Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2016 October 9 DEF Mot To Art

    Uploaded by

    Peter T Szymonik
    5 views18 pages
    Motion to Articulate. The Hartford Family Court attempting to ignore and hide evidence of Keith Yagaloff criminal exploitation and manipulation of a child with autism to promote Yagaloff's own personal agenda and personal financial interests Yagaloff assumed in the matter.

    Original Title

    2016 October 9 DEF Mot to Art

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Motion to Articulate. The Hartford Family Court attempting to ignore and hide evidence of Keith Yagaloff criminal exploitation and manipulation of a child with autism to promote Yagaloff's own personal agenda and personal financial interests Yagaloff assumed in the matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views18 pages

    2016 October 9 DEF Mot To Art

    Uploaded by

    Peter T Szymonik
    Motion to Articulate. The Hartford Family Court attempting to ignore and hide evidence of Keith Yagaloff criminal exploitation and manipulation of a child with autism to promote Yagaloff's own personal agenda and personal financial interests Yagaloff assumed in the matter.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    FACSIMILE FILING CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH oa instrucTIONS SUPERIOR COURT 1. See the back/page 2 for Procedures and Technical Standards for Electronic Filing. Ce eee 2. Do not fax the back/page 2 of this form to the court. 3 Type or pit egy: One cover sheet must be submited foreach document + The fing party shal keop the sgned copy ofthe pleading, dacuinent of ether paper while 6: Th traiseon ord ofeach Mg anol be he anna cereale serail races Court Please do nat call the Clerks Oice fo confimnacept ” TO: The Superior Court named below. [Judicial District at: HARTFORD (C1 Geographical Area No. 1 Housing Session at: 1 Juvenile Matters at: Small Claims Area at: (C1 Child Protection Session at Middletown [Fara a ————— (860) 706-5083 eT HHD-FA06-4027147-S. (Include prefix: for example, Cl, CP, CR, CV, FA, HC, JV, MI, MV, SC, SP) Tee ame DEF Motion for Articulation, Reconsideration and Rehearing rT (Unless otherwise directed by the court, documents shall not be more than 20 pages (including cover sheet) .) The filing party assumes the risk of incomplete transmission or other factors that result in the document. not being accepted for fling. a POSS BORG SE FSET ro From: | peter. Szymonik torosr2016 |1am an attorney o law firm excluded from eving: [] Yes [] No Juris number: Teagan TER TRUER wr GT FTE IGOR oe SRT (860) 614-7721 (860) 812-2092 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 www.jud.ct gov. 1] The document is longer than 20 pages. [J The documentis: [1] incomplete. — ] ilegibe. C1 The document was not accompanied by the required fax cover sheet. C1 The document was faxed to the wrong court DD 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. Fra (Pi mare ae) Dae The information contained in this facsimile message may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or ‘entity named above. ifthe reader of tis is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communleation Is strictly prohibited. If ou receive this communication in error, please notify the sender immediatly. HHD-FA06-4027147-S SUPERIOR COURT STEPHANIE SANS (SZYMONIK) 4D. OF HARTFORD. v. 5 AT HARTFORD PETER T. SZYMONIK cE OCTOBER 9, 2016 MOTION FOR ARTICULATION, RECONSIDERATION AND REHEARING Defendant in the above referenced matter, in his individual capacity (and having a Pro Se appearance in addition to the representation of counsel), respectfully requests that the Court articulate, reconsider and rehear Defendant's complaint regarding Plaintiff's counsel misconduct due to procedural and other error, and the following reasons. L BRIEF HISTORY: Defendant filed a request of this Court to review misconduct on the part of Plaintiff's counsel in January of 2016, Defendant amended said compliant in February of 2016. Defendant was forced to bring the misconduct directly to the Court’s attention given the Court’s refusal to even hear three Emergency Ex Parte motions, and other motions, filed by the Defendant from. March 2015 through September of 2015, denying him access to justice. Defendant filed these motions to ask the Court to address the Plaintiff's (and her counsel's) ongoing violations of this Court’s orders and to seek relief from the Court for his sons given the very real harm the Plaintifi (and her counsel's) actions were causing (and continue to cause) the parties’ minor child with autism, his education and his school attendance. In its October 4, 2016 Memorandum of Decision, the Court acknowledged that it did not schedule a hearing to review the serious complaints of misconduct the Defendant brought the Court’s attention in January and February of 2016, in addition to the Court refusing to accept or offer the Defendant proper hearing of the issues adversely impacting his children which the Defendant repeatedly attempted to bring the Court’s attention in 2015. During a hearing held on July 14, 2016, the Court finally heard the Defendant, and only after the Defendant was forced to cite and argue relevant Practice