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

IMPORTANT BILL ON SUPERVISED VISITATION, GALS , AND COURT ORDERED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT UP FOR CONSIDERATION THIS WEEK BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE!

There will be a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 10:30 a.m., at the LOB in room 2E, in regard to Committee Bill No. 5505:  An Act Concerning Family Court Proceedings.  Please make time to present your testimony in support of this bill.  The language of this bill includes important safeguards against:

1.  GAL Abuse

2.  The frivolous imposition of unnecessary supervised visitation

3.  Forced mental health treatment for yourself and your child

 

The wording of the bill is as follows:

 

AN ACT CONCERNING FAMILY COURT PROCEEDINGS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 815, 815a, 815e, 815j, 815p, 815t or 815y of the general statutes, a court shall not order that a parent have supervised visitation with his or her child, unless such court finds, based upon the evidence presented to the court, that such parent: (1) Has engaged in an act of neglect or abuse that has been substantiated by the Department of Children and Families; (2) has no established relationship with the child with whom visitation is sought; (3) has engaged in criminal conduct that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child; or (4) suffers from a severe mental disability that presents a potential risk to the health, safety or well-being of a child.

Sec. 2. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) A person aggrieved by the action of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child or children, appointed under section 46b-54 of the general statutes, as amended by this act, may bring a civil action seeking appropriate relief, including equitable relief, damages, or both, in the superior court for the judicial district in which such counsel or guardian ad litem for a minor child was appointed. If such civil action results in a judgment for the plaintiff, the court shall award the plaintiff all costs of the action, including such attorney's fees as the court may allow to the plaintiff. The court shall not enter any order under this section that would require a plaintiff to pay the costs, expenses or attorney's fees of counsel or a guardian ad litem for a minor child named as a defendant in such civil action. It shall not be a defense to such civil action that the defendant is entitled to absolute, quasi-judicial immunity.

Sec. 3. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2015) (a) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall allow the parent to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation.

(b) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a child undergo treatment or an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the court shall permit the parent or legal guardian of such child to select the licensed health care provider who is to provide such treatment or evaluation. If two parents do not agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to a child, the court shall continue the matter for two weeks to allow the parents an opportunity to jointly select the licensed health care provider. If after the two-week period, the parents have not reached an agreement on the selection of a licensed health care provider, the court shall select such provider after giving due consideration to the health insurance coverage and financial resources available to such parents. In the case of two parents who cannot agree on the selection of a licensed health care provider to provide such treatment or evaluation to the child, if a parent incurs expenses as a result of permitting the child to be treated or evaluated by such provider, without the express written consent of the other parent, the parent who permitted such treatment or evaluation to occur shall be solely responsible for the costs incurred for such treatment or evaluation.

(c) In a family relations matter, as defined in section 46b-1 of the general statutes, if a court orders that a parent or child undergo an evaluation from a licensed health care provider, as defined in section 52-184e of the general statutes, the results of such evaluation shall be submitted to the court by such provider not later than thirty days after the date of completion of the evaluation.

Sec. 4. Subsection (e) of section 46b-54 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2015):

(e) [Counsel] Except as provided in this subsection, counsel or a guardian ad litem for the minor child or children shall be heard on all matters pertaining to the interests of any child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of the child, so long as the court deems such representation to be in the best interests of the child. To the extent practicable, when hearing from such counsel or guardian ad litem, the court shall permit such counsel or guardian ad litem to participate at the beginning of the matter, at the conclusion of the matter or at such other time the court deems appropriate so as to minimize legal fees incurred by the parties due to the participation of such counsel or guardian ad litem in the matter. Such counsel or guardian ad litem [may] shall not be heard on a matter pertaining to a medical diagnosis or conclusion concerning a minor child made by a health care professional treating such child. [when (1) such counsel or guardian ad litem is in possession of a medical record or report of the treating health care professional that indicates or supports such medical diagnosis or conclusion; or (2) one or more parties have refused to cooperate in paying for or obtaining a medical record or report that contains the treating health care professional's medical diagnosis or conclusion. If] Instead, if the court deems it to be in the best interests of the minor child, such health care professional shall be heard on matters pertaining to the interests of any such child, including the custody, care, support, education and visitation of such child. 

SUPERVISED VISITATION PROVIDERS!

Below is a link to suggested supervised visitation providers around the country. 

 

I do not endorse any one of them, because I haven't received feedback yet in regard to them.  But what I do say is that this link was sent to me by a person I trust. 

 

So for those of you looking for supervised visitation providers, do consider choosing from this list and let me know what your experiences are.  See below for the link:

 

http://svnworldwide.org/providers_results.asp


***This feedback just in, Visitation Solutions in Brookfield, CT is affiliated with several father's rights attorneys and father's rights mental health practitioners.  You might want to avoid that group.

***This feedback just in, The Exchange in Stamford is associated with a corrupt mental health professional, Dr. Adamakas, who has been associated with a number of improper rulings in family court.  This place is not on the list above, but I wanted you all to be aware of other places as well.

IF ANYONE ELSE HAS FEEDBACK, CONTINUE TO LET ME KNOW AND I WILL UPDATE MY INFORMATION!  THANKS!