Peter Szymonik's Defensive Pleadings

download Peter Szymonik's Defensive Pleadings

of 16

description

In October and November 2014, Peter Szymonik filed pleadings in his own defense in the hopes of avoiding jail on contempt charges for failure to pay a $9,600 judgement to GAL Rhonda Morra pending the outcome of an appeal filed on the matter.

Transcript of Peter Szymonik's Defensive Pleadings

  • From Peter T. Szymonik tel. (860) 614-7721 43 Edgewood Lane fax. (860) 812-2092 Glastonbury, CT 06033

    1

    Ms. Jeanne Hayes Family Caseflow Coordinator Hartford Family Court 90 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106 3 November 2014 Re: HHD-FA-06-4027147 Via FAX 860-706-5073 Dear Ms. Hayes

    It was brought to my attention this morning via a fax message from Attorney Adam

    Teller that he sent a letter addressed to you apparently in response to a Motion for

    Continuance filed on Friday and regarding a short calendar hearing scheduled for November 4th.

    Please note the following:

    1. Attorney Teller (and his client Attorney Morra) enjoy no statutory, legal or procedural

    standing to file motions, status conferences, or requests of the family court, as Attorney

    Morra is and has never been a litigant to the above referenced family matter, and as

    Attorney Morra is no longer even a Guardian ad Litem on this family matter. As such,

    she, and Attorney Teller, have no standing to make requests of the family court.

    2. Attorney Teller is making completely inappropriate argument to you, as Caseflow

    Coordinator, even citing case law, in order to inappropriately and adversely influence

    the Court against me as a proper litigant, in the process working to turn you into a

    witness, and in order to promote his own personal agenda to force an improper short

    calendar hearing for which he has no standing to call for or request of the family court.

  • From Peter T. Szymonik tel. (860) 614-7721 43 Edgewood Lane fax. (860) 812-2092 Glastonbury, CT 06033

    2

    3. Attorney Matt Carlone remains my counsel of record and I have not been notified by

    him or any other counsel that tomorrows short calendar hearing was marked Ready

    as required.

    Given this and other grave and very serious concerns around Attorney Tellers actions

    and behavior in blatant and very troubling disregard for and violation of the Professional Rules

    of Conduct for Attorneys, the Connecticut Practice Book, and state statutes, I respectfully

    request that you ignore any and all attempts by Attorney Teller to communicate with and

    influence the family court in the above referenced family matter.

    If you have any question of me, I may be contacted at the numbers above. Sincere regards and thank you,

    Peter T. Szymonik cc: Attorney Matthew Carlone (fax 860-563-6088) Attorney Keith Yagaloff (fax 860-432-5402) Attorney Adam Teller (fax 860-282-1539)

  • 1

    DOCKET NO.: FA 06-4027147 S : HARTFORD SUPERIOR COURT STEPHANIE SZYMONIK : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF HARTFORD v. : AT HARTFORD PETER SZYMONIK : NOVEMBER 12, 2014

    MOTION to STAY PROCEEDINGS

    Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant an immediate stay of

    proceedings related to the Motion for Contempt filed by the former Guardian ad Litem on October 15, 2014.

    Defendant represents that a stay of proceedings is proper and warranted

    pending the outcome of his underlying appeal(s) and in consideration of the following:

    1. Defendant raised significant Constitutional, procedural and due process concerns

    around the hearing of the former Guardian ad Litems Motion for Contempt, and

    her related issuance of a subpoena, during hearings held on November 4, 2014.

    2. Defendant filed a notice of appeal with the trial and Appellate courts on

    November 6, 2014 in relationship to the trial courts denial of Defendants Motion

    for Order (to Quash) (365.00) and Motion for Protective Order (369.00) and the

    Courts orders of November 4th, 2014.

    3. Defendant has a pending and underlying appeal which incorporates and includes

    the issue of the payment of the former Guardian ad Litem fees.

    4. If the trial court allows the hearings on the Motion for Contempt to proceed, and

    the trial court find against the Defendant, and the Defendant sub sequentially

    prevail in his appeal, the trial court would then have necessarily unduly punished,

    penalized and caused significant and irreversible harm to the Defendant for

  • 2

    which the trial court could not then possibly offer adequate remedy, representing

    a grave miscarriage of justice.

    5. Defendant represents to the Court that the pace of the motions heard before the

    Court on November 4, 2014 was in stark contrast the gravity of the serious

    Constitutional, procedural and other issues raised by the Defendant and

    supported by case law and precedent in his supporting Memorandum of Law.

    6. Defendant represents to the Court that there is no urgency before the family

    court impacting the parties or their minor children in the family matter and related to the Motion for Contempt filed by the former Guardian ad Litem.

