MICHAEL NOWACKI, PARENTAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE CHALLENGES ILLEGAL VIOLATIONS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!

BE THERE FOR MR. MICHAEL NOWACKI'S UPCOMING COURT DATE:  DECEMBER 18, 2012, 9:30AM AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, 141 CHURCH STREET IN NEW HAVEN

 

Have you ever had your constitutional or civil rights abused by a police department, a school district or a public official who has threatened your arrest if you entered public property without permission?

On December 18, at 9:30am at the U.S. District Court in New Haven, the Honorable Janet C. Hall will preside upon a Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiff Michael Nowacki who has sued the Town of New Canaan, Connecticut in federal court for abuses of his constitutional and civil rights.

As you know, Michael Nowacki was arrested on February 22, 2010 and was exonerated from the allegations set forth by his ex-wife Susanne Sullivan and a child care provider which resulted in his arrest.

 

Nowacki has sued the NCPD and other Town officials for his malicious prosecution on these unsupported allegations and various public officials engaged in a series of retaliations which deprived him of various fundamental First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

 

On September 7, 2012, Nowacki sued the Town of New Canaan in federal court and then on October 28, 2012 his lawyer John R. Williams filed a Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief.

 

Five lawyers for the Town of New Canaan who represented the Board of Education and the NCPS, NCPD, and other Town of New Canaan officials argued that this lawsuit was not a matter for federal court jurisdiction in a Motion filed on November 5.

 

Various legal briefs were exchanged and the Honorable Janet C. Hall ruled on November 20, in Nowacki's favor, setting forth a hearing for injunctive federal court relief to be considered on December 18, 2012.

 

Nowacki, through his amended federal complaint filed on December 1 in docket 3:12cv1296 TJCH), is seeking a cease and desist order be issued by the federal court at the December 18 to order the Board of Education, the NCPD and New Canaan public to remove these deprivations of his rights that require Nowacki to receive permissions for the Superintendent of Schools to attend public events conducted on public facilities operated by the NCPS system.

Nowacki has asked for a jury trial on the allegations set forth in his federal suit.

 

Town lawyers, who are being paid through liability insurance coverage by the Town of New Canaan, attempted to also seek a protective order from the federal court, in a Motion filed attempting to obstruct access to information requested by Nowacki pursuant to the application of the Freedom of Information Act. The Honorable Janet C. Hall on November 6, 2012 denied the Town of New Canaan's attempts to block the access to public records to prove widespread corruption in the NCPD, NCPS and the operations of the Town of New Canaan's municipality's operations

 

Nowacki is seeking the support of this blog's followers and others that have been similarly abused.

 

He is inviting all those who have an interest in the protection of fundamental constitutional and civil rights of parents to attend the December 18, 2012 hearing in the federal court building at 141 Church Street in New Haven.

There you can observe the testimony of as many as ten public officials and the presentation of the foundation for Nowacki's request for the preservation of fundamental rights which have been deprived since May 20, 2011.
 

Under such civil rights cases, Nowacki has also filed for the application, after trial for these constitutional and civil rights abuses, to have his Attorney's costs covered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.

 

Nowacki notified the Town Attorney of New Canaan just this morning, that yesterday he provided a series of documents to the U.S. Attorney's office in New Haven, documents which provide evidence of the corruption in the Town of New Canaan.

 

Nowacki's plight has been chronicled on his website www.no-wackileaks.com, where you can find background on the initial federal complaint and other documents supporting his allegations of constitutional and civil rights abuses following his filing of the federal suit.

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI UPDATE!

I have been waiting to get some more definitive information regarding Michael Nowacki's situation.  Currently, he is in jail because he violated a restraining order in regard to his wife by accidentally emailing her in a mass emailing and, apparently, he tapped on the window of her car to get her attention, and is now looking at 17 months in jail.  Perhaps there is more detail about this, and I will continue to investigate this question.  

Of course, at this point, litigants such as myself who were struggling with abusive ex-husbands who put nails in the tires of our cars, stole personal property, smeared shit on the walls, put our children at risk, and constantly violated court orders can't figure out why we were never able to get the family court to hold them to account!  

In comparison, this prison sentence Mr. Michael Nowacki has received seems revengeful and petty.  

My understanding is that when the final ruling on Michael Nowacki came out on May 8, 2012 the Judge stated that if the prison authorities felt he required mental health treatment they could impose this treatment on him involuntarily.  I believe that this order is still in place, although it has not thus far been followed through on.  

However, when Mr. Nowacki was taken to court again today hoping to be released on bond pending his appeal, he was told that he would not be released from prison until he signed a stipulation voluntarily agreeing to a psychiatric evaluation and then further agreeing to adhere to the treatment plan that emerged from this psychiatric evaluation.  

This is a pretty intense form of coercion--demanding that you barter your physical freedom for mental imprisonment by the psychiatric system.  

Mr. Nowacki refused to agree to this stipulation.  Even so, apparently, the Judge ordered that Mr. Michael Nowacki undergo a psychiatric evaluation in prison on an involuntary basis.  The bottom line is that Mr. Nowacki has been vocal in his criticism of the family court system which has to be just about one of the most corrupt in our nation. In retaliation, the court is trying to silence Mr. Nowacki with the use of psychiatric "treatment".  And also the court is trying to destroy his influence and his reputation by labeling him as crazy.  Isn't this a common trait of evil doers--when caught declare your accusers insane?

