Mark Langley
434 Wall St.
Hebron, CT. 06248
July 5, 2011
Magistrate Matters
225 Spring Street
Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
Attn: Chief Court Administrator
Dear: Chief Court Administrator
My name is Mark Langley I am the plaintiff in a Divorce case in Rockville court that was heard On April 16th and 28th 2010 and ruled on By Judge Suarez on August 13 2010. My understanding is that Judge Suarez is very new to the appointment of which the following will attest to. Please excuse me if I come across in the wrong manner in this letter, as I am extremely frustrated with respects to my treatment by this magistrate. I know I should be directing a formal complaint to the Judicial review board of which I will be doing however time is not on my side with respects to anyone taking action. I am requesting a formal intervention that I may never have to sit before this Judge again based on the following events and what he said and did to me in court on June 28th 2011 during a hearing on a motion to modify. I am also imploring your office to investigate what my attorney and others as well as myself see as a clear bias and abuse of power by Judge Suarez who is clearly not a seasoned Judge. I have sat in many courtroom hearings over my years and I have NEVER seen such blatant abuse of power and a display of bias and arrogance in my life by a public servant. It is very possible I was one of his very first divorce cases post appointment. Please allow me to provide historical background on this unique situation before I explain the injustice forced upon me on June 28th 2011.
Upon pretrial hearings before Judge Suarez the circumstances of the relationship involving the marriage of my immigrant wife was made known before the court, as it should be. However before any evidence was heard or seen on either side Judge Suarez conveyed in open court that I as the petitioner for my wife, to the Federal government (even stating my signature to execute the affidavit of support) obligated me under Federal law to Support My wife at 125% of the poverty level for a period of 40 quarters.
Both myself as well as my attorney were taken back by these precepts that DO NOT conform to nor are they enforceable under Connecticut General State statutes. My Attorney then informed the Judge that the court was under obligation to ONLY apply State Statute in this case and not Federal statutes, to which Judge Suarez both verbally and by expression showed he did not like to be corrected by an attorney, He told my attorney to provide case law to that effect. Upon subsequent hearings Judge Suarez was provided this case law, and acknowledge of receipt in court, but made no further argument on this matter. (I do not have transcript of pre trial hearing, I will obtain if required)
During the 2 day trial (Transcript available upon request and will be posted on an internet blog) Plaintiff made numerous attempts to submit as evidence eye witness testimony, audio recordings and photographs to support the claim that the Defendant had in fact verbally abused and beaten the plaintiff in Drunk-in rages” of which was the major cause of the divorce filing. I was seeking the courts help from this abuse. We knew the 1st day of the Trial that Judge Suarez was determined to discredit the plaintiff and apply the Federal requirements asserted in pre trial on this 2-1/2 year marriage. Rather than allow all the Evidence to speak to the facts, inclusive of eyewitness testimony, and police reports of 2 arrest of the Defendant, I was continually berated by the Judge for not knowing answers or improperly answering to the satisfaction of the Judge. My attorney told me at the end of the first day that this Judge seems to have already made up his mind “this is not going to be a good result”. By the end of the second day it was clear due to the lack of questioning by the Judge of the Defendants here-say testimony and the exhaustive and at times angry questioning of the plaintiff by the Judge made it clear the Judgment would not go well.
A Transcript may not be able to convey the tone nor tenor of speech, however the reading of the transcript clearly shows his aggressive and at times, angry attitude towards the Plaintiff. (Trial transcript available upon request) I implore this office to interview all in attendance at the trial and the Hearing on June 28th 2011 to verify the bias nature of questioning and the disrespectful tone and tenor used by this Judge towards the Plaintiff. The trial transcript clearly shows the aggressive nature and Decorum and actions by Judge Suarez is not in harmony with the Code of judicial conduct as outlined in Rule 1.2
“A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.”
Further the code of Judicial Conduct is clear as Stated in Rule 2.8 “(b) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge’s direction and control.”
