PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

THE ROLE OF SOME JEWISH PEOPLE IN FAMILY COURT ABUSE. HOW CULPABLE ARE THEY?

In a recent inquiry, one reader asked the following question, "Elizabeth, why do you promote an anti-semite like Paul Boyne? Your father was a Holocaust survivor. Shame doesn't begin to describe what you should feel." That is a good question for Elizabeth, although Cathy will be the person on behalf of the "Divorce in Connecticut" blog to respond, particularly since she formulated the "bigotry free" policy that is fundamental to this blog. 

For one thing, Elizabeth Richter would strongly object to any suggestion that she has promoted anti-semitic writing.  This is simply not true.

Paul Boyne has not been anti-semitic.  What he has done is simply point out the major role that Jewish professionals have played in the corruption and injustice of family court. Pointing out the truth of what is going on, does not constitute anti-semitism.  

Moving forward, as this reader points out, it is a well known fact that Elizabeth Richter's father was a holocaust survivor.  However, this tragic past so deeply rooted in the Jewish heritage did not stop any of her Jewish lawyers or the Jewish Judges and mental health professionals in her case from abusing her and mistreating her. 

It also did not stop them from stealing, or rather I think the better word would be looting, the holocaust reparations money which her family had received from Germany as compensation for their sufferings. For instance, Attorney Elliot Nuremberg literally stole $25,000 from Elizabeth's family when he represented her during the divorce and then did nothing in return for it. Subsequently, he deliberately went out to slander her reputation and lied to the court about his actions so that he could get away with it. Now he has absconded to New York where he is apparently working as a real estate attorney.  

This is just for starters.  

As Elizabeth Richter has stated frequently, she incurred $200,000 in fees in order protect her custody of the children. 

There are, most unfortunately, and Paul Boyne points this out, as do others who are not being anti-semitic but are just observing, a good, solid chunk of family court professionals committing these crimes in family court who are Jewish. 

More than any other group, you would think that people of Jewish origin would be particularly sensitive and aware in the face of the horrific human rights violations that are taking place in family court. Rather than aiding and abetting and participating in these crimes, as they are doing, they should be protesting it. They should put a stop to it, and they have the power to do so, simply in terms of numbers. More than any other group, because of the past history, they have an obligation to oppose and to root out these kinds of criminal actions. Instead they are eagerly joining in and, from how it looks, there are a higher than normal percentage of Jewish people involved. 

I also want to point out that not only was Elizabeth's father a victim of the holocaust, for the better part, her father's entire family was wiped out. The two grandparents Elizabeth was named after--Grandma Elizabeth and Grandma Alice--also died in concentration camps. That whole side of the family gone--whole albums full of happy, smiling, alive human beings, gone forever. 

This is why the heritage of the concentration camps looms so greatly in Elizabeth's life and imagination.  This is why Elizabeth has devoted the vast majority of her life to the cause of social justice.

Not only did the holocaust, for Elizabeth, occur in her father's generation, it occurred in her own in that many people have equated her experience at Mclean Psychiatric Hospital as being similar to that of being in a concentration camp, and then Elizabeth has drawn a comparison between the holocaust and her own personal experience of family court. 

So in three separate ways, Elizabeth has had experience of holocaust. 

Yet, she continues to speak out and to protest against those who perpetrate these holocausts. 

Every Jewish citizen in the State of Connecticut who lives with the past heritage of the holocaust should be standing up along with her, in fact has a central and fundamental moral obligation to do so. 

Every one who styles him or herself a Christian should also be speaking out against the crimes going on against vulnerable parents and children in family court--that goes without saying. 

Yet none of these folks are doing anything. Instead, they are sitting are their hands going "Who me?" 

This blog has commented on the Christians' lack of action as well. So Paul holds Jewish people to account--Cathy goes after the Christians. Both groups absolutely deserve all the vituperation they are getting. 

Just to be clear, for both Jews and Christians, these are the dictates of your God which you profess to believe in as follows: 

Proverbs 31:8-9, "Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy." 

Psalm 82:3-4, "Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” 

Proverbs 24:11-12, "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?" 

Zechariah 7:10, "Do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor, and let none of you devise evil against another in your heart.”  

As I have reported previously on the blog, I am aware that Catholic Charities in CT has regularly been receiving each year $1 million from the CT Judicial Branch.  I am aware that other Catholic Churches have received additional money from the CT Judicial Branch.  It is not surprising, under the circumstances, that to many family court victims, these considerable sums of money given to the Church come across as bribes in exchange for silence. 

The holocaust of family court, the injustice, the brutality, the torture of family court victims is happening right before your eyes and all people of faith have an obligation to do something about it. This blog will continue to point this out. If you want to call doing so anti-semitism, or call it hating on Christians, whatever you want to call it--fine. Prove me wrong by stepping up to the plate and fighting family court injustice and caring for its victims. For a religious person this is a fundamental obligation.  So far, I don't see anyone either in Churches or in Synagogues taking that responsibility.

Holding people to account regarding their moral obligations is not the same as being anti-semitic or anti-Christian.

Related Articles:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2010/09/churches-and-all-that-love-one-another.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2016/02/lets-get-honest-ct-judicial-branch.html

Thursday, June 22, 2017

FAMILY COURT ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAVE WORSE REPUTATIONS THAN PEDOPHILES!

It was tough to read the May 12, 2017 "CT Law Tribune" article in connection to the Dianne Hart-D'Amato case, particularly as a person who has walked in Dianne's shoes and experienced what she has experienced.  It was angering to read Dianne, and by inference all self represented parties in family court, spoken of as "a disgruntled litigant."  

I wonder how attorneys and judges would feel if I spoke of them automatically as crooked attorneys or crooked judges simply by virtue of the fact that I do not agree with them.  It is not often a bully pulpit such as "The CT Law Tribune" exists as a means to tongue lash the people a particular profession does not like.   

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

THE GUTLESS CONNECTICUT LAW TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD 2017! ANONYMOUS NO LONGER!

Joette Katz, Chair 
Robert Mitchell, Vice Chair

Members:

Proloy K. Das
Felice Duffy
Robert Farr
Eugene Fidell
Mary Galvin
Elizabeth Gilson
Rachel Goldberg
Wesley W. Horton
Jocelyn Kennedy
David King
Daniel J. Klau
James B. Lyon
Eugene Marconi
Sean McElligott
Dwight H. Merriam
Dennis C. Murphy
Alan Neigher
Louis R. Pepe
Michelle Querijero
Eugene Riccio
Thomas B. Scheffey
Mark Soboslai
James F. Sullivan
Cecil Thomas
Thomas J. Ullman
Diane Whitney
Steven Wizner

Sunday, June 11, 2017

CT LAW TRIBUNE RUN BY A GUTLESS EDITORIAL BOARD? SEE ATTY NORM PATTIS COMMENTARY!

A Gutless Editorial Board


A welcome and not altogether unexpected piece of news arrived in the mail. It was from the Grievance Committee. The panel found no further need to investigate a complaint lodged against me. I filed the complaint myself.
I learned a long time ago never to run from a fight. Meet the accusation head on. If you don’t do so, the accuser is empowered. Far better to turn the accuser’s finger back into his own eye, as I do here to the editorial board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

PUBLIC HEARING ON NOMINATIONS FOR JUDGES!

Judiciary Committee 
PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA
Monday, May 22, 2017 
9:00 AM in Room 2C of the LOB 

NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW


I. To be an Appellate Court Judge:
1. The Honorable Nina F. Elgo of West Hartford
2. The Honorable Maria Araujo Kahn of Cheshire

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

CHANGES TO CT PRACTICE BOOK SEC. 25-60 RE FAMILY SERVICES EVALUATIONS PUT LITIGANTS AT RISK!

PAGE 42-43 SUGGESTED PRACTICE BOOK REVISION-THIS WOULD BE ADDED TO SECTION 25-60 ON FAMILY COURT PRACTICE AND POTENTIALLY RESTRICT LITIGANTS' ACCESS TO VITAL INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ARGUE THEIR CASES!  SEE BELOW THE SUGGESTED ADDITION:


"(d) The file compiled by the Family Services Unit in the course of preparing any mediation report or conflict resolution conference report shall not be available for inspection or copying unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority. The file compiled by the Family Services Unit in the course of preparing an evaluation or study conducted pursuant to Section 25-61 that has been completed and filed with the clerk in accordance with subsection (b) shall be available for inspection only to counsel of record, guardians ad litem, and the parties to the action to the extent permitted by any applicable authorization for release of information; and further provided that copies of documents, notes, information or other material in the file shall only be provided to such individuals if they make the request in writing and certify that it is requested for legitimate purposes of trial preparation and/or trial proceedings in the case in which the evaluation or study was filed. For purposes of this section, the word ‘‘file’’ shall include any documents, notes, information or other material retained by the Family Services Unit in any format.

(e) Any information or copies of the file disclosed pursuant to this section shall not be further disclosed unless otherwise ordered by the judicial authority or as otherwise authorized in this section." 

THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S COMMENTARY ON THIS SECTION'S INCLUSION:

COMMENTARY: The changes to this section clarify what information from Family Services files compiled in connection with the reports, evaluations and studies under this section are subject to inspection and copying and by whom, to whom those copies can be provided, and for what purpose can they be requested. The changes also provide that any information or copies disclosed may not be further disclosed except as otherwise ordered or authorized.* 

*In other words you can be subjected to endless, unnecessary obstruction to your access to vital evidence in your case.  While issues of confidentiality regarding certain documents is important, I think the wording of this revision is so careless it could end up restricting family court litigants from accessing important information they need for their own cases.  If the purpose of this revision is to safeguard confidentiality, it must be rewritten to ensure that it does not inadvertently end up cutting off the parties themselves from being able to review important documents in their cases.  As it looks now, the way this revision is worded, the latter could very easily happen.