Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Connecticut Gets Failing Grade for Judicial Accountability

In its November 2015 recap and rankings, the Washington D.C. based Center for Public Integrity gave the State of Connecticut an overall C-grade, which for some may not seem too bad. Look closely at the numbers and categories however and it reveals an unfortunate reality that will surprise few with any personal experience dealing with the Connecticut Judicial Branch.

In the category of 'Judicial Accountability,' Connecticut got an F-grade. Yes, an F. A score of just 49 and a ranking of 41 of the 50 states ranked. The top-line categories used as a basis for relative comparison include the following:
  • Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?
  • Is the process for selecting state-level judges transparent and accountable?
  • Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the state-level judiciary?
  • Are the regulations governing conflicts of interest for the state-level judiciary effective?
  • Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the state-level judiciary?
Equally disturbing in this same report is a D-grade for Ethics Enforcement Agencies. Sure, that's better than getting an F, but the 64 is certainly nothing to brag about. Categories in the ethics section include:
  • Are there laws and regulations to promote and protect a professional ethics enforcement agency (or set of agencies)?
  • Are the laws and regulations to promote and protect a professional ethics enforcement agency (or set of agencies) effective?
  • Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest by the ethics enforcement agencies?
  • Are the regulations governing conflicts of interest by the ethics enforcement agencies effective?
  • Can Citizens access asset disclosures and ethics entities reports?
Rather than try to re-purpose the content from the Center's web site, and risk introducing an unintended bias, you can review the findings for yourself at the below link:
Do you have a personal experience with the Connecticut courts that supports or refutes the findings of the Center? Have you been in Criminal Court, Family Court (another name for divorce court), or perhaps it was Probate Court, or a Civil or Small Claims matter. Share your experience.

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

"A house of cards, falling under the slightest breath of scrutiny..." — C.J. Rogers

No matter where you may stand personally on the delicate and important issue of Connecticut's death penalty, a great deal can be learned by carefully reading the decisions issued in the matter of State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago (Case No. SC 17413)

On August 25, 2015, a total of six advanced release opinions were published by the Connecticut Supreme Court. A careful review of these opinions address issues well beyond the matters before the court and, in this authors opinion, expose the lengths our top jurists will go to in order to manufacture opinions, not based in fact or law or the record before them, but apparently based on their own personal bias or desire to feed their respective egos or play God. 

SC17413 Opinion (Palmer, J.)
First Concurrence (Norcott, J. & McDonald, J.) || Second Concurrence (Everleigh, J.)
First Dissent (Rogers, C.J.) || Second Dissent (Zarella, J.) || Third Dissent (Espinosa, J.)

It is somewhat ironic that just a few months earlier, Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers gave public testimony at her judicial re-nomination hearing touting the independence of the judiciary and each jurist. Even though I happen to agree with the sentiments expressed by Rogers in her dissenting opinion, her choice of language seems to be very personal in nature, attacking the very impartiality and integrity of her fellow jurists.

The majority opinion is summarized in the rescript which notes:

"The judgment is reversed insofar as it imposes a sentence of death and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new penalty phase hearing, following a new in camera review, according to law, of the department's files and disclosure of evidence material to the defendant's case in mitigation; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects." 305 Conn. 101 (2012), 319 Conn. 912 (2015)

"The judgment is reversed with respect to the imposition of a sentence of death and the case is remanded with direction to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects." 318 Conn. 1 (2015)

Further comment on this will follow . . . as this is not the first time in 2015 that we saw a deeply divided Connecticut Supreme Court let their personal opinions about their fellow jurists be known in the official records of the Court itself . . .



Note: Follow this link to view The Hartford Courant news coverage from Sept. 4, 2015.


Friday, May 8, 2015

The Trauma of Mother's Day

I don't think one has to be a mother to write, read or understand the concepts behind this article about Mother's Day and the special trauma it brings for many people, for many reasons. In fact, you don't even need to be female. I'm not . . . and yet my recent conversations with two different moms triggered the thoughts that will follow.

In the United States, the Mother's Day Holiday dates back to 1908 and officially 1914. As one of the more notable Hallmark holidays, the messaging starts months in advance — cards on shelves nearly everywhere you look (even gas stations), special merchandising emphasis from virtually every product category, and in more recent years even includes a steady bombardment of reminder e-mail messages . . . counting down the days and reminding us to shop now or the world as we know it will likely come to an unceremonious end.