This Judge was anything but dignified and courteous, I ask you how are the above statements possible to be proven factual unless your office, or some State agency is able and willing to interview those in attendance, while this was going on in court? Truly unless you do so, what you read in this letter is only hearsay thus I implore your office to take swift action to investigate. I even had one of the onlookers who I never met in court the 1st day make a comment to me post trial about how The Judge acted inappropriately and how I was singled out and treated by this Judge, this brings attention again to conduct Rule 2.1, I am not the only one that sees the problem with this Judge as the Website Judge List attest. Please view the following Link; http://www.thejudgelist.com…(Copies attached from Web site) type in Judge Suarez Name and you will find others whom have received like treatment from him. This Man must be checked as he is allowing his own personal views and bias to trump State Law and is doing harm to the institution as well as to peoples lives as my experience of June 28th 2011 before his court will illustrate.
Upon Receipt of the Judges Decision Dated August 13th 2010 (copy attached) and upon detailed review my attorney and I filed an appeal for what we viewed as a severely punitive and prejudicial order that was without precedent, used to enforce the Federal statues under the facade of State Statute. In fact on Page 2 paragraph 2, of said order, Judge Suarez goes on to again assert Plaintiffs obligation as he did during early pre trial hearings of his bias view that the “ The Plaintiff agreed to provided to the (Plaintiff) (This portion of the order is grammatically incorrect, clearly misstated, should have been the word Defendant), and therefore is obligated to pay. On page 7 of the Same order he goes on to stipulated In the footnote at the bottom in a further effort to separate himself from any view of pre trial bias?
“ The Defendant’s proposed orders petitions the court to enforce the Affidavit of support the plaintiff signed when the Defendant came to the United States. The Defendant did not make such a request in her prayer for relief and therefore the court will not consider the affidavit.” (Italic added for emphasis)
If this was not even part of his consideration why then does he even mention it on page 2 paragraph 2 of his ruling or in the ruling as a whole?
It must be noted at this point that prior to the trial and after trial awaiting the courts ruling the plaintiff made two separate attempts to modify Pendente-lite alimony order providing proof of a substantial change in financial circumstances, showing ongoing Debt to my family to satisfy the pre trial order of $150 per week and that I was truly undergoing a hardship with all the other obligations I have. Both motions where heard and denied by Judge Suarez.
Another example of perceived punitive/prejudicial action by this Judge was that I was required by the court to live up to the Pendente-lite order to the letter. This same pretrial agreement also stipulated the defendant was required to be 100% responsible for all of her bills inclusive of Credit card Debt. In Judge Suarez order dated August 13 2010, he not only refused to count any of the $150 per week totaling over $9000 in Alimony payment towards the final order he feels the need to increase it to $175 per week for 5 years despite two request for a modification down (NOTE!!! 5 years just happens to be the remainder of the 40 quarters of Federal support) on a 5 year relationship and a 2 -1/2 year marriage??? In a further punitive/prejudicial action he ordered me to pay half of the Defendants Credit card debt, of $2000 that she was under obligation to be responsible for during the pre trial agreement, of which debt she incurred in that time! Showing another bias that the Defendant does not have to live up to the Pendente-lite order.
Both my attorney and myself viewed this for what it was, the Judges way to say to the plaintiff. Do not mess with me; you will pay as you agreed on the federal Affidavit of support. Both attorney and myself saw this as an unprecedented punitive action against me. It is very interesting that my wife seemed to find enough money to travel back to Russia for 2 Months just weeks after the order was given, charges made to her card, these are part of the exact abuses I was seeking protection from in the Divorce as it became clear to me that My wife married me thinking I was a Rich American. Shame on me for thinking she actually loved me…
We not only filed an immediate appeal, we also filed another motion to modify as my debt was now escalating due to borrowed money to satisfy the 1st order and mounting attorneys fees. At this point I was way behind on not only my rent, but also more importantly my child support obligation. Knowing it would be impossible to get a fare hearing before this Judge for ANY modification we filed on February 3, 2011 a Motion to RECUSE (copy attached). To my surprise and dismay I was told the STATE LAW allows the same Judge you are trying to recuse make the choice to stay or leave, what kind of law is this? There is no man humble enough to rule against himself; especially one as bias as this Judge has proven to be. This Law makes it virtually impossible to have a fare hearing when the Fox is the one who says who goes in and out of the Hen house? This must be repealed as it eliminates any checks and balances, as it is an absolute open door to the abuse of power. There is a saying that is true with all men even perhaps more so with those whom swear an oath of office that has any amount of power…
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely “ 99.9 % of the public would agree that this law makes no rational sense it is counter to logic and proper reasoning and is fundamentally wrong and really must be amended. I am going to work personally to make sure this loophole is brought to light.
