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."
Loading...
31:49
The Clockmaker Part 2by whatmakesittick255 views
28:48 Violations of Constitutional Law J. Sheldon:" It's not the rule of this committee to pass Substantive Law, It's not the rule of this Committee to pass Constitutional Law, nor is it to pass Substantive standards ...For us to try to concretize them in the form of specific rules is really not appropriate...with respect to the positions taken I don't believe that the rules are a proper repository for use of this group or rules of the judges ..in response to objections made {by the citizens}."
frankknee 5 days ago
See 40:14 -Any law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from the stipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. 12 Wheat. 256; Id. 327; 3 Wash. C. C. Rep. 319; 8 Wheat. 84; 4 Wheat. 197.
frankknee 7 months ago
The real story is that marital estates are systematically ransacked for every penny by the courts and lawyers leaving nothing for the ex-spouses and their children, destroying college funds and plans for education for the children, and alienating the family causing deep psychological damage. It's Dicken's BLEAK HOUSE, the problem is ancient. Today, we citizens are challenging these processes to be unconstitutional to basic rights of life and liberty.
frankknee 7 months ago
The scope of illegalities takes time and patience to determine. Certainly Judge Lynda Munro, as a judge, should not be engaging lobbying activities and creating monopolies for lawyer organizations. Judge Munro taking control of the process involved in rulemaking and monopolizing that process is not only undemocratic but unconstitutional. Judge Munro is raiding Trust Funds and other instruments of asset protection in divorce cases.
frankknee 7 months ago
J. Munro has also been manipulating the Practice Book Rules for payment plans for Guardian Ad Litems and lawyer fees. This is clearly unconstitutional and definitely should be something of interest for a federal investigation.
frankknee 7 months ago