AFCC INVOLVEMENT IN THE VERY HEART OF THE JUDICIARY!

From: mnowacki@aol.com

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:52 +0000

To: Giovannucci, Marilou<Marilou.Giovannucci@jud.ct.gov>

ReplyTo: mnowacki@aol.com

Cc: Iaccarino, David<David.Iaccarino@jud.ct.gov>; Martin Libbin<Martin.Libbin@jud.ct.gov>; <melissa.farley@jud.ct.gov>

Subject: Re: Your phone messages

Ms. Gianvannucci:

Pursuant to the FOI Act, your duties in the judiciary are strictly administrative in nature.

The AFCC is not a division of the judiciary, but a registered independent organization with the Secretary of State's Office as of March 26, 2013.

You were listed in the papers filed by Mr. Robert Zaslow on March 26, 2013 with the Secretary of State's Office as President Elect as President Elect of the Connecticut Chapter of the AFCC.

In addition to the documents requested that you produce yesterday, Pursuant to the application of the FOI Act, I am asking you to produce all expense reports which were filed with the State of Connecticut which involved your reimbursement for expenses associated with your membership and participation of the creation of the AFCC, CT Chapter paperwork on a State of Connecticut computer or email address.

Robert Zaslow was listed on the papers submitted to the Secretary of State as a member of the Board of Directors and he indicated that there was a meeting of the AFCC Chapter Board of Directors on February 22, 2013.

I am requesting that your provide all communications which you either received or sent from your mailbox associated with the judiciary, specifically from your mailbox Marilou.Giovanucci@jud.ct.gov for any communications with any member of the Officers or Board of Directors of the CT AFCC Chapter, "The CT AFCC Coordinating Committee", or any of the 690 people you emailed commencing on the date of January 2010 through the date of your compliance with this FOI request.

Inasmuch as you participated in a panel discussion (Listed as Panel 37) at the Los Angeles AFCC Convention in between May 29 and June 1, 2013.

Since this AFCC activity is not a "job responsibility" associated with your position as Manager of Court operations, please provide the email which was sent to your supervisor which granted you permission for you to attend this conference and whether you took personal vacation time for the participation in a non-judicial function or whether the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut funded your trip to Los Angeles.

If there were expenses which were applied for reimbursement for you personally or any other members of the Officers or Board members of the AFCC which were submitted by you or through your offices, who are not employees of the State of Connecticut through grants of the judiciary to private contractors from 2010 to the date of compliance, whether through you or CPS budgets, for the GAL and AMC seminars conducted at Quinnipiac University (which were outline in the materials for AFCC 50th Anniversary Convention Workshop 53: Improving Connecticut's Child Advocates), please provide all "private contractor" reimbursements for participants in the GAL and AMC training seminars .

It is apparent that you, members of your staff, in an administrative capacity may have been asked by members of panel 37 (you and Karen Largent, LCSW) and panel 53 (The Honorable Lynda Munro, Sharon Wicks Dornfeld J.D., Howard Kreiger Ph.D. and Sydney Horowittz Ph.D.) the AFCC to prepare presentations for the panelists, the majority of whom are not employees of the State of Connecticticut's'Judiciary.


Pursuant to the application of the FOI Act, all records stored on State of Connecticut computers which are administrative in nature, relating to members of you and your staff which were allocated to the preparation for the AFCC CT Chapter meeting on April 12, 2013 you assisted in organizing as a Connecticut State employee.

Included in this FOI request for records, is any payments which may have been made to the AFCC for the attendance of judiciary employees to attend the AFCC conference at taxpayer expense which may have been approved by you.

Any payments from judiciary funds for panelists from Connecticut Judiciary funding for the April 12, 2013 CT AFCC First Annual Conference must be also produced as part of the FOI compliance. and all records stored on State of Connecticut computers.

All internal communications you may have sent or received from you mailbox Marilou.Giovanucci@jud.ct.gov relevant to the April 19, 2013 decision by the Committee on Judicial Ethics which raised issues of potential violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct which you either sent or received from April 19, 2013 to the present between Officers or members of the Board of Directors must be produced as part of the FOI compliance.

