Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:13 PM

Subject: Affirmative Action

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Department of Children and Families

DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT

Department of Children and Families on the Complaint of:

January 27, 2003

Thomas Dutkiewicz Aimee Dutkiewicz Benjamin Dutkiewicz Mandolin Dutkiewicz Garth Dutkiewicz
Complainants	Complainant No.

VS.

SUSAN BOMBARDIER, in her individual and official capacity, VALERIE JACKSON, in her individual and official capacity, NANA-KIA JOHNSON, in her individual and official capacity, GREG HUDSON, in his individual and official capacity, LISA SEDLOCK-REIDER, in her individual and official capacity, RAYMOND MADORE, in his individual and official capacity, CHRISTINE LAU, in her individual and official capacity, ROBERT LAPADULA, in his individual and official capacity, MAUREEN DALY, in her individual and official capacity, KATHERINE HART, in her individual and official capacity, JUNE WIEHN, in her individual and official capacity, JEAN AUGERI, in her individual and official capacity, DONALD SHEVCHUK, Esq. in his individual and official capacity.

Respondents

I, THOMAS DUTKIEWICZ, and AIMEE DUTKIEWICZ, and BENJAMIN DUTKIEWICZ, and MADOLIN DUTKIEWICZ, and GARTH DUTKIEWICZ, All three minors, acting by and through their guardians, THOMAS DUTKIEWICZ, their father and AIMEE DUTKIEWICZ their mother, residing at 40 Central Street, Bristol CT 06010

DO HEREBY CHARGE, Susan Bombardier, Valerie Jackson, Nana-Kia Johnson, Greg Hudson, Lisa Sedlock-Reider, Raymond Madore, Christine Lau, Robert Lapadula, Maureen Daly, Katherine Hart, June Wiehn, Jean Augeri, Donald Shevchuk.

Who work out of the New Britain and Hartford Connecticut Department of Children and Families (""DCF"") locations,

With an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to:

Religion: This complaint arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and under the laws of the United States, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. BB 1983 and 1985, and The Connecticut Constitution: SEC. 3. The exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be free to all persons in the state; provided, that the right hereby declared and established, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.

Mental Disorder: This complaint also arises under the Americans with Disabilities Act (""ADA"") where the above said Respondents perceived a mental and/or psychological disorder on the part of Mr. & Mrs. Dutkiewicz by requesting psychological evaluations on both. Their motion was DENIED for failing to demonstrate with any material facts warranting psychological evaluations in Superior Court. There is no testimony or statements from any mental health care providers supporting any of Respondents false statements or motion.

Learning Disability: This complaint also arises under the ADA where the above said Respondents perceived a disorder in Mr. Dutkiewicz by requesting a psychological evaluation and failing to demonstrate with any material facts warranting one in Superior Court.

ADHD: Respondents lied and filed false charges of educational neglect even though the Superintendent of schools states there is no educational neglect. Respondents manufactured and lied about the diagnosis of ADHD and stated that the Complainant''s son Garth had it even though he was never diagnosis with it by anyone or treated for it. Garth is visually impaired and wears glasses for that. Respondents also lied and stated that he had special needs and that it was not being met. This is also false because government schools meet all his educational needs so says the superintendent. Respondents also lies and states that the Complainant''s son Ben has special needs when in fact he has NO special needs what so ever because he was tested by the Board of Education for special needs and did not require any and this is also from the superintendent and in Ben''s record. Respondent''s also lied and stated that Ben is being treated for ADHD when in fact he is not being treated for ADHD. Respondents failed to do their job do to their gross incompetence to investigate properly, which resulted in false manufactured charges. Respondents are misguided about home schooling. Parents have the legal right to educate their children at home and state and federal law protect that right. It is just the arrogant opinion of the Respondents that children should not be home schooled and educated by a government school that are delinquent in educational experience. Respondent''s liberal mindset is that the government has all the answers when in fact anything they touch they screw that up.

