tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-75383020568549544512024-03-12T19:46:24.446-07:00Connecticut Supreme Court<i><small>Citizens Exercising 1st Amendment Rights to Expose Public Corruption and Discrimination in Connecticut Courts.</small></i>Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-1787508369517926272019-02-05T22:25:00.003-08:002019-02-05T23:48:49.728-08:00Connecticut Family Court Corruption Discussed at Public Forum Held at State Capital<div style="text-align: justify;">
Several brave parents appeared in Hartford on Tuesday, February 5, 2019 to give public testimony at a special event about the 'Family Court System & Parental Alienation Informational Forum and Public Hearing.' It's difficult testimony to listen to, but it exposes some of the practices that are commonplace in the Connecticut Superior Court each and every day in all eight counties of Connecticut. Sadly, we are aware of several parents who wanted to speak, but were and are so fearful of retaliation by judges and others, that they remained silent for fear that speaking out might jeopardize their ability to see their children.<br />
<br />
If Chief Justice Richard A. Robinson had the courage to do the right thing, he would immediately commence an internal and open review of the ongoing practices that have eroded public faith in our entire judicial system. Retaliation is reality, but is done in a careful way to fly under the radar. Give the testimony a listen. You can judge for yourself if you think these are just individuals with nothing better to do with their time (as the Judicial Branch likes to suggest, calling them 'disgruntled litigants.'). This is discussed every legislative session, but what will it take for our elected officials to actually do something? Many of them are practicing attorneys and are reluctant (some have confessed scared) to vote against their careers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=15993" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="620" height="358" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYCSxJR18QCCZuFYstrM4HRWTlAvCGAYZ7BPTAerQkSD1G-7-MXUpSq_1kf1-HSQk0Dq863VZ5XU2StJ_EkP_8WedDLIKj_gz6LFIKJF9drFr3ZUAQCq-ZZxlZoeX09_WKttuhOtpBuXQ/s320/2019.02.05-joseph-aresimowicz.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
You can jump right to some <a href="http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=15993&jump=8:58:12" target="_blank">brief closing remarks</a> by Rep. Michael DiMassa, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and at this link, including the important comment by Speaker of the House Joseph Aresimowicz about <a href="http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=15993&jump=8:59:39" target="_blank">notice of judicial retaliation</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br /></div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0300 Capitol Ave #5100, Hartford, CT 06106, USA41.7639231 -72.68452969999998516.2418886 -113.99312369999998 67.2859576 -31.375935699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-77550758165362070482016-10-31T21:20:00.000-07:002016-12-11T21:22:18.162-08:00Supreme Fraud in Divorce Opinion<div style="text-align: justify;">
Once again, the highest level of our state legal system demonstrates how it cares only about generating revenue for the legal community and NOT actually working to resolve matters that impact residents of our state. Case in point, the October 25, 2016 Supreme Court opinion in <a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR323/323CR2.pdf">Keller v. Keller</a>. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In a <a href="https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=define%3Aper%20curiam" target="_blank">Per Curiam</a> opinion (meaning, a court in unanimous agreement), the Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the appeal which would have reviewed an Appellate Court opinion, upholding findings of contempt against a plaintiff in a dissolution of marriage action. According to the opinion: "After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted."<br />
<br />
Note, only after allowing the parties, both of whom were represented by appellate counsel, to expend significant fees pursuing and defending the appeal to the Supreme Court, did that Court then decline to address the merits of the underlying legal issues - ones which are sure to arise again in the future given the ambiguous language in Practice Book Rules established by members of the Judicial Branch.<br />
<br />
In the underlying appellate matter, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7200764712610121570&q=Keller+v.+Keller,+158+Conn.+App.+538+(2015)&hl=en&as_sdt=4,7" target="_blank">Keller v. Keller, 158 Conn. App. 538 (2015)</a>, the Plaintiff, Beth Keller, "appeals from an order of contempt entered against her by the trial court in the course of the proceedings dissolving her marriage to the defendant, Richard Keller. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in finding her in contempt for failing to provide the defendant with her address after leaving the family home. The defendant argues that the appeal is moot. We do not agree that the appeal is moot, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court." <br />
<br />
Time and again, we see examples at the Trial Court, Appellate Court, and Supreme Court level where individual jurists or panels of jurists side step resolution of legal issues, enabling - and in fact, practically providing a guarantee that - future litigants to get caught in the same trap with no legal clarification to turn to which could easily short-circuit the issue with much less time and expense. The reason, of course, is that our legal system needs to, first and foremost, ensure future business for itself and the many employees which comprise the criminal enterprise doing business as the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.<br />
<br />
We take no particular position on whether the plaintiff was correct in her legal argument or whether she should have indeed provided written notice of her address to the defendant, Mr. Keller, as he asserted in his original motion for contempt against her. You can follow the links above and form your own opinion on that, but it is clear that the legal community is concerned about declining revenues, especially in the family and civil arena, and it is an outright fraud by members of our Supreme Court for failing to do their job and issue an opinion which would clarify, one way or another, the possible ambiguity in existing statutes or rules, which contribute to ongoing conflict. </div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-40642487888901923702016-06-24T17:34:00.000-07:002016-06-25T17:36:40.161-07:006/24/2016 - Annual Judges MeetingThe Annual Judges Meeting was held once again and, as expected, the dominant theme involved budget cuts and closure of Judicial Branch facilities. More analysis to come.<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="320" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=13028&autostart=false" width="400"></iframe></center><br />
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Middletown, CT 06457, USA41.5623209 -72.650648841.3711604 -72.9747453 41.753481400000005 -72.3265523tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-6214062809571339892016-05-16T20:24:00.002-07:002016-05-22T08:04:47.565-07:00AudioGate — CT Judicial Branch Bait and Switch<div style="text-align: justify;">
There was an interesting, but somewhat disturbing news program published online over the weekend by <a href="http://amnewsnetwork.com/" target="_blank">American News & Information Services, Inc.</a> (Harwinton, CT). This small media company covers a variety of legal, political, and government-related news topics under a host of different names or brands. In this case, it was a 2-hour Saturday afternoon episode of their flagship <a href="http://sjtalkshow.com/" target="_blank">Summary Judgment Talkshow</a> that caught our attention.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In their <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKAuKg8zHyY&feature=youtu.be&t=31m18s" target="_blank">YouTube broadcast</a>, show hosts Ed Peruta (of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peruta+v+county+of+san+diego&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=8003" target="_blank">Peruta v. County of San Diego</a> fame) and <a href="http://rachelbairdlaw.com/" target="_blank">Atty. Rachel Baird</a> kick off a discussion with guest Dan Lynch about a range of topics relating to the Connecticut Judicial Branch and access to the courts. Lynch is a self-represented litigant who, after nearly 8 years of pursuing a variety of claims, was just <a href="http://www.trumbulltimes.com/2016/05/11/trumbull-man-to-sue-state-for-attorney-judicial-misconduct/" target="_blank">granted permission to sue</a> the State of Connecticut with a waiver of sovereign immunity in a rare reversal by the General Assembly. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKAuKg8zHyY&feature=youtu.be&t=31m18s" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzj_1ADGX_IKRa2Fuws69arqtkGl53HJbZyYIH0o_LolagWPvtIc25oUCcZpzbUWLqLvcHPxYGYmoF1lIzdVKtNGVynK26zBt7Q9nBzAzzW4zLrt86Q8891pvMXU4fRxyQ9MgZZzRnlg8/s640/2016.05.14_DML_AMnews_court.jpg" width="640" /></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKAuKg8zHyY&feature=youtu.be&t=31m18s" target="_blank">Dan Lynch appears as guest on 'Summary Judgment' with hosts Atty. Rachel M. Baird (left) and Ed Peruta </a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">Among the more interesting topics discussed, Lynch notes how the Judicial Branch petitioned the Connecticut Legislature during the 2012 Legislative Session for support of legislation which would enable them to increase certain court filing fees. The bill in question was <a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=5388&which_year=2012" target="_blank">Raised H.B. No. 5388</a>, titled somewhat cleverly, "AN ACT CONCERNING COURT FEES AND THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES TO THE POOR." Now, seriously, especially in an election year, who wants to be known for voting NO on such a magnanimous piece of legislation?