nappo and demanded another $10,000.00 or he stated he was going to walk out of the case and Mr. Nappo reluctantly provided him with ten checks for $1000.00 each.  After that, he didn't hear from Flaherty for another ten months.  

Ultimately, Attorney Flaherty went to court demanding that Mr. Jeff Nappo pay him additional money in legal fees and Mr. Nappo responded with several counterclaims including excessive billing, failing to complete the work within the agreed upon limits of expense as set forth between the parties, failing to file necessary and required paperwork as part of the representation, failing to communicate, and submitting bills with false charges on them as well as additional violations of the CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act).  

Of course, as I have said, this was well over four years ago.  So what is going on?  Why didn't this matter go to trial long ago like all other trials?  

I recall that when I brought my own malpractice case against Attorney James T. Flaherty for very similar practices, although I will add outright lying to the trial court to my list of complaints, it really did not last very long.  There was a year long period consisting mostly of discovery and some pretty ineffective pretrial hearings.  Finally, we ended up in court before Judge Domnarski  who pretty much said, we are going to trial and I am giving it two days and that's it.  

You will forgive me for being somewhat cynical, but I can't help thinking that this extraordinary situation where the case does not go to trial and there are ongoing continuances is an attempt by the Trial Court to simply avoid trial.  

Bottom line is they want Jeff Nappo to settle the way all the cases prior to Jeff have settled.  

For over a decade, Attorney James T. Flaherty has used the Hartford Civil Court as his own personal enforcement agency to wrest vast sums of money out of his former clients.  What networks of interdependence and mutual support Attorney Flaherty developed during these years to be able to wield such influence, who is to know.  But the evidence of the impropriety of the Civil Court in this area stands right before us in the ongoing Nappo case and in the records of the other 69 or so cases with very similar outcomes that Attorney James T. Flaherty initiated against his own clients.  

No other attorney comes near such an extraordinary record of pursuing his own clients in this manner.  

The Nappo case is an embarrassment to the Trial Court because it threatens to put on the record the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has been allowing an attorney to conduct raiding campaigns against his own clients for years.  They would like to sweep this matter under the rug.  

For years, Attorney James T. Flaherty has been the teflon attorney--no grievance to Statewide Grievance has been able to stick.  He has evaded any kind of accountability for his cases in family court, walking out of these cases at will, even when he is right  in the middle of trial.  Nothing phases him, no disciplinary committee stops him, and judges will stick their necks out for him seemingly without hesitation, i.e. Judge Jorge Simon who praised his work in open court and Judge Solomon who found his work to be exemplary in a letter to the disciplinary committee.  

The problem, however, with trying to handle the Flaherty/Nappo matter with another coverup is that after the case is resolved, Attorney James T. Flaherty has every intention of coming back to Court with two more of his recently acquired victims.  Jim Flaherty has an addiction to money and such a gross disregard for how he obtains it that if the Court system doesn't do something to stop him, Flaherty's feeding frenzy will never end.   It is time for the trial court to refuse any further settlements with Attorney James T. Flaherty and to insist that the Nappo matter goes to trial right away.  Not only that, it also needs to make sure that the trial is fair, not the trumped up piece of nonsense that other litigants have been stuck with up to this point.

FOR JUDGES, BULLYING SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES IS A WAY OF LIFE: JUDGE CORINNE KLATT REPEATEDLY POUNDS KATHI SORRENTINO IN MAY 23, 2014 CUSTODY HEARING!

In an earlier blog on the Kathi Sorrentino case, I had spoken of the book "Man's Search For Meaning" in which Viktor Frankl stated that of all the many sufferings he endured in the Nazi Concentration camps, the worst he had to bear were not the physical privations, but the verbal abuse he had to put up with on a daily basis. When asked, "Why was this so?" his answer was, "Because it was so unfair." 

The context in which Mr. Frankl's words make the most sense in our Family Courts is in regard to how Judges bully and badger self-represented parties during hearings.  In ways that are very predictable, judges treat the represented party as if he can do no wrong, while judges consistently browbeat, harass, and pass judgment on the character of the self represented parties. This is one of the most unfair aspects of our corrupt Family Court system.

This phenomenon represents an ongoing, hidden disgrace in terms of how the Court treats litigants in Family Courts throughout the State of Connecticut.  In the hearing that took place on May 23, 2014, Kathi Sorrentino fell victim to the policy of abusing self-represented parties, and thus ended up losing custody of her son, Storm.

In this blog, I am referring to Judge Corinne Klatt who conducted Kathi Sorrentino's trial, but the bottom line is the techniques judges use in abusing self represented parties are well known and clearly judges discuss and share approaches.  So all of them stand guilty of the same abusive behavior, not just any single judge. 

