THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

(The House of Representatives was called to order at 11: 01 o'clock a. m. , Speaker Aresimowicz of the 30th District in the Chair. )

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

(Gavel) Will the House please come to order. Will the House please come to order. Will the members, staff, and guest please rise and direct your attention to the Dias where Representative Buckbee, will lead us in prayer.

GUEST CHAPLAIN WILLIAM BUCKBEE (67TH):

Let us pray. All mighty God, who presides over all things in heaven and on earth, graciously hear the prayers of this Body and grant us Your peace all the days of our life. Amen.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much Representative. Thank you, would Representative Pat Boyd of the 50TH District please come to the Dias to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

REP. BOYD (50TH):

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative. Is there any business on the Clerk's desk?

CLERK:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Communications from the Governor. Sylvia Cancela to be a member of the Psychiatric Review Board.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please refer to the House Committee on Executive and Legislative nominations.

CLERK:

Communications from the Governor, Judicial nominations, withdrawing the nomination of the Honorable Stanley T. Fuger to be Senior Judge of the Superior Court.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

CLERK:

Favorable reports, House Joint Resolutions, to be tabled for the calendar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

At this time, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the majority leader, Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. I move that we waive the reading of the list of resolutions and the resolutions we tabled for the calendar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

So ordered. Representative Ritter.

CLERK:

List of Bills No. 10, dated January 18, 2017.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (3TH):

Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Mr. Speaker, I move that we waive the reading of the list of bills and the bills you refer to the committees indicated.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much.

CLERK:

Mr. Speaker, the only other business is the daily calendar.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. Are there any announcements or introductions? Announcements or introductions?

Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 3.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 3, House, Joint Resolution No. 20. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN G. DUBAY OF HARTFORD TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Tong, the Honorable Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, you have the floor sir.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good morning, sir.

REP. TONG (147TH):

I'm glad to see us starting on time, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

We are going to make this the expected time, always on time, Representative. [Applause]

REP. TONG (147TH):

Excellent.

Mr. Speaker, for the first time this year, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Representative Tong, you still have the floor, sir.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning we will consider first the renomination of Judge Dubay for his third term on our Superior Court.

Judge Dubay is a graduate of Tufts University and UConn School of Law. What impresses me about Judge Dubay is his commitment not just to service on our state bench, but also to the community. He has served on boards such as the Artist Collective, also in the branch on the Rules Committee, the Judicial Review Council, and he served for a time as Corporation Counsel to the City of Hartford.

Judge Dubay has an excellent reputation in our Superior Court as a fair-minded jurist, which I think is why he was confirmed or voted in favor of unanimously in the Judiciary Committee and I urge adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much sir. Would you remark further on the resolution before us?

Representative Rebimbas of the 70TH District, you have the floor, madam.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning, and please allow me to congratulate and how wonderful it is to see you up there.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, and good morning to you, madam.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the nominee before us for all of the reasons a good Chair had reiterated, and certainly when Judge Dubay came before us he was very professional, thorough, and had wonderful responses to the questions posed, so I do rise in support of Judge Dubay.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam.

Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will members take your seats, the machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast.

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to ensure your vote has been properly cast.

If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.

The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 20.

Total Number of Voting 139

Necessary for Adoption 70

Those Voting Yea 139

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 11

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. (Gavel)

Thank you very much for your patience. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going be going into the nominations. We will be moving a little quicker now, so please if you're having conversations bring them out to the hall.

Are there any announcements or introductions?

Representative Carney of the 23RD, you have the floor sir.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of an introduction.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please do so, sir.

REP. CARNEY (23RD):

Thank you very much.

So, today I have with me the First Selectman of the great town of Old Saybrook, Connecticut, my hometown. First Selectman Carl Fortuna, who has been in office since 2011. He has done a fantastic job for the town of Old Saybrook, and I really enjoy working with him as a State Representative, so please, I ask the chamber to join me in giving him a warm welcome. [Applause]

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

It is always nice to have elected officials from our local areas up here, seeing what we do on a day and out basis. Thank you very much, sir.

Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 7.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 7, House Joint Resolution No. 24. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS C. MINTZ, OF REDDING, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. In favor of recommendation of the Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Adams of the 146TH, you have the floor, sir.

REP. ADAMS (146TH):

I would like to recuse myself and leave the floor for this vote. Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. The Chamber will be at ease.

Now that Representative Adams has left the Chamber, Representative Godfrey, you have the floor, sir.

REP. GODFREY (110TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm move in acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance on Joint Committee's favor of report and adoption of the resolution.

Representative Godfrey, you have the floor, sir.

REP. GODFREY (110TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to have the nomination of Judge Doug Mintz up for adoption today. I have known Doug for an extremely long time. We serve together right here in the Connecticut General Assembly. In my first few years, we sat right next to each other. And geography being destiny, we got to know each other fairly well. Doug is a graduate of the Western New England College School of Law and before that the University of Michigan. He has practiced law since 1978 here in the State of Connecticut. He is married to his wife Elaine, they have two kids, Jeffrey and Matthew, and one of the prouder moments of my life is actually having a long heart-to-heart, man-to-man kind of talk with Doug, persuading him to propose to his wife. I feel that when I am before St. Peter at the gate, that is going to be one of the positive things that accounts for my lifetime.

Doug -- and I spoke to Doug recently, he was the AJ in Danbury for a number of years -- [Gavel]

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Could we please bring our conversations out in the hall. Representative Godfrey is having a very difficult time even speaking over the noise. So, again, if you're holding conversations, I know we are all doing business in the Chamber, please bring those out in the hall.

Please proceed, Representative Godfrey.

REP. GODFREY (110TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

He was the AJ in the Danbury House for many years, which meant that he and I got to see each other, usually had lunch once a month or so, just to kind of keep up with what your families were doing, what the legislature was doing, what the courts were doing, sharing a little gossip. It is a long personal relationship that we have had. And I was delighted a few years back, as we were going into the Great Recession, that the judicial system and the legislature cooperated mightily on dealing with the problem of underwater mortgages and judgements lead a group of judges who worked with the Judiciary Committee to put together a mitigation package that has kept people in their homes, that has kept -– has helped stabilize the mortgage situation here in the State of Connecticut.

Doug Mintz is a true, very much a true public servant. He has served in the legislature, he has served in the Judiciary for over 20 years now, and I most heartily recommend that, and urge my colleagues, to vote to confirm the renomination of Judge Mintz.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative Godfrey.

Representative Rebimbas of the 70TH, you have the floor again, madam.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of Judge Mintz, who is before us. Certainly for all of the representations made by Representative Godfrey.

Judge Mintz has an extensive legal experience and background and he certainly continues to contribute that by serving on a variety of different commissions and committees, so he is certainly an asset to the bench, and I rise in support of the nominee before us.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam.

Representative O'Dea of the 125TH, you have the floor sir.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of Judge Mintz. I have had the pleasure of being before him on numerous occasions. He is fair, just in his decisions, and I urge strong support from my colleagues.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir, will you remark further? Will you remark further on the resolution before us? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will the members please take your seat. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all of the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to ensure that your vote has been properly cast. If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.

The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 24.

Total Number of Voting 139

Necessary for Adoption 70

Those Voting Yea 139

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 11

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted.

Are there any announcements or introductions?

Representative Duff of the 2ND District.

Any announcements or introductions? Hearing none, we will proceed with business. At this time, we would like to announce our leaderships on both sides of the aisle. With that being said, the Chair recognizes the Majority Leader, Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and it is with great pleasure that we stand here today and things got a little busy on opening day, but we want to make sure that we introduce leadership teams here today. And so, I am going to do the Deputy Majority leaders, and I am very honored to have served with me up here. I know it will be very busy, and I know they will do a great job.

I am just going to go in alphabetical order, which I will start with two down to my left, Representative James Albis, from East Haven. If we could hold our applause until the end, please, so that everybody gets [Laughter] the same applause. Representative David Arconti, from Danbury, who will be sitting over here this year. Representative Michelle Cook, from Torrington, who when I was a freshman was my mentor. Representative Jeff Currey, from East Hartford, South Windsor, and Manchester. My dear friend from the City of Hartford, Representative Gonzalez, who keeps her front row seat. Representative Emmett Riley, from Norwich, who is behind me. Representative Hilda Santiago, from Meriden, who is behind me, and Representative Charlie Stallworth, from Bridgeport. I couldn't ask for a better team, Mr. Speaker.

A round of applause, please, if you don't mind. [Applause] Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative Ritter.

Representative Klarides, you have the floor, madam.

REP. KLARIDES (114TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also have an announcement to make as far as our leaders on this side of the aisle. Mine are not in alphabetical order, but in order of title, and I will start from the beginning and I also ask to please hold your applause until the end.

I am very lucky to have my Deputy Republican leader, Vin Candelora. Although last night when finding out that we were announcing them today, he says, “Is it still too late to make me dog catcher instead?” And I said, “It was too late about four years ago, so.

Deputy leaders at large, Laura Hoydick, Tom O'Dea, and Arthur O'Neill. House Republican Caucus Chair, Noreen Kokoruda. Deputy House Republican Caucus Chair, Lezlye Zupkus. House Republican Whips, John Piscopo, Tony D'Amelio, John Frey, Whit Betts, Brenda Kupchick, David Labriola, Jason Perillo, Rosa Rebimbas, Dave Rutligliano, and Terrie Wood, and Assistant Republican leaders, Mitch Bolinsky, Fred Camillo, Christy Carpino, Chris Davis, Livvy Floren, Tim LeGeyt, Gail Lavielle, Bill Simanski, Rich Smith, Prasad Srinivasan, Dave Yaccarino, and Melissa Ziobron.

I am very lucky to have all of these people as part of this caucus. We are all very fortunate that they give their time and their effort to these jobs and please give them a big round of applause.

[Applause]

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you to both leaders. You have both selected great members and I know it will go a long way to a smooth floor operation.

Some of you were here this morning when we started at 11: 01. I apologize for that one-minute tardiness, but I said to all of you, we will start on time.

[Applause]

Representative Ritter, I am told we do have a few more leaders to run through on your side.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

We do, Mr. Speaker, and again as the good Minority Leader mentioned, if we could just hold applause until the end. But again, leadership teams reflect your priorities, Mr. Speaker, and certainly play a major role in our caucus.

So, in order of sort of title, as was done by again the Minority Leader, the Majority Caucus Chair, Cristin McCarthy Vahey, from Fairfield, our Chief Majority Whip, Chris Rosario, from Bridgeport, our Majority Whip at large, Danny Rovera, from the Putnam area, our Deputy Majority Whip at large, Patricia Dillon, from New Haven. Our Assistant Majority Whips, Mike D'Agostino, from Hamden, Kelly Luxenberg, from Manchester, Brandon McGee, from the best city in the State of Connecticut, Hartford, Kim Rose, from Milford, Bobby Sanchez, from New Britain, Ezequiel Santiago, from Bridgeport, and our Assistant Majority Leaders, Terry Adams, from Stamford, Representative Angel Arce, from Hartford, my dear friend, Andre Baker, from Bridgeport, Henry Genga, from East Hartford, Joe Gresko, from Stratford, John Hampton, from Simsbury, Susan Johnson, from Willimantic, Rick Lopes, from New Britain, Patricia Billie Miller, from Stamford, Chris Perone from Norwalk, Representative Gerry Reyes, from Waterbury, and Representative Steve Stafstrom, from Bridgeport.

A big round of applause for our leadership team as well. Thank you.

[Applause]

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative Ritter.

I would like now to introduce my Deputy Speakers. As you know, it is difficult for the Speaker to be out of the Chamber a lot negotiating. Many of you see me in many committee meetings. I have the open-door policy for both sides of the aisle. I want to be available and to do so I need Deputy Speakers to help run the Dias here.

It is with great pleasure I introduce my first Deputy Speaker, and again we will hold applause until the end, it seems quite appropriate, but we have established a new position within House Democrats; for my first Deputy Speaker, it will actually be Deputy Speaker Pro Tempore, it will be Bob Godfrey, and he has served our Chamber for almost 30 years, so I could think of nobody better to help us with the rules, the operation of the floor, and the amendments. So, it would be Deputy Speaker Pro Tempore Bob Godfrey.

Another good friend of mine we welcome back to the leadership ranks will not only be one of my Deputy Speakers, he will also Chair a screening for me, a very good friend for many years, Representative Jeff Berger. One of my Deputy Majority Leaders, of the three that I grabbed to bring up with me to the Deputy Speaker ranks, but more importantly and maybe we can applause to this separate from everybody else, but will be the first Latino Deputy Speaker, Juan Candelaria.

[Applause]

All right. A Deputy Speaker that stayed on from -– Speaker Sharkey, but came in with me in 2004, Representative Linda Gentile. Another one of my Deputy Majority Leaders that has climbed up with me, and we will see if he is going to hang around with us for longer, he has got some other ideas, Representative Doug McCrory, from Hartford -- [Laughter] back there.

Also, one of my very best friends up here at the State Capital, Russ Morin will join me on the Dias. Bruce Morris, who is not here today. Our good friend Linda Orange, is she in the Chamber?

[Applause]

Linda Orange is joining us on the Dias again.

[Applause]

And last, but not least, who is actually not feeling well today and can't be here, but Kevin Ryan.

Can we all give them a great round of applause, and we appreciate their service.

At this time, we will pause for any announcements or introductions.

Representative O'Neill of the 69TH, you have the floor, sir.

