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

CONNECTICUT COURT RULE CORRUPTION;

"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 RULE CORRUPTION; "Don't Take Any Wooden Nutmegs"


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 mnowacki@aol.com 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 http://www.ctfog.org/CCFOI/subsite/LTValvoArticle.htm : "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

Contact
Michael Nowacki
mnowacki@aol.com


* * * *

http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2008/06/nepotism-and-corruption-in-connecticut.html

http://judicialmisconduct.blogspot.com/2007/03/attn-vermont-us-attorney-thomas-d.html

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/2011/07/eye-popping-fed-audit.html

http://thegetjusticecoalition.blogspot.com/2011/02/letter-text-to-us-vermont-senators.html

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.

[more]

-

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


View My Stats