A POSSIBLE 50% OF FAMILY COURT LITIGANTS ARE VICTIMS OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION PERPETRATED BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION!

If there is one piece of nonsense that bothers me the most about CT Family Court it is the mythology the legal community likes to spread around that the people who are being defrauded and exploited in Family Court are just a small minority of crazy people. 

 

The first time I heard this theory of the small crazy minority was from the discussion in the December 2002 report of the Governor's Commission on Divorce, Custody and Children.  This report stated as follows, "Conflict between parents during and after separation presents a major risk to children and a major challenge to the system.  The majority of divorcing and separating parents recognize their personal responsibility to meet the financial, emotional, and developmental needs of their children.  These parents, with some assistance from the Family Services Unit, private mediators or therapists, do their best to work out arrangements for the future life of their children within the changed family.  However, a small minority of parents engages in persistent conflict because of anger, characterological or mental health problems, or force of personality." 

 

I had forgotten this discussion regarding the cause of the problems associated with the CT Family Court system.  However, in January 2014, when the report was published of the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and custody of Minor Children, to my surprise, instead of providing new insights based upon the testimony of the many individuals who came to speak to the Task force, the members of the Task Force simply repeated what the 2002 Commission had to say--blaming CT Family Court problems on a small minority of mentally ill people. 

 

But where did this claim originate?  That is what I don't get. 

 

We actually do not have any statistical basis for that conclusion; there has been no study, no investigation of CT Family Court records, nothing that establishes this claim in fact. 

 

During the testimony in regard to CT Family Court I heard victims of family court talk of Guardian Ad Litems who couldn't be bothered to meet with their child clients, I heard about attorneys who padded their bills and who created conflicts deliberately in order to increase their legal fees.  I heard about judges who refused to allow victims of family court to present their witnesses or their documentary evidence.  I heard about mental health professionals who deliberately manipulated family court litigants, pushed quack theories regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome, and aided and abetted in custody switching schemes. 

 

I certainly heard about people being driven to desperation and despair by the CT Family Court system, but I did not see that you could line up a group of people who had been labeled with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or personality disorders and point at them as the source of all the complaints directed towards the legal system.  

 

I asked myself:  could it be that pointing fingers at people with mental health labels was simply a way that corrupt family court officials--judges, attorneys, and GALs--had of scapegoating an unpopular social class in order to explain away their wrongdoing? 

 

This is why I was extremely interested in the Biannual Report of the CT Judicial Branch 2012-2014.  As soon as it came out, I grabbed the report and quickly flipped to the back where the statistics are located.  So this is the story I got out of these statistics. 

 

Based upon the stats in this biannual report, there are approximately 34,000 divorces more or less filed each year in the State of Connecticut.  According to the report, half of these cases go to trial, and half of them are disposed of in other ways.  So that means approximately 17,000 go to trial.  According to retired Judge Lynda Munro, 35% of those continue on to appeal.  So that is 5,950 per year that are high conflict, simply by virtue of the fact that not even the trial was sufficient to settle matters. 

 

The CT Judicial Branch and the Legal profession want to say that the people involved in high conflict divorce are a tiny minority.  Does approximately 5,950 cases per year seem like a teensy, tiny minority to you guys? 

 

Of course, I am just associating high conflict with the concrete numbers of individuals who are unable to resolve their family court issues to the point where they continue on to appellate court.  What about the many more who are also high conflict, but can't afford the legal fees to go any further.  What about those who simply give up and accept the fact that they have lost all of their money or won't ever see their children again.  What about the additional group of individuals who may never end up in Appellate Court but continue on with years and years of post judgment legal issues.  Then there are those who have been blackmailed and intimidated by family court professionals that they are afraid to speak out.

 

Now you may be getting up to numbers that include at least 50% of litigants or more. 

 

Of course, you could get to 50% simply by saying that any divorcing couple that has to go to trial is automatically high conflict.  The bottom line is that any significant trial can cost up to $30,000 for a single litigant, and as much as $60,000 for both.  If you are willing to pay that much to go to trial, yes, I would say what you have is high conflict.

 

I am speculating here with a broad range of numbers.  It is good speculation in that I think that the conclusion I've drawn is correct that we have at least 50% or more of litigants entangled in devastating and fraudulent divorce proceedings. 

 

On the other hand, I think that the CT Judicial Branch could go a long way towards ensuring greater accuracy if the Branch actually collected more concrete numbers in a way that was geared towards understanding the actual causes of the problems, rather than just blaming people with mental illness as a way to avoid accountability. 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH SITS ON COMPLAINTS AGAINST ABUSIVE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS!

This report in from Ms. Susan Skipp:

 

My complaints against Horowitz and Krieger with the Department of Public Health "DPH" have been open for well over A YEAR, and are well stocked with criminal activity. This was after I found out the DPH was giving me false information (on paper) that they needed both parents' release to investigate. Lengthy discussions with the Secretary of State's office as well as Corporate Counsel for DPH revealed this is untrue as the DPH has full subpoena power.

 

When I inquired recently about the progress of this case, I was told by Maribeth Mendes and Katherine Boulware that the investigation is still open because no one has volunteered to decide it: I believe that is largely due to my insistence that no AFCC affiliated person be involved in the investigation. They usually cover for each other. For example, Dr. Elizabeth Thayer, who was on the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children which has now resulted in bill #494 and was co chaired by to AFCC GALs.  See the article below:

 

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/speaking-family/2013/dec/26/ct-task-force-spars-parents-over-billing-fraud-fam/

All but three members of the task force were AFCC members. Thayer, who also derives a sizable income via court appointments, finds no wrong doing as does Zazlow in DPH complaints against AFCC members. They are the two of the most often called upon volunteers. 

