Saturday, July 23, 2011

Judicial Branch insiders creating issues so more insiders get paid

The State of Connecticut is one of the better examples of what is wrong with the entire judicial system in the United States. There is rampant attorney, judicial, prosecutorial, and police misconduct. Connecticut State Police brutality is another story. Francis C. P. Knize is the producer of the below videos.

There is an education possible for newbies, those who have been banging their heads for years, or decades after being abused and ripped off in courts, may have new ambition to get together and to fight these tyrants.

Non-custodial parent and divorce issues show that the courts are rigged across the board, no matter what you are in for. It is a revenue collection and abuse system, not a justice system.

-stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com

CONNECTICUT COURT RULE CORRUPTION; "Don't Take Any Wooden Nutmegs" Video Art Version

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Jul 19, 2011

Cleaned-up -Life As Art Version


"Don't Take Any Wooden Nutmegs"

The Title is the original source of of the phrase: "Don't Take Any Wooden Nickles" referencing the unscrupulous yankee peddlers of the past..

The story of citizens rallying together to restore Justice in Connecticut. The documentary follows the discussion about how Connecticut forms its Practice Book Rules. What citizens found was astounding. 70% of marital wealth is lost during Divorce, and now Nutmeg Judges want even a bigger chunk...

Produced and Directed by Francis C. P. Knize

Ct. General Statute 51-14 was passed in 1957 to limit the authority of the court to promulgate practice book rules which prohibited (shall not) abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right or the jurisdiction of any of the courts."

Despite admonitions provided to the Rules Committee at the Supreme Court on May 31, and despite letters which have been delivered to the legislature which has the responsibility to follow the law including General Statute 51-14 protocols which require hearings to be conducted by the judiciary committee before such rules could be promulgated (adopted) for implementation.

Information obtained from the Office of Legislative research reported March 9, 2009, showed that a legislative fellow traced each and every practice book rule modification, and wrongly found that the Supreme Court self determined that the legislature had no authority over the Practice Book Rules modification approval process--He cited unspecific references to the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, which don't exist--which in fact, gave the legislature no authority to approve the rules of practice.

Documents which have been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that letters have been going from either the chair of the Rules Committee or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court annually to the members of the judiciary committee in April of every year, showing clandestine meetings in the Supreme Court chambers, ie..non-public meeting with the Rules Committee and Supreme Court Justices, to review the proposed Rules of Practice.

According to this OLR document of 24 pages, tracing every single rules modification proposed since 1957, there has never been a single rule which has been rejected by the General Assembly by resolution--which is the proscribed proceedure outlined in Ct. General Statute 51-14 (b).

Such a lack of oversight of following the proper protocols by the legislature and its judiciary committee is a "wanton, willful and malicious" failure to uphold the laws to protect the citizens of the State of Connecticut from the self empowerment of the judiciary of the State of Connecticut which has resulted in a series of modifications since which have abridged the General Statute 51-14 prohibiting "judicial self empowerment" embodied in the words "the court shall have judicial discretion".

Prior to 1957, the Practice Book was a law. Since 1957, the egregious and absolute abuse of the acquisition of power by the jurists in the State of Connecticut, with the full complicity of the lawyers who sit on the public administrative committees of the judiciary, the full slate of judges in the State of Connecticut, the court administrators, the Governor, and the Attorney General's Office has participated in the unlawful abridgment of the Powers of Separation.

Further jurisdictional authority has been granted to the federal courts when a state does not enforce its own laws. Since virtually every member of the legislative judiciary committee was a lawyer by training, it is believed that in their private legal practices, the legislators received preferential decisions from judges who have made favorable rulings for the law firms where these legislators/lawyers are gainfully employed.

We know that the JRC has conducted only 11 public hearings over the years on judicial misconduct. The reason, we discover was in the word "should" in the old code was deemed by the JRC to not require (shall) that the judges take certain actions to acknowledge "conflicts of interests" which have abounded for years.