Upon the hearing for the Motion to recuse, I was not there I was away on business, however My attorney told me the Judge seemed less than happy to have his integrity challenged and as you no doubt may have guessed Judge Suarez refused to recuse himself from the Motion to modify hearing.
I am going to this week be ordering the transcript of modification hearing held June 28th 2011 before Judge Suarez so you may read first hand his hard hearted response to my modification request. I will also be publishing this on the internet and portions in news papers open letter sections so the public is made aware of the type of Judge Mr. Suarez is. The fact is the motion to modify was stalled almost 7 Months before the Judge would hear it…. Makes you wonder, my attorney said this is unheard of.
Interestingly this same motion was to be heard two months ago by another Judge as Judge Suarez was to be on vacation, however the Defendants counsel after agreeing to the date in the case flow office filed a last minute continuance.
The reason for the continuance motion was explained as a last minute memory recall that he had another personal matter to attend to and could not be there that date, no other reason was provided. Despite our objection filed before the court the continuance was granted, and take a guess at who granted that continuance until such time his vacation was over? Yes Judge Suarez it seems that there is no way of escaping.
It is also interesting to note that based on all the hear-say evidence the Defendant provided in court (attested to in the trial transcript) The last statement in the Judges order about the Plaintiff is that the “Plaintiff is manipulating and controlling “ perhaps a Freudian slip, It seems I am the one being controlled and manipulated here.
With respects to the June 28th hearing. I had provided detailed records of outstanding bills I owed, growing credit card debt, back support, no less than 6 late notices going back over a year from various institutions, tax returns, profit and loss from the business legally documenting no less than a 20% decrease in income. Aside from my income, my personal circumstances have had a major change over the past 8 months.
In Feb of 2011 I filed for conservator of my eldest Brother Steve in Manchester probate court. With out going into great detail my brother who is an alcoholic received a large Social Security settlement and as such was literally drinking himself to death in a hotel room in Manchester. On December 30th 2010 I was granted by the court the opportunity to help care for my brother, I worked to keep him dry. On April 30th 2011 The Probate court ordered my Brother to receive back control of his estate and person despite the fact that just two weeks prior he went off the wagon in a big way while I traveled away for one week on business. I provided documentation to the court from police records and Manchester hospital, however the Court refused to allow me to continue to help him, where is the Justice? To date he is been in the hospital no less than 5 times since the court saw fit to grant him control, I have no idea of his current condition.
If this were not enough my middle brother Ric and I received a call in mid April 2011 from a neighbor of my biological father who is now 81 years old and living in Abbot Maine. My father’s health as well as mental capacity no longer allows him to care for himself and the situation required immediate family intervention! So My brother and I set up a meeting with the State of Maine Social Services department to have a counselor meet us at my fathers home, we were able to establish temporary guardianship over my fathers person and estate, however he would have to be moved to Connecticut as my brother and I are his only capable family.
My Brother Ric runs a large electrical business that used to be owned by my step Father, therefore it was jointly decided that I would be the main care provider for my father. I have since filed with the probate court in Willimantic as sole conservator of my Dad. Ric and I made arrangements to put him in an apartment and use his military retirement and Social Security to pay his bills, and have been working the past four months to secure additional benefits from the VA; as his income cannot cover all of his bills, his Home in Maine is currently worth less than the mortgage so this financial obligation falls on me and my brother.
The weekend before the June 28th hearing I and one of my daughters drove to Abbot Maine on Saturday afternoon packed up my Dad and drove him back on Sunday and moved him into the apartment in Colchester. I actually made the mistake of bringing my Father to that hearing before Judge Suarez, as I had to run appointments with him that day. I call it a mistake due to the emotional damage my father suffered when he heard the cold and thoughtless comment made by the Judge to me about my caring for my Dad, My father had to get up and leave the courtroom he was so upset, and still is to this Day! Basically Judge Suarez told me it was my personal choice to care for my Dad and that I had other choices to care for him, in other words a rest home or title 19. My Dad is old and his mind is going, however he was sharp enough to pick up on the heartless uncaring words of the Judge. Ever since then he thinks I am going to put him in a rest home and views my caring for him as a burden I do not need! Both My father and I view this Judges comment as heartless and morally lacking.
