MICHAEL NOWACKI TESTIFIES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT REGARDING RULES AND FORMS, APRIL 14, 2014!

Annual Public Hearing

 Testimony

 Michael Nowacki

   April 14, 2014

             Connecticut General Statute 51-14 (b) (Exhibit 1) states specific protocols be followed by the judiciary when recommending proposed modifications to the Connecticut Practice Book Rules:

 “The Chief Justice shall report any such rules to the General Assembly for study at the beginning of each regular session.  Such rules shall be referred by the speaker of the House or the president of the Senate to the judiciary committee for its consideration and such committee shall schedule hearings thereon.”

            Evidence provided in the appendix to my remarks today provide factual proof, that Supreme Court Chief Justices, since 1969 (Exhibit 2), have failed to provide to the legislature the proposed “Practice Book Rules” at the beginning of the legislative sessions as the law requires.

Furthermore, factual proof exists, that the Connecticut legislature’s judiciary committee has failed in its duties to conduct hearings on the Practice Book Rules since 1968 (Exhibit 3), thus denying the “electorate” the opportunity to “provide input” into the process (as required by law) to ensure that the following constraints were enforced in the “study” of Practice Book Rules, as defined in C.G.S. 51-14 (a) (Exhibit 1):

“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts.”

            The Connecticut Practice Book has been used unlawfully since 1969 by the judiciary’s Rules Committee to engage in self-empowerment unintended by the legislative restraints articulated in 1957 in C.G.S. 51-14 (b).

At this public hearing, we will focus on current Practice Book Rules which are unlawful abridgments of fundamental constitutional rights, rules which are discriminatory in their construction to self-represented parties and those who claim disabilities under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Factual proof is also provided in the appendix to these remarks that on June 29, 2007, Justice Peter Zarella, as captured on page 32-33 of the annual judges meeting minutes (Exhibit 4), proposed a “six pronged resolution” which sanctioned “non-public meetings” with ranking members of the legislative judiciary committee to discuss the proposed Practice Book Rules in a direct abridgment of the protocols set forth in C.G.S. 51-14 (b). 

The following year, Practice Book Rule 9a (Exhibit 5) was created, in a brazen circumvention of the public’s rights to “hearings” to be conducted in the legislature, as required by C.G.S. 51-14 (b) (Exhibit 6).

Upon appointment as a judicial officer, each judge in the State of Connecticut, pursuant Article VI of the United States Constitution, and defined in C.G.S. Chapter 4 Oaths,  §1-25 takes the following oath or affirmation:

“You do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that you will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the state of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen thereof, and that you will faithfully discharge, according to the law, the duties of the office of…to the best of your abilities, so help you God.”

            Note that unlike other oaths of office in the State of Connecticut, a judicial officer who takes this oath (Exhibit 7) is not required to do so under the penalty of perjury.

The Connecticut Constitution states in Article XX (Exhibit 8):

“Section 1 of article fifth of the constitution is amended to read as follows:  The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, an appellate court, a superior court, and such lower courts as the general assembly shall, from time to time, ordain and establish.  The powers and jurisdiction of these courts are defined by law.”

            Inasmuch as the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, including the present Chief Justice Chase Rogers, Justices Peter Zarella, and Dennis Eveleigh and Senator Andrew McDonald as chair of the judiciary committee prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court have failed to uphold the tenets of C.G.S. 51-14 (b), I am seeking the repeal of Practice Book Rule 9 (a) because it is directly contradictory to the clear and unambiguous protocols for introducing modifications to the Connecticut Practice Book Rules set forth in C.G.S. 51-14 (b). 

            Based upon factual presentation today of the “wanton, reckless and malicious” misuse of the Connecticut Practice Book to “self-empower” the judiciary in violation of C.G.S. §4-165, we seek the resignations of four members of the Supreme Court and the co-chairs of the judiciary committee, Representative Gerald Fox Jr. and Senator Eric Coleman for their roles in a “seditious” abridgment of the powers of separation of government defined in the U.S. Constitution and  in the failure to conduct “hearings” on proposed Practice Book Rules in the legislature again in 2014.                                                  

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!