These kinds of conflicts of interest in connection to the AFCC's association with the CT Judicial Branch has led to numerous ethical violations.  For example, in my case, Judge Lynda Munro did not disclose her shared business interest with two witnesses against me.  Dr. Sidney Horowitz was a fact witness who perjured himself five times during trial. Although, at the time, Munro was purported to be a board member for the Connecticut AFCC, along with Sidney Horowitz, in the national AFCC newsletters; Still, the AFCC was not a registered entity with the state.  This is entirely improper.  Furthermore,  the AFCC ran unlicensed and unregistered for three years in my case, and illegally for almost 30 years prior.  For more information on AFCC ethical violations, see the article below:

 

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

 

AFCC policies and procedures in regard to court programming were and are unregulated because the principals of the now registered entity show two court support services division employees as principals. The third is an often court appointed and of the ilk of Horowitz, Elizabeth Smith. The CSSD workers, one in charge of family relations, implement and evaluate programming in family relations.  What is more, the AFCC does the GAL training which is required of all GALs employed in the State of Connecticut.  So this illegal operation was and continues to operate within the CT Judicial Branch in violation of all ethical principles.

The judiciary has been aware of these conflicts of interest, as has been the state's attorney and Secretary of State for over a year. Still, nothing has been done to stop this outrage, and, as a result, nothing has happened to the mental health providers who bypass state bidding procedures and find ways to avoid signing contracts with standard anti-discriminatory language.  Not only that, nothing has been done to punish the profiteering AFCC trained GALs who take college funds, retirement funds, 401k's, insurance policies", all in the name of the children involved who are left penniless with parents who are facing foreclosure and the loss of their jobs because of constant interference from the CT Judicial Branch.  The power behind this ripoff are the CT Family Court judges who act as collection agencies with the excuse that this forced contract shakedown for assets is justified because the have ruled without any statutory basis that GAL fees are also child support.

 

The courts receive federal funding that facilitates children being placed with violent, abusive and/or sexually abusive fathers. It's difficult to ascertain exact numbers as the judicial branch does not have a statistician to obtain accurate numbers, but it seems that since 2006, when AFCC programming was put into the Family Court System, and HHS fatherhood.gov money started pouring into the Family Courts, which spread through the State into Martinez grants, women started losing their children at alarming rates and "high conflict"/ high revenue cases emerged for family law attorneys and the myriad of other professionals. This has led to large number of custody conflicts, where protective mothers are losing children at more than triple the rate than before.

 

For a good example of how the process works, see the link below:

 

http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-court-failure-the-deadly-rebranding-of-joshua-komisarjevsky-10607/

 

Many are forced to another unregulated institution of supervised visitation centers, many AFCC run, extending the ability of AFCC related businesses to continue their profiteering activities. These too have no oversight and are not recognized by the Consumer Trade Commission. 

Family court is a broken system that is harming many. The liability for the ADA violations for these AFCC practices can bankrupt the State of Connecticut in sanctions alone should the CT DOJ choose to pursue the many thousands of cases throughout the State. The CT Judicial Branch entered an agreement in 2003 for it's non-compliance with ADA. If the judicial branch wants to live up to the lie on their website "we are Ada compliant" first thing that needs to go is the AFCC which is not compliant with the ADA, and next the discriminatory federal funding that allows these policies to be implemented must go. 

When abusers and victims are placed in the adversarial position of a divorce court, the abuser will usually win.  This came to light by the DOJ commissioned Saunders report and Connecticut's skimpy data also shows that trend.  Attorney Stephen Dembo, a notorious wrongdoer in connection to incentivizing high conflict divorces on behalf of abusers, is ironically on the Family Commission.  FYI, Attorney Steve Dembo and Dr. Sidney Horowitz and been partners together in an extraordinary 68 high conflict cases conducted in Family Court.  Munro and Krieger started RFTD. These are just tiny cogs in a the dirty wheel of justice that spins in favor of the new carpetbagger class that has inundated the CT Judicial Branch in the last few decades.

 

 

The state's judicial practices have not just destroyed me and my children, but tens of thousands of others, ensuring future generations of dysfunction with which to reap ongoing revenue. This is a phenomena I imagine many people reading this article are experiencing. 

The fact that these crimes are well known--Attorney General George Jepson and Attorney John Hughes of the DOJ have been fully informed, and yet do nothing is indicative of the graft, corruption and greed driven practices by many which are subtly and not so subtly tolerated or even furthered by some of the most powerful politicians and government functionaries in this State. I have mentioned twelve crimes in this email and it's being sent to the entities responsible for investigating these crimes.  It is time that fit mothers, protective mothers, finally saw some action and that those individuals who are responsible for holding criminals accountable do something about the crimes that I have described in so much detail here in this email.

 

Family law in Connecticut, and that in so many states, has become an embarrassment to honest and moral citizens. It doesn't seem that many within the system are reaching into their personal wells of honesty and morality to fix the situation and that too many generally ignore the unlawful and criminal injustices occurring in family court as well as the many civil rights violations that have been documented.