Mr. Michael Nowacki had the guts to challenge the judicial system about why, in violation of State law, it has gone ahead and expanded the power of judges in a power grab that violates the Constitution and the rights of all citizens in this State.  And so, like any good Communist system, the judicial system is using psychiatry as a means to silence him.  

Seeing Mr. Michael Nowacki's fate, we have to ask ourselves, in reality, are we living in a totalitarian system where any attempt at criticism and reform will be met with kangaroo mental health courts that jail people, subject them to unwanted psychiatric care and treatment, which we all know runs the gamut from ECT to dangerous, mind numbing drugs.  

Playing the devil's advocate, let's ask the question, seriously, is Mr. Nowacki crazy?  I would agree he is an angry man, perhaps even an impatient, outspoken, and intemperate man.  But does that make him crazy?

To be honest, I'd like those of you who wonder whether a man like Mr. Nowacki is crazy to spend some time reading my website, to learn about the flagrant injustice to which litigants in this state are subjected to, to read some of the comments where litigants share their own devastating experiences of being abused by the judicial system.  

Just going through these experiences would drive anyone crazy.  But I wouldn't leave it at that.  I would say that the judicial court deliberately manipulates people, verbally and physically abuses them, and punches them around through legal machinations such that they eventually crack.  Being "crazy", "obsessed", "depressed", and full of rage is the natural condition of anyone who ends up being a victim of the injustice that fuels the legal system here in Connecticut, vastly enriching an elite core of attorneys, judges, GALs, and psychiatrists who have an inside track to seizing the peoples' money through nefarious means. 

I don't believe that Michael Nowacki is crazy.  

Grief stricken, perhaps, to see the country he believes in, here in the State of Connecticut, crassly and brazenly violate the fundamental values of democracy, and truth and justice that he thought were the very foundation of the society he lived in.  

Enraged to find his constitutional rights flagrantly disregarded and trampled upon.  

Driven almost to the point of distraction by the fact that so many people who have pledged themselves to a code of ethics that requires them to subordinate all their actions to the very highest values of truth and justice and decency, instead using family court as a means of personal enrichment and the exploitation of the most weak and vulnerable among us.  

Yes, all those things.  But crazy?  I don't think so.  

I just spent a day in trial court supporting a friend who was viciously abused, mocked, and defrauded by a trial court that has the job of doing what is right for families.  It is heartbreaking.  Heartbreaking to endure yourself.  Heartbreaking to watch.  

I have nothing more to say this evening in the face of this tragedy except we will endure.  Michael will endure.  He will one day be free.  We will be free.  The people will be heard.  I will continue to report on the front lines regarding Michael Nowacki and his struggle, and let you know how you can personally become involved and fight for reform.  

Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

NEW CANAAN ADVERTISER REPORTS MICHAEL NOWACKI WINS APPEAL, IS VINDICATED IN APPELLATE COURT DECISION!

Aaron Marsh of the New Canaan Advertiser states as follows:

"New Canaan resident Michael Nowacki claims a trial court violated his U.S. Constitutional rights in two 2012 convictions of him it reached, and the Connecticut Appellate Court has now said it agrees.

In a decision published Tuesday, March 10, in the state’s law journal, the Appellate Court reversed one of Nowacki’s convictions and ordered a retrial for the other, finding in the latter that the trial court violated Nowacki’s rights to present his defense — which he did during the trial himself, without retaining legal counsel.

The Advertiser is now asking what no news outlet thus far to report on Nowacki’s successful appeal yet has. In the charge for which the Appellate Court ordered a new trial — where the appeal judges’ argument largely hinges on one witness not being called and Nowacki’s own attempted, related testimony being limited — what would that witness have said about a key legal point of this case?"

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

http://ncadvertiser.com/46563/appeals-court-the-question-they-quashed-at-nowackis-trial/

MICHAEL NOWACKI OUT OF JAIL AND WITH HIS FAMILY!

Just to let everyone know that Michael Nowacki is out of jail and with his family as of yesterday.  He is happy and in good health and spirits and glad to be in circulation again.  I will continue to update you regarding his situation as the information becomes available.  I know Mr. Nowacki appreciates the outpouring of support he has received and will continue on with his fight for justice in Connecticut's Family Court.



Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!

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

Published on The Connecticut Mirror (http://www.ctmirror.org)

Home > A judicial confirmation hearing goes off script

---

A judicial confirmation hearing goes off script

Mark Pazniokas

February 22, 2012

The Malloy administration prepped Maureen M. Murphy for her judicial confirmation hearing Wednesday with questions about her sexual orientation and the pivotal role she played in the legalization of gay marriage in Connecticut.
But the legislature's Judiciary Committee endorsed her nomination to the Superior Court on a 31-9 vote without a single comment or question about her advocacy of gay rights or the landmark litigation that led to same-sex marriage.
Perhaps they were too distracted.

Maureen M. Murphy preparing to testify.