REP. O'NEILL (69TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And for the purposes of an introduction, I have with me, standing next to me, my new legal intern, Nick DeMeo. He is a student at the University of Connecticut, a third-year law student and a resident of Farmington, and he will be working with me and members of this side of the aisle and perhaps the other side as well, depending on how the issues go during the course of the session. So, I would hope the Chamber would give him its usual warm welcome.

[Applause]

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you for joining us here at the Capitol, Nick.

We will now return to the call of the calendar. Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 1.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 1, House Joint Resolution No. 18. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE SALVATORE C. AGATI, OF WATERTOWN, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Reyes of the 75TH, you have the floor, sir.

REP. REYES (75TH):

Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and good morning my colleagues. I rise in the move of acceptance of the Joint -– Joint -– Acceptance Joint Committee favorable report on the adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of resolution.

Representative Reyes, you have the floor, sir.

REP. REYES (75TH):

Again, good morning to all. The Honorable Salvatore Agati is up for renomination and it is my honor and privilege to introduce him here this morning. The Agati family is an outstanding family in the City of Waterbury, who now reside in Watertown, but I will tell you that the Honorable Judge Agati has done a tremendous job in civil and criminal law cases he has done. He has held the position in Danbury, Waterbury, and currently he is serving on the bench in New Haven, and I am very fond of the Agati family, his wife Tina, and their daughters, and I strongly endorse the nomination of the Honorable Judge Salvatore Agati for renomination.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative. Representative Rebimbas of the 70TH District, you have the floor, madam.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise and support Judge Agati. Judge Agati has been described as someone who is respectful, fair, and does hold the respect of his colleagues as well as many members of the Bar Association. I do rise and support and also his dedication -– continued dedication, not only to the Judicial Branch, but also a variety of different community involvement; so, I do rise in his support.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam.

Representative Butler of the 72ND, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BUTLER (72ND):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want us to rise and stand in support of Judge Salvatore Agati. I'd like to say that I know the family. They are some of the best people you could ever want to meet, him and his wife, Tina, and their daughters. I also want to say in the years that he has served he has always proved to be one of those very thoughtful judges and I can't just say enough about him, and he is one of those people that is a prime example why we should actually support these people in their endeavors to come back and serve the residents of the State of Connecticut.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative Butler.

Representative Berthel of the 68TH, you have the floor, sir.

REP. BERTHEL (68TH):

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good afternoon, sir.

REP. BERTHEL (68TH):

Sir, I rise for the purpose of also supporting the reappointment of Judge Agati to the bench. We are very proud to have the judge living in Watertown in the heart of the 68TH District, and I encourage my colleagues to support his nomination as well.

Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative. Will you remark further?

Representative Cummings of the 74th, you have the floor, madam.

REP. CUMMINGS (74TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Judge Agati, who is a fantastic mentor for young lawyers, he is very community based, I work closely with his wife, Tina, from promoting literacy here in Connecticut and especially in Waterbury, and he is a fantastic addition to our bench, and I am proud to support him here today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, staff and guests, please come to the well of the House, members please take your seat. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all of the members voted? Have all of the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked, the Clerk will take a tally.

The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 18.

Total Number of Voting 141

Necessary for Adoption 71

Those Voting Yea 141

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 9

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted.

Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 2.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 2, House Joint Resolution No. 19. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE MARY MARGARET D. BURGDORFF, OF WEST HARFORD, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Slap, for the first time in the Chamber, I believe.

REP. SLAP (19TH):

That is right. Good afternoon just -– almost, I guess. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark, sir?

REP. SLAP (19TH):

Yeah, it's a pleasure of mine as my first time addressing the Chamber to be speaking in support of a judge from West Hartford, Mary Margaret Burgdorff. She passed the Bar, was admitted to the Bar, I should say in 1985, was appointed to the bench in 1999. Served in Middletown from 1999 to 2001, has been in Hartford from 2001 on. She has served with distinction. I should say she went to a prestigious law school, Gonzaga. Undergraduate study at St. Mary's College, in Indiana, and she passed unanimously out of committee and she has been appraised for her great management skills and again I'm thrilled that my first time speaking here I will be able to enthusiastically urge my colleagues to support the confirmation for her renomination.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much Representative. Will you remark further?

Representative Rebimbas of the 70th.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of Judge Burgdorff for all of the reasons that Representative Slap had enumerated. Also would like the opportunity to congratulate Representative Slap on his first experience on the House floor, and I also just want to particularly highlight that Judge Burgdorff did share that she truly does enjoy the work she does and specifically juvenile matters. So, she is certainly an asset that we have on the juvenile bench.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all of the members voted? Have all of the members voted? Will the members please check the board to ensure that their vote has been properly cast. If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally.

The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 19.

Total Number of Voting 141

Necessary for Adoption 71

Those Voting Yea 141

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 9

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

Will the Clerk please call Calendar No. 5.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 5, House Joint Resolution No. 22. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE CORINNE L. KLATT, OF MERIDEN, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The esteemed Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Tong, you have the floor, sir.

REP. TONG (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question before the Chamber is on the acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

Representative Tong, you have the floor, sir.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a resolution concerning the renomination of Judge Corinne L. Klatt. This is her first renomination. Judge Klatt is a graduate of St. Joseph College, where she studied Political Science and also she went on the University of Connecticut School of Law.

Judge Klatt serves now in Meriden, as the Assistant Administrative Judge. She has a lot of experience in our criminal courts. She is well regarded in that court for her fairness and her ability to manage her docket, and she was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. I move adoption.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative Tong. The esteemed ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Rebimbas, for like the seventh time already, you have the floor, madam. [Laughter]

REP. REMBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I have a feeling it is not the last time. I do rise in support of Judge Klatt, who is before us, in her nomination. Certainly, she was very responsive, detailed, and fair in her decisions. And she does deal with tough cases before her core as well regarding family law, so she is an asset to the bench, and I do rise in her support.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Representative, will you remark further?

Representative Gonzalez of the 3RD District. You have the floor, madam.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Dear members of the General Assembly, I come here today before you to remind all of us of our duty to serve our constituents, especially those who are most vulnerable in the Family Court of Connecticut, including those they are pro se and can no longer afford an attorney, and especially those who are disabled, physical and mentally and intellectual and developmental. So, today I am here to tell you that we must ensure that all litigants share equal access to the court, not just those represented by counsel, and not just those that have the privilege, nor, it is our job to ensure that the last –- that at least amount us that is those who are pro se and those with disability of being heard. Our family courts are here to serve all litigants, regardless of their challenges and to ensure equal access to the court. Fairness and equal application to the law to all parties, irrespective of their disabilities.

Today this is not happening with the pro se party. Last Wednesday, January 11th, the Judiciary Committee heard over 10 hours of testimony regarding reappointing for several Superior Court Judges and Magistrate. We received transcript, and we heard testimony from numerous family members and litigants who felt that some of our appointment are not up to standards.

I personally believe that we have a duty to hire the best, brightest, most competent and truthful judges out here. We need judges that we can count on to enforce court orders, be compassionate, be consistent, show equal respect and dignity to litigants, show consistent application of the law, that's also is not happening today to our pro se parties. Yet today, in 2016, we have judges telling pro se disabled parties that because that they are pro se, they do not have the same right as those represented by counsel.

In formal notation, I put in their file and they are not allowed to see the notations. They cannot see their psych evaluation, even when they have two court orders. They cannot get a copy of the evaluation because unlike the lawyers, who are officers of the court, pro se party can't be trusted the same as lawyers. Pro se party can't be trusted to keep their own psych evaluation confidential, while lawyers are, for some reason, more trustworthy.

Pro se disabled parties are forced to sit in a noisy court area, when there is a lot of traffic, and despite any ADA accommodation to compensate for memory loss. They can have an evaluation. When these parties –- when these parents they pay between $ 10,000 and $ 20,000 for this evaluation, and I will say that I heard so many testimony and they have –- they request this party to pay cash. Can you imagine a pro se party that is disabled have to come up between $ 10,000 and $ 20,000 in cash.

Most importantly, the psych evaluation expired in six months and then the court has the disabled party pay again, and again, and again, for this evaluation, wasting more of the court time and more of the parties' time.

As we know, the reappointment process for judges happens every eight years, to have to come to this building to interview in front of the Judiciary Committee, the members that are allowed to ask questions and then Committee members vote in favor or against. And that exactly what I've been doing for many years.

I receive many complaints through the years. Parents come to the public hearing to testify. They bring transcript to prove their testimony and they are scared to testify because they still going through the court system and they know retaliation is possible, but they still come to this building because they are hoping that we will do the right thing, that we will listen, and when it's time for us to make a decision, that we will defend the rights. Our constituents select us and they expect us to do the right thing.

I've been asking questions for so many years based on complaining, transcript invested to the court around the state. Sometimes the judges notice my present and sometimes not. But it give me the opportunity to confirm that complaint.

So, when the judges come for reappointment, I ask questions based on what I already know and for that I get criticized by members of this Chamber. I don't see, with all due respect, I don't see any members of the Chambers in court checking any complaints or checking if these judges are doing what they are supposed to do. But because I do that, I get criticized by members of the Chamber, why? That is what I am supposed to do and all of us, ask questions of these judges, care for the residents of Connecticut, especially for those going through the court system and because I refuse to rubberstamp these judges like it has been happening for years and years, I am the bad one. I think I am the black sheep of the Judiciary Committee. But I had –- I am the bad one, but it's okay. I don't have a problem getting tagged that. And because of that, I am by myself. Like the Connecticut Mirror article cite last week, I'm by myself on this issue. And it is easier to criticize me than to defend the peoples' rights.

I am not an attorney. I don't have to go in front of those judges with a case, and I don't have a problem doing my job.

So, I rise to oppose Judge Klatt. I did vote for her in Committee with the right to change my vote here in the House. The complaint against Judge Klatt include very short temper, shouting and screaming at the litigants and parents and using retaliation against pro se litigants.

Pro se litigants, they have no money to hire an attorney, try to represent themselves, hoping that they are successful and if not, hoping that the court will help them through the process.

So, they try to file motions hoping that one of them is heard and they can see their kids and many times their motions are not heard.

Last week I asked the judge in the Judiciary Committee, Judge Klatt, if she had ever fined a pro se litigant for filing too many motions; with a follow up question, does she ever incarcerate a litigant without first offering counsel? She said no on both question. I think that she forgot that she was under oath. And then after she respond, I did mention the name of Kathy Sorrentino. Kathy Sorrentino was fined $ 1000 for filing motions. Kathy Sorrentino was filing motions, she was pro se. She was handling her case, very nervous, she don't know the process, but she don't have no money to hire an attorney.

When you file a motion, you have to send a copy to the other side of the case. So, that's what she was doing. But the court keeps saying, no, you not sending the other attorney a copy. So, even if she tried to explain so many times, she was not heard. And then because she was filing too many motions, the judge says, she fined a thousand dollars and one of the things that the judge told Ms. Sorrentino was, this is addictive for you, and I believe that you have a mental issue, mental issue. But as far as we know and as far as I know because I asked that question, we don't have judges they are mental health providers. So, she really have no background of mental health provider.

From the transcript, the litigant was told, you appear to need some mental health treatment because you cannot stop filing motion. This is addictive behavior and has to stop.

I also asked the judge, can you explain to us what is a Strobel order? Well, a Strobel order is put in place for litigants if the judges believe that this litigant is filing motions, they will punish this litigant and they punish this litigant because they are filing the motion.

I will say that 100 percent of the time, those litigants figure it out the family court scam, this is how some judges, because we have the good and we have the bad one, but this is how judges abuse their power.

When Ms. Sorrentino came to court, she brought the court to pay the fine, a thousand dollars, but never in court it was explained to her who she have to pay these checks. So, she came in nervous and because it was not clear, by the court, Ms. Sorrentino was incarcerated. Why? Because, they never explained to her that she was supposed to bring one check and pay it to the Clerk. Instead of that she got so nervous, pro se, she don't know the process, she brought two checks, one check to pay to the ex-husband and the other check to pay to the attorney. They went downstairs to the Clerk and the Clerk said we cannot accept those two checks, those check are not made for the Clerk. They went back upstairs, they called the case and the lawyer on the other side was really upset, and my opinion about this is, if she had mental issues, as the judge suggested, should she ever be referred for ADA service.

There was another case where the litigant, it was a person that we know, his name is Dan Lynch, and when he went in front of her, he remind her, Your Honor, I request ADA accommodation and I don't have that in court. The judge got really upset and she repeatedly told Mr. Lynch, if you don't -- if we don't proceed, I will incarcerate you.

It's terrible when I went last night and I went through the transcript, and I read the way that this judge treat Kathy Sorrentino, it was terrible, terrible. When they said she got two checks, Your Honor, those are the things that she used to do, and the judge, it was very clear that he said -- that she said, I told you very clear, bring a check of a thousand dollars. If not, you are going to get incarcerated. The lady begged, begged the judge, give me 45 minutes, let me go home and get another check. I don't have no money. My daughter made these checks. I don't have no money. Give me 45 minutes. And the judge said, no, it's a court order, Marshall, get her into custody. When I read this last night, I was sick to my stomach. Because this is a clear abuse of power. You don't treat pro se litigant like that. She could've give her a chance to go home and bring another check and the same thing happened with Mr. Lynch.

So, for false and misleading testimony and want to be, maybe, I don't know political correct, instead of saying she lie under oath, but let's say that she was leading -- misleading. Retaliation against litigants, especially pro se litigant, including use of Strobel action and mistreating of those that come before her, I will ask my colleagues to vote against her. Let's send a message here that pro se litigants because they don't have money to hire an attorney, that doesn't mean, or parents they are filing motions, that doesn't mean they got mental issues. Since when a judge can turn out -- can say a pro se litigant or whoever is in front of him, you got mental issues, when they are not health provider.

