PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT WRONGLY ANNOUNCES PASSAGE OF BILL #5505

The "Divorce in Connecticut" website apologizes for wrongly announcing the passage of Bill #5505 last Thursday, April 9, 2015.  Divorce in Connecticut had received that information from what was considered a valid source and trusted that source.  However, subsequent to the posting it was not possible to find any evidence to the effect that Bill #5505 was passed.  

The Divorce in Connecticut website goes to great trouble to make sure that anything that appears on this website is correct.  It is with great personal disappointment with ourselves that Divorce in Connecticut makes this announcement.  Divorce in Connecticut would like to apologize to each and every one of its readers for this error and will redouble its efforts to make sure that any information that appears on this website is true and accurate.  Thank you very much for your patience and consideration as the audience to this website.  Each reader is a valued member of the Divorce in Connecticut website.

Again, at this time, Divorce in Connecticut does not have any direct information to the effect that Bill #5505 has been passed although it continues to hope.

WTNH CHANNEL 8 REPORTS ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS!

For a link to the WTNH Channel 8 new report, please click on the link below:

http://wtnh.com/2015/04/10/states-highest-ranking-judge-under-fire/

MIDDLETOWN PRESS REPORTS JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVED CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS FOR REAPPOINTMENT!

Elizabeth Regan of CT New Junkie reports & republished in The Middletown Press as follows:
Members of the Judiciary Committee gave Chief Justice 
Chase T. Rogers a thumbs up Saturday morning after

roughly six hours of public testimony both for and

against the state’s top judge. 

The committee overwhelmingly approved Gov. 

Dannel P. Malloy’s renomination of Rogers

for a second eight-year term. She was

appointed to the position by former 

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Rogers said at her confirmation hearing Friday that

she has been successful in promoting transparency,

access to justice and diversity in the Connecticut

court system. She cited the accessibility of court

documents online, increased availability 

of pro bono services, enhanced resources for

those who choose to represent themselves,

and a move toward an individual calendaring

system so that one judge can hear an 

entire civil case from start to finish.

She said she plans to extend individual

calendaring to certain family court cases

through a pilot program beginning in 

September.


Saturday, April 11, 2015

FULL VIDEO OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING RE REAPPOINTMENT OF JUDGES INCLUDING CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS, PLUS COMMENTARY BY PAT RYAN!

For those interested in the full video of the Judiciary Committee Hearing which included the hearing on the reappointment of Judge Chase T. Rogers, please click on the link below:

http://ctsupremecourt.blogspot.com/2015/04/chase-rogers-public-hearing-chief-justice-connecticut.html

THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS ON COALITION CAMPAIGN TO OUST CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS!

Daniela Altimari of The Hartford Courant reports as follows:

"HARTFORD — Activists with a variety of grievances
against the court system are joining together to try to
scuttle the reappointment of one of Connecticut's most
powerful jurists.

Dozens of people are expected to converge on the
Legislative Office Building on Friday when
the judiciary committee holds a confirmation hearing
on Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme, the chief justice
of the state Supreme Court.

The critics have also engaged in a social media
campaign and rented electronic billboards on I-91
and I-84 in Hartford and Waterbury, urging
lawmakers to vote no on Rogers' reappointment
to the bench. The ads, which cost $4,700 and will
run for one week, say "Chase .. Chase … Vote
No On April 10. Support HB5505."

First appointed by former Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a
Republican, in 2007, Rogers was renominated
this year by Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy..."

For more on this article, please click on the link below:

Friday, April 10, 2015

ATTORNEY JAMES T. FLAHERTY SEEKS TO AVOID A DECISION IN NAPPO MALPRACTICE SUIT AGAINST HIM!

In a prior blog, I spoke about Attorney James T. Flaherty's legal abuse of his own clients.  He has a pattern of taking on cases where individuals are in considerable distress.  He then concocts major bills in the case, often double billing by working in tandem with his associates Attorney Sandi Girolamo and Attorney Pam Magnano.  Then because he often has little idea of what he is doing, Attorney Flaherty will wreck the case and leave his clients on the lurch.  

Some believe that Attorney James T. Flaherty simply doesn't know how to practice the law.  I actually believe that Attorney Flaherty blows off his cases in order to discredit his clients so that they are unable to retrieve their losses either through a complaint to Statewide Grievance or through Civil Court.  

Often, as their cases approach trial, either the day before or the morning of the trial, Attorney Flaherty will approach his clients and demand an immediate large payment.  When it came to me, Attorney Flaherty asked for an immediate $30,000 or else.  Then using one pretext or another, Attorney James T. Flaherty will withdraw from the case and then sue for payment of his inflated bills in civil court and then foreclose on your house.  

