Court Filings

CT Grievance on Geri Ficarra : 102516

of 5
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Page 1 of 5  Read the Instructions for this complaint before filling it out. Complaints that are not filled out correctly will be returned to you.COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEY (GRIEVANCE COMPLAINT) JD-GC-6 Rev. 9-12 P.B. § 2-32(a) STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH  After filling out this complaint, mail the original and 6 copies of it to: Statewide Bar Counsel Statewide Grievance Committee 287 Main Street, 2nd Floor, Suite 2 East Hartford, CT 06118-1885 1. Complainant's (person making complaint against attorney) Information.  A separate complaint form must be filled out for each Complainant. Name (First, Middle, Last)  Address 6 Douglas Drive, Cromwell, CT 06416Edward F Taupier  Telephone number  860-807-2263 Email address (optional) Mr. ✖ Ms.Mrs.(Other) 2. Information about the attorney you are making a complaint against. Do not name a law firm.  A separate complaint form must be filled out for each attorney you are complaining about.    Address 3 Scholes Lane Name (First, Middle, Last) Geraldine Ficarra Telephone number  860.767.8300  Attorney's juris number (if known) 102516 Email address (if known) 3. Explain how you are connected to the attorney.4. Have you ever filed a complaint against this attorney with the Statewide Grievance Committee?5. Please give the information asked for below if your complaint is about the attorney's conduct in a lawsuit or a criminal case. Do Not Write in This Area — For Statewide Bar Counsel Use Only  File Date:Complaint number:Referred to: I hired/retained the attorney. Dates of representation:toThe court appointed the attorney to represent me. Date attorney was appointed by the court:The court appointed the attorney to represent my children. Date attorney was appointed by the court: The attorney represented the other side against me in a matter. ✖ The attorney was the prosecutor in my criminal case.Other. Explain:Yes. Give the name and grievance number of each complaint that you have filed:No ✖ Name of lawsuit or criminal caseDocket number Courthouse location Hartford CT - Family Superior Court Your connection to the lawsuit or criminal case (for example: plaintiff, defendant, witness) Defendant and My Children's liberty interests ADA NOTICE The Judicial Branch of the State of Connecticut complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you need a reasonable accommodation in accordance with the ADA, contact a court clerk or an ADA contact person listed at  Page 2 of 5  JD-GC-6 Rev. 9-12 6. Please explain the type of legal work done by the attorney in the matter that led to this complaint. Check all that apply. Criminal lawFamily law/Divorce ✖ Personal real estate matter Workers' compensationGeneral civil claimsPersonal injury/Wrongful death/Malpractice Arbitration or mediationEstate planning/Elder law/ProbateBusiness or corporate matter Immigration matter Collection matter Other. (Explain) 7. Please explain what kind of complaint this is. Check all that apply. You must still explain your complaint in detail in question 10. Neglect, diligence or competence issues ✖ Misused funds or other propertyOther. (Explain) ✖ Did not pay a judgmentDid not obey a court order Conflict of interestConfidentiality issues ✖ Did not safeguard money or propertyHarassment ✖ Improper withdrawalCommunication issues ✖ Fraud or misrepresentation issues ✖ Did not return recordsCharged too high a fee  conduct that is prejudicial to justice Yes. Amount the attorney charged you:The matter involved a contingency fee that has not been paid.No. ✖ 8. Have you paid the attorney any legal fees for the matter complained about or has any other person paid the attorney any legal fees for the matter for you?  Amount paid to the attorney by you or by another person for you: Attach a copy of the fee agreement to this complaint.9. Give a list of all witnesses that have information about your complaint. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name (First, Middle, Last) Alisha Mathers - Attorney Telephone number  860-817-3837  AddressName (First, Middle, Last) Telephone number  AddressName (First, Middle, Last) Telephone number  Address  Page 3 of 5  JD-GC-6 Rev. 9-12 10. Give the details of your complaint in the order that they happened. Attach additional sheets if necessary. ISSUE #1 ( AGAINST Geraldine Ficarra ) PB Rule 1.6 VIOLATIONS: 1A) - PB Rule 1.6 VIOLATIONS: I filed Pro-Se on 11 August 2014 , all documented information was served to the interested parties. My Lawyers ( #415813 ) knew they were now requesting addition funds to represent me and so was GERALDINE FICARRA - ( Jurist # 102516 ) on my Ex-Wife. I filed Pro-Se due to the depletion of all life savings and cash savings (~$90,000.00). The divorce has been dragging out form more than 22 months. 