This blog is for those that are victims of official, police, attorney, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct. This forum is also for the furthering of rights of non-custodial parents and their children. We will lobby legislators, propose laws, and inform the public. Feel free to post your story, comment, or email your video in.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Connecticut Police Chief Obstructs Justice, Impedes Investigation, and Intimidates Witnesses?
Would this Police Chief face decades in prison if he were just a civilian allegedly committing the same crimes?
CONNECTICUT NEWS
Decision On Accused Police Chief Delayed
January 27, 2007 By LYNN DOAN, Courant Staff Writer
PLAINFIELD -- The police commission decided Friday to delay any action against longtime Police Chief Gary Sousa, accused in a report this week of sexually harassing female town employees.
Until a vacancy on the five-member board is filled, commission members believed it wiser to wait to discuss possible disciplinary actions, said Alice Tetreault, the commission's vice chairwoman. Two commission members have resigned in the past two weeks, citing time conflicts and health problems, but only one seat has been filled.
The commission tried to fill the other seat at Friday's meeting, but came to a tie vote that will have to be broken by First Selectman Kevin Cunningham. Tetreault said the board also spoke briefly about the proper procedure it will use to review the 137-page internal affairs report that accuses Sousa of sexually harassing and intimidating three women - the town clerk, the town bookkeeper and the former assistant to the first selectman.
The report, written by Deputy Police Chief Robert J. Hoffman, found that Sousa committed 10 department violations. Hoffman said the chief was also insubordinate because he contacted people involved in the town's investigation after the police commission had ordered him to stay away from them.
The commission had planned to discuss the report in a closed session Friday but the meeting was opened to the public at the request of Sousa's attorney, Tetreault said.
CONTACT: Francis C. P. Knize: 50 Sunset Pass, Wilton, Ct. 06897 203 544 9603
STATE OF CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
General Assembly Proposed Bill No. January Session, 2007 LCO No.
Referred to Sen. Mcdonald and Rep. Lawyor, Co-Chairs:
Committee on the Judiciary for an INVESTIGATION INTO THE KNIZE CASE PH 860-240-0530 FAX 860 240 0196
CONCERNING: APPELLATE/SUPREME COURT; DOCKET NO. 25532/27692 and Original Trial Court FA 02-0190291S
Statement of the Case and a statement of the facts; direct and concise argument amplifying the reasons relied on for the allowance of the Review by Judiciary Comm.
Essentially, The Judiciary Committee must intercede to correct wrongdoing against a Connecticut citizen’s fundamental rights and property, and protect from fraud of the court, protect equal protection for the law including Contract Law, (C.G.S. 33-167, or Florida equivalent), The First and Fourteenth Amendment, Art First Sec Ten of the Federal Const. concerning the right to bring all relevant issues and controversies forth and also the right to Open Judgment when void orders are made due to fraud based on lack of Jurisdiction, and failures to prove jurisdiction as a matter of law. Art 1st Section 10. No state shall ...pass any.. law impairing the obligation of contracts.
Did the court have authority to limit grievances (Ist Am) to be heard though its limitations on brief sizes? Should it be allowed through first amendment rights and Due Process that a court can consider the number of cited plain errors from a given judge and justify a rightful need for parties to have at least 3 pages for each numbered plain error? Mr. Knize found some 44 plain errors from the original trial court judge, and he needed at least 3 pages for each issue. He believes the Constitution guarantees a right to have ALL of one’’s grievances heard BEFORE any court can seek to use administrative rules (PB 67-2) to suppress any particular grievance. When Mr. Knize then requested that the various lower courts prove its burden to impede his fundamental rights under the STRICT SCRUTINY DOCTRINE, and produce a finding which will answer to such alleged deprivation, the courts simply denied and dismissed the case.
The original trial court judge (Winslow) failed so many legal precedents of divorce court rulings, mostly concerning the VERY PUBLIC INTEREST of a citizen’’s rights to contract, that the defendant (I, Mr. Knize) felt compelled to address them all to settle the controversies and conflicts that the court itself created. J. Winslow, under so many (rumored) complaints by various lawyers, was soon after REMOVED from divorce court and was transferred to criminal court into another jurisdiction. The Connecticut Judiciary was trying to hide the bad discretions of a judge by transferring her, and then tried to cover-up the problems of the KNIZE case by laying me victim to her inappropriate rulings, by being unwilling to overturn her unlawful judgments by denying my post judgment requests to Vacate her Orders, grant me relief to her void judgments, denying me rightful premises to have a New Trial, Judge Tierney NOT disqualifying himself, denying me the clear probable causes to Open The Judgment. As a result, I have lost all of my property, which, under the Constitution’’s right to property clause, I was to be guaranteed a fair trial, yet Due Process was violated at every turn. Most significant in all of this was the fact that I always pleaded that a certain Limited Liability Company I had shares in, secured my protection from being responsible for any underlying asset value it held, and that my Shareholder Agreement would upon my corporate demand be valued at a nominal value of $11,500. The contract was in evidence. Yet I was jailed by J. Tierney until I had to sell public stocks I held, which Judge Winslow declared as my separate property, and give my ex- wife $400,000. Was this was not fraud as defined by Kenner? "Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶¶¶¶60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." Were J. Winslow’’s judgments then to be considered NOT final? It seems the courts would rather hold to it’’s Unconstitutionally Vague 35 page limitation rule for brief
size (I had motioned to exceed pages but was denied), and leave the issue unaddressed by Connecticut; than to obey its own laws on Limited Companies (C.G.S. 33-167) or the Florida equivalent laws; whereby a non-controlling member is not liable for the underlying assets of a company) and other laws it had in place. In KNIZE there were so many violations of court procedure and against the right to the mutual Prenuptial Agreement, and a certain House Agreement of 1991, whereby J. Winslow pleaded for the plaintiff and acted on non-pleaded requests with highly questionable legal references. She ruled WITHOUT JURISDICTION concerning the Florida contract, of which the forum state was Florida. Connecticut was without jurisdiction, and this shows reason for the application of KENNER. J. Winslow’’s response to my Articulations proved clearly and convincingly she ruled against RUBIN where she found that the Limited company was speculative, and yet ruled illegally and unresponsively that I was required to distribute the asset anyway. This was preposterous and unfitting of a judge and served to defy the administration of justice, put the integrity of the court into disrepute, and attacked the machinery of the court. The question is posed to the Legislature; how far should it go to protect lower court judges? Where should the rights of contracts and citizens have precedent over a judge who exercised clear unlawful discretion? Does Connecticut want to create conflicts of law by protecting one of its own, over the need to exercise consistency of law? And how about Chief Justice Sullivan, as courts know around the nation was found guilty for fixing Connecticut’’s judicial nominations, and who influenced in KNIZE the panel of State Supreme judges to not accept a Motion to file late because they found no probable cause around the fact that one’’s mother suddenly was in critical condition due to a car accident a few days before a motion was due? I was called by my family to go to my mother because she might not live the weekend, submitted documents from Jackson Memorial Hospital that at age 78 she broke most bones in her body and was in intensive care. Yet, the court unethically denied that this was a probable cause to file late. Connecticut’’s Judicial Review Council didn’’t
want to touch the question. The higher courts dismissed my case on that filing of a reconsideration. Yet, having timely filed in Superior Court with their promise they’’d send it up to the Supreme Court, I found out when I got back from Florida that instead the Clerk threw the motion away. That incident coupled with the failure for the higher courts to answer for its proof of jurisdiction under Strict Scrutiny under what authority they functioned to deny me First Amendment rights to have ALL of my grievances heard, ruined my fair chance for a fair trial on the issues alleged, and they ignored my requests that Connecticut stop from breaking its own laws and those of the U.S. Constitutions’’, which led the case into Post Judgment proceedings. I have been enormously harmed by the court’’s actions. I ask the Judiciary Committee to grant me Relief by Investigating my case for the reasons stated in this document. Important questions must be answered in a review of last resort concerning the right to have grievances heard, according to U. S. Constitution's Amendments 1,5,10,14, and Equal protection of the laws concerning the Connecticut Constitution under Sec 8 Art 1,5,17/Sec 10 & 14, 28 U.S.C. 2072 (b) and C.G.S. 51-14,
CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION Stated Violations: SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press.