Controversy came from another quarter, unrelated to issues of sexual orientation or questions of judicial activism: Murphy was accused of bias in her court-appointed role as guardian in a bitter custody case won by the father of an 8-year-old boy.
The accusations came from Ada O. Shaw, a friend of the boy's mother, and Keith Harmon Snow, a self-described "independent war correspondent" and "genocide investigator" who says he is writing about the custody case. The testimony of a third witness, Michael Nowacki, who calls himself a "private attorney general," concluded with his arrest by Capitol police.
Murphy, 61, one of six lawyers nominated last month by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, sat with her wife, her 90-year-old mother and friends. By the end, she wore the expression of a theater patron who had wandered into the wrong show.
Her appearance before the committee began with Sen. John A. Kissel of Enfield, the ranking Republican, offering praise for an eclectic career.
"You strike me as a person with a lot of neat life experiences, a lot of dedication to those in need," Kissel said. "I think you'd be terrific on the bench -- a lot of wisdom, a lot of humility and a lot of compassion and a lot of smarts."
After college, Murphy was a programmer and research assistant at the Rand Corp. She volunteered with disabled children in New Mexico and in Connecticut, then received a master's degree in special education. She became a lawyer relatively late, at age 35.
Murphy worked for the attorney general's office, representing the state Department of Children and Families in special-education hearings and state universities in civil litigation. As a private lawyer, her practice included the representation of gay, lesbian and transgender clients in family and discrimination cases.
She was a founding member of Love Makes a Family, the gay rights group, and a member of the legal team that brought a lawsuit that yielded the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision legalizing same-sex marriage in 2008.
In the past five years, Murphy took on more cases as a court-appointed guardian ad litem, a lawyer responsible for watching the child's interests in custody and other family law cases.
Custody cases are notorious for yielding complaints against judges by the losing party, said Kissel and Rep. Gerald Fox, D-Stamford, the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Paul R. Doyle, D-Wethersfield, told Murphy that the committee was in receipt of letters from two people questioning her actions in a custody case, Doe vs. Roe.
One was from Shaw, the other from Eli Newberger, a pediatrician hired by the mother. Both complained that Murphy was hostile to the mother, deferential to the father and ignored evidence of physical and sexual abuse.
Murphy said she was limited in what she could say about the case. She acknowledged testifying, which she said happens in only about 5 percent of custody cases.
"If it gets to that point, there is usually one parent who is extremely unhappy," Murphy said. "And the more complicated the case, the more likely that one parent feels you have been wrong."
Murphy said her testimony was one element of the record on which a Superior Court judge made her custody decision.
In the telling of Shaw and Snow, the West Haven police, DCF, Murphy and a Superior Court judge all ignored evidence that the boy was being abused.
"Maureen Murphy did absolutely nothing," Shaw said.
"The mother has been accused of all kinds of psychological disorders," Snow testified, but he found her credible. "It's easy to tell who is telling the truth."
Legislators struggled with the testimony, saying the witnesses seemed to be suggesting a conspiracy involving Murphy, the police, DCF and a judge.
Shaw said she could not explain why the police took no action in the case, other than a referral to DCF. She said the only action by the child-protection agency was to accuse the mother of "educational neglect."
The third witness was Nowacki, whose grievances had less to do with Murphy than the Judiciary Committee's policies and the court system's approach to family law. He was arrested by Capitol police after refusing to surrender the microphone after his allotted time.
Nowacki, 58, of New Canaan was charged with interference with the General Assembly.
Legislators struggled with the testimony of Shaw and Snow, saying the witnesses seemed to be suggesting a conspiracy involving Murphy, the police, DCF and a judge.
Rep. John Hetherington of New Canaan, the ranking House Republican member of the committee, asked to delay a vote on Murphy's nomination to allow more time to examine the record. Without more time, he warned that some members would vote against confirmation.
"I've never voted no on a judicial nomination. It is not my desire to vote no on this nominee," he said.
Rep. Arthur J. O'Neill, R-Southbury, said if public hearings are to mean anything, the committee must look further into the allegations against Murphy.
The committee rejected a postponement, 21-16.
The full House of Representatives could vote on Murphy's confirmation as early as Thursday.

---

Source URL: http://www.ctmirror.org/story/15528/arrest-and-unexpected-accusations-judicial-confirmation

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE!  USE COMMENT SECTION BELOW!  ALSO, TAKE THE TIME TO COMMENT ON THE ORIGINAL WEBSITE, SEE LINK ABOVE!

JUDGES CONSPIRE TO KIDNAP YOUR CHILDREN!

Many of us have had multiple experiences of judges acting capriciously and outside the bounds of the law, putting our children at risk and causing them harm and damage. Thus, it will probably be no surprise for you to hear that, in a recent meeting of the Family Commission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, observers noted additional behavior of this kind.

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012, the Family Commission headed by Judge Lynda Munro met at the Middletown Courthouse at 2:00 p.m. 

Number 2 on the agenda was the use of ex parte motions for custody. 

The judges in that meeting were there to discuss how to expand the power of judges to make ex parte custody decisions almost unlimited by drafting legislation to this effect which it intended to submit to the State Legislature. 

