IMPEACH!

The now-famous Blog reports efforts underway in Connecticut to impeach Chief Justice Richard Robinson under Article IX of the state constitution.  A well regulated parental-militia, with bare arms, holding necessity to protect children from monsters of family court target the chief justice for impeachment; eliminating the head of the snake.  Here are the draft articles:

ARTICLE I

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in failing to uphold 14th Amendment protections, prohibiting judges from severing mother-child bonds under the color of no-fault divorce law, solely on arbitrary and capricious discretion of trial court judges, being federal deprivation of due process rights, lacking cause or interest of the State, proscribed by SCOTUS opinion Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57, 65, said bond being a fundamental liberty interest, pre-dating the Founding.

ARTICLE II

Chief Judge Richard Robinson does abuse judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people in failing to comply with state statute §46b-56(b) requiring orders for ‘active & consistent’ involvement of both parents in the lives of children, incidental to no-fault divorce, in gross dereliction of supervision and training of family court judges, willful disrespect for statutory duty notwithstanding.

ARTICLE III

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, acts by culpable negligence in failing to conform court opinions to constitutional law opined by SCOTUS in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) defeating state opinion in Yontef v Yontef, 185 Conn 275, 279 (1981) and McGaffen v Roberts, 193 Conn 393 (1984) upholding absolute discretion of a state judge to traffic children, in contradiction to 5th and 14th due process protections of fundamental parental liberty interest; grotesque judicial incompetence highlighted in Parskey’s dissent in McGaffen, being the exact legal foundation of Troxel.

ARTICLE IV

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, acts in culpable negligence for failing to conform his court’s opinions to constitutional law in separation of powers, whereby a blanket grant of absolute immunity to court appointed, private pay, uncontracted attorneys is not a judicial function, judges do not legislate from the bench, application of immunity being the singular power of a sovereign people, enacted thru elected representatives, following due process of lawmaking. See Hennessey’s dissent in Carrubba v Moskowitz, 81 ConnApp 382, 406.

ARTICLE V

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment protections wherein he demands a free people disavow freedom of expression, as a condition for him to remedy unconstitutional conduct of the family court, see CT Post op-ed of 1 March 2019. Gross negligence, incompetence, demonstrated in political claim of ‘hate speech’ being a bar to sovereign will in derogation of SCOTUS opinion that ‘hate speech is free speech’, to wit: “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.” Matal v Tam,137 S.Ct. 1744, 1764. The 14th Amendment withdrew state power to regulate speech protected under the First Amendment, wherein Robinson violates Canon 4 and founding principles by his poisoned political op-ed, proving unfitness for office.

ARTICLE VI

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays the trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment protections, by willfully allowing family court judges to rely on third party opinions of licensed psychologists, in fabricated custody disputes of fit parents, where private pay opinions of character assassination hold no basis in law, no professional protocol, no standard of care, being arbitrary and capricious, of no legal necessity of the state to issue an administrative no-fault divorce, sole purpose to promote conflict, prolong litigation, maximize billable hours, in detriment of society, generating malicious recommendations of mother-child separations, severing parent-child bonds, lacking state interest, in derogation of First Amendment protections of right to intimate association and religious freedom, such violation of the 14th Amendment’s due process protection being criminal conduct under 18 USC §242.

ARTICLE VII

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of 5th and 14th Amendment due process protections, thru practice rule of summary disbarment, of tyrannical powers, alien to America, such rule, PB §2-45, being illegal authority wielded by a trial court judge to eliminate a zealous advocate of the people, in derogation of First Amendment redress clause, by due process violation, allowing absolute discretion to usurp separate functions of accuser, trier, jury, and executioner, into one judicial tyrant.

ARTICLE VIII

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment free speech protections, wherein he fabricates new unprotected speech by creating fighting words from ‘fucking nigger’ in State v Liebenguth, 250 A 3d 1, 5 (2020) in defiance of SCOTUS ruling in Matal v Tam,137 S.Ct. 1744, 1764 (2017) that hate speech is free speech and willful disregard for criminal intent specified in Elonis v US, 135 S.Ct. 2001, 2012 (2015) requiring criminal acts to be conscious.

