MY STORY MY STORY


Multiple Law Violations, civil & constitutional rights violations, perjury, docket tampering, amending laws without approval from Legislature, no waivers (as required by Connecticut state laws), no DNA to support any claim of a punitive father - even going as far as no court appointed attorney...These are the facts which are outlined in this website and needs to be publicly announced to incriminate the State of Connecticut as well as the lower courts for their feeble attempts to hold me accountable for child support which they have not been able to prove since inception, but instead opted for illegal actions, compromising ethics, conduct and integrity of a system that is supposed to just and fair for all parties - now a conspiracy to cover up these illegal actions to convict an innocent man who became a victim of paternity entrapment [fraud] due to the heinous actions of a mentally unstable young woman.

Paternity Entrapment is an action committed by a woman against a man's consent to conceive for pregnancy purposes/reasons. This action is the one of the most hanious crimes a woman can commit against a man because it bears potential of destroying a man's life and no woman has any right to do that - Consent is everything and once a man's right to consent has been violated, it undermines and destroys the morality, liability and legality of such a right. This action is so severe, it is considered both rape and criminal theft in one heinous crime - Yes, entrapment is a crime and is punishable to those women who do knowingly commit such a crime. The only reason why a woman can conveivably plot this crime and "get away with it" because the judicial system (for those women who seek state assistance) is undoubtably flawed and highly favors a woman over man in this capacity. Woman have taken advantage of this flawed system for many years without providing any proof whatsoever in a system that has potential monetary gain with a background in male discrimination on many levels.

WHY WAS THIS WEBSITE CREATED? WHY WAS THIS WEBSITE CREATED?


WHY WAS THIS WEBSITE CREATED? This website was created to generate public interest in a subject that most would choose to just bury under the rug because state agencies gain from the numerous flaws generated by a system that is supposed to declare fairness, justice and law compliances, but in fact, takes advantage of those flaws whereby equal rights for men have been compromised, denied and manipulated - and woman reap the benefits of a severely flawed system.

This is not Roe v. Wade - This is about 2 adults who engage in an act of coitus whereby the woman has "other intentions" without informing her partner of such intentions [of intended pregnancy]. You may say to yourself that a man, as well as a woman, should protect themselves from such intended conceivance, but in my particular case, I was informed that Pauline Tata [Plaintiff] was taking oral contraceptive (the "pill") and was never an issue - The Plaintiff didn't even like male condoms. No one has the right the right to take anything from you without consent - this is simple law on moral and legislative levels. (Case Reference is Public Record: http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=HHBFA880432921S)

Pregnancy is a conscious adult choice which is between two (2) individuals – not just one; but when a male is found to be liable for paternity for a conscious choice he did NOT make or consent to, then he should not be forced to pay the terrible, life-altering price for this occurrence! Inequities may always exist between females and males in every society, but in my view, this one's the most hideous. Until our legal system mandates that women are equally and mentally responsible for these "entrapments" (one-sided intentions of pregnancy), men will continue to be brutalized by governing bodies that persistently ignore this travesty. Furthermore, if we sanction a woman's "right to choose," how is it even remotely fair that a man's denied this same liberty (Assuming that a woman has the right to choose to violate a man's right to consent)? How is it even possible that a woman has the right to choose to rape a man and still be legal due to system flaws?! - this is insane...

Females determined to impregnate themselves without a partner's consent, lack adult emotional development--which means their capacity for empathy (ability to identify with another's feelings and needs) is extremely limited. Accompanying moral deficits allow them to premeditate conception, which is diabolical, unconscionable behavior that's akin to criminal theft and should be punished accordingly.

This cold-hearted act is sickening and mentally disturbing – to blatantly lie to man to get pregnant is without a doubt – a crime of rape and theft.

ONCE A VICTIM - NOW A DEFENDANT ONCE A VICTIM - NOW A DEFENDANT


I was informed, at the barely legal age of 18, that the Plaintiff was pregnant - at a time when my life should just be beginning, it had ended. Shock and awe doesn't even describe what I was feeling and thinking at that time. Why, on God's great earth, would I, at the barely legal of 18, even THINK of having a family?! If the Plaintiff cared about me, which she claimed, then why would she do this to me? If I had seen the clues and listened to her close friends at that time, this [alleged pregnancy] would have never happened. NEVER did I consent to such an act or a decision to father any child (that's just insane), but nonetheless, it spread us apart...I was betrayed, decieved, lied to...scarred for life indeed.

The Plaintiff, after the child was born, sought out state assistance and provided the State of Connecticut my name and address....but I didn't know this. I only found out after receiving a letter in the mail to arrive at the State of Connecticut Child Support Division or I would risk incarceration if I didn't - even further devasted by this action from the Plaintiff, I had no choice. I arrived there and was intimidated by state workers and coerced into signing an Acknowledgment of Paternity - I can't even tell you the thoughts going through my head of how someone could do this to me...what did I do to deserve this?!

When I confronted the Plaintiff about this action, she produced excuses such as "well, you can't expect me to take the pill everyday...I do forget"...and then another excuse of "obviously, the pill didn't work" - These are common terms and phrases used by women who intend to trap men into fatherhood without consent - thinking the excuses are valid over reasons of trust and morality - elements which I grew up with...to trust people you care about, but alas....

Since the Plaintiff and I had some of the same friends, I was later told that the Plaintiff was obsessed with me....obsessed with the fact and possibility that she could become pregant with someone who she was obsessed with - not to mention in part that she was mentally unstable and very self conscience; thinking that she'll never get anyone because of the way she looked (overweight) and took advantage of the ideal situation. I even sat at the table with her and her parents (she was living with her parents at the time and never left home to create her own life) and told them this was not supposed to happen, never intended for it to happen and to abort this child because it was wrong. She said she didn't believe in abortion and later said that the female child [name withheld] would never know she was an accident....excuse me?!....AN ACCIDENT?!....lies on top of lies, story changes, intent changes - these are acts of an unstable woman without a doubt.

I still don't know at this point if this child is mine or not....and never did know.

FAMILY COURT FAMILY COURT


At my first hearing in family court, my court appointed attorney informed me, at that time, said there was nothing I could do because "too much time had lapsed" (The Plaintiff hadn't applied for assistance until 1.5 years later after the birth of her daughter) - I'm not sure what he meant by this because I had never been in court before for anything and didn't understand court/attorney jargon, laws, etc. I just trusted what he said. I don't have much memory of that event that day (many years had passed since then). I was informed that I have to make weekly payments, submit my entire list of assets, provide my employer's address and a host of other requirements. Since that time, I did what the court said because, in my own thinking, the court has followed and addressed laws and I should comply with the court order; which I did for years until I got sick and tired of being harrassed by the State, threatened with incarceration (due to non-payment because of employment gaps), numerous license suspensions, credit destruction, tax return interception and more. My research uncovered more than what the State and court wanted me to know...

Since the time passed of being informed I was a father and complying with the State of Connecticut (to avoid threats and incarceration), the Plaintiff and I no longer had relations of any kind. I never thought another human being could do that against me when I did nothing to ask for that - I was filled with anger/hate, thoughts of betrayal and being taken advantage of - even raped; something taken from me the purpose of pro-creation without my consent. How could I possibly continue any relations with a human being who did this to me...

Entrapment by a woman to a man is CLEARLY a crime in itself and NOT recognizable by the Family Support Division of Connecticut – The arrogance of the State Department clearly demonstrates the need to re-evaluate the morals of this crime to recognize AND acknowledge the difference between fault and intention.

CONNECTICUT, THE COURTS AND LAW CONNECTICUT, THE COURTS AND LAW


Connecticut state law permits a plaintiff to petition paternity up to a child's 18th birthday (but yet the punitive father only has 3 years to contest - this is fair?!), but the Plaintiff never did...neither did the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement. After I reviewed the laws pertaining to the Acknowledgment of Paternity for Connecticut, here is how it is written:

CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172. Acknowledgment of paternity and agreement to support; judgment. Review of acknowledgment of paternity. (a)(1) In lieu of or in conclusion of proceedings under Section 46b-160, a written acknowledgment of paternity executed and sworn to by the putative father of the child when accompanied by (A) an attested waiver of the right to a blood test, the right to a trial and the right to an attorney, and (B) a written affirmation of paternity executed and sworn to by the mother of the child shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the Superior Court.

WHERE DO I BEGIN WITH LAWS REGARDING THE ABOVE?

COERCION

Coercion (the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats) of any kind, without regard to the situation or matter, is illegal. I was threatened by the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcent Division to sign the Acknowledgment of Paternity or I would face incarceration. A signature on an Acknowledgment of Paternity MUST BE VOLUNTARY according to Connecticut State Law.

WAIVER(S)

A waiver of right to a blood test, counsel, trial, etc. MUST ACCOMPANY an Acknowledgment of Paternity - a waiver which doesn't exist because one (or more) was never signed. As a matter of fact, the court is unable to produce any transcript at that time because the court's never recorded sessions at that time [1988], so there is no existing evidence of any "voluntary" acknowledgment(s) to reference.

DNA (BLOOD TEST)

A DNA/blood test is undoubtably, the only non-contesting element to determine and factuate paternity - a test which was never conducted and/or requested by the Plaintiff or The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement.

DOCKET TAMPERING

In a motion filed by me, I indicated that a document existed within the current docket whereby an alleged second child was announced and that a court order was in effect for this second child. This document had the alleged second child's name crossed off [male] with a notation at the bottom of the paper indicating that the defendant (myself) could not be found and was therefore dismissed. When I attempted to locate that document at a later time, it was found "missing" and I had not made a copy of that document (I shouldn't have to if it's in the state's hands, but then again....). I contacted the Attorney General's office to launch an investigation, but was never lauched - if it were a constituent that was accused of this suspicion, the constituent would already be incarcerated for docket tampering - but not even considered because it may be a member of the State or court system...) My claim to this document can be validated to the fact that no attorney was present at that time (defendant's rights) nor represented on my behalf and no change in arrears or support occurred (last time I checked, a punitive father does not get x amount of kids for one great low price...this isn't Wal-Mart). To further support this claim, I can reference the missing law elements to the alleged first child of no counsel, no trial, no waiver, no DNA, etc (yawn.....)....moving right along....

TRIAL DENIAL

According to the Acknowledgment of Paternity (CT), EVERY defendant has a right to trial (unless waived), yet I never had a trial and was denied this right by the lower courts. Even our Constitution says a defendant has a right to trial - apparently, the lower courts feel they above our constitution, above the U.S. Supreme Court Justices and above God. The lower courts (or any other court for that matter) do not have the right to permit nor deny any trial to any defendant because that right was already privileged to each and every defendant according to laws mandated by Connecticut legilsatures.