This is a violation of the separation of powers of government which dictates that judges are not allowed to draft legislation or approve of legislation in order to submit it to the legislature.  While judges are required to support the constitution and uphold the law, they are by no means supposed to draft it.  In other words, as Citizen Attorney General Michael Nowacki has stated, "Judges rule on and apply existing law." they do not create it. 

So, what is an ex parte custody decision?  An ex parte decision is where the judge makes a decision with one party in the case, but absent the presence of the other party.

Now we know ex parte communications with a judge aren't legal, so how does it become legal to have ex parte hearings where the judge is allowed to make decisions about matters as important as the custody of your children?  Imagine how this kind of situation could go.  Your ex gets an ex parte hearing for custody of your child, and the next thing you know he or she is standing at the door demanding you hand over your child, judge's orders in hand.  That is really, really frightening, and very possible the way this legislation is being drafted.

Ordinarily, making an ex parte decision is not legal, but I am aware they are allowed when there is a need for a restraining order in circumstances where there has been an allegation of domestic violence.  In a case like this the court would order another hearing 14 days later in order to hear the other side of the story.   

Ex parte motions in regard to custody are granted under Connecticut General Statutes 46b-56(f). I assume under circumstances where there is an emergency or a situation where a child is in imminent danger, an ex parte motion for custody could be granted under Connecticut General Statutes 46b-56(f).  

The problem is, from what I am hearing, there are multiple cases in which judges have taken children from fit parents in Connecticut through the use of ex parte hearings, and then not followed up with an evidentiary hearing with both parents present to state their arguments, in actions that essentially amount to taking children hostage.

This is a serious denial of the due process rights of the parents involved in such cases. 

At the present time, under 46b-56(f) there is very little guidance for judges in regard to ex parte motions and yet it has been used as the basis of a number of famiy court decisions which are currently on appeal. 

The wording of this section is as follows, "When the court is not sitting, any judge of the court may make any order in the cause which the court might make under this section, including orders of injunction, prior to any action in the cause by the court." 

If this seems a little vague and unclear to you, it comes across the same way to the judges who have used it as the basis for using ex parte hearings to take custody from parents without a hearing as they acknowledged in a Family Commission Meeting held on April 11, 2012. 

For example, the phrase "When the court is not sitting..." has historically been understood to mean when the court is on vacation, yet many ex parte motions have taken place when the court is in session and not on vacation.  Try to figure that one out!  I suspect that is when judicial discretion kicks in.  We are not on vacation, but I'm going to do this anyway kind of thinking! 

Further, while the Members of the Family Commission Meeting agreed that judges have the authority to grant ex parte custody orders in the April meeting, the preamble to the draft legislation prepared for the November meeting states clearly that some judges believe that the current version does not give judges "present authority for the issuance of such ex parte orders". 

If this is so, you have to wonder why judges are issuing these orders when their authority to do so is so tenuous.

In an effort to what appears to me to be an attempt to cover their tracks retroactively, in the fact of upcoming lawsuits in Appellate Court, the Commission prepared a draft amendment in order to specify more clearly what elements would have to be present in order to grant an ex parte order for a change of custody. This draft amendment is quite alarming because it allows for an ex parte change of custody for the most flimsy circumstances. 

The wording in the draft is that an ex parte motion can be made when there is an allegation of "an immediate and present physical or psychological danger to the  child."  This is extremely non specific, broad wording which can be used to apply to almost any situation. 

Then, even more alarming, the draft continues on to allow the judge to issue additional orders in an ex parte motion such as, for example, Item #4 "such further orders as the court determines to be in the child's best interest."  That pretty much includes everything! 

The proposed draft legislation is a tremendous power grab on the part of the judges of the Family Commission.  Not only is it a power grab, it is also, as Mr. Michael Nowacki has pointed out, "a clear and unambiguous abuse of judicial administrative authority." 

As Mr. Nowacki reminds us the Connecticut General Constitution defines the limited authority of the judiciary branch of the government in the "Constitution State" in Article Sixth:  "The powers and jurisdiction of these courts shall be defined by law." 

Thus, creating laws is the exclusive province of the legislature. 

Despite this, in their meeting on November 14, 2012, the judges of the Family Commission sought to go beyond their jurisdiction and create legislation.  

The danger this represents to us is very clear.  If they continue in this track, parents will have no protection from Judges who abuse their authority and take children from their parents and hold them hostage on frivolous grounds.  

Divorce in Connecticut will continue to keep a close eye on this situation and report on new developments as they arise.

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

For those of you who have been waiting for news about Michael Nowacki who was falsely imprisoned by the Connecticut Judicial System for speaking out against its abuses, I do have some news. 

It appears that Michael is in good health and spirits.  Of course, I will never be satisfied myself until I personally see him and hear that information from his own mouth, but that is what I am hearing at this point.  I will continue on with updates as information comes to me. 

I know this is outrageous and many of you are extremely upset and angry about this situation, but let us maintain our calm and dignity in the face of this injustice.  Our struggle is a nonviolent struggle and we must speak the truth to power calmly and with the authority that our Constitution and our State Laws have provided us with. 