Similarly, all relevant communications sent or received by you from your Connecticut judiciary supplied mailbox relevant to the manpower allocated to the physical preparation and reproduction of materials distributed to AFCC members at the Los Angeles AFCC Convention must be produced at this time.

It is quite apparent that significant time of employees of the Judiciary of the State of Connecticut and financial resources of the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut have been expended on the GAL/AMC training, the AFCC CT Chapter's First Annual Conference on April 12, 2013 and the preparation and attendance at the AFCC Conference.

On April 19, 2013, the Committee on Judicial Ethics issued four advisory opinions regarding the close association between judges and lawyers raises serious issues of disclosure and conflicts of interests which compromises the "integrity and impartiality" of the judiciary members---including the support staff who may have been directed to utilize State of Connecticut Resources to support a non-judiciary function of the AFCC.

Ms. Giovanucci, you are reminded to the obligations to acknowlege the receipt of this FOI request within four days of its receipt with an expression of intent to comply within thirty days to avoid an FOI Commission complaint from being filed.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation in compliance with the FOI Act.

Please do not hesitate to call or email me with any questions you might have about the requests for compliance with the FOI Act.

I am copying Attorney Melissa Farley on this communication in order to ensure efficiency on the FOI compliance requests previously lodged with Attorney Farley.

Cordially,


Michael Nowacki

MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2013 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING REMAIN UNPOSTED!

Subject: Failure/Refusal to Post Minutes to the May 20, 2013 Rules Committee
Meeting of the Connecticut Judiciary--Complaint to the FOI Commission

Complainant:  Michael Nowacki

Respondents:  The Honorable  Dennis
Eveleigh-- Justice of the Supreme Court and Chair of the Judiciary's Rules
Committee, State of Connecticut

Attorney Joseph Del Ciampo-- Director of Legal Services, Judiciary, State of
Connecticut

Attorney Melissa Farley--External Affairs Director, Connecticut Judiciary

Carl Testo--Director of Legal Services, Judiciary, State of Connecticut


Dear Attorney Murphy:

This email contains the basis for an FOI Complaint be docketed, naming the above
respondents for failing to post the minutes of a public meeting of the Rules
Committee within the seven day requirement established in Chapter 14 of the
Connecticut General Statutes, referenced hereafter as the FOI Act.

On June 14, 2013, Attorney Del Ciampo in an email to the complainant alleged
that the Rules Committee is not governed by the FOI Act.

Section 1-200 Section (1) defines a "public agency" and notes that any such
committee is governed by the FOI Act and "...includes any judicial office,
official or body or committee thereof but only with respect to its or their
administrative function,"  

Attorney Del Ciampo, having made that statement on June 14, 2013  in an email
claiming "an self proclaimed exemption for the Rules Committee" from any FOI
compliance, was informed that an FOI Commission complaint would be filed and
docketed.

The complainant seeks a formal  determination by the FOI Commission on whether
Attorney Del Ciampo's  firm declaration that the posting of public minutes rule
(Section 1-225 (a)) does in fact apply to the Rules Committee of the judiciary.

This FOI complaint is also challenging an assertion that votes taken at the
public meetings of the Rules Committee do not require the "attribution" of
attending members on May 20, 2013 for specific votes taken on proposed
amendments to the Connecticut Practice Book.

In this complaint, the FOI Commission will be also asked to consider The Rules
Committee  meeting of May 20, 2013  met the required proper  "public notice
required, and therefore the votes and actions taken on that date by the Rules
Committee, can be considered "null and void".

Justice Eveleigh made certain statements to me in person on June 14, 2013 which
were clearly erroneous regarding his belief that the "draft" minutes of the
Rules Committee meeting of May 20, 2013 had been posted on the jud.ct.gov
website.

Justice Eveleigh made these statements to the complainant after the conclusion
following the annual judges meeting on Friday, June 14. 2013 held in Middletown
Connecticut.


The complainant attended the Annual Judges meeting and attempted to distribute
pertinent materials at the meeting which was arranged through External Affairs
Director, Attorney Melissa Farley.

