By Gwen Cunningham
As long as mainstream news outlets ignore corruption and crimes committed in family courts, public curiosity about the Ambrose case MUST focus on crimes committed in the original divorce and custody case.
Judge Gerard Adelman didn’t allow the mother, Karen Riordan, to present her case in a fair court.
His April 26, 2022 “Memorandum of Decision” is based on the crimes committed in that case, not facts.
For those who don’t know how the law works, Judge Adelman’s statements in his April 26th “Memorandum of Decision” are fiction-turned-into-facts.
Attorney Nikola Cunha witnessed the corruption. In good faith, she took her concerns to Judge Adelman, the judge presiding in Ambrose v Riordan.
At that point, Judge Adelman was in control of Attorney Cunha’s concerns about the corruption in that case.
Judge Adelman could have prompted an investigation of Attorney Cunha’s concerns. Instead, Judge Adelman punished her for raising concerns about corruption.
Sent to Judge Moukawsher
How and why did the case then go to Judge Thomas Moukawsher — who should have prompted an investigation of Cunha’s justifiable concerns about corruption?
Instead of prompting an investigation, Judge Moukawsher disbarred Attorney Cunha.
That alone should have sent up a few bright red flags.
Whether there was corruption in the case, or whether the corruption and/or bias was about religion, tribalism, old friendships, profit or something else, Connecticut’s judicial branch had an obligation to investigate allegations of corruption in a family court case.
Instead, Connecticut shot the messenger. What followed are coverups on top of coverups.
The current Ambrose dispute isn’t about whether the mother communicated with her children. It’s not about her parenting style. It’s not about her mental state as she navigates that dangerous and corrupted storm pro se.
It’s about players in family courts twisting the actual facts of a case to build an entirely different case to distract public attention away from corruption in Connecticut’s judicial branch.
It’s about using organized for-profit corruption in family courts to push cultural norms with a political agenda.
It’s about Connecticut’s judicial branch offering profit and political reward for any judge, attorney, evaluator or guardian ad litem with controversial morals and/or criminal intent who wants in on that long-standing CT AFCC, Inc. network that destroyed thousands of children and families for decades.
The CT family court racket is the same family court racket in most states affected by that sinister nightmare.