CORRUPTCT ANNOUNCES RALLY FOR CASSANDRA C THIS SATURDAY 1/24!

A Rally to raise awareness of what has happened to Cassandra C. Stop the injustice. Join together and make a difference. Every person counts.

Silence has allowed DCF to take over our children, to take over our medical decision making for OUR children. Connecticut DCF, CPS/DCYF/DCFS, are kidnapping our children, children that are in loving homes.

If we remain silent, then this problem will only continue to get worse. We need to unite as parents, as a community, as caring citizens. We must end the silence by gathering together peacefully, as one.

Far too many children are being taken. Be a part of the problem or part of the solution. Be there to support Cassandra C and her mother, together we can raise the much needed awareness.

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

http://www.corruptct.com/corrupt/rally-for-cassandra-c-this-saturday-124-raising-awareness/

MICHAEL NOWACKI TESTIFIES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING RULES AND FORMS, APRIL 14, 2014!

Annual Public Hearing

 Testimony

 Michael Nowacki

   April 14, 2014

             Connecticut General Statute 51-14 (b) (Exhibit 1) states specific protocols be followed by the judiciary when recommending proposed modifications to the Connecticut Practice Book Rules:

 “The Chief Justice shall report any such rules to the General Assembly for study at the beginning of each regular session.  Such rules shall be referred by the speaker of the House or the president of the Senate to the judiciary committee for its consideration and such committee shall schedule hearings thereon.”

            Evidence provided in the appendix to my remarks today provide factual proof, that Supreme Court Chief Justices, since 1969 (Exhibit 2), have failed to provide to the legislature the proposed “Practice Book Rules” at the beginning of the legislative sessions as the law requires.

Furthermore, factual proof exists, that the Connecticut legislature’s judiciary committee has failed in its duties to conduct hearings on the Practice Book Rules since 1968 (Exhibit 3), thus denying the “electorate” the opportunity to “provide input” into the process (as required by law) to ensure that the following constraints were enforced in the “study” of Practice Book Rules, as defined in C.G.S. 51-14 (a) (Exhibit 1):

“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts.”

            The Connecticut Practice Book has been used unlawfully since 1969 by the judiciary’s Rules Committee to engage in self-empowerment unintended by the legislative restraints articulated in 1957 in C.G.S. 51-14 (b).

At this public hearing, we will focus on current Practice Book Rules which are unlawful abridgments of fundamental constitutional rights, rules which are discriminatory in their construction to self-represented parties and those who claim disabilities under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Factual proof is also provided in the appendix to these remarks that on June 29, 2007, Justice Peter Zarella, as captured on page 32-33 of the annual judges meeting minutes (Exhibit 4), proposed a “six pronged resolution” which sanctioned “non-public meetings” with ranking members of the legislative judiciary committee to discuss the proposed Practice Book Rules in a direct abridgment of the protocols set forth in C.G.S. 51-14 (b). 

The following year, Practice Book Rule 9a (Exhibit 5) was created, in a brazen circumvention of the public’s rights to “hearings” to be conducted in the legislature, as required by C.G.S. 51-14 (b) (Exhibit 6).

Upon appointment as a judicial officer, each judge in the State of Connecticut, pursuant Article VI of the United States Constitution, and defined in C.G.S. Chapter 4 Oaths,  §1-25 takes the following oath or affirmation:

“You do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the state of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof, and that you will faithfully discharge, according to the law, the duties of the office of…to the best of your abilities, so help you God.”

            Note that unlike other oaths of office in the State of Connecticut, a judicial officer who takes this oath (Exhibit 7) is not required to do so under the penalty of perjury.

The Connecticut Constitution states in Article XX (Exhibit 8):

“Section 1 of article fifth of the constitution is amended to read as follows:  The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, an appellate court, a superior court, and such lower courts as the general assembly shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.  The powers and jurisdiction of these courts are defined by law.”