I am sure that Michael appreciates all your many phone calls and expressions of concern.  Justice today! Justice tomorrow! Justice forever!

In Solidarity,

HB 6387 OUR CUSTODY RIGHTS AT RISK--AGAIN!

LETTER FROM PRIVATE ATTORNEY  GENERAL, MR. MICHAEL NOWACKI SENT TO ALL MEDIA OUTLETS IN  REGARD TO THE AT RISK CUSTODY RIGHTS OF ALL CONNECTICT PARENTS!

 

Dear Editor:

I am writing to your readers on a matter of great urgency concerning a legislative bill which is going to the General Assembly for a vote in the next ten days.

HB6387 was endorsed by 39 of the 40 members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary on March 4, 2013.  HB6387 is known as a “raised bill”—meaning that there was no “legislator sponsorship”.

HB6387 is an omnibus bill—cleverly entitled A Bill for Court Operations.  Sounds innocent enough on the surface?

HB6387 directly emanated from a public administrative judiciary committee named the Family Commission --chaired by Honorable Lynda Munro.  The Family Commission is composed of seven other Superior Court family judges, six lawyers, who voted on November 14, 2012 to send this language to the Chief Administrative Judge Barbara Quinn, to submit to the legislature.

In short, the bill proposes that a Superior Court judge, upon the motion of any party, would have the “judicial discretion” at any time during the course of a divorce  or post-divorce (even after a parenting plan has been signed) to remove custody of a parent “ex-parte” without a hearing.

If passed by the General Assembly, parents, children, grandparents, uncles or aunts could be stripped of their rights to the love, care and companionship of family members, without any due process or equal protection.

“Non-enumerated” rights of the governed are protected by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution—but only if you defend these generic rights to life, liberty and property.

Judges should not be writing laws of self-empowerment. 

The Connecticut legislative judiciary committee is filled with a super-majority of part legislators who engage in full-time legal practices before the same judges who they are empowering.

If you oppose the constitutionality of HB6387, send a letter to your State Senator and Representative to vigorously oppose this clear and present danger to the “liberty” interests of familial association.

For more information on the history of the family court corruption in Connecticut, please visit my website www.no-wackileaks.com or call write to me at mnowacki@aol.com.

 

Michael Nowacki                                             mnowacki@aol.com

319 Lost District Drive                                    (203) 273-4296 (cell)

New Canaan, CT  06840                                  (203) 966-6474 (home and fax)

 

MICHAEL NOWACKI WINS APPEAL!

For those of you who are interested, Michael Nowacki won his appeal and the link to the decision is below:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP155/155AP196.pdf

MICHAEL NOWACKI, CITIZEN ADVOCATE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN CONNECTICUT FALSELY IMPRISONED

Just sending a callout regarding Michael Nowacki, a tireless advocate for our constitutional rights here in the State of Connecticut.  He was recently imprisoned falsely during the course of his work.  We just  want you to know, Michael, that we support you and condemn the unjust practices of family court that led to the violation of your civil rights.  We will continue to fight corruption in family court here in the State of Connecticut.  For more information, see the following link:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Connecticut-Court-Administ-by-francis-knize-110519-834.html

Also, for an absolutely on point essay on what is going on here in Connecticut view the following:

http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Soviet-Style-US-Courts-al-by-Steven-G-Erickson-110420-523.html

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

NOWACKI LETTER TO CT STATE LEGISLATORS ON THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JUDGES! VOTE NO!

To the Members of the General Assembly:

By the time you consider the Re-Appointment Votes on Judges of the Superior Court, you should be aware that there have been or will be five criminal complaints filed with the Chief State Attorney's Office that certain judges on January 11 and January 13, delivered sworn testimony which constitutes grounds for "material mis-statements" of "facts" and/or "knowing or willful" sworn testimony in documents provided to the Judicial Selection Commission.

The lack of the willingness of the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee to re-consider an "arbitrary rule" limiting public testimony to five pages, has resulted in an "erosion" in the public confidence in the elected members of the General Assembly to be provided to documents refuting sworn testimony via this "five page rule".

The Chairs of the Judiciary Committee have been unresponsive to emails requesting a "waiver" be issued to allow the public the opportunity to post documents to refute "materially false and misleading" sworn testimony and documents notarized which are required to be submitted to the Judicial Selection Commission.

The Judicial Selection Commission, as noted in the six page form attached to this email, has never provided access to the answers to all 32 questions---even to the members of the Judiciary Committee of this legislature.

This failure to have "full disclosure" of the answers to the Judicial Selection Commission documents for review by the members of the Judiciary Committee erodes the confidence of the public trust placed in the hands of legislators who will be voting today.

We urge you to consider "abstaining" or "voting no" consistent with your "due diligence" responsibilities before casting a vote confirming a candidate today.

Sincerely,

Michael Nowacki

Public Advocate

LINK TO THE JUDICIAL QUESTIONNAIRE.  SEE BELOW:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2017/01/judges-questionnaire-to-which-judiciary.html

MR. MICHAEL NOWACKI RESPONDS TO CT LAW TRIBUNE PUBLICATION OF INACCURATE OP-ED BY ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS!