THE STATE AND THE COURTS THE STATE AND THE COURTS


The State of Connecticut collected an Acknowledgment of Paternity which was so enemic, it only had a signature which was coerced [illegally] and no accompanying waivers (also required by law) and then submitted to the court for ruling. The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement did not check all the documents to ensure that all laws were complied with to ensure they did not violate any laws, statues or defendant's civil and/or constitutional rights. The state also laid claim to an alleged second child, but has yet to produce any court order, any waiver of right, any attorney that was present on my behalf....shall I continue?! The presiding magistrate (magistrates are not judges because they are governor-appointed attorney's who act as magistrates in the lower courts and do not share the same privileges reserved for judges), then ruled in favor of the State without validating the State's submission of the Acknowledgment of Paternity which resulted in Connecticut and Statute(s), civil and constitutional violations. Neither the State nor the Court even bothered to validate documents to ensure law compliances and even denied the right to trial, because let's face it...Teenagers [generally] do not possess the necessary knowledge to contest any action of the State or Court (unless represented) and cases (such as mine) could easily be ruled upon without any consenquence(s) or questioned to the courts (yes, courts do take advantage of the less fortunate and less knowledgeable)...until the unraveling of the facts began with me...

MOTIONS ILLEGALLY DENIED MOTIONS ILLEGALLY DENIED


In recent years, I began unveiling all sorts of violations - on civil and constitutional levels. I then educated myself on drafting motions with the court (unable to afford counsel or other representation - turned down and not even acknowledged when seeking counsel for representation). My first motion indicated fraud on many levels, but the magistrate on the case attempted to apply a law which only pertains to CONTESTING paternity, whereby my claim was fraud which has no statute of limitation. Magistrates do NOT have approval from any legislative member, group or entity to amend laws which do not exist or apply laws to a claim which do not exist - yet, this is what the magistrate's have done.

This past January (2018), I filed the following motion:

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL FOR APPELLATE COURT'S DECISION TO DENY MOTION TO OPEN JUDGMENT

Judge Carbonneau, Family Court Magistrate [New Britain, CT] indicated in family court that a "Defendant by his signature declared that he freely and voluntarily signed the acknowledgment" which became the factor in denial of defendant's motion. No such declaration was ever made by the Defendant as the defendant has made multiple declarations in ALL prior motions and in ALL prior hearings that the signature the State of Connecticut obtained was coerced. For Judge Carbonneau to falsify this fact questions the court's conduct/ethics and judiciary responsibilities to declare factual statements made by the Defendant and/or Plaintiff regardless of whether to court agrees to the statements or not and is construed as perjury.

Judge Carbonneau also declared that "On October 25, 1990 the defendant repeated this same acknowledgment process with the same forms for a boy born in 1990". What Judge Carbonneau willfully refuses is to verify that there is no child support order for the alleged second child [no changes in arrears or support] and, as with the first child, there is no waiver of right to a blood test which is required by laws mandated by our legislature; an attested waiver of the right to a blood test and no such document exists that pertains to any declaration of such waiver for either child1. A court appointed attorney was never assigned to Defendant for this alleged second child [boy] and no public defender was assigned per Defendant's rights; as previously stated in prior motions, no support order was issued or ordered by the court.

To support the prior statement, On April 4, 2017, Defendant reported a missing document from Dkt# 880432921 to the state attorney's office which had the alleged 2nd child [boy] with his name crossed off and a reference on the bottom of the document that Defendant could not be found to be served. This document was not copied from the Defendant because it was entrusted to the Superior Court clerk's office and existed within the docket which the Defendant observed at a previous time/visit and was going to be disputed. This action declares document tampering by an existing party to also include all magistrates who presided on the above case. The states attorney's office never launched an investigation into the matter.

Furthermore, it was also declared that "On December 2, 2016 Magistrate Dee held a brief hearing to consider defendant's motion. The Magistrate, relying solely on the three-year statute of limitation in C.G.S. Section 46-b172 in effect at the same time of the acknowledgments, denied the motion". Contrary to Judge Dee's decision, Judge Dee's decision was not based upon state laws that declare that "an acknowledgment cannot be challenged except in court upon showing of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact"2 which does not declare any time period for such challenging. The three-year rule does not, nor has ever been applied to challenging an acknowledgment showing fraud, duress or [Sec. 46b-172. (Formerly Sec. 52-442a); subsection (A) 2 Sec 46b-172] material mistake of fact. Coercing a signature is considered fraud and is illegal in the highest order when also combined with no waiver of right to a blood test – an order so high in regard that a superior court judge ruled in favor of allowing the challenge to move forward.

Judge Dee's ruling is considered unlawful as no governor appointed attorney who acts as magistrate is permitted to create or amend existing laws – Judge Dee applied a three-year rule to his ruling which does not exist because there is no expiration or time limitation on contesting an acknowledgment where fraud, duress or material mistake of fact is eminent and ruled illegally. Judge Carbonneau supported Judge Dee's unlawful ruling which could predicate conspiracy and compromised ethics and conduct.

Judge Carbonneau's statement also declared "…because an unknown and unnamed Support Enforcement Officer or Officers threatened him with incarceration". For a magistrate to demand a name from the Defendant in regards to threats of incarceration for the purpose of signing an acknowledgment, which spans back over 25 years is not only considered preposterous, but also unreasonable. Yet, Judge Carbonneau declared that "Evidence and witnesses from 25 years ago is understandably lost" – a witness for which the court demanded from the Defendant who coerced him into signing the acknowledgment – contradictory, hypocritical and unreasonable. The conduct and ethics behind the actions of Judge Carbonneau is unacceptable and demands reprimand and disciplinary action. Judge Carbonneau, who is expected to be a fair and impartial jurist, was not fair and impartial and considered unreasonable for his request.

Furthermore, Judge Carbonneau continued to state "…He did not deny that the documents were signed before a Notary Public who sealed them as defendant's free act and deed". This statement, as contradictory as it is, is untrue in its entirety as Defendant has no control to what a Notary's actions are after signing an acknowledgment which was coerced by the State of Connecticut and cannot be considered a "free act and deed" by the Defendant. If this statement bared any truth, the Defendant would not be requesting a motion to open judgment for fair trial and challenging fraud.

ARGUMENT

CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172. Acknowledgment of paternity and agreement to support; judgment. Review of acknowledgment of paternity. (a)(1) In lieu of or in conclusion of proceedings under Section 46b-160, a written acknowledgment of paternity executed and sworn to by the putative father of the child when accompanied by (A) an attested waiver of the right to a blood test, the right to a trial and the right to an attorney, and (B) a written affirmation of paternity executed and sworn to by the mother of the child shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the Superior Court.
Connecticut state law (mandated by legislature) grants every defendant a right to trial where accusation of paternity is present. The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement Bureau in conjunction with multiple family court magistrates having illegally denied this right to trial. An accused defendant has not only civil rights, but also constitutional rights to a trial for which the above aforementioned have been denied to defendant.

Furthermore, a waiver of right to a blood test is also required by state law4 whereby The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement Bureau in conjunction with multiple family court magistrates have not produced to support the court's illegal rulings.

Establishing paternity means legally determining the biological father of a child. The signing of an Acknowledgement of Paternity does not establish such paternity and through the coercion of signing such document from the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement through means of threatening and intimidation is not only illegal, but does not validate any document to make the declaration of paternity as all Acknowledge of Paternities must be [signature] acquired voluntarily.

To further support the preceding statements, no DNA testing was ever conducted to validate said paternity and the signature obtained on the alleged Acknowledgement of Paternity was coerced. Coercion of any type conducted by any party who represents the State of Connecticut or the Family Court Magistrates who are required to cite law in findings [rulings] is illegal in all regards whereby a Super Court judge previously granted the right to a trial on another matter whereby ANY possibility of a coerced signature demands trial(5) 1: [Sec. 46b-172. (Formerly Sec. 52-442a); subsection (A) 2: Sec 46b-172; 3: Delgado v. Martinez, No. FA 78-0434989S (July 3, 1990) – the court stated: "it would be fundamentally unfair for the law to imply a waiver of procedural due process rights merely because a person has signed an uncounseled and possibly coerced written acknowledgment of paternity" – Donald T. Dorsey Judge, Superior Court; 4: The Fourteenth Amendment; 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 any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

FINAL STATEMENT

Judge Carbonneau undoubtedly committed perjury to dismiss Defendant's motion. As a governor appointed attorney who acts as a magistrate in a Connecticut Judicial Branch, said magistrate is required to uphold judiciary ethics and law. The privileges that these judges have been granted have been abused and such privileges should be revoked immediately. Judge Carbonneau and Judge Dee failed to live up to those expectations as fair and impartial jurists and blatantly and willfully committed perjury in conjunction with amending laws without approval from state legislature for the sole purpose of denying Defendant's right to a trial for which Defendant has been denied since inception. Judge Dee ruled against Defendant applying a three-year rule which does not exist in any Connecticut state legislative law for the purpose of fraud, duress or material mistake of fact and is considered unlawful to do so – magistrates are not permitted by any governing official to amend laws or create them for the purpose of motion denial. Every defendant has the right to a trial as expressed and stated in civil and constitutional laws.

Judge Carbonneau committed perjury in his ruling announcing multiple false statements which can be contradicted by accessing transcripts and ANY prior motion(s) filed by the Defendant. A magistrate's ethics are not upheld when a Defendant has made the same declarations in multiple hearings and motions and said magistrate declares otherwise. This practice demands disciplinary action as perjury has been committed by Judge Carbonneau and unlawful applications applied by Judge Dee's ruling as no judge or magistrate can amend laws or create them for motion denial. Defendant would even consider imposing sanctions upon the above aforementioned magistrates for their ill-willed and illegal actions.

The fact that an investigation was never launched into the missing public document from the docket regarding the alleged second child would suggest a conspiracy to rid evidence for which the Defendant would have provided on his behalf for defense – to further support this would be the fact that no support order was ever established for the alleged second child and could never be proven because there are no existing documents that pertain to a change in arrears or support for a support order never entered.

CASE REFERENCE

In Roberts v. Greaves, supra at 5, Judge Covello stated: "implicit in every determination of support is the necessary finding that the defendant is the part of the child in question. Therefore, jurisdiction to determine paternity is implicit whenever there is jurisdiction to determine support" (1989) Delgado v. Martinez, 25 Conn. App. 155, 159, 593 A.2d 518 (1991). "Accordingly, we hold that the statute of limitations enunciated in General Statutes 46b-172 (a) is not enforceable against a party who has not validly waived his procedural due process rights and where a judgment of paternity has been entered without notice and an opportunity to be heard."