            Inasmuch as the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, including the present Chief Justice Chase Rogers, Justices Peter Zarella, and Dennis Eveleigh and Senator Andrew McDonald as chair of the judiciary committee prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court have failed to uphold the tenets of C.G.S. 51-14 (b), I am seeking the repeal of Practice Book Rule 9 (a) because it is directly contradictory to the clear and unambiguous protocols for introducing modifications to the Connecticut Practice Book Rules set forth in C.G.S. 51-14 (b). 

            Based upon factual presentation today of the “wanton, reckless and malicious” misuse of the Connecticut Practice Book to “self-empower” the judiciary in violation of C.G.S. §4-165, we seek the resignations of four members of the Supreme Court and the co-chairs of the judiciary committee, Representative Gerald Fox Jr. and Senator Eric Coleman for their roles in a “seditious” abridgment of the powers of separation of government defined in the U.S. Constitution and  in the failure to conduct “hearings” on proposed Practice Book Rules in the legislature again in 2014.                                                  

JANE DOE TESTIFIES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING RULES AND FORMS, APRIL 14, 2014!

Written Testimony

From Jane Doe

April 14, 2014

 

            I am choosing to speak today anonymously as my litigation issues are still active in the State of Connecticut.

            There isn’t a person who chooses self-representation as a first option and the continuing involvement of GALs and AMCs in post judgment matters continue to be a financial drain on the families in the State of Connecticut who have no ability to be able to remove a GAL once a dissolution of a marriage is entered as an order of the court.

            This practice of open ended assignments for court appointees as GALs and AMCs must be eliminated because it does not serve the best interests of our children.

            The party with more financial resources post judgment should not be able to force payments to court appointees and then have a Court apportion fee payments once a dissolution decree is finalized. 

            It is quite often apparent that when “extended family” financial resources are available to “torture” an ex-spouse in litigation, the courts do not account for such “financial support” from third parties from being considered in a post judgment financial affidavit in JD FM 6-Long Form which is to be used effective January 1, 2014 for all parties who have income or assets in excess of $75,000.

            As already suggested today, it is long overdue that attorneys co-sign financial affidavits in Connecticut under the same threat of sanctions and incarcerations, which is required of all self-represented litigants (who are reportedly encompassing 85% of all family court dockets) when signing financial affidavit JD FM 6 Long or Short Form.  It is time for the gavel of justice to be applied to attorneys and to remind all so registered with a juris number of their obligations defined in the Attorney’s Oath as subject to the criminal penalties of perjury.

            Furthermore, the filing of JD FM 6 must be more closely connected to compliance with the mandatory discovery and compliance with Connecticut Practice Book §25-32.  Providing validation for the claims made in a financial affidavit can be easily accomplished by adding a section to JD FM 6 which indicates:

“ Within thirty days of the filing of this financial affidavit mandatory discovery and compliance with provisions of Connecticut Practice Book §25-32 upon dating and signing of JD FM 6.”

            In post judgment cases, if a party is receiving subsidies from a third party to pay for legal fees, whether paid to legal counsel or an AMC or GAL, the amounts of such third party contributions must be added to the JD FM 6.

This form must also be amended to indicate whether the business interests of a litigant involve the full and complete disclosure of “cash” payments to a business partnership.

            In addition, JD FM 6 must be amended to add questions in regards to assets or income which may be located in foreign banks or in any foreign country or U.S. territory with specific directions as to whether “foreign dividend income” is declared on Form 1116 of the federal tax returns or income declared in Federal IRS FBAR TD F 09-22.1.

This requirement for disclosure of foreign assets is also a required disclosure in the PATRIOT Act.

In any post judgment action, the subject of inheritance assets received must be disclosed but not necessarily considered as income if such assets were acquired after the dissolution of a marriage.

            In 2009, the United States reached a treaty agreement with the government of Switzerland, concerning the disclosure of assets being held in foreign countries.  In Wall Street Journal articles it was detailed that the top reasons for use of Swiss banks was to hide assets from disclosure during divorce action and from U.S. based inheritance taxes.

