I was calm and was calmly met by the security officer who said:
"Your media is not happening here. I've been forewarned (by Judge Thompson clerk Jennifer Sykes -- I told her I was coming) that you were coming.... you've apparently made a name for yourself."
"As if I am the one doing something wrong?"
"I'm more concerned about the children who got shot."
"I am concerned about them too but I'm more concerned about my mother dying of Alzheimer's while Commissioner Bremby tells lies....that is unconscionable."
Motion to Attend Settlement Conference DENIED. What could be so secret that I am not entitled to be present and why didn't the Court ORDER employ any analysis of the issues?
Motion for Reconsideration and Demand for ORDER protecting Due Process Rights
The Court, in a terse opinion devoid of legal analysis, denied my mother's Motion for Inclusion at the Settlement Conference (more below the fold)....
......in spite of the fact that the only rationale offered by Defendant Roderick Bremby has been proved false by the email chain submitted showing that all documents in the application were filed by 15 December, 2012. The Court has not ruled on the underlying Motion to Intervene, however the case law cited (Dietzel v. Planning Comm’n of Reading, 60 Conn. App. 153 (2000)) indicates that it is a Due Process violation to exclude a valid Intervenor.
I have no idea why Attorney Sheldon Toubman never contacted me to represent my mother as he did for several other Intervenors.
"The Emergency Motion for Inclusion at Settlement Conference to Prevent Substantive and Procedural Due Process Violations (Doc. No. 76) is hereby DENIED.
Mr. King is prohibited from attempting to attend the December 14, 2012 settlement conference.
It is so ordered
Dated this 14th day of December, 2012 at Hartford, Connecticut.
Ms. King is confused by this and did notify the Court by and through her Power of Attorney that she will indeed be at the Courthouse, rolling video outside and attempting to identify the attorneys present as any diligent member of the Fourth Estate would do. As such, Ms. King Respectfully requests relief as follows:
1. Reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying the Right to attend the Settlement Conference and
2. An Order that Ms. King will be afforded the opportunity at a subsequent Settlement Conference to voice her concerns given that she has clearly established that she is entitled to Intervene in this matter.
Note: This is important because the Court's decision to keep us out of the hearing does not comport with the evidence or attachments provided to the Court and the underlying facts that the Affiant had no first hand knowledge of what I submitted. Therefore we simply must be afforded the opportunity to be heard even if not at the present settlement conference. Time will tell.
Note: When I filed this Motion for Recon at 10:36a just now I see that apparently the Original Order didn't even include any text. Now I had issued a thorough pleading with embedded exhibits and citation to case law, none of which Defendant Bremby included, yet whatever I did wasn't even worth any analysis or discussion at all. The Court to this point has protected the State, even though the State has lied. As a former Assistant State Attorney I expected or at least hoped for a different outcome, one that would be fair to my mother and fair to the system of Justice. As if anyone needs to wonder why people have lost faith in the United States legal system. Watch for the Courthouse video later this evening.
They filed a Bad Faith Affidavit by DSS Stupidvisor Sylvania Flattery who claims that we are not entitled to intervene because our application was not timely and that is the cause of the delay. However she is full of shit because I kept my email chain and anyone can see that all materials were filed on 15 December, 2011, almost exactly one year ago to the day! In point of fact, CBS News reports that five (5) DSS stupidvisors have been suspended (with pay of course) for deceit and willful malfeasance last month, and that's a fact, Jack. I requested that the Court take Judicial Notice of that per Rule 201.
So today as I said now we come to the playoffs: My Motion to Intervene has been fully briefed as noted in my Emergency Motion to attend the Settlement Conference filed yesterday. The Motion to Strike Affidavit and Rule 11 Sanctions are not yet ripe but they don't need to be decided in order to allow me to attend and to at least make an Offer of Proof as to the harms incurred by our family because of Defendant Bremby's malfeasance. Having a sick family member, especially your mother, is bad enough. But having callous State employees rocking' lies against you while you go through it, that is what gets people killed. No I am not about to start being a violent person, I let my documents do the talking, but you had best believe I sure did deliver a verbal pimp slap to Roderick Bremby and his attorneys. They are not going to get away with this shit. To hell with you guys, seriously. I wish I could drop an F-Bomb on you but I can't go there on the Internet but I just did, in my mind because you deserve it.
