From the desk of Francis Knize, Part 2

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.

Francis C. P. Knize; Defendant Pro Se

* * * *

Click Here for Mr. Knize previous post

Click on White Envelope below to share this post. This post accepts anonymous comments.