</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">The controversial part, however, comes in the details. As part of this bill, if passed, the Judicial Branch would increase the filing fees for a variety of things with 60% going to support legal services for the poor, but the remaining 40% going into a Judicial Branch technology fund for certain important initiatives, most of which were positioned as necessary to respond to the growing number of self-represented litigants appearing in state courts. The most notable of the new technology services </span><u style="font-weight: bold; text-align: justify;">promised</u><span style="text-align: justify;"> as part of this legislation, the Chief Court Administrator at that time, </span><a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/JUDdata/Tmy/2012HB-05388-R000309-Honorable%20Barbara%20M.%20Quinn-%20Judicial%20Branch%20-TMY.PDF" style="text-align: justify;" target="_blank">Judge Barbara Quinn, testified before the Judiciary Committee</a><span style="text-align: justify;">, saying:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: justify;"><i>"If the funding is provided through passage of this bill, it will be used for the following purposes: Provide attorneys with nearly instantaneous 24-hour access to digital audio recordings of court hearings and trials on a daily basis, so that they can review a day’s testimony from their own computer, without the expense or delay of an official transcript.</i></span><span style="text-align: justify;"><i>"</i> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/2012/JUDdata/Tmy/2012HB-05388-R000309-Honorable%20Barbara%20M.%20Quinn-%20Judicial%20Branch%20-TMY.PDF" imageanchor="0" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW_eIBZUWw5DyvNhSxhGOxWM1r0u3sr5FDlXnImfl5Gqx4JDRAR8LissQvskopuGl8-MHmerGqXj7ydomLU5Yjt0inH77tw3HJlQIyVg_ZgXExARdxQmsiUMVwo-KFFFpM60GsI4tZXro/s640/barbara-quinn-testimony.gif" width="480" /></a></div>
Now, we'd be inclined to believe the word of a Chief Court Administrator, right? Well, it gets better. AFTER the legislation passed into law, <a href="http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=7902&jump=0:10:41" target="_blank">Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers lauded the passage</a> at the 2012 Annual Judges Meeting, reinforcing the intent to use the funds to deliver audio recordings as promised. Her <a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/Speech/Rogers_JudgesAnnual_061512.pdf" target="_blank">full presentation can be viewed online</a>, but the relevant portion reads as follows:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>"Finally, legislation passed this session increased certain court fees to provide funds for the Branch’s technology revolving fund. Having a steady reliable funding source for technology will enable us to plan and implement many technology projects, most notably, the expansion of digital audio recording to all of our courtrooms. This will enable the Branch to make audio recordings of proceedings available to the bar and public on the day they are recorded and, ultimately reduce the time it takes to produce a transcript and accelerate the appeal process."</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=7902&jump=0:10:41" target="_blank"><img border="1" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW5ax3Z-ybHuC_edlYh223qAAKQgCmCatql_ZvWnDKTXfZPkoYS56Wyt3e_fO8qJx3ECET8p9I0fNqd3NdZwnYbHPz4g-HWcnfRgcWYiMDWdvj5lS8am7oI6-K3FaYY5Cholszzdj8Kw8/s1600/chase-t-rogers-connecticut.gif" /></a></div>
<br />
SO, the big question now being asked is a lot like the one posed by Clara Peller in the 1984 award-winning commercials for the Wendy's restaurant chain - "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U80ebi4AKgs" target="_blank">Where's the Beef?</a>"<br />
Only, in our case, the question is "Where's the Audio?"</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It seems that the Branch made their pitch, convinced lawmakers to vote for increased fees based on a promised delivery of a tangible service with real benefits to citizens of Connecticut, but then they failed to live up to their end of the bargain. Not only have four years gone by without audio recordings being made available, but in certain instances the Branch has even fought against providing these services to individuals making an administrative request for audio through the <a href="http://www.ada.gov/" target="_blank">Americans with Disabilities Act</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com1Harwinton, CT, USA41.7712762 -73.0598438000000141.676509200000005 -73.221205300000008 41.8660432 -72.898482300000012tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-86603858675278904012016-01-22T21:06:00.000-08:002016-04-30T21:23:46.259-07:00Retaliation Against Court Reform Advocates<div style="text-align: justify;">
There have been a growing number of Connecticut citizens speaking out during the last few legislative sessions, sharing their personal stories and fears about judicial retaliation for having spoken out against corruption within the court system. It is not uncommon for those who are without counsel (self represented parties, also called <i>pro se</i>) to be labeled as bitter, angry or disgruntled. Judges and attorneys try to paint them as merely one more person unhappy with a ruling. That may be the case in certain instances, but it becomes harder to ignore the claims of intimidation and retaliation when they come from members of the bar and others who work inside the system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the example below, Atty. Rachel Baird and her legal investigator, Ed Peruta, discuss a disturbing occurrence of a search warrant that was served on the home of a Connecticut man who had recently been sentenced following a trial which found him guilty of threatening regarding a family court judge. The alleged threat was said to originate from an email which the accused had sent, not to the judge, but to a small group of similarly frustrated family court victims. One recipient apparently forwarded the email to an attorney who, in turn, contacted authorities, who then in turn contacted the judge. This writer has no personal knowledge of that matter, so will not comment further, but it is concerning at the very least to hear (beginning about the 9 minute mark in the video below) two respected professionals with significant legal and law enforcement knowledge discussing the mechanism now being used to target parents who have mustered up the courage to speak out against long-standing fraud in the Connecticut family court. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0jZv69jbtxo?rel=0" width="640"></iframe><br />
</center>
<br />
What do you think?Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-17315396398815388002015-11-10T20:11:00.000-08:002016-05-06T20:40:05.972-07:00Connecticut Gets Failing Grade for Judicial Accountability<div style="text-align: justify;">
In its November 2015 recap and rankings, the Washington D.C. based <a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18352/connecticut-gets-c-grade-2015-state-integrity-investigation" target="_blank">Center for Public Integrity</a> 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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "helvetica"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">Can members of the judiciary be held accountable for their actions?</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "helvetica"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">Is the process for selecting state-level judges transparent and accountable?</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "helvetica"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest for the state-level judiciary?</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "helvetica"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">Are the regulations governing conflicts of interest for the state-level judiciary effective?</span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5; font-family: "helvetica"; font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">Can citizens access the asset disclosure records of members of the state-level judiciary?</span></li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">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:</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5;">Are there laws and regulations to promote and protect a professional ethics enforcement agency (or set of agencies)?</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5;">Are the laws and regulations to promote and protect a professional ethics enforcement agency (or set of agencies) effective?</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5;">Are there regulations governing conflicts of interest by the ethics enforcement agencies?</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5;">Are the regulations governing conflicts of interest by the ethics enforcement agencies effective?</span></span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;"><span style="background-color: #e5e5e5;">Can Citizens access asset disclosures and ethics entities reports?</span></span></span></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">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:</span></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: start;">
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: "helvetica";"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;"><a href="https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18352/connecticut-gets-c-grade-2015-state-integrity-investigation">https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18352/connecticut-gets-c-grade-2015-state-integrity-investigation</a> </span></span></li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 18px;">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.</span></span></div>
</div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Washington, DC, USA38.9071923 -77.03687070000000938.7094713 -77.3595942 39.1049133 -76.714147200000014tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-88511567103285129272015-10-06T16:56:00.000-07:002019-01-06T21:22:08.955-08:00"A house of cards, falling under the slightest breath of scrutiny..." — C.J. Rogers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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 <u><a href="http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail.aspx?CRN=11507&Type=AppealNo" target="_blank">State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago</a></u> (Case No. SC 17413)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306.pdf" target="_blank">SC17413 Opinion</a> (Palmer, J.)</div>
