Peal lad CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH BeLTa Rew 810 INSTRUCTIONS SUPERIOR COURT oy 7 See the back/page 2 for Procedures and Technical Standards for Electronic Flag. icc go Bernt fax the backipage 2 of tis form tothe court Type or pint iby One cover sheet must be submited fr each document. fing party hal keep the signed copy ofthe pleading, document or other paper whe the aston s ponding. during any appeal period and sung any apploable appelate process The transmission revord of each fing shal be the fing pari’s confirmation of receipt by the Court Please do not cal the Clerks Otie to cont Tecept TO: The Superior Court named below. Judicial District at! Middlesex -RFTD [1 Geographical Area No. 1 Housing Session at: 7 sverite Matters at: [Smal Claims Area at Child Protection Session at Middletown 860,343.6423/8 60.343. 6589 FA12-4018627S (include prefix: for example, Cl, CP, CR, CV, FA, HC, JV, Ml, MV, SC, SP) [sor acaiment ara MOTION FOR ORDER AND REARGUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUDGEMENT, MOTION FOR MODIFICATION Taro rae / ¢g (Unless otherwise directed by the court, documents shall not be more than 20 pages (nctucing cover sheet) .) The filing party assumes the risk of incomplete transmission or other factors that result in the document not being accepted for filing. PRT TT TESTS WS COST TTY TRG Alisha G. Mathers, Esq. 11/2015, Fro1 am an attomey or law firm excluded from e-fling: [] Yes [] No Juris number: Tapa amber CU ea ody FE RAD TREIGS TER TR] 860.817.3837 | To Be Completed By The Court Only The document was not filed by the clerk's office for the following reason(s): ‘The document is not in compliance with procedures and technical standards established by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator. See the Judicial Branch procedure at wwajud.ct.gov. The document is longer than 20 pages. (Cl The document is: [J incomplete.) iilegibt. C1 The document was not accompanied by the required fax cover sheet. 1] The document was faxed to the wrong court. other Under the Procedures and Technical Standards for Electronic Filing set up by the Office of the Chief Court Administrator, the documents will not be returned by the clerk. Fram (Pas an) aie The information contained inthis facsimile message may be privileged and confidential and is intended only forthe use ofthe individual or ‘entity named above. ifthe reader ofthis isnot the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. f you receive this communication in error, please noUty the sender immediately.v 3) STATE OF CONNECTICUT DOCKET NO. : FA 12-4065159 S SUPERIOR COURT TANYA A. TAUPIER, JUDICIAL OF HARTFORD AT HARTFORD. EDWARD F. TAUPIER, OCTOBER 26, 2015 MOTION FOR ORDER AND REARGUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUDGEMENT ‘ATTORNEY (Post-judgmem) Edward F. Taupier (Father/ Defendant) in the above represents as follows: iptioned matter respectfully On 8/28/2015, the Superior Court (Court), Pinkus, J., entered Judgment (Ct. Doe. #191.00) after trial in the above captioned matter by way of a Memorandum of Decision (Ct. 190.00). Said Memorandum of Decision (MOD) included the following order #10. ‘The Court issued Orders: 131.00 / 10/15/2013 - AGREEMENT - RESULT: Order 10/15/2013 HON MICHAEL ALBIS. Where Father/Defendant would be reimbursed for the repairs on the home. The Court issued Orders were ignored by the Court, Attorney Hurvitz, and Tanya A. Taupier (Mother/Plaintift) in regards to the repairs to the home. The Attomey and Court never had jurisdiction in the home property matter and are not a party to the Contract to the mortgagee or the litigating parties to the case. The terms of the Order, including monetary reimbursement, were violated by Mother/Plaintiff resulting in sustained damage to the property, negative impact of the property’s value, interference the purchasers” ability to obtain financing in order to execute the buy and sell, agreement and forced termination of equitable title transfer to the purchasers. In May of 2015, Father/Defendant was ordered to pay the mortgage and, subsequently, the state issued an Order to release of the repair money to Father/Defendant. This Order was ignored by the Court and parties, namely, Attorney Mr. Hurvitz (Hurvitz), the mother/plaintiff and Attorney Ficarra (Ficarra), and directly violated and/or facilitated violation of the Order in regards to monetary compensation and reimbursement to be paid to father/defendant. The named parties have also violated the Order by refusing to pay for the following shared costs associated with the property repai4) Mother/plaintiff’s Home owners deductable $1,000.00, responsibility = $500.00 Public Adjuster payment Mother/plaintif’s —_ $1,877.91 responsibility = $938.50 | Home office inspection uae Mother/plaintif's to enable home sale responsibility = $2437.50 Home packing and $3,328.00 Mother/plaintif's loving to enable repairs | . responsibility = $1,664.00 Total payment owed to Father/defendant from Mother/plaintiff for property repairs Total repair costs $5,539.50 Court Order # 131 — 10/15/2015, orders monies to be placed in an escrow account to pay for the property repairs and the repairing company/vendor and such monies to be released by Hurvitz. Contrary to the Order, Hurvitz refused to pay for the repairs and father/defendant was forced to file a grievance complaint with CT BAR and CT Court Commissioner for the release of escrowed funds. Despite father/defendant’s earnest efforts to encourage proper actions of the Court and parties in order to comply and to maintain Orders, his efforts were thwarted and derailed by the Court’s inability and unwillingness to enforce Orders and by apparent and sabotaging actions of the mother/plaintiff and Hurvitz, the property was left in disrepair. Such action violates the CT insurance commission and the property rights of the home owners. Additionally, these Orders were never deemed void and the Court