ARTICLE IX

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment rights in creating a class of unprotected speech not recognized by SCOTUS, in State v Taupier, 330 Conn 149 (2018), a limitation of expression created by the American Law Institute in 1961, a private party ‘model penal code’ erroneously adopted in Connecticut in 1971, which limits expression based on disregard for fear in an undefined listener, coined ‘reckless disregard for causing fear in others’, a concept alien to Founding principles, not mentioned by Framers, being alien to the essence of self-government of a sovereign people. Robinson’s holding in Taupier runs afoul of high courts of Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, as well as Second, Sixth, Ninth Circuit decisions. Kansas struck down the ALI model, reckless criminal threat statute, in October 2019, SCOTUS denied cert, No. 19-1051, leaving Robinson’s court in unconstitutional territory, subjecting residents to denial of equal protection, forced to suffer restricted speech by culpable negligence of an incompetent Chief Justice.

ARTICLE X

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment right to scrutiny of matters in a public forum by concealing family court decisions from public access. Upon repeal of CGS §51-215a(a) trial court decisions are inaccessible by any electronic format, no index is available, court personnel direct curious citizens to visit each courthouse to search manually thru case listings for memos of decision; an impossible task, as no master list of cases exist in the efile system. This concealment of decisions is purposeful and malicious, constructed by Chief Court Administrator Carroll, described in testimony before the legislature on 1 April 2015 on P.A. 15-85, Section 11, where he falsely states: “Repeal will not impact publication because the Judicial Branch provides copies of the decisions to outlets for publication and will continue to do so. Decisions are also published electronically by private services.” Despite the common, but undefined practice of family clerks sending copies of decisions to the Reporter of Decisions, by email, copies are not provided any outlets by the Reporter, there is no database, public or private for which the sovereign people can scrutinize decisions in fraudulent application of parens patriae powers wielded in family court, such being a willful deprivation of First Amendment rights, enacted by judicial fraud and deceit upon the people, betrayal of Branch mission of open, transparent operations, notwithstanding.

ARTICLE XI

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of 14th and 5th Amendment due process protections in defiance of SCOTUS opinion New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 US 610, 613, 619 (1947), ruling custody decrees are not res judicata where Cleveland v Cleveland, 165 Conn 95, 100 (1973) defies the high court by giving effect to the principle of res judicata in custody decrees, a flagrant and willful constitutional due process violation, traitorous Branch conduct, Robinson being incapable of conforming to rulings of the highest court in the land.

ARTICLE XII

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment redress rights, protections under State constitution Article First, Section 10, that courts be open for remedy at law without sale, denial or delay, whereby his negligent supervision allows for the appellate court to overturn supreme court rulings in family matters, allowing judicial discretion in Strobel v Strobel, 92 ConnApp 662 (2005) to defeat affirmed redress rights in Ahneman v Ahneman, 243 Conn 471, 484 (1998), containing citations back to 1924 from Amato v Erskine, 100 Conn 497, 499 upholding continual right to redress in family matters, affirming court duty to decide motions. Discretion of family court judges cannot defeat state and federal constitutions, nor can Robinson’s Branch void such liberties of the people by judicial whim.

ARTICLE XIII

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment public right to scrutiny of judicial matters, misrepresenting ‘open and transparent’ mission of the Branch, by willfully and maliciously concealing family court bench books from public view; such bench book maintained by Judge Support Services Office, at taxpayer expense, but vehemently concealed from public view, absent published directive, in contradiction to state supreme court case Clerk v Commission, 278 Conn 28, which repeats First Amendment right to inspect and copy public records, given the bench book has a Library of Congress catalog number, the concealment is criminal conduct under 18 USC §241.

ARTICLE XIV

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of First Amendment protection against prior restraint, by his upholding of discretionary family court orders requiring use of private pay Our Family Wizard, being deprivation of rights, violation of 14th Amendment, power to regulate parental speech being withdrawn from the states in 1868. Robinson demonstrates his judicial incompetence in ruling Harris v Hamilton, 141 ConnApp 208 (2013), promoting use of a private service to restrict speech, to profit AFCC players, on sole discretionary order of a family court judge, absent purpose in law or statutory authority, in willful derogation of First Amendment protections; being criminal conduct by 18 USC §241.