Mr. Knize was not allowed his liberty of speech in the court through the denial of his briefs and did not have his Contracts concerning property honor through the equal protection of the law. The Supreme, Appellate, and Trial Courts. Courts were not
OPEN: SEC. 10. All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.
SEC. 7. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from ... seizures...
SEC. 8. ...No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law...SEE ARTICLE XXIX
SEC. 20. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin. SEE ARTICLE XXI.
I was discriminated against as a father, male in sex, and for my political views concerning activism to support the Constitutions of this state and federal governments Amendment ARTICLE V.Sect ion 20 of article first of the constitution is amended to read as follows: No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin or sex.
I REQUEST that I may give ORAL ARGUMENTS AND TESTIFY, PROVIDE WITNESSES to The Judiciary Committee. I attest that all statements and facts herein this document are true to the best of my knowledge.
The Drawbacks of Complaining to Police about Police
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU ARE A VICTIM OF POLICE MISCONDUCT?
Text supplied with YouTube video: We were recently stopped by 8 LAPD units because we videotaped one of their traffic stops. We thought that after the Rodney King beating it was OK to videotape the LAPD.
AN ACT CONCERNING TRANSPARENCY, ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended with respect to the Judicial Branch to establish mechanisms for the detection and prevention of (1) inappropriate judicial conduct, (2) illegal activity, (3) actions that undermine the judicial machinery, and (4) violations of the Judicial oath to support the United States and Connecticut Constitutions.
Statement of Purpose:
To allow for transparency, accessibility and accountability in the Judicial Branch. END
IMPORTANT NOTE:
To all concerned: Please inform the Judiciary Committee you support this Bill. Please come testify when a hearing is set. Reporters; please report that this important Bill has been entered by Rep. O'Neil, and that the public may be requested to testify on its behalf. Full text, if not changed by Rep. O'Neil, is in the attachment. This bill will be a first of it's kind in the nation if it is passed
Francis C. P. Knize
Wilton Producer "In The Interest Of Justice" series
203 544 9603
* * * *
INFO: Francis C. P. Knize: 50 Sunset Pass, Wilton, Ct. 06897 203 544 9603
STATE OF CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLYGeneral Assembly Proposed Bill No. 6289 January Session, 2007 LCO No. 2823
Referred to Committee on Judiciary Introduced by: REP. O'NEILL, 69th Dist.
AN ACT CONCERNING TRANSPARENCY, ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. (Modeled from Congress’ H.R. 5219)
Introduced by The House Judiciary Committee, authored by Francis C. P. Knize using recommendations from Rep. Christopher Shays, and Raised H.R 5219 at the U.S. Congress’ House Judiciary Committee.
An Act Concerning Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement and Judicial Reform Creation of a State Statute, to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct, illegal activity, undermining of the judicial machinery, and violations of the Judicial Oath to support the U.S. and State Constitutions in the State Judiciary; while acknowledging the review standard of a public officer’s “Spirit of Restraint” to infringe upon a party’s fundamental rights.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Jan , 2007
Francis C. P. Knize, producer, using recommendations from Mr. Christopher Shays during an interview with him, introduces the following bill; which is now referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
A BILL Creation of a new Statute to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct and detection of fraud which does, or attempts to ... defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner, concerning the application in the Connecticut State judiciary. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Connecticut in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Connecticut Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.
(a) Creation and Duties-
`CHAPTER ___--INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH 0001. Establishment.
0002. Appointment of Inspector General.
0003. Duties.
0004. Powers of the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector Generals
0005. Powers of the 12 member panel of the Grand Jury
0006. Reports.
0007. Whistleblower protection.
`Sec. 0001. Establishment
`There is established for the judicial branch of the State Government the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch with powers to appoint a Grand Jury Panel (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the `Office').
`Sec. 0002. Appointment of Inspector General
`The head of the Office shall be the Inspector General, who shall be appointed by a panel made up of at least 2/3rds non-lawyer/judge/ABA members after consultation with the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives. The Inspector General must have a history of having “clean hands”.
`Sec. 0003. Duties
`With respect to the Judicial Branch, the Office shall--
`(1) conduct investigations of matters pertaining to the Judicial Branch, including possible misconduct in office of judges and proceedings under Standards of both Ethics and Law, including powers to determine whether laws were broken, whether judicial discretion was abused, whether abuses were against Public Policy, including issues that may require oversight or other inappropriate actions {including fraud and malicious prosecution) within the State Judicial Branch.
`(2) conduct and supervise audits and investigations, including Abuse of Power, Fraud upon the court; illegal or inappropriate use of discretion.
`(3) prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse; and
`(4) recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the Judicial Branch.
(5) Appoint a 12 member Grand Jury Panel made up of two-thirds non- lawyer/judge/ABA members.
(6) Ensure that a complaint be set for trial within 60 days from entree of the complaint, new grand juries will be appointed as case flow becomes constrained. Assistant Inspector Generals can be appointed if the Inspector General finds he is overloaded to adjudicate all cases himself, where the Assistant Inspector General must then pass the findings and Judgment to the Inspector General for the Inspector General to exercise his duty of reporting and other administrative duties.
(7) Ensure all Office Members and jury members take an oath to support the State and Federal Constitutions before assuming their respective duties. `Sec. 0004. Powers of the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector Generals `In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall have the power-- `(1) to make investigations and reports; `(2) to obtain information or assistance from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, or other entity, or unit thereof, including all information kept in the course of business by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the judicial councils of circuits, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States Sentencing Commission; `(3) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, and the production of such books, records, correspondence memoranda, papers, and documents, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by civil action; `(4) to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit; `(5) to employ such officers and employees, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions State General Schedule pay rates; `(6) to obtain services as authorized by Statute sec_______, at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate prescribed for like State employees ; and `(7) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and with private persons, and to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the Office.
(8) to appoint a 12 member Grand Jury Panel to hear all cases.
(9) to demand that finding(s), order(s) or judgment(s) in question from a judge so charged under this office be clarified as to state an authority of law for which the judgment should be based, in particular order(s) for denial or dismissal if no written finding was available.
(10) to instruct the jury to find upon the clarification as to its legality.
(11) to ensure that the parties under the judge had their claims and allegations addressed, and that the judge had ruled upon the facts of their pleadings.
(12) to ensure that probable causes are not defeated by a call for a judge’s right for judicial discretion, but rather discretion is always questioned for its legality and constitutionality.