 

This is a holocaust of our families and children in the State of Connecticut.  Something needs to be done now.  Citizens of the State of Connecticut cannot afford to remain silent.

 

In the words of the great Holocaust protestor, Pastor Martin Niemoller,

 

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

 

Sincerely,

Ms. Susan Skipp,

Family Court Activist,

Mother of Lost Children

 

AND THEY CALL THEM INSANE!

In the early 70s, a group of eight people--three women and five men--checked into the emergency rooms of 12 separate psychiatric hospitals and said that they heard voices telling them "empty", "hollow", or "thud".  All eight of them were admitted to the hospital with diagnoses of schizophrenia, except one who was diagnosed with bipolar.

 

Once in the hospital, all of these patients behaved completely normally and reported that they had no more symptoms.  Still it took from 7 to 52 days for them to be released.  As a condition of their release, they were all required to admit that they had a mental illness and that they would take anti-psychotic medication in order to control that illness. 

 

As it turned out, none of these folks had a mental illness.  They were all volunteers in an experiment conducted by Dr. David Rosenhan in order to test the validity of psychiatric diagnoses.  One was a graduate student in his twenties, three were psychologists, and there was a pediatrician, a psychiatrist, a painter and a housewife. 

 

Once the results of this experiment came out, the doctors at these hospitals cried foul and said that the test was unfair, so Dr. Rosenhan agreed to do it again with one specific hospital.  This time he warned the hospital to expect that fake patients would again attempt admittance to its facility.  In the weeks that followed, the staff at the hospital confidently identified 41 out the 193 patients that it had evaluated as fake patients. 

 

As it turned out, Dr. Rosenhan hadn't sent anyone to the facility at all. 

 

The results of this study made it clear how difficult it is to distinguish between the sane and the insane, particularly within the context of a hospital emergency room where staff members are approaching patients with specific expectations. 

 

Ironically, even though none of the staff members in the first experiment identified the fake patients, several of the patients at these hospitals expressed their doubts suggesting that the fake patients were researchers or journalists investigating the hospitals. 

 

The results of this study were published by Dr. David Rosenhan in 1973 in an article entitled "Being Sane in Insane Places." 

 

While the study remains controversial within the mental health profession, no one has been able to successfully refute its conclusions.  Put twenty five different psychiatrists in a room with a patient, and you are likely to obtain as many diagnoses of that patient as you have psychiatrists. 

 

This is why it is particularly troubling that the Connecticut Judicial Branch allows Judges and attorneys to use fabricated mental health assessments to trash the reputations of litigants and use them as the basis for denying them access to their children.   Many of these litigants have never had a diagnosis before they stepped into a courtroom. 

 

I observed this happening in Susan Skipp's case recently.  The trial court had heard expert testimony from Ms. Skipp's psychiatrist that she had PTSD from the legal abuse which she was experiencing as a result of her divorce. 

 

Ordinarily, any conclusion the Court draws about litigants in court arises from the evidence provided at trial through expert testimony or documents which provide corroborating information.  In Susan Skipp's situation, Judge Lynda Munro without any evidentiary basis whatsoever arbitrarily disregarded the testimony about Ms. Skipp's PTSD and wrote a Memorandum of Decision which broadly hinted that Ms. Skipp had some other, unnamed mental health condition that still needed to be diagnosed. 

 

This is something that Judge Munro invented from her own mind.  Yet, Munro is not a psychiatrist and has no professional qualifications to diagnose anyone with a mental health condition.  If she had concerns that Susan Skipp had some unidentified mental health condition, she had the opportunity to ask that question of the expert witnesses which the attorney made available during the four days of trial, but she did not. 

 

Instead, Judge Lynda Munro took the opportunity to smear Ms. Skipps reputation counting upon her judicial immunity as a means to get away with doing so. 

 

Subsequently, the Judge continued on the use this unnamed mental health illness, about which there was no evidence presented at trial, as the basis for denying Ms. Skipp access to her children. 

 

In a similar case which I observed recently, another friend who will remain anonymous--let's call him "Joe" was also subjected to this Judge initiated pseudo-psychiatry. 

 

Joe had provided an expert witness from out of state to testify to the effect that Joe did not have a mental illness.  Instead of accepting this testimony, the Judge in the case refused to consider it  valid because it came from a mental health professional from out of state.  Tell me, what did the Judge think happens?  Mental Health Professionals from, say, New Jersey, lose their professional expertise and intelligence as soon as they cross the border into Connecticut?  That doesn't say much about any of the professions in the field of mental health if their body of knowledge cannot be translated from one State to another!  

 

Be that as it may, having decided that an out of state mental health professional is incapable of providing an accurate assessment of my friend, Joe, the Judge went on to declare that Joe had a mental health disability; he isn't sure what it is, and what it consists of, but surely an in-state professional could figure it out.  Further, the Judge's decision was that Joe would be restricted to supervised visitation until the diagnosis could be figured out.  

 

Another way that you could interpret the discussion in Joe's case is that the Court was only willing to have a mental health professional provide testimony if he was in-state and affiliated with the Judge and the Opposing Attorney so the latter could influence the result of the psychological evaluation.  If true, this calls into question the integrity of any mental health professional who would allow factors outside the evaluation itself, (i.e. friendship with the judge or other attorneys) to affect his or her determination of a particular person's diagnosis.   

 

As with Susan and "Joe", I can name case after case where judges and attorneys have hinted at unnamed mental health conditions to gain advantage in a case, or to have their own way, independent of the facts of the case. 