            Certainly, the courts of Connecticut should have a zero tolerance stance on tax avoidance schemes such as these in family court matters.  There are long overdue reforms needed in our family courts.  We look forward to the implementation of these modifications to JD FM 6 Long and Short forms that are proposed today in the true best interests of our children.

            A GAL in a case in Fairfield County has billed over $200,000.00 at $575 an hour.  She has never once seen the child with the father.  In playing the system and fanning the flames of this divorce, this attorney is the equivalent of a car mechanic causing a problem in your car which can then be fixed to make more money.  For the next ten years at her whim she can make a phone call and proceed to charge the parties $575 an hour.  There are no checks and balances and nothing to stop her from billing thousands upon thousands of dollars in the years ahead for absolutely no reason.  This also is a case whereby the open ended assignment of a GAL warrants elimination when there is even a renowned psychologist serving as parenting coordinator in this very same case.

            These walls surrounding us were built to embrace and ensure that justice is carried out by those within serving in such capacities.  That is not what is happening in family court room’s across this state.

            We urge that an end be put to the rape and pillage of our financial resources by ceasing the practice of open ended appointments of GALs and AMCs.  Thank you.

MARISA RINGEL'S TESTIMONY REGARDING RULES AND FORMS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, APRIL 14, 2014!

Supreme Court in Hartford
Public Hearing on Rules and Forms
Written Testimony of Marisa Ringel

April 14, 2014

 

Justices of the Supreme Court and/or Committee of Justices members:

            I am hear today to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

            The 14^th Amendment clearly states:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            In Stanley V. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651; 92 S.Ct. 1208, (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court stressed:

“The parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. ..A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for personal meaning and responsibility.”

            It is my suggestion that the Connecticut Practice Book incorporate these two quotes to open Section 25.

            Every parent, absent abuse or neglect, in the Constitution State should have a fundamental equal right to parent their children without the interference of government.

            While there is legislative authority granted to provide for various awards of custody in the State of Connecticut, there does not appear to be any specific legislative authority for a judge in the State of Connecticut to force a parent into “supervised visitation” absent abuse or neglect.

            Yet, in the family courts of the State of Connecticut, “supervised visitation” is often ordered without any justification that a “child’s welfare” is in danger.

            Therefore, I am proposing a new Practice Book Rule 25-70:

“No judicial authority shall have the right to issue an order of supervised visitation without conducting an evidentiary hearing to establish whether there are grounds for an order to show cause that “clear and present danger to the physical/psychological well-being of a child” exists that requires an limited time order of supervised visitation.

No order of supervised visitation shall remain in place for more than three months, without conducting another evidentiary hearing at which any party can call witnesses, including those supervising the visitation, to report to the court on their observations of the parent-child interactions.”

            There are reports in Fairfield County of supervised visitation which have been in place for more than two years, in which fees in excess of $20,000 have been paid by a parent to conduct a once a week four hour visitation.

            Supervised visitation cannot be seen as a “first option” response from a judicial authority to make parenting time “unaffordable” or a “punitive measure”.

            The 1886 Supreme Court decision in Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 stated:

“Law and court proceedings that are ‘fair on their faces’ but administered ‘with an evil eye or heavy hand’ was discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

            Family courts must provide divorced parent the same rights and obligations of their children as if still married.  Otherwise, the court is administrating a criteria in a manner which discriminates against a class of citizens based on “un-married status”.

            Such discrimination by the family court judges against any class of citizens who are no longer married would constitute a violation of Title 42, Section 1983.

            Each of us who is speaking today, is a victim of orders of “supervised visitation” at the current time or in some past order issued in the family court system in Connecticut. 

            Each of us has been and has always aspired to be a “fit parent” and have been “humiliated” and “degraded” by a family court judge who has abused their powers in administering family court justice through ordering “supervised visitation” without an order to show cause.

            This authority to order supervised visitation has no statutory authority and is therefore an abuse of discretion and must be curtailed.

SALLY'S TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ON APRIL 14, 2014 REGARDING FORECLOSURES!