``Sec. 0005. Powers of the 12 member panel of the Grand Jury 1) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers of jury nullification and have the right to take it upon themselves to judge the law as applied ethically and constitutionally by a judge as well as the facts in controversy surrounding a judge’s decision; under Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution. 2) The Grand Jury shall be granted the power for impeachment of a Public Official, being a body authorized under the legislature. 3) The Grand Jury shall be granted power to suspend judicial immunity for acts where clear and convincing abuses of power, law, and harmful discretion occurred. Immunity. No immunity shall extend to any judge of this State for any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitutions of Connecticut or the United States, notwithstanding Common Law, or any other contrary statute.
4) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers to determine Fraud, as a species of deceit well settled in law as a court’s fraud upon the court as defined by KENNER; it “is fraud which does, or attempts to ... defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512,sec 60.23. Charges against a Judge for fraud must meet the level of "an intentional plan of deception designed to improperly influence the Court in its decision {and} has had such an effect on the court " to have changeable effect upon the outcome of the original judgment. 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, sec. 60.23. Fraud is to be determined as judicial misrepresentation which follows the well-settled 5 point test adapted to the rulings of a judge:1. a false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact or law; 2. knowledge by the public official making the false assertion that it is false or ignorance of the truth of the assertion; 3. an intention to induce the claimant to act or to justify the claimant to act; 4. the claimant must have been induced to act or justified in acting in reliance on the representation or ruling; and 5. the claimant must suffer damage proximately caused by the misrepresentation set within the the context of the ruling. 5) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers to determine fiduciary damages to the claimant, upon a finding of wrongdoing by a public official. 6) Initiative will also allow the Office to grant temporary immunity from arrest, prosecution, forfeiture or confiscation of property or the deprivation of rights and/or privileges except in cases of conviction for violent felonies involving actual injury to another person; or felony acts of fraud, theft or property damage exceeding $3,800, when the Office determines there is probable cause to believe that the penalties are the result of judicial misconduct or abuse of authority. 7) The Inspector General will also be empowered to consider and grant the writ of habeus corpus in the same manner as the Supreme and District courts.
Sec. 0006. Reports
`(a) When to Be Made- The Inspector General shall-- `(1) make a report to The General Assembly relating to the activities of the Office within 60 days of any judgment authorized under its office; and `(2) make prompt reports to the The Judiciary Committee on matters that may require prompt or emergency action by them. `(b) Sensitive Matter of National Security or of individual or corporate privacy - If a report contains sensitive matter, the Inspector General may so indicate by making a finding on the facts alleged for a sensitive matter and receive that report in closed session. The burden is upon the Inspector General to prove lives are at stake concerning National Security Issues, or that disclosure to the public will severely harm a non-accused individual or Corporation. Findings of the Inspector General will be made public in all cases upon a verdict of guilty. `(c) Duty to Inform Attorney General- In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall report expeditiously to the State’s Attorney General whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal or State criminal law ` Sec. 0007. Whistleblower protection `(a) In General- No officer, employee, agent, contractor or subcontractor in the Judicial Branch may discharge, demote, threaten, suspend, harass or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation of Federal or State law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge or any other employee in the Judicial Branch, which may assist the Inspector General in the performance of duties under this chapter.
`(b) Civil Action- An employee injured by a violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate relief.'. (c) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters for part ____ of the C.G.S , is amended by adding at the end the following new item: Title____; Inspector General for the Judicial Branch.
Statement of Purpose:
To adopt certain recommendations put forth by the model of H.R. 5219 at Congress on Judicial Reform with respect to the transparency, accessibility and accountability of the Judicial Branch.
One man stands up against foreign occupation, a corrupt court system, and demands government act as advertised. Let's see to it that this true patriot isn't hung for his moral outrage turned to action.
The Stamford Advocate photo above, has a story with it [here]. Michael Nowacki whacks a bee hive with a stick in Connecticut. Just one sting from one of the bees means serious physical trauma, being murdered, or being locked up in prison or mental hospital in Connecticut for life.
He is exposing fraudulent accounting practices in the Catholic Church, a possible major bribery scandal which could tarnish the new Connecticut Governor's reputation, how UBS might be running town halls, the police, and the courts.
Why would in divorce cases in Connecticut, the litigants aren't required to disclose foreign bank accounts and investments because USB has exerted control on lawyers running the legislature, judges, the Connecticut State, city, and town governments, and the policing of the state? Is USB making government an organized crime racket?
Mr. Nowacki is a former CBS executive. He could tell us stuff about the 2000 US Presidential election and why there was such a mess in Florida. One voting/polling firm who gave "pool" information to all the networks is probably key people who are mostly responsible for the whole mess. The mainstream media doesn't out their own. Mike is gagged from disclosing the truth about that. He hints at quite a bit during the longer version of the below video.
Mike is facing at least 5 years in prison next court date in March for inadvertently sending an email to the wrong recipient, his ex-wife. Taking his associate, Francis C. P. Knize, with him to see US Homeland Security about his plight, probably kept him out of life in a mental hospital. This is the first known instance that this author has something positive to say about DHS Department of Homeland Security. America would not be in the financial, judicial, and legislative chaos, America has become, if there were more Mikes in America. I am glad there is at least one American like him. A longer version of the below interview, and a link to Mike Nowack's No-Wackileaks.com [click here].
Does Foreign Bank run Government, Courts, and Police?
Text with video: This is Michael Nowacki
Swiss Bank UBS, the Catholic Church in Connecticut, Corrupt Judges and Politicians may think Mike is very dangerous person, being allowed to speak.
Judges want him silenced, in prison, in a mental hospital, and probably wish he suffers a horrific death.
Is UBS, a foreign bank, calling the shots in US town governments, in the courts, and do police break laws for UBS?
Were two of the Connecticut Governor’s top legal aids bribed in the hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Catholic Church and others?
Please check out longer version of the interview for answers.
Is there a Separation of Powers in State and Federal Government?
There are plenty of excuses of why elected officials will refuse to help citizens, an excuse is, “The Separation of Powers”. Police and the Judiciary will, especially in Connecticut, go after you if you lodge complaints. The current system is not representative of the people and that should change.
In Connecticut elected legislators that are practicing lawyers sit on the Judiciary Committee.
Lawyers know that if they go against their own, prosecutors, police, or judges, in what they say and do, or in the case of attorneys that are also elected officials, they will be retaliated against.
Lawyers, can, and will be arrested if they break ranks.
Attorney Jim Brewer has the dirt on so many and actually defended his clients, he has been disbarred and discredited. If he were also a legislator, he would probably have been fully railroaded and doing time.
Lawyers, of the Judicial Branch should not be working for two branches at the same time.
Their loyalties lie with their own and the Judicial Branch.
The Governor can nominate just about anyone with or without experience and qualifications to be a judge in Connecticut.
Legislators that are lawyers, will not act for the people, and do not want to be disbarred and ruined, so they apply their rubberstamps to just about anyone the Governor of Connecticut nominates to the bench.
That also involves disciplining judges. Almost no lawyers will be critical of any judges and removing a judge can be the death knell to a lawyer’s or even a representative’s career. It is extremely rare that a lawyer will represent a client that has a legitimate beef with a judge. Massachusetts Attorney Barbara Johnson, also a former candidate for Massachusetts Governor, was vocal about the Judicial Abuse and unfairness. Allegedly Rockville Connecticut Judge Jonathan Kaplan didn't like what Barbara had on her website, so he reportedly set about calling Massachusetts Judges to act in disbarring Johnson. Johnson was later disbarred and then sent to prison over her website.