Well, for some, all this hype represents a special type of trauma . . . merely triggering a momentary melt-down. Or two. Or ten . . . each day, until the day passes. Then back to the 'normal melt-down' cycle. I've read some interesting posts online about the trauma associated with Mother's Day, but none seemed to address that which I've learned about by speaking with some mom's who have been surprisingly and unbelievably victimized by the Connecticut Judicial Branch.

Trauma of Mother's Day and Abusive Court Orders
Now, it certainly should be stated that no two situations are alike and that there are multiple views to any one story, but in learning about one court case recently, I can't help but wonder what the hell is going on behind closed doors at the Connecticut Superior Court at Waterbury, where Judge Maureen Murphy has been warming the family bench for a while.

Sadly, it seems that court and baseball have some strange things in common. In baseball parlance, when you are 'warming the bench,' it means you're not doing a good enough job to be sent out onto the field of play. Either you've been pulled out of a game, or were not showing enough promise in recent practice to be sent out in the first place. In the world of Connecticut jurisprudence, when you're a judge doing a poor job, you get to keep warming the bench. Rather than being pulled off and sent out to play somewhere. Go figure.

Anyway, I was in The Brass City on other business recently and after coming out of the beautifully restored Waterbury City Hall, saw a small crowd gathered in front of the nearby courthouse at 300 Grand Street. With 45 minutes left on the meter, I decided to walk across the street to see what had so captivated this somewhat diverse crowd of 20-or-so people. Turns out they had just come from the courtroom of Judge Maureen Murphy, awaiting decision in a disturbing case for which I've now had the chance to read a few years worth of court documents. Not that I don't like listening and talking with people, mind you, but I find quite often that facts of a case are somewhat distorted — even if unintentionally — by well-intended family and friends. So, I read the case detail and relevant documents for myself to adopt my own informed opinion.

Now, if you knew the details of my own case, you'd be surprised to read my support of a mom being accused of parental alienation, trying to diminish or abolish the role of dad in the eyes of two young children. BUT, peel just one thin layer off the onion in this case and one learns that this mom is challenged, holding it together after being a legitimate victim of domestic violence . . . and, ultimately, being strong enough to break away, rather than suffer in shame and silence which is what most abusers count on.

Out of respect for the privacy of this family who has already suffered enough, I will step away from the specifics of their case, but will address an important underlying fact. The Connecticut courts appear to have little-to-no regard for litigants with hidden disabilities. There are many FAQs and other things posted on the Judicial Branch web site about the Americans with Disabilities Act, but talking-the-talk certainly does not equate to walking-the-walk. There are now a string of disturbing cases where litigants with disabilities (or who are perceived or regarded as having disabilities) are being discriminated against. As if the discrimination isn't bad enough, the more troubling part is the interference, retaliation and coercion that are taking place in direct violation of federal ADA law.

This case, Gizzi v. Gizzi, will likely rise to be a landmark Connecticut case for disability rights and victims rights, but that is little-to-no consolation to a mother, a victim, who has been re-victimized not by a 'system' (which sounds so anonymous), but by a judge who clearly does not understand the first thing about disability rights, victims rights, and protections in federal law which take precedence over local rules of practice. Having authored a detailed decision on January 6, 2015 that removed two children from this mothers care, giving 'temporary' sole legal and physical custody to the convicted-abuser father . . . well, I guess that says a lot right there, but we will all have to watch closely as this plays out. Has many of the same fingerprints on the court files as the case of Tittle vs. Tittle, another very disturbing case.

In the mean time, recognize that some mothers will be punished this Mother's Day, as will the children who will be prevented from showering their mom with affection, handing them the card lovingly crafted as a surprise in-class project, or even just snuggling in bed for an extra hour . . . these are things that an appellate court can not give back to any mother or child . . . and so best we get it right first time around and not punish a victim who has decided to advocate for her rights and those of her children.

 
    

Saturday, April 25, 2015

State Representative Rosa Rebimbas (Naugatuck)

It's been a busy week . . . a busy few weeks actually, but that's par for the course as they say at Augusta and elsewhere. My email inbox and mobile voice mail were overflowing with inquiries seeking comment on the recent flap between State Representatives Rosa Rebimbas (a Naugatuck Republican) and Minnie Gonzalez (a Hartford Democrat). Truth is, I didn't feel a need to comment because there was little I could add to what had already been reported. Why rehash what other news outlets had already covered, including the reader comments which added sufficient detail that seemed to be unavailable to even the reporters themselves.