1B)- Money depleted) I was out of money and optioned to become Pro-se ( My life savings/college funds for children and my retirement was all gone $90k+ ) I had no more money to pay lawyers to drag out my divorce case and drain my financial status, THE DIVORCE HAD LASTED 2 + YEARS AND WAS NOT PROGRESSING. I filed for a Special Master and Pro-se on 11 Aug. 2014. 1C) After notification Geri continued to contact my old lawyers for several weeks : and discuss the case. Lobo and Associates with Geri were colluding to drag out the case for billable hours. Derrick Oatis continued to speak about the case. Lobo and  Associates were not party too the case as of 11 Aug. 2014. Geri continued to discuss the case instead of contacting me as a duly noted Pro-Se litigant despite her notice, as a result of this, I am now being charged additional costs by Lobo and Associates = ~$4110.00 for having to take and field her calls to and with Geraldine Ficarra . ( See attached documentation - package #1 ) >> (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the   disclosure is implied authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by subsection (b), (c), or (d    (e) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client. ISSUE #2 ( AGAINST Geraldine Ficarra ) Rule 3.1. Meritorious Claims and Contentions :  A lawyer shall not bring or defend a    proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. 2   A) - On 22 August 2014 Geri and Tanya continue to file meritless claims and useless motions of contempt 7-12 depending on you view of the attached (22 Aug. contempt motion), which was eventually denied by Judge Bozzuto, however the case detail srcinally slated the motion to be heard on 02 Sept. 2014. As you can see from the case detail 32% of the motions filed are contempt motions in this divorce case. Judge Simon used the children and their removal from their fathers life as punishment for accusations of the meritless claims including the violation of a court order for children's school assignment, Failure to fully participate in a Family Services assessment, neglecting the children's health - Father caused cavities ; Father has girl friend living in home : after he hired a nanny: 2B) Mr Taupier was ordered by Judge Elizabeth Bozzutto, to never participate in legislative and representative government. The Motion of contempt dated 22 Aug. 2014 filed by Geri and Tanya her client was denied by Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto. ISSUE #3 : Rule 3.3. Candor toward the Tribunal ( Fraud upon the Court )   3A)  - (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) Make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; A) Geri Ficarra and Judge Bozzuto colluded to make a false claim of Imminent and emergency claim that the children are in danger of psychosocial abuse, The claim was signed in an ex-parte motion : B) Children attending public schools is not causing psychological harm to children. No Public school is   causing arbitrary harm to children. This ex-parte order is a declaration of emergency and immediate danger C) Tanya removed the children the morning of their first day of school 27 Aug 2014 with the assistance of attorney Geri   Ficarra & Cromwell Police. The children were escorted by the police from their classroom to the parking lot experiencingembarrassment and humiliation, and likely fear. Mother chose to remove the child during school hours rather than waiting for the children to complete the day . Clearly a decision contrary to the best interests of the children ã << Mother kidnapping children against family orders >>     ã The first day of school fell during the fathers parenting week as approved and ordered by Judge Bozzuto ã Children have had significant psychological issues confirmed by the therapist since the removal from the school by Cromwell Police and such issue are further exasperated by the deprivation of the fathers parenting time   I note that you ( Geri) lack 'clean hands' to proceed in a court of equity. You cannot establish that your hands are clean after the events of this week. Please note in Pappas v. Pappas, 164 Conn. 242, 246:   It is a fundamental principle of equity jurisprudence that for a complainant to show that he is entitled to the benefit of equity he must establish that he comes into court with 'clean hands'.....The clean hands doctrine is applied not for the protection of the parties but for the protection of the court.    