The representation by Justice Eveleigh that  the minutes of the Rules Committee
meeting of May 20, 2013 had been posted on the jud.ct.gov website was
immediately refuted by the complainant as a "misrepresentation of fact".

Attorney Del Ciampo was asked to determine if the "draft" minutes has been
prepared and perhaps posted on the wrong committee.

Today, is Saturday June 15, 2013 and there are no minutes posted on the public
website www.jud.ct.gov.

In light the statement yesterday that the minutes have been posted, that
FOI Commission is being asked to docket this case for a public hearing.

It is my intent to notify CT-N and other news media outlets with a copy of this
complaint, since the Governor has indicated that he intends to limit the access
to public records.

I will supplement this complaint with snapshots of the screens of the jud.ct.gov
website to properly capture the current status of information on the website.

The posting of the minutes of the May 20, 2013 Rules Committee meeting at a
later date will NOT result in a withdrawal of this complaint.

It is the intent of the complainant to establish and administrative hearing
officer record on the operations of the "Rules Ccmmittee" are subject to the
proper notice requirements, proper recording of votes by attribution in the
"draft" and "final approved" minutes at Rules Committee meetings, and to
establish a FOI Commission ruling that the FOI Act requirements for the public
inspection of votes be provided within 48 hours (upon written request to inspect
such public records) and the requirements to post. "draft" public minutes of the
Rules Committee within seven days of the meeting, all apply to the Rules
Committee

Less than twenty minutes after Justice Eveleigh had a specific recollection of
the posting of the draft minutes of the May 20, 2013 Rules Committee meeting
(but had a non-specific recollection on the date the draft minutes were
proposed), I went to the law library in Middletown with eagerness to read the
posted "draft" minutes.

As of Friday, June 14, 2013, There were no minutes of the May 20, 2013 Rules
Committee meeting posted on the jud.ct.gov website.

I am not seeking an expedited scheduling of a public hearing of this FOI
Commission docketed complaint.

Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions.

A signed copy of this complaint will be filed with the FOI Commission and with
each respondent in a timely manner.

Cordially,


Michael Nowacki


Enclosures

MICHAEL NOWACKI'S LETTER TO JUDGES' CHALLENGING VIOLATIONS OF 51-14; JUDGES ABUSE OF POWER

June 14, 2014

 

Dear Justices of the Superior Court:

 

In 1969, Honorable John Hamilton King was presiding as the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.  He declared in the attached letter that the judiciary was no longer going to seek the approval of the legislature on Practice Book Rules—despite the existence of Connecticut General Statute 51-14.

In short, from 1969 through this year, the Connecticut judiciary has increased both its powers and jurisdiction through the Connecticut Practice Book (which is not a law) despite provisions in Article XX of the Connecticut Constitution which clearly and unambiguously states:  “The powers and jurisdiction of the court is defined by law.”

The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of this Land—except in the self proclaimed, “Constitution State.”

 The Constitution of the United States has no relevance to the Practice Book Rules despite a jurist’s solemn oath or affirmation to be bound to “the supreme Law of the Land.”

The Connecticut Practice Book Rules which you are considering today again fail tthe litmus test of open legislative hearings that include the right of the governed to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.  For the last 44 years, the Joint Committee on Judiciary has failed to conduct hearings on the PROPOSED Practice Book Rules, despite a fiduciary responsibility to do so.

Within two weeks of the adoption of these Rules of Practice, we, the people, will file a federal suit seeking the overturning of the Connecticut Rules of Practice adopted since 1969 which  have been designed to be discriminatory to the accommodations required by the ADA laws. 

In addition, with impunity towards those who choose self representation in criminal, civil probate courts and family cases in the State of Connecticut, the judges in this state have adopted rules of practice for video-conference hearings that fail to protect the interests to a self represented parties as equal not subservient to those who have denigrated their sacred Attorney’s Oath.

For the last two years, a number of those aggrieved by the prejudicial “rules of engagement: in courts of law in the State of Connecticut, began attending the public administrative judiciary committees and commissions in the State of Connecticut.  We began to write to the members of the Rules Committee and the Family Commission to “petition the Government for redress of our grievances.”  We videotaped these proceedings to validate that the minutes to these public meetings do not recapitulate the

“open disclosure requirements” of such conclaves removed from the catacombs.