However, since a new Code of Judicial Conduct went into effect on January 1, 2011 which now requires ("shall") judges to hold proper disqualification hearings upon the filing of motions under Practice Book Rule 2.16 (e), the balance of power has shifted to allow for any of us to require an evidentiary hearing to allow a citizen to build a record for appeal of judicial bias and prejudice.

We can only continue to fight this "bare knuckles" battle of corruption in the family court system of our Constitutional and civil rights as parents to the love, care and companionship of our children as a fundamental liberty interest defined in the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."


Connecticut Court Corruption- The Nowacki FOIA Case 4.11.11

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Apr 19, 2011

Citizen Michael Nowacki is exposing how the Conn. Judicial Branch has been illegally engaging law-making practices:

On March 18, 2011, the Connecticut Ethics Commission undertook investigation into Chief Family Judge Lynda Munro's alleged unlawful solicitation for "sponsorship" from members of the Connecticut Bar Association for mandated family court directed training for Guardian Ad Litem G.A.L.s held at Quinnipiac University. They dismissed it.

Audience is asked to respond to as to whether Munro's solicitation of Bar funding for the GAL Program constitutes "making law from her secretive back chambers accountable by some state enforcement agency?

The FOIA Commission hesitates for having jurisdiction, saying Nowacki's contentions are not Administrative as defined by Conn. Supreme Court. (29:40 & 01:05:40) The hearing officer was referring to the 2006 decision, Clerk of GA 7 v. FOIC. That decision expanded the definition of "adjudicative" records to include simple docket sheet data which would become not subject to FOIA. The hearing officer attests @ 27:35 that he needs no coaching on the law by Mr. Nowacki because he's a professional 22 years on FOIA Law. Yet...

Clerk has nothing to do with the Nowacki case because Nowacki is not asking for anything to do with an individual case and privacy issues. He's asking for information on Public Hearings. The Law Tribune writes : "Three of the seven justices in Clerk favored test based on the 1988 case of Bar Examining Commission v. FOIC. Notes: Quinn: March 3, 2008: We do believe that administrative function should be defined as including the management of the internal institutional machinery of the court system, accounting, budgeting, personnel, facilities, physical operations, scheduling, record keeping, and docketing." That statement is answer to Officer Perpetua's J. Quinn question at 45:50.

In the 1983 case of Rules Committee v. FOIC, Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters noted that the state FOI Act applies only to the Judicial Branch "administrative records" and not to "adjudicative records" that might interfere with the courts' critical function of deciding individual cases. Peters narrowly defined "administrative" matters as the "budget, personnel, facilities and physical operations of the courts." However, that was surpassed as shown above in 2008 by J. Quinn's notes which included all that encompasses internal institutional machinery, the point being Administrative acts as acknowledged by society are quite broad.

At the very least, it can be claimed Nowacki's failed FOIA to J. Munro and others about the GAL program and rule-making procedure was discovering the following: to know about records dealing with GAL budget or sponsorship, GAL personnel and even trainees, facilities at Quinnipiac and physical operations of the courts concerning the GAL. AMC "commando programs". After all, those Public Agency programs are physical operations that accommodate the efficient operations of the court, are administrative; and Nowacki is not seeking "adjudicative records" that might interfere with deciding any individual case.

Rules Committee v. FOIC is not so narrow that it limits the breadth of which administrative functions can still be carried out despite Clerk, thus is still under FOIA juris and oversight.

The hearing officer, Mr. Perpetua, @ 1:21:30 is dead wrong to have gone to such a narrow definition when "internal machinery" is the mantra, and when Nowacki points out the Superior Court and Appellate Court, and Chief Adm. J. Quinn acknowledges their rule-making falls as an administrative act @ 31:15 & 1:12:00. And when the Supreme Ct. NEVER limited Administrative tasks past docket and case sealing. Administrative function should be defined as including the management of the internal institutional machinery of the court system, which must include activity related to Rule-making. Why does Perpetua say different @ 1:21:15 ? Perpetua himself comes under scrutiny for then denying evidence relevance concerning Rule-making 1:15:45 . Judge Lynda B. Munro spearheaded a program aimed at influencing private law firms' hiring and employment practices. This is highly controversial behavior showing impropriety and warranting investigation of a conflict of interest, ethics, and even criminal allegations.

