PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



Taupier v. Taupier 12 6 2018 .pdf


Original filename: Taupier v. Taupier 12-6-2018.pdf
Title: Judge Albis violating civil rights with Illegal order to separate children from father
Author: Aetna - Judge Albis Pedophile

This PDF 1.7 document has been generated by CT Jew Courts / Tanya Taupier, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 16/08/2019 at 22:02, from IP address 66.212.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 195 times.
File size: 693 KB (142 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


MMX-FA12-4018627-S

TANYA TAUPIER

V.
EDWARD TAUPIER

:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

:

SUPERIOR COURT

:

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
MIDDLESEX

:

AT MIDDLETOWN,
CONNECTICUT

:

DECEMBER 6, 2018

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MICHAEL A. ALBIS, JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S :

Representing the Plaintiff:
ATTORNEY ANNE C. DRANGINIS
Pullman & Comley, LLC
850 Main Street
P. O. Box 7006
Bridgeport, CT 06601-7006
Representing the Defendant:
ATTORNEY NORMAN A. PATTIS
Pattis & Smith, LLC
383 Orange Street, 1st Floor
New Haven, CT 06511

Recorded & Transcribed by:
Dana Wilson
Court Recording Monitor
One Court Street
Middletown, CT 06457

1
1

(Proceedings begin at 11:52 a.m.)

2

THE COURT:

3

ALL:

4

THE COURT:

5

versus Taupier.

6
7

Good morning, everyone.

Good morning, Your Honor.
Resumption of the matter Taupier
Counsel for the record, please.

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

Anne Dranginis, Pullman and

Comley for the plaintiff, Your Honor.

8

THE COURT:

Good morning.

9

ATTY. PATTIS:

Norm Pattis on behalf of Mr.

10

Taupier, Judge.

11

have his handcuffs removed, please?

12
13
14
15

And, Judge, would it be possible to

THE COURT:

I’ll leave that to the marshals, at

their discretion.
ATTY. PATTIS:

I note for the record they did

yesterday and there were no issues.

16

THE COURT:

I will note it was done yesterday.

17

ATTY. PATTIS:

18

THE COURT:

Thank you, Marshal.

I’ll note the oath was administered

19

yesterday to both parties.

20

oath today.

21

recross-examination of Mr. Taupier by Attorney

22

Dranginis.

23

Both parties remain under

If I recall, we were in the midst of

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

It was, Your Honor.

And I…I

24

would -- I have a line of questioning that I wasn’t

25

about to advance yesterday, Your Honor, because I did

26

not have certain items that I would propose as

27

exhibits for Mr. Taupier, but it would not -- I don't

2
1

know that it would be encapsulated in the re-cross,

2

but I suppose I could call him as my own witness if

3

that was necessary.

4

wrote to the children, they were mentioned in his

5

testimony on the motion for contempt, and I certainly

6

have copies to share with Mr. Pattis if he wants to

7

review them.

8
9

ATTY. PATTIS:
proceeding.

But they’re letters that he

Judge, it’s a non-jury

I mean, I think, Attorney Dranginis

10

raises a good point, if I stood on forum and got you

11

to sustain a scope objection she’d call Mr. Taupier

12

and that would take more time than simply doing it

13

now.

14

So, I won’t take any position on this.
THE COURT:

All right.

And it seems to makes

15

sense, this is a combined hearing on several motions,

16

each party having filed one or more.

17

So, thank you, Attorney Pattis.

We’ll allow

18

those questions then, reserving other possible

19

objections, but not an objection that they’re beyond

20

the scope of --

21
22
23
24

ATTY. PATTIS:

I’ll review them as we begin here.
THE COURT:

27

All right.

And, Attorney Dranginis,

whenever you’re ready.

25
26

I’m just seeing the letter, so

(Pause)
ATTY. DRANGINIS:
Honor?

If I might approach, Your

3
1

THE COURT:

Yes.

2

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

This might be marked for

3

identification purposes.

4

purposes of the record, and I don’t know if you can

5

hear me, for purposes of the record, this item that

6

is being marked for identification consists of a

7

letter and an envelope.

8
9

THE COURT:

And, Madame Clerk, what number are

we up to?

10

THE CLERK:

11

ATTY. PATTIS:

12
13
14
15
16

We’re up to…
Judge, I’m having a hard time

hearing in, I don’t know what the problem is.
THE CLERK:

We’re up to Number 4, it’s going to

be marked for identification.
ATTY. PATTIS:

Thank you.

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

18

THE COURT:

19

ATTY. PATTIS:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

No objection to 4,

Judge.

17

20

And I would indicate for

You’re not objecting to the --

There’s no objection to -Well, I’ll wait to have the

foundation laid, but assuming if -THE COURT:

All right.

So at this time it’s

Plaintiff’s 4 for identification.

4
1

E D W A R D

2

having been previously sworn by the clerk, was examined and

3

testified under oath as follows:

4

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. DRANGINIS:(cont.)

5

Q

T A U P I E R

Mr. Taupier, I have submitted and given Mr. Pattis a

6

copy, but I’m handing you another copy, do you recognize

7

that document?

8

A

Yes.

9

Q

All right.

10
11

And is it the letter that you wrote on or

about October 26 to your children?
A

I believe so, yes.

12

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

13

THE COURT:

14

THE WITNESS:

15

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

16

THE COURT:

17

ATTY. PATTIS:

18

THE COURT:

19
20
21

Q

Just for my purposes, what year?
2017, October 26.

And did you put that into the Department of

Corrections’ mail system?
A

Yeah, I believe I did.

23

THE COURT:

Yeah.

No objection, Judge.

All right.

That will be a full

exhibit, Plaintiff's 4.

25

27

May I have a moment with counsel?

Yes.

ATTY. PATTIS:

26

2017.

Any objection?

22

24

Move its admission.

(Pause)
THE CLERK:

Your Honor, do you want me to staple

the envelope to the letter?

5
1

THE COURT:

I think, just for the record, we

2

will staple the envelope to the letter, because in

3

case there are more it may be confusing.

4

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

5

ATTY. PATTIS:

6

Yes, that would --

No objection, sir.
(Pause)

7

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

And, Your Honor, I’ve asked

8

that a second letter be marked as Plaintiff’s 5 for

9

identification.

10
11

Q

Mr. Taupier, handing you again a copy to review, do

you recognize that document?

12

(Pause)

13

A

Yes.

14

Q

Okay.

15

And is that, in fact, a letter that you wrote

to your children?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

Do you recall the date on which you may have --

18

A

I don't.

19

Q

All right.

And when you wrote this letter did you

20

then deposit it into the Department of Corrections’ mail

21

system?

22

A

23
24

I think that one I did, yes.
ATTY. DRANGINIS:

Okay.

I move its admission,

Your Honor.

25

ATTY. PATTIS:

No objection.

26

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

27

THE COURT:

I gather that’s 5?

That is 5.

Plaintiff’s 5 will be a full

6
1

exhibit.

2

(Pause)

3

THE COURT:

4

Is this another exhibit marked for

ID?

5

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

6

THE COURT:

7

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

Plaintiff’s 6 for ID.

