Corruption and Abuse of Power In Connecticut Courts

Judges have built may layers of protection around themselves that include may way to hide their actions from public view. The U.S. Supreme court has ruled that the courts must be completely open unless their is a very strong reason to close them. Essentially the bar is pretty high - but the state court ignore this U.S. SJC ruling and do what they want anyway.

In CT, the judicial review council brought 5 counts against the CT Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Sullivan for violations of Canon law. 

    In a nutshell, Back in April '06, Chief Justice Sullivan privately notified Governor Rell that he was retiring 2 years early and in mid Court-session.   The Governor promptly nominated justice Zarella as his replacement following their meeting.  Sullivan then had the clerk's office delay the release of a ruling because he felt it would be controversial and hurt the appointment of Justice Zarella as his replacement for Chief Justice.  One of the other Justices found out and notified the Judicial Committee about an hour before they were to appoint Zarella.  The Governor withdrew her nomination of Zarella and he also withdrew as a candidate until an investigation sorted out the details. 
    The ruling that Sullivan thought was controversial had to do with public access to court records and the FOIA.  When first decided, the ruling of 5 justices favored public access to records in a 3 to 2 decision, Zarella favoring Hiding records from the public, but he was out voted.  Sullivan, as chief justice, called for an En Banc review or review by the full panel of the supreme court, 7 justices.  This is not uncommon in a split decision, but what was uncommon is that Sullivan called on several retired judges, who typically sit in on cases only when the full time judge cannot.  The en banc review reversed the decision and ruled in favor of hiding records from the public, with a 4 to 3 decision.
    Now, the heads of the Judicial Committee subpoenaed Sullivan to testify before the Legislators to investigate his actions and possible impeachment proceedings.  Sullivan agreed, told the Attorney General that he would honor the subpoena and appear.  At the same time Sullivan had his lawyer file a motion to Quash the subpoena behind their back.  The lawyer filed the motion in Waterbury court, where Sullivan was and is now presiding as a retired judge; with a Judge that served with Sullivan for years.  (Waterbury is the same origin as former Governor Rowland and where most politician seem to serve more "time" than serve the public).  The subpoena was quashed before the Attorney General or Judicial Committee were served and had to give oral argument without having read the motion or briefs Sullivan's attorney filed.
The Legislators want to put off an investigation until after the elections in November.
The Governor has established a committee to review the FOIA and it's application to the judicial branch records and the judicial branch has created a task force to review the release of public information and other complaints and problems in the judicial branch.  You can Email the judicial branch with complaints at :

This is disgusting and vile behavior by a judge Chris.

Keep using publicity and the federal court.

You have our sympathy and support. I am now also fighting for access to my children due to an order of supervised visitation cause by the ex-spouse of my efforts to criticize and reform family courts.

These judge have no ethics and must be removed from the bench when they use their power to hurt children as revenge against us for fighting for justice and what is best for child.

Science has proven TWO parents are SUPERIOR for children and we must get the entire judicial system to recognize this and be accountable.

Dr. Warren Farrell’s training video for judges will be out soon and will be good evidence and education for the percentage of judge who really want to do what is best for children.

I fear that half or less even care.

Keep up the good work as you are not just helping yourself but thousands of other fathers who do not have the resources to fight this tyranny.

We will win this fight and reform family court. It is only a matter of time and effort because, not one are we right by a LONG SHOT but because we are fighting people who have no morals.

Exposure to the public is their soft underbelly.

July 19, 2006

Case Number: FA01-0075660  Christopher Kennedy v. Leanna Kennedy

     Judge Patricia Swords at Rockville Family Court has ordered that both Judicial complaints filed against her be sealed from the public and placed in the family court folder of the complainer, with no statements of justification.  The folder is still open to the public.  The complaints can now only be reviewed by judges and other court officials, the public has no access.

   Again, we have the Judicial Branch hiding records from the public, protecting judges from public knowledge of their abuse and retaliating against people who complain by creating a bias within the court against the complainer.  The Judicial Review Council is not part of the Judicial Branch, it is a separate agency which make judges and court officials as much "the public" as any other individual.

     The Judicial review council allows judges to make complaints public if they wish, but nowhere does the wording allow for a judge to decide who the public is or partially seal the record to the general public and allow only certain individuals access, such as other judges.  She has compromised the Case folder for any judge that may preside over this case. This is judge Swords way of saying "Look what this guy did to me" to her fellow judges while protecting herself from public scrutiny.

     The complaints were filed when judge Swords ordered that The Father, Christopher Kennedy be held to Criminal court orders in a case that was disposed of.  Following his acquittal, all charges were disposed of and his record was cleared.  With no allegations of harm or risk to the children, no allegation of an unfit parent Judge Swords terminated all contact with the father and his children, two days before Christmas.  The hearing was scheduled in 48 hour allowing no service to the father.  Judge Swords declared that the criminal court orders were still in affect and that statutory provisions of 46b-56 & 56a to protect parental rights or the requirement to file a parenting plan will not be followed.  She has declared that there is no harm is keeping the children fatherless and refuses to hear any motions to modify custody or parental access for the father.  The judge has ignored a Federal Complaint and Restraining order filed against her in Federal Court and continues to deny the father access or transfer this case out of Rockville.

 The court refuses to hear any motions filed by the father regarding contempt, change of venue or the removal of the GAL, which has been pending for 8 months, yet allows and grants motions filed by the GAL and the mother.