When a judge creates and manages, schedules,and coordinates a program like the GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) or AMC (Atty for the Minor Child) training sessions, a program under great social controversy whether or not it's actually destructive to families, promoted independently by this J. Munro, ... is that or is that not an Administrative function subject to FOIA Commission jurisdiction?

Use YouTube LIKES Vote for YES
Use DISLIKES Vote below for NO

Citizen Reporter

Michael Nowacki

* * * *

The below is from 2009, but contains links to Connecticut State Police Brutality, Public Corruption, and Judicial Misconduct:

[click here] for:

Connecticut Governor not running next election

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell out relaxing. Is there a smoking gun in the Rell administration? Scroll down for pictures and more.



Sunday, July 10, 2011

US Government lies about WTC Building 7

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on Jul 9, 2011

This presentation describes some of the ways in which the 2008 WTC 7 report from the National Institute of Standard and Technology is false an unscientific.

The NIST WTC 7 Report is False

Monday, July 04, 2011

Radiation Coverups Confirmed:

Los Alamos, Fort Calhoun, Fukushima, TSA

Text with below video:
A series of disasters, potential disasters, bad news and worrying studies over the course of the past week have brought public attention back to the issue of radiation and its attendant health risks, and further exposed how governmental agencies that are supposed to protect the public have in fact knowingly put the public at risk and even colluded with the very industries they are supposed to be "regulating."

Welcome. This is James Corbett of The Corbett Report with your Sunday Update from the Centre for Research on Globalization at on this 3rd day of July, 2011. And now for the real news.

A series of disasters, potential disasters, bad news and worrying studies over the course of the past week have brought public attention back to the issue of radiation and its attendant health risks, and further exposed how governmental agencies that are supposed to protect the public have in fact knowingly put the public at risk and even colluded with the very industries they are supposed to be “regulating.”

Last Sunday, a wildfire started in New Mexico that grew to a 162 square mile inferno and came within 50 feet of the grounds of the Los Alamos National Laboratory that was the birthplace of the atomic bomb. The site is an historical testing ground for nuclear weapons and a storage area for about 20,000 barrels of nuclear waste. The disaster exposed the remarkable fact that this nuclear waste was stored not in a secure containment facility, or even in a solid building, but in a “fabric-type building” that would be quickly consumed by the fires.

In addition to the risk of the nuclear waste burning up in the fire and sending radioactive materials into the atmosphere, Joni Arends of the Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety has pointed out that the fire could stir up the nuclear-contaminated soil on lab property where nuclear experiments have long been conducted. In either event, harmful radiation could pass into the jet stream to be distributed across the United States and beyond.

As a recent report from the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability documented, the site has been the disposal ground for some 18 million cubic feet of radioactive and chemical solid wastes since 1943, as well as 899,000 curies of so-called transuranic waste, including plutonium. Liquid wastes from the plant were discharged into the canyons, initially with little treatment whatsoever.

Winds have now shifted the fire away from the facility and initial air samples from the inferno have indicated there has so far been no catastrophic release of radiation in the area, but it is unclear why no basic precautions were in place to secure the nuclear waste at the facility prior to the fire or what such measures, if any, are being contemplated in the wake of this emergency.

Also last Sunday, flood waters from the Missouri River reached the containment buildings of the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station. A levee protecting the site’s electrical transformers gave way and the plant was forced to switch on emergency generators in order to continue cooling the nuclear reactor.