So, I did vote for her in committing because I didn't have more information that I was going to check on her and because all of this information and other complaint we have to send a message out there. Pro se litigants, they have the right as everybody else. So, I'm asking my colleagues to vote no on this reappointment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam.

Gentleman from the 90th, Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Good afternoon, thank you, sir.

I happen to be a lawyer, and I happen to practice family law. About 85 percent of my practice is family law. My office happens to be in Wallingford, and most of my cases I bring to the Meriden Court.

Judge Klatt was appointed to that courthouse about four years ago, and since that time, I must have been before her about over 200 times. Every Monday she -- just about every Monday she presides over the Family Court calendar, and I'm usually there. And I can tell you that I have not always been successful before Judge Klatt, but I always found her to be fair. Pro se litigants it's very difficult, I understand that and the practice of family law if very difficult and on occasion I've had to decide family cases. I serve as a GAL from time to time, and those are some very, very difficult decisions to be made.

I don't know why we would vote against Judge Klatt here today. Reading a transcript doesn't really depict what happens in a courtroom. I have taken the opportunity in filing appeals to read transcripts, read transcripts of my own cases, and what is written on the printed page isn't always what actually happens in the courtroom, certainly the inflection of one's voice, whether they are yelling or not, isn't depicted, whether a pro se litigant or an attorney is raising their voice is not depicted. I certainly had cases with pro se parties on the other side where they file lots of motions, and I have attempted to have that stopped, and there is no provision to have that stopped. I know it can be very frustrating, it is frustrating for everyone when we are fighting over children and our futures, but I wasn't going to say anything here today. I intend to vote in favor of Judge Klatt, and I urge my colleagues to do so.

Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. The gentleman from the 131st, Representative Labriola. And I am getting used to where everybody is sitting again. Nice to see you.

REP. LABRIOLA (131ST):

Good to see you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

I rise in support of this nomination. I have known Corinne Klatt for nearly 30 years. She served as the prosecutor in the Judicial District of Waterbury for over 20 years. Most of that time as a Supervisor Prosecutor there. I dealt with her on a nearly daily basis in my capacity as a criminal defense attorney and her capacity as a prosecutor, I can say that she comports herself with both pro se and attorneys in the highest fashion possible, exhibiting the highest standards of ethics and justice and fairness and compassion and responsibility.

She truly was universally liked, appreciated, admired for her service as a prosecutor and she has carried those fine qualities on to her service as a judge.

I felt the need to rise because of this statement that she was not truthful. The record indicates, in fact, the opposite that a fine that was issued was entirely appropriate and that the individual who had some problem, mix-up with the check, was not incarcerated. In fact, I believe it was a family member that person who came up with the money that was supposed to be paid. The fine was appropriate. The fine was paid. Nobody got incarcerated, and no misstatement was said in the Judiciary Committee hearing. So, I know personally from literally hundreds and hundreds of interactions with Corrine Klatt that she is one of the finest prosecutors I've ever known and she serves the people of Connecticut as one of the finest judges that we have and we are lucky to have her on the bench. And so, I urge my colleagues to give her another term as a Superior Court Judge.

Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Any remark further?

For the second time, Representative Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

For the second time, Mr. Speaker, very offended that what I'm saying here, based on the transcript that my colleagues are saying that is not true. I will never get up on this floor, and I will never will speak against a judge if I don't have no proof. I got the proof here, and she came in, it was not a he, she came in with two checks, and the checks, she made a mistake, she wrote the checks to the person she was not supposed to. The judge make a big thing about this, based on the transcript, and the judge called the Marshall and say, incarcerate Ms. Sorrentino. Sorrentino ask, can you give me a chance to make a call? Well, ask not me, you have to ask the Marshall downstairs. So, it's right here.

What I'm saying is not a lie. And I get offended when one of my colleagues are saying that it's a lie, that I'm not saying the truth. And this is what I get, because I am the voice of those people that cannot defend themselves, and I'm not an attorney, and maybe I don't have the knowledge like all of you because I'm not an attorney, but I know how to read. And if I don't understand maybe a word, I will call an attorney and I will ask. But I will never get up on the floor and I will never lie against a judge, unless I got proof.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, Representative Gonzalez. For the second time, Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I rise in support of the nominee that is before us, and I certainly did want to reiterate that the Judicial Branch does have policies and procedures and rules that cannot be circumvented by any one judge or any one attorney.

Individuals who properly acknowledge to the court or bring to the court's attention that special services are needed, ADA, there are specific policies and procedures and certainly a process to go through, at which time no one judge actually makes a specific decision regarding that.

Certainly, if it's brought to the court's attention and it is meritorious, they are provided with the services that are required to be provided to them. We also, through the Judicial Branch, have a considerable number of services for pro se litigants as well as new and young attorneys to assist individuals through the judicial process, that goes anywhere from Family Services to the Family Information desk, and a variety of other assistance, there is mentor programs for attorneys and there is also clinics, special programs that are provided to pro se litigants, so there is a variety of different resources. And the intent there is to make sure that the Judicial Branch is providing adequate information and that every individual that comes through the courthouse is properly informed of the process, in order for them then to make a decision as to whether or not they are going to proceed on their own and certainly at any time during any given matter before the court, they always have the right to hire counsel as well.

The facts and circumstances of any family case certainly are sensitive at many times. They certainly are at times lengthy. So, every member, legislator has the ability to research information. There is public records, there is transcripts, there is court decisions, things of that nature, and everyone has the ability to obtain and review the same information and reach a decision that they believe is in the best interest of the public.

So, Mr. Speaker, thank you for my ability to speak for the second time, and I do rise in support of Judge Klatt.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam. The question is on the adoption of the resolution. Are you ready for the question? Are you ready for the question?

Members, please take your seats. Staff and guests, please come to the wall of the House. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by rollcall. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by rollcall. Members to the Chamber.

Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The clerk will take a tally.

Mr. Clerk, please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 22.

Total Number of Voting 145

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those Voting Yea 129

Those Voting Nay 16

Absent and Not Voting 5

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

Mr. Clerk, Calendar 6, please.

CLERK:

Calendar 6, House Joint Resolution No. 23. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN P. MCMAHON OF NIANTIC TO BE A SENIOR JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The distinguished Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not esteemed this time, just distinguished.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

No, I'm a traditionalist. [Laughter]

REP. TONG (147TH):

It's nice to see you up there Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Nice to be seen.

REP. TONG (147TH):

I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and the adoption of the resolution.

Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Judge McMahon is seeking reappointment to his fourth full term as now a Senior Judge of the Superior Court. Judge McMahon is a graduate of Providence College, Western New England School of Law. He has for all but one year of his practice of law, both as a state's attorney and as a clerk, I believe, and also as a judge, for all but one year has been involved in the practice of criminal law. He has distinguished himself in a variety of different courthouses. He now works in New London. He is well respected and was approved unanimously by the Committee. I move adoption.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir.

The distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Rebimbas, just a second. [Gavel] We're getting a little noisy, please keep it down.

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the nominee that's before us. Certainly, for all of the reasons the good Chair enumerated and his extensive legal experience makes him an asset to the Judicial Branch, so I rise in support.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The gentleman from the 37th, Representative Cheeseman.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is actually the lady from the 37th, but it's my first time to get up, so –-

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30THH):

I'm a traditionalist. There is gentlemen and there is gentlewomen.

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Of course, and it is --

REP. CHEESEMAN (37TH):

And it is with great pleasure that I rise to support the nomination of the honorable Kevin McMahon, the judge is not only a distinguished jurist, he is a wonderful resident of the local Niantic community, and a great supporter of many; local not-for-profits, including one close to my heart, the Children's Museum of Southeastern Connecticut, so I urge my colleagues to vote in support of Judge McMahon.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on the resolution? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats, the machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by rollcall. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by rollcall. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Mr. Clerk, announce the tally, please.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 23.

Total Number of Voting 145

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those Voting Yea 145

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 5

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

Mr. Clerk, Calendar 8, please.

CLERK:

Calendar 8, House Joint Resolution No. 25. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE FLEMMING L. NORCOTT, JR. , OF NEW HAVEN, TO BE A STATE REFEREE. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The gentleman from 116th, Representative DiMassa.

REP. DIMASSA (116TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move the acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance of the joint favorable report and adoption of the resolution?

Representative DiMassa.

REP. DIMASSA (116TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my honorable colleagues, it gives me great pleasure to bring forward for adoption this reappointment of the Honorable Judge Flemming L. Norcott, Jr. Judge Flemming was first appointed to the bench in 1979 by the then Honorable Governor Ella T. Grasso. He is a graduate of Columbia University, where he went on to receive his law degree. He has an honorable record serving not only as an Associate Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court, but also as a Referee on the Appellate Court.

Judge Flemming's distinguished career does not rest solely alone in the courtroom. He has served many charitable institutions throughout his career and also served as a member of the Peace Corps.

Mr. Speaker, to list his many, many accolades, would keep us to the early hours of the morning and I know the Speaker wants to keep a tight ship, and since he was kind enough to start on time, I will only say that the Honorable Judge received the George W. Crawford award as a trailblazer and to the constituents of New Haven, his native hometown, he certainly is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir.

Representative Rebimbas.

Just, let's clear the aisle to your left and behind you, please. Could we clear the aisle. Thank you.

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Norcott, certainly for everything that has been enumerated. He has extensive legal experience. He is an asset as a Referee on the Appellate Court, and is held in high regard by his colleagues, so I stand and rise in his support.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on the resolution? Will you remark further on the resolution? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members, take their seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. And the Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 25.

Total Number of Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those Voting Yea 146

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 4

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. (Gavel)

Mr. Clerk, will you kindly call Calendar No. 9.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 9, House Joint Resolution No. 26, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE HONORABLE VERNON D. OLIVER, OF PORTLAND, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The distinguished Vice Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, how are you, sir?

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Good.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance and adoption. Will you remark, sir?

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Yes, Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Judge Oliver has a distinguished career with the State of Connecticut beginning as a state prosecutor and then working with the Attorney General's office in its Child Protection Unit. He was appointed to the bench initially in 2009, by then Governor Rell.

He currently serves on the Habeas and Criminal dockets in the Rockville Superior Court, where he is seen as a very competent and fair jurist. He was spoke highly of during the committee process.

He also, in addition to his service on the bench, continues to give bar to the bar and continues to serve as an active member of the Crawford Black Bar Association.

I move adoption.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Judge Oliver, the nominee that is before us. I think he did a very professional and thorough way of responding to the questions posed to him before the Judiciary Committee. I was also impressed at the fact that he continues to be and enjoy his experience as a judge on the bench, he finds it to be rewarding. He was certainly open with us, when I inquired regarding any of the challenges and certainly then also the positives of sitting on the bench. I think he certainly has been an asset. He continues to be involved in the Judicial Branch as well, so I certainly think that, so I certainly think that that will also assist the Judicial Branch in moving forward in a variety of different issues that come before the court.

So, I do rise in support of his nomination and do again reiterate that he is an asset to the Judicial Branch.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on the resolution? Will you remark further on the resolution? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally. Mr. Clerk, please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 26.

Total Number of Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those Voting Yea 146

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 4

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

Mr. Clerk, kindly call Calendar No. 10.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 10, House Joint Resolution No. 27. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE PHILLIP A. SCARPELLINO, OF NORTH BRANFORD TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance and adoption. Please remark.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Judge Scarpellino also has a lengthy and distinguished career with the State of Connecticut, formerly having served as a state prosecutor. He was appointed –- initially appointed to the bench 16 years ago. He is up for reappointment for a third term. He has spent much of the last 16 years in our criminal courts, where he has made a name for himself. He currently is assigned to the Superior Court for criminal matters in the New Haven area. He received unanimous support in the Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support his nomination here.

Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Judge Scarpellino. I found him to be very professional and detailed in his responses to the Committee and he is certainly respected by his colleagues and is seen as being fair and certainly factual, so again, I do rise in support of the judge before us.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Will you remark further on the resolution? Will you remark further on the resolution? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked. We will take a tally and the Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 27.

Total Number of Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those Voting Yea 146

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 4

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. (Gavel)

Mr. Clerk, Calendar 11, please.

CLERK:

Calendar 11, House Joint Resolution No. 28. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE JANE S. SCHOLL, OF FARMINGTON, TO BE A SENIOR JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The gentlewoman from the 40th, Representative Conley.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report in adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Question for the Chamber is adoption of the resolution. Would you explain the resolution, ma'am?

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Judge Scholl has been a judge of Hartford since 2000. She currently sits in Hartford as a resident of Farmington with her husband and two grown children. She is a very fair judge. She was one of my judges when I worked for her during the summer as a temporary assistant clerk, while in law school. I support her renomination.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am.

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise in support of Judge Scholl. She did a wonderful job before the Committee in responding to our questions and certainly she does have a great legal experience, so I do rise in her support.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Will you remark further on the resolution? Will you remark further on the resolution? If not, staff and guests come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked and we'll take a tally, and the Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 28.

Total Number of Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those Voting Yea 146

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 4

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

Mr. Clerk, let's get to Calendar No. 13.

CLERK:

Calendar No. 13, House Joint Resolution No. 30. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE DAWANE G. WESTBROOK, OF GLASTONBURY TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Conley.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you explain the resolution, please, ma'am?

REP. CONLEY (129TH):

Judge Westbrook has been appointed to the Juvenile bench. He is a resident of Glastonbury, where he resides with four children. He has done –- he is a very fair judge, has done good work on the bench for juvenile matters and I believe his reappointment is appropriate.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise in support of Judge Westbrook and certainly I thought he was very also responsive to the questions posed to him during Committee and answered very fairly, so I do rise in support of his nomination.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Srinivasan. Representative Srinivasan. Do you still want to speak? Great. [Laughter]

There we go, Representative Srinivasan.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, good to see you there.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir.

REP. SRINIVASAN (31ST):

Mr. Speaker, Judge Westbrook, from Glastonbury, has been a wonderful leader for us, a community leader. The work that she has been involved in has been phenomenal in the school system. She is a pillar of our community, a pillar of our society. I had the privilege this year, in this term, to serve our judiciary and the opportunity to see her being asked questions of which she answered extremely professionally and very gracefully, and I was -- I am not surprised at all that when the question was asked if there were any complaints against her in the term that she served so far, there have been none whatsoever. That doesn't surprise me one bit at all, knowing Judge Westbrook as well as I do.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to renominate Judge Westbrook to the bench.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the resolution? Will you remark further on the resolution? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If so, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally and the Clerk will announce the tally. Oh, up, up, up, The Clerk will not announce the tally.

Representative Morris.

REP. MORRIS (140TH):

Mr. Speaker, I ask that my vote be cast in the affirmative.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Morris in the affirmative. And the Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 30.

Total Number of Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those Voting Yea 146

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 4

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

Distinguished Majority Leader, Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move that we immediately transmit all of the items that need further action by the Senate.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Question is the suspension of the rules for the immediate transmittal to the Senate of all items acted upon today. Is there objection? Hearing none, the rules are suspended.

Mr. Clerk, Calendar 12, please.

CLERK:

Calendar 12, House Joint Resolution No. 29. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE JOSE A. SUAREZ, OF CHESTER, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The gentleman from Stamford, Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report in adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance of adoption, would you explain the resolution, sir.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This resolution concerns the renomination of Judge Suarez for a second full term on our Superior Court.

Judge Suarez is currently the presiding judge now of the Hartford Family Court, over which I think he works with and oversees the operations relating to three or four family court judges in administrative matters related to that docket.

Judge Suarez is a graduate of the University of Dayton and the University of Connecticut School of Law. Before he went to the bench, Judge Suarez worked in our Attorney General's office, where he served for 13 years. His most recent assignment, the AG's office was on environmental matters and before that he spent a good part of his career in the Child Protection Bureau.

What impresses me about Judge Suarez is his commitment to public service outside of his work on the bench. He has been a member of the Hispanic Health Council and also on the Board of Mercy Housing and Shelter, also the West Hartford Charter Review Commission, the Judicial Review Council, and the Inns of Court where he served as president. Judge Suarez also recently received the Connecticut Hispanic Bar Association's Achievement Award.

Judge Suarez has a reputation for being very fair, very smart, very well informed and thoughtful jurist, and for those reasons, I support his renomination enthusiastically. I urge adoption.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir.

Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Suarez, as well. Judge Suarez, for all of the reasons that the Chairman enumerated, has been properly recognized for all of his achievements as judge and dedication to a variety of different committees and commissions that he has served on previously and currently serves on.

I believe Judge Suarez showed the most professional demeanor before the Judiciary Committee when posed very tough questions. Judge Suarez, as indicated is a presiding judge in the Hartford court system, overseeing a variety of family law cases.

What the members of that committee has the ability to do is listen not only from the judge regarding very important questions posed to the judge, but certainly were able then to read the testimony and hear the testimony from the public.

As members of that committee, we have a tough job and responsibility in the sense of assuring and making sure that we continue to elevate judges and rehab them properly, successfully renominated those who deserve to be on the bench. Having had the ability to serve on the Judiciary, having the ability to hear from the public, having the ability to hear from the judge, and then what we also have the ability to do is then dive a little bit deeper into the information that comes out during those public hearings. Many times, it is tough for us, as members of those committees to ask the questions we would like to ask of the public or even of the judge of the nuances and details of these family law cases that come before them. And the reason why we have a tough responsibility is because we want to ask the tough questions, we want to ask the details of the case, we want to ask what were the facts and circumstances that lead to certain decisions. Unfortunately, many times in these cases, they are very sensitive issues. We have minor children involved. We sometimes have parties who do have certain challenges in life. And to highlight those or bring those out, it is a very difficult sensitive task that we have. But we are fortunate that many of the documents in these types of cases that come before these judges, and the people who testify before us, are public record, so we are able to access the information whether on line or specifically request them from the Judicial Branch. That is the only way that we can properly analyze all of the information that comes before us. Having done that and certainly having shared that information with a variety of different members, we have had the opportunity to confirm, disaffirm, and gather additional information that we don't otherwise feel sometimes comfortable in diving into peoples' personal lives when they come to testify before us.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, having done all of that, I still support my vote in favor of Judge Suarez in that committee and as I stand here today, I again reaffirm my support for Judge Suarez, and his nomination to continue on the bench, and I would certainly encourage all of my colleagues to do the same and certainly to take the time to read all of the information that is available to them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam. The gentleman from the 36th, Representative Siegrist.

REP. SIEGRIST (36TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Jose Suarez, who is a resident of Chester in the district that I represent, the 36th. Jose Suarez is a qualified judge and I urge support of his nomination.

Thank you very much.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have many complaints about this judge not being fair in many cases, especially to the pro se litigants. After the Judiciary Committee meetings, several activist groups and we get together to review answers the nominee gave compared to transcript, and we found that this judge was not truthful in many of his response. There was a case that I was following concerning mother trying to get custody of her kids and repeatedly complaining about the father drinking and putting the kids in danger. After repeatedly not being –- not being delivering norm, so the mother keep complaining because the kids are complaining. The kids they were saying they were scared. The father was driving always around with them, he was drunk. But they complained to the court and nothing happened.

So, the mother hired a private investigator and then he went out. He took a picture of the father drinking. When she presents the proof in court, Judge Suarez asked him, "You've been drinking," no, I'm not drinking. So, the mother went ahead and said, well, your Honor, he is lying. He is lying because here is the proof that he was drinking. This picture was taken by a private investigator and when the judge saw this picture, right there, he knew that this guy lied to judge, lie in court. But –- but we know that we have Guardian Ad Litem, that they protect those people. So, the Guardian Ad Litem was upset. She turned around and she accused the mother of parental alienation. So, the judge totally ignored that this guy was drinking and instead of fining this guy, he turned around and he believed the Guardian Ad Litem and he fined this mother $ 500, just because the Guardian Ad Litem saying that this guy –- that the mother was doing parental alienation.

And I believe the judge should be neutral party and should listen to both sides of a case, not just one side. When I asked him in committee, do pro se litigant have the same right in your court? He do say, not in my court. And I have the question that I ask him and I understand, yes, they were tough questions. Because I would say that I always, always complain about, we don't have diversity on the bench. We don't have diversity on the bench and most of the time, when they come here, I vote against every -– the judges because if I don't see diversity, I don't think it is fair.

So, when people say, well he did answer all the questions, yes, he answered questions, but under oath he lied. And that's from all of the other problems that I have, that's another problem. Another case that raised my concern was a case of Mr. Wetoska, ADA, after the case was closed two years and a half, he went looking for a copy of the evaluation, the psych evaluation, something that he paid for it, and the Clerk was sorry, but your case has an informal notation, we not allowed to give you any kind of information. An evaluation that he paid for it, an evaluation that I say before cost between $ 10,000 and $ 20,000. The case has been involved, like I said before, like two years and a half or more, no with a pending motion, Judge Suarez saw fit to waste precious state resources and time when this state is suffering a financial crisis. So, when he find out that the family know that what he did was illegal, well the judge, right away, called a status conference just to be sure that what he did -– he want to justify what he did with the informal notation. Judge Suarez ignore orders, court orders to release the evaluation.

We have another case, Mr. Peter Simonick, who many of you know him, Judge Suarez refused to even acknowledge or hear motion from Mr. Simonick's file for almost two years, file a request of DCF and the Glastonbury police to respond to abuse and neglect of his autistic son happening in his mother home. Judge Suarez even ignored an emergency motion, Mr. Simonick filed a grievance of DCF and the Glastonbury police. Motion filed asking Judge Suarez to help Mr. Simonick's autistic son. Judge Suarez ignored all of this. This caused the child to miss over 200 days of school and not to see his family for almost two years. A court order has been violated by the mother and the child not seeing his father, while Judge Suarez completely ignored. And this cost the town of Glastonbury over $ 180,000 and maybe our state like a million dollars.

Judge Suarez took from him, for the first time since 2008, Judge Suarez denied Mr. Simonick equal time with his son, after not allowing Mr. Simonick to see his children.

Judge Suarez attack Mr. Simonick's reputation and character in his court order to try to intimidate Mr. Simonick. This is a man, a father, who was recognized on the floor of the State Senate by Senator Fasano, for his work and effort in this area for reform. Judge Suarez has no justification for his failure to protect Mr. Simonick's children and his family, and especially his child with autism.

The other case, it was about a father that is fighting in court in New Haven for almost seven years trying to see his children. The case, they were going through a hearing, so everybody, court reporters, everybody is in court and suddenly the attorney remember that he has another case in Hartford. They –- the presiding judge of that court in New Haven called Judge Suarez and ask him, can we reschedule your case because we have a very high conflict case here in New Haven, and it is costing the state and it is costing the father thousands and thousands of dollars. Judge Suarez said, no, I want you in my court today. So, they suspend the case in New Haven, a case that is labeled, it is a high conflict case.

Well, I'm gonna let you guys know why Judge Suarez ordered this lawyer to cancel the day in New Haven. Well, we find out that one of his fellow judges want to get divorced that day. This judge want to finalize his divorce, his wife didn't have not even an idea that that day she was going to finalize the divorce.

So, the judge prefer to cancel the case, order this attorney to cancel the case in New Haven because he want to be sure that his friend, a judge, was going to get divorced that day.

So, I'm asking here what are the priorities for this judge? That case was a very high conflict case, but that's what he did. I always -- people say why you always going after the judges. Well, you see here today, I voted for the good judges. I vote for the judges that I never receive a complaint. I protect those judges because if they are doing the right thing, we should protect them. But the one they are not doing the job, the one they are abusing their power, we should send them back. The people are looking and they know that we not defending their rights, no.

Judge Suarez is Latino, is Latino judge. We have maybe like around 200 judges here in Connecticut, but when you check the numbers you would see the Latino judges may be less or 10 judges in court. So, me that I always looking for diversity, the question you should ask, he is Latino, why Representative Gonzalez is after him. Well, I'm going to give you my answer. Latino, African-American, white, if it's bad, it's bad. If that judge is not doing what he is supposed to do, he doesn't deserve to be in the bench. And I don't care if he is a Latino judge. I am not biased, and when I complain about judge, it is because I've got proof. I got proof. I don't get up here and lie.

If you notice, on the list for today on the calendar, it was a judge on the first page on the bottom, that judge he stepped down. Now, when they asked me if I was going to vote for this judge, the one that stepped down today, my question was, yes, I am voting for the judge because I don't have nothing bad to say about him. I don't know the judge, but I don't have nothing. I can't get up and vote against a judge when I don't have the right information, I don't think that that would be fair. And that's why I get up with the right information.

So, Latino or not, he is not doing his job. He is abusing parents. He is ignoring court orders. He is not there for the best interest of the child. He is not looking for the pro se litigant and people with ADA, so I think –- well, not that I think, it's time for us to send a message. It's time for us to send a message. Do the right thing. Treat people with respect, and you will see that I will never get up against them. And members of this General Assembly, God knows how many years I'm going to be here. One thing for sure is I'm not planning to retire pretty soon, that's for sure. Maybe I'll be here, I don't know, maybe 10 more years, who knows, 50 more years. But if I still see Latino judges, African-American judges, white judges, they are not doing their job, be sure that I will get up because like it or not the judges, I am the voice of those poor people. They don't have resources to hire an attorney. I am the voice of those mothers, they are going through a lot of problems, many, many years without seeing their kids. I am the voice of those parents and that is why I'm asking you, please not send this judge back to the bench.

Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam. Are you ready for the question? The question is adoption of the resolution. If you are, members take your seats. Staff and guests to the well of the House. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally, and the Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 29.

Total Number of Voting 146

Necessary for Adoption 74

Those Voting Yea 124

Those Voting Nay 22

Absent and Not Voting 4

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

I believe we have a couple of suspension motions. Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I make a motion that we immediately suspend our rules to send House Resolution No. 12 immediately to the Senate.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The question on suspension to transmit House Joint Resolution No. 12 to the Senate, is there an objection? Hearing none, so ordered.

Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Yes, and I'd also make a motion that we suspend our rules to immediately transmit items that are coming down from the Senate -- to take up items.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

How about we take them up instead of transmitting?

REP. RITTER (1ST):

We will take them up from the Senate down to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

That would be if a –- I will note for the record. Senate Joint Resolutions 12 through 18 inclusive. Rules are suspended and we will take them up.

Mr. Clerk, would you kindly call Senate Joint Resolution 12.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 12, RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. BOZZUTO, OF WATERTOWN, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance of adoption. Will you proceed, sir.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This resolution concerns the renomination of Judge Bozzuto for her third full term on our Superior Court.

Judge Bozzuto is the Chief Administrative Judge for the entire Family Division, and we've heard much testimony and discussion about the family courts, Judge Bozzuto is in charge administratively of the entire division, across the Superior Court and has been engaged in a number of reform efforts, particularly as a result of the Family Court Reform Legislation we passed in 2014.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Excuse me, Representative Tong, I'm told we have a member who needs to recuse himself. Let me go do that, and we will come back to you, if it's all right with you.

Representative Petit. Representative Petit.

REP. PETIT (22ND):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recuse myself, please.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The House will stand at ease, while Representative Petit leaves the Chamber.

Question before the House remains the adoption of the resolution. Representative Tong, thank you for your forbearance.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, Judge Bozzuto has taken principal responsibility for overseeing a number of reforms and has been working closely with both the Chief Court Administrator's Office and the Branch and also with the Judiciary Committee on those reforms.

Prior to her work on the bench, she attended Manhattanville College, Western New England School of Law, has a long background in practice in private practice here in Connecticut. She also has served on a variety of committees, including the

Self-Represented Parties Committee, the Judicial Branch Public Service and Trust Committee and; in general terms, has gone above and beyond in trying to improve public confidence, not just in our family courts, but in our courts generally, and urge adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Bozzuto's renomination. Judge Bozzuto appeared before the Judiciary Committee and did a very professional job in responding to all of the questions posed to her.

I thought Judge Bozzuto showed great demeanor before the Committee, but as well as her experience on the bench as well as the Judicial Branch. Judge Bozzuto, besides and extensive long legal career prior to the bench and certainly on the bench, she dedicates her time to meet with a variety of different committees, commissions, serves on those committees and commissions and also then also volunteers for task forces. She has certainly been an asset to this legislative body in being a resource in information on a variety of different legislation including a considerable amount of reform that has been previously done to the family court.

I think Judge Bozzuto certainly did an excellent job as well providing the Judiciary Committee with an analysis and breakdown of how the court has changed over the last several years, and certainly that trend has been a very positive one and that's as a result of her leadership and we certainly look forward to having her continue on the bench and being a resource, not only for the Judicial Branch, but also this legislative body because we could always improve in every department and in every way and she has been a great resource to us in that regard.

So, I do rise in strong support of the renomination of Judge Bozzuto.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Gentleman from the 68th, Representative Berthel.

REP. BERTHEL (68TH):

Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the renomination of Judge Bozzuto as well. I align my comments with the leadership of Judiciary Committee.

Judge Bozzuto is a resident of Watertown, right in the heart of the 68th District, and I would encourage the membership to support her renomination.

Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I vote for Judge Suarez and the Judiciary Committee; I ask her, I don't know how many questions, maybe for more than an hour, and I have to recognize that she did a great job.

Do I have concern about Judge Bozzuto, yes. Did I receive a lot of complaints about Judge Bozzuto? Yes. But during the question, during the interview, she did recognize that parental alienation is happening. She recognized that we have a lot of problems in the court. She recognized that we have to work together so we can bring some changes to the court. She also recognized that yes, we have a problem with the Guardian Ad Litems. So, I –- for being fair, I want to say that I was not expecting all of those answers. And for that, I really appreciate that she gave me good, very good answer. And I agree that it's a lot of work to be done out there, then yes, did we receive complaint against her, but because she is willing and she recognized these problems and she is willing to work with us, I'm voting for Judge Bozzuto.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, Representative Gonzalez. Will you remark further on the resolution? Will you remark further? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. House members take your seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? If so, the machine will be locked. The Clerk will take a tally, and the Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate joint resolution no. 12, in concurrence with the senate.

Total Number of Voting 145

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those Voting Yea 145

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and not Voting 5

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted in concurrence with the Senate. [Gavel]

Representative Hall, are you seeking recognition for something? Representative Hall has his light on. I guess not.

Mr. Clerk, Senate Joint Resolution No. 13, please.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution 13. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. DEVLIN, JR. , OF SHELTON, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance and adoption? Mr. Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Judge Devlin is a graduate of the University of Connecticut School of Law, where he was an honors graduate and also has a background as a federal prosecutor, where he received several awards as one of the finest federal prosecutors in America. He was awarded an award by the U. S. Attorney General for his work against organized crime here in New England.

Judge Devlin is one of the most experienced judges in our criminal courts here in Connecticut. He served in New Haven, New London, Fairfield, Hartford, and Stamford, and has served on a variety of Judicial Branch committees, including as well the Connecticut Sentencing Commission.

You know, on our Committee, Mr. Speaker, which you are a member, we hear a lot of testimony about the judicial nominees, about their performance, about their reputation, about their judicial demeanor, and it is not often that we hear the sort of praise we have heard about Judge Devlin, and without offense to the other fine jurists that we are voting on here today, we heard in particular from the Chief Justice, who said that Judge Devlin is one of the finest judges to have ever served in the State of Connecticut. And in my 10 years in legislature, I've never heard a fellow judge of the Chief Justice make it a point to let us know that this judge, in particular, is one of the very best in our system, and it's for that reason that I urge adoption of the resolution.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Devlin.

Judge Devlin, besides showing us a great demeanor and responsive to all the questions posed by our committee, I had been contacted by several of his colleagues, other judges as well as attorneys, and the words used to describe Judge Devlin was a mentor, a great example to judges as well as attorneys. He certainly did show himself to be fair, just, and very mindful in his decisions. He also is a great asset to the Judicial Branch, as a result of his many experiences and involvement. And I don't take it lightly, Mr. Speaker, when other judges, his colleagues take the time to say he is a role model. It certainly is a great example that we have on the bench and certainly someone that I'm proud to rise in support of.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Will you remark further on the resolution? Will you remark further on the resolution? Representative Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in a position of Judge Devlin. There is a case associated with Judge Devlin, while a young girl in the Police Explorers Program that she was sexually assaulted by a police officer. The family and attorneys involved had a meeting and agreed to a plea deal in the case. The plea deal was 10 years after four. And most of the time when they take these cases to court, you can take like maybe 20 years, maybe less, but that is the range about 20 years for a sexual assault.

The family decide to go with this plea because the girl didn't want to testify because she was embarrassed and she didn't want to go into details. I listen and the committee different person about the plea arrangement. So, what I did yesterday, I called the prosecutor that he was in charge of this case, and that's what he told me; it was a plea agreement between the lawyers and the family because the girl didn't want to testify because -- the prosecutor told me that it was –- that he did a lot, the police did a lot of things, a lot of things to this young –- it was child, maybe was 16, almost 17. So, the plea deal was 10 years after four. I asked the prosecutor what is the process after a plea deal, who goes to the plea deal and what is the process. The prosecutor told me that on a plea deal, they sit, all of them sit together and sometimes the judge, but they will go with the plea agreement. So, Judge Devlin made a decision to reduce the sentence to two years and a half because he felt so sorry for the police officer. My God, he felt sorry that this police officer, after he sexually abused this girl, he was gonna lose his pension and because those 20 years of good service, he don't deserve those four years, but we all know that a sexual assault, if you go to a trial, you can get up to 20 years. His lawyer, in that meeting, want the prosecutor, he said that I don't want my client to spend any time in jail. But wait a minute, what is going on here? So, that mean that a police officer because the 20 years of service, he sexually assault this girl, so he don't have to go to jail for that? So, the prosecutor he was very clear, he said that is not going to happen. And they accept the plea agreement because the family.

So, I will say that Judge Devlin was looking out more for the police officer than the victim. Listening to Senator Winfield last week, who say when we go to court, we should expect justice to be served. But that is not what happening in this case. Sending this judge back to the bench would not be justice served. When speaking to the victim in the end this case, when they finish the case, this judge say to the girl, forget about this, put everything behind you and move on. Move on? Why? Because this girl was not a member of the family, so now we have to be sure that all these judges they are going to be protecting abusers.

I check after I spoke with the prosecutor, which I did appreciate all of the information that he gave me, he was able to do that because the case is over. I check a case, where a coach had an inappropriate relationship with a youth, not involved sex contact, and this coach got a plea agreement for three years. Two months ago, a teacher got three years for an inappropriate relationship. So, they were in possession of –- when this guy, this police officer, he was in a position of trust and power over this victim. And the judge decide that it was more important to look out for the aggressor than the victim.

I don't know what's going on in the court system and I don't know what else is going to happen in the court system. And the problem is, that we can do some changes here and that is not happening. Don't send them this judge back to the bench. Send him a message that they are there to protect the rights of the victims.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am. The gentleman from the 125th, Representative O'Dea, I see you have migrated to the center as opposed to way up. I'm trying to figure out where everybody is sitting again. It is new every two years.

REP. O'DEA (125TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it's good to see you up there.

If I may briefly, Mr. Speaker, to clarify some things about Judge Devlin, I have never practiced any criminal law, I've never met Judge Devlin other than when he was testifying before the Judiciary. I have made a number of phone calls, and I want to echo the distinguished Chair's comments about Judge Devlin as one of the finest jurists I have been told by others, who would know better than I, that the State of Connecticut has ever seen. And those are words, as the esteemed Chair has said, have not been said many times about many jurists in this Chamber.

To clarify what some of the statements were made earlier about the case that happened in Trumbull. That was a scenario by an almost 18-year-old person was taken advantage of by an officer. And I am not condoning the conduct of that officer, it was reprehensible, but make no mistake about it. To be clear to everyone here in this Chamber that is not listening to the testimony in Judiciary, the defense attorneys, the victims, and the prosecutor's all agreed to a sentence range of between nine months and four years. This was not a scenario by which the judge reduced any sentence. There was no reduction of a sentence. There was a range by which the parties and the victim had input on and agreed to.

So, if the judge had rendered a sentence of nine months in this case, the victims, and defense, and the prosecutors had all agreed to that as the range, on which they would agree to on that sentence. The judge did not do that. He gave a three-and-a-half-year sentence, when the maximum he could have given was four years. So, he gave virtually the maximum. He did not reduce any sentence. Now, far be it for me to lecture beyond what I already have to the members of this esteemed Chamber, but when we say the words, “one of the finest jurors in the history of our state,” I think we should listen to those that know him best.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. For the second time, Representative Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like I say before, I'm not attorney, and I did say before there were different comments about the plea agreement. I won't get up here and lie about anything. That's why I called the prosecutor yesterday, and the prosecutor that was involved in that case, he told me very clear it was 10 years after four. This police officer was supposed to serve four years. That's what the prosecutor told me yesterday, four years. The judge didn't have the discretion to change that. That's why the prosecutor said that it was a plea agreement and everybody agree on that sentence.

And I will say it again, this judge decides to look and protect a police officer and not the victim.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, ma'am. Are you ready for the question, the question being adoption of the resolution? If so, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members, take your seats. The machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? If all of the members have voted, the machine the will locked. The Clerk will take a tally. Mr. Clerk, please announce the tally.

CLERK:

House Joint Resolution No. 13, in concurrence with the Senate.

Total Number of Voting 145

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those Voting Yea 144

Those Voting Nay 1

Absent and Not Voting 5

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The resolution is adopted. [Gavel]

Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST):

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make a motion that we suspend our rules, so that we can act upon Senate Joint Resolutions 19 through 24.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on suspension of the rules to take up those Bills today, is there an objection? Hearing none, so ordered.

Mr. Clerk, Senate Joint Resolution 21, please.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 21. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE GERARD I ADELMAN, OF MERIDEN, TO BE A STATE REFEREE. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution in concurrence with the Senate.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Questions on acceptance of adoption and concurrence? Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Yes, Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Judge Adelman is here before us again. He is a graduate of the Ohio State University, he went to Southern for a Master's in History and graduated from UCONN School of Law.

Judge Adelman has spent almost his entire career in our state's family courts, both as a judge and as a lawyer. He did spend 18 months in our criminal courts.

Judge Adelman has a long and distinguished record of service to his community in Meriden and beyond, including his service on the Boards of United Way, the local Legal Services Organization, the Meriden Rotary Club, the YMCA, or the YWCA of Meriden, his local temple, and a local school in Middlefield.

Mr. Speaker, prior to Judge Adelman's hearing, public hearing in the Judiciary Committee, many members of the Committee received feedback and testimony from members of the public and there was some testimony about Judge Adelman, by members of the public who appeared before the Committee on the hearing date. These people expressed very serious concerns about Judge Adelman and complained of his temperament and his treatment of litigants in his courtroom. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that we take those complaints and that testimony very seriously. And every year in our Committee, almost every year that I have been in the General Assembly, there are some judges who draw more than the average amount of interest from the public. There are some judges whose record of performance is substandard, and some of those judges don't make it to the floor of this House. That has happened this year. And so, the process, through the public hearing process and the Committee process works. It works to press judges to look into their record of performance and their background and to give both the Committee and the public the opportunity to do our collective due diligence on the jurists that appear before us.

And, so, because of the complaints about Judge Adelman, when he appeared before us, I asked him, “Judge, there a number of complaints about you and your demeanor on the bench,” and I asked him to answer those concerns, and he did. And I thought Judge Adelman answered in a forthright sincere and honest manner, and I take him at his word.

Judge Adelman, as an experienced family court practitioner, has on behalf of really the entire state, he has stepped up to the plate to be a judge on the Family Court trial docket in Hartford. And in that role, he has stepped up to a very, very difficult job, where he has to sit as a judge and a factfinder often on some of the most difficult and contentious cases involving families, involving couples that are seeking a divorce, involving children, and those are very, very difficult cases that are highly emotional, highly charged, and I guess we refer to them as high conflict cases. And because of that I think it's fair to say that there are people who feel very strongly about their cases and their position and there are some people who have testified before us who feel that they have not been given a fair shake by Judge Adelman. And I have listened to their testimony, I have read transcripts, I have talked to Judge Adelman, and I have talked to people from Meriden, I have talked to colleagues from Meriden, I have talked to the judges and other lawyers and practitioners, and we hear those concerns. But I think on balance, what we are considering -- who we're considering today is a fair-minded and tough judge. We need our judges to be tough, particularly in family. That's a place where because it is so emotionally charged, you have to keep order in the courtroom, and that can be a very difficult position to be in. But I think because of that and because of the diligence that we as a Committee have done, we think that Judge Adelman balanced most of the members voted in favor of his renomination and because of that I encourage adoption of the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Adelman, and I certainly echo each and every statement that the good Chairman just stated.