This Judges comments further flies in the face of the judicial code of conduct as noted in:
2.3 (b) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice or engage in harassment including, but not limited to, bias, prejudice, or harassment based on race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation and shall not condone such conduct by court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control.
My attorney, father as well as my brother and myself view these statements by this judge as personal bias and Prejudice. We also see them as a harassment of my father’s age and station in life and my right as his son to care for him at this age. And thus are filing this letter as a formal complaint! In this State if a person even alludes to Age bias in a rental contract or interview for rent or employment the person showing this bias is liable for damages under the law. Are the same standards not applied to a Judge who is under OATH to be the example of the Law when dealing with the public with whom he was entrusted to judge?
It was at this point and with this comment in the June 28th hearing I decided I have had enough of this man and will not rest until he is removed or at the very least severely sanctioned for his lack of professional conduct respect for other and the Facts presented as well as his controlling and manipulation of those before him!
Aside from a large financial change experienced and attested to in this hearing, I also had a very large personal change in my life dealing with my Alcoholic brother and now my Dad, of which I did not have when my motion to modify was first filed. I was sure to bring all financial & legal documentation with me to court to document the factual matters before the court. But just as all other times before this Judge, he chooses to turn his face away from fact and chooses to arrogantly push his own agenda. His words “ Motion denied He has to pay! ” No big surprise as we knew this would be the case at the onset of the motion.
Please know I still have some respect for the legal institution and I understand I have some obligation to my X-wife, however I have little respect for those who lord it over others in a lesser position and do not accord then the right to respect, justice and dignity that they deserve and are entitled to under the Law.
From this point forward I have four main goals.
1: Focus on the health and well being of my Father.
2: Continue to work as much as I can to start paying off the debt brought about by this order and pay as I am able the order,
until such time it is overturned.
3: Move ahead with my appeal as I am confident the ruling will be overturned due to the nature of this case.
4: Do what ever I can within my abilities to have Judge Suarez removed from the Bench!!
With all due respect to you and your office, I refuse to have any person discriminate against my fathers right to be treated with dignity and respect , and will not discharge my obligation to care for my Father to satisfy the whims of a bias, punitive prejudicial judges order.
Due to the ruling on the 28th of June 2011 the Defendant felt empowered to have me served with a contempt citation.
I respect the court as well as the other parties right to such a claim and will also respect the courts request from me to answer this citation, however I am letting your office as well as the Rockville Head clerks office know that I refuse to attend this hearing if it is before Judge Suarez.
The above matters are based on factual testimony and documentation either presented as evidence or attempted to be presented as evidence in this case. I therefore make an urgent plea for your department’s action in this matter. Please request Judge Suarez to stand down until this matter is resolved with a full and through investigation. If this is not possible to do then the only way that I will appear before him is if I am arrested. As a citizen of this state and as the Plaintiff I have the Right to have a fare and un-bias hearing, of which will NOT happen before this Judge! I also have the right to care for my father in a dignified and respectful manner.
Should I be arrested for failure to appear and taken from the required care of my Dad, I and my brother will continue to work diligently to assure wide publicity to inform the general public and appropriate State Officials of all the facts and events of what we perceive as a Judicial abuse that is being condoned by this department.
I will be filing a formal complaint with the Judicial review board as soon as I am able. I had to write your office to inform you of this most serious matter that must be addressed, I pray your assistance and response to remedy this abuse of a trusted position.
Very appreciatively yours,
Mark C Langley
cc:
Attorney Daniel Miller
Attorney Daniel Miller
State Senator Edith Prague
State Senator Eric D. Coleman
State Senator Paul Doyal
State Senator Terry Gerratana
State Senator Edward Meyer
Barbara T. Roessner , Managing Editor, Harford Courant
Joan Hunt Managing Editor, Reminder News
John Adamian Managing Editor, Hartford Advocate
Editor, Hartford Guardian.
William Bastone Editor The Smoking Gun
Rockville Superior Court Head Clerk
CNN News
WFSB
WFSB
No comments:
Post a Comment