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

MICHAEL NOWACKI SENDS A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO DCF COMMISSIONER JOETTE KATZ!

The Honorable Joyette Katz

Commissioner

Department of Children and Families

505 Hudson Street

Hartford, CT

 

Freedom of Information Request

                                                                                                February 24, 2015

 

Dear Commissioner Katz:

Recent publicly televised re-appointment hearings conducted in the Connecticut legislature failed to note that you are currently serving in the capacity as Chair, of the editorial board of Connecticut Law Tribune.

Recent editorial coverage in the Connecticut Law Tribune concerning an article authored by Attorney Norm Pattis, in an opinion piece, published on-line on Wednesday February 11, 2015, entitled: “Despite Allegations, Family Courts not Corrupt” recently was challenged for a lack of authenticity of certain comments authored by Attorney Pattis.

Such “materially false and misleading” publication of information would be potentially a matter of discussion at meetings conducted by the editorial board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

As Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, and as an appointed public official as the Commissioner of DCF with substantial responsibilities relating to family court, probate court and juvenile court proceedings, there is substantial public interest in the matters involving your personal use of computers and servers, owned by the State of Connecticut, in your role as the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

If you have used your state provided email address or any personal email address which was accessed through servers owned by the State of Connecticut, the content of the communications contained in such emails are considered “public communications” and subject to the applications of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Decisional cases issued by the FOI Commission are available for your review which have verified that the use of personal email addresses to conduct “business” relevant to your responsibilities as DCF Commissioner are also to be considered “public documents” subject to the application and legislative intent of the Freedom of Information Act. 

Unfortunately, defining potential “conflicts of interest” between your responsibilities as Commissioner of DCF and your role as a Chair, Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, can only be determined by inspecting “public records” pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

Your have massive responsibilities as Commissioner of DCF and this request for access to “public records” for “inspection” should not be considered onerous or impinging on your job responsibilities inasmuch as members of your staff and IT departments can be utilized to easily retrieve documents through search codes for key words.

Based upon the above observations, you are herewith required within four business days to acknowledge the receipt of this request to produce “public records” for public inspection and to indicate your personal intent to comply with this FOI request.

  Within thirty days of the acknowledgment of this Freedom of Information request you are required to produce for “public inspection” at your offices at 505 Hudson Street relevant “documents/public records” requested, subject to “redactions” as permissible and defined in the Freedom of Information Act and decisions issued by the Commission.

For the purposes of clarification, “documents/public records” are defined in the Freedom of Information Act and should be considered as the “base line” for providing the “public records” to be provided for inspection in this request.

For the purposes of all of the documents requested, the date span for the production of all “public records” (including personal emails sent or received regarding DCF business matter referenced in any “public record” of communications with fellow Editorial Board members or members of the staff of the CLT), should be considered from the date of your sworn oath as DCF Commissioner to the date of compliance with this request dated February 24, 2015.

The “public records” to be made available for “public inspection” should include” for the date span indicated in the above paragraph should include:

 

1.  Any “public records” in your possession sent or received from your State of Connecticut provided email address, state owned fax machine, received at your offices at 505 Hudson Street or your home address authored by you in your capacity as DC Commisioner or sent or received “public records” sent to you by any past or present member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune, including but not limited to the following individuals:
    
    
   Atty Dwight Merriam    Robert Farr         Elizabeth Gordon    
   Joyce Chen                 Eugene Fidell      Rachel Goldberg
   Prolog K. Das              Mary Galvin         Robert Holzberg
   Wesley Horton             Alan Neigher       Steven Wizner
   Jocelyn Kennedy         Lemis Pepe          Paul Sussman
   David King                   Thomas Scheffer Jay Stapleton
   James Lyon                 Mark Soboslar      Kevin Michielsen
   Eugene Marconi          James F. Sullivan
   Sean McElligot             Cecil Thomas
   Robert Mitchell             Thomas Ullman
   Dennis C. Murphy         Diane Whitney 
2.  Any “public record” in any communication sent to any of the above individuals issued on DCF Stationery or sent on your personal stationery which references the words “DCF” in any portion of such communication including how you signed such letters using DCF Commissioner.
    
