Suppose a state judge deliberately chose to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States?


A law unto himself: Judge Robert Brunetti

A law unto himself: Judge Robert Brunetti

That’s what Superior Court Judge  Robert Brunetti did:

During a closed door meeting in the judge’s chambers during a case Judge Robert C. “Brunes” Brunetti exposed his bigotry for fundamental civil rights in front of at least three defense attorneys. The violation came during the case of State of Connecticut v. Bruce Worley, docket number H17B-CR13-0055722S.

Judge Brunetti …stated in chambers that “No one in this country should have guns” and that he ‘never returns guns’. 

If Judge Brunetti were to state his intention to disregard the Fourth Amendment and permit prosecutors to introduce evidence from illegal, warrantless searches, the ACLU and even Fudruckster himself might be heard to complain. They won’t, but citizens can: Here’s a link to the process.

The following is a brief description of the complaint process. A more detailed technical description is set forth in Section VIII, Council Procedures.

A complaint may be filed by anyone or initiated by the Council itself. There is no fee for filing complaints. The complaint must be on a form provided by the Council, and it must be sworn to before a notary or other officer. A complaint must contain the full name of the judge, compensation commissioner, or family support magistrate complained of, the specific court involved, the name of the case, if any, and specific dates on which conduct allegedly occurred. The complainant may attach to the complaint any documents or material thought to be relevant.

The complaint should set forth with particularity the facts upon which the claim of misconduct is based. The complaint should contain any other information that would assist an investigator in checking the facts, such as the presence of a court reporter or other witness and their names and addresses.

Documents such as excerpts from transcripts may be submitted as evidence of the behavior complained about; if they are, the statement of facts should refer to the specific pages in the documents on which relevant material appears.

If the Council receives a complaint that does not use a form or is not sworn to, it will not be accepted. It will be returned to the complainant with advice as to the proper procedure to be followed.

Complaints should be typewritten, if possible. If not typewritten, they must be legible.

Complaint forms may be obtained by writing or telephoning the Council office.

Judicial Review Council
P. O. Box 260099
Hartford, CT 06126-0099
Phone: (860) 566-5424
Toll Free In-State 1-866-222-6075 

In 2010 Bunetti escaped his being caught on wiretaps with his golfing buddy, then on trial for murdering his wife. The

A revived state police investigation into the killing of Mary Badaracco – one of Connecticut’s most notorious cold cases – generated tremors throughout this state’s law enforcement, court and political establishments. The reader should note this well:  Those establishments are all one and the same.

As the months moved on, the Badaracco grand jury would start hearing witnesses.

Even before the first witnesses were sworn in, Dominic Badaracco seemed to know about the secret proceedings. Badaracco had a need to know. He is the prime suspect in the killing of his wife, Mary, nearly 29 years ago.

Badaracco, now 77, went on trial Monday in Bridgeport, accused of bribing Judge Brunetti with an offer of $100,000 in an attempt to influence the grand jury proceedings. Although no body was ever found, state police, the State’s Attorney and Gov. William O’Neill reclassified the Sherman case as a homicide in 1990.

As the grand jury proceeded, Badaracco’s friend and business partner Ronald “Rocky” Richter called their mutual friend, Brunetti, asking about the grand jury. Before becoming a prosecutor and a judge, Brunetti was a business lawyer for Badaracco and Richter. As youngsters, Brunetti and Richter worked together as caddies.

Brunetti, at lunch with fellow judges, asked about the grand juror’s role. Brunetti confirmed the existence of the grand jury to Richter, the warrant for Badaracco’s arrest reveals. That, in itself, could have made Brunetti the target of an investigation or part of a conspiracy.

Badaracco followed up, calling Brunetti on Richter’s cell phone. Badaracco told Brunetti numerous subpoenas had been issued and asked for help.

Brunetti ultimately told investigators he declined to help. He quoted Badaracco as saying to him: “I’m only gonna say this one time … it’s worth a hundred G’s.” Brunetti said he was stunned and hung up the phone: “I understood that it was about the Badaracco murder and he was asking me to have some sort of influence over the outcome of the grand jury … like sweeping it under the rug.” In turn, Brunetti understood, he would receive compensation.

Brunetti began acting as a cooperating witness. His phone was wired. Brunetti called Richter, who was with Badaracco. “Rocky, Brunes … ,” Brunetti said in a call to Richter on Dec. 2, 2010. “Hey listen, I found out some information … Is Dominic around there?”

Speaking to Badaracco, Brunetti continued, “There may be somethin’ I can do for you. I wasn’t sure I could, but there may be somethin’ I can do, to help you out … uh, don’t tell Rocky. Just keep this between me and you.”

