The Statewide Bar Counsel
287 Main Street, 2nd Floor
East Hartford, CT 06118-1885
Back to Amicus Brief
Complainant: Respondent:
Thomas Dutkiewicz
32 Terryville Avenue, #3
Bristol, CT 06010-4157 James Dinnan, Esq.
4 West Main Street
DUTKIEWICZ V. DINNAN
BACK to www.AGPCABINC.org
As so stated in the �Brief Outline of Complaint�, the Respondent with a total callus disregard of the law prosecuted Judith Scruggs (�Scruggs�) with maliciousness and contempt of the law.
Respondent fraudulently attempted to connect a cluttered home with the mental well-being with Daniel Scruggs (�Daniel�) who hanged himself in his closet as a direct result of being bullied in school where the school failed to protect Daniel from predators at school.
One week before Daniel hung himself, The Department of Children and Families (�DCF�) had closed the case involving Scruggs and came to the conclusion that services was not needed and their was no concerns.
In a political move on the part of DCF and the Respondent, they both conspired to bring false and bogus charges against Scruggs who was not responsible for her son�s death nor did she assist in his death nor did she contribute to his death.
If the Respondent showed any due diligence, he would know it is very difficult if not impossible to determine if a child will commit suicide and that suicide is not linear in nature. Respondent would also know that DCF has a long history of falsely accusing parents of neglect or abuse that is NOT based in any fact or study. DCF�s definitions of neglect and abuse are so broad, vague and infinite that it becomes unlawful and unconstitutional. DCF employees are defined by the 4th, 5th, 7th, and the 9th Circuit courts as �government officials� subject to the same restrictions that the Constitution puts upon police officers.
In the attached document, the federal courts have already determined that a cluttered home is neither neglectful, abusive or posed any imminent danger to children. If the condition of the Scruggs home was so harmful after the death of Daniel, why wasn�t it harmful when they closed the case?
The Respondent is found in violation of the following ABA rules.
1. RULE 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions. A lawyer shall not bring � a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.
a. Respondent�s false malicious charges were neither based in law or the known medical standards or studies. Scruggs did not cause the death of her child by any definition.
b. The Respondent connected dots that can not be connected and put forth before a tribunal and a jury as if the connection was proven fact when the opposite was true. The reason the Respondent could not offer any evidence or offer expert testimony is because there is none. Scruggs was not responsible for the death of her son Daniel.
c. The Respondent brought this frivolous action against Scruggs because he desired to have the action taken primarily for the purpose of maliciously injuring Scruggs and for political purposes to protect DCF because they closed the case and they fine themselves in a legal problem of failure to protect so let�s blame the parent.
2. RULE 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal. (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.
a. Respondent knowingly made false utterances and false misleading statements of material fact when he asserts that there was a connection between the mental and psychological well-being of a child and a cluttered home which resulted in the suicide of Daniel. The reason being is that there is no study or proof to demonstrate there is even a casual connection exists. Daniel would have killed himself even if the house was uncluttered.
b. Respondent, as a coconspirator with DCF, covered over DCF�s error and criminal act for failure to respond and go after the bullies at school who actually perpetrated the abuse on Daniel and the fact the school failed to protect. This sham proceeding and malicious prosecution of Scruggs was a political move to blame an innocent person instead of going after the individuals who drove Daniel to the point of suicide. They truly are culpable and responsible for Daniel�s death.
c. Respondent also knows there is no basis in law to hold Scruggs responsible when the fact of the matter is when a family member wants to commit suicide, they will do it without warning. To hold one family member responsible for another family member�s suicide is totally dysfunctional and ignorant. The Respondent and DCF should have been supportive, but we all know they are never there to support families, just to harm them with on going violations of their civil rights covered under �� 1983 and 1985. These rights also extend to the 4th and 14th Amendment protections afforded all parents in the context of an investigation of neglect or abuse.
3. RULE 3.5 Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal. A lawyer shall not: (a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other official by means prohibited by law.
a. Respondent knowing and willingly sought to influence the judge and jury in the Scruggs case by telling both that the clutter in her house was neglectful and posed an immanent danger when in fact it was neither proven nor demonstrated by expert testimony.
b. Respondent knew that such a false unproven claim of neglect given to the judge and jury and then wrongly connecting alleged neglect with the death of Daniel is simply disingenuous on the part of the Respondent. Respondent purposely sought out to influence the judge and jury with false assumptions and with false and misleading conclusions.
c. Respondent was totally overreaching in all respects by adding unproven charges which were not based in any law or medical findings to date. Due to the Respondent�s willful actions, an innocent traumatized mother has been furthered harmed by the Respondent�s malicious prosecution and lack of due diligence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Respondent has acted unprofessionally and with malice toward Judith Scruggs, the judge and the jury. The Respondent has demonstrated the lack of ethics and failed to show due diligence on any connection between a cluttered home and the suicide of Daniel Scruggs. If DCF could not ascertain whether Daniel would kill himself when they close the case, how could they expect a mother who has no mental health experience make a determination that Daniel was at risk to commit suicide. It is easy for the Respondent and DCF to have 20/20 vision after the fact, but they never came to any of these same conclusions when Daniel was alive. The behavior on the part of the Respondent is contemptible and repulsive. Judith Scruggs needed support and compassion for the loss of her son, not condemnation and prosecuted for a very tragic event in her life. It is difficult enough to live with a tragedy never the less be told you are responsible for something you couldn�t prevent.
Respectfully Submitted,
Thomas Dutkiewicz
32 Terryville Av, #3
Bristol, CT 06010
860-585-1136