Attorney Flaherty has had several of these collection cases which he usually finds a way to settle.  However, the recent malpractice case of Mr. Jeffrey Nappo versus Attorney James T. Flaherty is apparently evading the usual script.  The case, which was originally filed on September 26, 2011, is still underway over four years later.  There will be a hearing in the case on April 22, 2015 and then a trial management hearing on June 9, 2015.  Of course, these have been scheduled before and have not been followed through on.  So what is going on with this case?  

Early in 2009, Jeff Nappo's mother had a post judgment matter in family court that simply needed to be resolved having to do with the release of a bond.  Jeff Nappo wasn't even a party to the case--he was just helping out his mother.  Mr. Nappo spoke to two well respected law firms before approaching Jim Flaherty, both of whom stated that they could handle the matter for approximately $2,500.00.  

When Jeff Nappo spoke to Attorney Flaherty, Flaherty stated that he would expect to receive a $10,000.00 retainer, but he anticipated that he wouldn't even come close to that amount in resolving the legal issue.  Fast forward, Jeff Nappo received a walloping bill because Attorney Flaherty had carried out his usual trick of adding Attorney Sandi Girolamo to the case and was essentially double billing by having her present during hearings and depositions.  

Later on, Jeff Nappo received a bill for November and December of that year which was an exact duplicate of earlier bills that he had received except there were different dates and a higher balance.  When Jeff confronted the accountant about these bills, reportedly she stated, "You're right.  We just make bills up for Jim."

Eventually, Jeff's mother's case went to a hearing and during a break in the hearing, Attorney Flaherty went up to Jeff Nappo and demanded another $10,000.00 or he stated he was going to walk out of the case and Mr. Nappo reluctantly provided him with ten checks for $1000.00 each.  After that, he didn't hear from Flaherty for another ten months.  

Ultimately, Attorney Flaherty went to court demanding that Mr. Jeff Nappo pay him additional money in legal fees and Mr. Nappo responded with several counterclaims including excessive billing, failing to complete the work within the agreed upon limits of expense as set forth between the parties, failing to file necessary and required paperwork as part of the representation, failing to communicate, and submitting bills with false charges on them as well as additional violations of the CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act).  

Of course, as I have said, this was well over four years ago.  So what is going on?  Why didn't this matter go to trial long ago like all other trials?  

I recall that when I brought my own malpractice case against Attorney James T. Flaherty for very similar practices, although I will add outright lying to the trial court to my list of complaints, it really did not last very long.  There was a year long period consisting mostly of discovery and some pretty ineffective pretrial hearings.  Finally, we ended up in court before Judge Domnarski  who pretty much said, we are going to trial and I am giving it two days and that's it.  

You will forgive me for being somewhat cynical, but I can't help thinking that this extraordinary situation where the case does not go to trial and there are ongoing continuances is an attempt by the Trial Court to simply avoid trial.  

Bottom line is they want Jeff Nappo to settle the way all the cases prior to Jeff have settled.  

For over a decade, Attorney James T. Flaherty has used the Hartford Civil Court as his own personal enforcement agency to wrest vast sums of money out of his former clients.  What networks of interdependence and mutual support Attorney Flaherty developed during these years to be able to wield such influence, who is to know.  But the evidence of the impropriety of the Civil Court in this area stands right before us in the ongoing Nappo case and in the records of the other 69 or so cases with very similar outcomes that Attorney James T. Flaherty initiated against his own clients.  

No other attorney comes near such an extraordinary record of pursuing his own clients in this manner.  

The Nappo case is an embarrassment to the Trial Court because it threatens to put on the record the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has been allowing an attorney to conduct raiding campaigns against his own clients for years.  They would like to sweep this matter under the rug.  

For years, Attorney James T. Flaherty has been the teflon attorney--no grievance to Statewide Grievance has been able to stick.  He has evaded any kind of accountability for his cases in family court, walking out of these cases at will, even when he is right  in the middle of trial.  Nothing phases him, no disciplinary committee stops him, and judges will stick their necks out for him seemingly without hesitation, i.e. Judge Jorge Simon who praised his work in open court and Judge Solomon who found his work to be exemplary in a letter to the disciplinary committee.  

The problem, however, with trying to handle the Flaherty/Nappo matter with another coverup is that after the case is resolved, Attorney James T. Flaherty has every intention of coming back to Court with two more of his recently acquired victims.  Jim Flaherty has an addiction to money and such a gross disregard for how he obtains it that if the Court system doesn't do something to stop him, Flaherty's feeding frenzy will never end.   It is time for the trial court to refuse any further settlements with Attorney James T. Flaherty and to insist that the Nappo matter goes to trial right away.  Not only that, it also needs to make sure that the trial is fair, not the trumped up piece of nonsense that other litigants have been stuck with up to this point.

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEETINGS RE REAPPOINTMENT OF JUDGES INCLUDING CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS CURRENTLY LIVE STREAMING ON CT-N!

If you are interesting in watching the Judiciary Committee Hearings on the reappointment of judges including Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, please click on the link below:

http://ct-n.com/CTNplayer.asp?livestream=0