Letter: Nowacki speaks out against O'Dea's support of custody bill
Published 11:06 am, Friday, April 12, 2013
Two weeks ago, the New Canaan News printed a letter to the editor from me highlighting concerns about Attorney Thomas O'Dea's "conflicts of interests" as an attorney, conflicting with Rep. Thomas O'Dea's oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States in his duties as an elected public official.
The letter to the editor outlined my concerns about HB6387 -- a revision to the statutes which would empower a Superior Court judge to have "discretion" to award custody to one parent, without a hearing (ex parte in legal parlance).
Rep. O'Dea was asked to engage me in a public debate at a location of his choosing to properly address his legal basis for denying a parent a "due process and equal protection right" of a fundamental "liberty interest" of "familial association."
Rep. O'Dea refused to address the subject of a public debate, claiming he could not speak with me because he was a defendant in a federal suit 3:12cv1296 (JCH), which is unrelated to his duties as an elected public official.
More InformationFact box
An email was sent to Rep. O'Dea and Attorney Martha Shaw was copied on the email.
Neither Martha Shaw Esq. or Rep. Thomas O'Dea Esq. responded to the email.
As a fencer might say to Rep. O'Dea with a soft-tipped epee in hand: "En guarde."
An "esquire" is a title of British nobility. The Connecticut Constitution adopted in 1818 prohibits the granting "titles of emolument."
The reason that the founders of the Connecticut Constitution provided for "self-representation" as a specific right provided in all legal matters in Connecticut was attributable by Justice Flynn in the dissenting opinion in Flanagan v. Flanagan, because in 1818 the legal profession was considered so "corrupt."
Philosopher George Santyana wrote: "Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat its past."