8

letters, Your Honor.

9

THE COURT:

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

11

THE COURT:

12

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

Q

Mr. Taupier, do you recognize the documents that

you’ve just reviewed?
A

Yes.

17

Q

All right.

19
20
21

It came in the same envelope.

(Pause)

16

18

Yes.

All right.

13

15

Which is two different

Two letters as one exhibit?

10

14

There is, Number 6.

And those are letters that were written

by you and sent to your children?
A

Yes.

They were sent to the address that I thought

the children were at.
Q

And you -- I take it that you put these in an

22

envelope and mailed them -- submitted them for mail to the

23

Department of Corrections?

24

A

Yeah.

I don’t know if I actually put those in the

25

mailbox.

26

those to the counselor.

27

I think I gave those to the counselor, one of
I can’t remember which one, but.

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

Okay.

I move their admission.

7
1

ATTY. PATTIS:

2

THE COURT:

3

All right.

That will be a full

exhibit, Plaintiff’s 6, consisting of two letters.

4

(Pause)

5

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

6

I have nothing further, Your

Honor.

7

THE COURT:

8

ATTY. PATTIS:

9

THE COURT:

10
11

No objection.

Attorney Pattis?
May I have a moment, Judge?

Yes.
(Pause)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. PATTIS:

12

Q

Mr. Taupier, are you with me?

13

A

Yes.

14

Q

At the end of the day yesterday, I believe, you were

15

giving answers to questions about why you believe that the

16

Connecticut Family Court system has failed you.

17

recall that line of questions?

Do you

18

A

I do.

19

Q

Had you completed your answer, sir?

20

A

No, I hadn’t.

21

Q

Are there additional reasons that you believe the

22
23

Connecticut Family Court system has failed you?
A

Yeah.

There’s this little matter of a CCSG-1 or JD-

24

FM220, otherwise known as the child support guideline

25

worksheet, which is a federally mandated function of the

26

court in a divorce proceeding with children.

27

done.

That was never

8
1
2

Q

Are you saying, sir, that in your case there was no

guidelines, calculation of child support?

3

A

That is correct.

4

Q

Were you represented by counsel at that time?

5

A

I was.

6

Q

Who was your counsel?

7

A

Attorney Mathers, Alicia Mathers.

8

Q

And was your now ex-wife represented by counsel at

9

that point?

10

A

Two counsel.

11

Q

And who were they?

12

A

Mr. Peck and Attorney Ficarra, who’s passed on.

13

Q

Now, in this next question --

14

ATTY. PATTIS:

It’s a little bit unusual, Judge,

15

I want to -- with your permission, inform my client

16

about the attorney/client privilege before I ask the

17

next question.

18
19

THE COURT:
Q

Yes.

Mr. Taupier, there’s something called the

20

attorney/client privilege, I’m sure you’re aware of it, and

21

that means that any communication you have with a lawyer for

22

purposes of seeking legal advice is off limits unless you

23

waive it.

Do you understand that?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

And a waiver means that you give up a right that you

26
27

otherwise have, fair enough?
A

Yes.

9
1

Q

I want to ask you a question about your

2

representation by Attorney Mathers.

You may choose to

3

assert the privilege or not, it’s up to you, the privilege

4

belongs to you not to Attorney Mathers.

Fair enough?

5

A

Yes.

6

Q

Did you discuss with Attorney Mathers --

7

THE COURT:

If I could just interject, Counsel.

8

Mr. Taupier, do you understand that if you

9

answer a question from your attorney, waive the

10

privilege to do so, that means you could be asked

11

other questions about those communications that would

12

otherwise be privileged by counsel for Ms. Taupier?

13

THE WITNESS:

14

THE COURT:

I do know.

It’s not just the question that

15

you’re asked by your attorney that you’d be waiving

16

the privilege for, once it’s waived it’s waived.

17

THE WITNESS:

Right.

18

THE COURT:

19

THE WITNESS:

20

ATTY. PATTIS:

21

THE COURT:

You understand that?
Yes.
May I proceed, sir?

Yes.

22

Q

23

Did you discuss the topic of child support with Attorney

24

Did you discuss your views about the -- withdrawn.

Mathers?

25

A

I never, I never did, no.

26

Q

Why?

27

A

I was in, I was in two trials at the same time,

10
1

literally, every week, the same weeks that I was on trial

2

for family court I was also that same very week on trial for

3

my criminal case and balancing between both cases I

4

didn’t -- I never knew about it until I started to file the

5

appeal and when I filed my appeal that’s when I, I

6

determined that that was not done.

7

Q

And which appeal are you referring to, sir?

8

A

I filed my own basis appeal for the divorce case when

9

I first left the divorce.

10

Q

And you did that as a pro se?

11

A

As a pro se, yes.

12

Q

Are you saying, sir, that prior to filing that as a

13

pro se, no one had every informed you about the child

14

support guidelines or their potential operation in your

15

case?

16

A

That’s correct.

17

Q

And as a result of learning this, did you reach

18

conclusions about whether Attorney Mathers had acted in your

19

best interest while serving as your counsel?

20

A

I had not even thought about it.

I thought because

21

it was a federally mandated function it should have been

22

done as part of the process of the divorce.

23

Q

Were there other factors that have led you to

24

conclude that the family court of Connecticut failed your

25

family?

26

A

27

Yes.

There was also the other issue of the family

services group out of Hartford run by Margaret Romanik,

11
1

there was a woman up there and I don’t remember her name,

2

but she’s one of the women up there, and when we were going

3

through the evolution of the process.

4

bunch of witnesses and when I was not given the report I

5

noticed that throughout the report it stated clearly that

6

the one witness that Tanya had given was documented

7

throughout the document and then when I contacted all the

8

witnesses after the document was, never really shown to me,

9

but it was discussed in the meeting and I never received a

I identified a whole

10

copy of it.

11

family services and not one witness was ever contacted.

12

then I started to do research online to see about, i.e. a

13

grievance process, is there is no grievance process to

14

figure out why an investigation was never performed by the

15

family court.

16
17
18

Q

I then contacted all of my witnesses for the
And

Are there other factors that have led you to conclude

that the family court system failed your family?
A

Probably this, this goes a wide range of families.

19

don’t think I’m just the only one that’s experienced this,

20

but --

21

Q

22

off.

23

A

Okay.

24

Q

My question goes to your personal reasons, not to

25
26
27

I don’t mean to be rude to you, I’m going to cut you

reasons that others have articulated in your presence.
A

Okay.

Sure.

I, I feel that when people -- I’ve

brought up issues that need to be addressed, there is no

I

12
1

channel to address any of those issues, especially when it

2

comes to the discussion of how we should communicate in a

3

contested manner.

4

but when I communicate several times, like about a doctor,

5

the child’s doctor, Dr. Fote, was single handedly removed

6

from the child's life and then it was after I asked for a

7

motion of contempt to be filed then that doctor then became

8

their primary care physician again.

9

And I know that everybody puts it on me,

And, and it’s these types of functions that I feel, you

10

know, there should be a rule set, look, you can’t change the

11

doctor because of convenience because you want a doctor

12

that’s located in Ellington, Connecticut versus where it was

13

originally because documented health history is a very

14

important thing, even from a child’s perspective.