remains mute in providing any explanation regarding its disinterest in following and enforcing judicial administration in the MOD. More profoundly, mother/plaintiff was awarded the escrowed monies, which violates CT insurances commission’s rules and policies regarding mortgage interests as well as Public Act 96-105; escrow funds cannot be re-allocated without an agreement or a hearing, as required by law regarding its use and disbursement by the escrow agent. Thusly, property repair costs, which are unpaid and accruing, as a direct result of the Court, mother/plaintiff and Attorney Hurvitz’s willful negligence and sabotage, is at $17,000.00 plus interest and. subsequent damages. Court eliminated father/defendant’s inalienable rights as the People of the state following an allegation of an electronic mail for private audience of friends containing moral-lacking descriptions of certain Court employees whose salaries are compensated by the People. The Court issued, without due process, severe and punitive restrictions including cruel and unusual punishment by requiring father/defendant’s bail/bond equivalent to 1.25 Million dollars and ankle monitoring devices (which have caused physical stress and injuries), a punitive and retaliatory in nature based on egregious and unjust actions by the Court and its Judges and clearly demonstrates to the People that significant bias and well-documented impropriety occurring in the CT Superior legal system. It is paramount to note that father/defendant’s restricted movement and eliminated freedom has caused him to become unemployed and financially ruined; by the Court’s illegal, retaliatory actions, father/defendant was guaranteed 2+ 6%) yn in the loss of decades-long of healthy income and rising projectury of successful career, and remains on house arrest, 16 months after trumped-up charges of crimes he never committed. The mother/plaintiff exercised financial abuse by carrying out unilateral decisions to hinder and harm the father/defendant, As an example, mother/plaintiff cancelled father/defendant's life-insurance policy pending final dissolution of marriage and admitted of such action as recorded in the MOD. In order to minimize mother/plaintiff’s exhaustive efforts to harass and hinder father/defendant’s financial state, he requested, numerous times, to remove herself from the management of the finances and to lower her relentless desire to sabotage his financial rights. With the Court and mother/plaintiff's vindictive actions, defendant is now on state welfare for SNAP and receives $6.64 a day or $194.00 per month to feed himself and his two children (22 meals) a month based on the current and unjust visitation plan. On 9/25/2015, mother/plaintiff unilaterally usurped the Court’s responsibility and power to enforce the MOD Order regarding alimony payments of $300/week to father/defendant in violation of Alimony § 46b-82 (Alimony) “...an order to either party to contract with a third party for periodic payments or payments contingent on a life to the other party...” See attached letter, and excerpt below: ‘As of today, 09.25.15, the mortgage that was due on 09.02.25 has not been paid. have Submitted payment, effective today, for the September mortgage for a total of $3,150.74; this includes $3,038.09 for the mortgage and $112.68 for late fees, Iwill deduct the total amount of 33,150.74 from today’s alimony payment and from the next ten weeks of payments per item 9 of the 08.28.45 order. 11am also enclosing COBRA enrollment information to facilitate your enrollment should you choose to obtain COBRA benefits ‘No alimony has been paid to date and father/defendant wishes that the Alimony be modified from 2 yrs to 4 yrs, and from $300.00/week to $1200.00/week to provide food and clothing to his children and to issue a Wage Garnishment Order to prevent mother/plaintiff from further violating Alimony obligation and harming the children. The Court may have erred while issuing a disproportionate alimony payment schedule based on mother/plaintiffs yearly salary of $300,000.00 while the father/defendant is forced into state assistance and without relief. The father/defendant has been made a ward of the state by the issuing of the MOD and the unusually low amount alimony, no child support and a two-year limit on the alimony, which has been unilaterally altered by mother/plaintiff, without required due process. It is the father/defendant’s belief that the Court used three factors in determining due process requirements. These factors, first laid out in Mathews v, Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 903, (1976) and again cited in Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27-32, were: i. (1) the private interest at stake: (2) the governmental interest; and iii, (3) the risk of error or injustice. Be.8) %» The private interest in this case is the “right to “the companionship, care, custody and ‘management of his or her children’...an important interest that ‘undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.”” 91 S.W.3d at 9, citing Lassiter, 452 U.S. at 27. The state’s interest was twofold: “a parent’s patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child and a fiscal and administrative interest in reducing the cost and burden of such proceedings.” Id. at 9, The court noted that the risk of error was high in such a setting, because “a parent whose parental rights are hindered and severely affected due to counsel's deficiencies has no meaningful remedy to cure such erro Id. at 11, After weighing the state's interest against the father’s interest and the risk of error, the court should change the decision of alimony and the amount to allow the father the rightful access to his children and provide for them in a nominal effective manner. The father/defendant is traveling and saddled with all transportation responsibilities and costs, This is punitive and costly for a non-custody party while placed on house