We, the people, have been ignored, retaliated against in adverse rulings, referenced as a “problem” by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and held in contempt of court for challenging this unvarnished fact:  The Connecticut Practice Book is the single, largest set of rules of judiciary self empowerment of any state in the United States.

The imperiousness with which the judiciary has conducted it abuse of administrative endowed increase of powers and jurisdiction is best illustrated in the passage by the legislature of HB 6387 and now memorialized as Public Act 13-0194—A Bill for Court Operations —whose language has been crafted solely by members of the judiciary, despite the Constitutional provisions in Article II, III, IV, V and VI which defines the powers of separation of government.  Writing legislation is NOT a power which the U.S. Constitution provides to “The Constitution State”—but provides the best illustration of the unbridled hubris embodied in the abuse of the powers of separation of government.  Please take the time to review the Connecticut Law Review’s article on the development of the “Code of Evidence”—which is filled with the words which strike fear in the hearts of every lawyer including the self represented—“judicial discretion”.

Despite a requirement in Article VI of the Constitution of the United States that requires, “Members of the several State legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States” shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution: as “the supreme Law of the Land”, the family judges of the State of Connecticut have declared the Constitution a meaningless document worthy of excorciating.

In short, the Constitution State, and its vaunted Connecticut Practice Book has evolved into a document of uncontested seditious construction that represents the ultimate denouement/denigration of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Article XX, Section One.

Included in this envelope are documents which validate the beginning of judicial reform initiative in Connecticut that is modeled upon the patriots who assembled at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia who met to oppose the tyranny of British Rule.

We submitted a series of proposed Rule of Practice to both the Supreme Court on March 25, 2013, only to discover that those documents were never considered for discussion by the Rules Committee at any point in time for a vote for endorsement for adoption at the annual judges meetings scheduled for June 14, 2014.

The Committee on Judicial Ethics, on April 19, 2013, courageously issued four decisions to begin to dismantle the collusion between

1. AFCC members
2. Judges who sit on Connecticut Bar Association Committees,
3. Jurists who engage in advocacy committee positions on the Connecticut Bar Association’s Appellate Committee
4. Judges who were receiving elite national honors and all expense paid trips by members by the Academy of Matrimonial lawyers.

 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1942, any further discrimination perpetuated by members of the Connecticut judiciary upon classes of citizens who are litigants claiming disabilities or upon those who choose self representation in any court in the State of Connecticut, will be vigorously contested in federal court as abridgment of constitutional due process and equal protection protected by the 14^th Amendment.

We will also equally vigorously contest any family court case in which a jurist fails to disclose of a membership the AFCC or any of their affiliated corrupt organizations.

Earlier this month, we note that Justice Zarella addressed the new class of attorneys who passed the Connecticut Bar Association exam.  He spoke eloquently about “zealous representation” without referencing a recent majority opinion he wrote in Simms v. Simms, a case argued by constitutional and civil rights attorney, John R. Williams.

We would like to challenge Justice Zarella to a public debate at a time and place of his choosing, to reconcile his judicial oath, the Attorney’s Oath which he and Justice Rogers are required to uphold pursuant to the unified Code of Judicial Conduct adopted at the annual judges meeting of 2010 with an effective date of January 1, 2011, and the speeches Justice Zarella delivered to the newest of the graduates of the bar exam.

We would like to challenge Justice Zarella to debate  a group of citizens aggrieved by the members of the AFCC in the family court system in the State of Connecticut at a time and place of his choosing and convenience on the topic: 

“Justice” or “Just Us”—How would the framers of the Constitution of the United States review the rights of self represented parties and the rights of disabled as articulated in the Connecticut Practice Book Rules of 2013?

We eagerly await Justice Zarella’s acceptance of this “judicial gauntlet” thrown by the citizens of the State of Connecticut in righteous indignation as a “penalty flag for abuse his judicial discretion in the Simms v. Simms case by granting to lawyers rights as a class of citizens to be absolute immunity for conducting themselves in courts of law in the State of Connecticut in a manner inconsistent with the Attorney’s Oath administered by Justice Chase T. Rogers and Justice Zarella to those who aspire to professionalism in the practice of law in the State of Corrupticut.