15

this is only because my own education of being a managing

16

director at United Health Group for many years, you

17

understand when your tracking your health and your, and your

18

growth, because my son had a speech impediment and some

19

other health issues, I felt it was more valuable to keep

20

that, that one doctor.

21

without getting into an argument and there was no way to get

22

the lawyers because the lawyers, I mean, they don’t want to

23

really hear the fact that the doctor just got removed from

24

the child’s life without anybody negotiating that it just

25

happened one day.

26
27

And, and

But there was no way to say this

And then it wasn't until three months, four months later
where I had to bring Sarah for some, something and then I --

13
1

she said she’s no longer a patient here.

2

go through the personal expense of trying to figure out what

3

to do to fix the problem and that the primary healthcare

4

physician based on Aetna insurance, based on what was

5

provided by my now ex-wife, she had removed them from that

6

primary care physician and moved them to a place in, in

7

Ellington without any discussion.

8
9

And then I have to

And there’s things like that that get transpired and, and
people get angry because she wanted to do something

10

unilaterally herself and then when I had to go on what I

11

knew, because I was never informed of a change in the

12

primary healthcare physician, I ended up walking into a

13

doctor’s office who told me that they could not treat the

14

child.

15

Q

Things like this that -And is it fair to say that if I asked you for other

16

grievances you, you would have no difficulty filling the

17

balance of the morning, perhaps the day, reciting them?

18

A

I -- yes, I could.

19

Q

How much do you believe you’ve spent on legal

20

representation for yourself and the family in your family

21

court dispute with Ms. Taupier?

22

A

23

20,000.

24

Q

25
26
27

Well over $70,000 not including the GAL.

The GAL was

And do you have an estimate, if you know and you may

not, of what your wife has spent?
A
much.

I assume it’s probably at least that or twice as

14
1

Q

And do you regard the financial impact of this as yet

2

another reason why you were discouraged or you feel that the

3

family court system has failed your family?

4
5
6

A

Yeah.

I’ve dissolved $2 million worth of assets in

less than three years.
Q

Yesterday I -- we in this room watched a videotape

7

and on it you recited grievances against Judges Gold, Gould,

8

Pinkus, Simón, Alexander, Mullarkey, Solomon and Bozzuto.

9

Do you recall that?

10

A

I do.

11

Q

And you had some particularly choice words for Judge

12

Bozzuto, referring to her as a “fucking dickhead” and “penis

13

breath”?

14

A

Yes.

15

Q

Who did you expect was going to watch that video?

16

Who did you -- well, withdrawn.

17

Who did you hope was going to watch that video?

18

A

19

Just people -ATTY. DRANGINIS:

I’m going to object, Your

20

Honor, because it was a video that was placed on the

21

Internet available for the world to see.

22
23
24
25
26
27

ATTY. PATTIS:

No, I get that.

And the world

could, but he may have had expectations nonetheless.
THE COURT:

I’ll overrule the objection.

I’ll

overrule the objection.
THE WITNESS:

It was put on my Facebook, which

was linked to my Facebook account.

So, just my, my

15
1
2

Facebook friends.
Q

Now, you also were looking into the camera at one

3

point and I thought I heard you say words to the following

4

effect, and if I don’t have them down verbatim you’ll get

5

the idea nonetheless, the children are going to want to kill

6

you, I am going to enjoy watching, I am going to train them

7

to do it.

8
9

A

Who does the “you” refer to?

“You” means anybody trying to hurt the children and

destroy families.

10

Q

And that would include judges in the family court?

11

A

Yeah.

There’s clerks, judges, all of the people that

12

single handedly, not only bypass the process and due

13

process, but then at the same time, you know, circumvent

14

what is supposed to be a very clear and defined execution of

15

that due process and function.

16

Q

You had then went on to say you were doing this to

17

yourself, there’s going to be a day when I am governor, when

18

that day comes your life is over, correct?

19

A

Correct.

20

Q

Did you make a serious attempt to become governor of

21
22

the State of Connecticut?
A

I was starting to -- I was still on house arrest, so

23

that, that hurdle was going to be significant, but I had

24

still started to reach out and I started to do radio shows

25

before I was incarcerated.

26
27

Q

Now, the radio shows that you’ve done -- withdrawn.

Let me ask a predicate question.

16
1

Have you become a member of any groups and/or

2

organizations comprised of people that have similar views of

3

the court, family court system that you have?

4

A

Just Facebook groups, people that need help in their

5

pro se litigation.

I’ve written several motions for free to

6

help support people based on some of their transcripts and

7

then helped them, coached them through getting them

8

submitted and through the process.

9

base, like, get a framework, a strawman together so they can

And I just help them

10

work on their case.

A lot of people struggle with working

11

on their own personal case because it’s so personal.

12

Q

Who is Minnie Gonzalez?

13

A

She’s a state rep in Hartford.

14

Q

Why are you giggling?

15

A

She’s known as an instigator of judicial review.

16

Q

Have you ever spoken to Minnie Gonzalez?

17

A

On several times.

18

Q

And have you spoken to her about your dissatisfaction

19

with the Family Court system in Connecticut?

20

A

Seven, eight times, minimum, probably seven or eight.

21

Q

The views that you’ve expressed here about the

22

judiciary and the Family Court system seem to be deep

23

convictions on your part.

24

A

25

cycle.

26

Q

27

No, they’re not.

Am I misreading you?
I want to be governor in the next

That’s a different -- that answer is an answer to a

question I didn’t ask.

17
1

A

Okay.

2

Q

So, focus on the question I’m asking.

3

A

Yes.

4

Q

The views that you’ve expressed about the Family

5

Court system and judges seem to be deeply held.

6

about that?

Am I right

7

A

Yes.

8

Q

Are you angry?

9

A

Frustrated and angry.

10

Q

Do you think that you have always expressed your

11

frustration and anger in your children’s presence in ways

12

that are consistent with their welfare?

13

A

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

14

Q

Tell us about the times when you believe you have not

15

expressed your frustration and anger about the Family Court

16

system in a manner that is consistent with their welfare?

17

A

When I get blindsided by erroneous contempt motions

18

and have to be dragged back to court for causing cavities in

19

children’s mouth, being accused of sleeping with a nanny,

20

other types of ridiculous things like ex parte contempt

21

motions that are illegal and, and non-existent type motions,

22

those frustrations when you’re not an attorney and you have

23

a job and a career to balance, it doesn't always bode well

24

because I’m not a, I’m not -- before all this five years of

25

litigation happened in my life I was never in the court

26

system.

27

Q

So, is it fair to say that from time to time you

18
1

found all this overwhelming?

2

A

Absolutely.

3

Q

Have you sought help from anybody to help deal with

4
5
6

these feelings of being overwhelmed?
A

I had a therapist until I was incarcerated and

prevented from going to see her.

7

Q

And who was that therapist?

8

A

Can’t remember her name, she was in Cromwell.

9
10
11

was right by the house, she had an office in the new office
building.
Q

Sir --

12

ATTY. PATTIS:

13

With the Court’s permission, a

similar advisement about privilege.

