Law Offices of

Rob Serafinowicz, LLC

52 Holmes Avenue Waterbury, CT 06702 WWW.RAS-LAW.COM RS9907@GMAIL.COM 4302 (203) 755-0267 (203) 206-9907 Fax (203) 528-

Mobile

_______________________________________________________________________ _ I first appeared before Judge Burton Kaplan soon after being admitted to practice on a case that was held within the confines of the New Haven Juvenile court. This matter was resolved via agreement with the representative of the Attorney Generals Office handling the matter and I did not have any interaction with Judge Kaplan at this time. I had no further dealings with him at the Juvenile Court or while he was sitting in Norwalk. My first dealings of any substance took place when he was assigned to Geographic Area 5 in Derby. Since that time he has displayed a clear animus and negative bias towards me, a full explanation of which is contained below and organized under case headings in the order in which this conduct occurred. The conduct detailed below illustrates violations of Rules 2.2 , 2.3 (a) (b), 2.4 (a)(b)(c), 2.10 (a) (b), and 2.11 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. State of Connecticut v. Amy Bartolomeo The first case for which I appeared before Judge Kaplan in Geographic Area 5 was State of Connecticut v. Amy Bartolomeo. I became involved in this case in late fall of 2009, early Winter 2010 and it involved a personal friend of mine charged with operating a motor vehicle while under suspension. The facts of this case involved my client being eligible for a work permit yet the paperwork had not been correctly submitted. My client was eligible for a work permit and the reason it was not issued was the fact the Department of Motor Vehicles returned the application stating that it was not correctly completed. At this time the case was handled by another lawyer, who was on vacation in Paris France at the time this issue arose, and who had always informed the court of his mistake. She had believed he would address it and this did not happen as he was representing her on the underlying charge of driving while intoxicated which was handled in Geographic Area 9. This person was working two jobs and attending school to become a nurse. She attempted to do everything the right way and administrative error and not negligence or a disregard of the law created this situation. I brought up Accelerated Rehabilitation with the States Attorney and they did not oppose such a disposition. I also provided a specific case where this program was employed, that case being State of Connecticut v. Angela Muzzillo. This case was pending in Waterbury and the defendant, Ms. Muzzillo, was given entry into this program for the same charge. She was later arrested for charges occurring in the Danbury Judicial District and I agreed to represent her, which is how I learned of how the matter in Waterbury had been handled

as these charges led to that case being returned to the docket. My client in Derby was eligible for a diversionary program yet Judge Kaplan refused to allow or hear any application for such a program citing them being discretionary in nature. The program in Waterbury had been presided over by Judge Iannotti. The fact that Judge Iannotti took such action was brought to the attention of the States Attorney, and the response was this should be brought to the attention of Judge Kaplan as he had a great deal of respect for Judge Iannotti. I brought this and all the other factors to Judge Kaplans attention and he refused to even consider this option and consider an application for this program. At this time it became clear that Judge Kaplan had a personal issue with me and this is illustrated by the following events, which took place during pre-trial discussions. As we began discussions in this case I laid out the facts as they related to my client. As discussions continued I referred to my notes, as this was not a trial and I had not yet memorized all this information. It is my practice to do this for purposes of trial presentation so as to never have to fumble through notes. While this may be repetitive again this case involved a young lady arrested for driving under suspension. She had been eligible for a work permit and had filled out the required paperwork to obtain one. The paperwork was not completed correctly so it was returned. This person did not realize this and when the issue as to why she did not realize this was brought up I looked back at my notes and saw that around this time my client had a cancer scare in that she was being tested for cancer. I brought this up and the response from Judge Kaplan was to scream at me at the top of his lungs. In the most unprofessional display of behavior I have seen by any Judge he yelled I dont play that way, Counsel you better learn real fast that I dont play this way at the top of his lungs. I immediately asked him what he meant by this. He never gave a rational response but continued to yell saying something to the effect that I had done something improper by bringing forward this new information and said it should have been brought up minutes earlier. It should be noted that even if I recalled this fact when I initially spoke, it would not have mattered, as I was not able to complete my thoughts as Judge Kaplan had cut me off. I asked him to explain his position and how forgetting something contained in ones notes amounts to doing something wrong. At this time the States Attorney made the decision to end the discussion. In subsequent dealings I was rarely allowed to speak or make counter proposals related to dispositions, whereas certain other lawyers, who Judge Kaplan referred to by their first names, were always allowed to speak. In this same case I brought up a charitable donation as a method of disposition. His response was to immediately start yelling at me and state that my doing so amounted to a rejection of his offer of disposition. I had witnessed many lawyers make counter proposals and when these lawyers made counter proposals Judge Kaplan listened but that was not the case when it came to me. Brother counsel in the States Attorneys office soon saw what the situation had become and took measures to minimize Judge Kaplans involvement in my cases and when possible, that being when a case was not going to be placed on the trial list, we began to work out resolutions on our own. One such case was State of Connecticut v. Chris Pelatowski, which took place in late Spring 2010.