 

This is not the first time in history where people in positions of power have sought to maintain and expand their authority by accusing their opponents of insanity.  Nazi Germany comes to mind, Russia and its Eastern European Allies; the People's Republic of China during the era of Mao Zedong.  Women, particularly intelligent women, have been victimized by false accusations of insanity for doing such things as fighting for the right to vote or demanding an education.  And don't forget the notorious diagnosis of drapetomania, invented in 1851 by Samuel A. Cartwright to describe a mental illness which caused slaves to run away from their bondage. 

 

Even if there were any validity to a diagnosis of mental illness, why is a mental health disability or any disability for that matter used as a means to deny a person access to their children or due process of law?  Wasn't the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 implemented with the intention of eliminating discrimination on the basis of disability? 

If a person has a disability as determined by Family Court, either a physical or mental disability, shouldn't the question be what reasonable modifications does that person require in order to fulfill his or her role as a parent--not how can we immediately strip that person of all his or her civil rights and constitutional rights without any further investigation.  Why is there such a powerful knee jerk reaction of condemnation and rejection simply as the result of a label.  If a person who has blindness or a person who has deafness can still be a parent, why not a person with mental illness.  What's the difference?

 

More than any other, an attorney's accusation that a particular litigant has some form of mental illness is the most harmful and damaging one out there.  Why is that so?  Because it appeals to society's most basic prejudices towards people with mental illness, to such concepts that people with mental illness are subhuman monsters capable of any kind of violence and degradation, that they are incapable of taking care of themselves and that they are intellectually damaged beyond repair and incapable of rudimentary thought and insight.  Many people believe that any kind of deception and misrepresentation is acceptable to practice against a person who has a mental illness because they believe that someone with a mental health label should have no rights. 

 

With such widespread and prevalent attitudes of hatred towards those with mental illness, particularly after the Sandy Hook incident, trashing a person by calling them crazy has to be the easiest way to achieve the goal of destroying the opposing party in a custody trial. 

 

At the same time such practices are morally and spiritually repugnant in that they stigmatize, marginalize, silence, and deny justice to one fifth of the population in our State, and it is done with the support of the moral equivalent of the KKK when it comes to mental health disabilities, i.e. the Connecticut Judicial Branch, the Connecticut Bar Association, judges, attorneys, family services personnel, clerks, and other employees who work for our family courts all of whom buy into the false, bigoted premise that people with mental health disabilities should not be allowed any of the kinds of legal rights which are routinely accorded to citizens of Connecticut who do not have a label.  From what I have personally observed, bigoted attitudes like this are common among those who work in the legal field and accepted uncritically.  This is wrong and it has to stop--now.

As a final thought, it is worth considering: 

If Abraham Lincoln were alive today, he would probably be denied custody of his children.  He had frequent bouts of clinical depression.

Ludwig Van Beethoven was involved in a custody dispute regarding his nephew Karl and won.  Were he in Family Court in Connecticut today, he might not gain custody because he is thought to have had bipolar disorder.

Many average citizens have mental health disorders; they ride to work on the same buses that you do, pay taxes, get college degrees, and go to Church.  They do not have horns.  Isn't it time for Court personnel and family court attorneys to acknowledge that this is true and stop demonizing innocent people.



 

THE AFCC UNDERCUTS THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS LEAVING DEFRAUDED LITIGANTS WITHOUT ANY REMEDY OR OPPORTUNITY FOR RELIEF!

When I look back at my case, I realize I spent a considerable amount of time on submitting grievances in regard to the ADA.  I was denied ADA reasonable modifications for three years even though I had solid documentation indicating that I was eligible. 

 

From the beginning, since I was aware of how the Judicial Branch can obstruct a litigant from obtaining their rights, I knew that obtaining modifications would be difficult. In particular, I was concerned about the 3rd prong of the ADA which is the "regarded as" category because it is slightly less straightforward than the other prongs. 

 

Thus, In order to collect as much information as I could to support my claims, I contacted the New England ADA Technical Center with my questions.  Since my questions were somewhat complicated, I ended up being referred to Attorney Kathy Gips for more details.  She was reasonably friendly, but did not answer my questions and tended to be vague and non supportive. 

 

Just talking to her was enough to discourage me completely from following through on trying to obtain the protections from discrimination that I required. 

 

Fast forward three years and I was talking to Sandra Lugo-Gines the ADA "Project Manager" and I happened to mention my work with Attorney Gips and Sandra made a comment that interested me, that the Connecticut Judicial Branch itself works with Attorney Gips on compliance issues. 

 

After I investigated the issue further, I found out that Attorney Gips had been paid for conducting several ADA training sessions over the years.  I don't know how much money she earned from the Connecticut Judicial Branch and other agencies in the State of Connecticut doing these training sessions, but I can imagine it was considerable. 

 

And if she didn't earn a lot of money, I suspect she established positive relationships with Connecticut Judicial Branch employees and established friendships with them which would have encouraged her to be far more loyal to those employees rather than to the rag tag conglomeration of consumers like me who called to find out how we could protect ourselves from the way the Connecticut Judicial Branch was violating the ADA on a daily, hourly, minute by minute basis.  

So the bottom line is that Attorney Kathy Gips gave me no support or information at all because she had already sold out to the CT Judicial Branch. 