14
15

She

THE COURT:
Q

Yes.

Same sort of discussion, sir, with respect to

16

privilege.

I do not intend to ask you what you actually

17

said to your therapist, that is a privilege, I believe, that

18

you have.

19

understand?

You may or may not choose to waive it.

Do you

20

A

I do.

21

Q

And similarly, as the Court said, if you waive it

22

with respect to some limited area, that may be construed as

23

a broader waiver and you may be asked questions well beyond

24

what you offer.

Does that make sense?

25

A

I do.

26

Q

I’d ask you to focus on my question and answer it

27

without elaborating further, fair enough?

19
1

A

Yes.

2

Q

How long did you -- were you seeing the therapist in

3

Cromwell?

4

A

Approximately, I think, two years.

5

Q

And how often were you seeing the therapist?

6

A

Weekly.

7

Q

Is it fair to say then that you had somewhere on the

8

order 100 visits with the therapist?

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

And as a result of your meetings with the therapist,

11

did you feel that you were better able to cope with feelings

12

of being overwhelmed and frustrated and angry?

13

A

Yes.

14

Q

Would you be willing to resume therapy upon your

15

release from incarceration?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

Do you know, sir, are your children seeing a

18
19

therapist?
A

I have no idea.

I do not know.

They were with me

20

sometimes, if I may, when I saw the therapist she would, she

21

would allow the kids to come in as well.

22

Q

Would you support a court order having your children

23

receive therapy to deal with their own feelings, perhaps, of

24

being overwhelmed, frustrated or angry?

25
26
27

A

Yeah, absolutely.

If it was a proper person that was

qualified, absolutely.
Q

What does that mean “a proper person that was

20
1
2

qualified”?
A

I’d like to vet them, see how they are, see if

3

there’s references, not just my references with people I

4

know, but references that they may have done similar work.

5

When I was in this process of divorce I actually recommended

6

a woman in West Hartford that was part of -- my therapist

7

said this, this person in West Hartford was really good.

8

Q

Who is that person in West Hartford, if you recall?

9

A

I don’t.

10

Q

Okay.

11

A

Judge Pinkus said --

12

Q

If you don’t recall, that’s fine.

13

A

Yeah.

14
15

I put it on the record.

He would recommend it, but it never showed up

in the MOD, which is another problem with the MOD.
Q

You are familiar with the role that a guardian ad

16

litem plays in a high-conflict post-judgment, custodial

17

setting?

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

A

I’m aware of the role they should play.

I’m also

aware of the role they typically do not play.
Q

Would you support a court order appointing a GAL to

advocate for your children’s best interest in this case?
A

I guess if it was aligned with State Bill 494, I

would probably go along with it.
Q

I don’t know what State Bill 494 is.

What is State

Bill 494?
A

That was the bill that was determined to refine the

system of GALs and AMCs with respect to divorce lawyers.

21
1

Q

Did that bill become law?

2

A

It did.

3

Q

So, basically, what you’re saying is if a GAL were

4

appointed and performed their functions according to law you

5

would be supportive of that?

6

A

Absolutely.

7

Q

A theme that emerges in both the direct and cross-

8

examination of you is that you, from time to time, developed

9

very strong views about what the law requires, correct?

10

A

Yes.

11

Q

Are you open to the possibility that as a layperson

12

you may be wrong about those requirements?

13

A

Yeah, I guess.

14

Q

Are you open to the possibility that even when you

15

have strong views, lawyers can disagree about the meaning of

16

a rule and how it should be applied in a typical case?

17

A

Absolutely.

18

Q

And are you open to the possibility that in the case

19

of those disagreements they can sometimes be passionate, and

20

that a decision must be made.

Does that make sense to you?

21

A

Yes.

22

Q

Do you understand that in our court system when there

23

is a strong and even passionate disagreement of what the law

24

requires, one person is required to make a decision,

25

correct?

26

A

Yes.

27

Q

And that person is the judge?

22
1

A

Yes.

2

Q

Going forward, your children are still quite young,

3

Gabriel is apparently -- just turned 13, correct?

4

A

I believe so, in November, yes.

5

Q

And Sarah is 11, correct?

6

A

Yes.

7

Q

It is foreseeable that for the next decade, -- well,

8

maybe not the next decade, the seven years or thereabouts

9

you and your wife, ex-wife, excuse me, could potentially be

10

involved in endless litigation about what is and is not in

11

the children’s best interest.

Do you see that?

12

A

I do.

13

Q

How are you going -- are you open to the possibility

14

that to save money, time, emotional resources, both

15

appropriate and sometimes misdirected anger, frustration and

16

feelings of being overwhelmed, hat sometimes you have to

17

trust the system that is in place to resolve these disputes,

18

even if the system doesn’t make the best decision as you see

19

it, are you open to that possibility?

20

A

I, I am, but I’m still --

21

Q

Are you open to the possibility that reasonable minds

22

can always disagree in a close case?

23

A

Yes.

24

Q

Is there any possibility in your mind that this

25

litigation can move on to a less contentious playing field,

26

in a less contentious posture?

27

A

I only hope that it will.

23
1

Q

What are you willing to do to make that happen?

2

A

Not worry about the little stuff and only manage the

3
4

big issues, if there are big issues.
Q

Before the Court now are motions pertaining to your

5

ability to see the children upon your release from

6

incarceration, correct?

7

A

Yes.

8

Q

And you’ve not seen them now for about a year and a

9

half, correct?

10

A

Correct.

11

Q

And that has been frustrating, correct?

12

A

Yes.

13

Q

A source of anger, correct?

14

A

Yes.

15

Q

And deep sorrow, correct?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

Do you want to see your children?

18

A

Yes.

19

Q

Do you want to maintain a relationship with your

20

children?

21

A

Yes.

22

Q

Are you willing to follow the orders of this Court,

23

even if you disagree with them, in order to salvage your

24

relationship with your children?

25

A

I guess, yes, as long as I can see my kids.

26

Q

Suppose the Court issues an order that doesn't give

27

you the access to the children that you want, but it still

24
1

gives you access to the children, are you with me so far?

2

A

3

yes.

4

Q

I, I don’t know what access without access is, but,

Well, let me -- right -- under the 2015 orders,

5

unless modified, upon your release from prison you would

6

have them several evenings a week and every other weekend

7

during the school year, correct?

8

A

That’s what -- yeah, that’s all I’m asking for.

9

Q

Yet my understanding is that the -- that your ex-wife

10

thinks you should have some period less than that, do you

11

understand?

12

A

No.

13

Q

You don't understand that that’s why we’re here?

14

A

Oh, she want -- I thought we -- she, she didn’t want

15
16

me to have any access.
Q

Well, that’s -- she didn’t want any or that’s

17

certainly less, okay.

18

order giving you less access than you had under the 2015

19

ruling, but access nonetheless.

20

coming from?

21

A

So, all right.

22

Q

Right.

Suppose the Court were to issue an

Do you understand where I’m

So, I’ll have less time with them.

Suppose that happens or that you see them

23

under conditions that you -- that were more restrictive than

24

what you’d had in the -- under the 2015 order, follow me so

25

far?