<a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306A.pdf" target="_blank">First Concurrence</a> (Norcott, J. & McDonald, J.) <b>|</b><b>|</b> <a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306B.pdf" target="_blank">Second Concurrence</a> (Everleigh, J.)<br />
<a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306E.pdf" target="_blank">First Dissent</a> (Rogers, C.J.) <b>|</b><b>|</b> <a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306F.pdf" target="_blank">Second Dissent</a> (Zarella, J.) <b>|</b><b>|</b> <a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306G.pdf" target="_blank">Third Dissent</a> (Espinosa, J.)<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is somewhat ironic that just a few months earlier, Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers gave public testimony at her <a href="http://ctsupremecourt.blogspot.com/2015/04/chase-rogers-public-hearing-chief-justice-connecticut.html">judicial re-nomination hearing</a> touting the independence of the judiciary and each jurist. Even though I happen to agree with the sentiments expressed by Rogers in her <a href="http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR318/318CR306E.pdf" target="_blank">dissenting opinion</a>, her choice of language seems to be very personal in nature, attacking the very impartiality and integrity of her fellow jurists.<br />
<br />
The majority opinion is summarized in the rescript which notes:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"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." <span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12px;">305 Conn. 101 (2012), </span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12px;">319 Conn. 912 (2015)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
"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." <span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12px;">318 Conn. 1 (2015)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 12px;"><br /></span>
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 . . .<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Note: Follow this link to view <a href="http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-death-penalty-supreme-court-20150904-story.html" target="_blank">The Hartford Courant</a> news coverage from Sept. 4, 2015.<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
</div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-59268323541305642892015-05-08T01:51:00.002-07:002015-05-08T03:08:10.253-07:00The Trauma of Mother's Day<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the United States, the <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/holidays/mothers-day" target="_blank">Mother's Day Holiday dates back to 1908 and officially 1914</a>. As one of the more notable <a href="http://shop.hallmark.com/holidays-and-occasions/" target="_blank">Hallmark holidays</a>, 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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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 <a href="http://discussingdissociation.com/2009/05/09/mothers-and-mother%E2%80%99s-day-for-trauma-survivors/" target="_blank">trauma associated with Mother's Day</a>, 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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcNkfpFfFF57lIu_hmQUjiMNweMzrNLtEqO1UVfDMQ6GBS0OHDz9dtMilGrr_v6kYoRl__yX68Kr9SVRDv1LPhhtpg3i5mYd-cBCuYI40l9qn0PtByN4JcsPEk5TEBKXiSfVTjs5EiOTA/s1600/mothers-day-depression.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Trauma of Mother's Day and Abusive Court Orders" border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcNkfpFfFF57lIu_hmQUjiMNweMzrNLtEqO1UVfDMQ6GBS0OHDz9dtMilGrr_v6kYoRl__yX68Kr9SVRDv1LPhhtpg3i5mYd-cBCuYI40l9qn0PtByN4JcsPEk5TEBKXiSfVTjs5EiOTA/s400/mothers-day-depression.jpg" title="Trauma of Mother's Day and Abusive Court Orders" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br />
<br />
Sadly, it seems that court and baseball have some strange things in common. In baseball parlance, when you are '<a href="http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/warm+the+bench" target="_blank">warming the bench</a>,' 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 <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisprudence" target="_blank">jurisprudence</a>, 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. <br />
<br />
Anyway, I was in The Brass City on other business recently and after coming out of the beautifully restored <a href="http://greaterwaterbury.com/waterbury_city_hall.php" target="_blank">Waterbury City Hall</a>, 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 <a href="http://crimemagazine.com/battered-mother-lost-custody-abusive-spouse-special-report" target="_blank">disturbing case</a> for which I've now had the chance to read a few years worth of <a href="http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=UWYFA074014528S" target="_blank">court documents</a>. 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.<br />
<br />
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 <b>this mom</b> is challenged, holding it together after being a <a href="http://www.dcadv.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-faqs#faq-why-victims-stay" target="_blank">legitimate victim of domestic violence</a> . . . and, ultimately, being strong enough to break away, rather than suffer in shame and silence which is what most abusers count on.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm" target="_blank">Americans with Disabilities Act</a>, 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 <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/html/USCODE-2010-title42-chap126-subchapIV-sec12203.htm" target="_blank">interference, retaliation and coercion</a> that are taking place in direct violation of federal ADA law.<br />
<br />
This case, <i>Gizzi v. Gizzi</i>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Waterbury, CT, USA41.5581525 -73.05149649999998541.4631085 -73.212857999999983 41.6531965 -72.890134999999987tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-17175549565552002202015-04-25T08:20:00.000-07:002015-04-25T14:13:18.100-07:00State Representative Rosa Rebimbas (Naugatuck)<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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 <a href="http://ctsupremecourt.blogspot.com/2015/04/chase-rogers-public-hearing-chief-justice-connecticut.html">April 10th Judiciary Committee public hearing</a> and also the <a href="http://ctsupremecourt.blogspot.com/2015/04/ct-house-representatives-confirm-chase-t-rogers-chief-justice-2015.html">April 22nd vote in the House of Representatives to reconfirm Chase T. Rogers</a> of Old Lyme as Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. <i>(I've got to do a piece about how great CT-N is . . . someone please remind me!)</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaqwCSRqfElB9_XAmagFWqyKzdyQrmdgqGydbdM067LimB2pXTHM6PpNe3tpP9zCIiQe0aIMXMMg_sjcYlgRR44kT0ocOmjUyi9ytmrXGljqMRdu7ApDy5FcWAn2thA8SZYYiX34p7moo/s1600/state-representative-rosa-rebimbas-naugatuck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Rosa Rebimbas, State Representative (Naugatuck)" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaqwCSRqfElB9_XAmagFWqyKzdyQrmdgqGydbdM067LimB2pXTHM6PpNe3tpP9zCIiQe0aIMXMMg_sjcYlgRR44kT0ocOmjUyi9ytmrXGljqMRdu7ApDy5FcWAn2thA8SZYYiX34p7moo/s1600/state-representative-rosa-rebimbas-naugatuck.jpg" height="300" title="Rosa Rebimbas, State Representative (Naugatuck)" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<b><big>Legislator or Lobbyist</big></b><br />
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 <i>unofficial transcript</i>, 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.<br />
<br />
<u><b>The remarks of Rep. Rosa Rebimbas begin at the 01:39:48 time stamp:</b></u><br />
<br />
"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.<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
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.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">Her <a href="http://www.selectivetransparency.com/" target="_blank">transparency</a> 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."</span><br />
<br />
<i>(The remarks, in total, represent just over 3 minutes of oration by Rebimbas.)</i> </div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-3857905839301378982015-04-22T16:00:00.000-07:002015-04-25T08:24:41.104-07:00Chase T. Rogers (Old Lyme) Reconfirmed as Chief Justice<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Eight years.</b> By our historical temporal scale, eight years is but an instant . . . a veritable flash of light that will barely be noticed on our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_anthropology" target="_blank">anthropological calendar</a>. 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.</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Either our <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/" target="_blank">General Assembly</a> was uninformed, duped, or chose to ignore the full scope of information before them. The Senate had already voted unanimously, as had the <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/jud/" target="_blank">Joint Committee on Judiciary</a>, 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 <b>139 members</b> 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 <a href="http://ctsupremecourt.blogspot.com/2015/04/state-representative-rosa-rebimbas-naugatuck.html">Rep. Minnie Gonzalez</a>, a Hartford-Democrat, rose to explain her vote in opposition.</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjll8KX99GFp08_9SzjhyphenhyphenpS1L4NqSqxP4IDHIonKs5Ev8rWJ2yNdSTBMnPs743bMD_-NdBv8ZMv55I7_XWGAL_Ac3dzX86k9g29v3WHPPpfoA-5OxOceINy9molk3bD32F3FL5nPKJukwE/s1600/chase-t-rogers-final-vote-2015.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Chase T Rogers Reconfirmed Chief Justice" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjll8KX99GFp08_9SzjhyphenhyphenpS1L4NqSqxP4IDHIonKs5Ev8rWJ2yNdSTBMnPs743bMD_-NdBv8ZMv55I7_XWGAL_Ac3dzX86k9g29v3WHPPpfoA-5OxOceINy9molk3bD32F3FL5nPKJukwE/s1600/chase-t-rogers-final-vote-2015.JPG" height="480" title="Chase T Rogers Reconfirmed Chief Justice" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">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. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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 (<i>Stamford</i>, also co-chair of the Judiciary Committee), Rep. <a href="http://ctsupremecourt.blogspot.com/2015/04/state-representative-rosa-rebimbas-naugatuck.html">Rosa Rebimbas</a> (<i>Naugatuck</i>), Rep. Terrie Wood (<i>Darien, Norwalk</i>), Rep. Devin Carney (<i>Old Saybrook, Lyme, Old Lyme, Westbrook</i>), and closing with opposition by Rep. Minnie Gonzalez (<i>Hartford</i>). 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!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="480" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=11453&autostart=false" width="640"></iframe></center>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com1Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-79724180355968950232015-04-10T15:00:00.000-07:002016-05-19T11:23:32.955-07:004/10/2015 - Judiciary Committee Public Hearing<big><b>Chase T. Rogers Renomination Hearing To Serve As Chief Justice</b></big><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitLLriEWs-RCAexh11gJcsAEu01G6RY-PPIo-IGkr8R4u9Nfq3UqSzqCMWl9RsTgup0YgdSfDV86NW826ILzfxnTLCn0-yhVSwE9_C28LvMFQfjwpcFbZCsjjqeSDTnmxZCRyvcAWEl8w/s1600/chase-t-rogers-swearing-in.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Chase T Rogers, Renomination Hearing 2015" border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitLLriEWs-RCAexh11gJcsAEu01G6RY-PPIo-IGkr8R4u9Nfq3UqSzqCMWl9RsTgup0YgdSfDV86NW826ILzfxnTLCn0-yhVSwE9_C28LvMFQfjwpcFbZCsjjqeSDTnmxZCRyvcAWEl8w/s1600/chase-t-rogers-swearing-in.jpg" title="Chase T Rogers, Renomination Hearing 2015" width="200" /></a></div>
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 <a href="http://transparency.ct.gov/html/visualize.asp" target="_blank">annual budget exceeding $600 million</a>. Following her statements, there was public testimony for and against renomination.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
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. </div>
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="320" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=11407&autostart=false" width="400"></iframe></center>
<br />
<center>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 540px;" x:str=""><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 12982; mso-width-source: userset; width: 266pt;" width="355"></col> <col style="mso-width-alt: 3328; mso-width-source: userset; width: 68pt;" width="91"></col> </colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl26" height="35" rowspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1.0pt solid black; height: 26.25pt; width: 266pt;" width="355"><b>NAME OF SPEAKER</b></td> <td class="xl28" rowspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1.0pt solid black; width: 68pt;" width="91"><b>START TIME</b></td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Senate Chair Eric Coleman, Esq. (D)</td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'00:00:00">00:00:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Judge William B. Rush (Fairfield)</td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'00:03:45">00:03:45</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Judge Robert F. Vacchelli (Glastonbury)</td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'00:15:00">00:15:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Judge Robin Pavia (Easton)</td> <td class="xl31" x:str="'00:48:40">00:48:40</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Judge James W. Abrams (Meriden)</td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'01:27:20">01:27:20</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Chief%20Justice%20Chase%20T.%20Rogers-Opening%20StatementTMY.PDF" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers</a> (Old Lyme)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'02:25:15">02:25:15</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Chief%20Public%20Defender%20Susan%20O.%20Story%20%20-%20State%20of%20Connecticut-TMY.PDF" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Atty. Susan O. Storey, Chief Public Defender</a> <small>>> See Note Below</small></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'06:13:40">06:13:40</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Kane,%20Kevin%20T.,%20Chief%20State%27s%20Attorney-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Atty. Kevin T. Kane, Chief State's Attorney</a> <span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">>> See Note Below</span></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'06:30:15">06:30:15</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Clendenen,%20William%20J.-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Atty. William H. Clendenen, Jr.</a></td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'06:33:55">06:33:55</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Atty. Paul Greenan (Stamford)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'06:43:00">06:43:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Atty. Priya Morganstern, Director Pro Bono Partnership</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'07:07:30">07:07:30</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Emerick,%20Roger-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Roger Emerick</a> (Glastonbury)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'07:11:40">07:11:40</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. Adam McNiece (East Lyme)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'07:16:10">07:16:10</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mrs. Maureen Martowska, J.D. (Mass)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'07:20:50">07:20:50</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Miss <a href="http://www.google.com/" target="_blank">Jennifer Verraneault </a> (Branford)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'07:33:55">07:33:55</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Ury,%20Fredric%20S.%20-%20Attorney%20At%20Law,%20Ury%20&%20Moskow,%20LLC-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Atty. Frederic S. Ury</a> <span style="font-size: 13.3333330154419px;">>> See Note Below</span></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'07:49:25">07:49:25</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Traylor,%20Sylvester%20-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Sylvestor Traylor</a> (Oxford) <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Traylor,%20Sylvester%20(2)-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Exhibit</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'07:53:12">07:53:12</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Eppler-Epstein,%20Steven,%20Executive%20Director,%20Connecticut%20Legal%20Services-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Atty. Steven Eppler-Epstein</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:07:00">08:07:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Clapp,%20John-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">John Clapp</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:13:40">08:13:40</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. Cheryl Martone</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:17:45">08:17:45</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. Louis Roman (Bridgeport)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:22:00">08:22:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Porzio,%20Michael-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Michael Porzio</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:32:30">08:32:30</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Wilson,%20Harold-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Harold Wilson</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:38:05">08:38:05</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. Scott Buden</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:42:45">08:42:45</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. Kathryn Sorrentino</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'08:51:20">08:51:20</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Gray,%20Jeryl-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Jeryl Gray</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:05:30">09:05:30</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Palermo,%20Linda-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Linda Palermo</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:11:05">09:11:05</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Ringel,%20Marisa-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Marisa Ringel </a>(Southport)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:16:00">09:16:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"><a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Lynch,%20Daniel%20M.-TMY.PDF" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mr. Daniel M. Lynch</a> (Trumbull)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:20:10">09:20:10</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Skipp,%20Susan-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Susan Skipp</a> (Litchfield)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:40:00">09:40:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Atty. Francis J. Brady (Granby)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:45:50">09:45:50</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Martocchio,%20Henry%20J.-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Henry J. Martocchio</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:49:20">09:49:20</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. Jane Doe</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:53:50">09:53:50</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Koch,%20Paul-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Paul Koch</a> (Old Greenwich)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'09:57:20">09:57:20</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. Hector Morera</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:02:00">10:02:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Mulready,%20William%20R.%20-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Bill Mulready</a> (<a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Mulready,%20William%20R.%20-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Bridgeport</a>), <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000410-Equal%20And%20The%20Same-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">Equal and the Same</a></td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:06:10">10:06:10</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. Joey Watley (Thomaston)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:11:05">10:11:05</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. Marjorie Partch</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:20:25">10:20:25</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. Ges Elbay?</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:26:00">10:26:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mr. Albert Cuseo (Westport)</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:33:45">10:33:45</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Ms. Melissa Harris</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:40:10">10:40:10</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Public Hearing Closes</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:50:30">10:50:30</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Judiciary Committee Meeting Convenes</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:53:10">10:53:10</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
