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

SOJOURNER TRUTH SPEAKS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ON THE ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF VIDEOCONFERENCING!

April 14, 2014

Public Testimony

Of

Sojourner Truth

            It is my intent to remain anonymous in my testimony today inasmuch as I fear judicial retaliation from members of this court that might result from my commentary today on Practice Book Rule §23-68:  “Where Presence of Person May Be By Means of  an Audio Visual Device” (which is also included  by reference in Sec. 25-39 miscellaneous rules).

            This is an example of where a Practice Book Rule  expands  the jurisdiction of the courts by use of the words, “judicial discretion” since such videoconferences are allowed based upon judicial discretion alone rather than any other factors.

            Practice Book Rule §23-68 as written makes no provisions in civil proceedings to ensure the due process and equal protection rights of self-represented litigants who are incarcerated as defined in the 14th Amendment.  Such rights are as follows:  The right…

1)    To be present in the courtroom to observe proceedings

2)    To receive proper notices for such court proceedings to ensure no elements of surprise

3)     To provide consent to the judicial authority to waive a litigant’s who is self represented party’s fundamental right to a writ of habeas  

4)    To review and authenticate evidence which may be presented at a court proceeding

5)    To have the ability to subpoena witnesses in the same manner as an opposing litigant

6)    To properly examine witnesses with documents which may aid in “refreshing the recollection” of a witness

7)    To properly allow a litigant who is a self-represented party while incarcerated with access to files which could retain documents relevant to any proceeding

            Further, the  adoption of this Practice Book rule 23-68, represents an abridgment of a substantive right of every litigant to an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

            Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States clearly states:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

            At the November 2010, Rules Committee meeting, then Superior Court Judge Michael Sheldon, and Judge Juliet Crawford objected to the implementation of videoconferencing rules adoption in juvenile court proceedings on the grounds of federal protections for writs of habeas corpus

The Rules Committee had received a presentation from Judge Eliot Solomon in November 2010 on the “cost savings” offered to the State of Connecticut in utilizing videoconference court proceedings. 

However, there was never a discussion at the November 2010 meeting about protecting the rights of a self-represented litigant to a writ of habeas corpus.

The judicial branch seems unaware of the lack of library access an incarcerated litigant is afforded in a detention facility.  There is limited access to one hour per week to library resources in many detention facilities to perform legal research.

Therefore, the provisions in Connecticut Practice Book Rule §23-68, must be revised to remove the ability of any judicial authority to order a person who is a litigant and a self-represented party to appear at a court hearing by an interactive audiovisual device without the self-represented party’s consent.

The Supreme Court is reminded of its duties to protect the rights of citizens who elect self-representation under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.

Connecticut’s Practice Book Rules must in all cases be considered in light of the Oath of Office taken by all judicial officers to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, in Article First: Declaration of Rights, Section 12:

“The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; nor in any case, but by the legislature.”

            Minimally, Practice Book §23-68 and §25-39 (which references family matters as

subject to provisions in §23-68) should be amended as follows:

(a)   No self-represented party can be ordered by any judicial authority to participate

in any  court proceeding conducted by an interactive audiovisual device without consent.

            In order to ensure compliance by the judiciary on this proposed modification on JD-FM-201, this form would need to be modified to contain a box with a consent waiver and signature and would require seven days notice by certified mail:

            I, __(print name)______________ consent to the use of an interactive audiovisual device for the hearing scheduled on ___date____ as noted above

           I, __(print name) ________DO NOT Consent to the use of interactive audiovisual device for the hearing scheduled on ___date___and request transportation to the courthouse for the hearing as noted above.

__________________                    _______________

(Signature Required)                              (Date)

 

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER'S TESTIMONY RE BILL #494

TESTIMONY RE BILL #494

By Elizabeth A. Richter

Thank you for allowing me to provide you with feedback in regard to Bill #494.

I want to thank the assembled Judiciary Committee for responding to the concerns people expressed on January 9, 2014  in regard to GAL/AMC abuse by proposing this bill.  I think it goes a long way towards improving the GAL/AMC system in terms of:

1.    Providing guidelines for the specific work GALs/AMCs will do and what will be the conditions of their employment.

2.    Protecting some of children’s assets from plunder by GALs/AMCs

3.    Allowing for a sliding scale when it comes to payment of GALs and AMCs

4.    Giving parties standing for challenging a bad GAL/AMC

5.    Producing an explanatory booklet in regard to the GAL/AMC system

What we still require are the following:

1.    In regard to Bill #494, Sec. 1, we need parameters for judges for making a determination as to when a GAL or AMC is needed.  We don’t need GALs or AMCs simply because there is a custody dispute as long as both parents are fit parents.  GALs and AMCs should only be appointed given a DCF determination of abuse or neglect.

2.    In regard to Section 1 (c) of Bill #494, there should be caps on GAL/AMC fees based upon income, and a determination of priorities in order of importance when it comes to tasks the GAL/AMC should be asked to do.  Not everyone has the ability to pay for full services, or wants to or needs to—parents should have a voice in regard to options when it comes to levels of engagement, or prioritizing of tasks in order to limit charges.  Some tasks may have to be left at the wayside because there is no money for them, and this is a reality many parents face.  While we may want to provide unique and specialized care to each family, the economic reality is that this is a luxury many parents cannot afford, nor should they always have it.