arrest and without employment by way of basic human and legal rights violations. The Court is ignorant of impact of its decisions or is intentionally destructive to its People. Either way, the father/defendant is committed to 240 — 360 miles a week with all full and wear and tear on family vehicles due to the third party drop off requirement based on fraudulently issued Protective Order transference to the bail and bond conditions by the Court. ‘The Connecticut Supreme Court recently announced a new test that judges must apply when ruling upon petitions to increase alimony awards. In Dan v. Dan, 315 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2014) the Supreme Court held that a substantial increase in a supporting spouse’s income, standing alone, will not ordinarily justify an upwards modification in alimony, absent exceptional circumstances. More specifically, to justify an upward modification, the court must (also) find that the original award was insufficient to satisfy the “purposes” of the original award. For example: Suppose the “purpose” of the alimony award was to provide the Defendant with the same standard of living he enjoyed during the marriage. Then suppose (also) that when the original alimony award entered — the Plaintiff lacked sufficient funds with which to provide that standard of living. If the Wife’s income increases in the future -- the court may increase the award. If — however — the original award was sufficient to allow the Husband to enjoy the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage — a court may not inerease the alimony award. In other words: a court cannot order someone to provide their former spouse with a better standard of living than they enjoyed during the marriage. The standard of living enjoyed during the marriage — is the upper limit. The father/defendant is well below the living standard and has been forced into state aid and indigent status, as well as unjustly deprived of his ability to earn and maintain his income. ‘The Court is now holding the children hostage to an indigent parent’s (by way of Court's violation of People’s rights) ability to co-parent by coercing friends and family for money and vehicles while preventing him from employment with no means of income and no state subsidy to pay for these third party services in order to continue his parent-child relationship with his children. Such egregious, forced arrangement forced upon father/defendant is unconstitutional and direct hinders the innate love and bond between him and his children, 4The alimony and/or child support, would provide the means to remove this forced agreement of coercion by the Court of (inequity and remove the father/defendant from indigence and a ward of the state. The Court, by creating an un-equitable plan for alimony and child support created a situation where the children are subject to a parent’s inability to pay to have access to their father, whom they share deep love and bond and was and is a primary parental figure, based on their (in)ability to pay to have access to the children. This Divorce MOD strategy amounts to coercion and child trafficking base on a litigant’s (in) ability to pay for access. ‘The Court has a duty and obligation to remove these insidious conditions that are in direct harm to the children and their relationship to their collective parents. 10) The mother/plaintiff has been traveling for her employment and leaving the children with a suspected pedophile and preventing the father/defendant from daily phone call access. The mother/defendant has intensely misinformed the child-care providers regarding the daily phone calls and has prevented the father/defendant from having open and private calls with his children while in third party care. The care providers encouraged and instructed to create hostile living environments and prevent the children from having private access to their loving father. These actions are in direct contrast to the best interest of the children and has been documented in their school by teachers and principals and administrators with over a dozen ODR’s and in-school suspensions. Severe disciplinary issues are being documented in school all caused abrupt and unplanned transitions by the children being shuffled into unfamiliar surroundings and circumstances while having to endure traumatizing separation from their primary attachment figure - their father. The school is now relying on father/defendant as the contact parent of choice due to the willful lack of involvement from the mother/plaintiff. 11) On 8/10/2015 the mother/plaintiff dispatched the children to the aforementioned suspected child abuser’s home. The child abuser has engaged in meaningful understanding of children’s location and self-disclosed emotional distress by interrupting the phone conversations between them and their father. The father/defendant requested the East Windsor police to conduct a wellness check @ 7:40pm. When the police arrived, children were not around to be viewed at the home and the homeowner Steve Moule, stated the father was lying and it was a false accusation of kidnapping. A few days later I was informed by the children that they ‘were hurried from the home and made to hide in a nearby forest to avoid any issues with the police. The defendant's phone call to the East Windsor Police was recorded and is a matter of record, the defendant never stated the children were kidnapped. The children were being hidden from the police and from the wellness check. The defendant asked the court to climinate this couple from access to the children unless supervised by his family. 