Page 2 -- Continued from the Home Page:

Let me note for the record:  I believe the majority of new home builders and contractors are honest, fair-minded businesspeople and that Meyers and his ilk are truly the bad apples in the barrel.  Also, while on this website I am on occasion very critical of some State of Connecticut agencies and employees along with some judges sitting in state courts, I have had deep personal, positive experiences and history with state employees and judges along with the legal system and courts.  I think it is because I believe in truth, fairness and our legal system that I am so disappointed in public officials who lack personal commitment or ability to serve well, and in judges and parts of the legal system that don't measure up to basic standards.

Half truths, distortion and misinformation:  Is that all Meyers has for a defense?

The following is a section built around a document I refer to as "THE email."    It is about one email of many I wrote to Meyers -- this one is from January 2011.  It has come to typify the hollowness of Meyers' defense, a defense effective to date at my expense.

After all, Meyers does live in a house he built with my money, works at a job he got using my money for tests and fees, drives vehicles he paid for with my money, and eliminated his credit card, legal and psychological counseling debts using my money. Meyers even initially paid his attorney in this matter to counter my allegations using my money.  As you read on, you will see Meyers actually taunted me with that.

In the legal proceeding Joseph M. Cohen vs. Robert M. Meyers, Meyers' legal counsel from Dowley & Associates has repeatedly literally shouted about one email from plaintiff Cohen sent to defendant Meyers.  This one email has been used as proof of Cohen being the devil whose intent Meyers’ attorney claims has been to destroy Meyers.  The email has become Meyers’ one and virtually only defense, and has been regularly used against Cohen in court.

In fact, more than twice as many judges have heard motions and weighed other aspects of the case with this email highlighted by Meyers’ legal counsel than there were number of recipients (four) who originally received and viewed the email.

It has been effective for Meyers to replay just a portion -- but only a portion and always out of context -- of this email over and over again.  It represents Meyers' best effort to misinform, distort, lie and sidetrack judges and others about Meyers’ deeds.  This email – taken out of context or having parts read out of context – can be perceived to paint an ugly picture of Cohen, and it is intended to discredit Cohen’s substantive and serious allegations against Meyers.  The exaggerated focus on this email has been effective, because no one in court has yet framed it in the events and communications leading up to it.  Seen in context, this and other letters and emails should make clear that Cohen treated Meyers fairly, while Meyers treated Cohen shabbily.  Rather than trying to destroy Meyers, Cohen was trying to keep Meyers from destroying himself, along with Cohen.  So let's look at "THE email" in context, laid out with other communications.

First the background:

  • Cohen contracted with Meyers on August 2, 2010 to have a new house built on Cohen’s land in Chester, CT;  Cohen turned over $54,750 to Meyers’ corporation, Robert M. Meyers, Inc. to serve as general contractor (to include handling all permitting and relations with the town).  Cohen’s money was to be placed by Meyers in a segregated, corporate account only to be used to build Cohen’s house.  Cohen was living in Illinois at the time.
  • In contracting with Cohen and taking the money, Meyers committed a number of violations of state law, including not being licensed as a new home contractor (nor was he licensed as a home improvement contractor) when he solicited Cohen’s business.  Meyers also did not follow the law/regulations governing contracting between a new home builder and consumer.
  • In August 2010, Meyers started construction of Cohen’s house without a required building permit.  This is confirmed by Town of Chester and other officials.  As a result of Mr. Meyers’ actions, construction was shut down by the town in late August.  Again, Mr. Meyers as general contractor was responsible for all permitting and for managing relations with the town.
  • On September 1, 2010, the town formally denied a building permit.  Meyers walked off the job, never to perform any additional work for Cohen.  At that time, there was more than $40,000 left in the segregated, corporate account.  In addition, work Meyers had performed was shoddy and incomplete – and some of it was deemed illegal by the town.
  • On October 4, 2010, Cohen obtained necessary approval from the Town of Chester to clear the way for the project to move ahead.  Cohen then asked Meyers to meet with town building officials in his contractual role as general contractor, and as the party responsible for permitting.   Meyers refused.
  • From October 4, 2010 through mid-November 2010,  Meyers took every last cent out of the segregated, corporate account and used the vast majority of the money for personal expenses including to pay personal credit card bills, make repairs to motorcycles, pay his divorce attorney, pay for psychological therapy, and to start a new house for himself in East Haddam.