You can follow this link if you wish to browse the <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/menu/CommDocTmy.asp?comm_code=jud&date=04/10/2015" target="_blank">Judiciary Testimony for 04/10/2015</a>. 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, <a href="http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/04/elizabeth-richters-testimony-in.html" target="_blank">Elizabeth A. Richter</a>, had shared her recorded testimony prior to the hearing because she was unable to attend.<br />
<br />
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. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Special Note:</u></b> 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 <a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/default.htm" target="_blank">Judicial Branch Committees, Commissions or Boards</a>. For example: Attorney's Kevin T. Kane, Susan O. Storey, and Frederick S. Ury serve as members of the <a href="http://public%20service%20and%20trust%20commission/" target="_blank">Public Service and Trust Commission</a>. </div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com1Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-85359495653498836752015-04-02T15:30:00.000-07:002015-04-04T00:35:57.333-07:00Chief Justice Re-Nomination Hearing Set - 4/10/2015<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
You can use the following links to:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>View <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/pha/2015PHA00410-R001030JUD-PHA.htm" target="_blank">agenda for the April 10, 2015 Judiciary Committee Public Hearing</a></li>
<li>Visit main web page for <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/jud/" target="_blank">Joint Committee on Judiciary</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-54562619032797291132015-03-11T13:46:00.000-07:002015-04-29T18:59:51.673-07:003/11/2015 - Judiciary Committee Public Hearing<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="320" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=11304&autostart=false" width="400"></iframe></center>
</div>
<br />
<b>H.B. 6848</b> — An Act Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence.<br />
<b>H.B. 5505</b> — An Act Concerning Family Court Proceedings.<br />
<br />
<center>
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 540px;" x:str=""><colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 12982; mso-width-source: userset; width: 266pt;" width="355"></col> <col style="mso-width-alt: 3328; mso-width-source: userset; width: 68pt;" width="91"></col> </colgroup><tbody>
<tr height="17" style="height: 12.75pt;"> <td class="xl26" height="35" rowspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1.0pt solid black; height: 26.25pt; width: 266pt;" width="355"><b>NAME OF SPEAKER</b></td> <td class="xl28" rowspan="2" style="border-bottom: 1.0pt solid black; width: 68pt;" width="91"><b>START TIME</b></td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">House Chair William Tong, Esq. (D)</td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'00:00:00">00:00:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman [HB6848]<br />
Atty. Karen Buffkin, General Counsel, Office of the Governor</td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'00:03:10">00:03:10</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto, Chief Administrative Judge, Family Matters</td> <td class="xl30" x:str="'01:27:20">03:24:25</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Mary Jackson, Casey</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:11:05">04:54:35</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">Thomas Fox</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:20:25">05:03:50</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">...</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:26:00">00:00:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">.....</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:33:45">00:00:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">........</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:40:10">00:00:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">.............</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:50:30">00:00:00</td> </tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;"> <td class="xl24" height="18" style="height: 13.5pt;">.........</td> <td class="xl25" x:str="'10:53:10">00:00:00</td> </tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Index to key speakers from this hearing will be posted shortly.</div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com1Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-18208374786280552942015-02-04T10:30:00.000-08:002015-04-03T21:09:00.732-07:00Connecticut's U.S. Attorney Targets Public CorruptionOn 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:<br />
<br />
"<span style="background-color: white; color: #242424; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">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.</span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #242424; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">
<br />
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."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #242424; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #242424; line-height: 16.7999992370605px;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal;">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.</span></div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.justice.gov/usao/ct/Press2015/20150204.html" target="_blank">DOJ Public Corruption Task Force Announcement</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.nhregister.com/opinion/20150211/connecticut-us-attorney-deirdre-m-daly-transparency-integrity-in-government-require-a-vigilant-informed-public" target="_blank">New Haven Register Column by Deirdre M. Daly</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.commdiginews.com/news-2/doj-connecticut-announces-investigation-of-corrupt-courts-34507/" target="_blank">Communities Digital News by Jim Picht</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.fbi.gov/newhaven/press-releases/2015/federal-law-enforcement-authorities-announce-formation-of-task-force-to-fight-public-corruption" target="_blank">Federal Bureau of Investigation</a></li>
<li>more to follow . . . </li>
</ul>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0New Haven, CT, USA41.308274 -72.92788350000000741.212838999999995 -73.089245 41.403709 -72.766522000000009tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-27003886615283769922015-01-26T13:18:00.000-08:002019-01-06T21:29:56.112-08:00It's Time to Dissect the System<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="main-content" style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxJ6piWeqSXnpBaZ6TZQb4mpqHo-ko_pxaDJI8wp8BItgxlO-pyann6B6AkJVstHyBUx1bBa-wsMu9iNwXZSUpEDZ3khkPxJbaRPdY9NnhpNBMHq4LSj75Gtvh-A-n1Zg0uOsYiHQ4v1M/s1600/family-law-connecticut.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxJ6piWeqSXnpBaZ6TZQb4mpqHo-ko_pxaDJI8wp8BItgxlO-pyann6B6AkJVstHyBUx1bBa-wsMu9iNwXZSUpEDZ3khkPxJbaRPdY9NnhpNBMHq4LSj75Gtvh-A-n1Zg0uOsYiHQ4v1M/s1600/family-law-connecticut.png" /></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: large;"><i>Disgruntled attorneys try to shift focus </i><i>away from corrupt practices</i></span></h3>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: justify;">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 </span><u style="text-align: justify;">not</u><span style="text-align: justify;">
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 <a href="https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2018/09/04/remembering-attorney-allen-gary-palmer/?slreturn=20190007002556" target="_blank">Attorney Allen Gary Palmer</a> for </span><i style="text-align: justify;">The Connecticut Law
Tribune</i><span style="text-align: justify;">. 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.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="border: 1pt none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 0in;">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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="border: 1pt none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 0in;">For a moment, let’s look at the word “<b>system</b>” used in his
headline. Popular synonyms include the following words – scheme, organization,
arrangement, and others. There is little doubt that some in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state></st1:place>’s divorce industry are operating
a <u>scheme</u>. Until somewhat recently, a well-camouflaged <u>organization</u>