12) Both Children are suffering under the weight of one parent having sole custody and that parent having little or no desire to be a significant parental figure in their present lives. The School is now relying on the non custodial parent to support the children in the school environment. Sara the daughter has had more than 7 Office Disciplinary Referrals or issues and 3 in school suspensions. This is very out of character and can be tied directly to the lack of parental support by the mother/plaintiff and her work related travel commitments and 2dispatch children to alternate living arrangements. The mother/plaintiff has also been threatening the Daughter with police arrest and action if Sara does not directly comply with the mother/plaintiff demands in the apt in Ellington, documented by the school. 13) The mother/plaintiff — has repeatedly created an unstable and harmful environment for the children. The Plaintiff has moved again to a new apartment and disrupted the children routines and lives in Nov 2015. The mother/plaintiff and her attorney failed to notify the Father of the move and then in a panic tried to alert the father/defendant of the move in the hopes the father would not drop the children off at the old apartment. 14) The mother/plaintiff has been calling police on the father while the father/defendant has been transitioning the children to their apartment in Ellington, CT. ‘The father/defendant was stopped by the resident town trooper in his automobile while the process of transitioning the children and intentionally exposing the children to the CT STATE POLICE THUGGERY (¥132457-1-1SMI). The officer said he was responding to a civil court violation reported by the Plaintiff, the State Police have no jurisdiction on civil court order violations and was harassing and intimidating the Defendant and his children. Additionally the mother/plaintiff has been waiting for the children to be dropped off and then call the state police saying she could see the defendant, yet has never provided a description as to what the defendant was ‘wearing while the 1000 ft distance limit was being adhered to by the father/defendant. The plaintiff also hired a friend to drive around the apartment complex recklessly to intimidate or disrupt the transition of the children, coming so close as to almost have an accident with the third-party drop off who had the children in their possession. Itis the belief of the father/defendant the court orders should be modified to eliminate the drop off and make the mother responsible for providing transportation from the Children’s residence in Cromwell, or modifying the order for the father to have over nights on Tuesday and Thursday and Sundays in accordance to eliminate the harassment and intimidation of the mother/plaintiff and waste Law Enforeements time with nonsense and threatening behavior. 15) The mother/plaintiff and her attorney have made claims that “Prayers and home videos” are illegal and scary. The motions from the plaintiff and her council amount to harassment and frivolous waste of the court’s time. The CT Superior Court has a binding and legal obligation to follow the Constitution of the Unites States which has the first amendment freeing people from persecution from religion and speech. This defendant and counsel are petitioning the court to issue an order of leave the plaintiff and her attomey from filing false motions and asking the court to rule against the United States Constitution. This is not the first time the ‘Attorney Ficarra issued false contempt motions and is this defendant s belief that she will continue to harass the defendant and go directly against the statement of the Judge Barry Pinkus: January 12, 2015 ~ “One judge—currently Barry Pinkus—presides over and manages the docket. The goal is to handle contested cases involving children quickly and without interruption.” ‘These types of false motions do nothing but disrupt judicial efficiency, case flow and provide no value to the minor children. Additionally it’s been documented that Attorney Ficarra has no issue with filing incorrect motions “Aug 22 6-2014 — ex-parte contempt” motions and stated on the record she does whatever she can get away with and with total disregard for the CT Judicial Rules. The form of the contempt motions filed by Ficarra is not the proper “form” issued by the CT Judicial practice book. The CT Court Clerk should have recognized they were not the proper format/form and denied them. ‘The Prayer listed in the contempt motion is that of the Navy Seal warrior code: this is and has been published in thousand of articles and was made famous by Marcus Luttrell from: “The Lone Survivor” htips://marcuslutirell,con/bio/ - This is a prayer and warrior creed. These are the words that keep a warrior in the fight and aligned to protecting the ones around a warrior. The Children asked for a copy of the Defendant's daily prayer and wanted a copy to take home, The religious beliefs of a sovereign USA citizen are protected by the first amendment and the US Constitution; clearly Attomey Ficarra needs a constitutional refresher course and should be sanctioned to attend further schooling to reftesh her knowledge of the US Constitution and specifically the first amendment and contempt motion formations including the stated motion, stated violation and the state offered release. 16) The Plaintiff and attomey have an outstanding TAX preparation bill owed to the defendant, This bill was for $3100.00 and the defendant was ordered to pay half of the Tax preparation bill which was $1550.00. This money has never been paid and was ordered to be paid by the court. The Divorce trial presented this fee owed to the defendant and was never addressed by the Court, 17) The Structure by Design LLC vehicle was not a marital asset; it was leased and purchased by company owned by the entity Structure By Design LLC. This vehicle is a corporate asset, not a party to the case. The CT Superior court has no jurisdiction none the vehicle and the vehicle should be returned to the company and it owner. The Vehicle and its jurisdiction was that of a private entity. If the defendant worked for GE and had a company vehicle, the court would have jurisdiction to the vehicle that belonged to a separate legal entity. The