In your ex parte action, you failed to make full and frank/fair disclosure to the court relating to the June '14  parenting plan. The application you submitted lacked disclosure of Judge Bozutto's direction from the bench  Page 4 of 5  JD-GC-6 Rev. 9-12 upon entering said plan. You are in possession of the transcript and you were present when she stated her lack of understanding of the plan but trusts its meaning to the parties. Your ex parte representation that the August '13 plan had not been disturbed was recklessly and intentionally misleading as it was replaced in June and effectively expired this week. Please note the case law on such fair disclosure in Billington v Billington, 220 Conn. 212, citing Monroe v. Monroe 177 Conn. 173. You have duty to ensure that all information is provided to the court so that fair and equitable orders can be made. In the instant matter, you withheld information thereby eliminating the court's ability to enter proper orders. You have a professional duty to inform Bozutto, J. immediately of your shortcoming. As for the affidavit of your client, you had duty to execute a 'searching dialogue, about all of the facts' that affect your client's interests. As she swore to psychological harm as the basis of the 'emergency ex    parte' action, you had legal cause to understand the underlying evidence of her first hand knowledge of such   claim of harm. It is obvious to the most casual observer that there is no underlying facts, evidence, qualified medical opinion or any iota of reality that such harm existed to meet the 'emergency' threshold for the ex parte action. It is your and Judge Bozzutto's impossible burden to prove that Cromwell schools cause psychological harm. Again, you have failed your obligations as a lawyer so specified in the noted case law. To wit: Lawyers who represent clients in matrimonial dissolutions have a special responsibility for full and fair disclosure, for a searching dialogue, about all of the facts that materially affect the client's rights and interests.....It is a logical require such full and frank disclosure...between marital litigants themselves. (Billington, 220) It appears that you have failed duty under Monroe/Billington by not disclosing such facts underlying the  psychological harm either to the court or to me. As it is your duty to do so, please immediately provide such underlying facts, your client's first hand knowledge of same or a statement that the affidavit filed with the court is false. I make the assumption that you and your client did intentionally provide such misleading information to the court to obtain your 'emergency' order. As you chose not to advise me of such action, your efforts were fraud upon the court. See fraud by non-disclosure as there was duty to speak; Reville v. Reville, SC18452. Perhaps you would care to ponder the opinion in Mitchell v. Mitchell, 194 Conn. 312, 322. To wit: ...the spirit of our rules which requires full disclosure of all material facts, the obligation of an attorney to be candid with the court as provided by the Code of Professional responsibility.    Given said case law, I will also assume that you instructed your client to remove the children from E.C. Stevens Elementary School with the aid of the Cromwell Police to carry out your fraudulently obtained 'emergency ex parte' order. I remain available throughout the weekend for discussions to put an end to your malicious drama. ISSUE #4 ( AGAINST Geraldine Ficarra ) Rule 8.4. Misconduct :   4A) - Geri continues to file and act in the most inappropriate way. The direct results of these maliciouse actions are now being defined by the AFCC Therapist for the children; Nancy Eiswirth has issued an alarming e-mail concerning the mental and health status of the children. See attached : This direct disregard to the administration of justice and the misconduct for creating a private high conflict for the divorce ahs placed the children at risk for PTSD and daily/hourly stress. The high conflict divorce has now damaged the children with stress and mental block affecting their learning and development. School records show clear disciplinary problems and out bursts from both children. There is PTSD clearly noted in my son and my son has no short term memory. The children are in distress and are suffering from this lawyer Misconduct looking to escalate the conflict to fill her pockets. Clearly Geri with Tanya stating that Cromwell Schools are causing psychological harm was a meritless claim and the Judge Bozzuto signed it with no factual basis or medical report. this is clear misconduct on the Jurris and the Judge. Geri and Tanya also served the ex parte motions to the school to threaten and cause legal concerns on a party/persons not party to the divorce action. Geri also called the Cromwell Police to escalate the mid morning school raid and extraction under armed guard. This action severely traumatized the children and was actually kidnapping the children - see YOUTUBE :   >> The CROMWELL school Asst. Superintendent verified educational neglect and endangerment on video >> Cromwell schools legal team reviewed the orders and registered the children base on no clear orders of educational motions, again this was misrepresented to Judge Bozzuto who again issued an illegal -

Soil Mechanics

Jul 23, 2017

Designer Kitchen

Jul 23, 2017
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks