CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS: Thank you very much.
Jane
Doe No. 1?
(Pause
in the proceedings.)
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: Good morning.
MS.
JANE DOE NO. 1: Good morning,
Justices. My name is Jane Doe. I am a citizen of the state of Connecticut
and I will be commenting on video conferencing in regard to Rule No. 23-68.
On
November 2, 2010, Superior Court Judge Michael Sheldon delivered an eloquent
defense of why video conference hearings, if challenged in the federal court,
would need withstand a federal constitutional challenge.
On
December 20, 2010, Judge Sheldon capitulated on his position objecting to the
adoption of teleconferencing rules and voted in favor of them. When Justice Peter Zarella delivered his own
reprise of the history of the Rules Committee before he handed the baton as
chair of the Rules Committee to Justice Dennis Eveleigh. Fifteen months later, Superior Court Judge
Michael Shelden became an Appellate Court judge fulfilling the promise Justice
Zarella made to Judge Shelden if he endorsed the Video Conferencing Rule 23-68.
Despite
the Constitution of the United States protecting the writ of habeas corpus as a
constitutionally defined privilege in Article I, Section 9, in the
Constitution, there are no protected federal constitutional rights in this
state. If these comments sound rather
harsh, then these prepared remarks are carrying the desired message.
In
a recent Appellate Court oral argument, there was the use of video conference
hearings in a hearing in which an incarcerated, self-represented party was
denied the access to any paperwork prior to the hearing. In the oral argument questioning, one judge
actually suggested that the issue regarding the use of teleconferencing --
sorry, video conferencing, was moot because later hearings conducted included
the presence of the self-represented party in court.
The
absurdity of this legal argument was apparent to me as an observer; in other
words, that if legal proceedings conducted using video conferencing does not involve
a final proceeding of the trial court, then it doesn’t matter if due process
and equal protection rights are obliterated.
The
Appellate Court is -- the Appellate Court’s argument suggested that the
constitution has no applicability in court proceedings in Connecticut as long
as the final hearing is constitutionally -- sorry. The Appellate Court’s argument suggesting
that the Constitution has no applicability in court proceedings in Connecticut,
as long as the final hearing is constitutionally sound, is pure circumlocution.
Accordingly,
having also been a victim myself of the abusive utilization of teleconferencing
hearings without my agreement, I am suggesting the following modification of
Connecticut Practice Book Rule 23-68 to add the following additional caveat
emptors:
Additions
to the Practice Book Rule 23-68(e): No
self-represented party who is incarcerated can be ordered to participate in a
videoconferencing hearing without written consent to be secured seven days in
advance of such a hearing. If the
self-represented party refuses to provide consent for such a videoconferencing
hearing, the trial court is provided no authority to deny a writ of habeas
corpus.
(f)
In the event that an incarcerated self-represented party consents to a
videoconferencing hearing, all motions, papers, evidence to be considered or
reference by any party in such a videoconference proceeding shall be provided
to the inmate at the correctional facility by certified mail no later than six
days before such proceedings.
(g)
All Superior Court judges who have access to the use of such videoconferencing
equipment shall be required to be trained for the use of videoconference
hearings by attending training classes conducted at a correctional facility
equipped with video conference equipment.
There
are simply no circumstances in which judicial discretion should be utilized in
order for videoconference hearings proceedings as a means to create a
prejudicial judicial proceeding against a self-represented party.
Thank
you very much.
CHIEF
JUSTICE ROGERS: Thank you.
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