STATUTE REFERENCE

P.A. 91-391 amended Subsec.(a) by adding requirement that acknowledgment of paternity be accompanied by attested waiver of right to blood test, right to trial and right to an attorney and amended Subsec. (b) Effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 93-329 added Subsec. (c) re refund to petitioner of money paid by the petitioner to the state during period child supported by state where acknowledgment of paternity is reviewed and court finds petitioner is not father of the child.

Annotations to former section 52-435a: - 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 179. Former statute cited. Id., 581, 582. Defendant's paternity of plaintiff's child must be proved by plaintiff by a fair preponderance of evidence, as in any other civil case; evidence of substantive facts is essential and they cannot be proved by corroborative evidence consisting only of constancy of accusation.

MAGISTRATE DISMISSES OWN ALLEGATIONS MAGISTRATE DISMISSES OWN ALLEGATIONS


A magistrate who denied a motion pointing out his own illegal actions is permitted to dismiss his own allegations in the Appellate Court?! Since this decision cannot be challenged (according to the court), an appeal must be filed with the State Supreme Court. Magistrate Carbonneau is not, nor ever has been, a fair and impartial jurist in any case (history of cases speaks for itself). I can further support this by his actions of agreeing with another Magistrate (already construed as a conspiracy) that the 3-year rule/law applies to my case when in fact there is no possibility of it - you cannot challenge that which does not exist; much less apply a 3-year rule which is challenging paternity. This case if pure fraud and no proof - it's that simple. Carbonneau then continued to state in his response that I wilfilly signed the Acknowledgement of Paternity - if that were so, I would have not claimed coercian in ALL of my motions filed with court and in ALL the transcripts one would request. A magistrate is going to tell me what I did yet is unable to prove any of it? This is a complete fabrication to my defense and this magistrate has compromised his conduct and integrity to the oath he took when he accepted the position of magistrate to uphold and cite laws mandated by legislature. His ruling is cowardly and without any basis.

2/14/2019 - ATTEMPTED SETTLEMENT 2/14/-2019 - ATTEMPTED SETTLEMENT


The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement, The Legislative Commissioner's Office and the Attorney General's office was faxed the following document to be provided with the option of settlement or trial - no reponse was ever received after sending this letter to all parties multiple times:

SETTLEMENT OR TRIAL

THIS DOCUMENT IS COMPOSED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN OPTION OF CLOSURE TO A CASE THAT HAS FALLEN VICTIM OF A CONSPIRACY TO CONCEAL FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE LOWER COURT MAGISTRATES AND THE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT BUREAU OF CONNECTICUT. YOU [STATE OF CONNECTICUT CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT] WILL BE PROVIDED TWO (2) OPTIONS:

SETTLEMENT

  • You will contact any/all national credit reporting agencies and remove this alleged, frivolous and illegal debt from my credit profile.
  • You will contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and remove the offset currently placed on my social security number.
  • You will refund me ALL monies extracted from me since inception of this case as dictated by state law:
    Effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 93-329 added Subsec. (c) re refund to petitioner of money paid by the petitioner to the state during period child supported by state where Acknowledgment of Paternity is reviewed and court [jury]finds petitioner is not father of the child.

TRIAL

You (State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement) will take/assume the initiative of requesting trial for a jury to determine [ascertain] paternity as required by law [citing defendant's right to trial for which it was illegally denied and infringed upon].

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO THE ABOVE OPTIONS TO SETTLE THIS MATTER

THE FACTS STATED ARE AS FOLLOWS:

The only existing element linking me to the alleged paternity is a coerced signature by the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement. This allegation was already made against the State (Jonathan Harding representing State) without denial or contesting such allegation – this is considered a confession. Coercion is illegal in Connecticut as the threat of incarceration provided the reason for my signature and is hereby (and still is) considered invalid and illegal. The State of Connecticut neglected to check/validate all documents pertaining to the Acknowledgement of Paternity resulting in multiple state, civil and rights violations. The lower court then followed suit and failed to validate the documents submitted by the State also resulting in multiple state, civil and rights violations.

The Plaintiff and the State were allowed eighteen (18) years to petition paternity (according the Connecticut state law) and opted not to exercise this option. DNA, being the most valuable piece of paternity evidence that could ever be introduced in court, was not an option for the State to hold against me for liable paternity. The State and the lower courts have failed to produce any recorded transcript of the original hearing commencing in 1989 because they didn't record hearings at that time period and therefore have nothing to reference any liability on behalf.

The lower courts indicated in a recent hearing that an alleged second male child was also held against me for child support. I was never served to appear in court. There was no judge I faced for this allegation. There was no court appointed attorney to reference. There was no change in arrears or support.

The above statement is also supported by a missing file in the docket reported by me. This file (document) had the alleged second child's name CROSSED OFF with a reference at the bottom of the document indicating that the defendant could not be found to be served. I inquired with the Attorney General's office to launch an investigation into the matter, but it was quickly dismissed to support the conspiracy to conceal fraud committed by the State and/or the lower courts.

There are no waivers signed or acknowledged by me as required by state law (Sec. 47b-172 including subsections).
There is no waiver of right to trial.

TRUTH IS A DEFENSE – LAW IS A DEFENSE – FACTS ARE A DEFENSE

Final Statement

There is a reason why my civil and federal right to trial has been denied and infringed upon – it is because the State as well as the courts do not want conspiracy to conceal fraud surfaced in open court. The allegations against the State as well as the courts are so severe; they will open up ridicule and incrimination for the multiple violations (civil and federal) committed by the State and the lower courts.

It would be suggestive to settle this matter and not opt for a trial – A trial opens up many doors for which you want to stay closed forever. A trial, upon my victory, will also "open up a can of worms" resulting in a public announcement of such victory – law firms and attorneys will undoubtedly salivate at the opportunity to open up old paternity cases referencing the victory of my trial for which, I could be mistaken, you would want to avoid at all costs and avoid the media.

So hang onto that signature that you hold in the highest order to claim paternity against me, because it was coerced – it's illegal and NEVER has been proof of paternity in this state. You have no waivers, no DNA, no transcript of ANY hearing that commenced on the original court date and you (and the courts) violated laws and civil/federal rights [trial] willfully in your feeble attempt to conceal fraud. The courts do NOT govern laws mandated by legislature, but they are REQUIRED to cite them in their findings/rulings – it's shameful to our judiciary system that magistrates compromise law for their own personal gratifications and agenda. But then again, maybe you want a jury to hear all of this – your decision will predicate your intelligence…or lack of it.

10/8/2019 - MOTION FILED IN FEDERAL COURT 10/8/2019 - MOTION FILED IN FEDERAL COURT


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT



PARTIES

Plaintiff, Bruce Lavigne is a citizen of Connecticut who presently resides at [ADDRESS REMOVED]. Defendant, Derik Rodriguez is a citizen of Connecticut whose [employment] address is 20 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051, and who is employed as Support Enforcement Officer at CCSPC, 20 Franklin Square, New Britain, CT 06051.

At the time the claim(s) alleged in this complaint arose, the defendant was acting under the color of state law. The Plaintiff's civil right has been denied and/or infringed upon by the Defendant [Derik Rodriguez]. Furthermore, the Defendant exercised reckless disregard, disrespect and misconduct to laws mandated by legislature [CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172.]

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

NATURE OF THE CASE

Legislators, public employees, agencies, public servants and other public members [persons] face possible severe consequences for violating the public trust. In lieu of this violation, the defendant, a state agency child support officer, also violated laws mandated by legislature to illegally pursue the Plaintiff for alleged child support. An illegal court ruling that permits [allows] an agency representative to pursue an alleged putative father for child support does not, nor shall ever, permit such agency to be exempt from laws mandated by legislature. The Defendant has been notified multiple times regarding the laws surrounding his willful decisions to continue [his] reckless disregard and disrespect for mandated laws surrounding CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172.

CAUSE OF ACTION

I allege that the following of my constitutional rights, privileges, or immunities have been violated and that the following facts form the basis of my allegations:

CLAIM I.

CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172 states that a "written acknowledgment of paternity executed and sworn to by the putative father...." (1)

SUPPORTING FACTS:

The executed portion of this law dictates a signature to the acknowledgment of paternity, but this state law dictates the signature must be willful [voluntary], but the claim of threatened coercion, made by the Plaintiff, to obtain such a signature was never denied nor contested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

CLAIM II.

"...when accompanied by (A) an attested waiver of the right to a blood test..." (1)

SUPPORTING FACTS:

No waiver was ever signed by the Plaintiff or introduced by the Defendant. This waiver [ref. A] MUST accompany the acknowledgment of paternity and is construed as a fraudulent claim against the Plaintiff. The Defendant, along with the agency who employs him, had eighteen (18) years to petition paternity [blood test] and never opted to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

CLAIM III.

"...the right to a trial and the right to an attorney..." (1)

SUPPORTING FACTS:

Liability for child support is a form of presumed guilt. If a putative father is guilty of such liability, the putative father has the legal [civil] right to a trial contesting such liability. This right was denied to the Plaintiff with no waiver of right to trial. The right for a putative father to contest paternity liability is a right provided by state legislation and is not the right of the Defendant to neither infringe upon that right nor deny it.

----------------------------------------------

(1) CHAPTER 815y - Sec. 46b-172. Acknowledgment of paternity and agreement to support; judgment. Review of acknowledgment of paternity. (a)(1) In lieu of or in conclusion of proceedings under Section 46b-160, a written acknowledgment of paternity executed and sworn to by the putative father of the child when accompanied by (A) an attested waiver of the right to a blood test, the right to a trial and the right to an attorney, and (B) a written affirmation of paternity executed and sworn to by the mother of the child shall have the same force and effect as a judgment of the Superior Court.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

    Plaintiff respectfully requests the court present options to the Defendant:

  1. Opt for settlement of this case for reasons which the Defendant failed to provide burden of proof and reimburse the Plaintiff for all monies extorted since inception of this case (Dkt No.: 880432921) Citing: Effective July 1, 1993; P.A. 93-329 added Subsec. (c) re refund to petitioner of money paid by the petitioner to the state during period child supported by state where acknowledgment of paternity is reviewed and court finds petitioner is not father of the child. Plaintiff, referencing the above law, is requesting an immediate refund of any/all monies illegally obtained/collected by the Defendant since inception of this case. Injunctive Relief is also being requested to include Defendant contacting all major credit reporting agencies and remove this illegal debt from Plaintiff's credit profile; to contact the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and remove the offset placed on Plaintiff's social security number and reverse any/all other actions the Defendant has taken against the Plaintiff illegally.
  2. Grant the Plaintiff the right to trial whereby Plaintiff will seek criminal, civil and/or state charges against the defendant for prosecution citing law and civil rights violations.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial if Defendant does not opt for settlement.
1/27/2020 - ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE SUBMITS FALSIFIED MOTION 1/27/2020 - ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE SUBMITS FALSIFIED MOTION


The Attorney General's office filed a motion to dismiss my complaint, but falsified statements and claims to facscilate their claim to persuade the judge's decision:

MOTION FOR OPPOSITION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS

Referencing counsel's [Alma Nunley] opening statement in MEMORADUM IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO DISMISS, the allegation of "…no dispute that Plaintiff fathered a child over 30 years ago…" is without merit, credibility or undisputed proof. The Plaintiff challenges the Defendant to provide viable proof to the court that the Plaintiff has fathered a child.