 

 

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)

 

MORE NEWS ON THE JUDICIAL CONSPIRACY TO STEAL YOUR CHILDREN!

It is dinnertime and you and your children just sat down for your meal.  There is a knock on the door.  You open the door and find several police officers standing there with a court order removing the children from your care and handing them over to their abusive father. 

 

You went through a lengthy court battle for two, maybe three years, and are essentially broke.  Yet, with a single ex party motion held before a judge without any notification to you, and outside of your presence, without any minimal attempt to hear your side of the story, you have lost custody.  It could take months before you get your children back, and even then the burden is on you to clear up the situation. 

 

Does this sound impossible? 

 

Does it sound unjust, capricous, arbitrary? 

 

Does it seem like it could never possibly happen? 

 

Well, think again, because the Family Commission Chaired by our friend, Judge Lynda Munro, is working very hard on changing the Laws of the State of Connecticut to see that this can be done.  See my previous blog on this outrageous situation at the following link:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/11/judges-conspire-to-steal-your-children.html

In a recent Family Commission Meeting, 8 members of the Commission cast deciding votes approving the legislation for ex parte hearings on custody.

 

This means the proposed legislation will now be sent to Judge Barbara Quinn for submission to the legislative judiciary committee.  These actions alone are a violation of the Constitution in that they represent a violation of the separation of the powers of government which is fundamental to our democratic system. 

 

Private Attorney General Michael Nowacki, who was present when this matter was discussed at the Family Commission Meeting, has this to say about what occurred, "This proposed legislation by the judiciary is just another power grab and the most dangerous endorsement of an increase of the powers and jurisdiction of the Courts imaginable."

I will continue to keep you informed of this situation as it unfolds, so make sure you check back for more news.  Please contact your legislators and let them know that you are profoundly appalled by the actions of Judge Lynda Munro and those Members of the Family Commission that supported this appalling ex parte legislation.

Please note that the following are the current members of the Family Commission:

Chair:Lynda B. Munro, Chief Administrative Judge, Family

 

Members:

Holly Abery-Wetstone, Judge

Sandra Sosnoff Baird, Chief Family Support Magistrate

Michael Blanchard, Attorney

John D. Boland, Judge

Steven Dembo, Attorney

Anne C. Dranginis, Retired Judge
Gaetano Ferro, Attorney
Constance Frontis, Attorney
Elaine Gordon, Retired Judge

Johanna Greenfield, Caseflow Management Specialist
David Iaccarino, Deputy Director
Maureen M. Murphy, Judge
Thomas Parrino, Attorney
Barry C. Pinkus, Judge
Elliott N. Solomon, Judge

Staff:
Joseph Del Ciampo, Counsel
Nancy Porter, Counsel

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, 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.

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.

NEW HAMPSHIRE'S EQUIVALENT TO CT GENERAL STATUTES 51-14

Stop judicial abuse in the State of New Hampshire!  Help pass NH CACR26!

Remember the violations of CT General Statutes 51-14 that activist Michael Nowacki alerted us to?  The fact that judges in the CT judicial system were making changes to the CT Practice Book rules without bringing them before the state legislature and CT's citizens before instituting them.  Well, New Hampshire has a very similar problem!  In the upcoming elections, New Hampshire citizens are fighting for repeal of a law that allows the judicial system to do just that.  Let us show them our support.

 

Just in case folks are interested, New Hampshire is having similar problems with the Judicial System taking over the Legislative System and attempting to plunder the rights of its citizens.  See Carolyn McKinney's Op Ed article from the website "Granite Grok" at the link below:

 

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/05/op-ed-by-carolyn-mckinney-chair-rlcnh-the-legislature-must-reestablish-its-place-above-the-courts

Spread the news to voters you know in New Hampshire, leave your supportive comments, post the information on websites, in facebook, twitter, and elsewhere.  Let your brothers and sisters in New Hampshire know that you care and that you stand behind them 100%!

