Ronald Bozelko v. Alfred D'Albero et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOST RECENTLY FILED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (# 430)

The court will address the particular paragraphs in the attachment for the motion for continuance.

2.3.

There is no basis to continue a case based on an appeal on interlocutory orders.   The court has addressed the motions to recuse and disqualify in prior memorandums of decision and found them without merit.   This litigant has filed a similar motion against the former presiding judge and made similar accusations against another trial judge.   He has also alleged an aura of prejudice permeates the New Haven Courthouse and has used this belief to file transfers to another Judicial District.   These motions were filed before this judge knew of the litigant or his cases.   The court in a fairly lengthy memorandum denied the motion to transfer.

4, 6, and 7 are simply untrue.   What Mr. Bozelko objects to is the rulings the court has made on discovery issues.   In the eight or nine hearings where discovery issues were raised, Mr. Bozelko's rights are fully protected for appeal purposes.

The litigant now raises for the first time that he cannot prepare and file applications for subpoenas and subpoenas without discovery.   As noted he has had the discovery that the court has permitted and more to the point in the very recent past (month or two) nothing has prevented Mr. Bozelko from issuing numerous subpoenas when the state of the record was the same.   The court can only conjecture this latest basis for a continuance is in response to a suggestion by the court that he reissue his subpoenas because they are only good for sixty days.

8.

Any undecided pending motions are not listed and the court is unaware of any motions that have not been decided which would prevent trial from starting.

9.

The answers to the latest amended complaint will presumably be the same as in the three “11” files the court dismissed and which Mr. Bozelko said merely mirrored the allegations he wished to add to 06–5009158 in filing the Fourth Amended Complaint.   The court will order the defendants to file answers to the revised complaint by the end of the week.

11.

Any motions to reargue will be denied as these motions merely raise issues the litigant has raised numerous times before.

* * * * *

In paragraph 10 Mr. Bozelko indicates he must be in Milford on another one of his files to argue a motion for summary judgment.   He never mentioned this when the court set the trial date of this seven year old file.   He should inform the Milford J.D. that this case takes precedence and the court will be of any assistance necessary to have the Milford case continued.

* * * * *

The court will briefly address other matters Mr. Bozelko has raised in his motion for continuance.

For good measure Mr. Bozelko adds to the attachment that the court has violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics.   The court believes this relates to Mr. Bozelko's allegations that the court has had ex parte conversations with defense counsel.   This is not true;  any conversations were had in court or the one time a chamber's conference was held.   At all these occasions defense counsel and Mr. Bozelko were present.   As noted in a previous decision Mr. Bozelko has his own definition of the meaning of “ex parte.”

* * * * *

In light of his complaint to Judicial Review Council, Mr. Bozelko and defense counsel must appear in court on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 at which time this court will request the Presiding Judge to decide whether to refer these matters to another judge to decide whether in light of Mr. Bozelko's claims another judge in this J.D. should hear these cases.   If that judge so decides, trial will be held at date chosen by the newly assigned judge.

If it is decided that this judge can hear case, trial will begin day after that decision, but the court should note it has other court cases scheduled for June 24th, July 1st and 2nd and July 23rd.

Mr. Bozelko and the defendants of course are entitled to present their views on this matter to any judge assigned to hear the foregoing.   The court would just refer to the eight opinions it has filed on this and related files on March 22, 2013, April 8, 2013 and June 5, 2013, and this memorandum filed June 12, 2013.

Thomas J. Corradino

Judge Trial Referee

Memorandum has been filed in court.   Copies sent to litigants by fax and e-mail for their convenience.

Corradino, Thomas J., J.T.R.