JOHN DOE 3'S TESTIMONY AT THE MARCH 26, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you very much.   John Doe No. 3.

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 3:  Good morning, Justices.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 3:  I stand before you today as John Doe No. 3.  I am a citizen of the state of Connecticut.  I choose to remain anonymous because I have been subjected to repeated retaliations and discriminations and the court system of the state of Connecticut, in my opinion, directly attributed to my disability.

               When I was contacted by a member of this parent group, I immediately accepted the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the manner in which those of us with disabilities continue to be mistreated by the court system of the State of Connecticut.  All you need to do is look at the public notice of today’s meeting.  Was there any reference on the website of the posting of notice of this meeting that there would be any procedure set forth for any accommodations for those who needed their due process because of their disability?

               There was no effort made whatsoever by Attorney Melissa Farley to respond in a prompt fashion to the requested accommodations for those who have physical handicaps for today’s public meeting.  It was only after a day of waiting and a follow-up phone conversation and an email was sent to one individual within our group that it was able to transmit certain information in regards to today’s public hearing.

               Most people see me and my disability and it’s somewhat easy to perceive.  As my mother always used to say, I have it easy; mine is obvious, but there are many with disabilities that are not.  I am here for just not myself and the obvious, but for the concern of the level of insensitivity for those whose disabilities are not visible.  They include those who have great fears of public speaking, who have a parallel disability and inability to articulate their opinions in writing.

               The ADA Act contains many official definitions of a disability, qualifications pursuant to federal law.  In a release -- in a recent letter sent by Attorney Martin Levin (phonetic) suggesting he had some sort of right to limit the request under the Freedom of Information Act concerning communications about the number of AD accommodation requests or to provide types of accommodations that have been made available for some but not all agencies in the state of Connecticut.

               The judiciary of the State of Connecticut has now been sued by one litigant in federal court for failure for the courts of the state of Connecticut who refuse to understand or accept that speaking and stating -- that speaking in court for some creates enormous anxiety.  The courts in Connecticut universally refuse to accept the economic challenges for those who are disabled and assessing income potential in support of their obligations. 

               I was wrongly incarcerated for a period of time for which a judge was unable to see I was unable to meet certain guidelines, though, that he truly knew that I was -- he had qualified me unemployed at the time and refused to hear a motion for modification that was on the table for some nine months. 

               In the challenging economic environment for many citizens, the courts in the state of Connecticut continue to show many accommodations for those who depend on love, care, and companionship of our children as an emotional anchor.  Courts disable our access in connection with our children who see how hard it is to work to maintain an appropriate connection with a lifeline of love which is intrinsic to the integrity of familial association.

               Yes, life is challenging for those with physical disabilities, as it is many, but those who have other learning and developmental challenges as a lifetime of challenges also are deserving of accommodations here.  Why do these hearings have such a stringent requirement that should eliminate the ability for someone who arrives late to the procedures due to inclement- weather-like mornings or to be removed because of the ability to address a group of senior judges of court who sets the policies?  Why isn’t there a morning session or perhaps an afternoon session that would allow parents who have children to care for, responsibility for disabled children who require special accommodations, to arrive on time to have opinion to choose which time period might be more convenient for them to attend the hearing?

               Isn’t it compelling testimony that the ADA subcommittee of the judiciary met last April 17, 2009, and the minutes of that meeting are still listed as draft meetings -- minutes?  I will wrap and I will see you once again in May for your thoughts.  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/  

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/molly-doe-1s-testimony-at-march-25-2013.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/mike-does-testimony-at-march-25-2013-51.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/jane-doe-no-1s-testimony-at-march-25.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-does-testimony-at-march-25-2013-51.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-doe-provides-his-testimony-on.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/04/comment-on-ms-monica-fores-testimony.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/04/monica-fore-provides-her-testimony-on.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/04/attorney-dan-lynchs-testimony-at-march.html