Judge Adelman is a jurist that comes with a great knowledge and legal experience prior to the bench and family law. When we look to nominate new judges, we try to nominate judges that we believe will be assets to the bench. He has gracefully taken on the chore of serving on the bench in our family court system, which has been described on numerous occasions as high conflict issues that come before them. So, he has great experience off the bench in family law and he brings that experience onto the bench. With that experience comes a sense of courage, of being able to say, “I will take these conflict cases. ” You don't hear that from many judges. In fact, I would probably say, many judges would say, “If I can serve somewhere else, I will. ” But this particular individual believes in helping families and takes that service to the bench.

Now, looking at the analysis of family court in and of itself, the Judicial Branch has a variety of different programs, resources, and assets and abilities of addressing conflicts within the parties that come before them. Because ultimately the goal of everyone, whether you're pro se or represented by an attorney, is not to have the man or woman on the bench with the robe to make decisions in your cases. You are the parents, you are the parties, you are the vested interested individuals in your lives and these minor children's lives. You are the best suited individuals to make the best suited decisions in the best interest of your lives or in your children's lives. So, we provide programs. The Judicial Branch provides family services, pretrials, mediations, special masters, and I can go on and on and on about the different services that is offered to each and every individual that walks through a family court. Because the intent and goal is see if you can reach an agreement, it's best for all involved. It is only when those individuals are unable to reach an agreement that then the judge is left with the facts and circumstances and evidence that comes before the judges to make those tough decisions and none of those decisions are easy in any way, shape, or form. And unfortunately, many times you may have one side or two sides that will not be satisfied with that decision. Then add the factor that in family court, things are fluid, things are modifiable. There is changes in circumstances, whether financially, a person's job schedule, personally people's homes, people remarry, people fall on tough times or have illnesses and challenges of health and life.

So, these are all things that make certain parties go back to court to modify orders. So, many times these people are subjected again to the court system over and over again. And again, these services are offered. And again, sometimes tough decisions have to be made by the judges, but these judges are purely making decisions based on the facts that are provided to them in court, not the other things that are alleged out there, but just purely the facts that come before them. And we expect the judges to evaluate those facts based on fairness, and application of the law, nothing more, nothing less. We are not asking judges to deliver messages, we are not asking judges to legislate law.

Judge Adelman has consistently shown to his best abilities, a just, reasoned decisions in his cases. I have had the opportunity to observe Judge Adelman in the courtroom and on several occasions, because he did serve previously in one city and now is sitting in another city, as I sit there in the courtroom and I look at the individuals who come before him, it's tough for me even to think, “Wow, I thought my one case was challenging. ” But as I sit there waiting for my turn, I watch case after case after case that I would describe as challenging. These are not easy situations. It is not an easy profession for these judges to be placed in, but unfortunately, it's their job, their duty, and their responsibility. And when they are doing it to the best of their ability, then I do believe that they do deserve to continue to serve.

Again, I will reiterate the challenges that we have sitting on the Judiciary Committee and asking questions of the people who testify before us. We can't ask all the questions we want to, out of respect to the person that comes before us and the dignity of the person, because if we were, there would be facts and circumstances and sensitive topics that we could dive into, but out of respect, respect to the other parties that are in our presence, respect to the minor children, that these are their lives, these stories that are being told, that we don't. But our responsibilities as members is to inquire on each and every allegation that's made against these judges, we as legislators have the duty and responsibility to do so. So, we look at the transcripts, we look at the decisions, we look at the facts of that case, of the individual who came before us. And more often than not, we're shocked because of the new information that we are learning and obtaining. And it's tough for judges when they come before us, and we deserve to give them tough questions, but they too, there is a certain sensitivity of the facts and circumstances of that case that they may not want to be relitigated in the public's eye. Many times, those decisions have been made and they are public and they hope that each individual will properly look at them and analyze them. And I think we have done so. And certainly, every judge has offered to meet with any individual, whether sitting on the Judiciary Committee or outside of, to ask them those tough questions. I am proud of the fact that many of certainly have done so.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of Judge Adelman, and again for all of the reasons that the Chairman reiterated and for his dedication and service and knowledge that he brings to the bench in the sensitivity of the tough issues that come before every judge, but we certainly have seen time again, and again, and again, that truly some of the most passionate issues and tough issues have been in the family law arena, and I certainly encourage that these judges also continue to work with the Judicial Branch in providing the services that they have and continue those programs, because we don't want to see those judges making those tough decisions in people's lives, but many times they are left with no choice.

So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Adelman.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, Madam. Will you remark further? Representative Gonzalez of the 3rd District, you have the floor, madam.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can't believe, I can't believe this. Hundreds of people criticize this judge and the way that they describe this judge as having a bad, bad temper. Well, I got a bad temper, right, that's what a lot of people say here, but it is different when a judge on the bench is dealing with parents.

A judge that ignore other judge's court order, a judge that has been threatening parents to take their kids away and put them in jail, if they don't pay Guardian Ad Litem thousands and thousands of dollars, orders a psych evaluation with the fact that he decide that he want, so these parents they go to court, they are not allowed to choose a doctor, they are not allowed, he has to go with whatever he decide. He abused his power and enjoy abusing and controlling parents.

This past Friday, at the beginning of Judge Adelman's interview he was very calm. He painted himself as one of the best judges. Oh, My God, what a difference behavior in court, compared to his behavior in this public hearing. The first question to Judge Adelman came from our Chair, my Chair, Representative Tong. And the question from Representative Tong was that many grievances were filed by people for whom Judge Adelman have. He said, if the people that they were complaining about him, if the grievance -- the people file grievance against him, if those people were in front of him and the answer from Mr. Adelman was, many grievance were filed by people from who Judge Adelman have no involvement in the case. And that's what Judge Adelman is saying, no, there a lot of people, they file a grievance against me, but most of those people never been in front of me. That was the answer from Judge Adelman to the Chair or the Committee. Well, he mentioned a couple of names, he mentioned Ida Shaw, he mentioned Mike Nowacki [phonetic], and he mentioned Susan Skipp [phonetic], those people have never been in front of him. Those people that just look at him on the website and they are complaining about me. Well, guess what, he lied to my Chair. Now, he don't lie only to the Latina Rep that have a heavy accent, he lie to my Chair, because this is a court order that Judge Adelman signed against Susan Skipp, one of the people he said that never that person be in front of him. And that court order, he was ordering the mother to bring the kid to the father no later than 1: 45 today, failure to do so will result in all parental access by the defendant mother to be terminated. So, yes, she was in front of him. Mr. Chair, he lied to all of you and all of us. But what is very rare in this and funny is that the mother received the court order at 12: 45, and he want her to deliver the child by 1: 45, knowing that this mother was working as a teacher and she has to go –- she was working in Hamden, she have to go to Fairfield, and then have to go to Redding less than an hour. So, this was very clear an order to Susan Skipp, that he really said that she never was in front of him. So, she lying to my Chair, under oath.

I never check the case of -- the Chair was talking about, it was Anthony Hightower [phonetic], but only God knows what happened in that case. He -– the way that he treat special woman when that Chair ask him, they are complaining a lot about you that you are biased. The answer was, my wife is a woman, duh, my wife is a woman, and I have a daughter; that was the response. But we were not dealing with his wife or his daughter in court. He also stated that when parents go to court they get emotional, that he will stop and they will get tissue to those parents [Laughter] that are crying. Tissues, can you imagine? That's what he said. That they will provide tissues to those parents, they are crying. I was there. I don't know how many times I have been in the court. The first time, he noticed that I was there and the look that he gave me was horrible. But, I continue going back because there was so many complaints against this judge. I continue to go back. So, when he said that they provide tissues, I'm going to tell you what he provide them. I was there when a mother, very, very well educated, a professional. She start crying because she was fighting for her son, she start crying and what he did, he didn't provide no tissues. He called the Marshalls, and the Marshalls -- he had the Marshall to stay behind her and move the shackles, so she was going to be distracted and she was going to be scared, and that what he does with these mothers. He treats them with no respect.

So, I think that my next step will buy tissue for the court, so that way for sure they are going to use tissues, but –- the other thing he said that a parent, when a parent get emotional and they start crying, he knows that the parent is not going to obey the court order. That's crazy to say that. I can go to court and maybe because I'm nervous or maybe because I'm fighting for my son, I get emotional, and I can start crying. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to obey a court order. But that's what he said. I ask him –- I ask him if the Appellate Court completely overturn an order, can an attorney come to court later on with some motion for contempt for no compliance with those orders, and he said, "the order -- that has been overturned," and I said, "uh-huh. " He said, "No. " And I said "No?" Then he respond, "Well, because that's no longer an order. " And I said, "Exactly my point. " A lawyer came after they overturn a decision. A lawyer came to court and file a motion for contempt of court, that's supposed to be illegal. And he allowed that -- the home is meant for contempt of court, knowing that that court was vacated six months ago. So, this man went to the appellate court and he filed motions and they make the finding -- that Adelman make a finding of willful contempt on 10/11/2012, and that that motion was vacated on 04/24/2012, but he didn't care anyway. He hold this person in contempt of court.

So, I heard a lot here, a lot of good things about Adelman, he was asked a lot of questions and at one time I did remind him that he was under oath, and that was the time that he kind of lose control. Because this judge always, always want to be in control.

So, looking at this judge and all of the complaints about him, this is the worst judge. We have, I don't know how many appointments today or reappointments, but from all the judges, I will say this is a terrible, terrible judge. He protect the Guardian Ad Litem even though the Guardian Ad Litem abusing the parents. He protect Guardian Ad Litem even though the Guardian Ad Litems are charging thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars. When they ask the Guardian Ad Litems, why $ 150,000 dollars in court, the answer is, you got to pay the Guardian Ad Litem, that's what they are asking for. So, I will say that when I also ask him about ADA accommodation, he gave me a quick compassionate sounding response. But when you check the reality, he don't want -- he don't like to deal with pro se or ADA, people that need ADA accommodations.

So, Judge Adelman doesn't have any respect for us or for our process. When he come in front of us and he start lying to the Chair, and I got the notes here, I'm not inventing this, it's impossible for me to invent all of these things. So, he don't have no respect for our process. He is a judge and he believed that he can do whatever he wants. I ask this body today, please not ignore his behavior towards us and also to the parents that go in front of him. He came to this Committee, Judiciary Committee and he purged himself. I got proof here that he purged himself.

I know a story about a mother that went in front of this judge, she's been in front of this judge a couple of years, she lost her kids, her job, and she ended up homeless. She said that she is going to court with that -- so the reason that I am saying, you can check, that her name was removed from the deed of her home by the same time that the court ordered her, Judge Adelman ordered her, to sell her house because the attorneys, ad litems, and the AMC they want money. So, he ordered her to sell her house. She went to court and she was fighting in court for nine months. And she thought that because her name was removed from the deed illegally, she thought that she was going to win the case. She fought for nine months. And about one month ago, she was getting home and a police officer was waiting for her. And he said, "You've been evicted. " She said, "Evicted by who?" And the police officer say, "You've been evicted by Judge Adelman gave the order. So, you have two hours to get your stuff, whatever you can pack in two hours, and you got to leave. " And she said, "How this is possible, if I'm going through a process in court and I'm waiting for the decision, how can Judge Adelman order this?" She was asking questions about the house. She was asking questions about how much they pay for the house; she didn't receive no answer. But I am sure that if we ask about -– if we ask about it, they might have an answer ready, even if it is not true. My God, a clique like this in the court is dangerous, is dangerous.

There is a lot of corruption in our broken system, is work only for some people, for the AMC, Guardian Ad Litems, they are getting richer day by day. You can check a Guardian Ad Litem, then maybe in the 2013, she was handling two cases, but then you check '14, '15, and '16, the case is going up and up and up because it's a lot of money there.

Our system is not about justice or fairness. Our system is about money. This is not the only case like this. I know about other cases where the court is working with a group selling homes and attorneys, Guardians Ad Litem and God knows else is involved. All of this and more is going through the court system, and this body keeps sending back these judges to the bench.

Let's stop the corruption. Let's do something about it. It's easy to label the parents as crazy just because people would not believe anything that is going on and also go ahead, just label the Latino Rep, that is defending this parent, that's okay, I'm used to that, just label again the Latino Rep.

Let's do the right thing. Let's send a message to these judges that when they are not following the law, and let's send to our constituents and to the people of Connecticut that we are here to protect their rights. And I have been voting against judges today and even if I get one, two, three, four vote, five, whatever, and I can get -- and I can keep that judge out of the bench, for me, even though that maybe you don't think about, for me, it's a victory, it's a victory. Even though if I can't get these judges out of the bench. People are listening and the corruption is out there, or we decide that we are going to change the system, so we can help these parents. Or we will continue allowing these judges to abuse these parents and abuse the system.

I will ask my colleagues to oppose his reappointment. Vote no, because the residents of Connecticut they deserve the best.

Thank you, Ms. Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further?

Representative Abercrombie.

REP. AMBERCROMBIE (83RD):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the nomination for Gerard Adelman. As someone that was born and raised in Meriden, I have known the judge for many years. I have known him since he was on our Board of Education. Yes, this is a tough individual, but this is an individual that is fair and consistent. And I can tell you that I can't imagine how difficult family court must be. Yes, is it emotionally driven, absolutely. Does my heart go out to the families, absolutely, but a judge is not there to be emotional. A judge is there to do what's in the best interest of the family, and I can tell you standing here right now, that Judge Adelman puts a lot of thought and time into his decisions and goes by the law.