State of Connecticut v. Mustafa Salahuddin The worst kept secret at the courthouse, and in the surrounding towns, was the fact Judge Kaplan targeted me because of my defense of Ansonia Police Officer Mustafa Salahuddin. My client had been accused of stealing a garden hose as a pretext to institute termination proceedings against him. This case was specifically manufactured to harm him, I had stated this numerous times in the press and eventually tried the case, obtained an acquittal and his employer was required to pay my bill, which they did. This case received a great deal of media attention on both a local and national level. In a prior discussion involving Judge Sequino, Judge Kaplans predecessor, she had stated the State had to prove a permanent intent to deprive and she did not know how they could do this. This case was simply one of those rare cases where after an arrest was made the case either had to be dismissed or resolve via a trial. There were employment implications and the governing contract stated that to take any negative employment action with this as a basis there must be a conviction. The case had been pre-tried numerous times with Judge Sequino and then placed on the firm jury list. Despite the fact it was clear that we would proceed to trial on this matter, and despite the fact this position would not and could not because of present and future employment implications, the matter was called in for discussion. Judge Kaplan made it clear that he had a problem with me with his conduct during State v. Bartolomeo and attempted to bully me in an attempt to try and scare me about trying this case, yelling that it would go forward soon and if my client wants a trial there will be no going back. Considering I had won three consecutive criminal trials, this did not really concern me as I knew what needed to be done and this was the planned course of action all along. The attempt to intimidate me did not work and during these conversations Judge Kaplan stated that my clients time on administrative leave with pay would be coming to an end as he would be contacting Judge Rodriguez immediately to schedule a trial. The case needed to resolve via trial, we knew this, and at no time did he ever bring up the State not going forward despite the case being the weakest that was ever tried within the Judicial District. I was yelled at, yet a party with more discretion as to the resolution was allowed to simply sit and perform their duties. As I had won three consecutive criminal trials against no losses, both my client and I were very happy this case would be going to trial soon. This case was a trial from the beginning and neither Judge Sequino, or Judge Rodriguez in their dealings involving this case showed any behavior remotely similar to Judge Kaplan. I was later told by a number of individuals that comments about me being put in my place regarding this case had been made upon Judge Kaplans assignment to Derby. I was not put in my place regarding this case and what happened was my client and I prevailed and proved everything we had said about this matter was true. As stated before I had not appeared before him prior to State v. Bartolomeo and the Salahuddin case had long been on the trial list prior to his arrival. There was no reason for Judge Kaplan to ever address this case as it had been decided it would proceed to trial, this would not change, it was currently on the trial list, and all pre-trial motions had been timely filed. This along with all of the others makes it clear that he has and displays an animus towards me.

It became crystal clear this was the case in March 2010, when I tried the aforementioned case before Judge Rodriguez in Derby. Judge Rodriguez was the presiding judge of the Ansonia/Milford Judicial District at the time and served as the trial judge in this matter. During the trial Judge Kaplan, despite having no involvement in the matter, other than the fact he had a personal animus towards me, made a complaint to Hartford about a situation he simply knew nothing about that being the media interviewing me in the doorway of the courthouse. The facts of this situation are as follows: After the first day of trial members of the media requested that I be interviewed. I agreed and an interview began outside the courthouse. At this time it began to rain. One of the Marshalls employed at the courthouse then told us to conduct the interview in the doorway one must pass through to gain entry into the courthouse. This area was located prior to the metal detectors and this fact makes it clear that this area is not considered inside the courthouse. Judge Kaplan made an issue where one did not exist and he did this with the specific intent to inflict harm upon me. He conducted no investigation and made no inquiry as to whether or not the marshals had given those involved permission. Furthermore the New Haven Register, the paper involved had been contacted and they informed the relevant parties that the Marshalls had given permission. Certain individuals later informed me that Judge Kaplan ignored this information. Judge Kaplan also did not consult Judge Rodriguez prior to making this an issue despite the fact he was the presiding Judge of the Judicial District and the trial judge. I had done nothing wrong, but had I done something wrong, it was Judge Rodriguezs decision to make, yet Judge Kaplan made a complaint despite it being clear the it had no validity. Judge Rodriguez took care of this matter rather quickly, as he was contacted about it, as he was the who was actually involved. This was an action taken by Judge Kaplan for no purpose other than harming me and clearly shows bias. It was during this case where Judge Kaplan first began commenting on individuals who had been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of a prosecution. His exact words were as the Judge in this area he has a responsibility to ensure that towns do not have to continue paying individuals on administrative leave because of the costs. This is simply not true and this position is in complete conflict with the existing law. Under the existing law individuals have a property interest in their jobs. In order for their employers to be able to terminate them they must follow certain procedures guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. These municipalities are also parties to contracts negotiated by labor unions on behalf of its employee members. Provisions of these contracts also require the administrative leave process be followed. The law requires that these situations be handled this way and they are handled this way throughout the state. It is undisputed that everyone is entitled to the equal protection of the law. It is not proper for a case to be handled differently and moved faster than other cases based on a defendants employment and all criminal defendants are entitled to be treated the same. A case involving an individual on administrative leave is no different than one that does not and they both must be treated the same under our law. It is completely improper for a Judge to comment on, view and classify or treat a case differently based on certain facts that do not relate directly to the allegations of the information. Our law does not allow a

Judge to decide a case will be treated differently than others because of a persons position, and neither does the Code of Judicial Conduct. State of Connecticut v. Carey Cash I was also counsel on the case of State of Connecticut v. Carey Cash. This matter involved allegations of a sexual assault of a minor and the allegations encompassed two Judicial Districts, with a case pending in Meriden being transferred to Geographic Area 5 for disposition. This took place prior to my filing an appearance. The second time the case was scheduled Judge Kaplan scheduled it for a judicial pretrial. I was not aware of this and it was simply too early to conduct such a pretrial as all relevant materials were not and could not be disclosed at this time. The State had not obtained all the relevant discovery materials and upon supplying me with what they did have, I learned they did not have email correspondence between the parties involved that was alleged to be the basis of just how this situation came into being. I informed the States Attorney handling this matter of this and requested these materials. The States Attorney agreed they must be obtained along with some other more minor materials. Upon appearing on the matter I was reprimanded by Judge Kaplan for not showing up at 9:30 for a scheduled pre-trial. The exact words were you go and show up late before Judge Damiani and see what happens, he will fine you. This is not true, as Judge Damiani will not issue a fine if there is good cause for one to be late. I have had more cases before him than any other Judge and he is aware of every single issue in those cases on his docket. There was simply no way this case could be pre-tried without my having the information requested. In addition, the information requested was done so via a formal motion and as stated the state and I used a checklist so to speak in order to determine what would constitute full compliance with the relevant disclosure requirements. Under no circumstance should I be reprimanded or yelled at for simply doing my job and trying to ensure that my clients 6th Amendment right to adequate counsel is not infringed upon. The case could not be pre-tried and I should not have had to deal with attempts to dress me down in front of my client as a result. Judge Kaplan later became angry and told me to order the transcript because he did not like my response to this situation because he stated that I had yelled in court. There is simply no rule against being loud when you advocate on behalf of your client. In addition, based on the treatment that I had received from him I had no choice but to make a clear record of this to protect my clients rights as what was taking place was simply not proper and a clear violation of his rights. State of Connecticut v. William LaRovera On September 20, 2011 I was in Derby the reason being my obligations pursuant to State of Connecticut v. Mark Bertanza. This matter was and is being handled by ASA Paul Gaetano. This was my first time appearing on this matter and I obtained the relevant reports and requested a short continuance. Attorney Gaetano replied that he is no longer allowed to continue cases because he is not allowed to assign them specific dates pursuant to a rule put in place by Judge Kaplan. Attorney Gaetano, the Supervisory Assistant States Attorney for Geographic Area 5 is now precluded from assigning dates to cases. Attorney Gaetano stated I could ask Judge Kaplan for a date so as to avoid

wasting an hour waiting for court to open. I approached Judge Kaplans chambers and was immediately asked questions regarding in high profile case, State v. William LoRovera, for which I appeared on television and in the print media, with said case scheduled for September 28, 2011. The reason for my doing so was because police officials had issued a press release on the matter and I was required to respond. Specifically I was asked if I had brought a prescription for pills at the basis of the arrest. I replied I was gathering medical documentation and both the State and he would be provided with everything I obtain on the 28th or immediately prior to that date. At this time Judge Kaplan said that I had told members of the media the search at issue was illegal. He then started saying because the individual involved was not a state actor its not an illegal search. The law as applied is not so simple and I disagree with his view on it. This is a moot point because the quotes he said I had made, had not been made and simply do not exist. I said this and his response was he read the paper and maybe I should. Well I have every single newspaper article in which my name has ever appeared, I have all of these articles and I am not quoted, as saying there was an illegal search. As a matter of fact I actually said that I could not determine such a position before I had all the facts and the basis for the search. I have attached these articles as exhibits so it is clear that I never said this. It is clear he was looking for a reason to create an issue, as he has in the past with me personally. Please see exhibits attached as Exhibits 1 through 8. Even if I had made the quotes Judge Kaplan attributed to me, it is not proper for him to comment or form any opinion of them as it relates to the case, let alone express such an opinion. I have a First Amendment Right to present my opinion and to display any anger or disapproval of such opinions in this context violates both the rules governing judicial conduct as well as Federal law and gives rise to a claim of first amendment retaliation. Judge Kaplan also commented on statements made by a little girl while being interviewed on television. This child stated Teachers tell us not to use drugs, yet they do it. Again the fact he is referencing an out of court statement made by a non-party and allowing it to impact his view of this case is a clear violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct. Furthermore, this is a violation of his duty to remain impartial, as he is formulating an opinion based on piece meal information not presented in court. What is most disturbing is the fact numerous witnesses have come forward stating the interview took quite some time, it was heavily edited and this child was led to say these things. Judge Kaplan further went on to say that he would not allow this case to become like two others in which I was counsel, State of Connecticut v. Mustafa Salahuddin and State of Connecticut v. Loren Casertano where my clients had been placed on administrative leave with pay the better part of three years. His words were this case is not going to be like those others from before I got here, it wont sit on the trail list with him getting paid for two years, if it goes on the trial list it will be pushed forward as priority. To begin, I was the fourth lawyer involved in State v. Casertano and prior

counsel, specifically John R. Williams, had filed a Motion for a Speedy Trial. I was present on the date that Attorney Williams stated he would not withdraw this motion, and this was in the early part of 2010. I was retained by Mr. Casertano to act as his trial counsel in February 2011. The case resolved in May 2011. Had Judge Kaplan taken such a great interest in ensuring the Speedy trial motion be complied with, when filed, in late 2009 early 2010, on the same date I was present pursuant to my duties on State v. Bartolomeo, then Mr. Casertano would not have been on administrative leave for such a long time. Mr. Casertanos being on administrative leave only became a great concern and major problem after when I became involved as counsel. The record is clear that Judge Kaplan could have taken action to address Mr. Casertanos case more than one year prior, he did not and this became an issue after I became counsel. Regarding State v. LaRovera, I was informed by Judge Kaplan that he was going to make sure it is handled quickly and if it goes on the trial list, it will be made priority. One judge cannot decide that one case should be handled differently from all others because of political concerns and the law relating to Equal Protection makes this clear. There are many individuals who cannot work while cases are pending who are not on paid leave. People lose jobs because of court delays on a regular basis yet these cases will be made to wait a greater period than this case because of political concerns related to administrative leave, an issue that should not even be considered by the criminal court. Other defendants rights are not usurped by a municipalities budget concern. Our law is clear on this and the taking and articulating of such a position is judicial misconduct. Specifically this was a threat to me that this case was not going to be treated like all others and under no circumstances is such conduct acceptable. In addition, it is not the province of a superior court judge to become involved or concerned with administrative matters involving local municipalities. People are placed on administrative leave because the 14th Amendment requires this be done to ensure their due process rights. Union contracts contain provisions granting further rights that if violated create liability for the municipality. By way of background, in the past Judge Kaplan has said he has a duty or responsibility to the towns in cases like this to ensure people do not get paid for not working. This is simply not true, and such a view undermines the required impartiality of the judicial authority. It creates a situation where instead of dealing with the parties involved the authority is concerned with the impact of a third party that is not even classified as a victim, in such a position because of conditions that exist and came about as a result of the municipalitys negotiating a contract. . All of this relates to issues not before the court and the fact they are even being brought up borders on a constitutional violation of certain due process rights. Judge Kaplan also commented on the facts of the case stating that he "if a person snorts pills they are not using them for pain" well this statement is simply not true. I can provide a number of doctors that will state this is not true. However, this statement makes clear that Judge Kaplan has already made up his mind on one issue, a complete violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct and one that requires he recuse himself.

Judge Kaplan expressed further opinions as to this case stating that he signed the warrant and that my client better think about a new career and implied this would have an impact on the disposition. My clients job status is a separate matter and one persons opinion on what his future should entail will not be the governing factor in that decision. He also stated that I should be worried about saving my client a felony conviction and not getting him a program. Such statements should not have been made and all violate the Judicial Code of Conduct. What I found most disturbing about this exchange was the fact that Judge Kaplan mentioned a plaque that had been seized as evidence and was referenced in the arrest warrant. He made mention that this plaque was a gift from my clients daughter. There is no mention of any specifics in the arrest warrant that specifies my client has a daughter or that this plaque was a gift from his daughter. I have attached a copy of the arrest warrant as Exhibit 9. Please note this document has already been released to the public and a copy of it exists on-line which is how I obtained this copy. Simply put, enough is enough. I was professional and showed extreme restraint in not filing a complaint based on the conduct that has taken place over the past two years, despite there being ample evidence allowing me to do so. It is clear there exists a personal animus towards me and I will not allow this animus to impact my clients or my business. I think it only proper that Judge Kaplan not preside over the LaRovera matter or any other matter in which I am involved because he has made his bias clear. I respectfully request those vested with the authority regarding this complaint take action to ensure the proper course of action. For purposes of providing the panel with all relevant information, I did express my concerns to Judge Arnold, the Presiding Judge of the Ansonia Judicial District via email on September 21, 2011. I wanted to document my concerns and alert him of this situation because I felt that was appropriate under the circumstances and did not want this matter to come as a surprise to him. Very Truly Yours,

Rob Serafinowicz, Esquire