YOUR HONORS, I AM HERE TODAY TO SUGGEST A CHANGE TO THE PRACTICE BOOK THAT WOULD FAIRLY EXPEDITE FORECLOSURES IN CONNECTICUT.  AS CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS, HERSELF, HAS NOTICED MOST FORECLOSURE DEFENDANTS ARE SELF-REPRESENTED AND MOST HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRACTICE BOOK, NOR OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

HOWEVER, MAY I SUBMIT TO THIS HONORABLE COMPANY THAT THE “CLOGGING” OF THE FORECLOSURE DOCKET IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE UNREPRESENTED FORECLOSURE DEFENDANTS, BUT, INSTEAD, THE FAULT OF THE FORECLOSURE MILLS?  CURRENTLY, HUNT LIEBERT & JACOBSON AND BENDETT & McHUGH HAVE ON THE DOCKET A GRAND TOTAL OF 68,054 PENDING AND DISPOSED CASES ON THE CIVIL DOCKET, OF WHICH (AS OF 13 APRIL 2014) A GRAND TOTAL OF 24,122 ARE PENDING CASES; THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE FORECLOSURES.  (ALSO, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE MAJORITY ARE NOT PROSECUTED BEYOND A CERTAIN POINT, LEAVING THE CASES OPEN FOR YEARS AND THE FORECLOSURE MILLS RAKING IN THE FEES).   DISPOSED IS A LOVELY WORD, IT IS WHAT YOU DO WITH TOILET PAPER, AND THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE FORECLOSURE DOCKET – HOMEOWNERS ARE BEING FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET IN THE NAME OF EXPEDIENCE AND PROFIT FOR THE FORECLOSURE MILLS AND NOT JUSTICE.

ROBO-SIGNING IS PERPORTED TO BE NOTHING BUT SHODDY PAPER WORK BY THE BANKS.  HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE RECENTLY PUBLISHED WELLS FARGO “NEED A NOTE, NEED A MORTGAGE, NEED AN ASSIGNMENT, NEED AN ALLONGE, ANY THING YOU NEED” 150 PAGE MANUAL, IT IS LUDICROUS THAT JUDGES ON THE FORECLOSURE DOCKET ARE ACTING AS FORENSIC DOCUMENT EXPERTS, WITH NO EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE, AND ARE ACCEPTING NOTES AND MORTGAGES WHISKED UNDER THEIR NOSES AS ORIGINALS AND CONSISTENTLY FINDING FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

IF YOU WISH TO SEE A CHANGE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FORECLOSURE DOCKET IN THIS STATE, MAY I SUGGEST THAT YOU PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING RULE IN THE PRACTICE BOOK: 

ANY BANK WISHING TO FORECLOSE IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAS TO FILE THE ORIGINAL NOTE, ORIGINAL MORTGAGE, ANY AND ALL ORIGINAL ASSIGNMENTS AND ALLONGES, AND ANY OTHER PIECE OF ORIGINAL PAPERWORK, WITH THE LIS PENDENS AND COMPLAINT TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS VERIFYING THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTS.  ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ENSURE THE VERITY OF FORECLOSURES IN CORRUPTICUT, MAY I SUGGEST THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT EACH ALLEGED ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IS SUBMITTED FOR A FORENSIC EXAM BY AN INDEPENDENT, FBI-APPROVED, FORENSIC LABORATORY AT THE PLAINTIFF’S COST; WHICH COST TO BE RE-COUPED AT JUDGEMENT IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE FORENSICALLY CERTIFIED ORIGINALS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE, I HOPE YOU WILL GIVE THOROUGH THOUGHT TO MY PROPOSED RULE(S).

VIDEO OF SUPREME COURT HEARING ON RULES AND FORMS!

COALITION MEMBERS LISTEN TO TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, APRIL 14, 2014!

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES LINED UP TO HEAR TESTIMONY, APRIL 14, 2014

CT CITIZEN TESTIFYING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, APRIL 14, 2014