Disregarding Court Rules:

The most common piece of nonsense Judges allow in hearings with self represented parties is to allow the opposing attorney to submit motions right when the hearing starts.  This is a violation of the due process right to know what you are being accused of in advance of the proceedings.  Thus, with Kathi Sorrentino, Dr. Eric Frazer submitted a status report that Kathi hadn't had the opportunity to see prior to the hearing.  Second, in Kathi Sorrentino's case, the judge allowed the opposing attorney to switch around the order of the witnesses right in the middle of the hearing which gave him considerable advantage.  As long as attorneys can manipulate the legal proceedings at will and a self-represented party has no recourse for that, it is unlikely that a self-represented party will ever have a fair hearing.

Often, judges will mislead self-represented litigants about court procedures as a way to disrupt their legal defense.  For instance, in my case the Judge told me that I did not have to object to decisions I disagreed with because the rules of the CT Practice Book had changed and objections were no longer necessary to preserve your right to appeal.  In fact, this was totally untrue. 

Likewise, Judge Corinne Klatt told Kathi Sorrentino that you are not allowed to object to a question that the opposing attorney posed, when in fact, of course you can.  Also, Judge Klatt told Kathi she was not allowed to object to an answer.  Ok, so you might not be able to "object" to an answer, but you can certainly expose the weaknesses in an answer during later examination.  

At other times when Kathi Sorrentino was legitimately standing up to state her objections, Judge Klatt responded with, "Please, stop interrupting." and "Stop shouting out in the courtroom."  So an attorney who objects is objecting, but a self represented party who objects is interrupting or shouting. This kind of judicial reframing of the actions of a self-represented party turns the application of a standard court procedure into a form of wrongdoing which could be punished by a contempt of court.  How can you possibly argue on behalf of your position under such intimidating conditions?  

Shouting loud commands:

Judges also bully self-represented parties by using repeated loud commands.  For instance this exchange during one part of the May 23, 2014 hearing:

Kathi:  Did I ever deny you any time during your parenting time?

Sam:  No.

Kathi: Not mine because, as you...

Sam:  No.

Kathi:  You admitted...

Judge Klatt:  All right.  All right.

Kathi: You do ask to...

Judge Klatt:  All right.  All right.  All right.

Kathi: Ok.

Judge Klatt:  He's answered the question.  You're not to argue with the witness; understand me?

Kathi: Ok.

Judge Klatt:  Ask your next question.

As I read through this transcript, I didn't see that Kathi had been arguing, but this is the point, that the Judge imposes an interpretation on a neutral situation and finds wrongdoing where there is none. 

Other behaviors like this include repeatedly going "Stop, stop, stop, stop" when Kathi Sorrentino was doing something minor like handing over an exhibit too quickly, or another variation, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!" when Kathi asked the other side to show proof in regard to a statement they made.  Or when Kathi tried to elicit testimony from her ex-husband as to why he refused to continue with court ordered co-parenting therapy, "No. No. No. No. No."  

There are also situations where a judge doesn't think you are conducting your examination fast enough as a self-represented party and after each question barks out, "next question!, next question!, next question!" as Judge Klatt did with Kathi Sorrentino.  Or consider this outburst from Judge Klatt when she didn't think Kathi was going fast enough in her examination "This is the last time, move on to the next question.  I have ordered you five times.  I've actually counted.  Five times I've ordered you to move on from that subject.  Next question or I will stop this cross examination." 

Treatment like that inevitably leads self-represented parties to feel hurried and fragmented and judges do it for that reason.  Judges also like to tell self-represented parties off for using up so much of the Court's valuable time on their miserable self-defense.  For instance, Judge Klatt: "We are not going to turn this into a three day procedure.  Please."  Or else this exchange during Ms. Sorrentino's cross-examination of her ex:

Judge Klatt:  Just ask your next question.

Kathi:  So we have it on the record that Storm is registered...

Judge Klatt:  Please ask your next question.

Kathi:  with Dr. Landis...

Judge Klatt:  Are you finished with your questions?

Kathi: Okay.

Judge Klatt:  Are you finished with your questions?

Kathi:  No.  No, I'm not.

Judge Klatt:  Please.  Then go.

Again, when Kathi Sorrentino was attempting to make her final remarks she didn't say them fast enough for Judge Corinne Klatt as the following interchange indicates:

Judge Klatt:  Other than that, what do you want to tell me because...

Kathi:  Why?

Judge Klatt: ...quite frankly, ma'am, I'm about to shut you off.

Kathi:  Why?

Judge Klatt:  We've got three minutes left.  You've taken all day.  And as I've indicated, I think that's been a deliberate behavior on your part...

Kathi:  I'm sorry.  It's not deliberate.

Soliciting or Providing Testimony Outside Judicial Role: Frequently, when judges see there are big holes in a case, they will simply find a way to get the testimony in that is necessary to throw it in the direction of the particular litigant they've decided will win.

In my case, I recall the judge asking my ex's attorney questions about some retirement accounts in my ex's name thus cluing the attorney in on what arguments to use to get my ex excused from the penalties he should have endured for not reporting them on his financial agreement. 

In Kathi Sorrentino's case, the judge intervened extensively  and simply elicited the testimony he wanted to get out of Mr. Sorrentino, rather that leaving it up to the attorneys to argue to argue their case.  If you have the judge inserting evidence into the case of his own volition, and disregarding his role as neutral decision maker, how can you possibly believe that you have a fair trial.