within our family courts, complete with a host of special <u>arrangements</u> 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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="border: 1pt none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 0in;">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.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="border: 1pt none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 0in;">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 <st1:place w:st="on">Sandy Hook</st1:place> who chose
to step forward and advocate for change in the midst of unimaginable pain –
would he classify them as ‘disgruntled’ too?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="border: 1pt none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 0in;">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 ‘<i>angry
or dissatisfied</i>.’ There is no doubt that many of the parents I have
interviewed in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:place></st1:state>
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 <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:place></st1:state>’s
thriving divorce industry is so extensive; it would make Bernie Madoff’s infamous
Ponzi scheme look like a fifth-grade school project. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="border: 1pt none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 0in;">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 <u>system</u>
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. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="main-content" style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 18pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="border: 1pt none; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10.5pt; padding: 0in;">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 <u>e</u>ver <u>s</u>maller <u>q</u>uantity, or
<u>esq</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="main-content" style="line-height: 24.0pt; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in; vertical-align: baseline;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 18pt;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-88862339512313929352015-01-16T21:31:00.000-08:002019-01-06T22:07:01.155-08:00Judge Thomas Parker and Allegations of Racial Discrimination<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/chr/2015JUD00116-R001030-CHR.htm" target="_blank">review the official transcript of the public hearing</a> to decide for yourself.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Mr. Traylor supplemented his oral testimony with <a href="https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/juddata/tmy/2015ZZ-00000-R000116-Traylor,%20Sylvester%2001-TMY.PDF" target="_blank">written testimony</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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. </div>
</div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0300 Capitol Ave #5100, Hartford, CT 06106, USA41.7639231 -72.68452969999998516.2418886 -113.99312369999998 67.2859576 -31.375935699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-47558993181469299222014-07-30T20:40:00.000-07:002016-05-26T20:41:23.318-07:00District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer Sends a Message!<div style="text-align: justify;">
There appear to be some interesting differences between, say, the U.S. District Court (District of Connecticut) and the Connecticut Supreme Court or the Family Docket of the Connecticut Superior Court. There are many points of view on this topic, but I applaud the decision published today by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer. See a small portion of:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<center style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px;">
<h3 id="gsl_case_name" style="border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px;">
JOSEPHINE SMALLS MILLER, Plaintiff,<br />v.<br />BRIDGEPORT BOARD OF EDUCATION and MARK ANASTASI, Defendants.</h3>
</center>
<center style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px;">
<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?scidkt=15543643747690263125&as_sdt=2&hl=en" style="color: #660099;">No. 3:12-cv-01287 (JAM).</a></center>
<center style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px;">
<div style="position: relative;">
<b>United States District Court, D. Connecticut.</b></div>
</center>
<center style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px;">
July 30, 2014.</center>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px; position: relative;">
</div>
<h2 style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;">
RULING ON MOTION FOR SANCTIONS</h2>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[excerpt below - for full decision, use this <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9744890577638186093&q=%22the+limits+that+truth+and+the+rules+of+professional+conduct+impose+for+all+cases+upon+the+zealous+advocacy+of+counsel%22&hl=en&as_sdt=8003" target="_blank">Google Scholar Link</a>.]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px;">Every new attorney in Connecticut takes an oath for the privilege of admission to the bar, and the focus of that oath, as set forth below, is to foreswear the kind of misconduct that infected Attorney Miller's pleadings in this case:</span></div>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px 40px; position: relative;">
You solemnly swear . . . that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court, and that you will inform the court of any dishonesty of which you have knowledge; that you will not knowingly maintain or assist in maintaining any action that is false or unlawful; that you will not obstruct any cause of action for personal gain or malice; but that you will exercise the office of attorney, in any court in which you may practice, according to the best of your learning and judgment, faithfully, to both your client and the court; so help you God or upon penalty of perjury.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 22.5px; position: relative;">
<span style="background-color: white;">To be sure, no attorney is the sum of his or her worst moments. And Attorney Miller has had a long career in the practice of law, without apparent blemish so far as I know from the documents before me. From what I can tell, Attorney Miller is fervently devoted to a noble objective of redressing discrimination. But no fervor for one's case may justify false statement. My hope is that with time Attorney Miller will appreciate <span style="color: black;">the limits that truth and the rules of professional conduct impose for all cases upon the zealous advocacy of counsel</span>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We'll take a closer look at this in the days to come, but note the stark contrast to the Connecticut Supreme Decision of Simms v. Seaman which upheld the absolute immunity for opposing counsel.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0New Haven, CT, USA41.308274 -72.92788350000000741.212838999999995 -73.089245 41.403709 -72.766522000000009tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-35929357757495975442014-06-13T11:30:00.000-07:002015-04-03T22:21:23.063-07:006/13/2014 - Annual Judges MeetingThis 43 minute video provides a very short glimpse at the Connecticut Judicial Branch as the various speakers, including Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, share their views on the fiscal year about to end and the new one set to begin.<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="320" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=10375&autostart=false" width="400"></iframe></center><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Middletown, CT, USA41.5623209 -72.650648841.372188400000006 -72.9733723 41.7524534 -72.3279253tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-39903863581751469982014-04-14T09:01:00.000-07:002015-03-30T20:48:59.296-07:004/14/2014 - Public Hearing Supreme CourtOnce each year, a public hearing his held at the Supreme Court to hear from members of the Bar, as well as members of the public, regarding proposed rule changes and suggestions for further clarification of existing rules.<br />
<br />
The 2014 meeting saw a collection of interested citizens offer very specific suggestions to address a variety of perceived shortcomings in our courts at all levels. The hearing can be viewed on this page.<br />
<br />
<center>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="320" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=10140&autostart=false" width="400"></iframe></center>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-12344038566420931652014-03-13T17:00:00.000-07:002015-03-25T19:51:52.380-07:00Financial Incentives Have Undermined Ethics and JusticeThe following piece was written and submitted more than one year ago by a parent in response to an article written by Connecticut Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, appearing as an Op-Ed in <i>The Hartford Courant</i> newspaper, March 7, 2014, titled "<a href="http://articles.courant.com/2014-03-07/news/hc-op-rogers-connecticut-family-courts-conflict-re-20140307_1_family-court-mediation-cases" target="_blank">Reducing Contentious Family Court Cases Vital</a>." Although the reply below was sent to both <i>The Hartford Courant</i> and <i>The Connecticut Law Tribune</i>, neither published the piece (received by us on March 13, 2014). The father had also sent a copy directly to Chief Justice Rogers, but no response was ever received. We post the reply here exactly as received, with permission of the author:<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">"I
read with interest, sadness, and disbelief the recent Op-Ed penned by our
Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Honorable Chase T. Rogers. While
her article of March 7, 2014, opens by acknowledging the undeniable pain and
difficulty of court cases involving divorce and child custody, it fails to
address in any manner whatsoever the proverbial ‘elephant in the room’ – the
financial incentives at all levels which have undermined the system for decades,
enriching many of those working within, at the direct expense of the very
children the court claims they are so focused on protecting.</span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Rogers</span></span></st1:city></st1:place><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">
disagrees that the system is totally broken. I agree with her on that point.