Vehicle (2009 Honda Pilot) was and is a company asset, not a personal liability asset. The insurance is different and the asset is governed by significantly different law. IeGeraldine Ficarra #102516 3 Scholes Lane Essex, CT 06426 Tel. 860.767.8300 THE DEFENDANT EDWARD4 a CROMWELL, CT, 0646 Telephone No. (860) 807-2263CERTIFICATION Thereby certify that the forgoing Motion was electronically submitted to all counsel and self-represented parties of record this 27" day of October, 2015: Geraldine Ficarra, Esq. geraldineficarra@aol.com FAX -860-767-8600 MAR. Peck, Esq. MRPeck@sbeglobal.net FAX -860-767-860031 DOCKET NO. : FA 12-4065159 $ SUPERIOR COURT TANYA A. TAUPIER, JUDICIAL OF HARTFORD. Plaintiff AT HARTFORD EDWARD F. TAUPIER, OCTOBER 26, 2015 Defendent MOTION FOR MODIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUDGEMENT (Post-judgment) Edward F. Taupier (Defendant) in the above captioned matter respectfully represents as follows: - On 8/28/2015, the Superior Court (Court), Pinkus, J., entered Judgment (Ct. Doc. #191.00) after trial in the above captioned matter by way of a Memorandum of Decision (Ct. 190.00). Said Memorandum of Decision (MOD) included the following order #10. ‘The Court has no authority to make a divorce partner indigent under state statute, the court has every obligation under law to allow for the equitable distributions of equity and allow for both parents to enjoy life and liberty to pursuit life. The Defendant is requesting an increase in alimony to provide a home and a life for the children while in his custody during visitation. The plaintiff now has no alimony and no state SNAP support to feed the children, or provide living conditions they are accustomed to, a, The defendant asks the court for an increase in alimony from 300.00/week to $1,200.00/week, which will allow the defendant to remove himself from state assistance and provide for a home by making the entire mortgage payment. Also request is to increase the duration from alimony of 2 yrs to 4 yrs. ‘The Connecticut Supreme Court recently announced a new test judges must apply when ruling upon petitions to increase alimony awards. In Dan v. Dan, 315 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2014) the Supreme Court held that a substantial increase in a supporting spouse's income, standing alone, will not ordinarily Justify an upwards modification in alimony, absent exceptional circumstances. More specifically, to justify an upward modification, the court must (also) find that the original award was insu satisfy the “purposes” of the original award. For example: Suppose the “purpose” of the alimony award was to provide the Defendant with the same standard of living he enjoyed during the marriage Then suppose (also) that when the original alimony award entered — the Plaintiff lacked sufficient funds with which to provide that standard of living. If the plaintiff's income increases in the future — the court may inerease the award. If— however ~ the original award was sufficient to allow the defendant to enjoy the same standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage —a court may not increase the alimony award. In other words: a court cannot order someone to provide their former spouse with a better standard of living than they enjoyed during the marriage. The standard of living enjoyed during the marriage — is the upper limit. The defendant is well below the living standard and and has been forced into state aid and indigent status, as well as unjustly deprived of his ability to earn and maintain his income; the defendant is prevented from leaving the house and finding work on house Tearrest and his financial and career ability has been tainted with created portrayal of a violent criminal The plaintiff ears over $300,000 annually; and the award was punitive to the defendant by the court. a. The Defendant is deserving of, and asks for 1) a normal increase alimony to be able to remove himself from state assistance, 2) remove the clause of causing termination of alimony if the mortgage payment is defaulted and 3) to allow the children to restore their permanency and stability by remaining in the birth home and with their primary attachment parent, the fath« b. Inregards to permanency, stability and parent/child attachment, Conneticut’s 16-Factors for Child Custody, recognizes such importance as the child’s best interest. Plaintiff has failed to establish any permanent residence for the children and has moved 3 times in the last 2 years. 4. (Best Interest of Child) The court shall determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child. The court shall, or state otherwise based on proven facts and evidence: 41) The temperament and developmental needs of the child; 2) the capacity and the disposition of the parents to understand and meet the needs of the child; 3) any relevant and material information obtained from the child, including the informed preferences of the childs 4) the wishes of the child's parents as to custod, 85) the past and current interaction and relationship of the child with each parent, the child's siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the best interests of the child; 6) the willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage such continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent as is appropriate, including compliance with any court orders; (Mother exhaustively hinders scheduled phone calls between father and children and does not provide a way for the children to contact the father in an attenspt to reconnect disrupted phone calls) 7) any manipulation by or coereive behavior of the parents in an effort to involve the child in the parents’ dispute; (Mother calls police on father with false allegations in the presence of the children. Contemporaneously, children are punished by mother when they express discontent about the mother and love and admiration about the father) 8) the ability of each parent