3.    In regard to Section #4 of Bill #494, we require specific guidelines regarding what GAL/AMC behaviors would justify a determination of fact that a professional has acted in such a manner as to warrant removal from his or her position.  Such guidelines might be, for example, any one of the following misbehaviors: 1) failing to meet sufficiently with the child client; 2) lying about facts in the case; 3) hiding evidence in the case; 5) failing to investigate charges of PAS or DV; 6. Bias in favor of one or the other party; 7. Providing legal advice to one or the other party. 8. Acting outside the scope of representation as defined by the Judge, etc.  Also, we need a definition of what level of severity of the wrongdoing of the complained about behavior—annoying all the way down the range to egregious--is necessary, and we need to know whether evidence must rise to that of clear and convincing evidence or simply the preponderance of the evidence.  The current lack of clarity in this bill could harm parties with legitimate grievances.

4.    There should be a tracking system included in this Bill requesting that the CT Judicial Branch make a notation of when a GAL or AMC is assigned in a case and for what reason, and also tracking how frequently these GALs or AMCs are removed from a case and for what reason. 

5.    There should be an evaluation system put into place to track good GALs and bad GALs in the form of evaluation forms provided to the parties so that they can give feedback to the CT Judicial Branch and the Judges at the end of a case in regard to which GALS and AMCs are succeeding and which are not.

6.    In regard to Sec. 6 requiring a publication describing the GAL/AMC system in the CT Judicial Branch, I request that one member of the public, and one non lawyer be assigned to the Committee writing that publication.

7.    GALs and AMCs should be required to comply with ADA Law under Title II and title III and should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of disability and they should be required to provide Notice of their intention to comply with the  non-discrimination requirements of the ADA at the beginning of a case.

Thank you very much for your time.  Please approve Bill #494 with the appropriate changes that I have suggested.

 

Submitted By,

 

 Elizabeth A. Richter

P.O. Box 5

Canton, CT  06019

860-751-4668

earichter@aol.com

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL NOWACKI ON S.B. #494!

Testimony of Michael Nowacki

In Opposition to S.B. 494

 

            Senate Bill 494 should be categorically rejected by the judiciary committee membership. Its adoption would create “An Act to Perpetuate Stranger Danger in the Family Courts of Connecticut.”

            On January 9, 2014, scores of parents testified to a Task Force about egregious court ordered fee income for GALs, AMCS, court appointed psychologists, psychiatrists, conflict managers and “monitored supervision” of parenting time in the State of Connecticut.

            Today, we again stand up with righteous indignation in defense of our rights to love our children without the interference of government.

            S.B. 494 does nothing to protect the constitutional rights of parents and children, to fundamental “liberty interests” of “fit parents” to the “care, custody and companionship” of our children and rights to familial associations upheld by the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Troxel v. Granville.

S.B. 494 doesn’t pass the smell test, because it was written by lawyers elected as legislators and perpetuates the employment of “insider traders” who operate in a corrupt family court system which fails to serve “the best interests of our children”.

S.B. 494 merely endorses a continuation of income based discrimination criteria based on financial affidavits employed by family court judges who award existing racketeering style fees AMCs and GALs and their “framilies” for non-regulated services, and the trafficking of parental custody rights for private contractor profiteering. 

Where in this legislation, Senator Kissel, is a Code of Ethics with disbarment sanctions for GALs and AMCs who violate our children’s rights to informed consent?

According to Michael Bowler, despite hundreds of grievance complaints filed against GALs and AMCs since 2007, including my 52 page complaint against AMC Reich attached to my written testimony, there has never been a sanction issued against an AMC by the Statewide Bar Counsel for violating a child’s right to informed consent. 

In fact, S.B. 494 would codify a family court authority to appoint GALs, which heretofore was only legally sanctioned in probate court and juvenile court proceedings. Instead of conducting “hearings” required by C.G.S.§ 51-14 (b), ranking members of the legislative judiciary committee have been meeting clandestinely with judges to pass rules such as C.P.B. Rule 25-62 which created a judicial discretion to make GAL appointments.

I had joint legal and physical custody for five years, until AMC Veronica Reich, without the knowledge or consent of my 13 and 15 year old children, filed an “Emergency” Ex Parte Order for Custody Modification, in which there were no claims of abuse or neglect.

In my post judgment case alone, court ordered fees totaled $250,000 without factoring in over $125,000 of federal income taxes and state income taxes accrued from the liquidation of IRA funds, forced after seven days of incarceration for contempt for non-payment and under a threat to pay a $10,000 per week fine ordered by Judge Robert Malone.

Simply stated, absent custody cases involving abuse or neglect verified by DCF, there is no need for GALs or AMCs in the State of Connecticut to be appointed in family courts. 

We honor Patrick Henry’s patriotic oratory today, our voices of unification today rising in a crescendo to this legislature:  “Restore our liberty rights to parent without the interference of government, or give us death.”

 

Submitted by:

Michael Nowacki