From October 4, 2010 on, Cohen sent Meyers a number of certified letters and emails, including:

  • A letter sent certified mail October 25, 2010 stating:   “Please be advised that you are not authorized:  To conduct any additional work at 11 Kings Highway, Chester, CT.; To make any expenditure related to our contract for 11 Kings Highway.;  To order any materials or services related to 11 Kings Highway.  This order was relayed to you previously in emails sent Oct. 13, 2010 and October 4, 2010.   Our contract for house building at 11 Kings Highway is currently under review. As soon as the review is complete, I will be in contact with you.”
  • A  letter sent certified mail November 3, 2010 stating:​    “Please consider this formal notification that the foundation forms truck and all related materials are no longer authorized to be on my property 11 Kings Highway, Chester, CT, and the abutting property.”
  • ​​A letter sent certified mail December 1, 2010 stating:  “Please consider this formal notification that the contract between you acting as Robert M. Meyers, Inc. dated August 2, 2010 and me for the construction of a house at 11 Kings Highway in Chester, CT is terminated for cause. As noted in previous letters, you are no longer authorized to be on my property at 11 Kings Highway.   ​The reasons for termination are:
  1. Your illegal activity on the site and resultant problems with the Town of Chester building and zoning officials. By contract, it was your responsibility to obtain a building permit before engaging in any activities requiring a permit. No work performed without required approvals was authorized by me, and you are solely responsible for such work.
  2. Your failure to follow state law, specifically Public Act No. 09-18.
  3. Your failure to properly site the house; failure to properly blast as contractually required; failure to follow design requirements resulting in costly and unnecessary changes; and other errors and mistakes of a costly and unnecessary nature.   Please return all funds paid to you for construction, with the exception of land clearing and tree removal work.  Itemized invoices and cancelled checks verifying payment for land clearing and tree removal must be provided.   Your failure to respond within 10 business days to this letter by returning all funds and providing invoices requested will result in:   A) Legal action taken against you, Robert M. Meyers, Inc. and all agents and persons affiliated with said entity.  B) Complaints filed with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection and the Attorney General related to your license as a New Home Construction Contractor.  C)  Complaints filed with the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection and the Attorney General related to your license as a Building Inspector.”

Meyers' response:  Threat to sue

Meyers’ written responses were limited, and included the following:

  • On December 7, 2010, Meyers wrote in an email:  “Joe    Your letters are meaningless. There are no provisions in the contract for you to change your mind without it being agreed upon and signed by both parties. You are still bound to the contract. You have no authority to order one of my vendors off the property. Your last letter makes threats of filing complaints against my personal licences (sic) and my business licence (sic)...Any said actions will be considered slander and will be dealt with by lawsuit.”

Previously, in an email to Meyers on October 14, 2010, Cohen made one of many pleas that if Mr. Meyers was not going to abide by the law and work with town officials and follow regulations and code, the business relationship would have to end.  And Cohen warned Meyers that litigation should be avoided and problems worked through, saying “… As you know, litigation is often protracted and expensive and usually creates a winner-takes-all result.”