to be actively involved in the life ofthe child; 9) the child's adjustment to his or her home, school and community environments; 10) the length of time that the child has lived in a stable and satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining eontinuity in such environment, provided the court may consider favorably a parent who voluntarily leaves the child's family home pendente lite in order to alleviate stress in the household; 14) the stability of the child's existing or proposed residences, or both 12) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved, except that a disability of a proposed ‘custodial parent or other party, in and of itself, shall not be determinative of eustody unless the proposed custodial arrangement is not in the best interests of the child; 413) the child's cultural background; 44) the effect on the child of the actions of an abuser, if any domestic violence has occurred between the parents or between a parent and another individual or the child; 415) whether the child or a sibling of the child has been abused or neglected, as defined respectively in section 466-120; (Mother was aware of and neglects to address her child’s disclosure of sexual ‘molestation perpetuated by mother’s friend. To date, mother has failed or refused to protect her child from furtiver molestation and has repeatedly left both of her children with a known pedophile and without supervision) 16) whether the party satisfactorily completed participation in a parenting education program established pursuant to section 46b-69b. The court is not required to assign any weight to any of the factors that it eonsiders. &‘The court shall not consider conduct of a proposed custodian that does not affect his relationship to the child. The defendant has an amazing relationship with his children and they are disturbed that the court has no knowledge or interest in their need for their father - their primary attachment figure, or the fact that the mother is punishing and destructive to the children well-being and development. ‘The schoo! has established a trusting relationship with the father in the day-to-day management of the children in their school life, as well as destructive outcome and effects of their negative relationship with the mother who fails to provide love and support, as evidenced by ODR reports from school. The children have been utilized as tools in unnecessary and egregious actions of the Court and plaintiff against the defendant and suffer from LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME - so much so that they voluntarily and bravely expressed their dislikes of the Ellington school and desire to attend Cromwell schools which is in walking distance to their birth home. It is profoundly clear that a child custody war engineered and obsessed by the plaintiff and her attorney has imposed enormous expense - emotional and financial - on the defendant and the children, while freely absorbing and perverting People’s funds to facilitate fraudulent legal processes and its costs. The People’s appointment of a judicial system to facilitate legal processes for fair and honest outcomes has clearly diverged from the path of value and away from its intended purpose and sworn duties, thus severely undermining the love and affection of these children and their primary attachment figure. The Defendant is deserving of and requesting for the modification to Tuesday and Thursday visit schedule as follows: a. The children are deserving of and vehemently express their desire restore - at a minimum - overnights on Tuesday and Thursday with their father, rather than having to spend punishing commute of 3 hrs. They have repeatedly expressed their sadness and frustration to the father, mother and others that they do not wish to be shuffled with ridiculous commuting in order to satisfy their mother’s controlling tirades. The fact the Court would allow and order such punishment to the children is irresponsible, abusive of People’s given powers and punitive to the well-being of two intelligent and innocent children. The CT DCF standard is less than 40 min a day in a vehicle commuting. The Defendant respectfully request Tuesdays and Thursdays be overnight and allow the father to bring the children to school on the following mornings directly to school. This will eliminate excessive travel time and the need for third party drop off due to the egregious assigned protective conditions illegally assigned without a Bail and Bond hearing by the Court and resolve some of the children’s stressors. ‘The Defendant is deserving of and requests of orders that if the Court is vehement about ineareerating the defendant over crimes uncommitted by him and moves forward with their plans to silence him, that the family — blood family - of the defendant be allowed to pick the children up and have the regularly scheduled visitation for the children. Children to be able to remain in close contact with their family - 4 patemal uncles and aunts and paternal grandfather is paramount to their well-being the visits in their homes with family to help provide stability and consisteney to protect their emotional and mental state from deprivation of their father’s love and affection. a. Itis the children desire and the Defendant's family’s desire to allow the children access their blood family and receive emotional support through these tumultuous times. The Court has a duty and obligation to foster and encourage immediate families to love and. access the children and maintain their close relationship.