Book sections and Judicial ‘Canons to bring the claim of attomey misconduct to judicial attention. In response, the Court finally ordered a hearing to examine Defendant’s complaint, and this hearing was not held until September 22, 2016. IL PROCEDURIAL ERROR A. Scope of the Hearing At the July 14, 2016 hearing, the Court instructed that another judge would need to review the Defendant’s complaint in order to avoid a mistrial. The Court instructed the Defendant and Plaintiff's counsel to go to caseflow and to set dates for the hearing. Defendant and Plaintiff's counsel mutually agreed that two days’ worth of hearings would be required to hear and examine all of evidence and testimony required. Case flow scheduled the hearing for September 22-23" Defendant submitted trial compliance in August on the necessary premise that the Court granted a full evidentiary hearing, including judicial review of all evidence and testimony related to-all of the issues raised in the Defendant’s complaints. Defendant's trial compliance therefore necessarily included substantial supporting evidence and a list of six (6) key witnesses to Mr. ‘Yagaloff’s misconduct, most notably school officials, and Mr. Yagaloff himself. No objection was raised by Mr. Yagaloff to the Defendant’s proposed evidence, or his, witness list, either prior to or during the September 22™ hearing. (At the start of the hearing, Defendant brought to the Court’s attention that Mr. Yagaloff failed to comply with trial compliance, yet the Court allowed the hearing to proceed.) Defendant subsequentially obtained and reviewed the transcript of the July 14 hearing reflecting the Court’s actual direction in regards to upcoming September hearings. On Page 27 of the transcript, the Court stated as follows: “THE COURT; You need to go to case flow to have a hearing on your motion for review of attorney's conduct ~ sit down, Attomey Yagaloff. You have your hearing on that motion, and the sole issue before — in that motion, is whether or not Attorney Yagaloff is going to become a witness in this proceeding.” ‘The Court incorrectly stated that the sole issue in the motions and complaint before the Court related to Mr. Yagaloff being a witness in the proceeding. However, the Court’s instruction in regards to the scope of the hearing was clear. On Page 11 of the transcript, the court states the following: “MR. SZYMONIK: This is -- this is why I’m asking for an evidentiary hearing, Your Honor. Right now, on this phone I can play back for you a recording of a PPT meeting held at the school, which if the Court heard this PPT meeting alone, the first ten minutes would explain to the Court what the issue and problem is. With the Plaintiff's counsel undermining the intent of the orders of this Court, point blank on this — on this telephone, if the Court would just like to hear it. THE COURT: Well, is that going to make him a witness in this —~ MR. SZYMONIK: Absolutely. He --- he’s —- he’s a witness now influencing [sic] himself in the matter before ~ the question before — the Court’s asked, is has there been a change in circumstance; absolutely. THE COURT: No, no — MR. SZYMONIK: The change in circumstance is the involvement of Plaintiff" counsel; he should be called as a witness. He’s involved himself in the matter. He no longer has clean hands, He should be disqualified as an attorney for [sic] my opinion. That's almost happened before.” ‘And on Pages 14-15 of the transcript: “ATTY. YAGALOFF: Yes, your Honor. So Your Honor what he’s saying is completely false and —* “THE COURT: So don’t tell me that he’s wrong; just tell me — or it’s false; just tell me how you wish to respond —“ Inits instruction regarding the scope of the hearing, the Court limited the scope to the sole issue of whether or not Mr. Yagaloff would become a witness in the matter. The Court did not instruct that the hearing would include, require, or even allow the Defendant to present evidence and testimony to support to all of the claims of malfeasance, unethical conduct, exploitation of the autistic child, and other grave issues raised by the Defendant in his complaint. The Court did not instruct that the hearing would establish whether or not Mr. Yagaloff was a material or necessary witness in the matter. The Court’s direction was that the hearing was solely to establish whether or not Mr, Yagaloff was a witness in the active family proceeding, and that this determination would need to be made before the family matter could proceed. This important distinction was argued and reinforced during the September 22” hearing During this hearing, the Court agreed that the sole issue before the Court was whether or not Mr. Yagaloff was “a witness”. ‘The Court did not instruct or make any statements during the course of the hearing reflecting that the purpose of the hearing was to hear or make a final determination related to all of the events and complaints described in the Defendant’s motions The Court echoed Judge Suarez’s instruction that the sole issue before the Court was whether or not Mr. Yagaloff was a witness. That after said finding, the issue would be returned ‘to Judge Suarez, as the judge presiding over the family matter. That Judge Suarez would then further review and consider the potential