About Us

This site is not published by or affiliated with the Connecticut Judicial Branch, but rather is a citizen publication based on the rights of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In light of recent opinions, public statements by the Chief Justice, and growing public concern, we now question whether our Supreme Court Chief Justice, Associate Justices and Judges of our Connecticut Appellate Court are truly serving the interests of Connecticut citizens or are instead directing certain opinions and orders to protect the bar, control the archive of growing case law and covering up corruption in our lower courts.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."   First Amendment

Established in 1784 as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, the highest court in the Constitution State serves as the backbone of the Connecticut Judicial Branch. Although the name and makeup of the court may have changed over time, it is now the final in-state voice for legal disputes, reviewing decisions rendered by the respective trial courts and, since 1982, a fraction of the opinions published by the Appellate Court following a discretionary grant of petition for certification to appeal.

As with other state court systems in the United States, any party seeking review of a final determination in our state courts must decide if the issue (or issues) is (or are) of likely significance to survive the extremely fine legal filter which selects a small minority of more than 7,000 cases that are submitted each year by way of petition for writ of certiorari - the process which either grants or denies review of cases by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Even though most Connecticut General Statutes detail the letter and spirit of the Legislature in areas of law, judicial discretion provides trial court judges with a wide berth in which to craft their decisions. While this discretion may be limited in certain areas of law (e.g. criminal), the abuse of discretion is regarded by many to be a pervasive problem in family court and elsewhere. There are, for instance, scores of trial court judgments in the Supreme and Appellate Court archive which were affirmed on appeal, but for which a closer inspection of the opinion serves to strengthen our claims of higher court cover up.

While the majority of trial court jurists and magistrates are likely hard-working men and women seeking to do the best job they can, guided by their experience, case law precedent, and the Code of Judicial Conduct, a relatively small percentage appear to have other goals. This places the jurists serving on our reviewing courts in a position of having to either acknowledge corruption from within or to cover up corrupt and illegal acts by fellow jurists by rendering cleverly crafted opinions that skirt the issues or affirm, knowing the likelihood of review by our Nations highest Court is statistically unlikely. This 'death by appeal' appears to be a troubling new phenomenon in a growing number of family, civil, foreclosure, and other cases.

As our research continues, we will publish source data, analysis and thought-provoking articles, allowing you to formulate your own opinion and to respond, if you choose, to those things we share. If you are aware of a case with characteristics similar to those noted above, please consider sending us a concise summary of the details, as well as your trial, appellate and Supreme Court cases numbers.