Direct Personal Attacks:

Then there are the direct personal attacks on the self-represented litigant's character which are the most difficult to take and are a matter of course when a self-represented party is involved in a hearing.  For instance, there is the interchange between Judge Corinne Klatt and Kathi when Judge Klatt makes fun of her for not knowing the meaning of the word "filibuster":

Judge Klatt:  This is not let's ramble on because, really, that's all you're doing.  Are you familiar with what a filibuster is?  Ma'am, are you?

Kathi:  No. No.

Judge Klatt:  You're not?  Not at all?

Kathi:  No.

Judge Klatt:  You're a college graduate, aren't you?  Or I know you're enrolled in college...

Kathi:  English and Studio Art major.

Judge Klatt:  All right.

Kathi:  And I'm in school now for...

Judge Klatt:  All right.

Kathi:  and Education major.

Judge Klatt:  And you don't know what a filibuster is?

Kathi:  No.  Not off the...

Judge Klatt:  That's where somebody keeps talking just to stretch things out without really getting to the point of the issues at hand and which is what I think you're doing to me here.

There is something inherently wrong when a Judge of the superior court thinks it is acceptable to make fun of a self represented party for not knowing the meaning of a word. 

Condemnation for being intelligent:

With women who are representing themselves, there inevitably comes a point where the Judge will comment on how intelligent you are.  I personally know several women this has happened to.  This occurs because in these cases of abuse, the Family Court racketeers particularly choose women who are intelligent because the misogynist court system, I believe, is immensely gleeful to have the opportunity to humiliate and demean intelligent women. 

Also, they are aware that bright women are very likely to fight long and hard for their children, so this means more money for everyone all around. 

In Kathi's case, as with so many others, Judge Corinne Klatt's commentary on Kathi's intelligence is predictably interlaced with insult as follows:

Kathi:  I'm confused, your honor.

Judge Klatt:  Ma'am, you know what, Ma'am?  It is my obligation to assess the credibility of witnesses and I don't think you're in the least bit confused.  You're a bright, intelligent woman that has thoroughly prepared for this hearing and I think you're deliberately presenting to the Court in a fashion that makes you--that you're attempting to tell the Court or imply to the Court that you're confused.  I am not believing you in that regard."

But then after celebrating Kathi's intelligence, albeit in a very abusive manner, Judge Klatt tries to insult that intelligence by pretending that the entire court proceeding is not a direct attack on Kathi in the following interchange:

Kathi:  What I'm sensing and I'm hearing is that--that this is about me being accused of [being] an alienator and not complying with Court orders and I'm doing what I can to show that I am.

Judge Klatt:  Well, I hesitate to accuse, ma'am.  That's -- it's an affliction.  It is not -- it is not a crime we're accusing you of.

Right, it's a mental illness not a crime, as if that matters,  because the outcome for Kathi will be the devastating loss of custody of her child.  So is Judge Klatt trying to say that Kathi shouldn't worry about it?  How irrational is that? 

Increasing the noise level to drown out the truth:

The bottom line is that whenever Kathi Sorrentino succeeded in making powerful points in her defense, which was actually quite frequently, Judge Klatt would find a frivolous reason to strike that testimony from the record.  In addition, if Kathi was pursuing a successful line of questioning that proved that she was innocent of wrongdoing, inevitably Judge Klatt would allow the opposing attorney to jump up and down with irrelevant objections and commentary, or else she herself would interject discouraging remarks and observations. 

While for the better part, Kathi was able to make her points nonetheless, I recall being completely sidelined by those kinds of distracting techniques in my day.

The represented party can do no wrong:  

Meanwhile, the represented party pretty much gets away with anything he wants.  He can provide extensive hearsay testimony, make unsupported and outrageous statements without being required to provide the slightest bit of evidence.  He can refuse to answer the questions or answer them with outright lies and get away with it.  In other words, for the person who has an attorney to advocate on his behalf, hearings like this are a breeze. 

For instance, at one point while examining Mr. Sorrentino on the stand, Kathi Sorrentino was able to point out that he had no evidentiary basis for his accusations.  Immediately, Judge Corinne Klatt rushed to his rescue stating, "Well, ma'am, to be quite frank, that -- those comments are stricken.  You want to know why?  Because I am the one who determines credibility, not you."  

A hearing solely for show:

What this adds up to is that Kathi Sorrentino's hearing on May 23, 2014 was simply for show, a casual bow to the legal requirement that the Court allow a citizen a hearing before depriving her of her constitutional right to parent.  The outcome of this hearing was already predetermined. 

But yes, given the fact that legal techniques and procedures are geared to expose the truth, it does take the active intervention of the Judge to subvert the proceedings and conclude with an entirely unjust final judgment as happened in this case. 

Many of the self-represented parties who undergo this trial by outright wrongdoing by a judge talk about how exhausted they feel afterwards.  They are exhausted by the direct personal attacks and exhausted by the constant perversion of the truth.  It can feel as though you are an exhausted boxer staggering around the ring flailing back at punches that appear to come out from all sides. 