3. Any “public record” sent or received in your possession confirming the date of your acceptance to become the Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune or to which established a date in which you became a member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
    
4. A properly redacted copy of your required disclosure of all statements of financial interests (SFI’s) required by law to be filed with the Office of State Ethics from 2010-2015.  A copy of all expense reports filed by you as the Commissioner of DCF filed with the Office of State Ethics required to be filed with the Office of State Ethics filed from 2010 through the date of compliance with this request.  A copy of all gifts received by you in your capacity as Commissioner of DCF required to be filed with the Office of State Ethics from 2010 to the date of compliance with this request.
    
    
5. Any “public records” in your possession of honorariums or other public speaking engagements which you have made, including appearances you may have made to any law association groups as DCF Commissioner.
    
6. Any “public records” in your possession which you have sent or received at the DCF offices at 505 Hudson Street from member of the judicial branch of government, including any Superior Court judges, probate court judges, family court judges or any CSSD employee or Court operations personnel which are permissible for release pursuant to the FOI Act.
    
7. Any “public records” in your possession sent or received from any present or past Editorial Board member of the Connecticut Law Tribune to any personal email account or home address you have maintained during your tenure as DCF Commissioner which embed the words “DCF,” “family court docket numbers or family court litigant names”, “juvenile court docket numbers or juvenile court litigant names” or “probate court docket numbers or juvenile court litigant names”
    
8. Any “public records” in your possession as DCF Commissioner and as Chair or member of the Connecticut Law Tribune Editorial Board which contain minutes to any meeting convened or attended by you at the Connecticut Law Tribune which would capture any content in such minutes of the meetings of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune concerning discussion of any DCF, family court, juvenile court or probate court legal proceeding in which an employee of DCF would be involved.
    
9. Any “opinion pieces”, “letters to the editor” which you may have authored and were published in the on line or print editions of the Connecticut Law Tribune as Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune while you have served as DCF Commissioner.
    
10. A copy of your letter of resignation as a Supreme Court Justice.
     
11. A copy of any “public records” in your possession which may contain information regarding the proposed consolidation by Governor Malloy of the operations of Court Support Services Division and DCF.
     
12. A copy of any “public records” in your possession sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address in which the recent publication of the article “Despite Allegations, Family Courts are Not Corrupt” was discussed by you in your role as DCF Commissioner and Chair of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune
     
13. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains the name Michael Nowacki.
     
14. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains of the name of Peter Szymonik.
     
15. A copy of any “public records” in your possession, sent or received, whether retrieved from your State of Connecticut provided email address or any personal email address which contains references embedded in any “public records” referencing the words “Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children, CT-N coverage of the public hearings of January 9, 2014 or March 31, 2014, SB 494 or Public Act 14-3” while you were serving in the capacity as DCF Commissioner and the Chair or member of the Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.
     
16. A copy of any resignation letter you might issue as DCF Commissioner to withdraw as the Chair of the Connecticut Law Tribune’s Editorial Board which may ensue from the date of the receipt of this letter by fax and registered mail and the date of compliance with the production of these requested “public records for public inspection.”

 

If you would like me to speak to any member of your staff who is assigned the responsibilities to compile these requested “public records”, please do not hesitate to have that person contact me via email, phone, or letter based upon the information contained below.

When the public records are prepared for inspection, please know it is my intent to be joined by a group of people who will accompany me to scan public records in the most efficient manner possible so as to not occupy your staff’s valuable time.

I would like to “inspect in person” any partial compliance with any of these “public record’s which can be provided to me from this list requested in this letter no later than Thursday, March 5.

As you may know, the United States Attorney Office has recently announced the creation of a Task Force hotline number to allow citizens to report matters of “public corruption” to a special phone number in which complaints can be made.

Therefore, I am copying Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle and the U.S. Attorney Deidre Daly on these communications to alert them to the importance of compliance with evidence acquired by citizens pursuant to the application of the Freedom of Information Act.

     Cordially,

 

     Michael Nowacki

     319 Lost District Drive

     New Canaan, CT  06840

     mnowacki@aol.com

     (203) 273-4296

 

     cc:  Deputy Chief State Attorney Leonard Boyle

             U.S. Attorney Deidre Daly

 

 

MICHAEL NOWACKI LETTER TO THE TASK FORCE! PARENTS ARE NOT THE SOURCE OF CONFLICT IN FAMILY COURT! COURT APPOINTED "EXPERTS" GO FOR THE FINANCIAL JUGULAR OF FAMILY COURT LITIGANTS! AND MANY MORE DISGRACES! SEE BELOW:

Members

Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor
            Children
Connecticut Legislature
c/o Legislative Judiciary Committee Office
Legislative Office Building/Office 2500
Hartford, CT  06106

November 6, 2013

 
Dear Task Force Members:

            Like many other parents whose custody rights have been severed through the efforts by those who have been appointed by the courts as AMC’s, GAL’s and court appointed court evaluators, we hold hopes that the “invited” testimonial you have permitted to be provided to date by Attorney Sarah Stark Oldham will not be given inordinate weight in the early deliberations of recommendations to be made by this task force.

            The focus on the November 7 hearing is to be centered on the role of AMC’s in the custody evaluation process. 

            I submit this letter as a matter of public record to be posted as testimony.

We witnessed last week testimony from Attorney Sarah Stark Oldham on the manner in which these GAL appointments have been ordered.  Attorney Oldham provided one person’s assessment that generally most GAL assignments do not result in “economically” devastating fees.

In addressing the issue of these court appointed “experts”, Attorney Oldham made no mention that a judge first looks at the financial affidavits of the parents to determine the “affordability” of these appointments and that the attorneys are allowed access to that financial information. 

Attorney Oldham made no mention of retainers and per hour fee schedules which the court orders the parties to pay, and sign contracts to pay, as an accumulated amount.  Attorney Oldham made no references to the statutory authority of the court to order the liquidation of “retirement funds”, “college education funding”  or the tax consequences of these ordered liquidations to the parents.

Attorney Oldham made no reference to the difference between a post judgment orders or pre-judgment orders for these appointments and the impact on the potential liquidation of the primary home of the children in order to pay these ordered fees.

At no point in time did the task force ask a question about whether GAL’s advocates for joint legal and physical custody—one of the three assessment prongs of this task force’s legislative mission.

            Many of us have been watching the coverage of the hearings of this task force on CT-N either live on our local cable channel or on the internet replay.

            We would encourage the task force hearings to continue to be cablecast as a matter of public interest.

            This letter provides a specific recounting of my case in Stamford, FST FA 04 0201276S and the abuse of the limited statutory authority of an appointed AMC, Attorney Veronica Reich of firm of Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss and Mulcahey.

C.G.S. §46 (b)-129a(2) defines the role of the attorney for the minor child (AMC):

“The primary role of any counsel for the child including the counsel who also serves as guardian ad litem, shall be to advocate for the child in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct.  When a conflict arises between the child’s wishes or position and that which the counsel for the child believes is in the best interest of the child, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the child.  The guardian ad litem shall speak on behalf of the best interest of the child and is not required to be an attorney-at-law but shall be knowledgeable about the needs and protection of children.  In the event that a separate guardian ad litem is appointed, the person previously serving as both counsel and guardian ad litem for the child shall continue to serve as counsel for the child and a different person shall be appointed as guardian ad litem, unless the court for good cause also appoints a different person as counsel for the child.  No person who has serve as both counsel and guardian ad litem for a child shall thereafter serve solely as the child’s guardian ad litem.

            In re:  Tayquon H. 76 App. 693, 821 A. 796 (2003), the Appellate Court stated:

“It also is clear…that the obligation of the person appointed as counsel is shaped by the Rules of Professional Conduct, which in pertinent part, obligate counsel to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representations…It is when counsel perceives that this obligation is in conflict with the child’s best interest that counsel must bring that to the courts’ attention, and the court, in turn, must appoint a separate guardian ad litem to protect and to promote the child’s best interests in the process.”

            C.G.S. 46b-56a(b), modified in 2007 states:

“There shall be a presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that joint custody is in the best interests of the minor child where the parents have agreed to an award of joint custody or so agree in open court at a hearing for the purpose of determining the custody of the minor child or children of the marriage.  If the court declines to enter an order awarding joint custody pursuant to this subsection, the court shall state in its decision the reasons for denial of an award of joint custody.”

            From June 29, 2005 until December 2, 2009, by agreement of the parents in a shared joint legal and physical custody plan in place signed on January 18, 2005, my children had in place the equal access to the love and devotion to both of their parents.

            On December 2, 2009, Attorney Veronica Reich, without authority or consultation from either of her clients, filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order to Modify Custody without a hearing—despite a statutory obligation of Attorney Reich to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct that involves providing children with the same rights of an adult—for advised consent.

            The task force needs to consider this one fact (gleaned from a Freedom of Information request made of Michael Bowler of the Statewide Grievance Committee, which is required to investigate upon sworn applications, violations of the Code of Professional Conduct): 

“Despite hundreds of complaints made against court appointed attorneys who serve as AMC’s over the years, there has never been a finding of lawyer misconduct by the Statewide Grievance Committee for violating the “advised consent” rules on the representation of children in custodial matters.”

            In my case, FST FA 02 0401276S, after she was appointed by the family court at a fee of $425.00 per hour, Attorney Veronica Reich of Bai, Pollock, Blueweiss and Mulcahey, abused the limits of her statutory authority defined in C.G.S. §46b-129a(2) with malice.

Attorney Reich, over the course of her nearly two year appointment as an AMC, without regard for the respecting the objectives of the stated representations of her clients, engaged in the “malicious neglect” of the rights of her clients to “advised consent” at ages 13 and 15.

Attorney Reich filed motions in family courts in both Stamford and Middletown, Connecticut, which violated the Rules of Professional Conduct because she pursued a course of legal action to interfere with the established joint legal and physical custody rights of one parent, without any consultation or permission from her clients.

Despite the conflicted agenda of Attorney Reich with her clients objectives of representation,  it wasn’t until February 2010, that Attorney Reich applied to the court for the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem.  That motion for a GAL appointment was never marked “ready” for a hearing--- which violated the provisions in the General Statutes that required her to seek such an appointment.

The billing records of Attorney Reich demonstrate she had no consultations with her clients regarding the filing of Ex Parte Motions in December 2009 and February 2011. 

Attorney Reich operated with shameless disregard for the economic and emotional impact on her clients during the course of her representations and made every effort to destroy the loving and devoted relationship of this father with his two children—with no accountability for her actions.

During her two years of misrepresentations of the well-articulated objectives of representations outlined by her clients in September 2009 (which were to leave the custody arrangement in place) Attorney Reich deemed her “lawyer-client confidentiality” relationship with her clients as superordinate to the “confidant” relationship this father had with his children.

Despite the filing in September 2010 of a highly detailed 57 page attorney complaint citing a litany of violations by Attorney Reich of the Rules of Professional Conduct with the Statewide Bar Counsel, the grievance against Attorney Reich was dismissed without a panel assignment.