impact on the family court proceeding. Which would necessarily include presenting the Defendant the opportunity to call his witnesses and present further evidence around the impact of Mr. Yagaloff’s personal involvement with the minor children as related to the Plaintiff's claims motions before the Court, including potentially calling ‘Mr. Yagaloff as a witness himself. This is supported by statements made by Judge Suarez. during the July 14" hearing. Judge Suarez stated that the reason he needed another judge to examine the sole issue of whether Mr. Yagaloff was a witness in the family matter (not a material or necessary witness) was to avoid a mistrial. At no time did Judge Suarez state that the other judge would rule on and make a final determination in regards to the Defendant's complaint before the Court B. Evidence Review and Witnesses Defendant stated at the beginning of the September 22™ hearing that in response to Judge ‘Suarez’s direction and instruction, that the Defendant would limit his production of evidence and testimony, as directed, solely and exclusively to establishing whether or not Mr. Yagaloff was a witness and in the interest of judicial economy. The Court did not direct or instruct the Defendant otherwise, or at any time offer that that Court was intending to hear and rule on the entirety of the Defendant’s complaint. Defendant repeatedly raised the issue during the September 22™ hearing of whether or not the Court would require the Defendant to present Ms, Anita Russell, Director of Pupil Services, to authenticate and testify in regards to the electronic evidence submitted to the Court by the Defendant. The September 22, 2016 hearing concluded with the Court giving direction that it would first need to hear and review the evidence presented by the Defendant in camera and that the Court would then decide how best to proceed. The Court did not instruct that it was concluding a hearing into alleged misconduct on the part of Mr., Yagaloff, or that the in camera review of the recordings would result in the Court issuing a final ruling on the Defendant's motions or complaints. As such, the Court offered no opportunity for argument or testimony to be heard prior to making its final ruling, reflecting a denial of due process. The in camera review of the evidence was solely to establish whether or not the evidence submitted would need to be authenticated by Ms. Russell and if the recordings alone would suffice to allow the Court to establish whether or not Mr. Yagaloff was a witness. Most notably, at no point during the hearing, nor at the conclusion of the hearing, did Mr. ‘Yagaloff disagree, object or argue otherwise. Mr. Yagaloff agreed and understood as well that the hearing scheduled for the following day would not proceed in light of the Court, representation that it first needing to review the electronic evidence before deciding how to proceed, nor did Mr. Yagaloff (or the Defendant) state to the Court that they were resting their arguments, C. Evidentiary Issues On September 22%, the Defendant submitted to the Court a USB key containing three recordings of school meetings provided to him by the Glastonbury School System and Ms, Anita Russell, Director of Pupil Services. ‘The Defendant offered to also provide the Court a copy of the letter from Ms. Russell dated March 28, 2016, detailing what the USB key contained, but the Court did not believe the admission of this letter was necessary (in part, because such authentication might be better achieved by calling Ms. Russell as a witness, if the Court deemed this necessary.) The recordings on this USB key were titled as followed, reflecting recordings made by the school system of PPT meetings held on the following and corresponding dates: 1. Audio_12_11_2015_12_35_29 December 11, 2015 2. 2016-02-18 09-29- 2016-02-18 09-29 (1) February 18, 2016 3. 2016-03-15 11-07_2016-03-15 11-07 Mareh 15, 2016 ‘The Court concluded the hearing stating that it would need the assistance Court’s Information Technology personnel to access and listen to the recordings in camera. Defendant expresses a grave concern that an error occurred in the chain of custody related to this electronic evidence given the glaring inaccuracies in the Court’s description of what the USB key contained, As the Court incorrectly references the dates of these recordings as follows: “February 19, 2009, March 15, 2011, and December 11, 2015.” ‘Yet these were not the dates of the recordings provided or submitted into evidence, which ranged from December 11, 2015 through March 15, 2016. ‘The Court documents that the recordings did not reflect that the Plaintiff or Mr. Yagaloff ‘were identified as participants on these recordings. Yet this incorrect as at the start of each. recording, the school system’s counsel from Shipman and Goodwin is heard asking the meeting participants to go around the room to identify themselves. At the start of each recording, Mr. Yagaloff identifies himself, as does the Plaintiff for the two meetings she attended, ‘The Court’s representation that the recordings only reflect Mr. Yagaloff “...focused on obtaining information for the plaintiff from the PPT team” is a grossly inaccurate representation of Mr. Yagaloff’s true and actual