There is nothing fair or just about such proceedings.  The fact that Connecticut Family Courts conduct such show trials is a disgrace.  With the passage of last years Bill #494 and with the upcoming Bill #5505, there is hope that we can correct these kinds of abuses.

MICHAEL NOWACKI ADDRESSES ERRORS IN JUDGE BUZZUTO'S TESTIMONY RE H.B. 5505!

From: Michael Nowacki <mnowacki@aol.com>
To: Eric.Coleman <Eric.Coleman@cga.ct.gov>; William.Tong <William.Tong@cga.ct.gov>; Doyle <Doyle@senatedems.ct.gov>; dan.fox <dan.fox@cga.ct.gov>; John.A.Kissel <John.A.Kissel@cga.ct.gov>; rosa.rebimbas <rosa.rebimbas@housegop.ct.gov>; Al.Adinolfi <Al.Adinolfi@housegop.ct.gov>; William.Aman <William.Aman@cga.ct.gov>; Angel.Arce <Angel.Arce@cga.ct.gov>; David.Baram <David.Baram@cga.ct.gov>; Jeffrey.Berger <Jeffrey.Berger@cga.ct.gov>; Toni.Boucher <Toni.Boucher@cga.ct.gov>; cecilia.buck-taylor <cecilia.buck-taylor@housegop.ct.gov>; Beth.Bye <Beth.Bye@cga.ct.gov>; Vincent.Candelora <Vincent.Candelora@cga.ct.gov>; christie.carpino <christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov>; Jeff.Currey <Jeff.Currey@cga.ct.gov>; Patricia.Dillon <Patricia.Dillon@cga.ct.gov>; Doug.Dubitsky <Doug.Dubitsky@cga.ct.gov>; mae.flexer <mae.flexer@cga.ct.gov>; Mary.Fritz <Mary.Fritz@cga.ct.gov>; Gerratana <Gerratana@senatedems.ct.gov>; Bob.Godfrey <Bob.Godfrey@cga.ct.gov>; Minnie.Gonzalez <Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov>; Ernest.Hewett <Ernest.Hewett@cga.ct.gov>; David.Labriola <David.Labriola@housegop.ct.gov>; Roland.Lemar <Roland.Lemar@cga.ct.gov>; Art.Linares <Art.Linares@cga.ct.gov>; Ben.McGorty <Ben.McGorty@cga.ct.gov>; Michael.McLachlan <Michael.McLachlan@cga.ct.gov>; Bruce.Morris <Bruce.Morris@cga.ct.gov>; tom.odea <tom.odea@housegop.ct.gov>; Arthur.ONeill <Arthur.ONeill@housegop.ct.gov>; Robyn.Porter <Robyn.Porter@cga.ct.gov>; emmett.riley <emmett.riley@cga.ct.gov>; Robert.Sampson <Robert.Sampson@cga.ct.gov>; Joseph.Serra <Joseph.Serra@cga.ct.gov>; john.shaban <john.shaban@housegop.ct.gov>; Caroline.Simmons <Caroline.Simmons@cga.ct.gov>; richard.smith <richard.smith@housegop.ct.gov>; Joe.Verrengia <Joe.Verrengia@cga.ct.gov>; Toni.Walker <Toni.Walker@cga.ct.gov>; Gary.Holder-Winfield <Gary.Holder-Winfield@cga.ct>
Cc: melissa.farley <melissa.farley@jud.ct.gov>
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 stevefraz@Comcast.net.  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."

Cordially,

 

Michael Nowacki

(203) 273-4296

ANATOMY OF A CUSTODY SWITCHING SCHEME: THE KATHI SORRENTINO STORY, PART IV!

Question: Mr. Sorrentino, you and your ex-wife share joint legal custody, correct?

Answer:  Yes.

Question:  And you've also alleged she's violated the spirit of joint legal custody?

Answer:  Yes.

Question:  In other words, she doesn't confer with you about decisions surrounding your son?

Answer:  Yes.

You will note that, Attorney Kevin Finch, father's attorney doesn't ask about Kathi Sorrentino's adherence to the letter of the agreement.  The question might have been much harder for Mr. Sorrentino to answer without lying had the letter of the agreement been in question. 

But how are you supposed to defend yourself about questions in regard to the spirit of the agreement.  What is that, truly?  Either you do or do not confer--yes or no.  Kathi Sorrentino has stated that she did confer and she has the evidence to prove it, while Sam Sorrentino does not.

We have already seen how Mr. Sorrentino misrepresented what was going on in regard to Storm applying to private high school--Notre Dame.  The email record confirms that Mr. Sorrentino was perfectly well informed regarding what was going on with the plans for private school. Where else did he have complaints?