Medical Neglect: This was another false and manufactured charge by the Respondents do to the fact Ben finished all of his Hep-B shots on November 27, 2001, 5 months before Jackson investigated and screwed that up and lied, this is well documented in his medical files. The board of Education also knew he had all his shots and it is on record with them. They would of never allowed Ben to attend school if his shots were not finished. The false charge of medical neglect was totally made up by Hart, Daly, Lapadula, Reider, Hudson, Jackson, Johnson and Lau. Complainant has the paperwork to prove this. This also shows the gross incompetence and incapability of Respondents to investigate the facts and get supportive evidence before filing charges. Respondents also lied and stated that they spoke to Dr. Hodder in their petition and Social Study when in fact when Dr. Hodder was thoroughly questioned by Complainants, Dr. Hodder said he never spoken to any one at DCF. In DCF policy, failure to give shots does not constitute neglect.

Marital Status: Respondents alleged that mother has physically attacks husband. This is also another manufactured claim by Hart, Daly, Lapadula, Reider, Hudson, Johnson and Lau. All five members of the Complainant''s family told them there is NO domestic violence and it''s well documented in the DCF file and in Jackson''s report and e-mails. The DCF record clearly states there is NO HISTORY of domestic violence (""DM""). The truth of the matter is that this is just another false charge by Respondents in the attempts to hurt the Complainants children and family. Respondents discriminated against parents because Respondents hate and are prejudice against parents and routinely want to illegally abduct children from innocent families so they can get their monies from CAPTA. Respondents are so prejudice that no parents are innocent but guilty and they have to prove it even if they have to lie to get their desired results. Respondents are also of the mindset that if they remove a child so they won''t get sued in order to protect their sorry rear ends, they are sadly mistaken. Removing a child without just cause is actionable under the law and the parents are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. Respondents are of the discriminating opinion that parents are lying or in denial, but never innocent. This liberal mindset is offensive and destructive to the family arrangement.

For those Respondents who never had children have no clue on the bonds and love between children and parents. Many of the children in foster care should not be there at all, and DCF workers are responsible for this great American tragedy. Those children who were illegally abducted by DCF workers like the above Respondents can by sued by law by the children for depravation of rights and violating their constitutional rights to live with their families. There is already case law to support such actionable behavior on the part of DCF.

It is sickening on how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. These numbers include DCF in Connecticut and in which the Respondents contribute to. These are the facts; more children are killed and abused by DCF and other state agencies then by parents. Many federal judges are ruling against CPS type services because the removal and separation of children from their families is more abusive then for the reason they were removed in the first place. CPS and DCF perpetrate more abuse and neglect and judges should be taking the children away from them instead of parents.

Perpetrators of Maltreatment
	Physical Abuse	Sexual Abuse	Neglect	Medical Neglect	Fatalities
State	160	112	410	14	6.4
Parents	59	13	241	12	1.5
Number of Cases per 100,000 Children

These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN)

The discrimination occurred at 40 Central Street, Bristol, CT 06010, and in Superior Court, and at the New Britain and Hartford DCF offices.

The discrimination took place on April 26, 2002 to the Present and is on going.

1. Complainants are protected in the First and Fourteenth Amendment to freedom to study and/or choose any religion and have a constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The conducts of the Respondents has caused the mother and father an extreme amount of emotional upset in that they have suffered continuous physical and emotional pain. Mother has a hard time sleeping not knowing the out come; the father has abdominal pain frequently; children are affected also not knowing what Judge Tanzer and DCF may or may not do. These experiences caused by the Respondents have caused the Complainant''s a great deal of pain, suffering, and anguish, and an inability to live a normal life.

3. Respondents have treated mother differently from father in that father''s religious preference was not an issue or reported. Brown and DCF specifically targeted mother because of their prejudicial stereotypical views of what Wicca is or is not.

4. Respondent''s policies and procedures are unconstitutional because they will decide what religious practices are acceptable and what is not acceptable. And based on those decisions, Respondents will decide what religions are harmful to children and which ones are not and will file fraudulent discriminating unconstitutional petition and social study in court. The Respondents decision was not based on any facts but the prejudicial and discriminatory attitude of their policies and personal views.

