Suspended Lawyer Faces Disbarment for New Allegation

, The Connecticut Law Tribune

   | 7 Comments

A Torrington attorney's law career hangs in the balance after he was accused of violating a new court order that banned him from ever representing female clients for the remainder of his career.

What's being said

  • susanskipp

    read from the last comment up

  • susanskipp

    I am asking for a criminal investigation of these judges and actions in my case. I am asking that over due impeachment of these and other judges of whose extensive records of ethics and code of cannon violations have been documented with the JRC: Maureen Murphy, Gerald Addelman, Carboneau, Solomon, Lynda Munro, Robert Resha, Llyod Cutsumpas. I am asking for a criminal investigation into Mary Brigham, Rosemary Guliano, Christopher Hite, Jim Hirshfield, family relations, Sidney Horowitz Phd and Howard Krieger Phd for the crimes against my children and me.

    I have not hugged my children in two years, they are living with our abuser, who is allowed to abuse me by proxy because he can pay for it. I have not been alleged to abuse neglect or of any other parental unfitness. However, the children were forced into the custody of their abuser while he was in a pending case for a DUI, for which he did AR, an FRO WITHOUT a weapons surrender and Judges and Attorneys knowing of illegal weapons, and two open DCF cases. A GAL who was not appointed was allowed to violate FERPA and simple rules of court procedure that had a devastating effect.
    My professional reputation has been destroyed via slanderous allegations that were found as facts by Robert Resha, Lynda Munro and Lloyd Cutsumpas, despite no evidence -and testimony provided by an undisclosed witness in the form of an un-appointed guardian ad litem, with whom no record of appointment post-judgment is found, no provision in the dissolution agreement made in the "complicated financial mosaic." Judges who rule out of jurisdiction and in administrative and criminal capacities lose sovereign immunity.

    The state does little more than photo ops to protect abused women and children in the state. The same funding that is used to abuse women and children feeds funding for domestic violence programs. Ira Mayo is a perfect example of how little victims are thought of, myself experiencing Mayo‘s predatory ways. He was just a peripheral issue for me. Other far more vile things happened and are happening. 4 years of judicial abuse and 15 years of domestic and family violence is allowed to continue courtesy of the judicial branch, the grievance panel, the JRC, and the other aforementioned. Mayo is just a festering sore in an epidemic family court pathology. Mayo is only a symptom of the rampant disease of abuse of power and gender bias.
    That‘s why he only has a slap on the wrist, the same way an incapacitated woman gets raped in Connecticut and the rapist is off the hook because the women was unable to say no.
    Women who say no to judicial abuse in Connecticut Family Court are treated the same way: the criminals run the show. Hopefully the current DOJ investigations will end some of the discriminatory practices. However, the DOJ gets the same money too, so I suppose people will have to light candles and do novenas for that to come to fruition too.
    The actions and events in my case are a cookie cutter illustrations of the harm to victims of domestic and family violence found in the Saunders Report.

  • susanskipp

    The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that a fundamental right to parent one‘s children and the Constitution also provides for equality under the law. Thereby, the Constitution arguably provides for joint custody as the only parties who compete for this fundamental right are the two parents (Troxel v Granville and its progeny cases) who are equal.

    "Rights to marry, have children and maintain relationship with children are fundamental rights protected by the 14th Amendment and this, strict scrutiny is required of any statutes that directly and substantially impair those rights "P.O.P.S V Gardner, 998 F2d 764 (9 Cir. 1993), "Parents right to rear children without undue govt interference is a fundamental component of due process". Nunez v City of San Diego 114 F3d 935 (9 Cir. 1997). The rights of parents to the care, custody and nurture of their children is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions, and such right is a fundamental right protected by this amendment (Ist) and Amendments 5, 9 and 14. Doe v Irwin, 441 F Supp 1247; US DC of Michigan (1985) etc etc

    Family Court Judges take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. It follows that any judge who takes custody of a child away from either parent in Family Court (as opposed to Juvenile Court) is going outside the scope of their authority enshrined in the Constitution. Law and court procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil eye or heavy hand" are discriminatory and violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US 356 (1886).

    Checks and balances in our tripartite separation of powers allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another when they go outside the scope of their authority. Congress should step in to stop the Judiciary exceeding their authority.