Email of October 14, 2010 from Cohen to Meyers

“You put me in a difficult situation regarding 11 Kings Highway.  Despite what you believe and say, I must abide by what town officials say and I must accept their legal authority in matters related to zoning and building.  I respect the law and make every effort to follow it. Also, if I am going to live in Chester, I want to do so on good terms with the town and its officials.
I have made at least two attempts to get you to step back and look at the bigger picture regarding what has happened at 11 Kings Highway.  I was less concerned about assigning blame than about making sure past problems are fixed and there are no future problems.  My wish was that if we were to go forward with the building process, it would be smooth and legal.
Your refusal to cooperate with me in this as typified by your unwillingness to meet with Zoning Compliance Officer Judy Brown indicates to me a serious problem on your end. Note that I had previously suggested you could meet with Ron Rose, Tom Marsh, Judy Brown or another official to get some perspective.
I think it would be best at this time if we sit down and discuss the dissolution of our business relationship.  The current contract is out of line with where things are at.  Given the actions you have taken and statements made, I am not comfortable going forward with you and entering into a new contract.
I think the next steps are to get the forms truck and all the forms off the site. The town considers the forms to be there improperly (note it is an unregistered vehicle), and I know my neighbors do not appreciate having the truck sitting there (you are also aware of the incident involving the state police this past Saturday night).  I am going to have to take steps to put the site in shape for the winter, and I will handle that without you. 
I would suggest we meet and discuss how we plan to exit the contractor/landowner relationship.  If we cannot reach mutually agreeable terms, then the matter should be turned over to lawyers.
As you know, litigation is often protracted and expensive and usually creates a winner-takes-all result. In light of what Judy Brown and other town officials have indicated is their belief that your actions are responsible for this situation, I would suggest that you might want to discuss this with your attorney before we meet.
Also, it might be helpful to discuss with your attorney the potential reputational and license-related damage you could suffer as a builder and licensed building official should this matter become enmeshed in litigation that draws public attention and becomes a matter of public record.
In the end, regardless of how this comes out, neither of us is going to win. It is all very unfortunate.
I'll wait to hear back from you.  If you want to try and work this dissolution out without lawyers, I am willing to give it a go.  If you want to put it into the hands of lawyers, I am comfortable doing that.
I do want to warn you that if this goes to the lawyers, I will seek to recover everything I am entitled to from a situation that the town believes is largely the result of its rules being violated by you as the building contractor and building permit applicant.”

Cohen fires off  "THE email" to Meyers of January 17, 2013

So as Meyers deflected and threatened while leaving Cohen for months without money, a house, a place to live, and unable to build on his land, Cohen went from angry to extremely angry.  It all came to a head in an email January 17, 2011 that was initially sent to a total of four people.  The email was sent to Meyers and blind copied to Cohen’s attorney; Brian Buckley, the house designer; and George Gombossy, a former newspaper colleague of Cohen who operated a consumer protection-oriented website.  The email in its entirety:

“Please share the following with your wife and your attorney:    Time is up -- this week I begin filing formal complaints and notifying officials in all Connecticut River Valley, Durham and surrounding towns about my dispute with you.   I also intend to take out an ad in the Middletown Press and other publications (I am 100% serious).  When I call you out as a liar, cheat, thief and lawbreaker -- it will all be true!   When your wife comes home from work at Middlesex Memorial saying she is humiliated; when your children ask what is wrong with you; when your neighbors (who I contact by mail) start staring at you strangely, you will know you blew your last chance to fix things.  And every building official and state official in the Durham-Meriden-East Haddam corridor will have your number.  As for being a licensed building inspector -- I doubt it since I will track you and make sure every community gets a full accounting of your track record with others, state licenses and what you did in Chester at 11 Kings Highway to me.   By the way, have you considered the legal consequences of having built and sold houses and done home repairs for years without having been licensed (the state and I have gone over the lapses in your licensing and I pointed out I was certain you built Allard Road (sic) in East Haddam and other houses) during that time.  Ditto for your HIC license.   I will be visiting officials with formal letters of complaint in East Haddam, Durham and Meriden as soon as possible. You are going to be under the gun of officials and the public.   Note I am copying my attorney, Thomas Cronan of Madison (feel free to contact him, you will know him well enough when we file a lawsuit against you), (a consumer protection column written by George Gombossy and posted in most CT newspapers) and Brian Buckley who made the mistake of recommending you to me.   You've ripped me off for tens of thousands of dollars, destroyed my ability to get the new home I worked for over many years and left me no choice but to make you pay for it.    Time is up!    p.s. Please sue me for libel, slander or defamation of character.  This matter deserves all the publicity I can get for it and when I tell the truth, it is not libel, slander or defamation.”

Meyers says "put up or shut up" 

Meyers has testified under oath he found the email above terribly upsetting.  That doesn't appear to be borne out by his initial responses, which include the following emails sent a day apart:

-- January 17, 2011 email from Meyers to Cohen (in its entirety):

“Joe     Get real...Scare tactics. I will spend you (sic) money defending my good name.”