5. The actions of the Respondents have specifically violated the mother''s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the right to privacy, but also the rest of the Complainants.

6. The action of the Respondents have been a deliberate attempt to suppress any religious inclination toward or expression of the religion of Wicca which the mother may have or desire she may have, and have been an attempt to force certain religious concepts upon the mother and keep her from exercising her constitutional right to freedom of religion.

7. The actions on the part of the Respondents have affected the father''s and children''s ability and limited their freedom of choice and an attempt to force certain religious concepts upon them and keep them from exercising their constitutional right to freedom of religion. Respondents sent a message to the father and children that if you do not choose the religion we think is appropriate; we will prosecute and persecute you and have you punished and harmed for those choices.

8. The acts of the Respondents have been a conspiracy to violate the mother''s rights, and these acts are so outrageous that all Complainants individually and as a family unit should be protected from such abuses. All Complainants has suffered past, present and will suffer future emotional and physical damages. In addition, the Respondents should be assessed fines, civil penalties, sanctioned and up to termination for their deliberate and indifferent acts in an attempt to violate the mother''s and the rest of the families constitutional rights and their wanton disregard of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Connecticut.

9. The federal government recognizes Wicca as a constitutionally protected religion and is afforded with all of the protections from government abuse, intrusion, discrimination and prosecution. They also maintain a tax-exempt status with the government. Roberts v. Renwood (249 Ga. 348, 1982), Dettmer v. Landon (617 F Sup 592, E. Dist. Va), Marsh v. Hawley, Pennell, Batchett (2:95-cv-285, 1988)

10. In the context of an investigation of suspected child neglect or abuse, no one has absolute immunity especially social workers, investigators, attorneys and judges if they violate children and parents civil or constitutional rights or you make fraudulent statements you automatically lose absolute immunity.

· Wallis v. Spencer (9^th Cir. 1999) -- State law cannot provide immunity from suit for federal civil rights violations. State law providing immunity from suit for child abuse investigators or attorneys has no application to suits under Section 1983.

· Hafer v. Melo (S. Ct. 1991) - Social workers and attorneys may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC Section 1983 if they are named in their ""official and individual capacity"".

· McCord v. Maggio (5^th Cir. 1991) -- Immunity is defeated if the official took the complained of action with malicious intention to cause a deprivation of rights, or the official violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have know.

· Grossman v. City of Portland -- Social workers and attorneys aren''t immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Where a statute authorizes official conduct, which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.

· Snell v. Tunnell (10 Cir. 1990) -- Use of information known to be false is not reasonable, and acts of deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth are not entitled to qualified immunity. No qualified immunity is available for incorporating allegations into the report or application where official had no reasonable basis to assume the allegations were true at the time the document was prepared.

· Kalina v. Fletcher (S. Ct. 1997) -- A prosecutor is not entitled to absolute immunity for allegedly false statements of fact made in an affidavit.

· Forrester v. White (S. Ct. 1998) -- Holding that judges do not have absolute immunity when acting in an administrative capacity.

· Morris v. Dearborne (5^th Cir. 1999) -- Plaintiff''s were arguable deprived of their right to procedural due process because the intentional use of fraudulent evidence into the procedures used by the state denied them the right to fundamentally fair procedures, a right included in Procedural Due Process.

Respondents were also engaged in and aided and abetted in the deprivation of the Complainant''s wife and family''s right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, which violates state and federal civil rights protection under Section 1983 and the 1^stand 14^th amendment. All Respondents read the petition and social study, saw it, and agreed with prosecuting Mrs. Dutkiewicz for exercising her constitutional protected rights for her to engage in the Wicca belief covered under 1983 and the 1^st and 14^thamendment, and the State of Connecticut''s Constitution.

Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception

Respondents participated in, engaged in, condoned and were associated with dishonesty, fraud, and deception. Respondents knowingly and willingly lied in social study report even though they knew the information contained in it was false and they even identified Maskery as a therapist and counselor, which is also false. Respondents to date still engage in dishonesty, fraud and deception by allowing the social study report go forward with lies, fraudulent statements and misrepresentations of the truth. Respondents sent a series of questions to Complaint''s attorney, which totally contradicts the statements in their social study, which also solidifies additional false statements and accusations they made. Maskery is unable to diagnosis any mental, emotional or psychological conditions or offer any treatment plans because she 1) has to be licensed in those fields by Connecticut State law, and 2) she has NO training what so ever in ANY field to diagnosis, treat or offer up a treatment plan.

Discrimination

Respondents participated in, practice, condone, facilitate and collaborated with the discrimination on the basis of religion. In the social study report to Superior Court, Reider, Daly, Lapadula, Hart and Shevchuk specifically wanted Judge Lois Tanzer to adjudicate the Complainant''s wife as dangerous because she was engaged in the Wicca belief, which is a Constitutionally protected religion under the law. They state that the Complainant''s wife ""could"" put a spell on someone. The operative word is could, not that she had or was going to. This attitude is very prejudicial, discriminatory and is illegal and is based on perceptions what is or is not the practice of Wicca. This is the first time in modern history that a governmental agency would prosecute and persecute an individual for being an alleged witch. Respondents have deprived the Complainant''s wife and families the right to choose a religion. Respondents were saying if you do not choose the religion we agree with, we would prosecute and punish you for your choices. My children are in fear that if they follow a particular belief, they will also be persecuted. This clearly violates the Code of Ethics and the Complainant''s constitutional rights of freedom of religion.

The Respondents are responsible for bring false and misleading charges against the Complainants, which lead to a malicious prosecution and sham proceedings. Respondents willfully lied in sworn statements in court documents and social study alleging false emotional and psychological conditions that never existed. Maskery was found to be impersonating a counselor and psychotherapist and she is not qualified as a MSW or therapist either. Dr. Clark who works for Department of Public Health (""DPH"") filed those finding with DPH. Respondents refused to withdraw their petition and social study when they knew the false and misleading manufactured health claims were created by Maskery PRIOR to them filing court documents.

All of the above Respondents are subject to federal prosecution by the Justice Department and charged by the FBI with:

1. This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and under the laws of the United States, particularly the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C. BB 1983 and 1985.

2. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242.

3. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly Conspiracy Against Rights, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241.

4. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C., Section 1961-68 (1998).

5. This action also arises under the laws of the United States, particularly The Child Abuse and Neglect Accountability Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C., Section 107(b), 5106a(b)(1) is amended.

This and other evidence has been turned over to the FBI for consideration. Respondents have denied and deprived the Complainants of their right covered under state and federal laws. There is also a federal lawsuit that will be filed shortly with the District of Connecticut against 20 individuals which include the above Respondents for violating the above 5 federal laws.

Remedy Sought: To hold all those responsible for their willful acts of religious and other discrimination with severe discipline taken. From sanctions, demotions and/or termination of their employment for the infliction of harm to the Complainants and their children.

To review and change all policies, procedures and training that promotes and encourage discrimination and the violations of the constitutional rights of children and parents.

DCF''s policies like Illinois are unconstitutional because they violate the children''s and parent''s 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 9^th and 14^th Amendments. Parents are entitled to procedural due process covered under the law; DCF routinely denies parents including the Complainants their due process rights. DCF cannot pick and choose what laws they will obey and disobey. It is well settled in federal court that DCF employees are subject to all of the Amendments. DCF is a governmental agency empowered by the legislative and executive branch of government to enforce state law and statute and is a law enforcement agency by definition, hence the name law enforcement.

Thomas Dutkiewicz	Aimee Dutkiewicz

Thomas and Aimee Dutkiewicz being duly sworn, under oath, states that he/she is the grievant herein; that he/she has read the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to the best of his/her knowledge.

Dated at Bristol, Connecticut this 27^th day of January 2003.

Thomas Dutkiewicz	Aimee Dutkiewicz

Subscribed and sworn before me this 27^th day of January 2003

Notary Public

My commission expires: __________________________