‘The Judge requested information for a co-parenting counselor, which was provided by the Defendant. Itis the defendant's belief that the parties should be ordered to attend co-parenting counseling as requested by the Judge during the trial for the benefit of the children. a. The defendant is requesting the children be allowed to seek new behavioral therapy by an independent, accredited, reputable and neutral third party who accepts insurance. b. Such therapy to be provided and funded by the plaintiff while the defendant is indigent. ‘The mother/plaintiff has been traveling for her employment and leaving the children with a suspected pedophile and preventing the father/defendant from daily phone call access. The mother/defendant has intensely misinformed the child care providers regarding the daily phone calls and have prevented the father/defendant from having open and private calls with his children while in third party care. The care providers encouraged and instructed to create hostile living environments and prevent the children from having private access to their loving father. These actions are in direct contrast to the best interest of the children and have been documented in their school by teachers and principals and administrators with over a dozen ODR’s and in-school suspensions. Severe disciplinary issues are being documented in school all caused abrupt and unplanned transitions by the children being shuffled into unfamiliar surroundings and circumstances while having to endure traumatizing separation from their primary attachment figure their father. The school is now relying on father/defendant as the contact parent of choice due to the willful lack of involvement from the mother/plaintiff. a, The Defendant is deserving of and requests that his visitations be restored, minimally, with over-nights on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and Sundays (during weekend visits) and to facilitate and supervise school work. Children are deserving of and wishes SKYPE time with their defendant; the mother has initiated and obtained a no-electronic policy in the home after 8pm. The call from the children to the father is now severely disrupted and the father has no equal time due to this enforcement. ‘The children vehemently request access to their father on a daily basis to discuss issues, events and problems associated with daily life. The plaintiff has instituted policies to stress the children by implementing withholding of activities such as enjoying electronics only when they are allowed to talk to their father. The children know how to use SKYPE and want to call the father on the SKYPE to see and interact with on a daily basis. They are equipped with the electronic device and accounts and the plaintiff is hostile and intentionally interfering their wishes to maintain and to nurture their relationship with their father through the SKYPE system. ‘The Plaintiff has moved apartments again and has chosen not to move closer to the Birth Home and residence in Cromwell. The Distance is still 28 miles one way for the commute and the mother has also not provided the children, father nor the third parties with the new home number. The plaintiff gave no notice of the move, the mother’s attorney called frantically the day after the move while the children were in transit. Her attorney made an emergency call to the Defendant stating that there was a new address, but failed to provide any written notification of the move. The continuous lack of notice and hostile co-parenting decisions is implemented relentlessly by the plaintiff and with no regard - whatsoever - to the children and their deserving peace of mind. Additionally, children are forced, at the manufacturing and delivery of their mother and to become messengers of pertinent information and undue stress. a. The request for the court to issue orders to state clearly that transition of residence should be minimal and well planned; children are not to be the messengers of the new apartment's oolocation, If the plaintiff is going to move again, she should comply with the May 2013 order and move within the 10 Mile radius of the birth home ruling set forth by the agreement in May 2013. 9. Both Children are suffering under the weight of one parent, the plaintiff having sole custody and having little or no desire to be a significant parental figure in their present lives. The School is now relying on the non custodial parent, the defendant to support the children in the school environment. Sara the daughter has had more than 7 Office Disciplinary Referrals (ODR) or behavioral concems and 3 in-school suspensions. This is an out of character behavior and is tied directly to the lack of parental support by the Plaintiff and her work related travel commitments resulting in dispatching the children to alternate living arrangements, which has been disclosed as abusive. The plaintiff has also been threatening the child with police-arrest and incarceration if she does not directly comply with the plaintifs angry and frightening demands in the apt in Ellington, documented by the school. a. ‘The defendant is deserving of and requesting a change in custody to shared legal and physical custody, due to 1) the significant and ever-appatent abuse of digression by the court which lacks foundation and substance and 2) plaintiff's apparent display of disinterest and hostility toward her own children 10. In an example of the plaintiff's relentless and frivolous retaliation against the defendant, she initiated false report to the Ellington police department regarding the protective order. On one occasion, while the Defendant was transitioning the children to their apartment in Ellington, CT, he was stopped by the resident town trooper in his vehicle while the process of transitioning the children and intentionally exposing the children to the CT STATE POLICE THUGGERY (Y132457-1-15MI). The officer said he was responding to a civil court violation reported by the Plaintiff, the State Police have no jurisdiction on civil court order violations and was harassing and intimidating the Defendant and his children, The Plaintiff claimed to have seen the defendant, while waiting for the children to be dropped off but was unable to describe the defendant's location or appearance. The plaintiff also hired a friend to drive around the