He complained that he was not getting information about school events in a timely fashion, "I would find out after the fact about activities, parenting--parent conferences, things of this nature."  Again, this is simply not true because the evidence Kathi Sorrentino provided indicates that she provided him with full information.  But lets put that all aside.  You see, this is the thing.  You have joint custody meaning that both of you bear equal responsibility for being on top of school matters.  Ms. Sorrentino is not your Mommy.  So if you, Mr. Sorrentino, want to know what is going on in school, you need to speak to the Principal or the secretary in the main office like every other non-custodial parent in the United States so that you receive all of the school notifications.

You yourself were fully aware of this, Mr. Sorrentino, because in your testimony you stated, "I had indicated this to Ms. Sorrentino that I need to be aware of these things.  She--her response was that I need to work it out with the school."  Exactly, you need to work it out with the school!  It is not as if the school system has never ever dealt with a non-custodial parent before!  My ex has signed up with each school my kids have been in and they send him an exact duplicate of every flyer, notification, and school bulletin that they send to me.  They even call him and tell him of every snow day and school delay, even when he is out of state and can't do anything about it.

But this is the spirit of the thing, since we aren't talking about the letter.  If Mr. Sorrentino wants to know what is going on in school with his son, he is well within his rights to obtain the emails of every last one of his child's teachers, the guidance counselor and the principal and he can request regular weekly updates from each one of them.  Furthermore, he has the option to volunteer at the school.  He could actually volunteer to be a member of the local parent teacher organization.  Nothing stops him!  Unless, the point is not to co-parent, but instead to sit on your duff and complain, point fingers at your ex wife, and spend your time legally stalking her through the court system!

This is where we return our attention to Dr. Eric Fraser, graduate of Miami Institute of Psychology, and PAS Tzar. Here we have a GAL who is determined to prove that Kathi Sorrentino was alienating the children from the father. 

But you see, again, here's the thing, I have in front of me a notarized letter written by Ms. Willie Brevard, a mental health professional, stating, "I do not find Kathi to be an alienator."  And also Brevard states, Kathi always encouraged the relationship between Storm and his father and continues to do so.  Storm loves his dad and has always spoken highly of him.  Kathi has always put the well being of her children first." 

This doesn't sound like a person with parental alienation syndrome to me! 

Then there is the problem of the abuse.  At one point, Mr. Sorrentino allegedly threatened to commit suicide in front of his ex-wife and children.  Sounds like, by doing that, he did a good job of alienating himself!

Predictably, at a later hearing Mr. Sorrentino claimed that he had never threatened to kill himself in front of Kathi or his children.  When Kathi Sorrentino pointed out that his testimony was contradicted by a letter of apology he himself wrote to Kathi stating that he was sorry that he had made those threats to kill himself, he denied that he wrote the letter and declared that it was a forgery.  The bad news for Mr. Sorrentino, however, is that a handwriting expert confirmed that he did, in fact, write it. 

In addition to threatening suicide, Mr. Sorrentino was reportedly sexually inappropriate with the older daughter (aged 15 when it happened) to the point that at the time of the divorce she was allowed to visit or not visit her father on her own terms. 

Again, this is the point, even among PAS advocates, it is well recognized that the presence of abuse rules out the diagnosis of parental alienation syndrome. 

Why didn't Dr. Eric Fraser bring up some of these issues in his report to explain where Ms. Sorrentino was coming from?  Clearly, because he didn't want any inconvenient facts to get in the way of his pet PAS theories in connection to this good mother.  Then when Ms. Sorrentino attempted to bring these issues up in court, Judge Corinne Klatt refused to allow the information onto the record even though she didn't have any solid, legal basis for that denial. 

If the court is going to censor all the information that comes before it and edit anything out of the record it doesn't want to hear, then naturally you get the kind of inappropriate ruling that this Court ended up with. 

I also want to point out that not only was there the presence of interpersonal abuse, there was also economic abuse at play in the Sorrentino case.  Again, this would rule out the diagnosis of parental alienation disorder in this case.

Originally, at the time of dissolution, Sam Sorrentino was required to pay $1000.00 per week in child support and alimony with the express intent that Kathi Sorrentino would use that money to pay off the mortgage on her home which was in his name.  However, not long after the divorce, Mr. Sorrentino had his child support and alimony reduced to $204 per week so Kathi was unable to pay that mortgage. 

Then, around 2009 even though the bank was not taking the home to foreclosure yet, Mr. Sorrentino filed a motion for contempt against Kathi for failure to pay the mortgage. While the bank was willing to work out a plan, Judge Gould, who was considering the motion said the process would take too long, ignored the bank and ordered Ms. Sorrentino to pay the back mortgage or else sign an agreement that required her to assume more of her ex-husband's debts. 

When she refused to do so, Judge Gould put her in a maximum security prison in Niantic, CT for a week. 

So this is a case where Mr. Sorrentino has freely taken advantage of his superior legal position in Family Court to bully, harass, and legally abuse his ex wife.  And then he goes around complaining, poor me, my kids don't like me and it's her fault.  I don't know that there are many children who are going to like the kind of father who would put their mother in jail, particularly when they have a mother who is as devoted to their welfare as Kathi Sorrentino is to hers.