Shafer v. Bremby CT 12-CV-0039 Motion to Strike Affidavit of liar Silvania Flattery
CT Roderick Bremby and CT AG tell lies in Title XIX Medicaid lawsuit; may be sanctioned by Court in Shafer ... Dear Commissioner Bremby and Attorney Callahan:
You two and your happy little Affiant Silvana M. Flattery are a bunch of jive turkeys. First of all Flattery's Affidavit must be stricken because she has no firsthand knowledge of what I sent Diane Wood. Only Diane Wood can offer an Affidavit but she won't because she won't lie to cover your tracks. Therefore I am not even reading said Affidavit. All right, I did read it and note that she claims the W-1 was not sent until fall of 2012 when in point of fact I have proof that it was sent in November of 2011 as noted below. Then there were at least ten (10) emails to Diane Wood requesting additional information about what Intervenor could do to expedite the process with no mention from her about any outstanding issues, because you are a couple of jive turkeys.
[Back story one and two for newbies.]
I do not suffer lies and fools gladly, and I am going to be submitting my counter Affidavit to the Court along with various emails proving that my mother's application was provided in full in December of 2011, or nine (9) months prior. Apparently you all believe I don't have the common sense to retain emails when dealing with government attorneys, even though I was a government attorney. I aim to rip you to shreds for your patent dishonesty because you did not make a Good Faith inquiry into the substance of your arguments on timeliness. All you had to do was check your emails.
However thank you for this because it neatly removes any credibility you were hoping to establish with the Court regarding your other defenses. If you will lie about receipt of documents you will lie about anything. A Motion for Sanctions will be sent to you contemporaneously with this Reply Memorandum under the Fair Harbor provisions of Rule 11.
And I will call you on it each and every time. The application for Betty King was COMPLETE on 15 December 2011 yet you failed to take action until I sued you in September of 2012 so you can go straight to hell. Here is a summary of emails that I am going to be providing to the Court. This response is a sworn response, noting that Diane Wood told me to keep sending these emails regarding the delay so that they could document the problem. Yep, you guys are dirty rotten liars.
I. Defendant's First and Primary Defense of Timeliness is at Once Completely without Merit and Sanctionable Based on the Email Chain Between Intervenor and Administrator Agent/Processor Diane Wood.
The application was complete on or about 15 December, 2011 yet Defendants failed to process the application. During the pendency of the application Ms. Wood told Intervenor to keep the emails coming because her department was trying to substantiate the problem so that they could get help correcting it.
On January 23, 2012: Betty King info.
I know I am blowing up your email, sorry. I also know you've got about a billion other things on your plate as well.
On January 18, 2012: Any word yet on Betty King app?
On 16 Dec. 212 Diane Wood sent a confirmatory email regarding the last document, i.e. the Divorce Decree:
The package will expire on Sunday January 15, 2012 at 08:22:55 EST5.
On 15 December Intervenor provided the last necessary document -- the divorce decree:
On 14 Nov. 2011 Intervenor wrote: Betty King updates -- final docs for Title XIX
1. Foreclosure: I found the Sheriff sale proof online and it is attached. Please confirm you can open and read it.
2. U.S. Bank: The package was sent and is at my apartment awaiting my return on Wed night or TH morning -- I will overnight to you.
3. Divorce Decree My father is going to fax to me shortly and I will scan and send in the next 48 hours. 4. W-1SA: Calling you now I need to find this document and send it to you. Will call you again to find it. That should complete everything. Again Diane thank you for your help. Sincerely,
On 22. Nov. Intervenor wrote: The Application. Note that this email contained the W-1.
That is why on 20 Jan, 2012 Intervenor wrote Diane Wood:
Hi Diane, I was just looking at the submission.... is there anything more that we could do. I'm stressing. Thanks and have a great weekend.
Intervenor's sister wrote on the same day: Thanks Chris, good follow up. We are both concerned about the process and outcome. Thanks for your attention to this matter.
27 August: Hello Ms. Wood, We are all concerned about our mother and this process. Do you have any more news or information for us? Thank you in advance. Sincerely,
From Intervenor's sister: Thanks for the note Chris. Ms Wood as Chris stated we are concerned and I do not understand why this had not been resolved. We would like a full accounting of the procedures and the plans to get this approved or what has to be done to escalate it. At this stage we can no longer continue waiting.
As such, Defendant's first Defense is clearly without merit and this Court must issue a stern rebuke to Defendants via the immediate imposition of sanctions.
II. Defendant's Second Defense Regarding Commonality of Actions is Clearly Without Merit.
Intervenor submits that this purported defense is almost as lame as the first one because it is in effect a restatement of the first one. This litigation involves failure to timely process a Title XIX application. The application was 100% complete on 15 December, 2011 and Defendants are attempting to obfuscate this issue with an Affidavit by a person with no first hand knowledge of the communications. That Affidavit must be summarily stricken from the Record and Intervenor must be granted approved status immediately.
Further, should the Court have any doubts or questions whatsoever, Intervenor will appear Under Oath at a proper evidentiary hearing. Perhaps Defendants will bring Ms. Wood to such a hearing, instead of some would-be intervenor with no first hand knowledge of the facts.