-- January 18, 2011 email from Meyers to Cohen (in its entirety):

“Joe     Why don't you just put up or shut up. Your (sic) just barking up trees cuz (sic) you can't find a lawyer to take your case ...why, cuz (sic) you don't have one. just a bunch of empty lies.”

It has gone on long enough

Time was up.  Begging and threats were not going to accomplish anything.  I had learned enough about Meyers to know he was a scoundrel.  On January 31, 2011, I filed a complaint with the DCP.  DCP would, after many months, find Meyers had not complied with state law/regulations (he was not licensed when he solicited my business, he did not follow consumer protection guidelines, and he committed other violations).  Mr. Meyers was fined $250 -- a small amount, but a victory given that despite previous complaints, Meyers had never been cited or fined.  On September 29, 2011, Meyers submitted an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance (AVC) and $250 to the DCP.  Meyers did not admit guilt.   On February 9, 2011, I hired a different attorney and started a civil lawsuit against Meyers to recover the money I believed Meyers had stolen from me.  As I learned more about Meyers, it became clear Meyers intended to rip me off from the very beginning -- that is how he operates. 

Check court activity:  Click on  UWY-CV-11-5016510-S

Meyers becomes a state-licensed building official

So how did Meyers become a licensed building official and the building inspector for the town of Middlefield?

If you followed the story, you know Meyers worked as a new home contractor in Durham (complaints filed by Frey, Luther, Christopher) and East Haddam (complaint filed by Kozlowski, and new house built while Meyers was not licensed and sold to Jane Hallberg at 24 Alger Road).   Among examples of Meyers' work, the driveway that supports a three-lot subdivision at 24, 26 and 28 Alger Road in East Haddam has no apron -- despite the town requiring one.  It also has other problems -- although the blame for those may not rest with Meyers.

So guess who vouched for Meyers when he applied to the state to become a building official?  Richard "Dick" McManus, the building official in Durham, and Keith Darin, the building official in East Haddam.  Who would be more familiar with Meyers' work history (though not necessarily legal history) than McManus and Darin?  In fact, John Christopher documented that he went to McManus when he was having trouble with Meyers to get McManus' take on things.  McManus, as noted earlier, is quoted by Christopher as saying:  "Bob isn't much of a student of the (building) code." 

Meyers used again as references when he applied for the building official job in Middlefield both McManus and Darin.

I must point out that while Meyers had fans in McManus and Darin, it was not an easy road for Meyers to become a state-licensed building official.  The Office of the State Building Inspector (OSBI) is under the Department of Construction Services, itself under the Department of Administrative Services (DAS).  The Office of the State Building Inspector also has dotted line reporting to the state Department of Public Safety, which includes the Connecticut State Police.

First, Meyers did not graduate from high school or technical school.  Although on at least one application related to becoming a building inspector, Meyers did indicate he may have a degree, or possibly have "graduated."

Second, when Meyers first applied to the state to enter the educational program for state licensed building officials, then Chief State Building Inspector Lisa Humble wrote in a June 2, 2009 letter to Meyers:  ".. it appears you do not meet the statutory requirements for Licensure ... Consequently, your application is denied."  Meyers was able to convince the state to reconsider him.

Third, Meyers went through the training and education process and took the required test, for which a passing grade is 70 out of 100.  Meyers failed the test, scoring only in the low 50s.  Meyers pressed on, took the test again, and scored a 75 -- passing.

Meyers has listed himself as an "expert witness" in his own defense for our case, but I am not allowed to discuss any details about that because virtually all of it is covered under a court gag order.

Lastly, I should note that I queried the Middlefield Board of Selectmen to determine how steep the competition was for the building official's position for which they hired Meyers.  It turns out the position was not advertised, and only Meyers was considered.  He apparently came highly recommended, according to the Middlefield First Selectman.

State Police move toward an arrest ... and hit a wall thrown up by a judge

I went to the Connecticut State Police in 2013 to file a complaint of fraud and larceny against Meyers.  I believed it is a pretty clear-cut case:   Meyers was not licensed, did not follow state regulations and laws, started building without a building permit, walked off the job, and stole my money from a corporate bank account that contained only my money (making it simple to trace), money that was intended only for building me (not Meyers) a new house.  It appears to me that it would seem very clear, also, that Meyers intended all along to steal (based on the land clearing and other actions).