Where is Free Speech, where is justice?
Liaisons from the police interact with legislators regarding legislation proposed by citizens to elected officials.
The Connecticut State Police are part of the Executive Branch.
Again, the myth that there is separation of powers in Connecticut does not hold water.
A citizen that proposes legislation such as, “Civilian Oversight of Police,” has their name and address handed over to the head of the Connecticut State Police. That citizen begins to be maliciously investigated for the opportunity to falsely arrest and imprison. The current policy of those that lodge police misconduct complaints is still, “Arrest and Discredit”.
Complaints about Judges and Prosecutors are routinely not investigated and are probably just shredded, almost upon receipt.
Chris Kennedy lodged a complaint against a police officer and then was arrested. He lodged complaints against Judge Jonathan Kaplan and then Kaplan was out to have Kennedy arrested and took his kids away in retaliation.
I tried to have Judge Jonathan Kaplan removed for bias in civil cases having gone to legislators. I proposed Civilian Oversight of Police. I was followed around by Connecticut State Police Officers and later arrested for being a victim of an attempted strong arm robbery, I was mugged. That was the excuse to terrorize me out of my home, retirement, job, and the sum total of my life’s work and to railroad me to prison to ruin me for life.
Separation of Powers, What Separation? Justice, What Justice?
Judge and Defense Lawyer dated same courtroom employee, how fair is this case?:
Judge Reprimanded For Not Disclosing Courthouse Romance
Committee Rules Relationship Did Not Affect Case
CONCORD, N.H. -- A Superior Court judge has been reprimanded for not immediately dropping out of a murder case when he learned he and the defendant's lawyer were dating the same courtroom employee.
Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Edward Fitzgerald and lawyer Ted Barnes eventually withdrew from the case, but Fitzgerald and the state's Judicial Conduct Committee agree that the judge violated the code of judicial conduct by not immediately disclosing the conflict to the defendant's lawyers and the chief justice and by taking four months to act on the defendant's request for a new trial.
The code conduct requires judges to drop cases if their impartiality can be reasonably questioned.
In a six-page "stipulation of facts and violations," Fitzgerald and the committee said he had "failed to avoid both the impropriety and the appearance of impropriety" and had "acted in a manner that fails to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."
The committee concluded the relationships did not affect the murder case, or any other.
In an order dated Jan. 12 and disseminated Tuesday, the committee ordered Fitzgerald to attend a seminar on judicial conduct and ethics and to repay the committee for its investigation.
Fitzgerald and Barnes both dated court monitor Susan Corcoran. Court monitors work closely with judges to ensure that sessions are recorded accurately.
According to the stipulation, Fitzgerald and Corcoran stopped dating around the time the trial began, and she began dating Barnes, who was representing George Knickerbocker, a former New Hampshire man accused of killing a baby years ago.
The stipulations said there is no evidence the judge or lawyer knew of the competing relationships during the trial. Barnes said he was in the dark about Fitzgerald's relationship with Corcoran until after Knickerbocker's conviction on the lesser charge of manslaughter.
When Fitzgerald found out, he told Corcoran she either would have to stop seeing Barnes, who appeared regularly in his court, or consider a transfer. Among his concerns was that Barnes might learn his thoughts about the Knickerbocker case from Corcoran.
Superior Court Chief Justice Robert Lynn learned about the situation in June and asked Fitzgerald why he had not disqualified himself from the case earlier, according to the stipulations. Knickerbocker's request for a new trial was pending.
The document said Fitzgerald had not ruled on the request "in the hope that the whole thing would just go away."
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
All that the Dictators and Kings of federal and state governments want from you is your silence.
The Courts of America have Kings for judges. Citizens trying to protect their families and property in court are at the judge's mercy, exercising his/her individual discretion.
The defendant's right to cross examine a witness is limited by the trial judge's discretion and his decision will not be disturbed without a showing of an abuse of that discretion. Cosby v. State, 627 So. 2d 1059 (Crim App. 1993).
Judges routinely ignore State Constitutions and individual constitutional rights when they exercise their discretion. Judges are comfortable and feel within their right, to ignore constitutional protections because of the "Absolute Immunity Doctrine."
See Alabama Constitution. 1901, Article I, § 6: "The cross-examining party has the absolute right on cross-examination, not only to inquire as to matters relevant to the issues ... but also to inquire into the conduct and circumstances of the witness which have measurable bearing upon his credibility. This right to a party to have thorough and sifting cross-examination is provided by statute."
A defendant's right to a fair and impartial judge is a myth and a protest to the appellate court will be ignored or denied.
The appellant argues that the trial judge erred by continually interjecting himself into the trial. The record does not support the appellant's argument. We have examined the record and have not found any abuse of the trial judge's discretion in the conduct of the trial. Moreover, the trial judge has the duty to move the testimony expeditiously along. Shelton v. State, 384 So. 2d 869 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 384 So. 2d 871 (Ala. 1980).
"The trial judge's discretion is a legal or judicial one, subject to review for abuse or improper exercise, as where there has been a violation of some established rule of law or principle of equity, or a clear misapprehension of the controlling law." Martin, 559 So. 2d at 1078. In order to show an abuse of discretion, the appellant must show that "the trial judge committed a clear and palpable error which, unless corrected, will constitute manifest injustice." Id.
Here again, another judge will decide if there is manifest injustice. Judges do not, as a rule, overturn or overrule another judge's decision. Bias and partiality will be in favor of the other judge.
Agreements reached between parties in a divorce proceeding can come back to haunt them. The trial court may utilize the parties' agreement in fashioning its divorce decree, and it may adopt or reject any part of that agreement. Butts v. Butts, 600 So. 2d. 1038((Civ. App. 1992).
A judge can disallow proper evidence claiming it is cumulative. "It is within the trial judge's discretion to exclude evidence . . ." McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 10.07 (4th ed. 1991).
Alerting the Head of Police and a State's Governor about gross Police Misconduct
Emailed to: leonard.boyle@po.state.ct.us, governor.rell@po.state.ct.us from: trvl@hotmail.com
Subject: Are murder for hire plots ok if police hire the killers? Jan. 20, 2007
Dear Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell and Connecticut State Police Commissioner Leonard C. Boyle:
Should Connecticut Police Officers Thomas and Nardella have gotten away with paying Todd Vashon $10,000 cash to either kill Stephen Murzin or Phil Inkel for having lodged police misconduct complaints? Should the felon, police informant, that stabbed Stephen Murzin 13 times, stabbing two other people not get imprisoned for almost murdering 3 people while on probation? Why did the judge in that case give a free pass to an attempted murder? Why was Stephen Murzin arrested in the hospital when he woke up alive after the attack? There is out and out beyond believe corruption in the Connecticut Court System and that of Connecticut Police. Will you look into aiding victims with compensation and having their bogus criminal records expunged?
I wrote letters to the editor printed in the Journal Inquirer and Hartford Courant. After I wrote in defense of the Connecticut Sheriffs that were being followed around harassed and threatened by Connecticut State Police, I was then followed around threatened and harassed by Connecticut State Police Officers. I told former Representative Mordasky and State Senator Tony Guglielmo that I was looking for lawyers to sue Connecticut State Police for violating my civil rights by refusing to protect and serve and to take complaints of downtown residents. I also was told I was not allowed to rent to minorities in a “White Only” area. I had proposed Civilian Oversight of Police allegedly sending former Connecticut State Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada into rages.
The police liaison to legislators told Mordasky’s aid Rosemarie that I was going to be retaliated upon for what I wrote about police in letters to the editor, for having proposed legislation to elected officials didn’t like, and for looking to sue police. Will you please find out who that legislative liaison is or was and question him or her. How long has there been a Connecticut State Police secret “Enemies List” where citizens are targeted for malicious investigations, being set up by police, for false arrests, and imprisonment for upsetting high ranking police officials?
I complained to former Governor Rowland’s Office about Connecticut State Police. I have been told that complaining about police, especially to former Connecticut State Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada meant automatic State Police policy of “Arrest and Discredit” to be implemented, and complaints to the Governor’s office ended up on Spada’s desk.
Please look into illegal collusion between Judge Jonathan Kaplan, Arthur L. Spada, Troopers Langlais, Amaral, Mulcahey, Sgt. Izzarelli, Sgt. Sticca, Major Wheeler, LT Fox, Captain Davoren, Col. Barry, Prosecutor John Panone, Prosecutor Keith Courier, Stafford Officers Desso and Prochaska, Internal Affairs Officer Wack, former Governor John G. Rowland and various aids in his office, and others by reviewing trial docket # CR01-0074672 transcripts.
Please look into Connecticut State Police Operative Barbara Sattal for her allegedly being offered $10,000 to set me up for a drunk driving arrest, where police would plant drugs on me, beating me up to charge me with assaulting officers and other charges to put me away illegally in prison for 10 to 20 years to shut me up and ruin me.
If the Connecticut State Police can’t do honest investigations into citizen police misconduct complaints, the Connecticut State Police needs to be abolished to form a Connecticut Highway Patrol with the manpower and powers cut drastically to have a city and town police system increased.
If Connecticut Judges can’t act legally, Constitutionally, judicial immunity needs to be abolished, judges need to face arrests and trials for judicial misconduct, an Inspector General of Courts and Civilian Oversight needs to be instituted.
Please look into ending the secret State Police “Enemies List” and into compensating victims and in expunging their records. Those that upset allegedly corrupt egomaniacs such as former Governor John G. Rowland and former Police Commissioner Arthur L. Spada should not suffer our entire lives.
Too many children suffer, too many adults are falsely arrested lose their homes, family unity, retirement, credit, friends, pets, reputation, home, and the sum total of their life’s work. Connecticut Police, Judicial, Prosecutorial, Attorney, and Official misconduct is defrauding all federal taxpayers and is hurting the economy. Government, police, and the courts should act in the public’s best interest, not just their own.
Enough is enough. Please show that you are willing to earn the tax dollars that pay your salary, act for the public’s best interest, we pay you, we are the boss. Please do something and do it now.
Steven G. Erickson 972 Putney Rd #156 Brattleboro, Vermont 05301
P.S. I am posting this open email to you on judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com
* * * *
Click Here for http://starkravingviking.blogspot.com/
Gonzales gave George the right to be completely unaccountable to US or international law, which is not within his job description: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999148/site/newsweek/ That's why he needs to be committed. He is not of sound mind. ===========================================================
LEAHY: Let me ask you this: Why aren't you at liberty?
I don't understand that. It's not a matter of executive privilege.
GONZALES: No, sir, again, and I'm not ...
LEAHY: It's only the president that can ...
GONZALES: No, I'm not suggesting that I will not be able to answer your questions. I'm just suggesting I can't do it today.
LEAHY: Why?
GONZALES: I just – sir, I'm not – there is not a position – I can't represent the position of the executive branch on this particular issue.
========================================================= http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/172671 Transcript of Gonzales-Leahy exchange on Arar TheStar.com - Unassigned - Transcript of Gonzales-Leahy exchange on Arar January 18, 2007
This is an edited transcript of the exchange yesterday between U.S. Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales and Senate judiciary committee chairman Patrick Leahy.
LEAHY: You know, I live about an hour's drive from Canada and go up there often. And in Vermont, we tend to get a lot of Canadian news, just radio and so on.
But something that made the news here in the United States was the question of Maher Arar. -- M-A-H-E-R A-R-A-R, in case I mispronounce it.
He's a Canadian citizen. He was returning home from a vacation. Plane stops at JFK in New York and continues on to Canada.
He was detained by federal agents at JFK airport, 2002, on suspicion of ties to terrorism.
He was deported to Syria; was not sent on the couple of hundred miles to Canada and turned over to the Canadian authorities, but he was sent thousands of miles away to Syria. He was held for 10 months.
He was held in abhorrent conditions there and those sending him back must have known he was going to be tortured.
The Canadian government has apologized for its part in this debacle. In fact, the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police actually resigned over it. The country is prepared to compensate him for it.
This country has not said anything at all that we made any mistake or had any apology.
Press accounts indicate the Justice Department approved his deportation to Syria.
And I understand he remained on the United States terrorist watch list so he couldn't come 50 miles or 75 miles, whatever, south into the United States without fear of being picked up again, sent back to Syria.
Why is he on a government watch list if he's been found completely innocent by this Canadian commission, which actually had the information from us?
GONZALES: Senator, I've got some very definite views about this particular case, as you know...
LEAHY: Well, go ahead.
GONZALES: ... beyond litigation. What I want to do is, hopefully, in the next few days – I'm happy to sit down with you and Senator (Arlen) Specter and give you more information.
In fact, we may be able to publicly say more about this shortly. I'm just not at liberty, at this time, to...
LEAHY: Let me ask you this: Why aren't you at liberty?
I don't understand that. It's not a matter of executive privilege.
GONZALES: No, sir, again, and I'm not ...
LEAHY: It's only the president that can ...
GONZALES: No, I'm not suggesting that I will not be able to answer your questions. I'm just suggesting I can't do it today.
LEAHY: Why?
GONZALES: I just – sir, I'm not – there is not a position – I can't represent the position of the executive branch on this particular issue.
But I think, in a relatively short period of time, there's more information that I should be able to share with you, and hopefully, that we can share publicly.
LEAHY: But why was he sent to Syria instead of Canada?
GONZALES: Well, again, Senator, I'd be happy to answer these questions I think we can say a lot more about it, if you just simply give me some additional time.
LEAHY: Can you tell me why (then attorney-general John Ashcroft) took steps to ensure that he wouldn't be tortured?
Of course, he was.
GONZALES: I believe that piece of information is public. There were steps. I think General Ashcroft confirmed this publicly, is that there were assurances sought that he would not be tortured from Syria.
LEAHY: Attorney-General ...
(laughter)
... I'm sorry. I don't mean to treat this lightly. We knew damn well, if he went to Canada, he wouldn't be tortured. He'd be held. He'd be investigated.
We also knew damn well, if he went to Syria, he'd be tortured.
And it's beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another country to be tortured.
You know, and I know, that has happened a number of times, in the past five years, by this country. It is a black mark on us. It has brought about the condemnation of some of our closest and best allies.
And it is easy for us to sit here comfortably in this room knowing that we're not going to be sent off to another country to be tortured, to treat it as though, well, Attorney-General Ashcroft says we've got assurances.
Assurances from a country that we also say, now, we can't talk to them because we can't take their word for anything?
GONZALES: Well, Senator, I ...
LEAHY: I'm somewhat upset.
GONZALES: Yes, sir, I can tell. But before you get more upset, perhaps you should wait to receive the briefing ...
LEAHY: How long?
GONZALES: I'm hoping that we can get you the information next week.
LEAHY: Well, Attorney-General, I'll tell you what I'll do: I'll meet you halfway on this.
I'll wait next week for that briefing. If we don't get it, I guarantee you there will be another hearing on this issue.
Canadians have been our closest allies – longest unguarded frontier in the world. They're justifiably upset. They're wondering what's happened to us. They're wondering what's happened to us.
Now you know and I know, we're a country with a great, great tradition of protecting people's individual liberties and rights. You take an oath of office to do that; I take an oath of office to do that. I believe, in my basic core nature, in that. My grandparents, when they immigrated to this country, believed that.
Let us not, let us not create more terrorism around the world by telling the world that we cannot keep up to our basic standards and beliefs.
So I'll wait a week, I'll wait a week, but I won't wait more than a week for that briefing.
GONZALES: I look forward to being able to provide the briefing that you are requesting.
It is unsafe for Americans to live or even drive through Connecticut
If you are elderly and you are driving through or visiting relatives in Connecticut and become sick, Official Connecticut wants to rip you and your heirs off.
They will appoint a greedy, corrupt Connecticut lawyer (more) to represent your best interests, you'll be put in a mental hospital and drugged, not being able to see your kids. It happens yet again in an almost identical way to another elderly person.
If you are poor or a minority Connecticut want to take away your kids, your driver's license, process you in court, arrest you, confine you, and label you a criminal so you will be separate and unequal the rest of your life.
Connecticut might be the most racist State in the US, click here for more on that theme.
For a state losing population, they have to scam and defraud as many Federal Tax Dollars as possible into their rapidly sinking ship.
A State can't keep hiring more people, increasing its budget, at the same time it is losing population and state tax revenue.
Click Here for my open letter to the Washington DC FBI
-Steven G. Erickson a.k.a. blogger Vikingas, email: stevengerickson@yahoo.com
CONNECTICUT NEWS Rick Green
Probate Court: Offering Unequal Protection Under The Law
January 19, 2007
Welcome to the Hotel Connecticut. Come visit and you can never leave.
Because if you're elderly and frail and don't watch out, there's a probate court judge somewhere out there willing to lock you up in a nursing home. For your own good, of course, Grandma.
Unless something dramatic happens, another session of the General Assembly will slide by without probate reform. Oh, they'll hold hearings again, but don't bet on our elected leaders actually disrupting a system steeped in decades of old-boy politics and favoritism.
So this court system - where even the rules of evidence and recordkeeping are inconsistent and the legal experience of judges is uncertain - marches on, unimpeded.
The latest outrage-of-the-month comes from the Woodbridge probate district, where a judge last year denied a request by the children and husband of an elderly New Jersey woman, Maydelle Trambarulo, that she be allowed to leave a Connecticut nursing facility and return home.
Trambarulo was brought here for treatment in 2004 by a niece. Soon after, the niece went to probate court in Connecticut and had a conservator appointed to oversee her finances and health care, handing over the 76-year-old New Jersey woman's liberty - and control of her money - to probate.
"The husband is in New Jersey. The wife was brought here for rehabilitation by a relative. Then the relative had her conserved," said John Peters, a lawyer who won freedom for Daniel Gross, a Long Island man held against his will in a Waterbury nursing home.
Do I need to add that the Trambarulo estate is worth more than $1 million and that this fight, if nothing else, continues to provide thousands of dollars worth of work for lawyers?
It doesn't matter that this family could be a dysfunctional mess. It's not up to a Connecticut probate court to decide.
A former West Hartford probate judge who previously represented the Trambarulo family, John Berman, understood this when he said in court papers in December 2005 that the "court lacks jurisdiction to appoint a conservator."
Clifford D. Hoyle, the acting judge in Woodbridge, ruled, instead, that he was "not convinced that the respondent's family is willing to make the time commitments necessary to care for her."
Peters, now representing the Trambarulo family, told me that Maydelle "doesn't live here. The judge doesn't have jurisdiction. The fact that you are here doesn't mean you are a resident. She wants to go home."
Royal Stark, director of the health law clinic at the Quinnipiac University School of Law, said the legislature must limit the power that probate courts hand to conservators.
"Until I got a glimpse of it, I didn't realize what was at stake and how bad things could go," Stark said. For example, Stark said that once a person has been "conserved" by probate court, it is nearly impossible to remove the conservator.
Reform-minded lawyers want basic changes, such as mandating that courts respect previous requests made by the elderly, known as "advance directives." Courts should also follow the rules of evidence and proceedings should be conducted on the record. They also want to make it easier to appeal decisions.
"We are going to wade into it and see if there are solutions for it," promised state Sen. Andrew McDonald, the chairman of the judiciary committee. "A lot of this operates in the shadows."
There you have it - a court system that operates in the dark. Time to turn the lights on.
Rick Green's column appears on Tuesdays and Fridays. He can be reached at rgreen@courant.com.
If you are old and in a nursing home in Connecticut, maybe they want to put a bag over your head to kill you. And, if the staffers get caught, maybe they will only get 3 months in prison or no punishment at all. Click Here for more.
Does the Connecticut DCF take bribes to determine the outcome of an investigation? Can you pay a DCF supervisor to either not have your kids taken away or to retaliate against a rival by having their kids illegally officially kidnapped? Click Here for more.
Click Here for story on Connecticut State Police Officers asked where they got all that money they didn't pay taxes on, do they kill themselves and their spouses?
Proposed Legislation to help fix the broken courts
From: Francis C. P. Knize: 50 Sunset Pass, Wilton, Ct. 06897 203 544 9603
Dear Gov. Rell,
If you are truly interested in reforming the Conn. Judiciary, the bill below works toward accountability. Citizens are now requesting your support for this Bill;  The `Connecticut Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007', and ask that since there might be resistance by the Judiciary Committee because its lawyer membership slant, that you would come forward and produce an executive order out of the Bill's text. My delivery to the committee is following the Bill below. Please communicate with me concerning this very important Bill. Please note that Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Mcdonald had no questions about the Bill during the hearing, as to imply they would resist its premise.
Francis C. P. Knize; Producer on legal reform
STATE OF CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Raised Bill No. ________ (Modeled from Congress’ H.R. 5219) January Session, 2007 _______JUD* Referred to Committee on Judiciary Introduced by The House Judiciary Committee, authored by Francis C. P. Knize using recommendations from Rep. Christopher Shays, and Raised H.R 5219 at the U.S. Congress’ House Judiciary Committee. An Act Concerning Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement and Judicial Reform
Creation a State Statute, to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct, illegal activity, undermining of the judicial machinery, and violations of the Judicial Oath to support the U.S. and State Constitutions in the State Judiciary; while acknowledging the review standard of a public officer’s “Spirit of Restraint� to infringe upon a party’s fundamental rights.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened: Jan , 2007 Francis C. P. Knize, producer, using recommendations from Mr. Christopher Shays during an interview with him, introduces the following bill; which is now referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
A BILL Creation of a new Statute to provide for the detection and prevention of inappropriate conduct and detection of fraud which does, or attempts to ... defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner, concerning the application in the Connecticut State judiciary. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Connecticut in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Connecticut Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH. (a) Creation and Duties-
`CHAPTER ___--INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH 0001. Establishment. 0002. Appointment of Inspector General. 0003. Duties. 0004. Powers of the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector Generals 0005. Powers of the 12 member panel of the Grand Jury 0006. Reports. 0007. Whistleblower protection.
`Sec. 0001. Establishment `There is established for the judicial branch of the State Government the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch with powers to appoint a Grand Jury Panel (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the `Office').
`Sec. 0002. Appointment of Inspector General `The head of the Office shall be the Inspector General, who shall be appointed by a panel made up of at least 2/3rds non-lawyer/judge/ABA members after consultation with the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives. The Inspector General must have a history of having “clean hands�.
`Sec. 0003. Duties `With respect to the Judicial Branch, the Office shall-- `(1) conduct investigations of matters pertaining to the Judicial Branch, including possible misconduct in office of judges and proceedings under Standards of both Ethics and Law, including powers to determine whether laws were broken, whether judicial discretion was abused, whether abuses were against Public Policy, including issues that may require oversight or other inappropriate actions {including fraud and malicious prosecution) within the State Judicial Branch. `(2) conduct and supervise audits and investigations, including Abuse of Power, Fraud upon the court; illegal or inappropriate use of discretion. `(3) prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse; and `(4) recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the Judicial Branch. (5) Appoint a 12 member Grand Jury Panel made up of two-thirds non- lawyer/judge/ABA members. (6) Ensure that a complaint be set for trial within 60 days from entree of the complaint, new grand juries will be appointed as case flow becomes constrained. Assistant Inspector Generals can be appointed if the Inspector General finds he is overloaded to adjudicate all cases himself, where the Assistant Inspector General must then pass the findings and Judgment to the Inspector General for the Inspector General to exercise his duty of reporting and other administrative duties. (7) Ensure all Office Members and jury members take an oath to support the State and Federal Constitutions before assuming their respective duties.
`Sec. 0004. Powers of the Inspector General and Assistant Inspector Generals `In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall have the power-- `(1) to make investigations and reports; `(2) to obtain information or assistance from any Federal, State, or local governmental agency, or other entity, or unit thereof, including all information kept in the course of business by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the judicial councils of circuits, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and the United States Sentencing Commission; `(3) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses, and the production of such books, records, correspondence memoranda, papers, and documents, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by civil action; `(4) to administer to or take from any person an oath, affirmation, or affidavit; `(5) to employ such officers and employees, governing appointments in the competitive service, and the provisions State General Schedule pay rates; `(6) to obtain services as authorized by Statute sec_______, at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate prescribed for like State employees ; and `(7) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other services with public agencies and with private persons, and to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the duties of the Office. (8) to appoint a 12 member Grand Jury Panel to hear all cases. (9) to demand that finding(s), order(s) or judgment(s) in question from a judge so charged under this office be clarified as to state an authority of law for which the judgment should be based, in particular order(s) for denial or dismissal if no written finding was available. (10) to instruct the jury to find upon the clarification as to its legality. (11) to ensure that the parties under the judge had their claims and allegations addressed, and that the judge had ruled upon the facts of their pleadings. (12) to ensure that probable causes are not defeated by a call for a judge’s right for judicial discretion, but rather discretion is always questioned for its legality and constitutionality.
``Sec. 0005. Powers of the 12 member panel of the Grand Jury 1) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers of jury nullification and have the right to take it upon themselves to judge the law as applied ethically and constitutionally by a judge as well as the facts in controversy surrounding a judge’s decision; under Amendment VI of the U.S. Constitution. 2) The Grand Jury shall be granted the power for impeachment of a Public Official, being a body authorized under the legislature. 3) The Grand Jury shall be granted power to suspend judicial immunity for acts where clear and convincing abuses of power, law, and harmful discretion occurred. 4) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers to determine Fraud, as a species of deceit well settled in law as a court’s fraud upon the court as defined by KENNER; it “is fraud which does, or attempts to ... defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner� Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512,sec 60.23. Charges against a Judge for fraud must meet the level of "an intentional plan of deception designed to improperly influence the Court in its decision {and} has had such an effect on the court " to have changeable effect upon the outcome of the original judgment. 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, sec. 60.23. Fraud is to be determined as judicial misrepresentation which follows the well-settled 5 point test adapted to the rulings of a judge:1. a false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact or law; 2. knowledge by the public official making the false assertion that it is false or ignorance of the truth of the assertion; 3. an intention to induce the claimant to act or to justify the claimant to act; 4. the claimant must have been induced to act or justified in acting in reliance on the representation or ruling; and 5. the claimant must suffer damage proximately caused by the misrepresentation set within the the context of the ruling. 5) The Grand Jury shall be granted powers to determine fiduciary damages to the claimant, upon a finding of wrongdoing by a public official.
Sec. 0006. Reports `(a) When to Be Made- The Inspector General shall-- `(1) make a report to The General Assembly relating to the activities of the Office within 60 days of any judgment authorized under its office; and `(2) make prompt reports to the The Judiciary Committee on matters that may require prompt or emergency action by them. `(b) Sensitive Matter of National Security or of individual or corporate privacy - If a report contains sensitive matter, the Inspector General may so indicate by making a finding on the facts alleged for a sensitive matter and receive that report in closed session. The burden is upon the Inspector General to prove lives are at stake concerning National Security Issues, or that disclosure to the public will severely harm a non-accused individual or Corporation. Findings of the Inspector General will be made public in all cases upon a verdict of guilty. `(c) Duty to Inform Attorney General- In carrying out the duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall report expeditiously to the State’s Attorney General whenever the Inspector General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a violation of Federal or State criminal law
` Sec. 0007. Whistleblower protection `(a) In General- No officer, employee, agent, contractor or subcontractor in the Judicial Branch may discharge, demote, threaten, suspend, harass or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of any lawful act done by the employee to provide information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation of Federal or State law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge or any other employee in the Judicial Branch, which may assist the Inspector General in the performance of duties under this chapter. `(b) Civil Action- An employee injured by a violation of subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate relief.'. (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters for part ____ of the C.G.S , is amended by adding at the end the following new item: Title____; Inspector General for the Judicial Branch.
Statement of Purpose: To adopt certain recommendations put forth by the model of H.R. 5219 at Congress on Judicial Reform with respect to the transparency, accessibility and accountability of the Judicial Branch.
END
Testimony by Mr. Knize at the legislative committee on recommendations for judicial reform yesterday:
Delivery to Judiciary Committee on recommendations on 2 bills.
My name is Francis Knize and I am a producer following judicial reform in our state and country.
In response to Chris Powell; we should never take out the clause that all courts are open from the State’s constitution. We must maintain that right of the people. And to address what can be done for judicial accountability put forth by Mr. Kennedy; hope is at hand if we can have an open legislature that can enforce its duty to inspect the judiciary for wrongdoing. Rep Lawlor talks about the problem that “on the face of law� courts ignore the law. It’s time for a solution; An Inspector General of the Judiciary.