26

A

I do.

27

Q

Would you be willing to follow those court orders at

25
1
2
3
4

that point?
A

I think I would seek federal assistance at that point

and federal lawsuits.
Q

You have the right always of access to the courts and

5

to try to vindicate what you perceive your rights to be, but

6

consistent with that we talked about earlier, you understand

7

that in a system of law individuals, judges, will interpret

8

the law, fair enough?

9

A

Yeah, absolutely.

10

Q

And, for example, you know on Monday I’m filing a

11

petition to the United States Supreme Court involving our

12

principle disagreement with the Connecticut Supreme Court on

13

a conviction of yours, correct?

14

A

Correct.

15

Q

The Court may or may not hear that, correct?

16

A

Correct.

17

Q

If it hears it, it may disagree with us, correct?

18

A

Correct.

19

Q

You understand that if the United States Supreme

20

Court deals with that case and rules finally and disagrees

21

with us, that is the end of that case as a matter of law,

22

fair?

23

A

I do.

24

Q

Would you take the law into your own hands at that

25

point?

26

A

No, that’s the law.

27

Q

But I have to tell you, sir, that as I listen to your

26
1

testimony, and I remind you again of the business about

2

comments that appear to be directed to judges and how you’ll

3

enjoy watching them kill, and teach your children to do

4

that, that creates an impression of you as a person who

5

cannot take no for an answer.

6
7
8
9

A

Yeah.

Do you follow me?

That was at a different time then where I’m at

now though.
Q

Can you assure the Court that upon your release you

will make your best effort to follow the orders of this

10

Court?

11

A

Well, I’ll have to, as long as they tell me I can’t

12

see my kids, I can’t see my kids.

And in which case I’ll

13

have to take up, just like I was supposed to take up legal

14

action when she didn’t pay alimony.

15

Q

So, you will litigate it, correct?

16

A

That’s what I’m going to have to do.

17
18

There’s case

law on that too, I think.
Q

Do you understand, sir, that you may or may not be

19

ordered not to discuss your litigation with your children

20

because the Court could conclude that that’s not in their

21

best interest?

22

A

Yes.

23

Q

Would you be willing to follow that order?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

So, for example, the Court may say, however laudable

26

it may be that you want your children to be fully engaged in

27

the civic process and to understand their rights, they may

27
1

be too young to have a mature comprehension and grasp of

2

those rights at this point in their life.

3

sense to you?

Does that made

4

A

Yes.

5

Q

And that it might be in their best interest to let

6

the parents fight it out in court and let the children enjoy

7

such childhood as they can?

8

A

Yes.

9

Q

Does that make sense?

10

A

Yes.

11

ATTY. PATTIS:

12

THE COURT:

13
14

No further questions, Judge.

Attorney Dranginis.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY ATTY. DRANGINIS:
Q

Mr. Taupier, you indicated that you saw a therapist

15

for two years, twice weekly for about 100 visits, two

16

years -- oh, once weekly for 100 visits.

17

location of the office in Cromwell where you went to visit

18

this therapist?

19

A

It was on Shunpike Road.

20

Q

What?

21

A

Shunpike Road in Cromwell.

22

ATTY. PATTIS:

23

THE WITNESS:

24

What was the

Can you spell that, sir?
I don't know how to spell it,

Shunpike, it’s the main -- Route 3 in Cromwell.

25

Q

And can you give us her first name?

26

A

I don’t remember her name.

27

Q

Do you remember the initials of her name?

28
1

A

I don’t remember.

2

Q

Did she practice with anyone else?

3

A

No.

4

Q

And what were her qualifications?

You indicated to

5

us that you object to the qualifications of people and you

6

would do so if a therapist was suggested for your children.

7

A

She was specifically divorce and children and family

8

and she worked through high-conflict divorce.

9

a --

10

Q

And by whom was she recommended to you?

11

A

I -- she wasn’t recommended by anybody.

She also had

I spent, I

12

don’t know, three or four weeks looking and calling about

13

availability and what their background was, what they were

14

focused on.

15

Q

Okay.

And what was it about her background or focus

16

that drew you to engage in a therapeutic relationship with

17

this person?

18

A

She was newly out of school and newly certified with

19

the State and she was also an understudy of somebody, I

20

think, in Hartford Hospital or Hartford Children’s Hospital

21

or something like that.

22

Q

An understudy --

23

A

She worked with trauma.

24

Q

Was she a trauma-based therapist?

25

A

I don’t -- I, I can’t remember it’s been four years,

26
27

five years since I’ve been there.
Q

Do you recall who it was that she was an understudy

29
1

for?

2

A

I don't.

3

Q

When criticized the family division report you

4

indicated that you contacted your witnesses and none of them

5

had spoken to the person charged with writing the report, is

6

that a correct synopsis of your testimony?

7

A

Absolutely.

8

Q

Okay.

9

A

There was a list.

So, who were your witnesses?
I was with -- it was in the court,

10

I sent it to the court as -- to the Family Services as part

11

of the CSSD, I don’t have that.

12

Q

So, you don't remember who your witnesses were?

13

A

Well, they were my family, they were friends, they

14

were people that have known me for 20 years, 30 years.

15

whole family, my, my father, i.e. the children’s

16

grandfather.

17

Q

My

And were any of the other friends, friends that you

18

has developed through your advocacy efforts regarding the

19

Family Court system?

20

A

No.

No, not really.

There might have been a

21

babysitter from Montessori school, she was one of the

22

teachers there.

23

teacher.

She was Ms. Rivera, the, the Spanish

24

Q

And that was from a nursery school?

25

A

That was from Montessori Greater Hartford, Montessori

26
27

school where the children attended for three years.
Q

And how many years ago was that?

30
1

A

I don’t know.

2

Q

So, you can remember her name, but you can't remember

3
4

the name of the therapist that you saw for two years?
A

No.

I don’t -- I, I would if I had my email, in the

5

days of electronic I organize email and we communicated and

6

texted every day, but I haven’t talked to her or seen her in

7

four years.

8

it’s been a year and a half, so it’s, you know, four and a

9

half, five years.

10

Q

I was on house arrest for three years and then

Well, certainly your house arrest would have

11

permitted you to go to a therapy appointment, would you

12

agree with me about that?

13

A

No.

I was not allowed unless it was extreme medical

14

need, if I wasn’t dying of a heart attack I was not allowed

15

to leave the house.

16

Q

Well, yesterday when you testified you indicated that

17

you were able to leave the house to pick up the kids from

18

school when it was your time to visit with them, isn’t that

19

correct?

20

A

That was specifically approved in the hundred and

21

something conditions I had.

My conditions changed

22

throughout my criminal trial and after I was out on bail

23

for --

24

Q

And isn’t it also true that you testified yesterday

25

that you were permitted to leave for previously scheduled

26

appointments for which you had permission?

27

A

No.

Actually, when I called the probation officer to

31
1

go pick up my children 15, 20 minutes early because my

2

daughter was extremely sick, I was left on the phone hanging

3

for 30 minutes until it was approved by probation.

4

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

5

the witness to answer the question that was posed?

6

ATTY. PATTIS:

7

I thought it was responsive.