For a long time after I started pursuing Meyers in court,  I couldn't go to the State Police because a gag order prevented me from disclosing pertinent information.  The so-called protective order still keeps me from discussing some things that Meyers did that I believe need to be aired.  Also, for a long time I did not go to the police because my lawyer strongly advised me against it. Much of his rationale was to protect himself against an accusation that he tried to influence a civil proceeding with a criminal complaint (this can lead to a grievance against a lawyer), according to my lawyer.  My lawyer still maintains a thick wall between his work on the civil case and my activities (such as this website).  So I lost a lot of time on what I believe should have been a criminal complaint and felony charge against Meyers. 

​I went to the State Police in early 2013 when circumstances allowed (as noted, my lawyer was unaware and would not have encouraged it), and the State Police seemed interested in the facts.  I also linked the State Police investigation to the Office of Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane.  I explained to Kane's office that Kane had left John and Sandra Christopher unprotected, perhaps contributing to John Christopher's death, and if Kane had acted on the Christopher matter, in all likelihood there never would have been the Kozlowski, Hallberg and my own problems with Meyers.  I found Kane's people (not Kane himself) engaged and supportive.  My sense was that everyone seemed to believe I had a strong criminal complaint, and that Meyers should face a felony larceny charge, at the very least.  It apparently was too late in terms of the statute of limitations to take up the Christopher case in criminal court (and the Christopher case had been withdrawn in civil court after John Christopher's death).

In my case, the fact that Meyers would not build the house per the contract, had violated numerous laws and regulations, and would not return any money to me was the basis of the larceny complaint.  It was fairly black and white -- a classic forensic accounting case, I was told.  The State Police had copies of the cancelled checks from the Meyers account which they had obtained from Meyers' lawyer, who in turn had obtained them from my lawyer, who had gotten them by subpoena from Citizens Bank (after the year of court delays and many thousands of dollars in legal costs, you may recall).  So the State Police and Chief State's Attorney's Office had the evidence -- the cancelled checks -- in hand.  However, to assure the so-called "chain of evidence" was solid, the State Police wanted to get the checks directly from Citizens Bank before seeking an arrest warrant.  But when they went to the Middlesex Superior Court to seek a search warrant (note:  just a search warrant, not an arrest warrant;  just a warrant for something they already had in hand;  and a warrant that would not be disruptive or difficult to execute since it involved only bank records), I am told presiding Judge David Gold turned the search warrant request down.  Why?  I cannot say.  Except it is just one more example of the system that is supposed to help victims refusing to do so.  Is the theft of $53,500 too small a matter?   Having watched much TV and read many novels, an overactive imagination could produce any conclusion about why Judge David Gold would act as he did.  Judge Gold also has had a hand, as the presiding judge in Middlesex Superior Court, in the scheduling and other matters related to my wanting to go to trial as quickly as possible -- and being unsuccessful.   Is there some kind of conspiracy; is Judge Gold or another judge particularly close to Meyers or Meyers' attorney?   Why did Kane never prosecute Meyers before my complaint?  Why had the DCP gone for years -- including under the current commissioner, William M. Rubenstein, who has firsthand knowledge about this case -- without taking any action against Meyers?  Why had Meyers slipped past the Attorney General's office?  How did Meyers become a building inspector under the cross approval of the Connecticut Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Public Safety (which includes the State Police)?

So again, Meyers appears to have dodged what some would believe is justice.  

No trial date, and now a controversial judge

When do I expect my civil case to go to trial?  Well, brace yourself.  Despite my attorney's multiple efforts (11 or more my lawyer says) over a period of months to get the case assigned for trial or moved to another courthouse where at least it would have a trial date and judge assigned, it hit in 2013 another impediment that likely will mean many months, if not years, of delay.  Again, my lawyer claims he actively sought to get the case assigned for trial on at least 11 occasions and was rebuffed in the courthouse overseen by Judge David Gold.  No explanation for the delay given.