 

The New England ADA Technical Center is based out of Boston, far away from the Connecticut Judicial Branch in Hartford, and yet Attorney Gips had that alliance.  Who would ever figure that out?  If you didn't know you might think Attorney Gips had an independent opinion, but she did not.  

 

When it comes to litigant complaints, the same situation is going on when it comes to the Connecticut Judicial Branch and the AFCC both of whom are trying to protect their interests at the expense of Connecticut Citizens. 

 

According to the report by independent journalist Anne Stevenson, since the AFCC is run by Judicial Branch employees who are Judicial Branch managers and judges, they are in a position to control the outcome of all consumer complaints and lawsuits filed with the Courts regarding AFCC programs and members.  Some examples of this are as follows:

Until quite recently, or until she was caught, Judge Lynda Munro, an AFCC member, was Chief Administrative Judge of the Family Court.  This means that all complaints about judges, attorneys, and the court's administrative programs had to be filtered through her.

 

Furthermore, Judge Munro oversaw the GAL training and certification program.  Currently, GAL's receive qualified immunity, but there is no oversight authority and no decertification process.  The protocol for filing a complaint about a GAL is that you are supposed to take it up with the presiding family court judge assigned to your case, who is ultimately beholden to, you guessed it, AFCC member Judge Munro.

 

Complaints about attorneys are directed to the Statewide Grievance Committee, which includes AFCC member Attorney Sue Cousineau.

 

Complaints about violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act are directed to AFCC member Phyllis Cummings Texiera.

 

Also, until recently, complaints about the Court's administrative services, federal funded grant projects were directed to AFCC supporter Judge Barbara Quinn.  At this point I believe Judge Quinn has left her position, as Judge Munro did.  However, there is no reason to believe that another person similarly connected or similarly obligated to AFCC will not be appointed in her place.

 

Complaints about judges are directed to the Judicial Review Council whose members include AFCC member Attorney Barbara Aaron.

 

The AFCC has essentially reached its tentacles into all aspects of the grievance process to the extent that litigants have no recourse in circumstances where they face injustice and wrongdoing.  This is why litigants can report that there has been outright wrongdoing in their cases and yet the systems in place to address their complaints simply disregard those complaints and make light of the most outrageous behavior on the part of judges, attorneys, and GALs.

 

For instance, you have an attorney firm such as O'Connell, Flaherty, and Attmore, LLC, now renamed O'Connell, Attmore, and Morris, LLC, which has defrauded its own clients on a massive scale, has sued up to 69 of its clients in wrongful collections cases, has settled prior malpractice suits, and is currently even now being sued in malpractice cases in Civil Court simply evading and avoiding all accountability to the Statewide Grievance Committee despite overwhelming evidence of improper dealings. One of their attorneys was even caught by the FBI and is currently in jail, and yet Statewide refuses to take complaints about this firm seriously.  How else can you account for this outrageous, irresponsible hands off type attitude if not by attributing it the whole influence peddling schemes of the AFCC which are right out there in front of peoples noses.

 

And now we have the ultimate outrage where two legislators--Rep. Brandan Sharkey and Sen. Donald Williams--have appointed two AFCC members to co-chair the task force established to investigate the AFCC's wrongdoing and its criminal infiltration of the Connecticut Judicial Branch: Attorney Sharon Wicks Dornfeld and Attorney Sue Cousineau.  So we have two foxes looking into how well the foxes have been illegally raiding the hen house.  You can imagine how this will end!

So far, from what I see of their actions, it looks like Attorney Dornfeld and Attorney Cousineau are there to undercut the goals of the task force by deflecting and suppressing any information which might expose the AFCC to scrutiny.  The attorneys, judges and GALs who are part of this scheme, and the legislators who support them have no shame.  They believe that they are invulnerable and they will never be held accountable.  So they stick Dornfeld and Cousineau right in our faces and don't care what the consequences are in terms of the loss of credibility and the loss of citizens' faith in the legitimacy of this task force.

 

This is why citizens in the State of Connecticut, people who have experienced abuse from AFCC members within the CT Judicial Branch and its circle of influence must continue to keep the pressure on and hold the Judicial Branch and our Legislators accountable for rooting out the AFCC corruption in our legal system.  We cannot continue to allow the CT Judicial Branch to abuse emotionally and financially extort vulnerable parents and their innocent children.

THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRACY! HUMAN TRAFFICKING POSTER PRODUCED BY CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

On September 25, 2013, the Connecticut Judicial Branch posted on its website a flyer decrying human trafficking.  The branch is planning on using this flyer in its facilities and has placed it there for our review. 

 

To take a look at this flyer, see the link below:

 

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Human_trafficking_poster.pdf

 

The message on this flyer is as follows:

 

"Human trafficking is modern-day slavery. If you or someone you know is being forced into work or sex and cannot leave, please call the National Human Trafficking Resource Center for help..."

 

For those of us who are aware of how the Connecticut Judicial Branch colludes with corrupt GALS and custody evaluators to put children in the hands of parents who sexually abuse them, the very existence of this poster is a travesty. 

 

How galling that the very system that is allowing the sexual abuse of young children on a regular basis in exchange for power and profit should produce such a poster.  I'm thinking of George Orwell's famous novel "1984" when I say that this poster is a clear cut example of doublespeak. 

 

Here the Connecticut Judicial Branch is asking us to call the National Human Trafficking Resources Center if we know about anyone being "forced into work or sex, and cannot leave". Isn't that is exactly what the Branch is doing even as we speak?