My feelings changed just a bit this morning as I finally had a chance to finish watching the CT-N video coverage for both the April 10th Judiciary Committee public hearing and also the April 22nd vote in the House of Representatives to reconfirm Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme as Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. (I've got to do a piece about how great CT-N is . . . someone please remind me!)

Rosa Rebimbas, State Representative (Naugatuck)
It was a bit disturbing, after having listened to more than 10 hours of public testimony, both for and against the renomination of Chase T. Rogers, at the April 10, 2015 public hearing before the Judiciary Committee, to then hear Rosa Rebimbas rise in support of Rogers, and completely distort the picture of what had happened in that earlier hearing.

Does she not care one bit about her ethical obligations to her constituents, to the citizens of Connecticut, to her colleagues on the floor — from both parties — who may have had other pressing business to attend to and therefore rely on the sincere remarks and rendition of fact offered by someone they expect they can trust . . . an elected public official (and attorney no less) that shares a seat of honor and respect in the very same chamber as they.

Legislator or Lobbyist
In watching and listening to Rosa Rebimbas, it's difficult . . . no, actually, impossible to tell the difference between what a paid lobbyist would say any different that what Rebimbas, an elected public official actually did say. Rather than make readers search around for the official transcript (which is not yet available anyway), here is an unofficial transcript, but please, if you spot any inaccuracies, post a correction below and we'll do our best to get it fixed ASAP! Our goal is to inform, not mislead.

The remarks of Rep. Rosa Rebimbas begin at the 01:39:48 time stamp:

"Thank you Mr. Speaker and Good Afternoon. Mr Speaker, I also rise in support of the nomination of Chief Justice Rogers, certainly for all of the reasons that have already been stated by the Chairman Tong, I also stand in support of all of those statements made.

Chief Justice Rogers came before us with an opening statement and it was certainly a lengthy opening statement . . . and it was lengthy because she tried to highlight all of the good work that has been accomplished within the Judicial system under her leadership. Certainly she wasn't the only one working hard to make these programs possible but what she is, is the leader that led the way in supporting all of the wonderful things that again have already been stated. When she came in in 2007 as the Chief Justice, she actually laid out a blueprint clearly stating five main goals of which she then highlighted, many of which have been accomplished and are continuing to be accomplished.

Certainly as already previously said, the access to justice, we are now known throughout the nation as the leading example for the positive access to our judicial system, from the web site to languages provided, and because we have so many individuals that are now self represented, they can walk into our court system and feel that their voices could be heard and that’s very important again for making sure that justice is served.

Addressing the needs of the changing demographics, providing services and collaboration between the branches and accountability were also some of the other main goals. We heard not only from the Chief Justice, but we also received a lot of testimony, phone calls, from many different departments and individuals who had directly dealt with the Chief Justice and all of which were very supportive of the programs that have been implemented under her watch and I think that speaks volumes. We actually during the public hearing even had a chuckle because for the very first time we had not only the State’s Attorney’s Office but the public defenders actually admitting to the fact that they supported something together and agreed on something and that was on the nomination of the Chief Justice, um, and we saw that again all across all of the different departments and individuals who have come into contact with her.

She also showed great demeanor and patience throughout the judicial committee’s process of questions and providing information and highlighting the programs that have been successfully implemented.

Her transparency and openness to the Judicial Branch is certainly something to be admired. Um, again she has done great things but has also admitted that that great work continues and we certainly hope to look forward to having her continue to serve us in order to accomplish the many work that has already been done and will continue to be done. So I do stand here, Mr. Speaker in great support of the nomination of the chief justice and her nomination was also unanimously supported out of the judiciary committee, so I do invite all of my colleagues to do the same and show our support for the chief justice and all of the accomplishments she has done and has said will continue. Thank you Mr. Speaker."

(The remarks, in total, represent just over 3 minutes of oration by Rebimbas.)   

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Chase T. Rogers (Old Lyme) Reconfirmed as Chief Justice

Eight years. By our historical temporal scale, eight years is but an instant . . . a veritable flash of light that will barely be noticed on our anthropological calendar. If, however, you are an individual — or worse yet — a family living in Connecticut and need to use the programs, activities or services of our state courts to help you resolve any sort of legal dispute, best if you're wearing a seat belt or something else because it's likely to be a bumpy ride for the foreseeable future.