In Defendant's statement "…Plaintiff executed a written acknowledgement of paternity for his child in 1988, which was filed with the Connecticut Superior Court…" is completely falsified and inadmissible because it was coerced – an allegation later made in family court without being contested or denied. Coercion is illegal and unlawful.

Furthermore, Plaintiff did not execute a written Acknowledgement of Paternity willfully [as required by law] because the signature that counsel is referencing was coerced [unlawful in the State of Connecticut]; an allegation made against the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement in open family court [Jonathan Harding representing the State] without being contested or denied. For a state agency to illegally pursue an alleged putative father for monetary reasons based on a coerced signature committed by the state warrants legal actions and is inadmissible in court. The action the state committed could be summarized as a confession to the illegal actions and would warrant the Acknowledgement of Paternity as not only inadmissible, but unlawful.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine counsel references in non-applicable in a defensive statement because the state agency that obtained the signature for the Acknowledgement of Paternity threatened the Plaintiff with incarceration if the Acknowledgement of Paternity was not signed by Plaintiff. This action alone does not qualify nor permit the Defendant to any immunity because it is not considered qualified by the actions the state has taken to obtain the signature and use that signature to illegally pursue the Plaintiff for child support. Judicial opinions create the rules or standards that comprise a legal doctrine, but in this particular case, the standards have been violated and compromised which would inherently prohibit the Defendant from claiming immunity in regards to The Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

The Eleventh Amendment counsel references to cloak her client [Defendant] from civil action becomes null and void because; (a) the action the state took to obtain Plaintiff's signature was coerced with the threat of incarceration [uncontested and unprotested], (b) Chapter 815.y; 47b-172 and all subsections was violated in its entirety, (c) there is no documentation of the original hearing that commenced in 1989 when the first hearing commenced [the state did not record hearings at that time period], (d) there are no waivers ever presented in court on behalf of the state [required by Chapter 815.y; 47b-172 (a); (e) the state had eighteen (18) years to petition paternity and opted not to and (f) the signature that Defendant's counsel references MUST be obtained willfully according to Connecticut state law. The Acknowledgement of Paternity also states Plaintiff's right to trial which was denied / infringed upon.

The only existing element the state possesses is a coerced signature which has been referenced as if it were a montra. Because it was obtained illegally and unlawfully, any other action taken is considered inadmissible because it is the only existing element that state has to present their case of child support liability, but in an unlawful and illegal manner. An agency or any state agency representative is not permitted by law to coerce a signature from an alleged putative father to be used in court for monetary reasons.

[Reiterating] Liability of child support is a form of presumed guilt. A court is not permitted to find guilt [rule on] unless the defendant has waived his right to trial [as permitted by Legislature and granted by the Acknowledgement of Paternity] or exercised his right to trial. Plaintiff has upheld is right to trial on many occasions with various motions filed, but was infringed upon and denied upon. The motion the Plaintiff has filed is to exercise his right to trial which he has been illegally denied and the Defendant is held liable for such illegal action. For the court to deny the right to trial for the Plaintiff would be undermining the judicial system, the integrity of a defendant's rights and insulting members of our Legislature who mandate the laws to protect defendant's from unlawful actions. The allegations of Plaintiff's complaint are sufficient to allow this case to proceed and should not be dismissed. The severity of this matter which includes, false statements and allegations combined with law and civil rights violations should never be dismissed by the court.

3/13/2020 - STATE ATTEMPTS ILLEGAL WAGE GARNISHMENT 3/13/2020 - STATE ATTEMPTS ILLEGAL WAGE GARNISHMENT


Mr. Lavigne is an independant contractor who has been providing web/graphics/IT services for a client. The State of Connecticut attempted to order my client to comply with a wage garnishment, but my client is not my employer as the state has claimed. My client does not have to comply with any order because he is not my employer and he could have severed my contract with him and compromised my income. So I sent a stern letter to the Attorney General's Office who not only attempted this once before, but is now trying again - the first attempt was quickly rescinded after my letter to the AG's office but was again coerced into defending myself and my client....

A reply was never received by the AG's office....

============================================

Attn: Attorney General Tong's Office,

My client [CLIENTS NAME REMOVED] received an income withholding for Support document today and advised me of this illegal action.

[CLIENTS NAME REMOVED] is a client and is not an employer – your office has been advised of this on a prior illegal action committed by Derik Rodriguez who attempted a wage garnishment, but quickly rescinded this action after I submitted a stern letter to your office advising against it or civil action would commence.

You are hereby notified to cease and desist ANY/ALL actions against me as any action which involves my client could terminate any work performed for him and I would lose my income. Derik Rodriguez, a Child Support Enforcement Officer, is already in Federal Court for multiple law violations and civil rights violations – THERE IS NO STATE ACTION WHILE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT IS IN COURT FOR PATERNITY FRAUD.

Should you deviate from my immediate request to withdrawal your action against my client, I will be coerced into filing an immediate motion with Federal Court requesting an immediate hearing regarding this matter.

This letter will serve you as an official notification to cease and desist immediately.

You may reply to this email address or contact me directly: [phone number removed].

Please govern yourself accordingly,
Bruce Lavigne

3/23/2020 - STATE ILLEGALLY INTERCEPTS LOTTERY WINNINGS 3/23/2020 - STATE ILLEGALLY INTERCEPTS LOTTERY WINNINGS


The State illegally intecepted my lottery winnings for which I had to file a motion to reclaim such winnings - The Attorney General's Office and the State of Connecticut is not permitted to violate laws mandated by legislature to pursue me for child support, but lay claim to a statute that allows monetary gain.

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF LOTTERY CLAIM

Defendant's request to deny Plaintiff's motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Immediate Release of Lottery Claim (Doc. 21) should be denied and stricken immediately by the court for non-compliances of laws and civil rights mandated by legislature. Defendant's request of "should deny" opens up the motion for oral argument whereby the Defendant has not laid claim to compliance with any laws to take any state action including interception of lottery winnings from Plaintiff.

The two elements that cannot be orally argued are facts and laws. The State cannot lay claim to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-362d(c) because it has not been properly withheld due to the fact that the State (as claimed by Defendant's Counsel) has not provided the court with the satisfaction to burden of proof (law and civil rights compliances) in order to pursue Plaintiff for child support with no laws to claim in their [defendant's] defense. Counsel for the Defendant declared that Plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the statute in his complaint, yet Defendant's Counsel has demonstrated an unacceptable level of arrogance that the Plaintiff has assumed knowledge to all the laws that the State is claiming to personally attack Plaintiff for monetary reasons. If the Plaintiff was knowledgeable about Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-362d(c), Plaintiff would have taken appropriate action to challenge such statute. The Plaintiff would need to become employed by the State to be educated on all the rights and laws the State has access to for pursuance of child support, but does not necessarily reflect the laws that must be complied with in order to do so.

As stated prior by Plaintiff, there is no state action while the defendant is in court for multiple law and civil rights violations [fraud] .Because the Defendant is in Federal Court for multiple law and civil rights violations, the state is not permitted to take any state action which is the primary reason for the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Plaintiff's motion to reclaim his lottery winnings. Defendant's Counsel stated that the defendant (and the state) "…simply are following the mandatory statutory scheme for collection of unpaid child support…", yet counsel has failed to claim laws that would otherwise permit the defendant to take such action. Defendant is not permitted violate laws and civil rights to pursue the Plaintiff for child support, yet lay claim to another law [statute] that poses a monetary benefit to the state – this action is indeed construed as theft [possible Grand] which could be filed as 1st Degree Larceny against the defendant. Counsel for the defendant declared "…Plaintiff somehow prevailed at trial, which he cannot, any harm to Plaintiff from denial of his Motion for TRO would be reparable through a money judgment…" Counsel for the defendant is not permitted to rule on this case assuming the role of judge / jury with the claim of …" Plaintiff somehow prevailed at trial, which he cannot…" The claim that counsel has made that Plaintiff's motion to reclaim lottery winnings is not based on law compliances for which the defendant is in violation of, would only demonstrate total arrogance by Counsel.

The defendant MUST comply with laws mandated by legislature to purse Plaintiff for child support before the defendant can lay claim (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-362d(c)), to Plaintiff's lottery winnings. This court should never tolerate a Counsel's prediction that the Plaintiff cannot prevail at trial for this decision is for a judge or jury and Plaintiff is offended by Counsel's position on this matter. The money judgment counsel is referencing is Plaintiff's legal right to retrieve lottery winnings because counsel has not proven to the court that laws were complied with that would permit such action.

In Counsel's statement(s) in FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS, Counsel should be informed of the dire consequences surrounding false claims and statements to pursue a defendant's victory on this matter. As stated prior from Plaintiff, the Plaintiff only signed the Acknowledgment of Paternity due to coercion (threatening the Plaintiff with incarceration) which is a direct violation of law. A Voluntary Declaration of Paternity must be signed – willfully by the Plaintiff. The defendant has failed to provide any proof that it was voluntary because the court did not record sessions at that time. The Plaintiff could make a claim to the court that the Plaintiff wasn't even present in court at the time of the ruling (which is illegal on all local, state and federal laws) and the state/defendant couldn't prove otherwise. Furthermore, Counsel's false statement to "…the child's mother "threatened coercion . . . to obtain [his] signature, is untrue and false in its entirety because a member from Child Support Enforcement committed the action – a claim already made in Family Court without being challenged, contested or denied by the defendant. The defendant is required to provide proof that an Acknowledgment of Paternity was signed voluntarily according to law – a crucial element which the defendant cannot provide (failure to record court session confirms this claim).

To further support the preceding statement, according to CT Gen Stat § 46b-172 (2012), section (A) an attested waiver of the right to a blood test, the right to a trial and the right to an attorney, the defendant has failed to comply with any waiver which would otherwise support defendant's anemic defense because this waiver of right to a blood test is also required by law. A right to trial is a Plaintiff's right and not the right of the defendant or any court to deny or infringe upon. As stated by Plaintiff, liability for child support is a form of presumed guilt and the court cannot [defendant at that time] rule guilty on any verdict/decision without a trial. Denying the right to a trial only dismisses the liability in its entirety because it is the right of the Plaintiff as declared on the Acknowledgement of Paternity [Exhibit A] and further supported by CT Gen Stat § 46b-172 [Exhibit B].