It

may not have been the answer counsel wanted.

8

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

9

No.

It’s more than that.

I’ll ask it again, Your Honor.

10
11

Your Honor, will you direct

THE COURT:
Q

All right.

The fact of the matter is, is that you had permission

12

to go to appointments from probation despite the fact that

13

you might have had to wait for that permission, isn’t that

14

correct?

15

A

I, I did on occasion, some they said they would

16

approve, some they don’t approve.

17

approve.

18

Q

They don’t have to

So, is it your position in this court, under oath

19

that if you were engaged in a counseling situation,

20

counseling relationship that it is your belief that that is

21

not the kind of appointment that you would have secured

22

permission to attend while you were on house arrest?

23

A

That is correct.

There was actually a discussion in

24

my criminal case with my attorney asking if it was okay for

25

me to continue my monthly checkups for my heart and my

26

wellbeing and it was told to us by Judge Gold that only

27

under extreme medical need was I allowed to leave the house.

32
1

This is all part of the record, I’m not making this up.

2

can find this out if your --

3

THE COURT:

4

THE WITNESS:

5

THE COURT:

6

THE WITNESS:

7

THE COURT:

8
9

Q

You

Sir, just continue your answer.
Yeah.
Is that the end of your answer, sir?
That is.
All right.

And, Mr. Taupier, do you agree with me that Paragraph

7 of Judge Pinkus's orders in the memorandum of decision of

10

August 28, 2015, which is Defendant’s Exhibit 1, that is

11

Paragraph 7 on Page 11, the defendant shall immediately

12

notify the plaintiff when he obtains employment so that a

13

child support order and an order dividing extra-curricular

14

activities can be established, said child support order

15

shall be retroactive to the date of defendant’s employment.

16

A

Yes, I’m aware of that.

17

Q

Okay.

So, with respect to the fact that mother was

18

the custodial parent and you would have been asked to pay

19

child support, you were not employed and what Judge Pinkus

20

did was delay the decision about what child support would be

21

until you were employed, isn’t that correct?

22

A

That’s what he wrote, yes.

23

Q

But you say that in light of your personal status at

24

that time, that you were unemployed, made no money, couldn’t

25

support financially your children, that there was -- it was

26

some kind of federal violation or a failure of the Family

27

Court system not to expect a child support guidelines

33
1
2
3
4

worksheet, that’s your testimony, correct?
A

My testimony is, the child support guideline

worksheet was never performed, period.
Q

And under the circumstances of the fact that it would

5

not have yielded any different order than what was ordered

6

by Judge Pinkus, you --

7

ATTY. PATTIS:

8

that assumes a fact not in evidence.

9

THE COURT:

10
11

Actually, we don’t know that,

Sustained.

ATTY. DRANGINIS:
Q

I’ll withdraw it.

Mr. Taupier, does it ever occur to you that your

12

anger and frustration as you express it to the Family Court

13

system may be out of proportion to the -- your perceived

14

harm?

15

A

I don’t know how to answer that.

16
17

(Pause)
Q

Mr. Taupier, is it your testimony today that it is

18

effective parenting to encourage your children to commit

19

murder?

20

A

21

murder.

22

Q

23
24

I’ve never said that they should go out and commit
No, it’s not effective parenting.

Okay.

Do you think it’s effective parenting to

propose that you train your children to kill?
A

We do in the military every day, so I don’t know what

25

circumstance -- I don’t think it’s unharmful, I don’t think

26

it’s harmful.

27

Q

Your children are not in the military service of this

34
1
2

country are they, Mr. Taupier?
A

They could be.

3

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

4

THE COURT:

5
6

I have nothing further.

Attorney Pattis.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. PATTIS:
Q

When you resolved the allegations against you

7

involving the filming of your wife, you sat in this very

8

room, correct?

9

very room?

This is where you entered that plea in this

10

A

Yes.

11

Q

And at that point among the things you told the court

12

was that you realized -- that you agreed with Aristotle,

13

that a wise person is angry at the right thing at the right

14

time and the right way and the right manner and at the right

15

person, correct?

16

A

Yes.

17

Q

And you acknowledged at that point that from time to

18

time you’d been unwise in your anger, correct?

19

A

Absolutely.

20

Q

Do you think, notwithstanding your failings, your

21

children still need you as a father figure in their life?

22

A

My failings as a father?

23

Q

No, despite your -- you would agree that -- there’s a

24

line in the New Testament, all have sinned and fallen short

25

of the glory of God.

You’ve heard that, correct?

26

A

Yes.

27

Q

I don’t want to inquire into your religious beliefs,

35
1

but you would agree that all of us fail from time to time,

2

correct?

3

A

Absolutely, yeah.

4

Q

And you have, correct?

5

A

Absolutely.

6

Q

Notwithstanding those personal failures of yours, do

7
8
9

you think the children still need you in their life?
A

Absolutely.

There’s probably, I don’t know, no less

than 75 or 80 studies over the last 30 years that say

10

children without fathers have a high likely of ended up

11

incarcerated.

12

ATTY. PATTIS:

13

THE COURT:

14

Nothing further, Judge.

Attorney Dranginis, anything

further?

15

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

16

THE COURT:

further witnesses?

18

ATTY. PATTIS:

19

THE COURT:

20

call a witness?

22

Thank you, Your Honor.

Attorney Pattis, do you have any

17

21

No.

I do not, sir.

Attorney Dranginis, do you wish to

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

I am going to call my client,

Your Honor.

23

THE COURT:

All right.

24

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

25

THE COURT:

May she stay at table as well?

Any objection to her remaining at

26

counsel table as well?

27

ATTY. PATTIS:

None, sir.

36
1

THE COURT:

2

And again, you’re already under oath, ma’am,

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

So, she can.

from yesterday.
Attorney Dranginis, when you’re ready you may
proceed.

37
1

T A N Y A

2

having been previously sworn by the clerk, was examined and

3

testified under oath as follows:

4

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY ATTY. DRANGINIS:

5

Q

T A U P I E R

Ms. Taupier, you --

6

THE COURT:

7

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

8

Excuse me, Counsel.

One moment.

Oh, I’m sorry.

(Pause - inaudible question by the clerk to the Court)

9

THE COURT:

10

We are on the plaintiff’s case on

all motions being heard.

11

THE CLERK:

Okay.

12

THE COURT:

That’s understood, right?

13

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

14

THE COURT:

15

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

16

Okay.
So, but I intend to ask direct

questions of the -- of my witness.

17
18

Yeah.

THE COURT:
Q

Very well.

Ms. Taupier, you have witnessed the testimony in this

19

court and understand the different motions that have been

20

filed regarding this matter, and there is a motion for

21

contempt which alleges that you refused -- that you

22

willfully refused to accept phone calls from Mr. Taupier

23

from jail, correct?

24

A

Correct.

25

Q

All right.

Prior to the time that he was

26

incarcerated did he talk to the children on the phone when

27

he did not have time with them during the week?

38
1

A

Yes.

2

Q

All right.

3

Each evening between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m.
And when you received phone calls from

the prison what time of day did those calls happen?

4

A

During the day time.

