JUDGES QUESTIONNAIRE TO WHICH JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE ROUTINELY DENIED ACCESS! WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY?

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS QUICK TO LET US KNOW WHERE HIS PRIORITIES LIE--WITH HIS WIFE!

HERE YOU CAN SEE WHY PRESIDENT OBAMA ISN'T WASTING HIS TIME IN FAMILY COURT!

WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA ABOUT MARRIAGE!

Sometimes I wonder how it ever got to the point where my marriage ended up with a divorce.  Then I look at the way President Obama behaves towards his wife; the light shines and I figure it out.  

More than anything else, President Obama's behavior towards his wife provides an example for all men of how they should behave towards their wives. If they want to stay married and they respect the sanctity of marriage. What he does is on each and every occasion when it is the least bit appropriate, President Obama makes public statements at social events and in person about how much he is grateful for his wife, and how much he holds her in esteem, and how he places her first in all of his considerations.  This is the secret for any man to nurturing and maintaining a healthy marriage.  

My father was exactly the same way.  Throughout my childhood, and indeed, throughout my entire life, I observed my father on frequent occasions verbalize to all of us in our family how much he loved my mother, how much he held her in the highest esteem, and how he considered her first in all things.  

Perhaps he did not always live up to that ideal--and sometimes he'd be caught out on something she didn't approve of and he'd walk around looking all guilty.  But ultimately, this was his ideal, even when he didn't feel like it.  

At appropriate times, during important family events, my father always took the opportunity to thank my mother, to reflect on the special moments of their lives together, and to restate again his commitment to her as the most important person in his life.  Those moments when he did that always made me feel proud.  I say this with great admiration because his devotion to my mother was often quite extraordinary given that my mother wasn't always the easiest person to get along with.  

Still, my point is that he died a married man and lived to see his 60th wedding anniversary.  

How is that done?  It is done first by sticking by that promise you made to have and to hold from this day forward.  Funny to hear that on a blog devoted to divorce!  

My father made his marriage as all men do.  They make it by insisting upon it.  They make it by respecting it.  They make it by valuing it.  They make it by considering it their top priority.  They make it by articulating to themselves and to the world that this woman, or this person who is my partner, is more important to me than anyone else in the world.  This person has fine qualities which I admire and that I cherish and I would never be the person I am today were it not for her.  

My father married my mother on his birthday.  He was 23 and she was 19.  They actually met when she was 16 and he was 20.  And can you imagine they were together well into their 80s.  

I always think, and I believe my parents conveyed to me, that the reason my parents chose his birthday for their wedding date was because their marriage made my father the man he became; it literally gave birth to him as a personality and as a human being.  My mother, literally, was a gift to my father on the day of his birth, and thereby gave birth to him.  The date alone was an indication to their children how important our mother was to my father and to the family.  

So when I look at my own marriage and why it failed, I would start with the fact that my ex-husband went around complaining about me in public, rather than demonstrating the kind of respect President Obama knows how to show towards his wife.  He would trot around that old chestnut that our misogynistic society still falls for, i.e. "She doesn't feed me!" as if he wasn't quite capable of feeding himself, as if we weren't both equally pulling our weight when it came to earning a living, and so demanding I do all the housework on top of that was rather immature and thoroughly entitled.  

What gets me, though, is that we still live in a world where people are willing to actually give a complaining husband the time of day.  It is as if folks love to aid and abet the destruction of a marriage and egg the guy on, even in Churches.  

In fact, when I finally filed for divorce one of the first things I did was collect written affidavits from Church members who stated that my ex would come to Church committee meetings and talk trash about me.  These were the very same Church members who came to my wedding and lifted up their hands in agreement that they committed themselves to supporting and encouraging my ex husband and me in our marriage.  

Talking about lying hypocrisy.  

Of course, that is not surprising given the pastor of the Church.  This was a fellow who took pains to hide his wife and pretend that he had nothing to do with her.  His behavior was so bad that it took me a few years before I figured out who his wife was.  I guess the spirit of a Church leader infiltrates the Church community and creates a group of imitators; many of the marriages in that congregation ended up with divorce as well.  Of course, he stayed married--it wouldn't have been respectable for a pastor to do anything different. But as I say, not everyone who is married is actually married.  He used to say, "I choose to love her." as if someone was pulling one of his teeth out.  I'm not sure that actually counts as a marriage.

What I am saying is actually very simple and straightforward when you think of it and it doesn't seem to have take President Obama that much to have figured it out and acted upon it.  But look around you in our culture where 50% of marriages end in divorce.  How many people do you know actively engage in the manner of President Obama and verbally articulate in public and often how much they respect and appreciate their wives.  