    Furthermore, 5 USC 7311 makes it a federal criminal offense for anyone employed by the Govt (incl Judges) to "advocate the overthrow of our Constitutional form of government". The fourth federal law, 18 USC 1918 provides for penalties for violation of oath of office which include 5 USC 7311(1) removal from office and (2) confinement or a fine. The definition of "advocate" is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which, for purposes of enforcement, supplements 5 USC 7311 and specifies it‘s a violation for any person taking an oath of office to advocate "the alteration... of the form of govt.... by unconstitutional means". Our form of Govt is defined by the Constitution. It can only be altered by constitutional amendment. Thus any act taken by a judge or other govt employee which alters the form of govt is a criminal violation of 5 USC7311.

  • susanskipp

    The tactic is simple, domestic violence? Don‘t protect the victims, make money from the situation by federal funding throughfatherhood.gov, and appropriation of grant money, and from the victim who will go to any length to protect her children who are abused. In addition, simutaneously, without basis and clearly against federal law, allege and find a mental health issue with the victim, portray the abuser or pedophile as the victim and hand the kids over in violation of the Constitution. If a moral dilemma is more provoking than a legal one, children are handed over to their abusers regularly in Connecticut. Less than one percent of allegations of abuse or incest is false, yet the fall back in CT is they all are according to the policies in place and fervently protected.

    In my case UWY FA 10 4099229-s, and subsequent supreme and appellate cases breached rights.

  • susanskipp

    For 30 years, the AFCC was unlicensed and unregistered. In 2013, CT Chapter of AFCC listed itself as an LLC with principals: Deb Kulack, who is in charge of Family Services, and Mary Lou Giovanucci who is in Court Support Services Division upper management and the third principal of AFCC CT is a much used AFCC mental health provider, Linda Smith, who provides bought testimony for the corrupt circles in family Court. Connecticut maintains its archaic, patriarchal practices to further harm victims as thousands of women in the state who have complained of domestic violence found themselves fighting for custody, bankrupted, professionally destroyed and without their children or pay per view access to them. Just watch Jan 9, 2014 testimonies, March 31, 2014 testimonies or read the white paper sent to the FBI by state representatives.

  • susanskipp

    Yeah, about that Ira Mayo sexual predator attorney in Connecticut: It is odd that Rick Richardson, of Richardson Guiliano and Sfarza is representing Mayo as Richardson‘s Firm knew clearly that Mayo tried to victimize me in October 2011 in a case in which Guiliano represented the opposing side. Other attorneys who knew about Mayo‘s inappropriateness are Mary Brigham, Jim Hirschfield and Christopher Hite. Guiliano herself doesn‘t protect her own female clients who are victims of domestic and family violence. Another attorney who appears to leave victims unprotected is Ceil Gursten as it looks like all the mothers she represents lose custody.
    Mr. Mayo refused to file an appearance unless an act of a sexual nature was performed. Also, Hons. Robert Resha and employees in the public defender‘s office in Waterbury knew too.
    Mayo‘s former counsel, Michael Fasano, whom I saw after meeting Mayo, is himself not stranger to exploiting victims of domestic violence himself: When I met with him to reargue an order by Hon. Robert Resha that removed custody of my children from me without abuse, neglect or parental unfitness and without an attorney, although required by law, and clearly asked for in transcript and denied; in my sobbing account of what happened, Mr. Fasano interrupted and said, "You know you‘re a very attractive woman." Seriously? Our meeting promptly ended.
    So, here you have at least 5 other attorneys, a judge and members of the public defender‘s office in Waterbury aware of improprieties.

    The problem is that the judicial branch has a long standing history of furthering harm to victims of Domestic and family violence. This is supported by the ACE study by the CDC and The Saunder‘s Study Commissioned by the DOJ. The Saunders study is three years old yet why isn‘t it used to circumvent the self placed, self regulated, self created policies of the AFCC in the judicial branch and for Guardians Ad Litem (unconstitutional in family court) that have been franchised throughout the judicial branch.

  • Olia

    Dude! What are you doing? It‘s not that hard not to represent women. Just set yourself up as a "men‘s rights" lawyer and you‘ll be golden. Actually, you‘ll probably get even more business than you did before.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202667949324

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.