5

Q

All right.

6

And when -- were you able to call the

prison back?

7

A

No, I wasn’t.

8

Q

Did you have concerns about the children having

9
10

communication in the form of phone calls with their father
while he was in prison?

11

A

Yes.

12

Q

And could you tell the Court what your concerns were?

13

A

Yes.

I was concerned that the volatility based on

14

the arrest would manifest in some of the language and the

15

feelings that were demonstrated in the video.

16

received a few letters from Ted to the children and reviewed

17

those letters and found the language to be vial, disturbing,

18

commensurate with the same level of anger relative to the

19

court, myself, my attorneys, the judicial process, and

20

really had to talk to a therapist about how to handle this.

21

Number one, they were dealing with a father who is

22

incarcerated, how should I present these letters, should I

23

present these letters, and the feedback I received from

24

my --

25

ATTY. PATTIS:

Objection, Judge.

And then I

Are we --

26

maybe there should be a discussion of waiver here,

27

just…

39
1
2

Q

Rather than saying what your -- as a result of your

conversations with your therapist --

3

A

Yes.

4

Q

-- did you pass along these letters to the children?

5

A

I did not.

6

Q

Okay.

And we have marked as full exhibits

7

Plaintiff’s 4, 5 and 6.

8

letters.

9

Taupier --

And Plaintiff’s 6, I think, has two

Were any other letters received from Mr.

10

A

No.

11

Q

-- addressed to the children?

12

A

No.

13

Q

And when was it that you moved into your new home?

14

A

March 2018.

15

Q

All right.

Those were the only three that I received.

And as far as you know the stamp on the

16

envelopes, the postage, is about the date that you would

17

have received them, a couple of days after they were

18

postmarked?

19

A

Yes.

20

Q

Okay.

21

Did Gabriel and Sarah receive any

communication at Christmas time from their father?

22

A

They did not.

23

Q

All right.

24
25

And were messages left for you by any of

Mr. Taupier’s friends regarding contact with the children?
A

I received several phone calls, I don’t know if it’s

26

a friend of Ted’s.

I received phone calls from an

27

individual named Paul Boyne.

40
1
2

Q

And on what phone number, and you don’t have to give

the phone number, was it your cell number?

3

A

It was my cell phone number.

4

Q

The one that you’ve had since 1992?

5

A

Correct.

6

Q

All right.

7

A

He did.

8

Q

And what was the substance of the message?

9

And so Mr. Boyne left a message?

ATTY. PATTIS:

Objection, because there’s an

10

attempt to attribute this to Mr. Taupier, and even if

11

it’s for the impact on the listener then I’d ask for

12

prejudicial versus probative balancing effect.

13

Absent showing that he was an agent of Mr. Taupier’s

14

encouraged, induced or otherwise put up to making

15

this call by him, I don’t see the probative value at

16

all.

17

And even if it were being offered not for the

18

truth of the matter asserted I’d say, knowing Mr.

19

Boyne as I do, and just if you’ll permit me to make a

20

record.

21

occasion on his Twitter account he put my photograph

22

over a story calling Judge Bozzuto a lesbian, among

23

other things, and commenting on her sexuality, her

24

sexual preferences and her religious -- her religion.

25

I was so outraged by that letter I called Judge

26

Solomon, who was then the chief administrative judge,

27

saying, you know, Judge, if I’ve ever had something

Mr. Boyne operates a Twitter account, on one

41
1

to say about a judge in this state I’ve said it

2

openly and publically.

3

acting on my behalf.

4

location in Virginia and wrote him a cease and desist

5

letter, which led him to produce more stuff over my

6

name and over my objection.

7

held accountable --

8

THE COURT:

9

I said, this man is not
I then tracked him down to a

I would not want to be

Let’s hear the response to the

objection before we spend the rest of the morning

10

talking about Mr. Boyne.

11

and the reason for it.

12

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

13

collateral matters.

14

THE COURT:

15

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

I understand the objection

And I don’t want to get into

What’s the purpose of the offer?
It was to demonstrate the

16

extent to which there was an attempt to suggest

17

strongly that Ms. Taupier should comply with the

18

request that the children speak to their father in

19

jail.

20

think --

21

But I’ll withdraw the question, I don’t

THE COURT:

22

All right.

withdrawn.

23

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

24

further, Your Honor.

25

THE COURT:

26
27

The question’s

Q

-- I don’t think I need to go

The question’s withdrawn.

Mr. Taupier also indicated yesterday, this testimony,

that his family had attempted to contact you and the -- not

42
1

you but the children.

2

relationship you have had with his siblings and parents,

3

perhaps?

4

A

Yes.

And could you describe for me the

Prior to leaving the marriage the sisters were

5

estranged from Ted, they got into some type of conflict.

6

However, we still talked with his father and brother.

7

leaving the marriage his siblings had always been good to

8

the children, participated in birthday parties, there was

9

never really any issue, they’ve always been great to the

10

kids.

11

during this time frame.

12

Q

After

However, I did not receive any contact from anyone

And when you say, “during this time frame” are you

13

talking about the time when Mr. Taupier was on house arrest

14

or when he was in -- actually incarcerated?

15

A

When -- I’m sorry -- when he was incarcerated.

16

Q

Okay.

17

A

Yes.

18

Q

And so, did they -- did Mr. Taupier’s family try to

19

make some contact with the children for either birthday or

20

Christmas gifts while Mr. Taupier was incarcerated?

21

A

No, I did not hear from them.

22

Q

And when was the last time you had any contact with

23
24

any of his siblings?
A

I reached out to his sister in June.

I received a

25

call from a state trooper that unfortunately his brother

26

David was in a motorcycle accident.

27

information in his cell phone contacts, they saw the name

David had my contact

43
1

and they called me thinking I was a family member and I

2

explained the situation.

3

contact the family to let them know he was on his way to the

4

hospital.

5

the conditions I was calling, but wanted to let them know

6

what happened.

7

time did she say, oh, I’ve been trying to reach you,

8

nothing.

9

last contact.

10

Q

And the state trooper asked me to

So, I called his sister Ann, I apologized under

And she was very appreciative, but at no

It was just very matter of fact and that was the

And with respect to the children, have you -- could

11

you describe for Judge Albis the -- there was a --

12

withdrawn.

13

There was a discussion about Sarah being bullied in

14

school.

15

disciplinary problems that she has had and what progress she

16

has made from that.

17
18
19

A

And I would like you to describe some of the

Yes.

Going back to when she developed the

bullying -ATTY. PATTIS:

Judge, I’m going to object on

20

this because it’s necessarily going to require

21

hearsay that she’s going to -- the testimony is

22

not -- is not going to be enough foundation that I

23

can challenge.

24

want the GAL to be the eyes and ears of the court and

25

independent.

26

she’s going to be reporting on what others told her

27

and that’s going to be hearsay and it’s being offered

And this is one of the reasons we

So, I’m going to just anticipate that

44
1

for the truth of the matter asserted.

2

THE COURT:

Counsel?

3

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

I would -- it is a claim, Your

4

Honor, only to discuss what has been -- and for the

5

testimony to counter what Mr. Taupier testified to on

6

direct with respect to Sarah having been bullied and

7

been harmed in school, and his decision to move the

8

children to the Cromwell school system.

