Skip to content


The now-famous Blog’s legal department observes a method of cleansing miscreants from Connecticut family court by application of federal redress rights against monsters in black for defying constitutional protections of parents and children. The idea comes from Judge Nasty Nastri of Hartford’s cesspool of familial destruction, where he recused his dumb ass from further abuse of little Odin Sakon for cause of being a defendant in a federal civil rights suit brought by disgruntled father who is barred from playing catch with his son. Blog logic department deduces, if all disgruntled parents suffering from deprivation of rights, file suits against family court miscreants, there will be no miscreants left to abuse children. Simple!

The template is simple. All parents who are subject to unconstitutional discretionary orders violating strict scrutiny requirements of the Fifth Amendment can file a §1983 action to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment upon the errant judicial authority, as familial destruction by discretion of a moron in black defeats civil rights of the parent and the child, under color of state dissolution law, where state statute §46b-56(b) prohibits such draconian orders, where feds classify isolation of children from a parent as abuse under 42 USC §5101,Child Abuse Prevention Act. The targets are the entire roster of family court judges.

TAMMY! has suit for retaliation against exercise of ADA Title II protections. TAMMY!, Leo Diana, Robert Nastri are joined in a conspiracy suit for discrimination against a child and father for claim of mental defect of dad. Judge Anthony Truglia is ripe for suit in denial of due process, discrimination against a mother by threatening incarceration for fault of father’s dysfunctional relationships with is own children. Judge Eddie Rodriguez gets served for deprivation of rights against a mother for exercising First Amendment rights of expression, issuing restraining orders against a mother for cause of severing mother-child bonds, denial of equal protection. Judge Jane Grossman for severing parent-child bonds on vendor claim of mental defect of mother, requiring treatment by isolation, devoid of medical judgment, another ADA violation. Judge Gerard Adelman faces a class action by all parents victimized by his draconian orders requiring unspecified treatment, therapy, as condition of hugging offspring, violation of First Amendment rights to free association, expression, redress, even for jailing a mother for cause of a runaway child. Judge Elizabeth Stewart’s orders maligning children for being victims of psycho dad, lacking strict scrutiny for state interference in family affairs, unrelated to issuing an administrative ‘no fault’ divorce, also ripe for federal complaint. Judges Ficeto and Schofield can be sued by Waterbury victims who suffer from lack of familial association by whim, based on unqualified recommendations of uneducated GALs serving with immunity. RFTD’s PJ Moukawsher, already facing a federal suit, is a magnet for complaints of due process failure by running a disingenuous docket lacking procedural due process; disbarring maternal counsel for free speech, notwithstanding. Judge Donna Heller faces ADA complaints for entertaining claim of mental defect of Jen Dulos, denying access to ‘no fault’ divorce, leading to Jen’s murder. Chief Judge Richard Robinson is implicated in deprivation of rights by failure to properly train subordinates, lack of strict scrutiny, failure to vette appointed court whores, denial of fundamental liberty interests by subjecting parents and children to unapproved services of ‘supervised visitation’, unlicensed quackery. Any litigant facing a judge who is a defendant in federal suit can move for disqualification in prospective relief. Simple use of federal redress rights will crash the family court, exposing the den of inequity.

The catch all to the federal suits is there is no ‘best interest’ exception to the Bill of Rights. The courts usurp the power of the sovereign by sua sponte exercise of parens patriae powers stripping parental custody, absent state interest by petition brought in protection of a child by the Attorney General, complete absence of strict scrutiny. The constitutional doctrine of separation of powers is violated by family court judges who entertain parental disputes to justify invoking sovereign powers reserved to petition brought by the elected Attorney General.

Follow-on complaint is racketeering by Alex Cuda’s family bar association, whose members hold that special place in society to ensure the quality and proper administration of justice, who conspire with colleagues and judicial overlords to void the Fourteenth Amendment to profit from lucrative custody battles, which our Constitution prohibits. U.S. Attorney for Connecticut, Vanessa Avery Roberts, has no place to hide from the State’s malfeasance. It is not a state nor judicial function to void the federal Constitution; no immunity lies.

The alternative solution to failure of redress lies in the Second Amendment.

Editor’s Note:  The federal action not only serves enforcement upon state government, but proves the legislative branch cannot do its job, demonstrating to the world that nutmegs cannot properly govern themselves, elected representatives failing oaths, conspiring with unscrupulous state actors to deprive rights of a sovereign people.

Targets of federal suits in deprivation of rights.

Prime examples of nutmegs who fail to exercise proper role of government, to detriment of parents and children, in deprivation of fundamental liberty interests.