Dear Editor:

The “opinion piece” filed on February 11, 2015 by Attorney Norm Pattis on the Connecticut Law Tribune website contained substantial errors, misrepresentations and “misrememberances” in the article entitled:  “Despite Allegations, Family Courts Aren’t Corrupt.”

There was no apology which was posted by the editorial staff of the Connecticut Law Tribune for posting in paragraph three erroneous information in the original story issued by Attorney Pattis, who was immediately contacted by phone, email and his Twitter account to correct these “misrepresentations and misremembrances” of testimony by “disgruntled litigants” at the confirmation hearings on January 23, 2015 involving Judge Stephen Frazzini.

Inasmuch as the transcripts of the public hearings on January 23, 2015 are now posted on the judiciary committee’s webpage which validate there was no “testimony by disgruntled parents” as Attorney Pattis originally reported.

While the CLT staff didn’t post a “corrected information” on line until late in the afternoon, on February 12, 2015, there was no recognition by the CLT editors and management contacted on Friday, February 13, 2015 that the article by Attorney Pattis was a clear violation of Rule 3.6 (a) of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct.

Despite the management of ALM being contacted about these concerns seeking the withdrawal of the article both on line and in the print edition of the Connecticut Law Tribune, Paul Sussman, the editor of the Connecticut Law Tribune confirmed by telephone on February 15, 2015 that the CLT on line and print version would contain this story.

Rule 3.6 (a) concerns the subject of Trial Publicity:

“A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.”

So, inasmuch as Attorney Pattis has used his editorial epee to inappropriately comment on a Judge’s confirmation hearing in attempts to interfere with prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in which Judge Frazzini was participating, Attorney Pattis appears to be “impervious” to his own responsibilities to self enforce the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Statewide Bar Counsel’s Attorney Michael Bowler, and senior judiciary officials, including external affairs director Melissa Farley, Chief Administrative Judge Patrick Carroll and Deputy Chief Administrative Judge Elliot Solomon refused to intervene upon my request to seek the removal of the article in both the on line and print editions when contacted on February 15, 2015.

So, the issue of “public corruption” is demonstrated when lawyers protect lawyers when misconduct is alleged, judges protect lawyers when misconduct is alleged, and no one is willing to step forward who has the duty and authority to protect the “public interest in the integrity of the judiciary system”.

Cordially,

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

(203) 273-4296

FREE MICHAEL NOWACKI!

MICHAEL NOWACKI HAS BEEN JAILED BECAUSE HE CONFRONTED MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM HAS DENIED PARENTS AND CHILDREN THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS AS AMERICAN CITIZENS.  HE SPOKE THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CORRUPT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN CONNECTICUT AND JUDGES HAVE GOTTEN THEIR REVENGE. WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE

MICHAEL NOWACKI CALLS UPON DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ TO RESIGN DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

Letter to the Editor:

 

The recent re-appointment hearing conducted by the executive and legislative nominations committee on Capitol Hill concerning DCF Commissioner Joyette Katz failed to address a significant undisclosed conflict of interest of the Commissioner.

No member of the committee addressed the matter of Commissioner Katz serving as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune (CLT).

On February 24, 2015, Commissioner Katz received an extensive Freedom of Information Commission request from me by fax, requesting “public documents” which exist on her email address or were accessed through servers of the State of Connecticut from personal email accounts in which Commissioner Katz was responding to “content based” editorial issues of the CLT in her role as Chair of the Editorial Board.

DCF Attorney Barbara Clare responded to the FOI request via email indicating the “public records” could not be produced by March 5.

Minimally, Commissioner Katz should immediately resign her position as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the CLT inasmuch it creates a considerable conflict of interest.

The General Assembly should defer the confirmation vote on Commissioner Katz which is scheduled for March 9 until a full review of these public documents can be conducted.

 

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

mnowacki@aol.com

(203) 273-4296

MICHAEL NOWACKI BACK IN COURT DEFENDING HIS CIVIL RIGHTS, AND BY DOING SO INDIRECTLY DEFENDING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF EVERY CIT!IZEN IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

THIS IS JUST A HEADS UP GUYS!  MICHAEL NOWACKI'S FEDERAL COURT CASE WILL BE CONTINUED ON JANUARY 24 , 2013 AT 9:30AM AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, 141 CHURCH STREET IN NEW HAVEN.  REMEMBER TO PUT THE DATE ON YOUR CALENDARS, SHOW UP AND HOLD THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE.

MICHAEL NOWACKI SENDS A LETTER TO THE EDITOR RE DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ!

Dear Sir/Madame:

The recent re-appointment hearing conducted by the executive and legislative nominations committee on Capitol Hill concerning DCF Commissioner Joyette Katz failed to address a significant undisclosed conflict of interest of the Commissioner.

No member of the committee addressed the matter of Commissioner Katz serving as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune (CLT).

On February 24, 2015, Commissioner Katz received an extensive Freedom of Information Commission request from me by fax, requesting “public documents” which exist on her email address or were accessed through servers of the State of Connecticut from personal email accounts in which Commissioner Katz was responding to “content based” editorial issues of the CLT in her role as Chair of the Editorial Board.

