There may have been no bankster scandals, need for a bailout, or failing of economies worldwide if Los Angeles Judges weren't taking bribes to cover up bankster fraud. Attorney Richard I. Fine was jailed for contempt so judges could cover up their crimes.
Should judges and lawyers be able to dip into a child's trust fund for programs and for the legal process? Should citizens who lodge complaints against judges and the legal system, filing civil lawsuits for damages, end up in prison, jailed for contempt of court and for other charges?
Michael Nowacki is just another victim of an abusive system. Point out the obvious, end up in jail.
This writer told his Stafford Springs, Connecticut, elected officials that he intended on suing the State Police for refusing to protect and serve, and wanted to have a judge removed for bias in civil cases. I then received a year in prison on ridiculous charges.
Connecticut is highlighted for their judicial misconduct, but it is a national problem.
Text with video:
Uploaded by frankknee on Apr 13, 2011
FIRST UP: Ed & Leslie discuss in an impromptu manner the frauds that go on in Divorce Court which destroy children and hands much of the estate over to the lawyers and System. The Conn. Bar Association is accused of secretly funding the particularily destructive GAL system, or Guardian Ad Litem. A conspiracy exist, mind you showing a definite Appearance of Impropriety, where rogue judges, corrupt lawyers, and even the Bar Associations themselves scheme to rape the family assets with unnecessary actions that cost familes against their wills, and rip children apart between both parents.SECOND UP: at 36 mins.... 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 Email address removed 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 claims it has no jurisdiction, not an Administrative Issue as defined by Conn. Supreme Court. (1:06:00 & 1:41:00) 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 not subject to FOIA.
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 Perpetua's J. Quinn Q at 1:21:45.
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."
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, @ 1:51:30 is 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. 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. 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