Then, to add insult to injury, Kathi Sorrentino tried to defend herself from the Court's threats to put her in jail and impose unwarranted debts on her by going on the Lisa Wexler Radio Show to explain the situation.  Like many victims of family court she hoped that the pressure from local media would force the Court to act properly.  While she was being interviewed, the children were kept in a sound proof room where they were unable to hear the show.  Nonetheless, Dr. Eric Frazer used that situation also as the basis for his claim of Parental Alienation Syndrome stating wrongly that the children were in the room with Kathi when she was being interviewed.  Well, no, the record shows that they were not in the room and, in fact, Dr. Frazer was simply speaking carelessly if not outright lying.

But the bottom line is, this incident took place in 2010 and the hearing on custody took place in February and March of 2014.  That was a whole four years prior and was hardly relevant to the case at present.  In fact, I question the legality of even bringing it up.  In my view, the only reason  the Court allowed information on the Wexler show into evidence along with the inaccurate speculations regarding what happened at the show was to punish Kathi Sorrentino for having the nerve to try to defend herself or speak out publically about her plight. 

This is how the Connecticut Judicial Branch has succeeded in shutting off the flow of information to the public regarding the many Protective Mothers who have unjustly lost custody of their children, by silencing these mothers with threats of jail, loss of their children and other equally vicious punishments.   

THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS THAT A SINGLE DETERMINED LITIGANT BROUGHT DOWN THE NOMINATION OF A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE FOR REAPPOINTMENT!

According to The Hartford Courant:

 

"Gov. Dannel P. Malloy took the unusual step Friday of withdrawing a judicial nomination after allegations were raised about the jurist's temperament. Thomas F. Parker of Niantic currently serves as a state referee, overseeing civil cases in the New London judicial district. But at a Jan. 16 hearing before the legislature's judiciary committee on his reappointment to another seven-year term, lawmakers quizzed Parker for almost 90 minutes about a series of allegations made by a plaintiff in a civil matter. The plaintiff, Sylvester Traylor is African American; he accused Parker of racial bias. He said Parker mocked his manner of speaking, inappropriately detained his attorney and, at one point, grabbed his wrist. "It is my contention that Judge Parker committed a civil rights violation against me by reaching into the witness box and grabbing my wrist, then asking me if I felt intimidated by him,'' Traylor wrote in documents submitted to the judiciary committee. Parker, 79, could not be reached for comment on Saturday. But when asked during the hearing about the allegations contained in the documents, he flatly rejected Traylor's assertions. "I have no bias against him because of his race,'' Parker told lawmakers. Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, pressed Parker, asking him to explain why he grabbed Traylor's wrist.  "It didn't occur,'' Parker responded. At one point, the questioning grew sharper and Parker repeatedly interrupted Gonzalez. That prompted a warning from Rep. William Tong, co-chairman of the committee. "It's clear Judge Parker that there are going to be some questions from members of the committee about your nomination,'' said Tong, D-Stamford. "Rep. Gonzalez has the right and prerogative to ask you those questions. It would be great if you would give her the opportunity...and not answer preemptively and not try to react to her questions." He also reminded Gonzalez to give Parker time to respond. Throughout the day on Friday, while the committee was holding a series of hearings on other judicial nominees as well as appointees to the board of pardons and paroles, there were discussions over the fate of Parker's nomination behind closed doors. The governor's office ultimately opted to pull the appointment. "While Judge Parker has been a dedicated public servant, we have opted to withdraw his nomination," spokesman Devon Puglia said. He did not provide additional details. Sen. Gary Winfield, a member of the committee, said lawmakers reviewed the documents provided by Traylor. "There were some general concerns about the way [Parker] engages with people in court,'' he said. But Winfield, a Democrat from New Haven, said lawmakers had to balance those concerns with the positive aspects of Parker's long career. "The man has done a lot of good if you look at his record," Winfield said, citing Parker's pro bono work (Parker has not accepted a salary for the past five years.) Parker graduated from Hall High School in West Hartford and studied chemistry at Fordham University in New York. After a stint in the U.S. Army, he attended the University of Connecticut Law School and obtained his law degree in 1962, the same year he was admitted to the Connecticut Bar.  Former Gov. William A. O'Neill appointed Judge Parker to the bench in December 1990. During his 12 years on the bench, Parker has served at courthouses in Bristol, Hartford, Waterbury, New Britain, New London, and Middletown. In 2002, he was appointed the state's Deputy Chief Court Administrator. "Judge Parker has given tremendous service to our state for decades,'' Tong said Saturday. "He was known to be a very able, thoughtful and committed jurist."

 

Also on Friday, the judiciary committee approved the following nominees to the state Superior Court: Bernadette Conway of North Haven, Stephen F. Frazzini of West Hartford, 
Edward C. Graziani of Ellington and Earl B. Richards, III of Woodbridge. The following state referees were also approved: Taggart D. Adams of Wilton, Elizabeth A. Gallagher of Litchfield and Arthur A. Hiller of Shelton. The nominations now move to the full House and Senate for consideration.

               

Courant Capitol Bureau Chief Christopher Keating contributed to this report. 