I'd also like this Chamber to consider the vote that came out of the Judiciary Committee, it was 33 to 7, so there were a number of people on that Committee that heard the same about this judge and looked favorably upon him.

So, I urge my colleagues to confirm the confirmation of Judge Adelman.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Santiago.

REP. SANTIAGO (84TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the resolution for the Honorable Gerard Adelman. I've known him for many years. He was a teacher in another town, but lived in Meriden. He was on the Board of Education for many, many years, and then he decided to go back and become a lawyer, back to school become a lawyer and now he is a judge. While he was on the Board of Education, I went before the Board of Education many times years ago, my son now is 37 years old, and I had to fight for him to get into the Special Ed program, and he was one of the Board of Education members that helped me to do that, because I didn't know what I was doing. So, he explained the system. He explained what I had to do, to write a letter and make sure that the principal knew that he needed those services.

So, I know Gerard Adelman in a different capacity. I just want to read something about his record. There is an evaluation summary that goes around to all of the lawyers that come before him. And in the last three years, the comportment, which is one of the areas that they rate these judges, all the judges combined, this is up to January 2015, all the judges combined was 89 percent. This individual judge was 94 percent. Legal ability, all the judges combined was 89. Judge Adelman was 94 percent. Management skills, which includes the pace of proceedings, explanation of rulings, latitude allowed to attorneys, attention, staying on top of proceedings, promptness, and making rulings, that's what management skills are. All the judges combined 90 percent. Judge Adelman was 96 percent. And I'm sure that there have been cases where parents weren't happy with decisions that he made. It's very emotional going into court and fighting for custody of your children, fighting for issues that deal with your family, and the judges there with all the evidence before him, and to look at that evidence, look at the testimony, look at the stories, look at the history, and make the right decision; somebody is going to come out losing, it's either going to be the father or the mother. You're not going to make everybody happy. And judges have to make those rulings each and every day and family services and family court is not one of the easiest courts to be in. It's almost like being in the Chamber, Appropriations is one of the toughest committees, if you want a simple committee, then you join Commerce or one of the other ones, the smaller ones, right? [Laughter] So, that's what happens, so you got to -- nothing against Commerce, but I haven't been in that committee yet, but just to draw the difference that family services is very, very difficult to deal with.

The judges have to be the voices for these children and he is the voice for these children. If the parents can't make a decision, a simple decision on child custody and who visits who on what weekend, what date, what holidays to take the child, then the judge has to make that decision, and that's what he is there for.

I challenge anyone in this Chamber to remember what they did last week, what they did two years ago, what they did 10 years ago, and for those that have been here 20 years, what bills they voted on 20 years ago. I'm sure that we are going to have a time when you are not going to remember all of the bills that you voted on, you are going to have to go back and research that or have your legislative aide research that.

So, we are proud in the City of Meriden, and have the privilege of Gerard Adelman representing not only Meriden, but the whole State of Connecticut. Like I read before, he has a high percentage rating amongst lawyers, and I'm sure if he wasn't that good, they wouldn't be rating him that high percentage that I just read to you a little while ago. And this is a rating that he has among his peers. He not only stands up for this franchise, but treats everybody equally. When he makes a decision, he studies, and he does his homework, and the decision is a fair one with the evidence that's presented to him.

So, I urge all of my colleagues in the Chamber to support the Honorable Gerard Adelman with this resolution.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further? Representative Fishbein.

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise in favor of Judge Adelman. I've been practicing law approximately 15 years and as a new lawyer, one of my first cases, then attorney Adelman was on the other side of the case. And it was one of these high conflict cases, and myself being a new lawyer, I thought that everything in a family case you had to fight and you had to argue and that was the way family cases were supposed to be. And my client wanted to fight and Gerard's client wanted to fight and the rudder in the whole case was Judge Adelman, who was able to calm down the whole situation. We did go to trial, but the result was one that was a good result.

So, as an attorney, I've known Judge Adelman to be competent and steadfast in his work. I clerked for a time in the Superior Court, and judges sometimes talk about that they don't want to do family work, and I understand now why they don't, because when they come up for appointment, they are accused of lying, they are accused of not caring. We don't often hear those things about judges that just do civil matters.

As a judge, I've known Judge Adelman to bring his knowledge of human nature in the legal process to every case, and that's commendable. During his tenure, he has even served the Regional Family Trial docket, located in Middletown, where specifically high conflict cases go. So, this is somebody who is saying, “Bring me high conflict cases,” and he has the skills to resolve those cases. Could you imagine every day going to work, hearing people fight and asking to be part of that process? That is commendable.

Now, my understanding is that because of his senior status, that Judge Adelman is going to be a JTR and I think he has the opportunity to pick where he is going to be stationed out of, and he is not asking not asking to be stationed out of Meriden, where he is from, he is asking to go to Hartford, to do the good work in Hartford where there are more high conflict cases. And I think he should be commended for that.

My every contact that I have had with Judge Adelman has been respectful and I rise in favor and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Vargas.

REP. VARGAS (6TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have been through this several times before and with all due deference to the Chair of Judiciary Committee, Representative Tong and to the ranking member, Representative Rebimbas, I have to rise to say I am going to be opposing the reappointment of Judge Adelman.

We have been around this many times with family court. I have been watching this for a long time, and I have expressed my feelings about this whole GAL system, the Guardian Ad Litem system. Representative Gonzalez just explained how a person lost their home. I fail to see how best interest of the child is protected by forcing someone to sell their home.

Judge Adelman has become the poster boy of the worst of the worst. I wasn't too happy with some of the other appointments, wasn't too happy to have to vote against Judge Suarez, a fellow Latino, but as you noticed, most of us who represent Latino communities voted against the reappointment of Judge Suarez.

If we at least don't reject Judge Adelman, if at least we don't stand up to one judge in this Chamber, I think we're sending the wrong message that this whole reappointment process is just a rubber stamp. I'm sorry I feel this way about this, but I was informed up in the Senate that there were some senators that voted against reappointment, including two Republicans, Senator Fasano and Senator Witkos, it was a bipartisan effort by some of the senators to stop this renomination process. I'm hoping we have better luck here in the House of Representatives.

So, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the reappointment of Judge Adelman. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Gonzalez, for the second time.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you for this second time.

I listen to both sides and I look at the members of Judiciary Committee that are here, starting with my good Chair, Representative Tong, and I can't believe that under oath he lied to the Chair, and he lied to all of us. He lied to all of us and we got proof to that. If we not gonna -– that everybody is praising him, well, I'm not an attorney. I don't have to go in front of him. I don't have a case. I don't have to defend a client. So, me, as not an attorney, I will say the truth, what is out there. That I have been in his court so many times and I see the way he treat parents, especially mothers, and I will say God will help your constituents, my constituents, and everybody else here that goes in front of the judge. And if you don't stand up and fight for them, they will continue being abused by this judge. It's not that he's a bad judge just because he's a bad judge, he is a horrible judge. He is terrible. He don't have no respect for anybody. And I don't know how many of the Reps here, they are not an attorney, has been in his court. Cause I have been there, maybe five times, and I will say, God protect the people of Hartford now, because now he is transferred to Hartford. So, that means that I am going to spend more time in his court. But I have been there. I know the way he abuse these mothers. And I can testify in there and other than he lied again to the Latino State Rep, maybe people don't care. But to lie to the Chair of this Committee need to have a lot of guts. And yes, he is a very powerful judge, he is very strong, because that's the way he shows authority to all these people that don't know how to defend themselves, and don't have money to pay an attorney. But again, I would say, if this body is going to ignore that he lied to the Committee, if that's what we're doing, if that's what we are going to allow this judge to do, then I will say with all due respect, that we got a problem at the Judiciary Committee. We got a serious, serious problem.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Smith.

REP. SMITH (108TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, frankly I'm tired of sitting through this process and being called out as a member of the Judiciary Committee as an attorney who practices throughout the courts of the State of Connecticut and being categorized as one who is afraid to vote against a judge because we may or may not appear before them. Frankly it's wrong, it's inconsiderate, it's totally out of line.

So, I've sat here all day quietly, but I've heard enough.

I vote in favor of this judge for a number of reasons. Number one, I don't even do family law. I will never appear before this judge, but I sat there and listened through the testimony, I listened through the public hearing. I know how difficult it is to try cases, especially family law cases. We cannot find judges to do these cases because it is such a hostile environment in that court. And for a member of this Chamber to call out a judge and to say that he is a liar, has gone too far, Madam Speaker.

So, I for one am sick of it. I hope we don't hear any more of it.

Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Much has been said. I wasn't planning to speak again, but as the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, I think it's important to speak on behalf of the Committee and its members and the process that we go through often on the Judiciary Committee.

It has been the honor of my public service career to serve on the Judiciary Committee, the highest honor to be its Chairman. And I can tell you that every time we step into the hearing room or the committee room, particularly on these judicial nominations, we take this responsibility to investigate, to ask tough questions, to consider the renomination of our judges, we take that responsibility very seriously. I take umbrage at the suggestion that we are a rubber stamp. That could not be further from the truth, and I tried to say it subtly earlier, but maybe I should be more explicit. There are judges who come before us whose performance is substandard, whose performance evaluations suggest that they should not serve another term on the Judicial Branch. We ask those tough questions. We press those judges, and judges at times would draw their request to be renominated, that happened just yesterday. Because this Committee did its work. This is not the first time. There have been other judges when I was a junior legislator, a judge said disparaging things about immigrants in open court. He was nominated for the Appellate Court, he withdrew his nomination in the middle of that day because he knew that tough questions were coming.

This Committee subjected Judge Adelman to extensive thorough searching, aggressive questioning. And I will tell you that I do not believe, as a Chair of this Committee, that I was lied to. And I will tell you that I take very seriously the suggestion that I might have been lied to, so seriously that I have spent much of this day running down not just that allegation, but other charges about other judges that appeared before us, to make sure that I was not lied to. But that's my judgement to make, whether I was lied to. As a member of the Committee, as a member of this General Assembly and as a member of the Chair of this Committee.

We have made a lot of progress in this General Assembly in reforming our family courts. In no small part, because of the advocacy of Representative Gonzalez, that is a fact. The 2014 Reform Bill I was not the Chairman at that time; Judge Fox was the Chair, but that was an extensive reform of our family courts. The sensitivity of this Chamber to those issues is much higher than it was when I stated and much higher than it was five years ago. We're on the case on this issue. Is there still more work to be done, yes, but Judge Bozzuto, who was confirmed and renominated today, she has been on the case and leading the effort. And I appreciate the remarks of Representative Gonzalez and others crediting her for her work on those issues. So, we're making progress. We are hearing people, but these are very difficult cases, and I think we have to take a step back and say we need good tough judges to sit on these dockets, to make these decisions and maybe we should have a longer conversation about what our role is as a legislature and as a Judiciary Committee. But I want to say with respect to Judge Adelman, Judge Devlin, Judge Suarez, and the many other judges we've considered today and will going forward, they are nominated by the governor and confirmed by us. They sit by virtue of our state constitution. They are members of a co-equal branch of government. They don't work for us. They work for the people of this state. They come before us for a job interview every eight years, and I said to the Judicial Branch, we've had some tough conversations, I said to Judge Carroll and I said to the Chief Justice, who pushed back on some of the questioning, I said, there is no problem with these questions, these tough questions, because it is our right and prerogative as a legislature and as a co-equal branch of government to ask these hard questions and to put them through their paces and prove that they deserve reappointment to our courts. And so I have no problem, as Chairman of this Committee and a member of this legislature with tough questions, but we cross a line when we step -– we try to step into their shoes and second guess them in the discharge of their duties. They have to make very tough calls. They have to sit there for hour upon hour, days and days, weeks and months hearing testimony, accessing the credibility of witnesses, looking at proof, whether it is competent or not. They have to make tough decisions and it's not appropriate for us to step in there for a brief second and say, “You know what, if I were there I would have made a different call. ” When it's a reasonable decision within the range, it's not our province to second guess the business of judging. It is our responsibility to assess the quality of the discharge of their duties, yes, how is their comportment, their demeanor, their management of the courtroom, their knowledge of the law, all of that is important, ask all of those questions. But it becomes very difficult in a tough case when you don't know what's happening in that courtroom to second guess what went down that day.

And so I pledge to everyone here, that this Committee will continue to take its responsibility to confirm judges very seriously. If anybody has questions about that, speak to me or the Vice Chair, or the ranking member. We meet with the people that testify before a committee, we take their phone calls. We meet with them in district. We talk to them in the hallway. We spend a lot of time on these issues, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that due diligence has been done here. Judge Adelman deserves reappointment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, Representative Tong. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members please take their seats and the machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Will members please check the board and make sure your vote is properly cast. If all members have voted, the machine will be locked.

Representative Steinberg.

REP. STEINBERG (136TH):

I vote in the negative.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Has the Clerk recorded Representative Steinberg in the negative? Thank you, sir.

Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 21, in concurrence with the Senate.

Total Number of Voting 145

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those Voting Yea 117

Those Voting Nay 28

Absent and Not Voting 5

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The resolution passes in concurrence with the Senate. [Gavel]

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution No. 23.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 23. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE RICHARD P. GILARDI, OF STRATFORD, TO BE A STATE REFEREE. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move in acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before the Chamber is on adoption of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Representative Stafstrom, you have the floor.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Judge Gilardi was initially appointed to the Superior Court bench in 2000. He is now serving as a Judge Trial Referee in the Bridgeport Civil Courthouse, where he tries cases. He has, prior to his service on the bench, he was a member of several organizations in the Stratford area and was a distinguished public servant in Stratford prior to his extension to the bench. He comes before the Committee with favorable recommendations from several of the practitioners in that area. His nomination was approved by the Judiciary Committee and I urge adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it's a pleasure to see you up there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Gilardi. Certainly, he did a very good job in responding to all of the questions posed by the Committee and explained his responsibility and duties and the type of cases that he handles for the Judicial Branch, so we do believe that he is an asset and does assist in moving business along for the Judicial Branch, so I do rise in support of.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, Madam. Will you remark further? Representative Hoydick.

REP. HOYDICK (120TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Judge Gilardi is a personal friend, a personal friend in the respect that he was very involved in my entry to politics and taught me a lot about the process was as Representative Stafstrom mentioned, renowned in Stratford, served on many, many committees, advised our town council, was our town attorney, and was an exceptional judge, especially in his former role, and now as a Referee, he has been a great support to the state and to the region and I heartily encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of Judge Gilardi.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Gresko.

REP. GRESKO (121ST):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I echo the sentiments of my colleague. Judge Gilardi, a pillar in the community, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support his renomination. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members please take your seats and the machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Members, please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast. And the Clerk -– and the machine will be locked.

Will the Clerk please call the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 23, in concurrence with the Senate.

Total Number of Voting 143

Necessary for Adoption 72

Those Voting Yea 143

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

This resolution passes in concurrence with the Senate.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution No. 14.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 14. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE BRUCE P. HUDOCK, OF OLD GREENWICH, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Tong.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark. Representative Tong, you have the floor.

REP. TONG (147TH):

Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. The resolution concerns the renomination of Judge Hudock, who has served for a long time down in Stamford and Norwalk. He is a graduate of American University and the Catholic University School of Law. Judge Hudock has an interesting background in that he has served on both sides of the criminal bar. He served for a time working for the office of the Public Defender and then he also worked in the office of the State's Attorney, speaking as somebody who works down in the Stamford courthouse, I know that Judge Hudock is a judge with a great reputation and respect among his peers and urge adoption of the resolution enthusiastically.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further. Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I rise in support of Judge Hudock, he certainly did a good job in responding to our questions and kept his decorum and demeanor and he is well respected by his colleagues. I do rise in his support.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Representative Gonzalez.

REP. GONZALEZ (3RD):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I vote on this judge and Committee, I vote for him with the right to change my vote on the floor, if I found more information about him. So, I voting –- I'm changing my vote based that -- and I'm going to rephrase just in case. Lying under oath and that's the reason, Madam Speaker, that I'm voting -- I change my vote and I'm voting against him. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Representative Camillo.

REP. CAMILLO (151ST):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this nominee. He is a great jurist, a wonderful person, who has been a judge I believe since 2000. Has served, as a way of a background, as a public defender, a prosecutor, and of course as a judge. He is well thought of in our community and I think the only thing he likes more than practicing law is taking his dogs down to the beach. Just a great, wonderful person, and I urge everybody to vote in support of him. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Bocchino.

REP. BOCCHINO (150TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And to the essence of time, I will just keep this brief. Judge Hudock is a wonderful individual and deserves everyone's support here. He is a phenomenal judge, and I wholeheartedly support him. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Will members please take their seats and the machine will be open.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Have all member voted? Have all members voted? Will members please check the board, make sure your vote is properly cast. If all members have voted, the machine will be locked and the Clerk will take a tally. Will the Clerk please announce the tally.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 14, in concurrence with the Senate.

Total Number of Voting 143

Necessary for Adoption. 72

Those Voting Yea 142

Those Voting Nay 1

Absent and Not Voting 7

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The resolution passes in concurrence with the Senate. (Gavel)

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution 15.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution 15. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA A. OZALIS, OF NEWTOWN, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Stafstrom. Representative Stafstrom, if I could stop you for one minute please.

Will members please stick close to the Chamber. I believe we are going to be starting the Consent Calendar, and we will move very quickly. So, please stay close to the Chamber. Thank you.

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution in concurrence with the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark? Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Judge Ozalis was first appointed to the bench in 2009. She currently serves on the civil docket up in Danbury, where she has a distinguished record. I was particularly impressed by her service, not just in the courtroom but outside of the courtroom, where she has served in a number of leadership roles, including on the Rules Committee and on the Board of Governors of the Judges Association. I heard her reconfirmation was unanimous on the Committee, and I urge favorable vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I do rise before the Chamber in support of the nominee before us. And Madam Speaker, to confirm your prior statement, I would like to move for the creation of a Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The motion before us is to place this on the Consent Calendar; is there objection? Is there objection on placing this item on the Consent Calendar? Hearing no objection, this item is placed on the Consent Calendar.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution No. 16.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 16. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. WENZEL, OF SOUTHPORT, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution in concurrence with the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark? Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Judge Wenzel comes before us having been initially appointed in 2009. He has served in a number of capacities in his first term, including in the civil courts in Bridgeport and the criminal courts in Norwalk. I believe he is currently stationed in New Haven. He comes to the Judiciary with an extensive record as a trial litigator, a civil trial litigator, where he had a distinguished career. Again, he has provided excellent service to the Judiciary inside and outside of the courtroom. I urge adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Wenzel for all of the reasons that the good Vice Chair had just mentioned, and I also offered this as an item to the Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The motion before us is place this on the Consent Calendar; is there objection? Is there objection? If not, hearing no objection, this item is placed on the Consent Calendar.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution No. 17.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 17. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE GLENN A. WOODS, OF MIDDLETOWN, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Winkler.

REP. WINKLER (56TH):

Madam Speaker, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report in adoption of the resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark further?

REP. WINKLER (56TH):

I rise to support the favorable report of the Committee. I do apologize – Judge Woods serves on the Hartford Juvenile Court, he has served on the criminal side of the Manchester and Hartford Superior Courts. He has served in New Haven and Hartford Civil Courts and in the Hartford Housing Court. He was first appointed in 2009.

I support the unanimous favorable report of the Joint Committee and adoption of the resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Woods for all of the reasons just stated, and I do offer this item for the Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. The motion before us to place this item on the Consent Calendar; is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing no objection, this item is placed on the Consent Calendar.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution No. 18.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 18. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN B. HANDY, OF OLD LYME, TO BE A SENIOR JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Representative Conley.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark? Representative Conley.

REP. CONLEY (40TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Judge Handy is a judge in my home court of the New London Judicial District. She does an excellent job hearing both civil and our most complex criminal matters in the New London Judicial District. She answered all of our questions fairly and I stand in support of Judge Handy to be reconfirmed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Handy's renomination and I also offer this item to the Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, Madam. The motion before us is to place this item on the Consent Calendar; is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing no objection, this item is to be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution 19.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 19. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, OF HAMDEN, TO BE A SENIOR JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Elliott.

REP. ELLIOTT (88TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark? Representative Elliott.

REP. ELLIOTT (88TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My understanding is that Judge Pittman is a phenomenal judge, and I cannot wait for her to get back to work. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Pittman and offer this for the Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. The motion before us is to place this item on the Consent Calendar; is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, this item will be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution No. 20.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 20. A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE PATRICIA A. SWORDS, OF STORRS, TO BE A SENIOR JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution in concurrence with the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. The question before the Chamber is on acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark? Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTSROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, Judge Swords was initially appointed to the bench in 2000. She is providing service in the Judicial District of Windham on several types of matters. She came out of Committee unanimously. She also serves on the Civil Jury Instructions Committee. I urge adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Judge Swords and offer this for the Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. The motion before us is to place this item on the Consent Calendar; is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, this item will be placed on the Consent Calendar.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution 22.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 22. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH P. FLYNN, OF ANSONIA, TO BE A STATE REFEREE. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move in acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report in adoption of the resolution in concurrence with the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. The question before this Chamber is on the acceptance of the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark? Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, up until 2010, Judge Flynn served as the Chief Judge of our Appellate Court, where he had a distinguished career. He continues to be an invaluable resource to the Appellate system as a State Referee. Of note to myself as well as the ranking member, he is also a fellow of Fairfield University Alumni. I move adoption.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Klarides.

REP. KLARIDES (114TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As you well know, Judge Flynn is one our hometown boys from the valley, and he has, as the good Representative mentioned, served a very illustrious career in the Judiciary and he has been one of the most well respected judges on the bench on many levels. We are very proud to have him continue in a Trial Referee capacity, and I urge adoption of this judge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, Representative. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas.

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I do rise in support of Judge Flynn for all of the reasons previously stated, and no biasness because he did graduate from our Alma Mater. I would like to offer this to the Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, madam. The motion before this Chamber is on the Consent Calendar. Is there objection to placing this item on Consent? Is there an objection? Hearing no objection, this item will be placed on Consent.

Will the Clerk please call Senate Joint Resolution 24.

CLERK:

Senate Joint Resolution No. 24. RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM J. SULLIVAN, OF WATERBURY, TO BE A STATE REFEREE. Favorable report of the Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I move acceptance to the Joint Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution in concurrence with the Senate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

The question before us is on acceptance of the Committee's favorable report and adoption of the resolution. Will you remark further? Representative Stafstrom.

REP. STAFSTROM (129TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, again, Justice Sullivan served as our -- previously served as the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court. He continues to serve as an invaluable resource to our Appellate system as a State Referee. His renomination was unanimous out of Committee, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support him here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Rebimbas

REP. REBIMBAS (70TH):

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too rise in support of Judge Sullivan for his renomination and from several of the members who are part of the Waterbury delegation, they also wanted to reiterate their support of Judge Sullivan and I do offer this item to the Consent Calendar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, Madam. The motion before us is to place this item on the Consent Calendar. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, this item is placed on the Consent Calendar.

Will the Clerk please call Consent Calendar 1.

CLERK:

Consent Calendar, January 18, 2017. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24.

DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE (104TH):

Thank you, sir. The question before us is on Adoption of the Bills on today's Consent Calendar No. 1. Will you remark? Will you remark? If not, staff and guests please come to the well of the House. Members take their seats, and the machine will be opened.

CLERK:

The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the Chamber.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote has been properly cast. If all of the members have voted, the machine will be locked, the Clerk will take a tally. The Clerk will announce the tally.

CLERK:

Consent Calendar No. 1, Senate Joint Reports No. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 24.

Total Number of Voting 145

Necessary for Adoption 73

Those Voting Yea 145

Those Voting Nay 0

Absent and Not Voting 5

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

The Consent Calendar passes in concurrence with the Senate.

Are there any announcements or introductions? Announcements or introductions?

Representative Morris of the 140th, you have the floor, sir.

REP. MORRIS (140TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I just rise briefly because I was out of the Chamber during legislative business during the renomination of Judge Bruce Hudock, who presides in the Norwalk courthouse. Senators, I'd like just to stand to note my support for Judge Hudock, and had I been present, I would have voted in the affirmative. Thank you, sir.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. We totally understand, we're all running around and doing a lot this time of year. I appreciate it.

Representative Porter, the 94th, you have the floor, madam.

REP. PORTER (94TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of an announcement, Labor and Public Employees Committee will have a committee meeting tomorrow at 11 a. m. , in room 1D (as in David).

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, madam.

Representative Abercrombie, 83rd, you have the floor, madam.

REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of an announcement.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed.

REP. ABERCROMBIE (83RD):

Human Services will meet tomorrow, Thursday, at 2: 30, in room 2A.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you, madam.

Representative Demicco, of the 21st, you have the floor, sir.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of an announcement, please.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed.

REP. DEMICCO (21ST):

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Environment Committee will be meeting this coming Monday, January 23rd, at 10: 30 a. m. , in room 1D.

Thank you.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir.

Representative Luxenberg, of the 12th District, you have the floor, ma'am.

REP. LUXENBERG (12TH):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for the purpose of a general notation.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Please proceed.

REP. LUXENBERG (12TH):

Thank you.

These members missed votes today for the following reasons: Illness, Linehan, Ryan. Business outside the Chamber, Mushinsky, Irving, Lopes. Business in District, Reed, Tercyak, Baker, Morris, Arconti, and business outside of the state, Representative McGee.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Will the journal please note. Representative Betts, of the 78th, I see you are being mentored here in the Chamber today.

REP BETTS (78TH):

I am, Mr. Speaker, and I just want to announce that I did not win the Powerball last night, so you can all play again. But for the purpose of journal notation, I would like to announce that Representative Kupchick was attending a funeral, for a vote she missed. Representative Frey is out of state on legislative business, and Representative Zupkus is out of state on business, and I thank you very much.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Will the journal please note.

Are there any other announcements or introductions? Any other announcements or introductions?

Seeing none, the Chair recognizes the Majority Leader, Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER (1ST)-

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I move that we adjourn subject to the Call of the Chair.

SPEAKER ARESIMOWICZ (30TH):

Thank you very much, sir. The question before the Chamber is we adjourn subject to the Call of the Chair. Is there objection? Hearing none, adjourn subject to the Call of Chair is ordered. [Gavel]

(On motion of Representative Ritter of the 1st District, the House adjourned at 4: 27 o'clock p. m. , subject to the Call of the Chair. )

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the foregoing 187 pages is a complete and accurate transcription of a digital sound recording of the House Proceedings on Wednesday, January 18, 2017.

I further certify that the digital sound recording was transcribed by the word processing department employees of Alpha Transcription, under my direction.

________________________

Alpha Transcription

3244 Ridge View Ct 104

Lake Ridge VA 22192

TOP