apartment complex recklessly to intimidate or disrupt the transition of the children, coming so close as to nearly causing an accident with the third-party drop off who had the children in their possession and displaying complete disregard to the safety of the children. a. Itis the belief of the defendant the court orders should be modified to eliminate the drop off and make the mother responsible for providing transportation from the Children’s residence in Cromwell, or modifying the order for the father to have over nights on Tuesday and Thursday and Sundays in accordance to eliminate the harassment and intimidation of the Plaintiff and waste Law Enforcements time with nonsense and threatening behavior. intiffand her attomey have made false claims that “prayers and home videos” are “illegal and scary.” The motions from the plaintiff and her council amount to harassment and frivolous waste of the court's time. The Court has a binding and legal obligation to follow the Constitution of the Unites States which has the first amendment freeing people from persecution from religion and speech. This defendant and counsel are petitioning the court to issue an order of leave the plaintiff and her attorney from filing false motions and asking the court to rule against the United States Constitution. This is not the first time the Attorney Ficarra issued false contempt motions and is this defendant s belief that she will continue to harass the defendant and go directly against the statement of the Judge Barry Pinkus: January 12, 2015 ~ “One judge—currently Barry Pinkus—presides over and manages the docket. The goal is to handle contested cases involving children quickly and without interruption.” ‘These type of false motions do nothing but distupt judicial efficiency, case flow and provide no value to the minor wechildren. Additionally its been documented that Attorney Ficarra has no issue with filing incorrect motions “Aug 22 2014 — ex-parte contempt” motions and stated on the record she does whatever she can get away with and with total disregard for the CT Judicial Rules. The form of the contempt motions filed by Ficarra is not the proper “form” issued by the CT Judicial practice book. The Court Cletk should have recognized they were not the proper forma/form and denied them. a. The defendant requests that the plaintiff and Attorney be made to file and order of LEAVE, prior to any and all future motions. The resolution of a custody dispute between parents or between parents and substitute parents is particularly difficult, not because of the complexity of the "rules" involved, but because of the nature of the problem. In both situations the child's existing family is disintegrating or threatening to disintegrate and the child can do little to keep it together - the child is “a victim of his environmental circumstances, he is greatly at risk." The chil “at risk" because his or her welfare, "both present and future, is usually profoundly affected by the court's resolution of the private dispute over who shall be entrusted with its care.” ‘The child is at risk also because he or she is likely to feel abandoned and experience grief. ‘No matter how the custodial arrangements are made, the child will sustain an inevitable deprivation, This deprivation is worsened by the Plaintiff's choice on the location of her apartment 28 miles from the birth home. Sara and Gabriel have had these deprivations for the past 3 yrs. Awareness of this fact will precipitate any of all of the possible grief responses in the child. The Children have become depressed [or] 'bad’, or may fail in such life tasks as school performance. Thus the child should be the focal point of such litigation. The courts must act in the context of litigation between adversaries who sometimes argue that their "rights" must be considered, but the "rights" of the adult litigants should not be the determining factor. In such disputes it is always the child/children who is not only the innocent victim, but who has the most at stake, Therefore, the courts should strive to further the child's best interests, not the adult litigants’ "rights." It is with these thoughts that the Defendant requests an order of leave to be ordered on the Plaintiff and her attomey to prevent further frivolous actions and false fraudulent motions.Plaintiff Trial Counsel Geraldine Ficarra #102516 3 Scholes Lane Essex, CT 06426 Tel. 860.767.8300 THE DEFENDANT EDWARD TAUPIER Telephone No. (860) 807-2263CERTIFICATION Thereby certify that the foregoing Motion was electronically submitted to all counsel and self- represented parties of record this 27" day of October, 2015: Geraldine Ficarra, sq11/08/2015 21:47 FAX oor Indiana kinda kik *#* ACTIVITY REPORT Hidodaa cio ASG RE ST. TIME DESTINATION NUMBER I DESTINATION ID NO. MODE PGS. | RESULT *08/07 0 8606462096) 0225] TRANSMIT ECM| A}OK 00°37, +08/07 07 8606457540 0226] TRANSMIT ECM] 40K 00°38) +08/07 1 8603436566 0228| TRANSMIT ECM) 3/0K —00'38 +08/07 1 8603436423 0227] TRANSMIT ECM) 30K 00"33 +08/14 1 860621 3065 0229| TRANSMIT ECM] -2}0K ~—00'33) +08/14 17:09 8608075083) 0290) TRANSMIT | 0}NG 00°09) 0 STOP 08/14 17:15 8607065083| 0231) TRANSMIT ECM 4] 0K 01°09 *08/17 14:47) 8607065083) 0232) TRANSMIT ECM| 3/0K 00°50 *08/17 14:49, 8607065073) 0233) TRANSMIT ECM 4)0K 01°19) *09/15 18:20 8605220130] 0234) TRANSMIT ECM 2|0K 00°51 +09/15 19:02 8606213065 | 0295| TRANSMIT ECM) 2/0K 0025 *09/18 15:53) 8602336276) |) 0236] TRANSMIT ‘ECM 6}0K 02°30} +09/18 15:56 8607065083 0237| TRANSMIT ECM) 4|OK 0101 *11/08 17:39) 8603436423| 0238) TRANSMIT ECM 2) 0K 00°39) *11/08 17:40) 8603436589; | 0239) TRANSMIT ECM 2)0K 00°39) *11/08 17:42) 8607678600) 0240) TRANSMIT G3) 2/0K 01'33| 11/08 21:25) 8603436423) 0241| TRANSMIT COL| O|NG = 00°11 | | #085 | 11/08 21:27 8608436423] «¢— 0242| TRANSMIT cul /18/0K) 03°47| 11/08 21:31 8603436589, —— 0243) TRANSMIT ECM) { 18/0K | 03°46) 11/08 21:36 8607678600|<<— o24al TRANSMIT 63 | NagoK/_11'07