Either our General Assembly was uninformed, duped, or chose to ignore the full scope of information before them. The Senate had already voted unanimously, as had the Joint Committee on Judiciary, but is it possible that all the public voices would be dismissed, individually and collectively? At this point, it would appear so as the final vote was 139 members of the House voting in favor of the resolution confirming the nomination of the Honorable Chase T. Rogers of Old Lyme to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Judge of the Superior Court. Just 74 votes were needed for passage, and so the resolution carried. Only 6 legislators voted "Nay" (Representatives Arce, Candelara, Gonzalez, Sanchez, Tercyzak, and Carter), but even among this group, only Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, a Hartford-Democrat, rose to explain her vote in opposition.

Chase T Rogers Reconfirmed Chief Justice
The final vote as reflected on the board in the House of Representatives Chamber, 139 Yea Votes, 6 Nay Votes, 6 Absent and/or Not Voting. Only Rep's Arce, Candelaria, Gonzalez, Sanchez, Tercyak, and Carter cast Nay votes. 

The vote to consider Rogers reappointment was just one piece of business before the Connecticut House of Representatives on Wednesday, April 22, 2015. The live video coverage by CT-N can now be viewed on demand as part of their archive. To view the relevant portion, advance the below video to the 01:32:55 time mark, you will see and hear remarks from Rep. William Tong (Stamford, also co-chair of the Judiciary Committee), Rep. Rosa Rebimbas (Naugatuck), Rep. Terrie Wood (Darien, Norwalk), Rep. Devin Carney (Old Saybrook, Lyme, Old Lyme, Westbrook), and closing with opposition by Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (Hartford). The votes were cast and the clerk reads the tally, and just 23 minutes after the resolution had been called, it was all over. Resolution adopted at 01:55:48. Another 8 years . . . unless, of course, people in certain positions, both state and federal, actually step up and do their job as awkward and career-limiting as it might seem. We shall see!

Friday, April 10, 2015

4/10/2015 - Judiciary Committee Public Hearing

Chase T. Rogers Renomination Hearing To Serve As Chief Justice
Chase T Rogers, Renomination Hearing 2015
This 12+ hour Judiciary Committee video features the consideration of Chase T. Rogers, current Chief Justice of Connecticut's Supreme Court for her renomination to a second 8-year term. The Chief Justice serves a dual role as both the top jurist of our highest state court, but also as the head of our state Judicial Branch, directing the efforts of thousands of employees and an annual budget exceeding $600 million. Following her statements, there was public testimony for and against renomination.

One thing becomes clear after watching this testimony — there appears to be some very real problems in our state courts, regardless of which attorney/jurist is tasked with heading up the effort. If even a small portion of the testimony is to be believed, malfeasance appears to have infiltrated nearly every aspect of the judicial system, bottom to top, and the public appears to have lost confidence. To restore that confidence, real changes will need to be evident - and soon.  


NAME OF SPEAKER START TIME
Senate Chair Eric Coleman, Esq. (D) 00:00:00
Judge William B. Rush (Fairfield) 00:03:45
Judge Robert F. Vacchelli (Glastonbury) 00:15:00
Judge Robin Pavia (Easton) 00:48:40
Judge James W. Abrams (Meriden) 01:27:20
Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers (Old Lyme) 02:25:15
Atty. Susan O. Storey, Chief Public Defender  >> See Note Below 06:13:40
Atty. Kevin T. Kane, Chief State's Attorney  >> See Note Below 06:30:15
Atty. William H. Clendenen, Jr. 06:33:55
Atty. Paul Greenan (Stamford) 06:43:00
Atty. Priya Morganstern, Director Pro Bono Partnership 07:07:30
Mr. Roger Emerick (Glastonbury) 07:11:40
Mr. Adam McNiece (East Lyme) 07:16:10
Mrs. Maureen Martowska, J.D. (Mass) 07:20:50
Miss Jennifer Verraneault (Branford) 07:33:55
Atty. Frederic S. Ury   >> See Note Below 07:49:25
Mr. Sylvestor Traylor (Oxford) Exhibit 07:53:12
Atty. Steven Eppler-Epstein 08:07:00
Mr. John Clapp 08:13:40
Ms. Cheryl Martone 08:17:45
Mr. Louis Roman (Bridgeport) 08:22:00
Mr. Michael Porzio 08:32:30
Mr. Harold Wilson 08:38:05
Mr. Scott Buden 08:42:45
Ms. Kathryn Sorrentino 08:51:20
Ms. Jeryl Gray 09:05:30
Ms. Linda Palermo 09:11:05
Ms. Marisa Ringel (Southport) 09:16:00
Mr. Daniel M. Lynch (Trumbull) 09:20:10
Ms. Susan Skipp (Litchfield) 09:40:00
Atty. Francis J. Brady (Granby) 09:45:50
Mr. Henry J. Martocchio 09:49:20
Ms. Jane Doe 09:53:50
Mr. Paul Koch (Old Greenwich) 09:57:20
Mr. Hector Morera 10:02:00
Mr. Bill Mulready (Bridgeport), Equal and the Same 10:06:10
Mr. Joey Watley (Thomaston) 10:11:05
Ms. Marjorie Partch 10:20:25
Ms. Ges Elbay? 10:26:00
Mr. Albert Cuseo (Westport) 10:33:45
Ms. Melissa Harris 10:40:10
Public Hearing Closes 10:50:30
Judiciary Committee Meeting Convenes 10:53:10