role and participation as reflected in these recordings. It is extremely troubling and curious that the Court makes no reference to the fact that Mr. Yagaloff is heard personally and directly impacting and influencing these school meetings. ‘That the Court omits mention that Mr. Yagaloff was with the minor child and that Mr. Yagaloff attempted to force the minor child to testify and speak at these meetings — over the Defendant's and the school system’s objections. That the Court omits mention that Mr. Yagaloff disrupted these school meetings to the extent that he was repeatedly admonished and cautioned by the school system’s counsel regarding his egregious behavior and disruptive conduct. ‘The Court makes no mention that at one point, Mr. Yagaloff attended a PPT in place of the Plaintiff, acting as he himself was a decision making parent and as he attempted to “speak for the child.” The Court makes no mention of the fact that in another instance, Mr. Yagaloff is heard responding to a question in regards to the child’s medical care and proposed therapy without even first consulting with the Plaintiff. Itis very concerning and highly troubling, that the Court ignores and makes no reference to the fact that these recordings clearly reflect that Mr. Yagaloff: 1. Represented that he is “speaking for” the minor child with autism, when he has no right or authority to do so, 2. Attending the meeting via teleconference from the Plaintiff's home and sitting next to the inor cl 3. Exploited the minor child and his autism by attempting to force the child to speak at the PPT - exposing the child to extreme anxiety, emotional distress and risk of injury, and promoting the Plaintiff's efforts to alienate the child against his school system (and the Defendant. ) 4, Attempts to make a medical decision for the child, 5, Harassed the Defendant by completely dismissing and ignoring the Defendant's rights as a parent at these school meetings. None of this supports the Court’s very troubling conclusion or representation that Mr. ‘Yagaloff attending these school meetings solely as a “advisor and advocate” or solely to “obtain information.” These recordings reflect that Mr. Yagaloff directly involved himself with the child, which Mr. Yagaloff has not once denied and the Court should require him to testify to. Defendant respectfully asks the Court to articulate the process used to allow the Court to listen to these recordings in camera given these glaring errors and omissions of fact and to offer the opportunity to have the recording properly heard and examined before the Court. Defendant raises an additional concern that the Court's conclusions have been necessarily prejudiced by not offering the Defendant the opportunity to argue or to present further evidence or testimony in regards to the recordings in a full and proper evidentiary hearing, including presenting necessary witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the events reflected on the recordings, such failure against reflecting a violation of due process. IV. FINDING IN CONTRADICTION OF THE COURT’S ORDERS In its October 4, 2016 Memorandum of Decision, the Court makes references to case law reflecting that the Plaintiff has the legal right to engage counsel in her child’s school meetings. ‘The question of whether or not the Plaintiff has a right to engage an attorney in school mectings under state and federal law is not the issue before this Court, nor was this issue raised by the Defendant in his complaint. ‘The Court has omitted consideration that Mr. Yagaloff is not just “any attorney”. Mr. Yagaloff is a divorce attorney representing the Plaintiff in an active family and custody matter and therefore subject to all of the ethical and professional obligations such role requires. ‘The Court has failed to consider whether the Plaintiff was able and had a right to engage her divorce counsel with the parties’ minor child and in decisions directly impacting their educations -- in direct violation of this Court’s parenting and decision making orders, and in violation of the Defendant’s constitutional rights as an equal, fit and decision making parent. ‘The Court failed to consider if Mr. Yagaloff, as an Officer of Court, showed complete disregard for his professional and ethical obligations (and in spite of numerous cautions and warnings) by personally involving himself with the parties’ minor children during the course of active custody hearings. The Court failed to consider if Mr. Yagaloff has clean hands regarding the matter before the Court. Mr. Yagaloff’s involvement was not just that of “any attorney”, but an attomey who has directly impacted the testimony and evi ‘Yagaloff can testify to in regards to his intentions and his motivations. 