Although officials are maintaining that the plant is still functioning and is not in meltdown, the incident has raised serious questions about the facility and its preparedness for just such an event. Just last October, nuclear regulators warned that the Fort Calhoun plant “failed to maintain procedures for combating a significant flood” and newly released documents reveal workers were still scrambling to plug holes where flood water could potentially get into the facility as late as last week.

It is unclear what, if any, punitive actions the plant’s operator will face for their negligence, or if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is even concerned. Commission director Gregory Jaczsko said last week that “all the plants in the U.S. have been been designed to deal with historically the largest possible floods,” seeming to imply that the Fort Calhoun situation was not dangerous by definition and that the NRC had full faith in the plant despite its documented safety violations.

This is in line with an AP investigation last month that found that American federal nuclear regulators have been working with the nuclear industry to ensure that reactors passed safety inspections by repeatedly lowering safety standards for the plants or failing to enforce existing standards. The investigation showed that a myriad of documented problems at nuclear power plants across the country, from failed cables and busted seals to broken nozzles, dented containers and rusty pipes, were routinely resolved by claiming that existing safety standards were too conservative. When valves were found to be leaking, for instance, the standards were simply changed to allow for more leakage, in some cases 20 times the original limit.

Meanwhile in Japan, where three of the reactors at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant have been confirmed to have been in full meltdown since the very first days of the tsunami-induced disaster, the first series of health checks of area residents are already revealing suprising and troubling results about radiation exposure in the area. Tests of 15 Fukushima residents between the ages of 4 and 77 have revealed radioactive cesium and iodine in their urine.


The tests also indicate that residents have been exposed to between 1 / 5 to 3 / 4 of their yearly allowable radiation dose in just two months.

Now, documents are beginning to surface confirming what many have been alleging since the start of this crisis: that governments the world over have been conspiring with the nuclear energy industry to downplay the significance and ramifications of the Fukushima disaster.

Just last week, emails released under the Freedom of Inforrmation Act show how the Departments of Business and Energy in the UK government were coordinating their response to the Japanese disaster with companies like EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse to ensure the accident did not interfere with plans to build a new generation of nuclear power plants in Britain.

The emails reveal how the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills was emailing the nuclear firms on the 13th of March, as the crisis was still unfolding, to assure them that “radiation released has been controlled – the reactor has been protected,” a surprisingly definitive description of the events at Fukushima that have now been shown to have been categorically wrong, as reactor 1 had in fact melted down in the first 16 hours of the disaster, with 2 and 3 also melting down in the following days.

They also show how the BIS intimated that comments from the nuclear industry would be worked into the departments briefs to ministers and government statements: “We need to all be working from the same material to get the message through to the media and the public.”

In other radiation-related news, an entirely different set of emails among government officials obtained under the Freedom of Information Act last week reveal that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the very same organization that has refused to release the data that its model for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was based on because it would “jeopardize public safety,” has accused the Department of Homeland Security of lying about its findings on the safety of the full body scanners being used in airport screening by the TSA.

The email reveals how NIST rebuked DHS head Janet Napolitano for claiming in a USA Today op-ed that:

“AIT machines are safe, efficient, and protect passenger privacy. They have been independently evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, who have all affirmed their safety.”

According to the email, however, NIST was angry at this mischaracterization of their work, pointing out that “NIST does not do product testing. [And] NIST did not test AIT machines for safety.”

As it turns out, not only did Napolitano lie about NIST’s certification of the scanner safety, but she also lied about the Johns Hopkins backing of her position. An internal document produced by Johns Hopkins for the DHS shows that far from “affirming the safety” of the technology, the University in fact warned that the scanners as designed produces an area around the machine that exceeds the general public dose limit for radiation exposure.

Napolitano’s op-ed was widely criticized at the time because Dr. Michael Love, the head of an X-ray lab at Johns Hopkins warned just two days before the op-ed was published that “statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays.”

* * * *
* * * *

James Corbett Report podcast # 192:

This blogger's email: stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com


View My Stats