You can follow this link if you wish to browse the Judiciary Testimony for 04/10/2015. If a name appearing above appears as a link, you can use that link to directly access their testimony as posted on the Judiciary Committee Web site. Additional written testimony may be available on the Judiciary Committee Web site for those who either chose not to present oral testimony or may have been unable to given the duration of the public hearing. One additional advocate opposing the renomination, Elizabeth A. Richter, had shared her recorded testimony prior to the hearing because she was unable to attend.

The public hearing lasted nearly 11 hours. During that time, the first 80-85 minutes were for renomination of four Superior Court Judges (or Judge Trial Referee). The testimony of Chase T. Rogers, including questions and answers, was approximately 3 hours and 45 minutes in length. Following the question/answer portion of the hearing, 7 attorney's and 2 non-attorneys spoke in support of Chase Rogers, and 23 individuals spoke in opposition (including 2 attorneys), with 3 others voicing concerns about the judicial system, but not voicing specific opposition or support of renomination. 

Special Note: From a 'Full Disclosure' perspective, it might have been good for a few of those individuals who gave oral testimony in support of the renomination to have mentioned that they had been appointed by the Chief Justice to serve as a member of one or more Judicial Branch Committees, Commissions or Boards. For example: Attorney's Kevin T. Kane, Susan O. Storey, and Frederick S. Ury serve as members of the Public Service and Trust Commission.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Chief Justice Re-Nomination Hearing Set - 4/10/2015

As with other jurists in Connecticut, the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court, once appointed, serves a term of eight years. The term for our current Chief Justice, Chase T. Rogers, is set to expire in late April 2015. After having been rescheduled several times, the re-nomination hearing before the Connecticut Joint Committee on Judiciary is set for April 10, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.

You can use the following links to:

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

3/11/2015 - Judiciary Committee Public Hearing

Veteran legislators and staff of the Judiciary Committee likely packed a lunch . . . and a dinner . . . and a few smaller snacks in anticipation of the public hearing scheduled for March 11, 2015. With an agenda that included both gun control and family court reform, there is no surprise the marathon public hearing lasted into the early morning hours. The CT-N video coverage of the 16 and 1/2 hour hearing can be viewed here. A full index of speakers with time-stamped references is included below.


H.B. 6848 — An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence.
H.B. 5505 — An Act Concerning Family Court Proceedings.

NAME OF SPEAKER START TIME
House Chair William Tong, Esq. (D) 00:00:00
Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman  [HB6848]
Atty. Karen Buffkin, General Counsel, Office of the Governor
00:03:10
Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto, Chief Administrative Judge, Family Matters 03:24:25
Mary Jackson, Casey 04:54:35
Thomas Fox 05:03:50
... 00:00:00
..... 00:00:00
........ 00:00:00
............. 00:00:00
......... 00:00:00





Index to key speakers from this hearing will be posted shortly.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Connecticut's U.S. Attorney Targets Public Corruption

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, Deirdre M. Daly, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut held a press conference in New Haven to announce a multi-agency investigation into persistent and widespread public corruption in the State of Connecticut. The official press release sets the stage:

"United States Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and representatives from five federal law enforcement agencies today announced the formation of the Connecticut Public Corruption Task Force to investigate corrupt public officials, the misuse of public funds and related criminal activity.

The Connecticut Public Corruption Task Force includes representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Postal Inspection Service, Internal Revenue Service – Criminal Investigation Division, and the Inspector General’s Offices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development."