The Connecticut Family Court appears to operate <u>precisely</u> the way it has
been designed, structured, and refined through rule changes to work with the
built-in financial incentives leading to somewhat obvious results. Far too many
families are being fleeced of their assets by attorneys who have honed the art
of gaming both their clients and the system. In many cases, the record reflects
that children are being used as pawns to prolong the conflict and increase the
number of hours that can be billed by a veritable army of cappos, many of whom
are members of the Connecticut Bar and hide behind doctrines of immunity or
otherwise rest easy knowing the groups tasked with review of attorney or
judicial grievance filings are staffed with insiders who have a proven track
record of protecting their own. </span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">To be fair, the
problem <u>does not</u> rest with all attorneys and all judges and all
court-appointed professionals, but the body of evidence is overwhelming to
support the assertion that it is certainly more than just a few rogue
individuals. The fact that some family court problems are finally being
addressed at all is NOT because the court decided to act on its own accord, but
because individual parents, desperately seeking answers to their own problems,
managed to assemble and protest – a process that is fundamental to the founding
of our country. </span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">While one of the
most notable problems garnering media attention in the last year is that of the
Guardians Ad Litem (GAL) and their questionable involvement in many family
cases, this is not the only legitimate issue that has been raised. Far too many
litigants have given public testimony citing a range of clear civil rights
violations, questionable use of incarceration by family court judges, denied
access to their children, blatant perjury and/or fraud ignored by the court,
favoritism toward counsel vs. self-represented litigants, and a host of
burdensome financial orders lacking factual or legal basis that have wrongfully
stripped many litigants of retirement savings, children’s college funds, and
homes – to say nothing of their dignity, credit ratings, and reputations within
their respective professions and communities.</span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In this writer’s
assessment, our Chief Justice would do well to remove her robe, as well as her
legal hat for a moment, and objectively consider what has driven so many parents
to speak out as they have. More importantly, she should consider the <u>far
greater numbers</u> who are afraid to speak out because they have seen and heard
of the retaliation that often follows. If she isn’t willing to acknowledge the
facts, and isn’t willing to consider the messages raised by parents, then
perhaps she’ll at least consider the points raised by those few members of the
Connecticut Bar who have been brave enough to risk their own careers by speaking
out against the dishonesty that they see occurring in court – actions that are
required under the Attorney’s Oath.</span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Several months ago,
I contacted the Judicial Branch seeking raw data to conduct a statistical
analysis into cases that go to appeal or certification. The very capable
individuals who handled my request could not have been more professional or
courteous in their response, but to my surprise, the data I was requesting had
never been requested before – by anyone – ever. Since I’m first at bat, it
appears I’ll have the privilege of funding the project (nearly $900).
</span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">One would think the
Judiciary Committee or our Chief Justice or Chief Court Administrator would want
and <u>need to know</u> things like:</span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">What percentage of appeals stem from
family matters?</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">What is the average duration of an
appeal?</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">What trends do the data suggest over
the last decade or two?</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">Which family court judges have the
most appeals filed?</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">Which family court judges have the
most reversals?</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">Are there statistical patterns that
might serve as early detection?</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">What percent of appeals involve
self-represented litigants?</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 39pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Symbol; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">·</span></span><span style="color: black; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri;">and so many other questions . . .
</span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">As the Judicial
Branch presses the legislature to approve funding for yet more insiders to
support their pilot program, I’d suggest the legislature respond by requiring
the Branch to be more transparent and accountable for the results of the money
already being spent. </span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt;">On February 26,
2014, prior to a vote on the re-appointment of family court judge Leslie Olear,
remarks about the family court system by State Senator Kevin Witkos accurately
described the heart of the issue, “We can’t always blame the system saying,
‘Well, they’re working within the system so there’s nothing we can do about
it.’ That’s not true . . . yes, we do have a systemic problem and we’ll deal
with that, but we also have to deal with the person that has the ability to take
action that’s not taking action, and while we say there’s going to be a hearing
in the judiciary committee sometime this legislative session, these people are
going back to court every single day, and their bills are getting larger, and
larger, and larger, and there’s one person in the courtroom that can stop that
from happening, and that’s the judge, but in my opinion, they’re allowing it to
continue.” In a earlier vote on the House floor, State Representative Edwin
Vargas drew correlations between </span><st1:place style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt;" w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">North Korea</st1:country-region></st1:place><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 12pt;"> and Connecticut Family
Court, suggesting practices whereby the divorce “industry” should be under a
Federal Investigation under the RICO Act.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The mission of the
Connecticut Judicial Branch, as reported on its’ web site is, “to serve the
interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a
fair, timely, efficient and open manner.” Further, “The judiciary is the
cornerstone of our democracy and, if the public is confident that our judges,
compensation commissioners, and family support magistrates have integrity, are
impartial, are independent, and act with propriety, the public will support the
judiciary as it functions within our legal system.” (Purpose of the Judicial
Review Council, established 1976).</span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The significant
increase in public testimony, appeals, and attorney and judicial grievances
should serve as ample evidence that the public has lost confidence in the
mission and performance of the judiciary. To regain that confidence, the public
needs to see real evidence and action that the system is willing to police
itself and make meaningful, swift changes that are truly in the best interests
of our children."</span></span><span style="color: black;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT 06106, USA41.7623164 -72.683143141.6675684 -72.8445046 41.857064400000006 -72.5217816tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-46270668455838062002014-02-13T14:06:00.000-08:002015-03-25T21:17:00.753-07:00Looks Like We Made It!<div style="text-align: justify;">
This may be a rather inauspicious start, but it must begin somewhere. So, as Barry Manilow sang in his 1976 hit - Looks Like We Made It. Our early blog postings have been infrequent, but most certainly not indicative of our lack of interest in the topic. We will strive to share the many emails and articles we've received from around the state of Connecticut and even some from outside the borders of 'the Constitution State.' Our Trial Courts, Appellate Court, and Supreme Court have certainly become a profitable business empire for many members of the Connecticut Bar, but are they doing the job for the average citizen or serving their own self interest. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Hope you will find our content thoughtful and please remember, whether you agree or disagree with our perspective, we do encourage you to share you point of view as commentary to our posts. If, however, you step beyond the bounds of constructive debate, please don't be surprised when your comments are removed from this site. Remember your ABCs . . . Always Be Courteous!</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkPx5epbwyq4LgsXaZG3_vBWOWHbrFSoEuK3VkB17kHAZgfJK1o7drm5sZX8foAfXQZ20svz5UH1cIJ0Q-s4sXzkkDBL2jdaXCq5W15ypbLk6i3MfZJumLgjxDO3BVpjru0Y1Nmf88J50/s1600/ct_supreme_court_closeup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Connecticut Supreme Court Hartford CT" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkPx5epbwyq4LgsXaZG3_vBWOWHbrFSoEuK3VkB17kHAZgfJK1o7drm5sZX8foAfXQZ20svz5UH1cIJ0Q-s4sXzkkDBL2jdaXCq5W15ypbLk6i3MfZJumLgjxDO3BVpjru0Y1Nmf88J50/s1600/ct_supreme_court_closeup.jpg" height="420" title="Connecticut Supreme Court (Justice - Close-up)" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Close up of the statues on the front-right corner of the Supreme Court Building in Hartford, Connecticut</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-89228208941250734102014-01-09T13:00:00.000-08:002015-04-03T22:15:24.238-07:001/09/2014 - Public Hearing of GAL Task Force<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;">On July 12, 2013, the Connecticut Legislature approved Substitute House Bill No. 6685 (Special </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;">Act No. 13-24), AN ACT ESTABLISHING A TASK FORCE TO STUDY LEGAL DISPUTES INVOLVING THE CARE AND CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILDREN. </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;">After appointing two GALs as co-chairs and naming other Task Force members, </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;">meetings commenced in October 2013. Meetings on 10/31/2013, 11/26/2013, 12/10/2013, and 12/19/2013, were followed by a public hearing on 1/09/2014. Nearly one hundred parents turned out to give testimony about the issues surrounding Guardian ad litems (GALs) and questionable billing techniques, abusive court appointments, and a range of other acts detailing divorce industry corruption operating from within the <a href="http://www.ctfamilycourt.com/" target="_blank">Connecticut Family Court</a> system itself.