Get the vote out on NH election day for this important bill:  November 6, 2012!

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!

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!

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,

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

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!

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

THE HISTORY OF CGS 51-14 (B): JUDGES DISOBEYING THE LAW, OBSTRUCTING THE CT STATE LEGISLATURE, AND DISREGARDING YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

I have talked about the CT Practice Book before, but you may not entirely understand the concept.  It takes a while to understand the significance of the CT Practice Book. 

What  the CT Practice Book does is translate Connecticut Statutes passed by the State Legislature into rules and procedures that appear in the CT Practice Book and are used to direct the actions of judges, attorneys, and litigants when they go to court. 

As you can understand, how the judicial system chooses to implement a CT statute, i.e. through the rules and procedures promulgated in the CT Practice Book, plays a crucial role in the manner that a CT statute is translated into action by the court, the attorneys and the litigants who appear before the court.  This is where CGS 51-14 (b) comes into play.

  

According to a report written in 2009 by Jillian L. Redding. Legislative Fellow, "CGS § 51-14(b) directs that all statutes relating to pleading, practice, and procedure in existence on July 1, 1957 be deemed to be rules of court and remain in effect as rules only until modified, superseded, or suspended by rules adopted and promulgated by the judges of the Supreme Court or the Superior Court. The law requires the chief justice to report any such rules to the General Assembly for study at the beginning of each regular session. It directs that such rules be referred to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration. The law specifies that any rule or any portion of a rule disapproved by the General Assembly by resolution is void. It requires that a copy of such a resolution be published once in the Connecticut Law Journal." 

The presumption is that if rule changes are brought before the Judicial Committee for consideration, citizens of the State of Connecticut could provide their feedback regarding these rule changes in public hearings. However, no such public hearings have ever taken place. 

Furthermore, since the inception of CGS 51-14 (b) the General Assembly has never disapproved any of the changes in the rules.  However, this may not be because the General Assembly approves the rule changes, but simply because the Chief Justice has obstructed the General Assembly's access to information regarding the changes. 

Apparently, 103 court rules were in existence in the CT Practice Book of July 1, 1957.  44 of these rules have been amended or repealed since CGS 51-14 (b) was put into place.  Many of these rules have been amended more than once.  There are 67 instances of these rules being changed or repealed from 1963 up to 2009 when this report was published.  This is where the obstruction comes in. 

For ten of these years, even though changes were made, the letters the chief justice wrote to the CT State legislature did not specify what these changes were and just said changes were not subject to legislative review under the state constitution. 

By doing so, the chief justice was simply flouting the law as dictated by CGS 51-14 (b) because it appears there had been no legal determination of this point in a court of law; the chief justice simply claimed that it was so and acted accordingly and the state legislature failed to challenge him, thus denying citizens of the State of Connecticut their right to full disclosure in regard to the manner in which the law is applied.  Imagine, this went on for an entire decade! 

For an additional 21 years, 1978 to 1999 the Chief Justice simply sent copies of the rule changes to the Judicial Committee. 

Then for the remaining nine years covered by this report, the chief justice stated that none of the rule changes affected the 1957 statutes, even though it appears that they did. 

Furthermore, it is troubling that additions to the Practice Book in response to statutes passed subsequent to 1957 were never required to be brought to the judicial committee for review and thereby presented to the public for consideration. 

In essence, judges used the process instituted by CGS 51-14(b) which allowed them to modify, expand, or eliminate rules in the practice book as a means to to expand the jurisdiction of the court and deny litigants their constitutional rights.  In particular, these actions expanded the areas of the law where judges can claim that they can provide rulings based upon judicial discretion.  Such rulings cannot be brought to the appellate court for appeal, further limiting the constitutional rights of litigants. 

So why am I bringing this issue up now?  Mr. Michael J. Nowacki, a self represented party who has been subjected to judicial abuse is suing, among others, the Governor and several judges in United States District Court for wanton, neglectful, and malicious conduct for their violation of CGS 51-14 (b). Stay tuned for the outcome.  

Also check out the new website featuring this issue located at:   www.no-wackileaks.com