Meyers has filed to open the case back up -- something that could mean years of additional delays given his typical shucks and jives -- by asking, as noted previously, that he be able to claim extreme emotional distress caused by me.  And the court, noting that no trial was scheduled -- but not noting that a trial and separately a change of venue had been sought repeatedly for months -- found the case should be reopened for Meyers' new claim.  The following (different typeface) quotes Judge Shelley Ann Marcus verbatim in her finding issued July 1, 2013: 

There is no trial date pending such that there would be injustice or unfairness to either party by permitting the amendment to the counterclaim and there would be no undue delay to a trial. Further, "it is a well recognized practice in equity to permit new matter arising subsequent to a complaint to be alleged in a subsequent pleading." ( See Town of New Hartford v. Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority, 291 Conn.433 at page 482, 970 A2d 592 (2009), quoting the court in Kelsal v. Kelsal, 139 Conn. 163, 90 A2d 878 ( 1952)). Finally the factual allegations in the amendment are similar in nature related to the pending allegations in the counterclaim.

Judge Marcus's experience and qualifications for appointment as a judge in 2013 have been extensively (Click on the underlined link) reported on in the media, and I am not going to dwell on those.  I will note Judge Marcus may have thought waiting 5 or 7 years for trial is not a problem, based on her own experience as an attorney in the case "Town of Branford versus Marcus Law Firm," where Attorney Marcus practiced law with her politically-connected father, Ed Marcus.  (Click on the underlined link)  That case dragged on for many years despite some on the Town of Branford side believing it should have been resolved early on, given what seemed an obvious outcome.  Critics of the Marcus Law Firm believe the case was held up by stalling and delaying tactics.  There is a clear public record (Click on the underlined link) Ed Marcus used his political clout to get his daughter Shelley Marcus jobs in the state workforce since the 1980s.  In a touch of irony, I worked in a state agency almost immediately after Shelley Ann Marcus was employed in an appointed (vs. competitive application process) position in that agency.  There was absolutely no indication she had ever worked there; it was suggested she may have rarely if ever shown up for work. 

So it is possible, given Judge Marcus' decision on Meyers' claim of extreme emotional distress, that possibly in 2015 or 2016 or maybe 2017 there would be a trial.  That will be long after the statute of limitations has passed on any criminal complaint, and that assumes that Meyers doesn't find another reason to delay trial.

Waiting 10 years for a decision?  

To recap:  Meyers screwed up the job and stole my money in 2010, three years ago, when I was 60 years old.  I've already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Now, Meyers claims he is suffering from extreme emotional distress due to me.   Meyers is now the victim.  And I will be close to 70 years old when this case goes to trial.  Will witnesses forget, disappear, pass away?  Meyers himself already seems to say "I don't recall" a whole lot when asked questions about the case, and he claims files and other records have already disappeared.  How many more will be gone in three more years?

As for Meyers' claim of extreme emotional distress, let me point out again:

  1. Meyers could have resolved this matter in summer 2010 (as is documented) by living up to our contract and following the law;
  2. Meyers could have resolved this matter in fall 2010 by building my house legally or giving me back my money (as is documented); and
  3. Meyers could have resolved this matter in the winter of 2011 through our attorneys with a settlement offer (which was made by me, as is documented).

The facts clearly show that for months my only goal was to get my house built, and when it became clear that would not be possible with Meyers, to have a fair and reasonable resolution of our business relationship.  Meyers has never wanted to settle and has never made a settlement offer.  In fact, at a pre-trial management conference in January 2013, his attorney represented that she (Meyers' attorney) had come to the conference with no settlement number in mind.  Meyers himself didn't even bother coming to the court-required settlement session.  One of the purposes of such conferences is to resolve matters without extensive litigation, and it is considered an opportunity to at least try to settle.  That "no settlement" attitude supports what Meyers' attorney told another judge in another court session -- settlement was out of the question.

As a result of Meyers' delaying, I spent many months gathering and putting information together.  What you have read here is the culmination of that.  It is not the complete story.  In the website's defense, let me state I believe it is accurate and truthful to the best of my ability, it is protected as free speech, and it doesn't violate the overly broad gag order Meyers got early on in the case in an effort to keep his crimes and history hidden (as he apparently has successfully done previously).

Bob Meyers is my housebuilder from hell, and based on the complaints by others, he has been their housebuilder from hell, also.

