PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
Operation Vet Fit
C/O Daniel R. Gaita, Director
Advocate for Louis J. Russo
120 Greenwood Ave
Bethel CT 06801
203-994-2987
danielgaita@comcast.net
3/9/15
Hon. Judge Martin Langrebe
Housatonic Regional Probate Court
10 Main Street
New Milford CT 06776
SUBJECT: PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS
ADVOCATE TO ASSIST DISABLED CONSERVED PERSON IN
PREPARING NOTICES TO THE COURT IN THE MATTER OF LOUIS J.
RUSSO

Your honor, I present the following communication to the court specific

to the allegations brought forth by the court appointed conservator,
Dean Lewis and court appointed Attorney, Richard Terbrusch:

Specifically their claim that our agency illegally practiced law by

assisting a disabled 96 year-old WWII combat veteran in preparing his
notice of grievances to the court.

Further to advocate and argue against their request that Mr. Louis J.
Russos filed Grievances and Objections be stricken from the court
record.

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST

Background

The matter of Louis J. Russo, Probate case# 13-00304, PD44 involves a

96 year-old, World War II combat veteran that alleges he has been
exploited, abused, neglected, and robbed of his life savings, tools,
equipment, dignity, and further alleges violations of his civil rights.

Mr. Russo has provided personal testimony during multiple hearings,

but most notably during his January 7th, 2015 hearing which is linked
here: http://youtu.be/7wwoWcglY_0 -

Although he has verbally presented his same grievances to the court,

and verbally requested a status conference during multiple hearings
and phone conversations, neither his court appointed attorney nor
conservator have formally brought his grievances forward.

Additionally, Mr. Russo has expressed his frustration at the lack of

communication that has and continues to persist between he and his
court appointed attorneys.
Mr. Russo has had to wait nearly three months just to have his trash
emptied. He has had to rely upon our agency to provide him with food,

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
safe shelter, TV, Phone, Internet, Surveillance, Life Alert, and basic
living necessities.

Even though Mr. Russo has repeatedly called and asked for assistance
from his court appointed attorneys, most of his requests are never
satisfied. His phone calls are often ignored for days at a time,
sometimes weeks.

As a result, Mr. Russo has turned to our agency to assist him with
bringing his grievances and complaints forward and our agency has
obliged. We did so only after seeking guidance from our elected offices
and the many online resources made publically available to all
advocacy agencies and conserved persons.

Additionally, our agency, Operation Vet Fit is a 100%, non-paid,

volunteer operation. We are a registered CT Public Charity and an IRS,
IRC 501(C)(3). Our advocacy efforts are done for the good of mankind,
and in the service of our nations protectors. Our agency seeks no
financial remuneration.

With respect to the court appointed attorneys allegations

regarding the validity of Mr. Russos notice of grievances to

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
the court and objection to obtaining a reverse mortgage we
offer this:

1.

Mr. Russo himself, during the hearing, agreed to the filings

as prepared by his advocate, and to the matter contained in his

complaint and notices to the court. He provides personal
testimony in support of their submissions.
2.

As the conserved person, he has the right to seek and

attain assistance by his chosen advocate. And the court has the
duty to honor his rights, especially when the conserved has
continued to allege that his appointed attorneys fail to do the
same.

3.

Mr. Russo also testified that all of the allegations included

in his filed complaints were true as typed and printed by his

advocate.

4.

Although the court appointed attorneys tried to persuade

the court that the written notices were not done by Mr. Russo,
our agency must point out Mr. Russos physical disabilities: No
use of his right arm or hand, (his writing arm/hand), very limited
use of his left arm, and limited ability to walk. With no motor
vehicle to drive to the attorneys office, nor a mailbox on his

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
property he was and remains unable to bring written matters to
the attention of the court without the help of his chosen
advocate.
5.

Mr. Russo is physically unable to provide a written notice of

his grievance to the court without assistance and has repeatedly

testified that he has not received any from his court appointed
attorneys.
6.

Attorneys Lewis and Terbrusch now seek to strike Mr.

Russos notices and motions to the court. They allege Mr. Russos
advocate was illegally practicing law by assisting in the
preparation of these documents. They did however both witness
(and attorney Dean Lewis himself) notarized Louis Russos
Criminal Complaint that was filed with Detective Michael Moricoli
of the CT State Police. They did so knowing that Lous same
advocate, Daniel R. Gaita, typed up the complaint for Lou and
assisted in compiling the evidence, and transporting Mr. Russo to
the police and to submit his criminal complaint on October 15th,
2014. (Attached hereto)
7.