SUMMARY

In lieu of Plaintiff's Motion For Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Immediate Release of Lottery Claim (Doc. 21), the court must decide if, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant is in full compliance with laws mandated by legislature to purse Plaintiff for child support before attempting to claim a law for monetary benefit. The defendant never claimed to have complied with any laws regarding his/their actions is a clear indication that violations have been committed.

The fact that the Plaintiff's civil right to a trial, denied by the defendant, is a clear violation of Plaintiff's rights and is not the right of the defendant to deny. For defendants' counsel to make false statements and claims to claim a victory in this case is an adolescent action which lacks merit, compromises ethics and violates code of conduct. Furthermore, for the defendant's counsel to assume the position of judge/jury, already deciding that the Plaintiff will not prevail, should warrants the court's attention which equates to bad lawyering on behalf the Attorney General's Office - that decision is reserved for a judge/jury – not that of counsel.

Counsel for the Defendant is as an officer of the court, taking an oath to support the laws of our state and disrespects the position when violating such oath. Counsel cannot submit forms [motions] to the court which knowingly contain lies and false claims for which counsel has made feeble attempts to this court. Counsel is also not permitted to engage or participate in anything that causes the court to be deceived - Knowingly doing so subjects the client and counsel to criminal prosecution. When a representative of the Attorney General's Office makes false claims/statements, fabricates blatant lies and assumes the role of judge/jury, a complaint to the Statewide Bar and Ethics Committee may be warranted by the Plaintiff for a stern recommendation of disbarment and the public trust compromised in the Attorney General's Office actions.

On April 28, 2019, it was reported that House Bill 7222 positions the attorney general's office to use its unique skills and resources as Connecticut's largest law firm to protect and defend state residents. It allows the office to "investigate allegations that an individual's civil rights are being violated, and initiate legal proceedings in response to such allegations." The Plaintiff finds irony in hypocrisy quoted by Attorney General Tong that the office of the Attorney General promotes the AG's office assistants to engage in violating Plaintiff's civil right to trial according to laws mandated by legislature [ref. Chapter 815y; 47b-172) that was denied by a state agency (Child Support Enforcement) [source: Courant.com]. The Plaintiff is immediately requesting Plaintiff's motion be granted by the court to refund money for lottery winnings and grant the TRO.

The defendant is not permitted to violate multiple laws and violate civil rights to lay claim to Plaintiff's lottery winnings. Furthermore, counsel for the defendant is not permitted to submit or make claims of blatant lies, false statements and assuming the role of judge/jury to wrongly deceive the court in an attempt to unlawfully and illegally [violating code of ethics and conduct] sway the court in defendant's favor.

4/04/2020 - FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 4/04/2020 - FORMAL COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

Due to the illegall actions of the Attorney General's Office assistant who is representing the State of Connecticut in Federal Court, I was compelled to file a formal complaint against her for multiple violations in actions, conduct, ethics and deceiving the court...

LETTER OF COMPLAINT SENT TO THE CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL

On 10/8/2019, Mr. Lavigne filed a motion in federal court against a Support Enforcement Services offer, Derik Rodriguez for violating multiple laws and civil rights. On 12/3/2019, Alma Rose Nunley filed an appearance on behalf of Derik Rodriguez to represent him as the defendant. On 1/15/2020, Ms. Nunley filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of the defendant.

This complaint against Ms. Nunley is in regard to the misleading, incorrect and falsified information contained within the Motion to Dismiss (and following documents Ms. Nunley filed) and although Mr. Lavigne is a Pro-Se Litigant, this complaint is filed according to Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct and intent to deceive the federal court with falsified and misleading information to facilitate a judge's decision to grant such motion.

It has been demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that Ms. Nunley has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense. As an assistant to the Attorney General's Office, Ms. Nunley should know not to file frivolous claims or to continue pursuing claims after it has become clear (perhaps through discovery) that they [counsel/defendant] have no basis in law or in fact. This act exposes Ms. Nunley and her client to criminal prosecution. In Document 14-1, Ms. Nunley stated "There is no dispute that Plaintiff Bruce Lavigne fathered a child in Connecticut over thirty years ago". Ms. Nunley deceived the court with this falsified statement because no laws were cited in her statement nor were any law compliances executed. If there was not dispute, Mr. Lavigne would not have filed civil action in federal court citing law and civil rights violation(s).

Ms. Nunley also stated "Plaintiff does not allege that he did not execute the acknowledgment of paternity or that he petitioned the court for review of his petition within three years of executing it. Indeed, Plaintiff does not even allege that he is not the father of his child". Again, Ms. Nunley has falsified this statement to advance her client's defense without any burden of proof being satisfied and again, no laws that she cited in her statement. Ms. Nunley has clearly deceived the court with misinformation and false claims. An officer of the court, especially one of the attorney general's office, is not permitted to submit false claims to a judge which is a violation(s) of Code of Conduct and opens the floor for prosecution.

Ms. Nunley's violations extends to not only deceiving the court with falsified/misleading information to facilitate a motion, but also (1); Rule 3.5. Impartiality and Decorum; (1) Seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law (2); Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority (3); Rule 8.4. Misconduct It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:(1) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (3) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (4) Engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

========================================

THE ATTORNEY'S OATH

You solemnly swear or solemnly and sincerely affirm, as the case may be, that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any cause of action that is false or unlawful; that you will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that you will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which you may practice, according to the best of your learning and judgment, faithfully, to both your client and the court.
========================================

It was quoted on a motion filed by Mr. Lavigne in federal court that: "On April 28, 2019, it was reported that House Bill 7222 positions the attorney general's office to use its unique skills and resources as Connecticut's largest law firm to protect and defend state residents. It allows the office to "investigate allegations that an individual's civil rights are being violated, and initiate legal proceedings in response to such allegations.[source: Courant.com]" The Plaintiff finds irony in hypocrisy quoted by Attorney General Tong that the office of the Attorney General promotes the AG's office assistants to engage in violating Plaintiff's civil right to trial according to laws mandated by legislature [ref. Chapter 815y; 47b-172) that was denied by a state agency (Child Support Enforcement)." According to the Connecticut Bar Association under Lawyers' Principles of Professionalism, it states "...I will not knowingly make statements of fact or of law that are untrue..."

Every citizen in the State of Connecticut is bound by laws mandated be legislature. As a member of the bar and an assistant to the attorney general, Ms. Nunley is held to even a higher standard which was willfully and knowingly violated. The motions that Ms. Nunley filed in federal court contained falsified information, misinformation and/or blatant lies. Federal Court case #3:19-cv-01576-VAB may be reviewed to validate the information Mr. Lavigne is providing to you to investigate this complaint against Ms. Nunley.

Should the office of the attorney general choose to dismiss the investigation into these allegations or deviate from protocols/procedures for investigating this complaint, Mr. Lavigne has no compunction about filing a formal complaint against Ms. Nunley recommending the imposition of sanctions against her along with a stern recommendation of disbarment and this agency (attorney general's office) will be incriminated for ignoring and dismissing this complaint.

The Attorney General's Office has not yet replied....

4/16/2020 - STATE DENIES APPEAL TO RECLAIM LOTTERY WINNINGS 4/16/2020 - STATE DENIES APPEAL TO RECLAIM LOTTERY WINNINGS

The State of Connecticut Department of Social Services Adminstrative Hearings Division denied my appeal to reclaim my lottery winnings. I'm not surprised because the State works with the State and would never deviate from covering each other's backs - they said in a hearing that they are bound by laws when making a decision, yet deviated from that in it's entirety. Here is my reponse to that [appeal]...

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION


Date: April 17, 2020
Client ID: 001192434
Re: Hearing Request #153425

PARTIES:
• Bruce Lavigne, Appellant
• Andrew Celinski, Supervisor Support Enforcement Officer
• Miklos Mencseli, Hearing Officer

Appellant’s Right to Appeal and Request Reversal of Decision

This appeal is based on the following facts and laws:
Mr. Lavigne inquired to Mr. Mencseli if the decision of this hearing was based on laws and Mr. Mencseli told Mr. Lavigne they were. If laws were considered in Mr. Mencseli’s decision, then Mr. Mencseli would not have found in favor of Mr. Celinski representing Support Enforcement Services (SES) for the following factual reasons:

1. When Mr. Lavigne asked Mr. Celinski if he was able to cite any law that permits him to pursue Mr. Lavigne for child support, he was not able to provide any answer or cite any law. He just referenced a ruling which is not law. If Mr. Celinski cannot prove he is in law compliance to pursue Appellant for child support, then Mr. Celinski cannot make a claim for Section 52-362d(c).

2. When Mr. Lavigne asked Mr. Celinski if he would entertain Appellant’s request to break down [and dissect] any/all laws referencing Chapter 815y Section 47b-172, he provided no answer or was not able to do so.

3. The ruling for which Mr. Celinski references in regard to Magistrate Carbonneau's decision who did not [failed] cite any laws, infringed upon Appellant’s right to trial as outlined on the first page of the Acknowledge of Paternity [with Appellant’s coerced signature] and Chapter 815y Section 47b-172, brought his [Carbonneau] own personal beliefs to the table that a signature is valid paternity [with no law or evidence to support his false claim] and made a false claim that Appellant’s signature on the Acknowledgment of Paternity was voluntary.

1. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct; Rule 2.2. impartiality and Fairness; subsection (2)"...a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. ..” Magistrate Carbonneau did not cite laws in his ruling, but instead opted for misconduct and deprived and infringed upon Mr. Lavigne's rights under Color of Law [abuse of power] defined as follows:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

In Connecticut, Section 19 of article first of the [state] constitution is amended to read as follows: The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate (free or safe from injury or violation).

a. A Magistrate [judge] is not permitted to bring his own personal beliefs to a case for ruling purposes. Magistrate Carbonneau can belief whatever he chooses, but when in a position as a fair and impartial jurist who is bound by Code of Conduct and Ethics freely violates his conduct and ethics compromises not only his position and authority, but also acts outside of his privileges and authority.

b. Magistrate Carbonneau submitted a false statement in his ruling indicating that “…Defendant by his signature declared that he freely and voluntarily signed the Acknowledgment”… - Connecticut state law mandates that a signature must be voluntary and evidence of such must be presented to state [make] such claim. A family court magistrate is not permitted under his/her authority and position to lay any claim that a defendant committed an act without providing burden of proof to support such claim for which is the SES's obligation to do so and not that of a jurist. Magistrate Carbonneau acted outside of his authority.

c. 1868—14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the US...are citizens...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws." Also, according to Civil Rights and Affirmative Action Laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 — adds provisions to title VII protections, including right to jury trial.