DCF Attorney Barbara Clare responded to the FOI request via email indicating the “public records” could not be produced by March 5.

Minimally, Commissioner Katz should immediately resign her position as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the CLT inasmuch it creates a considerable conflict of interest.

The General Assembly should defer the confirmation vote on Commissioner Katz which is scheduled for March 9 until a full review of these public documents can be conducted.

 

Michael Nowacki

319 Lost District Drive

New Canaan, CT  06840

mnowacki@aol.com

(203) 273-4296

MICHAEL NOWACKI ADDRESSES ERRORS IN JUDGE BUZZUTO'S TESTIMONY RE H.B. 5505!

From: Michael Nowacki <mnowacki@aol.com>
To: Eric.Coleman <Eric.Coleman@cga.ct.gov>; William.Tong <William.Tong@cga.ct.gov>; Doyle <Doyle@senatedems.ct.gov>; dan.fox <dan.fox@cga.ct.gov>; John.A.Kissel <John.A.Kissel@cga.ct.gov>; rosa.rebimbas <rosa.rebimbas@housegop.ct.gov>; Al.Adinolfi <Al.Adinolfi@housegop.ct.gov>; William.Aman <William.Aman@cga.ct.gov>; Angel.Arce <Angel.Arce@cga.ct.gov>; David.Baram <David.Baram@cga.ct.gov>; Jeffrey.Berger <Jeffrey.Berger@cga.ct.gov>; Toni.Boucher <Toni.Boucher@cga.ct.gov>; cecilia.buck-taylor <cecilia.buck-taylor@housegop.ct.gov>; Beth.Bye <Beth.Bye@cga.ct.gov>; Vincent.Candelora <Vincent.Candelora@cga.ct.gov>; christie.carpino <christie.carpino@housegop.ct.gov>; Jeff.Currey <Jeff.Currey@cga.ct.gov>; Patricia.Dillon <Patricia.Dillon@cga.ct.gov>; Doug.Dubitsky <Doug.Dubitsky@cga.ct.gov>; mae.flexer <mae.flexer@cga.ct.gov>; Mary.Fritz <Mary.Fritz@cga.ct.gov>; Gerratana <Gerratana@senatedems.ct.gov>; Bob.Godfrey <Bob.Godfrey@cga.ct.gov>; Minnie.Gonzalez <Minnie.Gonzalez@cga.ct.gov>; Ernest.Hewett <Ernest.Hewett@cga.ct.gov>; David.Labriola <David.Labriola@housegop.ct.gov>; Roland.Lemar <Roland.Lemar@cga.ct.gov>; Art.Linares <Art.Linares@cga.ct.gov>; Ben.McGorty <Ben.McGorty@cga.ct.gov>; Michael.McLachlan <Michael.McLachlan@cga.ct.gov>; Bruce.Morris <Bruce.Morris@cga.ct.gov>; tom.odea <tom.odea@housegop.ct.gov>; Arthur.ONeill <Arthur.ONeill@housegop.ct.gov>; Robyn.Porter <Robyn.Porter@cga.ct.gov>; emmett.riley <emmett.riley@cga.ct.gov>; Robert.Sampson <Robert.Sampson@cga.ct.gov>; Joseph.Serra <Joseph.Serra@cga.ct.gov>; john.shaban <john.shaban@housegop.ct.gov>; Caroline.Simmons <Caroline.Simmons@cga.ct.gov>; richard.smith <richard.smith@housegop.ct.gov>; Joe.Verrengia <Joe.Verrengia@cga.ct.gov>; Toni.Walker <Toni.Walker@cga.ct.gov>; Gary.Holder-Winfield <Gary.Holder-Winfield@cga.ct>
Cc: melissa.farley <melissa.farley@jud.ct.gov>
Sent: Thu, Mar 19, 2015 6:51 am
Subject: Misremembrances of Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto in non-sworn testiomny on March 11, 2015 in opposition to HB 5505

To all Judiciary Committee members:

 

On March 11, 2015, members of the judiciary committee in attendance heard prepared testimony of Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters who delivered prepared remarks and then answered questions posed by the judiciary committee members.

 

I want each of you to take less than ten minutes to review on CT-N archives (published transcript is not yet available), the judiciary committee meeting on the date of March 11.  Please use the cursor on the videoplayer and watch a series of questions posed by Representative Buck-Taylor concerning the subject of Part 1 of the bill, involving the use of supervised visitation.

 

I have watched the video carefully four times since March 11, and spoke to external affairs director, Melissa Farley about the statements of Judge Buzzuto which is in the process of being refuted with hard data about the "common practice" in family courts to order supervised visitation of long durations, entered as court orders regardless of whether the supervised visitation is affordable. 

 

Despite Judge Buzzuto's testimony was at times framed by the words, "To be honest with you, my experience", Judge Buzzuto's personal record as jurist and as the Chief Administrative Judge was not "sworn testimony" subject to perjury allegations.

 

However, the Code of Judicial Conduct does contain language which indicates a judge cannot use the powers of the office in a manner to use the prestige of their capacity as a public official, to make statements on public policy issues such as legislation which are designed to knowingly mislead another public official such as a member of this judiciary committee.