ARTICLE XV

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of 5th and 14th Amendment due process protections by allowing family court judges to subject fit parents to the harassment of ‘supervised visitation’ a quasi penal commitment, holding no authority nor definition in statute, no state licensing, no cause in law, just a family court vendor (AFCC) scam for profit, a racketeering operation outside constitutional protections, promoted and enforced by conspiring judicial authorities, with Robinson’s supervisory approval.

ARTICLE XVI

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, in derogation of 1st, 5th and 14th Amendment protections, in willful and malicious violation of CGS §52-123, where circumstantial defects of pleadings are not cause to deny court access, a statutory limitation of court powers, set down by legislative act in 1784, by declaration of rights and privileges of people of the State, whereby Robinson’s culpable negligence, inability to supervise or train subordinates, judges, and clerks, routinely violates said statute, by rejecting, returning, dismissing, denying, ignoring, refusing pleadings for trivial errors, wherein judges own practice rule, PB§1-8, requires liberal interpretation, as not to cause injustice, a point lost on clerks and judges alike, who have returned papers defect of font and line spacing; derogation of redress rights notwithstanding.

ARTICLE XVII

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, by culpable negligence, inability to comply with federal civil rights law, Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, with regard to electronic publications, failing to comply with digital accessibility standards, of glaring non-compliance is the online Practice Book, online, not being PDF/UA compliant, nor are family court memos of decision scanned and uploaded by clerks, not in ocr/txt searchable format, a standard requirement for efiled documents specified under PB§4-4, demonstrating Robinson’s inability to supervise ministerial clerks in simple administrative requirements, willful disregard for federal law, and civil rights.

ARTICLE XVIII

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, by culpable negligence, in misrepresenting the special family court docket labelled Regional Family Trial Docket, as “A special docket, which handles contested custody and visitation matters referred to it from any Judicial District in the state. One judge presides over and manages the docket. The goal is to handle contested cases involving children quickly and without interruption. Cases are referred by the presiding family judge when they meet the program criteria: child focused issue; ready for trial; family relations case study completed and not more than nine months old; and an attorney has been appointed for the children.”  The goal being fictitious, absent legal purpose, where litigation is prolonged, no due process requirements for referral other than ‘absolute discretion’ misapplied, being only a form of judge shopping, where cases are not resolved ‘quickly and without interruption’, originally created in 1990, to relieve case load on understaffed regional districts, where practice reveals only families with money are referred, by conspiracy of attorneys seeking a particular decision, a violation of due process and equal protection, discrimination by income, a curious Star Chamber, non-existent in other states, but supports private agendas of child trafficking.

ARTICLE XIX

Chief Judge Richard Robinson abuses judicial power, undermines court integrity, brings disdain upon the office, betrays trust of a sovereign people, by culpable negligence and deceit, by failing duty to regulate the ‘honorable profession’ of law, by allowing the family Bar to morph the profession into mere ‘brawl for hire,’ a system of legalized plunder where craft and not conscience is the rule, where falsehood, not truth is means to gain ends, being a gross violation of attorney oath, permitting a low condition of moral sensibility, family lawyers be utterly wanting in qualities instilling public confidence, Robinson defrauds the sovereign, feigning attorney regulation in the public trust, advertising honesty, falsely promoting professional integrity, allowing lecherous persons to be trusted commissioners of the court, threats to public safety, unclean and dishonest function, such conduct promoted by Robinson cause for disbarment under state supreme court case law, by CJ Charles Andrews, in Fairfield Bar v Taylor, 60 Conn 11, 17 (1890), set standards for attorneys, willfully ignored by CJ Robinson.

Editor’s Note:  It is clear from the articles of impeachment that nutmeg government cannot function for the people, requiring systematic elimination of traitorous officials, black robes providing no protection from the will of the people nor the Second Amendment.