REITERATION SUMMARY

• Mr. Mencseli admitted at the recorded hearing that he is bound by law for his decision regarding this Appellant’s appeal, yet Mr. Mencseli failed to cite laws in his decision. Mr. Mencseli must ascertain that the State has complied with laws mandated by legislature to purse the Appellant for child support before attempting to make a claim for Section 52-362d(c). A judge’s decision does not dismiss laws mandated by legislature and, as stated under Code of Judicial Conduct; Rule 2.2. impartiality and Fairness; subsection (2)",...a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. ..”

• Mr. Mencseli went outside of his authority to consider a ruling which does not cite laws and dismissed laws mandated by legislature resulting is his willfulness to disregard the State’s compliance with laws surrounding Chapter 815y, Section 47b-172 and subsections. Mr. Celinski’s lack of defense supports this claim.

• Mr. Celinski was unable to cite any laws regarding the Acknowledgement of Paternity (Chapter 815y, Section 47b-172 and subsections) that would otherwise permit him to seek out and claim Section 52-362d(c).

• Mr. Celinski was challenged by Appellant to cite laws regarding rights to pursue Appellant for child support, but was not able to do so. Violating laws mandated by legislature regarding Chapter 815y, Section 47b-172 and subsections does not permit or allow any state agency to lay claim to Section 52-362d(c) because it claims monetary value to the State.


Statute Reference

P.A. 91-391 amended Subsec.(a) by adding requirement that acknowledgment of paternity be accompanied by attested waiver of right to blood test, right to trial and right to an attorney and amended Subsec. (b) Annotations to former section 52-435a: - 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 179.

Former statute cited. Id., 581, 582. Defendant’s paternity of plaintiff’s child must be proved by plaintiff by a fair preponderance of evidence, as in any other civil case; evidence of substantive facts is essential and they cannot be proved by corroborative evidence consisting only of constancy of accusation.

SUMMARY

It is imperative that Mr. Mencseli reverse his decision in this ruling effective immediately.

Mr. Mencseli failed to abide by and adhere to the laws of Connecticut (engaging in unlawful procedure) in his decision to find in favor of SES as Mr. Mencseli is bound by Code of Conduct and state protocols to cite laws in his findings for his ruling and has engaged in procedural irregularities (failure to cite law with clear and concise error of laws mandated by legislature for which the SES knowingly violated). Furthermore, Mr. Celinski did not cite any laws which would otherwise permit the SES to pursue Mr. Lavigne for child support which denies the SES to make a claim for Section 52-362d(c). There is total non-compliance with laws mandated by legislature on behalf of the SES.

Should Mr. Mencseli fail to reverse this decision, Mr. Lavigne will have no compunction about filing a formal complaint against Mr. Mencseli for willfully violating the guidelines according to his position which involves citing laws mandated by legislature and violating his code of conduct and ethics according to protocol and procedure for his ill-made decision.

Furthermore, Mr. Lavigne will seek Mr. Mencseli's employment termination citing such violations and will exercise every resource available for such conviction. This action may be necessary to ensure that the public trust is not compromised and that this hearing officer [Mr. Mencseli] is required to be in full compliance with his responsibilities as a hearing officer which does not permit any action [decision] to any party without citing laws. As stated by Appellant, rulings are not laws and such ruling that Mr. Mencseli found in favor of is open to incrimination, ridicule and multiple law/civil rights violations committed by the SES and referenced unlawful ruling of Magistrate Carbonneau.

4/21/2020 - STATE ILLEGALLY ATTACKS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 4/21/2020 - STATE ILLEGALLY ATTACKS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

I filed for unemployment compensation because I am a contractor who is considered to be in "non-essential" industry and was put out of work. After receiving my benefits (only $141/week), the State of Connecticut has illegally garnished my benefits for child support never proven - for which they claim that a prior ruling permits them to take such action - but the action involves a magistrate who engaged in misconduct, conspiracy, declaring false statement(s), deviating from laws mandated by legislature and infringing upon my right to trial as mandated by legislature...so now I have to file another motion...

MOTION FOR RESTRAINING ORDER ON GARNISHMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS AND SET ASIDE JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is seeking an immediate Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] on the garnishment of Plaintiff's unemployment compensation benefits [Exhibit A] for non-compliances of laws and civil rights mandated by legislature. As stated in prior motions filed by Plaintiff, there is no state action while the defendant is in court for multiple law and civil rights violations [fraud].

The defendant MUST comply with laws mandated by legislature to purse Plaintiff for child support before the defendant can lay claim to Plaintiff's unemployment compensation benefits. Defendant will claim that a ruling by Magistrate Carbonneau permits the defendant to garnish Plaintiff's unemployment benefits, but such ruling must be set aside and a new judgment ordered because said Magistrate acted outside of his responsibilities, conduct and engaged in conspiring to conceal fraud committed by the State of Connecticut and illegally infringed upon Plaintiff's right to trial as indicated on Exhibit A and Exhibit B [filed on 3/23/2020; Document #24].

Magistrate Carbonneau's decision who did not [failed] cite any laws, infringed upon Plaintiff's right to trial as indicated on Exhibit .A and Exhibit .B [filed on 3/23/2020; Document #24],, brought his [Carbonneau] own personal beliefs to the table that a signature is valid paternity [with no law or evidence to support his false claim] and made a false claim that Plaintiff's signature on the Acknowledgment of Paternity was voluntary. State law mandates that a signature must be voluntary and the burden of proof to provide law compliances lies before the defendant to declare and not a magistrate.

Under the Code of Judicial Conduct; Rule 2.2. impartiality and Fairness; subsection (2)"...a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question. .." Magistrate Carbonneau did not cite laws in his ruling, but instead opted for misconduct and deprived and infringed upon Mr. Lavigne's rights under Color of Law [abuse of power] defined as follows:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

In Connecticut, Section 19 of article first of the [state] constitution is amended to read as follows: The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate (free or safe from injury or violation).

A Magistrate [judge] is not permitted to bring his own personal beliefs to a case for ruling purposes. Magistrate Carbonneau can belief whatever he chooses, but when in a position as a fair and impartial jurist who is bound by Code of Conduct and Ethics freely violates his conduct and ethics compromises not only his position and authority, but also acts outside of his privileges and authority.

Magistrate Carbonneau submitted a false statement in his ruling indicating that "…Defendant by his signature declared that he freely and voluntarily signed the Acknowledgment"… - Connecticut state law mandates that a signature must be voluntary and evidence of such must be presented by the state to make such claim. A family court magistrate is not permitted under his/her authority and position to lay any claim that a defendant committed an act without providing burden of proof to support such claim for which is the Defendant's obligation to do so and not that of a jurist. Magistrate Carbonneau acted outside of his authority.

Magistrate Carbonneau's statement in his ruling also declared "…because an unknown and unnamed Support Enforcement Officer or Officers threatened him with incarceration..". For a magistrate to demand a name from the Plaintiff in regards to threats of incarceration for the purpose of signing an acknowledgment, which spans back over 25 years is not only considered preposterous, but also unreasonable. Yet, Magistrate Carbonneau declared that "…Evidence and witnesses from 25 years ago is understandably lost…" – a witness for which the court demanded from the Plaintiff who coerced him into signing the acknowledgment. Magistrate Carbonneau contradicted his own statement while incriminating the Plaintiff because the truth is a defense which was dismissed without the magistrate demanding or referencing law compliance from the defendant to declare [prove] a voluntary signature. Magistrate Carbonneau clearly conspired to conceal and evade the laws mandated by legislature, while at the same time, falsified a statement on behalf of the defendant against the plaintiff without citing law(s).

Furthermore, Magistrate Carbonneau continued to state "…He did not deny that the documents were signed before a Notary Public who sealed them as defendant's free act and deed". This statement, as contradictory as it is, is untrue in its entirety as Plaintiff has no control to what a Notary's actions are after signing an acknowledgment which was coerced by the State of Connecticut and cannot be considered a "free act and deed" by the Plaintiff. If this statement bared any truth, the Plaintiff would not be requesting a motion to request trial according to Plaintiff's civil rights as mandated by legislature and challenging fraud committed by the Defendant.

Magistrate Carbonneau undoubtedly committed perjury to dismiss Plaintiff's motion. As a governor appointed attorney who acts as a magistrate in a Connecticut Judicial Branch, said magistrate is required to uphold judiciary ethics and law. The privileges that this magistrate has been granted have been abused and such privileges should be revoked immediately.

Plaintiff is requesting an immediate TRO against the defendant preventing the defendant from garnishment monies from Plaintiff's unemployment compensation benefits, further requesting that the court issue a TRO against the defendant from taking any further action against the Plaintiff and to set aside Magistrate Carbonneau's ruling which bears misconduct, conspiracy, declaring false statement(s), deviating from laws mandated by legislature and infringing upon Plaintiff's right to trial as outlined and mandated by legislature citing civil rights [Exhibit A and Exhibit B [filed on 3/23/2020; Document #24].

LAW / STATUTE REFERENCE

• 1868—14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the US...are citizens...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws." Also, according to Civil Rights and Affirmative Action Laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 — adds provisions to title VII protections, including right to jury trial.

• The Fourteenth Amendment; 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 any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

• DELGADO v. MARTINEZ, No. FA 78-0434989S (Jul. 3, 1990) Id. Continuing, the court stated…" Thus, it would be fundamentally unfair for the law to imply a waiver of procedural due process rights merely because a person has signed an uncounseled and possibly coerced written acknowledgment of paternity."

5/4/2020 - STATE ILLEGALLY INTERCEPTS STIMULUS CHECK 5/4/2020 - STATE ILLEGALLY INTERCEPTS STIMULUS CHECK

Today, May 4, 2020, I received a letter from the IRS indicating that my stimulus check for $1,200 has been intercepted by the State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement - illegally. They are already aware they are in court for paternity fraud and continue to illegally take money from me wherever and whenever they can. THIS WILL STOP! I have drafted a letter to Child Support Enforcement demanding the release of my stimulus check or I am filing criminal charges in federal court to include 1st Degree Larceny. My letter to them as follow...

May 5, 2020

State of Connecticut
Dept. of Social Services
Bureau of Child Support Enforcement
55 Farmington Avenue
Harford, CT 06105


Bruce Lavigne
(address/phone removed)


To Whom It May Concern:

On May 4, 2020, I received a notice (see enclosure) from the U.S. Department of Treasury that my payment of $1,200 was applied toward an illegal debt. As you may or may not know (depending on the individual reading this letter), The State of Connecticut Child Support Enforcement is already in Federal Court for paternity fraud not only facing law and civil rights violations, but also possible 1st Degree Larceny and other criminal charges (misconduct, multiple code of conduct violations, deceiving the court, falsifying claims to facilitate a motion to dismiss my case, etc.).

