CT Judge Thomas Moukawsher took the unusual step of disbarring attorney Nickola Cunha.
He did it without the usual due process adhered to in CT and every other state. He disbarred her on the spot.
He was a judge, prosecutor, and panel. In this triple role, he took her license away.
Most, perhaps all other states, do not give a judge the unilateral power to disbar an attorney on the spot. It is an awful precedent.
If a judge can disbar an attorney practicing before them for conduct in his court, the attorney may be chilled into a too-submissive role, which is inimical to zealous advocacy.
There should be an independent judge or panel to hear the alleged offense of an attorney before disbarment can occur.
But this judge decided she had it coming.
Cunha was a thorn in the side of all CT Family Court judges. She complained about the arbitrary and capricious nature of judges for years. She complained about bad results occurring in family court.
The CT Family Court is notorious for attorneys misusing Parental Alienation. Dr. Richard Gardner devised Parental Alienation to protect his clients, pedophile fathers. Gardner believed all societies practiced father-child incest. He believed this incest is best for the survival of the species.
His parental alienation is a godsend to attorneys, even if they do not share his pedophilic beliefs. Parental alienation allows attorneys to pick who gets custody of the children.
If one parent accuses the other of child abuse, the attorneys decide.
They can tell the court if the abuse is actual or if the accuser is guilty of parental alienation.
To maintain control, a guardian ad litem [GAL], who is a family law attorney, represents the children. In consultation with the parents’ attorneys, the GAL decides who gets custody.
Since the GALs are family law attorneys, they switch on different cases. For example, sometimes, a GAL is on one case and works with attorneys who are GALs on other cases they work on together.
So they are GALs on each other’s cases.
They are a collegial group, known for getting along. The mother’s attorney, the father’s attorney, and the children’s attorney [GAL] decide together.
All the family law attorneys played ball with this lucrative arrangement, but Cunha. She caused trouble. She hated how stay-at-home mothers kept losing their children.
The fathers have money. And are usually affluent. For a family to afford to live in CT on one income, the father must make good money.
Cunha said the mothers were victims of misapplication of parental alienation.
In case after case, the other attorney and the GAL agreed to find parental alienation by the mother. That makes the most money. But not Cunha. She wanted to fight it on the merits. She would challenge the other attorney. She would challenge the GAL.
She would challenge the hired therapists and custody evaluators. The custody evaluators’ living depends on referrals from the GALs and attorneys.
The Ambrose case reached a boiling point, because Cunha was convinced the father abused his children. But he controlled the money.
The GAL, who has her own family to feed, sided with the father. She decided to tell the court that the abuse of the children was not real. She said it was parental alienation by the mother.
This sale of custody would have gone unnoticed. Like it always does. They remove one mother from her children’s lives, and she goes away penniless, unable to fight.
But this mother got Cunha, and she fought. She kept fighting. Cunha went unpaid for months, at a time and received only a fraction of her billings.
She took it to heart that the kids were suffering.
The court took the Ambrose kids from the mother and forced them to live with their abusive father. Frank Report got into this toxic fray.
Cunha kept fighting, and the judges kept finding in favor of the abusive dad.
Then one day, Cunha made a mistake. She mentioned that she thought the conspirators were all Jewish. This got her disbarred.
It would have been OK if she had said they were all profit-driven lawyers. Had she said they were all white, it might have been OK. Had she said the worst lawyers were all women, it would have been OK.
But she brought in religion – and a historically oppressed religion. She did not condemn the religion. She made an observation. She said she thought the bad lawyers and the judge in the Ambrose case had a commonality – they were all Jewish.
And that one wicked old Gardner devotee, Judge Adelman, favored them.
But she mentioned they were Jewish – and she claimed they favored one another – and could not prove it. That was a huge mistake.
She did not say Jews were bad. She did not say all Jewish lawyers and therapists conspire to do bad things. She said everyone who conspired to hurt the Ambrose children were Jewish.
And she thought Adelman favored them.
It was a moment of misery for the children. For now, CT Family Court Judge Moukawher had justification for hanging Cunha.
[For the record, I have no idea if the players are Jewish or not. I do not care either. I do not want to know. I want to judge these lawyers and therapists by their actions. So I agree Cunha made a mistake, and they took advantage of it to hurt the Ambrose children.]
Judge Moukawsher used Cunha’s mistake as grounds to disbar her. As a result, the Ambrose children continue to suffer in isolation away from their mother.
Cunha made this comment to the Frank Report.
By Nickola Cunha
I was unraveling, emotionally and physically.
My client in the Ambrose case was being coercively abused. I was being coercively abused and suffering from a medical condition that caused severe anemia.
In addition to the Ambrose case, I became a target.
Judge Gerard Adelman and Judge Jane Grossman made sure they tarnished me among other judges. The full story will be told when I’m strong enough.
The comment that suggests I said something about the fact that I had just learned that morning that all the professionals in the Ambrose case are Jewish is inaccurate.
I said something to the effect that it was recently brought to my attention that the commonality concern of Judge Adelman favoring all Jewish professionals was a real issue.
(That is not my statement verbatim. The court transcript seems to have omissions).
As to the question, does a judge have a responsibility to act when there is obvious concern of an attorney unraveling? Yes, they have an obligation to act.
However, Judge Adelman was pushing for me to unravel so he was not going to report that he succeeded in pushing me over the edge.
At the end of the day, everyone has opinions. Unless you take the time to read the transcripts and review the evidence (that is the transcripts and evidence that hasn’t been sealed), I ask for the courtesy of not being spoken poorly about.
I’m far from perfect. I’m sure I made mistakes. The Ambrose case was a nine month trial, with scattered scheduling and no actual ability to litigate with voluminous irregularities.
I’m not sure there is an attorney that could make it through that kind of trial without making some mistakes.
The bottom line is, regardless of what you think of me or my client, we are both entitled to the same protections afforded to everyone else through our Constitutions and law.
In the Ambrose case, it was a “free for all”.
Neither the defendant Karen, the three minor children, nor I were afforded even the ability to offer evidence to be considered in support of the allegations against the father.
Frankly, the evidence that came in through the plaintiff’s case should have resulted in many different outcomes, if the law was applied.