To be honest, I don't see it happening that often, and to me that says it all about where the failure lies.  

You may be saying right now, oh that isn't fair.  Why do guys have to do all the work here.  I'm sorry.  That's just the way it is.  My father used to say to us kids, "If your Mom isn't happy, no one is happy."  Mothers are the very heart and foundation of the family.  If you break that heart, there is nothing left for anyone but the fragments and the tossed about pieces.  That's why the men need to straighten out, step up to the plate, and do the job they were intended for.  If they choose not to do it, then they are responsible for the consequences.  

That is particularly true for those scum of the earth men who snatch custody from mothers and deny them all contact with their children.  There is a special place in hell for those kinds of men.

My mentor in college, a poetry instructor, used to talk about the kinds of people who could look at a statue, an image, or a symbol and fail to understand what it meant even though it was right in front of them.  Here we have our President (I haven't quite gotten used to the fact that he is a former President) demonstrating right before our eyes the proper way to behave, and yet so few have actually picked up on it.  You'd think it would be obvious, but I guess it isn't.  Often wisdom is a distilled quality, and when finally acquired, it is too late.

SPEAKING OUT IN SUPPORT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD AT THE WOMAN'S MARCH JAN. 21, 2017

MICHAEL NOWACKI DECRIES THE WIDESPREAD PERJURY PRACTICED BY JUDGES AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS DURING THE REAPPOINTMENT HEARINGS!

By Email

Wednesday, 
January 18, 2017 
9:16 PM

Rep. Tong:

Today, your suggestion and that of Rep. Rebimbas will be challenged through a media strategy to indicate that the Chairs have engaged, personally, in aiding and abetting false testimony‎ to be delivered in your self described "rigorous" review of those re-nominated for judicial reappointments.

I have confirmed by performing due diligence on the Chairs that the six page form of the Judicial Selection Commission have never been secured and distributed to the membership of the entire Judiciary Committee.

While we would agree that it would be important to redact telephone numbers and addresses for judges to ensure you, as attorneys, do not abuse your position to talk to judges on matters under current litigation including appeal.

There is a legitimate and well grounded concern about a far too "cozy" relationship between the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee and ranking members who are attorneys.

We noted the Chief Justice, in the offices of the Judiciary Committee where the Chairs have an office, meeting prior to the start of the re-confirmation process which began on January 11, 2017.

Do you really believe that members of the United States Congress meet to discuss cases which are controversial decisions?

It may be time for the citizens of this State to initiate a change in the State Constitution to change the Connecticut judiciary to an elected---not an appointment position inasmuch as lawyers, as legislators, have consistently voted favorably on all judicial re-appointments.

Your refusal and failure to provide for public inspection copies of the Judicial Selection Commission forms sworn as "truthful" and not distributing that redacted document to the members of your OWN committee raises serious issues of your self-proclaimed "due dilligence" today.

The decision of the Chairs to limit public posting of transcripts to refute testimony of judges is another example of creating a system where "perjured" testimony is not only tolerated but condoned by the chairs who are definitely more interested in coddling judges than "professional skepticism" which is the hallmark of many professions.

The Judicial Review Council needs to be revised so that all complaints, dismissed or not, are a matter of public record.

The comments on "sealing cases" by Judge Buzzuto for judges who go through a divorce is inconsistent with open disclosure of records to ensure that "addresses are redacted" but the decisions an open public record---just as you make our decisions a matter of an "open public record" which is used to humiliate the citizens while protecting the privacy rights of public officials.

Recent surveys done on the judiciary ranks Connecticut as one of the least transparent of any state in the country.

The fact that the judiciary cut $60 million from its budget because it was bloated without services being decreased should be a clear sign that the legislators, in general, don't have the same "access issues" to the courts that the general public has to endure.

The fact that Rep. Rebimbas refused to disclose on her "stump speech" on Judge Adelman that she received appointments by Judge Adelman smacks of an undisclosed conflict of interest.

As you know, the lack of disclosure of the answers to the 32 questions by your Committee Chairs is a clear sign that what you don't know can hurt the citizens you claim to serve.

There will be letters sent to those who you serve who will be randomly selected off the voter roles to expose the failure of the Chairs to have properly investigated allegations of misconduct reported to you by "railroading" controversial candidates within a week of the controversy involving allegations of perjury to be investigated by a select subcommittee which is balanced with lawyers and non-lawyers to review transcripts which the Chairs refuse to post and share with the colleagues on the committee as "equals".

The lack of "professional skepticism" by lawyers serving as legislators is demonstrated by your consistent voting and "unchallenged" public comments by Rep. Tong and Rep. Rembimas.