Those quotes from Brunettis were part of the state’s efforts to nab his friend for bribing him But the close association with Badaracco and defense attorney Richter apparently killed off the judge’s attempt to be reconfirmed for another 8-year term.

On Feb. 21, 2013, Brunetti wrote to Chief Court Administrator Barbara Quinn: “I plan on retiring in December 2013.” By that time, Brunetti could be eligible for a 30-year state pension.

There’s still time to file a complaint against Bruentti and discomfort him, as well as send a message to the other judges around the state who are flouting the constitution they swore to uphold.

Fire away.




Filed under Uncategorized

14 responses to “Suppose a state judge deliberately chose to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States?

  1. Anonymous

    Wow, Brunetti is a dirty Judge.

  2. housecat

    Sadly, it’s not just judges who’ve decided to ignore the Constitution, or SCOTUS rulings on various issues related to same. The legislative branch is equally arrogant on that score. Viva Corrupticut! Maybe we should just call ourselves North New Jersey and get the formalities over with.

  3. Al Dente

    Each day we inch closer to total anarchy.

  4. burningmadolf

    Hey, come on, can’t a guy like “Brunes” chat wid his friends “Rocky” an “Dom Bad” bout stuff widout makin a Federal case outta it?

  5. Publius


    According to the instructions about filing a complaint, one would need names and addresses of witnesses to make this work given that there would not be a transcript of a a closed door meeting the the judge’s chamber, I presume. Where can that info be found or am I missing something?

  6. Anon21

    Some of the toughest gun laws in the nation in Chicago and they can’t stop it.

    The attack, which took place during a pick-up basketball game, was the latest flare-up of street violence that has confounded city leaders. Chicago had more than 500 homicides in 2012 — more than any other city in the nation, and about 80 more than New York, which has three times as many people.

    • Chicago doesn’t permit any sort of stop and frisk program that was so useful in removing illegal guns from NYC streets. Now that NYC has been forced to stop doing it too, we can expect to see a more even match between Chicago’s and New York’s murder rates.
      We’re big on equal results here in America.

  7. FF

    So by that logic since the Supreme Court upheld obamacare, any judge or senator who fails to strongly facilitate the implementation of the law of the land needs to be turned out

    • It’s difficult for liberals to understand principle, when they base all their decisions on whether or not they like a particular result, but let me try: the Supreme Court has ruled that private citizens have a right to own guns. The majority held for fewer restrictions, the minority would have imposed more, but the basic constitutional right is unchallenged.
      Except for liberal judges like this man, who has declared that in his court, the Second Amendment will have no effect – he will not honor it, nor will he follow the binding ruling of his – and yours, believe it or not – Supreme Court. Direct defiance of such a ruling – not some kind of different interpretation, but a direct refusal to follow the law – is indeed ground for impeaching a judge.

      Again, try it this way: the United States Supreme Court rules, unwisely, that democrats have a right to stand on street corners and shout their stupid slogans about taxing the rich, and Miss Rmmadamadingdong and Drew Mozzarelli immediately celebrate that ruling by rushing to the corner of Mason and Elm and waving pom poms emblazoned with the likeness of Smilin’ Ed Krumeich. Outraged, Peter Tesei sends out the squad cars (and don’t think he won’t), rounds up the entire band of miscreants and tosses them in jail. In court the next day, Fearless Francis Fudrucker appears for his fellow retards and tries to raise the First Amendment as a defense. “Not in my court”, roars Judge Fountain, “lock ’em up and keep ’em locked up until after the election.” Poor Dollar Bill, standing in the hallway, tries to decide whether he approves or disapproves of Fountain’s edict, because only after he decides that can he go on to decide whether something wrong has just happened.
      Judge Fountain, on the other hand, being a man of principle, looks to principle for examining the merits of his ruling, and quickly determines that, even though he loves, positively loves the result, he has violated the First Amendment and, accordingly, joins the Democrats in the pen.

      Got it?

    • Walt

      Dude –
      Is Francis trying to replace you as the village idiot? Is he running around the office wearing your dunce cap?
      Just because the Supreme Court ruled it is LEGAL for him to do, DOESN’T mean you have to actually do it. Especially because it is probably the worst piece of legislation EVER, and will allow the government to decide what health care a person needs. And the ruling was in fact a bad ruling, but that is irrelevant.
      The system was built to have checks and balances, even though the Emperor in Chief feels he is above any law, and the Constitution is a racist document.
      The Supreme Court deciding it is legal to do, in no way means Congress has to support it if they think it is bad legislation. Which it is. Once it is law, yes they need to support it. But not yet.
      Any other legislative process that you are confused on Francis? You libtard little ninny.
      Your Pal,