 

Last Monday, March 16, 2015, I approached external affairs director, Attorney Melissa Farley, indicating that at that time I had reviewed the testimony of Judge Buzzuto three times since March 11, 2015 and Judge Buzzuto had a responsibility to issue a letter of correction--similar to the letter issued by Judge Frazzini, who only issued such a letter of "correction" after I contacted him at his home email address stevefraz@Comcast.net.  This email address of Judge Frazzini can be found on documents published on the judiciary website on the date of January 16, 2015, when just Frazzini testified under oath and delivered "material false and misleading" testimony about his CT Chapter AFCC membership.

 

Yesterday, I sent an email to Attorney Farley seeking a copy of any communication to the judiciary committee members including  letters, faxes, texts, phone calls records to or from any judiciary committee member, email, text or documents defined in the FOI Act which emanated from any personal email or State of Connecticut email address of ANY members of the judiciary, including Judge Buzzuto, which corrected testimony provided to your committee.

 

Attorney Farley has not acknowledged that FOI request as of this date and she is copied on this communication.

 

Those, such as myself, who have been ordered to permanent supervised visitation as part of a Memorandum of Decision by a judge are not going to tolerate Judge Buzzuto's attempts to undermine the support of HB 5505, especially in light of the data we are now assembling to provide data to this committee to show the incidence of supervised visitation is not rare, is not short term, and subjects our children and the parents to unjustified humiliation in an environment which Judge Buzzuto described herself on March 11 as "an artificial setting".

 

Within three weeks time, an excel chart will be sent to this group of legislators to consider as hard evidence to refute Judge Buzzuto's statements, while not sworn were designed to mislead the members of this committee.

 

We hope to assemble in this document those who have spent as much as $125,000 in supervised visitation which ended only when there were no more financial resources available to a parent.

 

To suggest, that this committee would provide weighting to certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony because she is a judge and assumed to be "credible and trustworthy" in statements made on March 11, 2015 should be a judgment to be deferred until which point in time we can assemble the data to refute the answers to Representative Buck Taylors questions on supervised visitation.

 

There are also "speculative " comments issued by Judge Bozzuto which were made on the other three sections of the bill, which parents will refute with hard data which contradicts the published comments made by Judge Bozzuto concerning section 3, 4 and 5 of HB 5505.

 

Those comments will be reserved for a later point in time in a separate email to the judiciary committee members.

 

HB 5505 is a bill which will provide much needed restraints on "judicial authority" acquired through decisional law cases and through self empowerment which occurred by the unmonitored adoption of PB Rules without the legislative "hearings" required by C.G.S. 51-14 (a) and (c).

 

We would ask for your indulgence to allow the citizens of this State to prepare documents to refute certain portions of Judge Buzzuto's testimony.

 

However, if a letter of correction is issued of any kind concerning the March 11, 2015 judiciary committee hearing on HB 5505, and sent to the Chairs of the Judiciary Committee signed by any member of the judiciary "misremembrances" of Judge Bozzuto, we would ask any such letter be routed immediately to all judiciary committee members AND published on the judiciary committee's published testimony of March 11, concerning HB 5505.

 

Judge Frazzi's letter to the judiciary committee dated Jan. 28, 2015 was never published on the judiciary committee website which corrected sworn testimony.  I only acquired a copy of the letter of Judge Frazzini by filing an FOI request of Attorney Farley, who did promptly provided a scanned copy of the letter of correction on the Monday after Judge Frazzini's nomination was approved by the members of the General Assembly on the date of January 30, 2015.

 

Please accept my apologies for the length of this communication, but the judiciary committee will be considering the merits of HB 5505 and deserves to be fully informed before considering the language and amendments of this proposed legislation.

 

Feel free to contact me at any time concerning any data which has already been collected, but is currently only a "work in progress".

 

It is the hopes of the parents aggrieved by the financial impact of these process will be able to overcome the "anecdotal" testimony of Judge Buzzuto who provided no "hard data" to support her "experiences" as a member of the bench for fifteen years.  We look forward to Judge Bozzuto's next re-appointment hearing to challenge the authenticity of the statements made on March 11, 2015 that were posited into the public record as non-sworn testimony.  We look forward to Judge Buzzuto's explanations of her "misremembrances" on March 11, 2015---but the next occasion Judge Buzzuto's testimony will under oath in the next legislative session.

 

I also enclose an attachment of a letter received from Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle sent to me concerning sworn affidavits have been filed alleging perjury by Judge Thomas Parker, Judge Taggart Adams and Judge Stephen Frazzini.  The sworn affidavits involving Judges Adams and Frazzini were posted as public testimony on the date of January 23 of the judiciary's website.

 

Many in the aggrieved parents group are fearful of retaliation or retribution if they have currently active cases in the family court.  We are seeking permissions from those litigants who harbor legitimate concerns for
"future adverse rulings" to publish docket numbers and litigants.  We are respecting those who wish to publish information anonymously rather than for attribution in the excel document which will be sent to you in three years time.

 

Hopefully, you can accept these requests for anonymous posting of data on supervised visitation as "properly adjudged concerns."

Cordially,

 

Michael Nowacki

(203) 273-4296