 

I encourage anyone who reads this poster to call the Human Trafficking Center immediately and report the Connecticut Judicial Branch and, in particular, Judge Lynda Munro.  The number is below:  1-888-373-7888.

Additional Followup:  For more information from the CT Law Tribune on why the CT Judicial Branch developed this flyer, please click on the link below. 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202623340135&thepage=1


The bottom line, of course, is that by taking children away from their protective mothers and hanging them over to the fathers who sexual abuse them, the judicial branch regularly breaks Connecticut human trafficking laws.

 

MICHAEL NOWACKI LETTER TO JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL ATTACKS ETHICAL VIOLATIONS COMMITTED BY PROMINENT JUDGES WITH TIES TO THE AFCC!

Scott Murphy Esq.
Executive Director
Judicial Review Council
505 Hudson Street
Hartford, CT
 

                                                                   September 16, 2013

Dear Attorney Murphy:
 

As we discussed in July, here are four complaints filed with the Judicial Review Council concerning four judges (The Honorable Lynda Munro, the Honorable Gerald Adelman, the Honorable  Holly Abery-Wetstone and the Honorable Harry E. Calmar) who are alleged in having engaged in conduct which violate the Code of Judicial Conduct.
 

 

In our July phone conversations, you indicated it was not necessary to produce 14 sets of the identical exhibits to be shared on each of the four complaints which are properly notarized.  I have included 14 sets of the relevant documents to support the claims for the individual complaints—since they all cite the same violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct adopted on January 1, 2011.
 

This letter provides the background on establishing grounds for sanctions for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct for all four complaints.
 

 I am also seeking the recusal of the Honorable Eliot Solomon and the Honorable Julia D. Dewey, who have long standing ties to the four respondents for these complaints inasmuch as they both served for a period of time on the Family Commission and as family court judges during the six year period of time in which the Honorable Lynda Munro served as the Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters from September 1, 2007 to August 30, 2013.

 

The regulations of the Judicial Review Council concerning conflicts of interest state:

 

1.  Any member of the Council who has a conflict of interest in any matter before the Council shall be disqualified from participating in any proceeding of the Council in that matter.
 

2. A member shall have such conflict of interest when such member, his or her spouse, his or her child, or his or her business associate (a) has a direct personal or financial interest in said matter; (b) has a business, personal, or financial relationship with any complainant, witness, or respondent in said matter; (c) has a direct personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary matters before the counsel; (d) is related to a complaint, witness or respondent in said matter; (e) is a judge whom the complainant has made a previous complaint; (f) is an attorney who has any matter pending in a trial court or an appeal court involving a respondent against whom a complaint has been made; or (g) in any other situation, believes that he or she has, or may appear to have a conflict of interest. (emphasis not added).
 

On April 19, 2013, the Committee on Judicial Ethics issued four important advisory decisions that were labeled 2013-2015, 2013-2016, 2013-2017 and 2013-2018.
 

For the first time, the Committee on Judicial ethics provided a jurisdictional and directional opinion that indicated that sitting on the Board of Directors of a not for profit corporation (which was not referenced as the AFCC specifically) , in which contracts have been awarded to Board of Directors firms would violate the Code of Judicial Ethics Rule 3.7 (a) (6) (B).
 

“…Based upon the foregoing, an appearance of impropriety would arise if a Judicial Official serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit organization or members of the Judicial Official’s staff were to refer clients to the nonprofit organization.  Further the nonprofit organization may use or attempt to use the prestige of the Judicial Official’s office when seeking additional contracts with the Judicial Branch or others.  Accordingly, the Committee, with one member recused, unanimously determined serve on the nonprofit organization’s board of directors would violate Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7.”
 

Despite this clear admonition from the Committee on Judicial Ethics, Judge Lynda Munro continued in her position as a member of the Board of Directors of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter and further involved members of the judicial staff in the preparation of materials for the AFCC’s 50^th Anniversary Convention to be conducted in Los Angeles from May 28 to June 1.
 

Judge Munro appeared on a panel she recruited in Los Angeles with Sharon Wicks Dornfeld (the Connecticut Bar Association Chair for Family Relations matters), Dr. Sidney Horowitz (who has been appointed in hundreds of family relations cases as a court appointee doing substantive assigned work in family courts in the State of Connecticut including cases in Judge Munro’s direct supervision), and Dr. Howard Kreiger (who also does outsourced work as a court appointee including in Judge Munro’s courts since here appointment in 2007 as the Chief Administrative Judge in the State of Connecticut).
 

In addition to these four panelists, a number of Board of Directors members of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter, not only are appointed for work by judges in the family courts, but specifically testified in Judge Munro’s courtroom without any acknowledgment of the direct professional, non-courtroom contact with Judge Munro.

 

The Committee on Judicial Ethics advisory opinions including 2013-15 and 2013-16, (while not definitely binding on the Judicial Review Council by virtue of “adopted” rules governing the operations of the Committee on Judicial Ethics) can be considered a “bright line” guidance in the determination to the whether Rules 1.2, 1.3, 3.1 and 3.7 were violated as alleged in the filing of four properly filed, sworn and articulated grievances naming Judge Lynda Munro, Judge Gerald Adelman, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone and Judge Harry E. Calmar.

 

As the Chief Administrative Judge of Family matters, Judge Munro had an influence on the direct operations of all family court docketed cases, and then influenced which cases were reassigned to the regional family trial docket.
 