It seems questionable that the same attorneys (Lewis &

Terbrusch) would witness and notarize a criminal complaint

prepared with the assistance of Lous advocate, yet move to
strike Lous grievances that were also prepared with the
assistance of the very same advocate.

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
a.

Consideration 1. Did Lewis and Terbrusch only strike Lous

Notice of Grievances because that will limit, or delay when they

will be paid for their services due to Lous objection to obtaining
a reverse mortgage?
b.
Consideration 2. Both Lewis and Terbrusch have stated
that Lous advocate has caused further delay and danger to Mr.
Russo through his efforts and coordination with our elected
officials.
i.
But they have failed to present arguments or evidence in
support of their position while Gaita, continues to produce rapid
results for Mr. Russo on a strictly volunteer basis.
c.
Consideration 3 Both Lewis and Terbrusch seek to remove
Lous advocate from assisting Lou so they can move forward in
extracting what little assets Mr. Russo has left to his name and
estate.
i.
As evidence to the above (C) Let the court know that
Attorney Richard Terbrusch contacted the Danbury Police
following a string of emails falsely accusing Dan Gaita, Lous
advocate, of threatening him. This is also a claim used by the
previous Attorney, Candace Fay when Gaita released Lous
testimonial video in October.
ii.
Terbrusch is a lawyer with a very clear understanding of
what is required for an act to reach the threshold of an actual
threat yet he used his position of authority as a lawyer to bring
forth a baseless claim and false complaint.

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
iii.

Aware that an arrest for threatening would result in a

protective order thus robbing Mr. Russo of his only advocate and
leaving him open for further alleged exploitation without the
assistance of our agency.
8.

The Honorable Judge Martin Langrebe has presided over

the matter of Louis J. Russo, and has been a witness to the

performance of Lous advocate, Daniel Gaita and has been kept
aware of the results and performances of Gaitas agency,
Operation Vet Fit, specific to Mr. Russo. Let the court record show
that Lous advocate has always presented himself as an
advocate only and has always made clear that he is not an
attorney and has repeatedly respected and honored the orders
and leadership of this court.

9.

Question on Precedent What legal precedent would this

court be setting by striking the complaints of a disabled

conserved person in such a fashion as has been requested by the
very people (Lewis and Terbrusch) tasked with assuring Mr.
Russos grievances are heard?

With respect to the court appointed attorneys allegations that

Lous advocates actions violate section 2-44 of the CT Practice
Book:

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST

The CT Practice book has established section 2-44, Power of the

Superior Court to Discipline and to Restrain Unauthorized Practice. I will
assert below why our agency has not violated this practice book
section, specifically:

2-44 (a)(1) The court record will clearly demonstrate Lous

advocate, Daniel R. Gaita has never held himself out in any manner as
an attorney.

As evidence to this claim, all of Lous advocates documents,

transcripts, letters, emails and all communications are clearly signed
by Daniel R. Gaita, Advocate for Louis J. Russo Never has Lous
advocate or advocates agency made the claim of acting as or in the
capacity of an attorney.

2-44(a)(2) Lous advocate has not given advice or legal counsel

specific to Lous legal rights. Lou has made it clear that his rights have
been violated, he has done so personally in the probate court hearings
and to the CT State Police. His testimony speaks to his knowledge of
how his rights have been violated. Our advocacy agency only assists to
putting his words to paper.

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
Additionally, Lous advocate is only following the guidance and
direction provided by our elected State and Federal offices as well as
web based documents available via the CT Probate Court to the
general public.

2-44 (a)(3) Lous advocate has not drafted any legal document or
agreement. Our agency has simply acted in good faith, putting Lous
grievances to paper and printing them out for his submission to the
court.

As evidence to this argument, the court appointed attorneys

themselves made it clear that the documents Lou has presented to the
court are legally insufficient thus, no legal document or agreement
can be possible.

2-44(a)(4) Neither our agency nor Lous advocate have

represented Lou in court, but have transported him to the hearings
(as he has no personal vehicle) and assisted him with asking questions
according to Lous will and based upon his own personal testimony to
the court and our intake interview video recordings.