The Attorney General's office assistant, Alma Nunley, is already being investigated for violating conduct, code of ethics and deceiving the court who is representing Child Support Enforcement for the above aforementioned claims.

I am hereby demanding that you release the IRS check in the amount of $1,200 to me immediately or I will be coerced into filing criminal charges in federal court for illegally intercepting monies owed to me by your agency which will include 1st degree larceny (illegally intercepting lottery winnings recently filed in Federal Court). I will extend my intent to criminal charges being filed against the Attorney General's office for falsifying claims to facilitate a motion to dismiss my case in court and to include deceiving the court (criminal charges).

Please govern yourself accordingly.
Regards,
Bruce Lavigne
/Enclosure

7/5/2020 - STATE HEARING OFFICER COMMITS TREASON 7/5/2020 - STATE HEARING OFFICER COMMITS TREASON
× HEARING OFFICER UPDATE!!!

On July 6, 2020, I filed a formal complaint against a hearing officer, Miklos Menscseli, who is employed by the Department of Social Services Office of Legal Counsel, Regulations and Administrative Hearings in Connecticut. This complaint was filed with the Statewide Grievance Committee because said hearing officer acted outside of his authority and compromised his Code of Coduct/Ethics in his illegal decision-making process regarding my lottery winnings which were illegally intercepted by Support Enforcement Services.

I just received my complaint back from the Statewide Grievance Committee Indicating that Miklos Menscseli IS NOT LICENSED IN CONNECTICUT, yet made an illegal decision on my hearing. I emailed the Attorney General to bring formal charges against Miklos Mensceli and/or Department of Social Services Office of Legal Counsel, Regulations and Administrative Hearings.

The decision to withhold my lottery winnings was illegal and the hearing officer was NOT licensed in Connecticut to make that decision.

A hearing officer who works for the Department of Social Services, Office of Legal Counsel, Regulations and Administrative Hearings has acted outside of his authority, failed to cite laws in his decision/ruling and conspired to conceal fraud committed by State of Connecticut Support Enforcement Services. A complaint has been submitted to the Statewide Bar for processing and employment termination - a motion may need to be filed with Superior Court as well...it never ends...

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION


Date: April 17, 2020
Client ID: 001192434
Re: Hearing Request #153425

PARTIES:

• Bruce Lavigne, Appellant
• Andrew Celinski, Supervisor Support Enforcement Officer
• Miklos Mencseli, Hearing Officer

Appellant’s Right to Appeal and Request Reversal of Decision

This appeal is based on the following facts and laws:

Mr. Lavigne inquired to Mr. Mencseli if the decision of this hearing was based on laws and Mr. Mencseli told Mr. Lavigne they were. If laws were considered in Mr. Mencseli's decision, then Mr. Mencseli would not have found in favor of Mr. Celinski representing Support Enforcement Services (SES) for the following factual reasons: 1. When Mr. Lavigne asked Mr. Celinski if he was able to cite any law that permits him to pursue Mr. Lavigne for child support, he was not able to provide any answer or cite any law. He just referenced a ruling which is not law. If Mr. Celinski cannot prove he is in law compliance to pursue Appellant for child support, then Mr. Celinski cannot make a claim for Section 52-362d(c).

2. When Mr. Lavigne asked Mr. Celinski if he would entertain Appellant's request to break down [and dissect] any/all laws referencing Chapter 815y Section 47b-172, he provided no answer or was not able to do so.

3. The ruling for which Mr. Celinski references regarding Magistrate Carbonneau's decision who did not [failed] cite any laws, infringed upon Appellant's right to trial as outlined on the first page of the Acknowledge of Paternity [with Appellant's coerced signature] and Chapter 815y Section 47b-172, brought his [Carbonneau] own personal beliefs to the table that a signature is valid paternity [with no law or evidence to support his false claim] and made a false claim that Appellant’s signature on the Acknowledgment of Paternity was voluntary.

a. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct; Rule 2.2. impartiality and Fairness; subsection (2)"...a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question...” Magistrate Carbonneau did not cite laws in his ruling, but instead opted for misconduct and deprived and infringed upon Mr. Lavigne’s rights under Color of Law [abuse of power] defined as follows:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any. In Connecticut, Section 19 of article first of the [state] constitution is amended to read as follows: “The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate (free or safe from injury or violation).”

a)  A Magistrate [judge] is not permitted to bring his own personal ' beliefs to a case for ruling purposes. Magistrate Carbonneau can belief whatever he chooses, but when in a position as a fair and impartial jurist who is bound by Code of Conduct and Ethics freely violates his conduct and ethics compromises not only his position and authority, but also acts outside of his privileges and authority.

b)  Magistrate Carbonneau submitted a false Statement in his ruling indicating that “...Defendant by his signature declared that he freely and voluntarily signed the Acknowledgment... - Connecticut state law mandates that a signature must be voluntary and evidence of such must be presented to state [make] such claim. Evidence of law compliance does not exist because SES nor the courts did not record any hearing at the conception of the original cased which commenced in 1989. A family court magistrate is not permitted under his/her authority and position to lay any claim that a defendant committed an act without providing burden of proof to support such claim for which is the SES's obligation to do so and not that of a jurist. Magistrate Carbonneau acted outside of his authority.

c)  1868—14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the US...are citizens...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws." Also, according to Civil Rights and Affirmative Action Laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 — adds provisions to title VII protections, including right to jury trial.

SUMMARY

It is imperative that Mr. Mencseli reverse his decision in this ruling effective immediately. Mr. Mencseli failed to abide by and adhere to the laws of Connecticut (engaging in unlawful procedure) in his decision to find in favor of SES as Mr. Mencseli is bound by Code of Conduct and state protocols to cite laws in his findings for his ruling and has engaged in procedural irregularities (failure to cite law with clear and concise error of laws mandated by legislature for which the SES knowingly violated).

Mr. Celinski did not cite any laws which would otherwise permit the SES to pursue Mr. Lavigne for child support which denies the SES to make a claim for Section 52-362d(c). There is total non-compliance with laws mandated by legislature on behalf of the SES. Should Mr. Mencseli fail to reverse this decision, Mr. Lavigne will have no compunction about filing a formal complaint against Mr. Mencseli for willfully violating the guidelines 7 according to his position which involves citing laws mandated by legislature and violating his code of conduct and ethics according to protocol and procedure for his ill- made decision.

Furthermore, Mr. Lavigne will seek Mr. Mencseli's employment termination citing such violations and will exercise every resource available for such conviction. This action may be necessary to ensure that the public trust is not compromised and that this hearing officer [Mr. Mencseli] is required to be in full compliance with his responsibilities as a hearing officer which does not permit any action [decision] to any party without citing laws. As stated by Appellant, rulings are not laws and such ruling that Mr. Mencseli found in favor of is open to incrimination, ridicule and multiple law/civil rights violations committed by the SES and referenced unlawful ruling of Magistrate Carbonneau.

8/7/2020 - MOTION FILED TO RECLAIM LOTTERY WINNINGS 8/7/2020 - MOTION FILED TO RECLAIM LOTTERY WINNINGS

WATERBURY SUPERIOR COURT

Bruce Lavigne (Plaintiff) vs. Miklos Mencseli (Defendant)
Dkt No.: UWY-CV20-5026709-S
Date: July 28, 2020

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, BRUCE LAVIGNE, brings forth this complaint against Defendant, MIKLOS MENCSELI, HEARING OFFICER FOR STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, REGULATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, BRUCE LAVIGNE, (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is an individual who is currently residing at (address removed). Defendant, MIKLOS MENCSELI employment address is currently 55 Farmington Avenue, Hartford, CT 06105

II. FACTS

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing to contest the State of Connecticut Support Enforcement Services' action to withhold Plaintiff's lottery winnings [Exhibit A]. On March 26, 2020, an administrative hearing commenced via telephone with Plaintiff, Andrew Celinski (Supervisor Support Enforcement Officer) and Miklos Mencseli [defendant] (Hearing Officer for the Department of Social Services; Office of Legal Counsel, Regulations and Administrative Hearings). During this telephone conference for oral argument, Plaintiff interrogated defendant with the regard to laws for which he [defendant] is bound to in his decision/ruling process — he admitted he was bound by law.

During the oral arguments, Mr. Celinski, representing the State of Connecticut Support Enforcement Services, could not and was not able to cite any laws for claiming Section 52-362d. Mr. Celinski only referenced a ruling by the court which allegedly permits Support Enforcement Services to take such action to intercept lottery winnings, but in fact, if no laws were cited or referenced in such action [ruling], then such action is deemed illegal and violates laws mandated by legislature combined with Code of Ethics and Professional Code of Conduct violations demonstrated by the defendant and the State of Connecticut Support Enforcement Services.

On April 13, a NOTICE OF DECISION [Exhibit B] was mailed to Plaintiff with a determination that defendant found in favor of SES citing a court ruling which did not cite laws in the requirement of citing laws in the decision-making process.

On April 17, 2020, a letter of Request For Consideration was drafted by Plaintiff contesting the decision of defendant's ruling [Exhibit C].

On a letter dated June 24, 2020, Plaintiff received a notification of denial [Exhibit D] for the appeal citing laws and facts, but the defendant did not require laws to be cited by SES nor did defendant cite laws in his findings and ruling. Furthermore, Plaintiff received the complaint filed against the Defendant back from the Statewide Grievance Committee [Exhibit E] who revealed that the Defendant was not licensed in Connecticut indicating the Defendant acted in his current employment position as a Hearing Officer for the State Of Connecticut Department Of Social Services Office Of Legal Counsel, Regulations And Administrative Hearings and ruled illegally upon Plaintiff's Request for Reconsideration unable to cite laws and was not licensed within his capacity as a hearing officer. It is a requirement by the State that any/all Hearing Officers be licensed at time of employment. The defendant's ruling is considered invalid and illegal.

RELIEF

Citing the requirement of licensing for all hearing officers employed in a state agency capacity, the Plaintiff is requesting that the court immediately reverse the decision of the Defendant because the defendant was not in a legal status when he ruled upon Plaintiff's hearing and that the court consider laws which were not referenced in either the defendant's finding(s) / ruling combined with Support Enforcement Services lack of laws cited in their illegal action to intercept Plaintiff's lottery winnings.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff is also seeking the immediate employment termination of the defendant. The public trust has been compromised because a state agency employs individuals without the required license credentials.

The Plaintiff is also requesting that the court impose heavy sanctions against the State Of Connecticut Department of Social Services Office of Legal Counsel, Regulations and Administrative Hearings for employing a hearing officer who is not legally authorized to conduct any services in any capacity due to non-compliance of required licensing.