As it relates to the bills before us today, the question before us, and why we are here, is the assurance that such bills are needed. One reason is clear; Judicial accountability. As a producer working on a series on Judicial accountability called “In the Interest of Justice� and I am in negotiation with CourtTV. Having recognized the national public outcry for a fairer system which lower courts on occasion do not, but should, be held accountable to honor the State and US Const.’s, it is paramount Connecticut must open its courts to new scrutiny. Why? To secure court integrity and allow the public a vehicle for which they can ensure that the Judicial branch does not fall into disrepute. Presently, there is little real oversight where it is known that over 97% of complaints against public officials are routinely dismissed. The system proves itself to be slanted. Camera’s provide the start for oversight upon the circumstance where a judge has not performed his or her judicial function and to observe whether the judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely. This committee has not yet addressed the full scope of the issues. This includes that judges would show whether they ANSWERED ON EACH ALLEGED and pleaded CHARGE. And that a record with cameras can be made without a party having to obtain expensive transcripts and also having to delay their case waiting for those records. And that a recommendation to start allowing that parties can bring in the courtroom their own sound recording device to help ensure the record is true and not missing segment’s as many litigants have been claiming that happens. Or that Conn. be like Fla and post the recordings immediately on the Internet Judicial site. That all Orders should be made available for free, and that a party need not order transcripts to get at the oral order. That Pro Se are treated fairly, and heard by judges at least on equal par with lawyers. The court has recognized that Pro Se parties should be given leeway in the court, but often Pro Se largely have the substance of their pleadings ignored. They are discriminated against, as I have experienced directly. We need stop gaps which protect citizens beyond an often inefficient Appeal process, where wait times for hearings can be six months, and rightful stays are unjustifiably denied without the judges giving their reasons. The public suspects that judges will always protect other judges over the need to enforce Canon 3 to report another judge’s wrongdoing. The power of judges is stacked against citizens when it comes to judicial accountability. We need legislature to act to make sure “no man is above the law.�
All denials and dismissals should by law offer a sufficient finding as to why. The practice of denials and dismissals are often abused in the public’s eyes. What I am saying bringing up these points is that the legislature must continue its important role of oversight upon the judicial branch, where Connecticut has experienced first hand that one of its highest judges has abused the system under the guise of Judicial Independence. We need judges to have Judicial Independence, up to a certain threshold, it should stop when possible breaking of the law occurs. Separation of Powers can mean that the legislature has its own authority to make sure that laws are followed by public officials. An IG, appointed by the legislature itself can focus on this power. Legal Data shows around the country that, in many cases judges abuse their responsibility, and that it is the rightful authority of the Legislature to step-in to the process when it occurs. The requirement for “a spirit of restraint� by judges is often not followed. The public’s confidence and trust for the judiciary is at an all-time low. It runs 8 to 40 % as shown by the ABA’s own polls, how many in this committee have read ABA’s PCT reports? The ABA polls succinctly describe the need for an Independent Legislature to conduct Judicial investigations. For divorce court it is closer to 8 than 40%. Underlying the involved ABA report is the need for members of the Judiciary to support the const. In our State J. Callehan started the implementation of the ABA recommendations. J. McDonald and Sullivan soon removed those initiatives when they replaced J. Callehan. That is the true appearance of the courts so far in Conn. concerning these inititives. Judicial Independence Vs Checks and Balances is the big question. When Judges don’t respect and support the Const., where are the checks and balances?
Men are often discriminated against according to their const. Right to equality and federal laws. They are not protected. Also, parties have a right that lower courts honor federal laws at the outset, rather than put an enormous burden upon aggrieved parties to go through a lengthy appeals process to higher and higher courts, where they are claiming that federal laws and common law well-settled policy was completely abused by the court,
It is IN THE Greater PUBLIC INTEREST to investigate when judges ARE potentially BREAKING THE LAW, and that the Connecticut Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007' is able to piggyback on the bills heard today including 5528. The JRC doesn’t want to approach the issue under the premise of a Judge’s right to discretion, so we need an Inspector General of the Judiciary to solve the problem, by his or her power to assemble a 12 member Grand Jury. The Connecticut Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007'. that you each have a copy of, assimilates many recommendations set forth by Congress’ House Judiciary Committee, initially voted 20 to 6 in favor of, and comments from lawyers and the public at large, it begins the process in a State to create REAL legislative oversight to insure a judge honors his duty, with oversight, in part, directly by the community. Rep. Christopher Shays said in an interview with me that he recommends an Inspector General for detection of misconduct and that it should embody the black letter as including “breaking the law to make sure judges honor their oaths to “Support the Const.�
Court is a forum which searches for the truth, but often the burden to fight against a corrupt ruling is too great. This has happened in my own divorce case where a Shareholder’s Agreement was thwarted despite jurisdictional challenges which were not addressed by lower and higher Courts. It is well settled that once challenged jurisdiction must be proven by the court in a finding on the record. On many occasions in my case this simply was not done. And yet this requirement is so fundamental to the power of a judge. My mother was almost killed in a car accident, my family called me to say she would not live the week and I should go to her. Yet, the Supreme Court did not find this was a just cause for filing a motion late. In my case the higher courts proved themselves to be without any real standard of ethics. Ethics violation standards should also include when a ruling authority breaks the law. It is IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST to investigate when judges ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The recommendation process must continue until we can solve some of the problems of an unopen judiciary.
We also, need a continued process of recommendations to change law to create a fairer system, and prevent judge obfuscation.
It is IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTEREST through the Legislature to investigate when judges ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
The recommendation process should be ongoing for some years, because there are so many questionable Practice Book laws that work to defy the premise of fair hearings and the right to have aggrievances heard. END
The jurors have the power to ignore the court's instructions and bring in a not guilty verdict contrary to the law and the facts. Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 54, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920).
Nina Simone: "If I had my way, I'd've been a killer"
Non-violent opposition to official injustice is the only way to fight against it, and live out your life. Resist the urge, think, and use your mind. You will succeed.
No more back dating court paperwork for false arrests and retaliation?
POLITICS (Connecticut) Superior Court Dockets Now Accessible Online January 18, 2007 Courant Staff Report
For the first time, Superior Court adult criminal dockets are available online.
Lawyers, adult criminal defendants, employers and others can search the daily dockets for all the state's courts to find out whether people have been arrested, are in court or should be in court.
The state judicial branch started offering the dockets electronically on its website Tuesday.
Interested parties can find a list of all criminal defendants scheduled to appear in a particular courthouse on a given day, their birth year, the charges against them, their lawyers' names, their pleas to the charges and the amounts of their bond if applicable.
State judicial officials said they created the website in response to the recommendations of a task force, which recently studied ways to improve public access to court records. Officials hope to expand the database within the next six months to include lists of criminal convictions.
For now, the information is limited to parties scheduled to appear in court. This week, the dockets for a particular day will be available after 8:30 p.m. the preceding business day. The time will be moved up to 7:30 p.m. next week, officials said.
To protect some individuals' privacy should their cases become sealed or otherwise dismissed, the judicial branch is not offering an online archive of daily dockets. Each day, new dockets will replace the old dockets for each court and visitors to the website will not be able to search dockets for any preceding days.
Users of the site, however, can search for an individual by name across the state as well as by courthouse. A similar search engine has been in place for pending civil cases for some time.
The information on the adult criminal dockets can be found at www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets.
Always looking to learn something new, new places to travel to, and contacts for business, import/export, traveling, and forwarding my screenwriting interests and projects.