As evidence of this, please note that both Lous Notice to the Court of
his grievances and his presented objection to obtaining a reverse

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
mortgage were provided to the court in coordination with and following
Lous personal testimony on those matters and following direct
instructions from the court on the method (in writing) and process
(handed to clerk) for Lou to bring forth his grievances at hearing.

2-44-a)(5), &(a), &(b) Lous advocate has offered no advice or

counsel involving any transaction which an interest in property is
transferred. Nor has our agency prepared or evaluated documents
related to such a transaction, nor have we offered evaluation or
interpretation of procedures to implement such transactions.

2-44(a)(6) Lous advocate has not engaged in any other act which
may indicate an occurrence of the authorized practice of law in the
State of CT.

The term Connecticut lawyer means a natural person who has been
duly admitted to practice law in the state and whose privilege to do so
is then current and in good standing as an active member of the bar of
this state

2-44(b) EXCEPTIONS, Should the arguments above not suffice to

our agencies integrity specific to our position that we have not violated
CT Practice Book 2-44 by practicing law without a license, we also

10

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
submit our standing to assist Mr. Russo according to the exceptions to
this same rule. Whether or not it constitutes the practice of law, the
following activities by ANY PERSON are permitted.

2-44(b)(2) Acting as a lay representative (Advocate) authorized by

administrative agencies (Operation Vet Fit)

2-44(b)(5) Providing clerical assistance to another to complete a

form provided by a court for the protection from abuse, harassment,
and violence when no fee is charged to do so.

As evidence supporting this exception, let the court record show that
Lous advocate was directed by Judge Langrebe that Lous notice to the
court was to be in written form and submitted to the clerk. Our agency
provided the clerical assistance to furnish Lous notice as his court
appointed attorneys never addressed his grievances and Lous physical
limitations limit his ability to type or print his complaint.

Furthermore that Lous complaint specifies his allegations of abuse and

harassment, and that our agency has charged no fee.

The Patients Bill of Rights

11

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
Specifies the individual rights of persons receiving mental
health services, and those can be restricted only if a court
specifically authorizes doing so. The Connecticut Supreme
Court held that a conservator could not prevent an individual
under the conservatorship (the respondent) from having
advocacy services authorized under the Bill of Rights, unless the
Probate Court specifically orders this restriction of the
individuals civil rights.

Herein, The Court has not restricted Mr. Russos Civil Rights, thus
neither Attorney Lewis nor Terbrusch should be engaged in actions that
prevent Mr. Russo from having advocacy services (such as those used
to assist him in typing up and submitting his grievances to this court.)

Connecticut General Statutes 45a-650(m)

States that the imposition of a conservatorship shall not

impair, limit or diminish a conserved persons right to retain an
attorney to represent [him or herself] or to seek redress of
grievances in any court or administrative agency including
challenging the conservatorship.

Herein, the court appointed attorneys Lewis and Terbrusch , in their

12

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
attempt to strike Mr. Russos grievances to the court are apparently
taking actions within the court in violation of CGS 45a-650(m) in an
attempt to block Mr. Russos only viable attempt to both seek redress
of his grievances and challenge his conservators.

While our agency has lost trust, respect and faith in the appointed
attorneys for Mr. Russo in carrying out their responsibilities under this
conservatorship we have neither lost faith nor trust in Hon. Martin
Langrebe.

US Code, Title 42, Chapter 126 Equal Opportunity for

Individuals with Disabilities, Sec. 12101. Findings and purpose:

Congress finds that physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish

a persons right to fully participate in all aspects of society.

In the matter of Louis J. Russo, the very attempt by his court appointed
Lawyers to strike his complaint based on his physical inability to type
and print and transport it himself to the court strikes at the very intent
of our nations equal opportunity laws.

Mr. Russo, a 96 year old physically disabled man that is unable

to type, write, drive or even place a letter into his mailbox has

13

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
testified to, signed, and presented to the court his notice of
grievances. His court appointed attorneys tasked under the
laws of the CT Probate Court to look out for him with the least
amount of restriction are here, in this court, seeking to nullify
his claims by (striking) making them disappear from the court
and keeping them from proper adjudication.

I can personally think of no greater form of obstruction than this, and

no further nor egregious example of discrimination based on Mr.
Russos physical disabilities then that which brings us into the court
room today.