Consider this a work in progress.  It is, I believe, an accurate portrayal of the essential facts and history from my perspective.  As I learned more and more about Meyers and what he had done leading up to his contracting with me, my goals continued to be:  First to get my money back; second to have Meyers dealt with appropriately by the judicial and regulatory systems; and third, to make certain there is a public record of this case so others who come in contact with Meyers will know about his history.

Bob Meyers is for me the housebuilder from hell.  I have to admit he certainly knows how to work the system.   And the system, as Meyers knows, doesn't work well for legitimate complainants.   If you don't believe me, ask John Christopher.  Oh, we can't.

​-- end of original post.  Updates follow in chronological order:

Update Dec. 3, 2013:  On December 2, 2013 Judge Linda Lager granted Plaintiff (Joseph M. Cohen) Order 201.00 of 10/11/2013 COMPLEX LITIGATION APPLICATION.  In granting Plaintiff's Order, Judge Lager "designated (the case) as a complex litigation case and is ordered transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket in the Judicial District of Waterbury ... having determined, notwithstanding the (Defendant Robert M. Meyers) objection to the transfer, that such transfer is required for the efficient operation of the courts and to insure the prompt and proper administration of justice."    The case will henceforth be identified in the Superior Court system as (click on underlined link)  UWY-CV-11-5016510-S .

Update Dec. 4, 2013: The case is assigned to Judge Salvatore C. Agati at Waterbury Superior Court.  Judge Agati today issued a General Case Management Order (see complete document via case link) outlining procedures related to the case (this is largely procedural, primarily for attorneys representing parties to the lawsuit).

Update Jan. 8, 2014:  On January 6, 2014, Judge Agati met at Waterbury Superior Court with my attorney and Meyers' attorney to discuss procedural and logistical matters including scheduling for depositions, discovery and a pretrial conference.  On January 7, 2014, the case was scheduled for trial beginning Sept. 2, 2014.  See "Update Dec. 3, 2013" (above) regarding the case becoming designated for the Complex Litigation Docket and transferring to Waterbury Superior Court and Judge Agati.

Update Jan. 20, 2014:  “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality.  This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”  -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

On Jan. 10, 2014, plaintiff's (Joseph M. Cohen) attorney and defendants' (Robert M. Meyers, et al) attorney filed a Stipulated Protective Order involving documents, depositions and other information. This order, in effect, clarifies and strengthens the existing protective (i.e. "gag") order for which there were multiple previous court filings by Dowley & Associates on behalf of Meyers. Those previous filings were on the dates 1/19/2012; 9/5/2012; 11/2/2012; and 10/30/2013. It is my opinion these repetitive and duplicative filings were largely a delaying tactic that helped turn a relatively simple and inexpensive to resolve matter into a lengthy, expensive, complex legal case. Bottom line, in my opinion: Attorney Dowley and Meyers thought they could break me financially, emotionally, physically, and/or psychologically. One might also ask: What is Meyers afraid of disclosing? Although I will not be able to discuss publicly or write about this protected information until trial, at trial all of Meyers' information will be public. Stalling just with protective orders? No, check out also the eight or more Motions to Quash filed by Dowley on behalf of Meyers (listed on the state case look-up, linked from this website). What is Meyers afraid of being made public? Let's not forget it took over a year and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expense just for me to see what Meyers used my money for from a segregated bank account (it turned out, he used the money for his own personal expenses, including to build himself a house). Guilty clients and sleazy lawyers know how to work the court system in Connecticut -- because as noted above, it doesn't really work well for victims. In Middlesex Superior Court, in my opinion, Attorney Michael F. Dowley's law practice specializes in delay and obfuscation. At least eight judges handled the case. Some of them were highly competent, while others are known within the court system as being erratic and incompetent. In some instances they had clear -- and undeclared -- conflicts of interest and should have recused themselves. (Note: Only one judge recused himself. That was done at my request. I asked for recusal because of possible perceived bias in my favor. This judge had, before being named to the bench, represented me.)

The Hartford Courant (Connecticut daily newspaper) has picked up on the conflicts and potential bias judges have and do not declare. In a December 16, 2013 editorial, the Courant addressed the subject.

On January 16, 2014, Judge Agati issued a Scheduling Order. With Meyers now claiming extreme emotional distress as a result of my actions in this case and with the case now in Waterbury Superior Court on the Complex Litigation Docket, the Scheduling Order sets out specific dates and deadlines to move the case to resolution.

​Let me note again: Meyers requested the case be reopened in spring 2013 for his claim of extreme emotional distress. That was just after my attorney made at least 11 documented attempts over many weeks to have the Middlesex Superior Court assign a trial date -- which would have precluded a new claim being filed by either side. Yet all my attorney's requests were, in effect, ignored and the case kept in a holding pattern. Then, after weeks in a holding pattern, Meyers declared he has suffered extreme emotional distress; voila, before you can say I smell a stinker, the case has a trial judge assigned (Judge Marcus, newly appointed and deemed unqualified by a number of public officials including her own state senator and state representative). Would a reasonable person suspect hanky panky in Middlesex Superior Court with certain judges? Does anyone wonder why victims of criminals get angry about the failings of the Connecticut justice system? Does this help explain why Meyers may have gotten away with despicable behavior for more than a decade? I believe all are valid questions. Then, as noted above, the case took another turn: It was transferred out of Middlesex Superior Court (at plaintiff's request and over Dowley/Meyers' objection). After three years, the lawsuit -- made complex by Meyers and Dowley's machinations and obfuscations as much as anything as they played in what they saw as their sandbox: Middlesex Superior Court) -- appeared to have a clear path to trial in Waterbury Superior Court.

The following dates have been set by Judge Agati:

  1. January 31, 2014: Responses to be provided to existing requests for information and documents (in at least one instance, my attorney has been seeking documents since early 2011 -- three years during which Attorney Dowley's firm has made repeated, unfulfilled promises to be forthcoming).
  2. February 7, 2014: Disclosure of expert witnesses related to Meyers' claim of extreme emotional distress.
  3. February 28, 2014: Plaintiff's disclosure of expert witnesses related to Meyers' claim of extreme emotional distress.
  4. March 31, 2014: If sought, Meyers shall have undergone an independent medical examination.
  5. April 15, 2014: All depositions, including by expert witnesses, shall be finished.
  6. April 25, 2014: Judge Terence A. Zemetis will conduct a mediation settlement conference.
  7. May 30, 2014: Any motions for summary judgment will be filed on or before.

​​As noted above, trial is scheduled to begin September 2, 2014.

Update Jan. 23, 2014:  My pursuit for the past 40-plus months of the truth regarding Robert M. "Bob" Meyers has taken me down many paths. It is a journey that almost never ceased to surprise me. Whether discovering Meyers used my money to get legal advice from Attorney Dowley in October 2010 when I was still naive about what was going on, or that Meyers cheated, taunted, stalled and blocked a dying man and his distressed wife from getting their day in court, I've pressed on. I've been disappointed at many turns. I've met homeowners frightened of Meyers, afraid of being sued or harassed, or just beaten down by thug behavior.

Where are the authorities? They include Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane's office that blew off the Christophers in 2006, tried to blow me off in 2011, and eventually dropped the ball in 2013. Kane has close ties to officials in Middlesex Superior Court, including judges. While Kane is a prosecutor, he is also a political appointee. Commissioner William M. Rubenstein in the Department of Consumer Protection has established a reputation as a pompous do-nothing, and is also a political appointee. All-in-all, not a pretty picture of people entrusted with safety and consumer protection for Connecticut. So I press on.

Three and a half years -- 1,275 days -- to date since this began. More than $120,000 in legal fees paid. Far more than $100,000 in losses and out of pocket costs. I press on knowing Meyers lives in a house built in part with my money, drives vehicles paid for with my money, got his job using my money, and paid his lawyer, divorce psychologist and accountant with my money.

My lawsuit against Meyers should be picking up speed soon. Because of gag orders, I'll be prevented from disclosing whatever is learned in depositions and discovery. I will continue to post updates on this website. Much of the most interesting information will be kept from the public until trial. At trial, it should all come out -- and be permanently in the public purview.

TEXT CONTINUES ON PAGE 3  (Click below on the 'Page 3' link)