Only Judge Adelman now remains as a judge on matters reassigned to the Middletown Superior Court where Judge Adelman remains on cases referenced to the Regional Family Trial docket.
 

My case FST FA 04 0201276S was without motion transferred to the RFTD and assigned to Judge Harry Calmar, after I began investigating Judge Munro’s operations in the Family Commission—many of whom attended AFCC conferences and ran its operations from their desks as employees of the Connecticut Judiciary.
 

The use of employees of the Connecticut judiciary to produce materials for the CT AFCC meeting on April 12 and for the AFCC National Convention and use federal grant funding for ‘court operations” to expense such a trip to “accompany” Judge Munro to Los Angeles, Orlando and other undisclosed locations from 2007-2013 is an alleged violation of Rule 1.3 which states: “A judge shall not use or attempt to use the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of  the judge or others, or allow others to do so.”

 

In sending out invitations from judicial mailboxes from the Connecticut AFCC Organizing Committee, Marilou Giovannucci operated as the President Elect of the AFCC Connecticut Chapter on behalf of the Board of Directors, who included Judges Munro, Adelman and Holly Abery-Wetstone.
 

It could not be determined as to whether the list of attendees of the AFCC Conference was kept on judicial computers, but it certainly requires the JRC to investigate the use of judicial employees to recruit participation in a private organization which Judge Munro had such a documented relationship having expensed trips to the taxpayers from 2007-2013.

The expense reports to validate these assertions that Rule 1.3 was violated are attached to this complaint.
 

Despite the rulings on these four advisory opinions issued by the Committee on Judicial Ethics, The Honorable Lynda Munro (and members of her administrative staff) continued to utilize judicial financial resources to promote an organization, the Connecticut Chapter of American Family of Conciliation Courts whose Board of Directors have ties to contracts awarded by the judiciary.

 

It was only on March 26, 2013, when it was revealed that incorporation status was filed by the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC, through a member of the Board of Directors, whose name is Robert Zaslow, that three judges were sitting on the Board of Directors of the Connecticut AFCC Chapter.

 

On or about March 14, 2013, a Connecticut judiciary employee, Marilou Giovanucci, (listed on the registration for non-stock corporation status as the “President Elect of the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC) from her judiciary mailbox address, sent an email “on behalf of the Ct. AFCC coordinating Committee to a “Annual Conference” to be held to an estimated 700 lawyers who have been appointed to positions by The Honorable Lynda Munro, The Honorable Gerald Adelman, the Honorable Holly Abery-Wetstone and the Honorable Harry E. Calmar which invited them to the “First” AFCC Connecticut Chapter Conference on April 12, 2013 to be conducted at Quinnipiac University, where Judge Munro also serves as an adjunct professor.

 

The notice of the conference fees for attendees of AFCC failed to note that sales taxes were due for attendees at such the April 12 conference.
 

The list of the “invitees” included over 700 lawyers who have been appointed to assignments as Guardian Ad Litems and Attorneys for the minor children, family court employees, appointed psychologists/psychiatrist and others who completed the GAL and AMC training mandated by Connecticut Practice Book Rule 25-62 and 25-62a.
 

The use of public employees of the judiciary of the State of Connecticut to promote the nonprofit Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC for which Honorable Lynda Munro, Honorable Gerald Adelman and Honorable Holly Abery-Wetstone are listed as members of the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC Board of Directors is alleged herein to be a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1, Rule 1.2.

 

Inasmuch as Judge Lynda Munro’s presentation to the AFCC  meeting in Los Angeles listed four judges who were involved in the GAL and AMC training:  Judge Lynda Munro, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge Harry E. Calmar and Judge Gerald Adelman, there is little question Rule 3.7 (6) (A) and (B).

 

In the case of this complainant, the Honorable Harry E. Calmar in March 2010, appointed Dr. Kenneth Robson to conduct an updated psychological/psychiatric examination of the complainant, while at the same time promoting the GAL/AMC training seminars at Quinnipiac University---without acknowledging the connection between the presiding Judge Calmar’s ties to Dr. Kenneth Robson. 
 

Dr. Robson, spent less than three minutes with me, in April 2010, and then Judge Calmar used that opinion of Dr. Robson, as a significant benchmarking tool in my docket file FST FA 04 0201276S.  A copy of that psychiatric opinion of Dr. Robson, who in three minutes, issued a psychiatric opinion which had no validity.
 

Dr. Robson, in the Liberti v. Liberti case, in sworn testimony suggested he could complete a psychiatric evaluation in three minutes or less.  Such “quackery” espoused by Dr. Robson in my family case and in the case of Sunny Kelley Liberti ended her custodial rights as well.

 

The use of judicial employees to carry out the promotion of the private interests of Honorable Lynda Munro in the AFCC Section 3.7 (4) as a fundraising activity for the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC on April 12, 2013, is alleged to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct 3.7 (6) (A) and (B).

 

After the issuance of the opinion by the Committee on Judicial Ethics on April 19, 2013, listed as 2013-15, Judge Munro is alleged in this complaint to have further “sullied” the reputation of the judiciary, by billing her trip expenses to attend the AFCC 50^th Anniversary in Los Angeles to an account identified as SID #22523 ($1,607.65), “identified in the supporting documents as a Court Improvement Grant.”  Also attending the Los Angeles AFCC meeting were Connecticut Judiciary “Court Operations” employees.
 