There has been no enforcement of the Rules of Professional Conduct by the Statewide Bar Counsel—thus promoting the abuse by AMC’s such as Attorney Reich of the mandates of C.G.S. §46b-129a(2).

Attorney Reich in May 2012 sought the incarceration of me for the refusal to pay the $154,066 (80%) of outstanding fees (which included a compound interest of 10% per annum) for the misrepresentation of the informed consent of my children for profit of her firm.  Because this extorted payment was made from IRA holdings (not liquid assets as Attorney Reich suggested in her pleadings), the taxes owed on the distribution of these funds totaled another $50,000 in federal and state income taxes.

I was in jail for seven days in May 2012 until the extortion of payments was completed under the threat that the court would fine me $10,000 per week if the payments were not made.

Add in the $14,500 (one half of the fees) paid previously to Attorney Reich in 2009, the nearly $12,500 (one half) of fees assessed by Dr. Robson (at $350.00 per hour) and Dr. Frank Stoll (for psychological testing) and another $7,000 (half) to the GAL, Dr. Harry Adamakos, ($275.00 per hour) appointed in March 2011, and you can begin to understand that the system of family court injustice resembles “racketeering”.

After investigating Dr. Kenneth Robson’s credentials submitted to the court in his “curriculum vitae,” it turned out that his “hospital appointments” with the Hartford Healthcare Corporation had been severed in 2004. 

In addition to the above, I hired my own forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Douglas Anderson, who largely contested Dr. Robson’s assessment, for $10,000.

Attorney Oldham suggested last week at your hearings that parents were the source of the conflicts resulting in fee escalations. 

No, Attorney Oldham, perhaps you should review the Connecticut Law Tribune article posted by your partner Arnold Rutkin which suggested that the very spirit of the legal profession involves “conflict”.

There would be little question, my home and entire lifetime retirement savings would have been liquidated to pay legal fees had I not chosen self-representation in these post judgment modification hearings.

During the course of her representation, Attorney Reich amassed combined fees from this one assignment of nearly $250,000 in combined fees for both parents for herself, the court appointed psychiatrist/psychologist and the GAL.

Now the question is for this task force to consider:  How did any of this advance the best interests of the children? 

There has been no contact between Attorney Reich with my two children since she was “removed” at the end of the custody proceedings.

Couldn’t these funds, which were extorted from these court appointees for their unmonitored and egregious fees, have been better served in educating my two children?

Couldn’t these funds which are now in their pockets, have been better utilized in my children’s ability to fund their their children’s educations rather than court appointees who have no legal authority or involvement in children’s lives after the age of 18?

It is the failure of our legislators in the judiciary committee to have held public hearings since 1969, concerning the Connecticut Practice Book Rules, which were required by C.G.S. §51-14, which assisted in the promotion of the growth of family court system filled with corrupt practitioners.

The unlawful seizure of family assets by these court practitioners, who have no accountability for the economic and emotional harm inflicted on parents and children in the State of Connecticut is unprecedented.

The suggestion by Attorney Oldham that parents are at the root cause of these escalating legal fees is refuted by reviewing the thousands of pages of transcripts, court motions, Ex Parte Motions for Order, denial of due process and equal protection rights of just my case file FST FA 04 0201276S.

This task force needs to look no further than the third prong of your legal review to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Childre .

This task force needs to focus its attention on the adoption of legal mandates in the State of Connecticut for any court appointed official to forge joint legal and physical custody parenting plan in the State of Connecticut--for all parents who represent no risk of harm of from physical or emotional abuse to their children.

By adopting such a legal reform, by filing motions for an appointment of a GAL or AMC (or any sua suponte order of the court), the courts and parents will be committing themselves to joint parenting plans as the outcome favorable for our children and bring an end to GAL’s and AMC’s profiting from the creation of custodial conflict for profit.

I look forward to watching the task force hearings and look forward to my three minutes to testify at a public hearing in January 2014.

Cordially,

 

Michael J. Nowacki

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