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Several parents detailed conflicts of interest regarding directors and members of an organization which had run illegally in Connecticut, the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/134247461/AFCC-CT-Judicial-Branch-Taxpayer-Funded-GAL-Training-Boon#scribd" target="_blank">Association of Family and Conciliation Courts</a> (AFCC). Three judges of the Superior Court were serving on the Board of Directors of the AFCC - Judge Lynda Munro (Chief Administrative Family Judge), Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone, and Judge Gerard I. Adelman who was presiding over the Regional Family Trial Docket (RFTD) at Middletown. </span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<center><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="320" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=9782&autostart=false" width="400"></iframe></span></center><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The <a href="http://www.commdiginews.com/life/questions-over-conflicts-of-interest-need-answered-by-connecticut-court-employees-6383/" target="_blank">Connecticut Commission on Judicial Ethics</a> issued an opinion detailing this troubling conflict of interest. That and other issues about <a href="http://www.commdiginews.com/life/questions-over-conflicts-of-interest-need-answered-by-connecticut-court-employees-6383/" target="_blank">Connecticut Court employees and conflicts of interest</a> were detailed in an article by Massachusetts reporter <a href="http://www.commdiginews.com/author/anne-stevenson/" target="_blank">Anne Stephenson</a>. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://ctfamilycourt.com/task-force-care-custody-minor-children.php" target="_blank"><b><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">GAL TASK FORCE MEMBERS</span></b></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.google.com/#q=%22sharon+dornfeld%22+OR+%22sharon+wicks+dornfeld%22+connecticut+-bono+-plus.google.com+-lawyers.com+-lawyer.com+-avvo.com" target="_blank">Sharon Dornfeld</a>, Esq. (a.k.a. <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=%22sharon+dornfeld%22+OR+%22sharon+wicks+dornfeld%22+connecticut+-bono+-plus.google.com+-lawyers.com+-lawyer.com+-avvo.com" target="_blank">Sharon Wicks Dornfeld</a>) - Co-Chair</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.google.com/#q=%22sue+cousineau%22+OR+%22susan+cousineau%22+connecticut+-yellowpages.com+-peoplefinders.com+-avvo.com+-manta.com+-spokeo.com" target="_blank">Susan Cousineau</a>, Esq. - Co-Chair</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Edwin Vargas, State Representative (D-Hartford)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Minnie Gonzalez, State Representative (D-Hartford)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Linda Allard, Esq.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dr. Elizabeth S. Thayer</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dr. Robert A. Horwitz</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Judge Thomas Weismueller (Ret.)</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Joseph J. DiTunno</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jennifer Verraneault</span></li>
</ul><div><br />
</div>Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-19927471538863486332013-05-21T11:00:00.000-07:002016-05-19T19:42:01.087-07:00CT Supreme Court Upholds Litigation Privilege<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In one of the more disturbing opinions to be released from the Connecticut Supreme Court in recent years, the matter of <i>Simms v. Seaman</i>, 308 Conn. 523 (2013) has far-reaching implications, both for litigants as well as for the attorneys who practice in Connecticut courtrooms.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;">Argued on Sept. 19, 2012 by New Haven Attorney John Williams, the decision for SC 18839 was officially published on May 21, 2013. For several years, Mr. Robert A. Simms </span><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;">challenged whether or not attorney's should be protected by 'absolute immunity' (e.g. the <i>litigation privilege</i>) in instances of fraud or misconduct or if they can be held liable for damages in a suit brought forth by an adverse party.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 17.5px;">It appears that Justice Palmer is the lone voice of reason (and ethics) on the Connecticut Supreme Court, authoring a dissenting opinion that actually requires honesty. Imagine that! </span> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Hartford, CT, USA41.763711099999988 -72.68509319999998341.668963099999985 -72.846454699999981 41.85845909999999 -72.523731699999985tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-69103516951207122632012-06-15T16:47:00.000-07:002016-05-06T17:09:35.325-07:00Official Coverage from CT-N (Annual Judges Meeting 2012)As discussed in an earlier post, the Annual Judges Meeting was held on June 15, 2012 at the Middletown Superior Courthouse, Middletown, Connecticut. The opening remarks by Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers can be found at this <a href="https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/Speech/Rogers_JudgesAnnual_061512.pdf" target="_blank">Judicial Branch PDF file location</a>. Following is a presentation by Chief Court Administrator, Judge Barbara Quinn.<br />
<br />
The official coverage of the event, courtesy of CT-N, appears below.<br />
The entire running time of this video is just over 48 minutes.<br />
<br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" width="400" height="320" scrolling="no" src="http://ct-n.com/ctn_stream.asp?odID=7902&autostart=false"></iframe><br />
</center>Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Middletown, CT 06457, USA41.5623209 -72.650648841.372188400000006 -72.9733723 41.7524534 -72.3279253tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7538302056854954451.post-31908129561299109522012-06-15T11:30:00.000-07:002015-04-03T22:14:29.938-07:006/15/2012 - Annual Judges Meeting<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">The Annual Judges Meeting of 2012 began with a 10-minute presentation by Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers. While the total video length below is just shy of 27 minutes, the portion featuring Connecticut's Chief Justice lamenting about the problems of self represented litigants in Connecticut courtrooms is just over 9 minutes in length.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><b><u><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">Video Time: 00:15 – 00:52 of 09:50 (Total video 26:43)</span></u></b><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">“As you know probably better than anyone, the number one challenge we face is the number of self represented parties continues to grow beyond what any of us could have anticipated. We see them across the board, primarily in family and civil cases, but also in criminal matters and now in the Supreme and Appellate Courts doing arguments.” </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">“The fact is the explosion of self represented parties is no longer a trend. What we have is a national phenomenon that’s not gonna go away and requires a proactive response by the Branch. And just to reinforce for a second that this is a national problem, not a <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Connecticut</st1:state></st1:place> problem.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="1" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Oz-KuBQfqE0?rel=0" width="640"></iframe></center><br />
<b style="text-align: justify;"><u><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">Video Time: 01:23 – 01:34 of 09:50</span></u></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"> “. . . So, what’s the problem with these numbers? The blunt answer is the judicial system is based on a model where lawyers advocate for their clients…”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"> </span><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">“Lawyers are struggling to maintain their clientele while at the same time, we’re confronting an influx of people who in the past would have hired lawyers.”</span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">Video Time: 08:30 – 09:05 of 09:50</span></u></b><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div><span style="font-family: Tahoma; text-align: justify;">“Finally, legislation passed this session increased certain court fees to provide funds directly for the Branch’s technology revolving fund. Having a stable and reliable funding source for technology will enable us to plan and implement many technology projects . . . most notably, the expansion of Digital Audio Recordings to all of our courtrooms, and this will enable the Branch to make audio recordings of proceedings available to the bar and the public on the day of the proceedings and ultimate reduce the time it takes to produce a transcript and accelerate the appellate process.”</span>Pat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678743252356028793noreply@blogger.com0Middletown, CT, USA41.5623209 -72.650648841.372188400000006 -72.9733723 41.7524534 -72.3279253