The Chairs of the Judiciary Committee asked no tough questions about the "Hightower" matter raised by Rep. Tong---who never even asked a question about it to Judge Adelman today.

There is only ONE representative of the people on your committee who asks tough questions and that is Minnie Gonzalez.

I watched all but one interview conducted by your committee on Wednesday and Friday and I am one of five individuals who will have filed by tomorrow complaints with the Chief State Attorney on five judges who meet the standard of probable cause for arrest for perjury defined in C.G.S. 53a-156 (a).

If the Chief State Attorney Office had a grand jury system in place, then judges would be far less likely to deliver material and false testimony and in written statements provided to the Judicial Selection Commission is provided with a General Release Form.

Until the Chairs take corrective actions to rebuild the trust that only you can restore, the public will exercise our rights to expose "corrupt practices" which the Chairs seem to support.

Have any of you ever sat in a Monday short calendar in family court and watched the meter running?

Have any of you visited a courthouse in Virginia where a help desk directs clients to "calendered" matters in which Connecticut has to run a "pilot program".

The "cattle calls in family courts" is the single, most inefficient way to conduct the public's access to justice.

Despite Rep. Tong's statements that you take these comments seriously, all we need to do is review the voting records of the 19 lawyers on the judiciary committee (if we include one member who had a direct relative on the Supreme Court) and your attempts to deliver Judge Fuger's head on a platter today to show how "tough you are".

At no point in time, since Judge Frazzini sent a "letter of retraction" after I filed a criminal complaint alleging perjury to the Chief's State Attorney's Office has any judge been subject to a delayed vote until a full investigation of allegations of perjury occurs.

There is a section of the Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits a Judge from making a knowingly false statement to a legislative committee.

Until there is either legislative reforms to clean up this system of inefficiencies in due process and remove judges from sitting on administrative committee meetings which take them away from their duties "in court", we will continue to challenge publicly and privately, whether you approve or not, our "professional skepticism" that the lawyers in the legislature are engaging and abetting perjury by refusing to table the vote on any judge who is alleged to have committed perjury under oath.

We will be unrelenting because this "tyranny" creates through the empowerment of "judicial discretion" to rape and pillage the financial resources of parents via a reallocation of our lifetime savings to support your "system of racketeering" by having lawyers sitting in a courtroom for hours and then billing their clients for accomplishing nothing and being paid for it.

I would be happy to sit down with you to discuss with a group of litigants to show us the evidence of perjury---which are now on their way ‎for review by the "probable cause" standards which apply to criminal arrests of those judges who made knowingly false material statements to a committee.

For Rep. Rebimbas to have made a claim that "she has some sort of access to transcripts" to the 3,850 pages of transcripts, is nothing less than balderdash.

We are tired of the "obstruction" by the Chairs to a proper review of evidence by limiting the posting of transcripts on the judiciary committee website.

In the movie "A Few Good Men", Jack Nicholson's line seems appropriate to close this email:

"You can't handle the truth."

Michael Nowacki,

Public Advocate

MICHAEL NOWACKI TO REP. ROSA REBIMBAS, "YOU LIED!"

BY EMAIL:

Wednesday, 
January 18, 2017 
1:55 PM

Rep. Remimbas:

You lied to the public today on CT-N when you said you have the ability to review public records on-line about a judge to evaluate the authenticity of testimony.

Transcripts of court proceedings are not readily available on line and your comments were disingenuous.

You and your colleagues as lawyers have ZERO credibility in the fawning which I am watching on CT-N today regarding judges re-confirmation hearings today in the House.

When my house sells in Connecticut, I may need to reside somewhere for two years and will expose you by taking residence in your district to reveal your conflicts of interest in having been appointed by Judge Bozzuto as a GAL when she was first appointed to the bench.

We will continue to expose you and the other lawyers on the judiciary who don't allow transcripts to be shared on line on the judiciary website to refute the sworn testimony of judges at public hearings.

I have a bag of marshmellows here in my home for a reason today---to toss them at the screen when legislators like Labriola and you stand up and lie to protect  judges who deliver knowingly false testimony under oath.

There is a reason why we call Connecticut--Corrupticut--to honor your personal enduring legacy which is causing people to leave the State---30,000 of them last year.

In your entire time of voting on judicial confirmations which I have observed for the last sic years, I am still waiting for you to oppose an re-nomination---even on Judge Parker.

We have no respect for you and your legal colleagues on the judiciary committee who you allow to perjure themselves under oath without consequence.

It is time for citizens to expose you for your undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Look for my LTE in your weekly newspaper exposing your mis-statements about "your access" to public records to review "difficult cases".

Sincerely,

Michael Nowacki

New Canaan, CT