Additional Consideration - User Guide For Conservators in the

CT Probate Courts

The following considerations are brought forth directly from the User
Guide For Conservators in the CT Probate Courts This manual
was provided to Lou and Lous advocate by the Probate Court as a tool
to assist Louis through the process.

The following is provided to detail why Mr. Russo has needed the
assistance of his advocate in light of alleged negligence, malfeasance,

14

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
misrepresentation and neglect by all of his court appointed attorneys
and conservators.

Page 1, Paragraph 3: A conservator of the person is appointed to

supervise the personal affairs of an individual who is found by the
court to be unable to meet essential needs, including but not limited
to, the need for food, clothing, shelter, health care and safety.

When the court appointed attorneys and conservators fail to provide

these basic essentials, our agency stepped in to fill the void.

Let the court know that Operation Vet Fit has been, from November 24,
2014-February 26th , 2015 Louis Russos primary source of food,
clothing, safe shelter, and personal safety.

As the court has already been made aware, from Approx. October 23rd
2014 Nov 11th, 2014 Operation Vet Fit also coordinated over 20
volunteers to repair Lous home and property for his safe return. The
details of that project are provided in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4qq6QRUMkE

15

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
Our agency continues to provide Lou with Phone service, TV, Internet,
Wi-Fi, Fall Alert system, surveillance system, food, clothing, plowing,
yard cleaning and safe shelter.

When the insurance company threatened to cancel Lous homeowner

policy because his door entry did not have a railing it was Operation
Vet Fit that Attorney Dean Lewis contacted to coordinate the volunteers
to construct the railings, bannister and spindles so Lous insurance
would not cease.

When Lous pipes froze in mid February 2015, it was our agency that
coordinated the volunteers to get his water running again, not Lous
court appointed lawyers, as Lous call was never answered.

Also let the court know that neither Attorney Dean Lewis nor Attorney
Richard Terbrusch responded to Lous many calls for Food until
February 26th, 2015.

From approximately Nov 24th 2014 February 26th, 2015 Attorney Dean
Lewis failed to ensure the removal of Lous garbage which had been
collecting in his garage for 3 months creating both a health and safety
hazard.

16

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
It wasnt until following the February 24th 2015 hearing whereby Lous
advocate notified Attorneys Terbrusch and Lewis again that they had
failed to provide Lou with food, clothing or the removal of his trash that
on February 26th, 2015 Dean Lewis finally, nearly 3 months following
Lous return home, removed the trash and put in a food order for
delivery on approx. Monday March 2.

Page 2 last paragraph Page 3: The court assigns only the duties
and authority that are the least restrictive means of intervention
necessary to meet the needs of the conserved person.while affording
the conserved person the greatest amount of independence and self
determination

Lou has alleged that the court appointed attorneys have provided the
exact opposite, and their attempts to throw out his Notice of
Grievances to the court is only one example.

Let the court also know that Attorney Dean Lewis obstructed Lous
advocates attempts to seek congressional assistance with Lous filed
VA Pension application and status. Still, to this day, 3 months after Lou
returned home, he still has no idea where his VA pension funds are or
what the status of his pension is.

17

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
Furthermore that Attorney Dean Lewis further accused Lous advocate
of forging Lous signature on a Congressional Privacy Release
Statement. However, Lous advocate has shown (as the document will
too) that the Privacy Release submitted was signed by himself, Daniel
Gaita, as advocate for Louis Russo while Gaita also obtained a signed
release from Louis Russo to do the same.

As evidence, Dean Lewis did provide via email on February 25th 2015 a
copy of the alleged forged Privacy Release Statement, which clearly
shows that Daniel Gaita did not forge Lous signature, but rather signed
his own name and made clear representation that it was signed in his
capacity as Lous advocate.

Ironically, It does appear that since then, Attorney Dean Lewis used the
identical form (Privacy Release) previously submitted by Gaita and
replaced the signature with his own as presented to Gaita during
recess at the February 24th 2015 hearing. Our agency was happy to
see Attorney Lewis follow our lead and seek Congressional aid to
investigate the status of Lous VA Pension. However, Lou still has no
idea what its status is as his attorneys (Lewis and Terbrusch) have not
informed him?

18

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
Page 11 last paragraph The conservator is responsible for paying
the conserved persons bills and taxes and collecting debts owed to the
conserved person.

Lou has alleged that all of the court appointed attorneys and
conservators have done the exact opposite.

Let the court know that Lous advocate Dan Gaita, Via Operation Vet
Fit, has paid Lous property taxes with our agencies raised funds.

Additionally, our advocacy agency currently pays Lous: Phone,

Television, Internet, and Fall Alert System bills as well as coordinates
the plowing of his driveway and any other requests that Lou might
have.

Please note that neither attorneys Dean Lewis nor Richard Terbrusch
have presented any evidence to demonstrate they have worked toward
collecting any of Lous alleged debts owed to him as a result of the
alleged exploitation by his first court appointed conservator and
Attorney. Instead, they have sought to obtain a reverse mortgage on
Lous home to pay the debts against Lous estate that Lou argues are
invalid in his testimony and notice to the court. (Which Lewis and
Terbrusch seek to have stricken from the record.)

19

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST

Page 14 second paragraph In carrying out the duties and

authority assigned by the court, the conservator of the person shall
exercise such duties in a manner that is the least restrictive means of
intervention and shall:

(1) Assist the conserved person in removing obstacles to

independence.
(2) Assist the conserved person in achieving self-reliance.
(3) Ascertain the conserved persons views.
(4) Make decisions in conformance with the conserved persons
reasonable and informed expressed preferences.

Lou has alleged that all of his court appointed attorneys and
conservators have created obstacles rather than removing them; have
obstructed all of his efforts and wishes directed toward self-reliance,
have barely ascertained his views, and have certainly not made
decisions in conformance with his reasonable and informed expressed
preferences.

As evidence I only need to call your attention to the reason our agency
is furnishing this letter to the court. The delay created by this process

20

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST
is the very type of obstruction that the laws of the CT Probate Court are
established to protect against.

Furthermore, the desire on the part of the court appointed

conservators and attorneys to strike Mr. Russos filed Notice of
Grievances to the court against the will of Louis Russo at hearing is not
in accord with the language and intent of the US Constitution, CT
Probate Courts Laws, CT General Statutes, The Patients Bill of Rights,
Equal Opportunity Law, the Americans with Disability Act, and is
absolutely not the way to treat a man that fought during the second
World War for the protection and defense of our nation.
Definitions
Blacks Law Definition of Advocacy: The active support of an
issue or the espousement of a set cause
Blacks Law Definition of Advocate: One who assists, defends, or
pleads for another
Blacks Law Definition of Agency: A relation, created either by
express or implied contract or by law, whereby one party (called
the principal or constituent) delegates the transaction of some lawful
business or the authority to do certain acts for him or in relation to
his rights or property, with more or less discretionary power, to
another person (called the agent, attorney, proxy, or delegate) who
undertakes to manage the affair and render him an account thereof.

21

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST

State v. Ilubbard, 58 Kan. 797, 51 Pac. 290, 39 L. R. A. S60; Sternaman

v. Insurance Co., 170 N. Y. 13, 62 N. E. 763, 57 L. R. A. 318, 88 Am. St.
Rep. 625; Wynegar v. State, 157 Ind. 577, 62 N. E. 38. The contract of
agency may be defined to be a contract by which one of the
contracting parties confides the management of some affair, to
be transacted on his account, to the other party, who undertakes to do
the business and render an account of it.

THERFORE, I Daniel R. Gaita, Advocate of Louis J. Russo, and not an

attorney, hereby request the court to allow Mr. Russos filed Notice to
the court of his grievances (which were typed and printed by our
agency due to his physical disabling limitations) to STAND as part of
the court record and further request his grievances be placed on the
docket for expeditious adjudication given his age of 96.

Respectfully Submitted at the request of the court,

Daniel R. Gaita, MA
Volunteer, Operation Vet Fit
Advocate for Louis J. Russo
Veteran, United States Marine Corps

22

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST

23

PD44 #13-00304 : CAPACITY OF A VETERANS ADVOCATE TO

ASSIST

Certification

This is to certify that a copy of the forgoing has been mailed

on 3/9/2015 to:

Law Offices of Dean Lewis and Richard Terbrusch

2 Terrace Place
Danbury, CT 06810

_________________________________________________________
Daniel R. Gaita, MA
Advocate for Louis J. Russo

24