1ce before the Court and given his activities, only Mr. This reflects outrageous conduct by “any attomey” which would not be tolerated in any other Court of equity or law. This reflects a very concerning scenario given that a child with autism is involved and his condition was taken advantage of by Mr. Yagaloff. The Court has completely sidestepped and ignored this issue in its October 4" Memorandum (and during the course of prior hearings) despite having heard ample testimony around this very troubling concern. Defendant notes that the case law cited does not include reference to any case or situation where an attorney in a family matter representing a party in an active custody matter personally 8 involved themselves with the parties’ minor children. The case law cited does not make reference any case or situation where one party in a custody matter involved their divorce counsel in school meetings in violation of court decision making and parenting orders, or in a manner which violates the Constitutional rights and wishes of the other and equal parent. To be clear, the Plaintiff's desire to involve and engage her divorce counsel with the minor children and their educations does not override or negate the Defendant's decision and direction that she does not. Especially given the Defendant’s concerns regarding the adverse impact such engagement had (and continues to have) on his sons. In the case of such dispute, the Court has made it very clear what process the Plaintiff must follow to resolve the dispute. The Defendant followed the Court’s decision making orders, the Plaintiff did not. To be clear, Mr. Yagaloff flagrantly, willingly and knowingly ignored and showed open contempt for this Court’s parenting orders. Mr. Yagaloff flagrantly ignored the Defendant's equal rights as a parent, his liberty interest rights as a parent and his Constitutional Rights to make decisions for his ct ren. Such act can only be deemed as nothing less than Mr. Yagaloff arrogantly operating on the assumption that ethical and professional standards of conduct and his obligation to uphold this Court's orders — simply to do not apply to him. The Court is obligated not allow this. In October 2013, the Court issued very clear parenting and decision making orders mandating that both parties consult with each other using OurFamilyWizard prior to any educational or medical decisions being made. Such decisions would necessarily include involving a divorce counsel with the minor children and their educations, using and engaging a divorce counsel to remove the child from his schoo! system in violation of this Court’s ‘educational orders, and forcing the minor child to testify against his educators in an emotionally abusive manner directly contrary to promoting the child’s full time attendance at school. In its finding, the Court necessarily implies that the Plaintiff (and Mr. Yagaloff) are under no obligation whatsoever to follow the Court’s parenting and educational and medical decision making orders. That the Plaintiff is under no obligation whatsoever to first consult with the Defendant regarding her desire to involve Mr. Yagaloff in the minor child’s school meetings and 9 in support of her efforts to remove the minor child from his school system — in direct violation of this Court's educational orders. That the Plaintiff may ignore the Defendant and outsource her parenting to him and allow him to make arbitrary and unilateral medical decisions for the child in her place and contrary to the Defendants wishes. ‘That the Plaintiff may allow Mr. Yagaloff to “speak for the chil provided to her by the Defendant to fund Mr. Yagaloff as her proxy and in order to burden, intimidate and harass the Defendant and his family members. That she may use Mr. Yagaloff to directly impact and influence the minor children against their school system and family members at school meetings. ‘That she may spend thousands of dollars of the monies are part of her relentless campaign to alienate the children and obtain full custody of them Y. TROUBLING PRECEDENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ‘The Court has set a very troubling and terrible precedent in conflict with public policy and state and federal law and statute by necessarily implying that Mr. Yagaloff (or any divorce counsel...) are under no professional or ethical obligation whatsoever not to personally involve themselves with the minor children during the course of active and open family and custody matter. The Court necessarily implies that Mr. Yagaloff (or any divorce attorney) are under no professional or ethical obligation whatsoever to uphold Court orders as Officers of the Court This recurring pattern on the part of the Court reflects the unfortunate history of this case and the resulting volume of motions filed. Defendant, his children, and his family members have been continually, unfairly and unduly financially and otherwise burdened by repeatedly needing to approach the Court solely in order to have the Court’s parenting orders enforced, to protect the Defendant’ children from abuse and neglect at the hands of the Plaintiff, to be allowed to parent his sons, and to have his fundamental due process, civil, parental and Constitutional rights as a fit parent under the state and federal Constitutions recognized and upheld by Court. And each time the Court has failed to hold the Plaintiff (and now her divorce counsel) accountable for their flagrant transgressions, they are further emboldened, This now resulting in the minor children missing almost 200 days of school when with the Plaintiff. Inits finding, the Court is necessarily implying that the Defendant’s equal rights as a parent and the Defendant’s ability to make educational and parenting decision