1/28/2021 - U.S. DIST. COURT (OF CT) DENIES RIGHTS & TRIAL 1/28/2021 - U.S. DIST. COURT (OF CT) DENIES RIGHTS & TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRUCE LAVIGNE, Plaintiff, v. DERIK RODRIGUEZ, Defendant. No. 3:19-cv-01576 (VAB)

RULING AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Bruce Lavigne ("Plaintiff" or "Petitioner") has moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis this Court's dismissal of his Complaint against Derik Rodriguez ("Defendant"), which alleged that Mr. Rodriguez failed to challenge Mr. Lavigne's acknowledgment of paternity and sought reimbursement of previously collected child support monies and various injunctive relief. Aff. Accompanying Mot. for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 45 (Jan. 19, 2021) ("Mot."); see Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 32 (Oct. 16, 2020); Compl., ECF No. 1 (Oct. 8, 2019). For the following reasons, Mr. Lavigne's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis will be DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court presumes general familiarity with the factual background of this case, which is set forth in the Court's Ruling and Order on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Ruling and Order on Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 29 (Sept. 25, 2020) ("MTD Order"). On September 25, 2020, the Court dismissed Mr. Lavigne's Complaint on the ground that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded consideration of his claims for relief, as the Court "would need to consider the underlying state proceedings to evaluate whether Mr. Lavigne's acknowledgment of paternity is invalid."1 MTD Order at 10. As the Court noted, because it found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded consideration of Mr. Lavigne's claims, it "need not and d[id] not consider . . . other arguments in favor of dismissal." Id. at 10.

On October 16, 2020, Mr. Lavigne filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Court's dismissal of his case. Notice of Appeal. On November 9, 2020, Mr. Lavigne moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. 36 (Nov. 9, 2020). On December 4, 2020, the Court denied the motion without prejudice on the ground that he had failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a), as he had not submitted the required Form 4 or identified his claimed entitlement to redress or the issues he intended to present on appeal. See Order, ECF No. 37 (Dec. 4, 2020). The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Mr. Lavigne a blank Form 4. Id.

On December 15, 2020, Mr. Lavigne again moved for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Aff. Accompanying Mot. for Permission to Appeal In Forma Pauperis, ECF No. 38 (Dec. 15, 2020). On December 16, 2020, the Court again denied the motion without prejudice, noting that Mr. Lavigne had "submitted the proper Form 4, but ha[d] not completed the section on the first page of the affidavit describing his 'issues on appeal'" as required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a). Order, ECF No. 39 (Dec. 16, 2020).

On December 21, 2020, Mr. Lavigne again moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot. for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ECF No. As the Court observed in its order of dismissal, "[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine is named for two Supreme Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983))." Sung Cho v. City of New York, 910 F.3d 639, 644 (2d Cir. 2018). The doctrine "establishes 'the clear principle that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are, in substance, appeals from state-court judgments.'" Edwards v. McMillen Capital, LLC, 952 F.3d 32, 35 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Sung Cho, 910 F.3d at 644). Under the doctrine, "cases that function as de facto appeals of state-court judgments are therefore jurisdictionally barred." Sung Cho, 910 F.3d at 644." On December 23, 2020, the Court denied the motion without prejudice, noting that Mr. Lavigne had "again failed to comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)" because his affidavit again "d[id] not sufficiently identify, or identify at all, Mr. Lavigne's claimed entitlement to redress or the issues that he intends to present on appeal." Order, ECF No. 41 (Dec. 23, 2020). The Court directed the Clerk of Court to send Mr. Lavigne another blank Form 4. Id. On January 4, 2021, Mr. Lavigne moved for clarification on the Court's December 23, 2020 Order. Mot. for Clarification, ECF No. 43 (Jan. 4, 2021). On January 6, 2021, the Court granted the motion for clarification, stating that, as the Court had explained in its earlier orders, Mr. Lavigne was required to describe his issues on appeal and had failed to do so. See Order, ECF No. 44 (Jan. 6, 2021). The Court attached a copy of the required Form 4 and highlighted the portion Mr. Lavigne had failed to complete. Id.

On January 19, 2021, Mr. Lavigne filed this motion. Mot.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

An application to appeal in forma pauperis is required to "conform to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24, and include, in affidavit form, representations of the movant's inability to pay, her belief that she is entitled to redress, and a statement of the issues that she intends to present on appeal." Aouatif v. City of New York, No. 07-cv-1302 (RRM) (JO), 2019 WL 11343403, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2019) (slip op.) (citing Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(1)(C)) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

The decision of whether to grant a request to proceed in forma pauperis is left to the district court's discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Burda Media Inc. v. Blumenberg, 731 F. Supp. 2d 321, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). However, "an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith." Aouatif, 2019 WL 11343403, at *1. "The 'good faith' standard is an objective one, and it is not met when an appellant asserts a frivolous claim for review." Id. (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Smith v. City of New York, No. 12-cv-8131 (JGK), 2014 WL 2575778, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 9, 2014)). The Second Circuit has held that "[g]enerally[,] an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis will have sufficient substance to warrant consideration only if, in addition to an adequate showing of indigence and of citizenship, it identifies with reasonable particularity the claimed errors which will be the basis for the appeal." United States v. Farley, 238 F.2d 575, 576 (2d Cir. 1956). Indeed, "if on consideration the trial judge is conscientiously convinced that there is no substantial question for review and that an appeal will be futile," or if the trial judge believes "that there is no reasonable basis for the claims of alleged error, it is the duty of the trial judge, albeit not a pleasant duty, to certify that the appeal is not taken in good faith." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). However, the "threshold level for permitting persons to proceed in forma pauperis is not very great and doubts about the substantiality of the issues presented should normally be resolved in the applicant's favor." Dickerson v. Mut. of Am., No. 09 Civ. 822 (NRB), 2010 WL 1685964, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010) (quoting Miranda v. United States, 458 F.2d 1179, 1181 (2d Cir. 1972)).

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Lavigne identifies two issues on appeal, arguing that the Court erred in its order of dismissal because (1) "[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not law and is only a legal precept invoked by defendants to strip federal district courts of their subject matter jurisdiction . . . ." and (2) that the Court's decision "does not reflect or dismiss the multiple law, civil and constitutional rights violations committed by the defendant whereby plaintiff has been illegally denied his civil and constitutional rights to trial." Mot. at 7.

The Court concludes that the first reason, that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine "is not law," id. at 7, presents no substantial question for review and that an appeal will be futile, see Farley, 238 F.2d at 576. As the Second Circuit has repeatedly made clear, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine remains good law. See, e.g., Powell v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, -- F. App'x --, 2020 WL 7688338, at *1 (2d Cir. 2020) ("The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over 'cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.'" (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005))); Edwards, 952 F.3d at 35 ("[T]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine establishes 'the clear principle that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are, in substance, appeals from state-court judgments." (quoting Sung Cho, 910 F.3d at 644)). And it is well-established that trial courts "are bound by applicable Circuit precedent." Newsom Lang v. Warren Int'l, 129 F. Supp. 2d 662, 664 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); see also In re African Apartheid Litig., 15 F. Supp. 3d 454, 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) ("Lower courts are bound by Second Circuit precedent unless it is expressly or implicitly overruled by the Supreme Court or an en banc panel of the Second Circuit." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Mr. Lavigne's argument that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is "not law" therefore presents no "substantial question for review." Farley, 238 F.2d at 576. As to Mr. Lavigne's second argument, that the Court's order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss "does not reflect or dismiss the multiple law, civil and constitutional rights violations committed by the defendant whereby plaintiff has been illegally denied his civil and constitutional rights to trial," Mot. at 7, the Court concludes that this argument both fails to "identif[y] with reasonable particularity the claimed errors which will be the basis for the appeal," Farley, 238 F.2d at 576, and that it is in any event futile, see id.

As an initial matter, Mr. Lavigne does not identify "with reasonable particularity" the "multiple law, civil and constitutional rights violations [purportedly] committed by" Mr. Rodriguez that, in Mr. Lavigne's view, the Court insufficiently addressed in its order of dismissal. Mot. at 7. This lack of specificity is not merely a superficial defect in a motion to appeal in forma pauperis, as the "reasonable particularity" "requirement has been strictly applied where it 'hinders the district court's task of determining whether an appeal is taken in good faith.'" United States v. Scott, No. 9-cr-331 (HB), 2011 WL 3586434, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011) (quoting Frias v. United States, No. 9-cv-2537, 1-cr-307 (JFK), 2011 WL 832903, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2011)). As a result, because Mr. Lavigne has not made clear which "violations" the Court allegedly overlooked in its dismissal, the Court cannot determine whether Mr. Lavigne's appeal is taken in good faith. See Aouatif, 2019 WL 11343403, at *1 ("While the Court is cognizant that Aouatif proceeds pro se, without understanding the specific grounds for her appeal, the Court is unable to determine whether the appeal is objectively taken in good faith. Accordingly, there is no basis for the Court to grant in forma pauperis status for appeal purposes." (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Frias, 2011 WL 832903, at *2 ("A district court is not required to speculate on what grounds a petitioner might wish to challenge the district court's order.").

Moreover, to the extent Mr. Lavigne intends to assert on appeal that various claims set forth in his Complaint, such as that his signature as to his paternity was made under coercion; that the paternity test is invalid without a waiver or a blood test; and that he has been denied the right to challenge his paternity, see Compl. at 2, the Court concluded in its order of dismissal that "[r]uling on each of [these] claims . . . would require this Court to consider the validity of both Mr. Lavigne's acknowledgment of paternity and the child support order based on that acknowledgment," which it could not do under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See MTD Order at 9-10. While the Court recognizes that the "threshold level for permitting persons to proceed in forma pauperis is not very great," and that "doubts about the substantiality of the issues presented should normally be resolved in the applicant's favor," Dickerson, 2010 WL 1685964, at *1, "th[e] Court has carefully considered [Mr. Lavigne]'s claims and found that they lack merit," and will deny his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Burda Media, 731 F. Supp. 2d at 323 (denying application to appeal in forma pauperis); see also Frias, 2011 WL 832903, at *2 (observing that "the failure to present meritorious arguments can serve as a basis for the denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis" (citing Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 446-47)). Accordingly, Mr. Lavigne's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis will be denied.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, Mr. Lavigne's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Lavigne, and to notify the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit of this Order, as well as the Court's prior Orders, ECF Nos. 37, 39, 41, and 44. SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 28th day of January, 2021. /s/ Victor A. Bolden Victor A. Bolden United States District Judge Case 3:19-cv-01576-VAB Document 46 Filed 01/28/21