The full DOJ release can be viewed by the first link below, other news outlets covered the announcement through interviews that followed in subsequent days and weeks. We'll update this page as we learn of more useful links.

Monday, January 26, 2015

It's Time to Dissect the System


Disgruntled attorneys try to shift focus away from corrupt practices

If you work with words long enough, you can tell an awful lot from what is being written. Even more interesting, at times, is what is not being written. Sometimes a part-time writer doesn't even realize that they may be telling more of a story than they had intended. Such is the case in a recent article written by Attorney Allen Gary Palmer for The Connecticut Law Tribune. Palmer serves as the newest head of the Connecticut Bar Association's Family Law Section and attempts to deflect attention from where it is most needed – the members of the bar itself.

Perhaps it’s only fitting that Palmer chose the headline, “It’s Time to Reset the System,” for his article which was published on January 20, 2015, and sought to blame outspoken parents for the turmoil being experienced by family law practitioners. The sub-head noted, “Disgruntled litigants have shifted family law focus away from children.” He even starts the article by stating, “This article should make anyone reading it feel uncomfortable.” Well, his 1,713 word article certainly lived up to its billing, but not for the reason he may have thought.

For a moment, let’s look at the word “system” used in his headline. Popular synonyms include the following words – scheme, organization, arrangement, and others. There is little doubt that some in Connecticut’s divorce industry are operating a scheme. Until somewhat recently, a well-camouflaged organization within our family courts, complete with a host of special arrangements highly customizable to maximize sustained profitability, at the expense of unwitting clients. Palmer and others can talk all they want, write all they want, and posture all they want, but it won’t change the facts. For decades in the once great state of Connecticut (and elsewhere in the United States), a dishonest minority of attorneys, judges, guardians, therapists, and others have been feeding off unsuspecting families at one of the most vulnerable times in their life.

Few, if any, would argue that separation or divorce present difficult decisions, even in the most amicable of circumstances. Add children to the equation and the magnitude of the situation grows exponentially worse. Divorce represents so many things – failure, unfulfilled dreams, life plans gone awry, escape, upheaval, relief, and more. For those emotionally broken women and men, many also mothers and fathers, it is a very vulnerable time. Certainly there are many skilled and compassionate professionals serving individuals and families in need, including minor children. The evidence, however, cannot be ignored that far too many unscrupulous impostors are parading around in plain sight, pretending to serve the interests of clients, but more closely modeling their secret actions after Brutus and Judas, two of the most infamous betrayers in history.

Palmer is just the latest from a group of pathetic, feeble-minded foot soldiers seeking to blame victimized parents who have somehow summoned the strength and courage to come forward and tell their story, in spite of the pain and embarrassment. Palmer and others seem to think that labeling these parents as ‘disgruntled litigants’ will somehow shame them into silence so the ‘system’ can continue churning through the next generation of failed relationships, stripping the parents of home equity and retirement savings, and siphoning off whatever college savings or other assets were earmarked for the children’s future. It’s unlikely that Palmer and his cronies would refer to the relatively small percentage of rape victims who come forward publicly as ‘disgruntled.’ Or those brave parents from Sandy Hook who chose to step forward and advocate for change in the midst of unimaginable pain – would he classify them as ‘disgruntled’ too?

It’s an awfully inflammatory word – disgruntled. Sounds serious, but look it up and you’ll find that it’s simply an adjective that means ‘angry or dissatisfied.’ There is no doubt that many of the parents I have interviewed in Connecticut during the last year are both angry and dissatisfied. I can’t say I blame them. They expected better from their attorneys, better from their counselors, better from court appointed guardians, and better from the judges and the court itself. In fact, a few mothers and fathers even admitted expecting better from their former partner and themselves, but noted the emotional drain and pain of watching their children suffer was too much to bear. Sure, it’s easy for Palmer and others to try and shift the blame and attention to “50 or so of the most vocally dissatisfied customers,” but what is really happening is a group of disgruntled attorneys – yes, disgruntled – as in angry and dissatisfied attorneys, are scrambling like drunks at last call trying to figure out how and where they will possibly make their living if the “system” they designed and refined is finally found out and dismantled, one statute at a time. The deception feeding the bottom line in Connecticut’s thriving divorce industry is so extensive; it would make Bernie Madoff’s infamous Ponzi scheme look like a fifth-grade school project.