for his children 10 simply do not matter. That the Defendant's parental decisions, and decisions he has made in full accordance with the Court’s parenting orders, simply do not matter. ‘That the Defendant's decision that Mr. Yagaloff cease and desist from involving himself with his sons’ educations and medical care, that Mr. Yagaloff cease and desist from meeting with, exploiting and exposing his sons to harm, that Mr. Yagaloff cease and desist from attempting to force his son with autism to testify against his educators, that Mr. Yagaloff cease and desist from aiding and abetting the Plaintiff's ongoing campaign of alienating the minor children and ignoring Court's parenting and decision making orders, simply do not matter and are irrelevant in the eyes of the Court. In doing so, the Court is setting a very dangerous and completely unconstitutional lent, not only in this matter — but in any matter involving divorced parents and their children. ‘The Court has been denying the Defendant (and his sons) access to justice and his and their Constitutional rights by restricting the Defendants ability to file motions in a wholly arbitrary, biased and highly prejudicial manner— and without just cause. As point of fact, the Appeals Court established in August of 2016 that the trial Court violated the Defendant’s due process rights in regards to financial orders issued. Defendant represents that the Court has also done 80, and continues to do so, in regards to his rights as a parent under the state and federal Constitutions and this Court's orders. For well over a year --- the Court has allowed the Plaintiff to de facto assume full custody of the minor children in a negligent manner and manner causing direct and significant harm to the Defendant, his sons, their educations and their wellbeing Allowing the Plaintiff to do so with the direct personal aid and involvement of Mr, Yagaloff. The Court has allowed the Plaintiff to de facto replace the Defendant as a parent with her divorce counsel and to personally involve and engage her divorce counsel in her campaign of alienating the ‘minor children from their father, their family members and their school system. ‘This failure directly causing and contributing to the minor children’s ongoing delinquency and chronic truancy when with the Plaintiff. This being the “change in circumstance” the Court has somehow been struggling to establish or determine after almost a year’s worth of hearings. 1 Neither the Plaintiff nor Mr. Yagaloff have ever once presented any evidence to the Court that that the Plaintiff followed this Court’s orders prior to her engaging and involving her divorce counsel with the minor children, their educations, or their medical care. On the contrary ~ the Court already has the benefit of ample evidence and testimony from days” worth of hearings and testimony reflecting that the Plaintiff did not and has refused to do so, This includes testimony from a DCF social worker, Ms. Nadage Lys, regarding her observations of Mr. Yagaloff and his presence in the Plaintiff's home and as Mr. Yagaloff sat next to the child with autism and influenced the child when the social worker interviewed him. ‘What proper cause of action would allow Mr. Yagaloff to do so? Only Mr. Yagaloff can testify ‘as to what he told the child prior to and after this meeting. VLRULE TWO PRONG REVIEW: In its October 4, 016 Memorandum, the Court referenced Rule 3.7 and the dual test required to establish if a witness is a material witness, yet this was not the issue before the Court. The Court improperly established that Mr. Yagaloff is not a “relevant and material” witness in spite of his personal involvement with the children. The Court improperly jumped to this conclusion as the Court afforded no opportunity for the hearing of testimony, full and proper review of evidence or hearing of argument related to Mr. Yagaloff’s involvement with the child, and as the Court has prevented the Defendant the opportunity to hold a full evidentiary hearing into Mr. Yagaloff’s misconduct prior to the Court issuing a final order as a result of the Court’s direction. The Court should note as a point in fact that neither the Plaintiff, nor Mr. Yagaloff, have ever claimed that Mr. Yagaloff did not personally involve himself with the minor child and that there is ample evidence before the Court from other witnesses that he did. However, only Mr. Yagaloff can testify (and must testify) as to what the nature of his conversations with the minor child were and what his intentions were in doing so. Mr. Yagaloff, made a bed of his own choosing. ‘The Court also cannot possibly find or claim that the Plaintiff would be in any way disadvantaged by having Mr. Yagaloff disqualified due to financial concerns given that apparently the Plaintiff has had no issues or problems paying Mr. Yagaloff substantial sums of 2 money to pay for him to attend numerous school PPT meetings and to involve him in a lengthy and costly and year-long due process complaint against the Glastonbury School System (and ‘compliant for which they did not prevail.) Defendant brings to the Court’s attention that the Plaintiff's due process complaint cost the Town of Glastonbury over $139,000 in legal fees to

    You might also like