Judge Munro and others also traveled to Orlando, Florida for the 2012 AFCC National Convention which was also billed to SID #22523—all expensed to various budget centers.    
 

Please see the validation that expenses were also paid to travel to Los Angeles out of the same state funds for the travels of Marilou Giovannucci ($1,195.71) , who lists her title as Manager, Court Services Operation, Johanna Greenfield ($1.062.33) , Caseflow Management Specialist (who also sits on the Family Commission), David Iacarrino ($1,0687.09)  Deputy Director of Court Operations (who also sits on the Family Commission, which Judge Munro served as the Chair), Linda Sabatelli ($1,110.60) and Rhonda Lucino. ($200.00 conference fee).

 

Judge Lynda Munro’s 2012 AFCC trip fees were also “expensed” by Judge Munro for Orlando for the AFCC convention , along with Marth Boyer ($1,159.39) Linda Sabatelli$1,423.38) and Marilou Giovannucci ($1,160.35).
 

Expense reports for the attendance of Judge Lynda Munro and Marilou Giovannucci go back to as early as 2007, charged to SID 22151.    

 

Included on the panel discussion in Los Angeles for the period of time of May 29-June 1 were invited panelists Dr. Sidney Horowitz (who was listed as a member of the Connecticut Chapter and Dr. Howard Kreiger.  It is not known as to whether Dr. Horowitz and Kreiger had their expenses paid through the judiciary or not.
 

So, the question for the JRC is this, how can proper sanctions been put into place to hold these four judges accountable for their conduct in family cases in which AFCC memberships are not able to be traced back to prior years.

 

The appointment of Judge Elliot Solomon to the Assistant Chief Administrative Judge of the State of Connecticut, effective October 1, 2013, creates additional conflicts of interest inasmuch as a Judge Solomon has an administrative role in the training of judges for the proper implementation of the Judicial Code of Ethics.

 

There is little debate at the Committee of Judicial Ethics about the declaration of impropriety of sitting on the AFCC Board of Directors in which contracts were doled out by members of the judiciary.

 

The Auditors for Public Accounts issued reports for Judiciary Branch and Child Protective Services (a division of the judiciary until Public Act 10-48 changed the reporting responsibilities of CPS to the Office of Public Defenders.

 

The reports from the Auditors of Public Accounts clearly defines material weakness in the operation of the judiciary in which there are no receipts or contracts for for millions of dollars of federal funding granted to the judiciary.
 

The minutes to Judge Solomon’s videoconferencing committee record a “grant” was awarded for the expansion videoconference capabilities, but Judge Solomon also said that the funding was not specifically awarded for that use.
 

With Judge Solomon’s recent appointment to the JRC, there are serious credibility issues for the JRC which are inherent in Judge Solomon’s tenure on the Family Commission.
 

In the recent history of the JRC, hundreds of complaints have been issued against family court judges including Judge Munro.
 

There is no way to assess how many judges have been sitting on Connecticut Bar Association Committees (a matter addressed in advisory opinion 2013-16) or the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers (2013-18) because the committee structure of the CBA is not a publicly accessible document.
 

The allegations set forth in these complaints establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the ties to the AFCC violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and sanctions are warranted via the conducting of a public hearing on the allegations set forth in these four complaints.
 

Please do not hesitate to contact me to testify with others at a public hearing at which point in time transcripts will be presented to the counsel which validate that the conflicts of interest in the AFCC and its ties to the AMC and GAL training commenced in 2011 were never acknowledged to the parties engaged in family court litigation in the courtrooms of these four judges.
 

As an aggrieved party, from such bias and prejudice, only sanctions will send a clear message that such affiliations with the AFCC were inappropriate inasmuch as they were never disclosed as a “clear and present danger” to the integrity and independence of the family court system in Connecticut.
 

Cordially,

 

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive
New Canaan, CT  06840
mnowacki@aol.com
(203) 273-4296

 

Enclosures:

 

1. List of Council Members—2 pages

2. Handbook of Committee Regulations—6 pages

3. Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-15 dated 4/19/2013—2 pages

4. Purpose of the CT AFCC Chapter—1 page

5. Email dated March 12, 2013 from Marilou Giovannucci inviting over 700 people listed on the email chain sent from her email address marilou.giovannucci@jud.ct.gov

6.  Four page description of the First Annual AFCC Conference on April 12, 2013 including fee structure

7.  Four page article appearing on Washington Times raising conflict of interest issues for Connecticut judges and history of Connecticut AFCC chapter—4 pages

7.  Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-16 dated 4/19/2013—2 pages

8.  Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-17 dated 4/19/2013—3 pages

9. Committee on Judicial Ethics Advisory Opinion 2013-18 dated 4/19/2013—3pages

10. Copy of Four pages of FOI requests and responses from Melissa Farley—4 pages

11.  Copy of document expensing the membership of the AFCC of Judge Munro—1 page

12.  Copy of 4 pages of emails approving various judiciary employees to attend AFCC meeting on April 4 sent from mailbox of Debra Kulak one of the founding members of the CT AFCC Chapter noted in Washington Times article—4 pages

13.  Expense reports for travel from Judge Lynda Munro, Marilou Giovannucci, Johanna Greenfield, David Iaccarino, Linda Sabatelli, Rhonda Lucino, Mary Kay West, Martha Boyerl

14.  Program for AFCC conference in Los Angeles—Judge Munro was on Panel 64

15.  List of Family Commission members as of September 15, 2013