Palmer and the family law section can try to blame parents, but consider this – most parents go through the divorce process once. A much smaller number, twice perhaps. The attorneys, guardians, counselors, clerks, and judges on the other hand see dozens of cases each day. These are skilled, highly educated people. It is simply not credible to think that these experienced professionals cannot spot a pattern over time and employ skills, tactics, and strategies to resolve conflict, secure discovery, minimize litigation, and preserve assets. That would certainly be ‘in the best interest of the children,’ but how would that help fund the machine? The system that Palmer said needed to be reset, should instead be dissected to see what is really inside. Greater transparency might also be a great place to start. The Statewide Grievance Committee and Judicial Review Council both operate in relative secrecy, in spite of their claims and meaningless published reports. How many valid complaints have been buried by industry-insiders sitting on these reviewing panels? If they have nothing to hide, then publish all complaints and let the public decide which attorneys and judges are earning more ‘frequent flyer miles’ than others.    

Perhaps one of the biggest problems facing Palmer and others is in the mirror each morning, but they just refuse to acknowledge it. The next time the family law section gathers for a meeting, it should pause for a moment of silence. It should encourage all members to reflect on the three hard-earned letters that appear after their name. Letters that once stood for something noble. Then, a brief moment to think about past clients and how, perhaps, they could have served those clients better, even if it meant making a little less money. Lastly, each member should think about themselves, because if they don’t wake up fast, they will realize those three letters describe their dwindling base of prospective clients – an ever smaller quantity, or esq.

Friday, January 16, 2015

Judge Thomas Parker and Allegations of Racial Discrimination

A disturbing chain of events was exposed today at a public hearing before the Judiciary Committee. It's not the first time that members of the public have come forward to testify in opposition to the renomination of a sitting judge, but it's one of the few times it seems to have actually mattered.

The judge in this case was Thomas F. Parker, a seasoned Judge of the Connecticut Superior Court seeking reappointment for another eight-year term on the bench. The hearing itself was not unlike many others, with a full agenda of many new nominees before Judiciary Committee members, as well as an even larger number of judges seeking renomination. As a side note, it is rather interesting to hear the words used by Committee members who often say "reappointment" rather than "renomination," as if to suggest that it's already a done deal and a mere formality that they need to appear before the Committee. Members can often be heard making brief comments from the dais, congratulating the judge for their reappointment, yet failing to ask any questions about the previous eight-year term, which is the very point of the hearing. It is not until the vetting process is complete and a vote is cast that an individual is passed with a favorable (or unfavorable) recommendation from Committee to the House and Senate for a full vote on a specific Resolution regarding re-nomination by the Governor which, if passed, becomes the confirmation of that re-nomination. There is never an actual appointment or re-appointment.

Let me get back on track. In the case of Judge Parker, there had been serious allegations filed by a litigant from the New London Superior Court. Once the video of the hearing becomes available, we'll link to it here so you can watch and listen for yourself. The details were and are disturbing, including allegations of racial bias, discrimination, intimidation and retaliation - even including allegations that the judge had leaned into the witness box from his place on the bench and grabbed the African-American litigant by the wrist. Surely had the reverse happened, the Judicial Marshals would have rushed the bench and it would have made the evening news. In this case, Judge Parker gave wholesale denials of the allegations. When questioned by the few members of the Judiciary Committee courageous enough to seek the truth, the answers were either denials or evasive. You can review the official transcript of the public hearing to decide for yourself.

Later, when members of the public finally had their turn to give oral testimony, the litigant who had been patiently waiting in the first few rows the entire time, stepped forward when called. Mr. Sylvester Traylor gave clear, specific and deliberate testimony, recounting details of his interactions with Judge Parker that bore little resemblance to the judicial demeanor suggested by Parker during his testimony.

Mr. Traylor supplemented his oral testimony with written testimony which left little doubt that legislators were going to have a difficult time ignoring the serious nature of the allegations before them. Even though a complaint to the Judicial Review Council had been dismissed, there was clear and convincing evidence before the Committee that the conduct alleged, if true, was a serious breach of judicial conduct and could not be accepted, not in 2015 and not given the diverse population that regularly enters Connecticut courts each and every day.

UPDATE: We'll revisit this with more thorough detail, but it appears that the Judiciary Committee were saved from the unpleasant task of having to vote against Judge Parker. After prolonged silence on the issue, Co-Chairman Eric Coleman announced that the matter would not advance to a vote as the Governor had rescinded the re-nomination of Judge Parker.