    Rather, that should the proceedings be allowed to continue and the former

    Guardian ad Litem prevail without affording the Appellate Court the opportunity to

    issue a ruling, that both parties and the minor children would be significantly and unduly harmed, not supported by the family court, undermining the integrity of the Court.

    7. Defendant wishes the Court to further note and consider that the former

    Guardian ad Litem:

    a. was last involved with the parties minor children in January of 2013,

    b. refused numerous requests and opportunities presented to her by the

    Defendant to attempt to settle her claims outside of court,

    c. had not expressed any concerns about her fees or the Defendants

    payments made to her since a hearing held on December 11, 2013,

    d. filed for a status conference about her fees without first reviewing her

    concerns or attempting settlement with the Defendant or his counsel,

    e. ignored the courts recommendation of October 15th, 2014 that she work to

    seek a compromise and settlement outside of court, she instead and of

    her own accord opted to immediately file a Motion for Contempt the same

  • 3

    afternoon as the hearing and started her campaign of harassment and

    intimidation against the Defendant.

    8. If the former Guardian ad Litem believes her financial complaint against the

    Defendant is urgent, then the court system offers her ample other and far more

    appropriate avenues to pursue her claims without the need for her to

    inappropriately attempt to involve herself in the Defendants family court matter,

    which she is no longer a part of.

    9. Defendant represents and prays to the Court that in order to preserve and protect

    his inherent Constitutional rights and rights to due process, extreme caution,

    careful consideration, and preservation of the Defendants Constitutional and

    other rights must reign, over any perceived need for expediency around the

    compliant before the court.

  • 4

    APPLICABLE LAW

    Defendants Motion for Stay is supported by relevant rulings of the Court:

    It is well established that a reviewing court properly may address jurisdictional claims . . . Indeed, once . . . the question is raised, it must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented. . . . The court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case. Warner v. Bicknell, 126 Conn. App. 588, 594 (2011)

    and

    Failure to observe the fundamental requirements of due process has resulted in instances, which might have been avoided, of unfairness to individuals and inadequate or inaccurate findings of fact and unfortunate prescriptions of remedy. ... It is these instruments of due process which enhance the possibility that truth will emerge from the confrontation of opposing versions and conflicting data. Procedure is to law what scientific method is to science. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 19-21, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967).

    The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights which cannot be ignored

    or set aside by any Court or judicial authority. The Fifth Amendment provides in

    relevant part, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    Due process is denied when a proper and meaningful hearing is denied by the

    Court as a cause.

    The Fourteen Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clause (Section 1),

    expressly declares that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the

    privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive a

    citizen of their inherent right to due process and fair hearing.

  • 5

    WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court to grant and order:

    1. That proceedings related to the Motion for Contempt filed by the former Guardian

    ad Litem on October 15, 2014 be immediately stayed pending the outcome of the Defendants underlying appeal(s):

    ORDER GRANTED/DENIED

    JUDGE/CLERK DATED: ______________

    2. That the former Guardian ad Litem is sanctioned and pay the Defendant a sum of $1,500 for costs associated with filing this motion, or other amount deem appropriate by the Court.

    ORDER GRANTED/DENIED

    JUDGE/CLERK DATED: ______________

    3. That the former Guardian ad Litem is not entitled to any attorneys or other fees

    or expenses related to her filing of a Motion for Contempt against the Defendant and following her withdrawal from the family matter.

    ORDER GRANTED/DENIED

    JUDGE/CLERK DATED: ______________

  • 6

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that the foregoing Defendants Motion for Order was sent by electronic

    mail and fax to Plaintiffs counsel, and other counsel not parties to the case and as

    listed below on this, the 12th day of November, 2014:

    Plaintiff: Attorney Keith Yagaloff 1343 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Phone: 860-432-5400 Fax: 860-432-5402

    Defendant: Attorney Matthew Carlone 81 Wolcott Hill Road Wethersfield, CT 06109 Phone: 860-563-9494 Fax: 860-563-6088

    Non-parties: Attorney Rhonda Morra 55 Airport Road, Suite 202 Hartford, CT 06114 Phone: 860-296-2231 Fax: 860-296-2343

    Attorney Adam Teller Leone, Throwe, Teller & Nagle 33 Connecticut Boulevard East Hartford, CT 06128-0225 Phone: 860-528-2145 Fax: 860-282-1539

    ___________________ Signed, The Defendant Peter T. Szymonik 43 Edgewood Lane Glastonbury, CT 06033 Phone: 860-614-7721 Fax: 860-812-2092