 

For a direct link to The Hartford Courant article, please clink on the link below:

 

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-connecticut-judicial-nominee-withdrawn-20150124-story.html

SUBPOENA TESTIFICUNDUM FOR ELIZABETH RICHTER IN FOY CASE!

For more information on this story, see the link below:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/01/family-court-attorneys-threaten-divorce.html

FAMILY COURT ATTORNEYS THREATEN "DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT" WRITER, ELIZABETH A. RICHTER, WITH JAIL!

By Verena Tarrant,

Special to the Divorce in Connecticut Website

 



In a bizarre turn of events in the Eric Foy v. Lisa Foy case, writer Elizabeth A. Richter, was threatened with jail time for refusing to reveal her sources or disclose the identity of the mysterious Catharine Sloper, the proprietor of the blog "Divorce in Connecticut" which has been an outspoken critic of the legal system for the last few years. 

 

Elizabeth A. Richter, a freelance journalist whose work has occasionally appeared in the freedom fighting blog "Divorce in Connecticut" was on her way to New Haven, CT on Friday, January 2, 2015, when she received an emergency phone call from her partner, Mr. Sherif Iskarous, a long time ADA advocate and family court watcher.  He stated that a marshall had appeared at the front door with a subpoena and refused to give it to him.  Mr. Iskarous further stated that the marshall took the trouble to cover up the subpoena so that it wasn't possible to see what was on it. 

 

Since Elizabeth A. Richter maintains joint custody in relation to her three children with her ex-husband, she was very concerned that the subpoena might have something to do with that matter.  Both Ms. Richter and her ex-husband have been in and out of court since 2006 as a consequence of the family court's complete mismanagement of their divorce and custody proceedings. 

 

"I was very worried on behalf of my children when I heard about the subpoena.  I was mostly concerned that my ex might be raising an issue that would affect them; we have outstanding issues related to health care and college fees.  And so when I heard about the subpoena I immediately contacted the marshall so that I could find out what was going on and address any conflicts immediately in the best interests of the children." 

 

Instead, what Ms. Richter found when she met with the marshall was that the subpoena had to do with a completely unrelated case. 

 

As Elizabeth A. Richter puts it, "When I saw the subpoena, I just laughed and laughed because I was so relieved that it wasn't related to some action re my kids.  I had no idea what the subpoena was for.  There was no case number on the subpoena so I couldn't identify it, and there were the names of children without a last name.  I was hardly likely to have any idea what it was all about." 

 

She further stated, "The Divorce in Connecticut website has published well over 1000 articles since it was first inaugurated in late 2010.  I write for many other news outlets other than Divorce in Connecticut. So, over time, I am unlikely to remember any particular article on the website, let alone elsewhere.  So I was little more than puzzled and annoyed upon receiving this subpoena.  I had no idea what it had to do with.  I did see it was signed by Attorney Scott Sandler of the firm Zaslow & Sandler, LLC which has long done business in Family Court.  Attorney Robert Zaslow was one of the original founders of the  Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) here in Connecticut, an organization whose members have been the subject of many complaints and which has been under investigation for business improprieties within the CT Judicial Branch." See below:

 

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

 

For a while, Ms. Richter was unsure of what she should do with the subpoena which required her to appear in court the following Thursday, January 8, 2015, at 9:30am in New Britain Juvenile Court.  As a victim of Connecticut Family Court, Elizabeth Richter has Legal Abuse Syndrome, a form of PTSD as a result of the many ways in which she has been abused in Hartford Family Court, i.e. being denied her due process rights, being denied the right to present her evidence and testimony, and being regularly browbeaten and threatened not only by her own attorneys, but also by the judges in her case.  This meant that her first reaction to the subpoena was to simply ignore it and hope that it would go away. 

 

Eventually, however, on Monday she began to research the subpoena to find out what case it belonged to.  After considerable inquiry, she found out that the case belonged to Eric Foy v. Lisa Foy which came into the public eye in connection to the media prior restraint case in regard to the "Connecticut Law Tribune" which is now heading to the Connecticut Supreme Court.  In that case, the Judge, Stephen Frazzini, issued an order prohibiting the "Connecticut Law Tribune" from writing about the child custody case and the "Tribune" responded to it as a first amendment violation.  See the link below:

  http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202678587837/Editorial-Supreme-Court-Should-Take-Up-Prior-Restraint-Case?slreturn=20150011133244 

 

So this is a case where a judge of the Connecticut Judicial Branch has attempted to silence any media reports on the Foy case on a previous occasion.  Upon further inquiry, Ms. Richter discovered that the Divorce in Connecticut website had published a single article on the Foy divorce back in November 2014 and that this article was the one that had stirred up all the controversy which led to the subpoena she received.  See the link below:

 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/11/dcf-snatches-children-and-wont-give.html

 

But the majority of the information in this article was available publically online at the time it was written with content that was known to be part of the public domain.  Thus, it made no sense to hold Divorce in Connecticut responsible for publishing news that was readily available elsewhere and that, to Ms. Richter's knowledge and belief, had already appeared generally on other websites, as Judge Frazzini acknowledged when he rescinded the order against the "Connecticut Law Tribune" way back on December 3, 2014.  The bottom line is that the subpoena was a form of harassment, a brazen attempt to follow up a gag on mainstream media with threats against a citizen journalist.

 

During the  course of our conversation, Elizabeth Richter pointed out that she only occasionally has an article published on the online divorce website using her byline and, in her opinion, she should not be held responsible for content not under her name.  In addition, as Ms. Richter understands it, the website itself does have the right to publish information that it received based upon our constitutional right to freedom of the press as American citizens. 

 

On Wednesday, the day before the juvenile court hearing, Elizabeth A. Richter met with her family attorney to ask what could be done.  After reading through the subpoena, and making some phone calls, essentially, her attorney told her that she would have to disclose her news sources or face jail.  Further, she stated that Attorney Scott Sandler wanted to put Ms. Richter on the stand and force her to admit that she was Catharine Sloper.  Elizabeth Richter then stated to her attorney that she could not do either. 

 

In her words, "If the anonymity of the blog is destroyed, then I might as well shut the blog down.  Readers and potential contributors to the blog rely on its anonymity for their own safety." 

 

Further, she stated, "As a blog writer, it would be absolutely unethical for me to reveal a source." 

 

Ms. Richter's attorney pointed out that Elizabeth Richter's rights as a citizen journalist are not as clear cut as that of a journalist for, say,  "The New York Times" and asked what would be the harm of disclosing the information, taking for a moment the position of devil's advocate.  But Ms. Richter was adamant that she would not compromise her professional ethics. 

 

After calling around, Ms. Richter's attorney was able to engage the services of Attorney Daniel Klau who has also been representing the "CT Law Tribune" in their case in regard to prior restraint.  However, before Elizabeth Richter left her office, the attorney advised her to bring her toothbrush and any necessities she might need along with her to court the following day should she end up in jail as the result of her refusal to cooperate. 

 

On Thursday, June 8, 2015, Elizabeth Richter appeared in juvenile court.  Naturally, after all the difficulties she had in Harford Family Court the experience was particularly hard for her. 

 

As Ms. Richter put it, "Whenever I go to Court my blood pressure goes through the roof." 

 

As she was warned to do, in case she ended up in jail, Ms. Richter brought with her a toothbrush and toothpaste among other essentials.  She also brought along with her a membership card from the National Writer's Association as well as a press pass from the Association identifying her as a member of the media which she passed along to Attorney Daniel Klau. 

 

The morning progressed and Attorney Klau submitted a motion defending Elizabeth Richter's rights and spoke to the attorneys present on her behalf.  In the course of doing so, it came to Elizabeth Richter's attention that it was the mother's attorney that had called her to be present at the legal proceedings. 

 

"That is particularly ironic." stated Elizabeth Richter when she heard, "Ordinarily the Divorce in Connecticut website is in full support of mothers going through tough divorces.  If I had my way I'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with Lisa Foy.  But not in this particular circumstance.  Mother or Father, no matter what, I will not reveal my sources for any reason whatsoever, even if I disagree with what they are doing.  Further, I will stand firm in support of the integrity of the anonymity of the Divorce in Connecticut website." 

 

As it turned out, at 2:00p.m. that day, Elizabeth Richter heard from her attorney that her presence was no longer required for the case, the hearings in the case were over for the day, and had been rescheduled for a later date.  Ms. Richter could still be called in at that time, but for the better part it looks as though this crisis is over.   

 

But the toll on Elizabeth Richter's well-being is not over.  During the weekend, Ms. Richter stated, "After the proceedings were over, I went home and slept for several hours.  In terms of the wear and tear on me emotionally and physically, I have not yet recovered.  My blood pressure has not yet settled down." 

 

Not only that, the cost of the four hours Ms. Richter spent with her family attorney and the expenses generated by obtaining for her defense one of the State's top attorneys, Attorney Daniel Klau, an expert in Freedom of the Press issues, will probably run to several thousand dollars.  If private citizens can be dragged to court and subjected to interrogation and threatened with jail and put under intense financial duress, how is it possible for them to express themselves freely.

 

As Elizabeth Richter put it, "Rep. Ed Vargas has compared the State of Connecticut to North Korea, and he is not wrong in saying so.  The State of Connecticut Judicial Branch is desperate to silence its critics and is willing to go to any lengths to do so.  What happened to me this week with these threats to put me in jail and put me out of business is a clear example of that." 

It is clear that the attorneys in this case had all the information they needed that day and were simply abusing their legal authority to oppress and intimidate a critic.

 

The actions of the Connecticut Judicial Branch in attempting to silence Elizabeth Richter are particularly sobering in the light of the events at the magazine Charlie Hebdo.  When you silence the press, you silence all forms of liberty and freedom.

A copy of the subpoena that summoned Elizabeth A. Richter to the New Britain Superior Court for Juvenile Matters is located at the link below:

 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/01/subpoena-testificundum-for-elizabeth.html