9

was testimony and, perhaps we can limit it to the

10

conduct and what was the result, but we also have

11

other documents with respect to education.

12

ATTY. PATTIS:

So, there

The problem, Judge, is there

13

may -- my client may have offered hearsay, but there

14

was no objection.

15

hearsay.

16

because our concern is that without access to the

17

children or neutralized nears at this point, Mr.

18

Taupier could be starved and deprived of their

19

companionship and his ability to care for them, we

20

need that assistance.

21

evidence that the Court permitted us to offer, there

22

was no objection.

23

objection at this point.

24

I am objecting on grounds of

We began this hearing by asking for a GAL

At this point we offered the

We are standing on a hearsay

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

And Mr. Taupier can do that

25

and I will, I will endeavor to do through testimony,

26

but I will remind the Court that we are here because

27

Mr. Taupier refused to cooperate and refused to

45
1

comply with a court order that he participate in a

2

psychological evaluation by Dr. Freedman.

3
4

THE COURT:

Let me just interrupt you, there’s

been a lot --

5

ATTY. PATTIS:

6

THE COURT:

You know, Judge, we’re --

Excuse me.

There’s been a long

7

objection about a question that hasn’t even been

8

asked yet.

9

purpose of the offer is to show why Ms. Taupier was

And I understand the objection.

If the

10

against moving the child’s school then I’ll allow it

11

for that purpose.

12
13

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

I’ll do it another way.

It’s

fine, Your Honor.

14

THE COURT:

All right.

15

ATTY. PATTIS:

Then the question’s --

Just to correct the record,

16

Judge.

17

participate in a court-ordered evaluation, that

18

motion wasn’t filed until a week after we filed out

19

motion for contempt.

20

THE COURT:

21
22

We’re not here because Mr. Taupier refused to

Well, we’re here because of a number

of motions that the Court is hearing.
ATTY. DRANGINIS:

Right.

And that was because

23

he was incarcerated and there was no need to come

24

back to court.

25

THE COURT:

So, let’s just -- we’ve got ten

26

minutes before the lunch break, let’s use the time

27

and try to make some progress.

46
1

Q

Ms. Taupier, you recall the testimony that was

2

elicited from Mr. Taupier with respect to his decision to

3

move the children to the Cromwell school system, correct?

4

A

Yes.

5

Q

All right.

6
7
8

Why don’t you describe for me the events

as you -- the events of that day and when that occurred?
A

It’s over a number of days, so do you want me to

describe the…

9

Q

Was it at the beginning of the school year?

10

A

It was at the beginning of the school year, yes,

11
12
13
14
15

August 2014.
Q

And so, in August 2014 there was a -- was there a

court order at all?
A

Yes.

There was a court order that we had been

following for the previous year.

16

Q

Okay.

And what was that, if you recall it?

17

A

It was 50/50 custody and visitation with the children

18

primarily residing with me in Ellington and attending

19

Ellington schools.

20

Q

And was -- when you say it was essentially 50/50, was

21

it the typical 5-2-2-5, was it Monday, Tuesday with one

22

parent?

23

A

Yeah.

24

Q

Wednesday, Thursday with the other and then

25

alternating weekends?

26

A

Yes.

27

Q

Okay.

And so at some point did it come to your

47
1

attention that the children had changed schools, how did

2

that happen?

3

A

Yes.

Yeah.

During the summer it was every other

4

week and I went to pick up the children at Ted’s residence

5

on August 24th, which was a Sunday evening at 7:00 p.m., and

6

the house was dark and no one was home.

7

approximately an hour just figuring perhaps they were late

8

and it started to get later.

9

Police Department and said -- I tried calling him,

So, I stayed

So, I went to the Cromwell

10

obviously, no one picked up.

11

police and let them know that, you know, it was very unusual

12

that they not be home.

13

something wrong, so Cromwell reached out and tried to

14

contact Ted as well.

15
16

Q

And I went to the Cromwell

I was concerned that there was

At that time was there a restraining order or

protective order in place?

17

A

No, nothing.

18

Q

So, this was -- you just -- it was a -- supposed to

19

be a normal --

20

A

Normal pick up.

21

Q

-- normal pick up?

22

A

Uh-huh.

23

Q

Okay.

24

A

The following day I received an email from Ted

And so what was the next thing that happened?

25

stating that he had changed the schedule, I would get to see

26

the children two nights a week, he was going to be the

27

primary, the children would live with him and he would

48
1
2
3

enroll them in Cromwell schools.
Q

Had you and Mr. Taupier had any conversation, prior

to that email, about his preference?

4

A

We did not.

5

Q

Okay.

And for how long had you been operating under

6

the schedule that you just described, that is; the sharing

7

physical custody of the children?

8
9
10

A

Yeah.

It was at least the previous school year, at

least one school year, that’s all I can remember.

It could

have been a little bit longer.

11

Q

Okay.

12

A

But it was really to establish what, you know, first

13
14

grade would look like for both of them.
Q

All right.

And so what first grade looked like for

15

both of them, was it they were going to go to the Ellington

16

schools?

17

A

Correct.

18

Q

All right.

And so there was an email that Mr.

19

Taupier sent, and what did you do upon receipt of that

20

email?

21

A

I immediately wrote back and said, this is something

22

that we need to discuss, we can’t change the arrangements

23

that we already agreed to, the children were enrolled, they

24

had already met their teachers.

25

this sudden shift seemed really out of character and I

26

thought it required additional discussion, to which I didn’t

27

receive a reply back.

I was very concerned about

49
1
2

Q

Okay.

children were supposed to start school?

3

A

Yes.

4

Q

Okay.

5
6

And was it a -- did this happen when the

And what day of -- do you remember what day of

the week it was that -A

So, I was to pick them up August 24th, they were

7

supposed to start school in Ellington on August 27th, so

8

there was a period of days to get this resolved.

9

Q

Okay.

And so, were you able to have a conversation

10

with Mr. Taupier about the appropriateness of his unilateral

11

change in the schedule?

12

A

I continued to try to contact him by phone, I

13

couldn’t.

14

there.

15

house with the kids, I didn’t know where that location was

16

but he did share that with the Cromwell police, so I

17

couldn’t, I couldn’t make contact.

18

options were relative to getting this straightened out and

19

determined, with my attorney’s help, to file the ex parte

20

motion.

21

Q

22

I went to the residence several times, he was not

I had learned he was staying at another person's

All right.

So, I discussed what the

And this is the ex parte order that was

applied for on -- oh, the order was September 2nd, 2014?

23

A

Yep, yeah.

That was after the hearing.

24

Q

All right.

And that was Judge Simón who did that?

25

A

Uh-huh.

26
27

ATTY. DRANGINIS:

And I have a copy of that.

I’d ask Your Honor to take judicial notice of it, but


Related documents


taupier v taupier 12 6 2018
11 18 14 state v taupier transcript fpo
appendix final
taupieredward attyrachelbaird briefpo 102414 2
taupieredward attymotionwd 011916
bruce freedmantanya taupier


Related keywords