CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS: Monica Fore?
(Pause
in the proceedings.)
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: Good morning.
MS.
FORE: Good morning, Justices. I would like to read just a short statement that
I made. I put the flag on here and what
I’m stating is declaration of unconstitutionality.
Connecticut
Practice Book and forms are written for judges and attorneys, not pro se
litigants, and I will provide a copy of this to all the judges. I have a few copies but I didn’t have enough.
It
says: To the Honorable Judges of the
State of Connecticut. The Connecticut
Practice Book and forms are written for attorneys and not for pro se litigants. According to the current written procedures,
the Court implies that a pro se litigant is to be held to the same standards of
a lawyer. This is in clear violation of
the Constitution of the United States and federal laws as it deprives pro se
litigants of their fundamental right of due process.
Pro
se litigants are not getting their fair day in court, as they are not standing
before an impartial tribunal because of the constitutional violations. Judges and attorneys are professionals and
the rules apply to rules of professional conduct.
Many
pro se litigants have not attended college and some have not graduated high
school. Many pro se litigants cannot
afford attorneys to help them with their cases.
The Court often gets frustrated with pro se litigants and many of the
decisions of the Court reflect the judge’s frustration.
These
acts also affect a pro se litigant in the appellate process, as many of their
cases are thrown out and based upon the rules of professional standard that the
pro se litigant did not apply. The State
of Connecticut needs to find a way to make its courts pro se written friendly;
that is, to make the rules of practice in a manner that a pro se litigant can
easily understand and find without having to guess at its meaning.
This
is especially important in family and housing court, as these cases affect the
pro se litigants life, liberty, and happiness.
Pro se litigants also do not receive the Connecticut Law Journal to find
out what is coming out new from the courts, such as new case studies, statutes,
and rules of the court.
As
stated in the Connecticut Practice Book, explanatory notes, the Superior Court
rules as organized hearing were first published in the Connecticut Law Journal
dated July 29, 1997. This 2013 edition
of the Practice Book contains amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct,
Superior Court Rules, and the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The amendments were published in the
Connecticut Law Journals dated January 17, 2012; July 24, 2012; July 31, 2012;
and September 11, 2012, and November -- and so on.
It
is further argued that the four-minute outline below shows proof that the
Connecticut Practice Book and forms are not written with the pro se litigant in
mind.
And
what I did was make a front copy of the Connecticut Practice Book and nowhere when
it’s talking to the litigants in the case does it say anything about pro se
rules; and, Judge Rogers, I watched your video with the meeting of the judges
and I also reviewed the ABA online and they’re saying pro se litigants are flooding the courts. I’ve also attended a lot of the joint
committee on judiciary hearings and pro se litigants are coming and saying
what’s happening in the courts and that they’re not getting their fair day.
And
what the issue is, is that people really don’t understand their rights and when
you’re trying to follow that -- the book, it’s like you’re reading this and you
found this, but I also work with lawyers.
I also -- I have my degree in certain things. I work with families. I have my credentials in family, and what I’m
finding and when I’m talking to families or lawyers are calling me for help, is
that, you know, I got this case; can you help me help this person out? They can’t afford an attorney. You know, you can work under me or whatever,
and I’m looking at the person’s paperwork.
You
have a serious case before you right now.
I can’t -- I don’t want to mention her name, but it’s a foreclosure
matter, and when I’m reviewing the paperwork, it’s not articulated in a way
that it’s understandable to the judges.
So you can see the frustration why the Appellate Court and everyone is
throwing the case back is because it’s hard to understand.
So
even in housing court, people are being thrown on the streets and before a
person is put out on the street, they should have a fair hearing. A fair hearing is not saying -- in housing
court, saying that, oh, you got a summons, come put your appearance in, and the
clerk gives you the next paper saying special defense.
That’s
not fair to them because people don’t know that there’s, you know, things that
they can put into their case; they can
write motions or objections. They don’t
know that so they -- after they lose their case, they try to run over to the
Appellate Court. It’s not gonna happen.
Children
are being taken away from families;
money is -- it’s costing these families significant. People are being, you know, deprived of their
rights to get their children -- I mean,
child support cases. People are being
locked up in jail. So there should be a
better format, especially, you know, when it comes down to people who don’t
have the, you know, lawyer skills, who didn’t go to college.
So,
you know, not just making a complaint, I’m sure a group of us would be glad to
sit together and work with the judges as pro se litigants to come up with a
plan to make our courts friendlier, and, no, we’re not taking over the courts;
we just don’t have the money to pay for lawyers.
Thank
you.
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: Thank you very much.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:
http://www.no-wackileaks.com/
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:
http://www.no-wackileaks.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment