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.
Showing posts with label ADVOCACY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ADVOCACY. Show all posts

Thursday, March 13, 2014

MARK SARGENT RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY KIMBERLY KNOX, CBA PRESIDENT, AND HER COMMENTS REGARDING JUDGE LESLIE OLEAR!

Opinion: CBA Defense Of Family Law System Is 'Misguided'
03/13/2014

Editor's note: The author of this letter is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a former clerk for a federal judge and a former tax lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York City. Last fall, he was involved in legal proceedings in which he and his lawyer challenged the fees and conduct of a GAL involved in his divorce case.

To The Editor:

I read with great interest the recent column ("In Defense Of Family Judges, Connecticut Law Tribune, March 10) by Connecticut Bar Association president Kimberly Knox about the recent debate in the General Assembly regarding the reappointment of Judge Leslie Olear and, more broadly, the need to reform our state's very flawed family court system. While I was not in Hartford for the debate, I followed the matter closely via CT-N. I have no personal experience with Judge Olear, and I share Ms. Knox's concerns about maintaining the integrity of the reappointment process. But I also believe we should maintain the integrity of the public discussion of these issues.

While Ms. Knox wrote that Judge Olear "[b]y all accounts" "is the type of judge that Connecticut deserves and needs," the debate was to the contrary. State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and other legislators spoke of having received a large number of complaints from parents about Judge Olear. In the debate and in related communications, legislators and parents attributed the scarcity of formal complaints about the judge to fears of retribution and frustration with a judicial complaint process that parents view as a waste of time.

Likewise, Judge Olear's positive evaluations from the Judicial Branch are not meaningful if, as I understand, such evaluations are based on lawyers who do business before her but not the pro se litigants who appear in more than 80 percent of family law matters. Sen. Jason Welch based his opposition to Judge Olear on a couple of questionable opinions she issued which were reversed on appeal. And parents protesting Judge Olear distributed flyers detailing concerns specific to the judge. In short, many parties expressed sincere concerns about Judge Olear.

Ms. Knox wrote that courts "occasionally involve guardians ad litem or other professionals to protect the children's interests." Testimony before the Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving Care and Custody of Children and statements by legislators indicate that, in fact: judges routinely assign GALs and an army of other individuals who purport to act "in the bests interest of the children;" that, in practice judges permit those individuals to exploit financially — and even bankrupt — families in difficult situations; and that such individuals and the judges who supposedly supervise them are not accountable in any fashion.

While Ms. Knox wrote that "[t]hose individuals have a thankless job," in fact those individuals have extremely lucrative jobs. Ms. Knox's defense of the current system is a misguided effort to protect those lucrative positions notwithstanding the resulting harm to families.

Ms. Knox's discussion of the task force established to review family court matters was, at best, misleading. The task force was formed to advise the legislature (and not, as Ms. Knox suggests, the Judicial Branch) about three specific issues. However, its hearings revealed the need for complete reform of our family law system.

As Rep. Edwin Vargas noted in the Olear debate, the task force was chaired by two professional GALs and consisted largely of divorce industry workers who have a vested interest in preserving the current system. Ms. Knox suggested that the legislators wait for the Judicial Branch to consider and act upon a task force report written by divorce industry workers. Instead, the legislators should reject the institutions that created the current family law system that destroys so many Connecticut families, including the organization Ms. Knox purports to represent.•

Mark Sargent.
Westport

Monday, February 24, 2014

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

WRCH LITE 100.5 INTERVIEW ON THE TASK FORCE!

Coalition Members Jennifer Verraneault and Michelle Tolmoff take to the air waves and discuss the abuses of family court and talk about family court reform.  See the link below:

http://wrch.cbslocal.com/2014/01/19/spotlight-jennifer-verraneualt-michelle-tolmoff-advocates-for-children-families/

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

MARY SEGUIN WRITES TO FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY ABOUT THE MISTREATMENT OF SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS IN FAMILY COURT!

Dear Director James Comey,

May I provide living witness to Ms. Lori Handrahan's report of epidemic family court corruption which is certainly pervasive within the jurisdictional territory for which the Boston office is responsible.  We accept your oaths of office, and pursuant to which acceptance, we report the epidemic crimes of state civil family court administrators of federal social programs that are earmarked under federal congressional appropriations to aid victims of domestic violence and domestic incest by fathers against the children.  For example, incest is a codified crime under federal and all state statutes within the federal court first circuit that overlaps the USDOJ Boston headed jurisdictional territory.  When criminal reports of incest are made by protective mothers during the course of a civil no fault divorce, the civil state family court routinely, as a matter of official policy, fail/refuse to turn over to federal and state criminal authorities for investigation and prosecution.  Evidence of raw genitals that show physical force on the children, habitual domestic  sexual assault and battery that are criminally codified by all states and under federal criminal codes, are wantonly dismissed with deliberate indifference by state civil family court judges without turning over such physical evidence to the proper criminal authorities, as mandated by law, that is, codified civil law as well as common law.  This pattern and practice of wholesale epidemic state deliberate indifference refusing to enforce prohibitions against incest implicates a federal interest.

Incest, is an age old perverse criminal aberration that is as old as the dawn of mankind, that should not cause public officials to behave now as if this is some modern phenomena.  The word incest has been part of the English language for as long as the civilizations around the world have sought to conform to moral decency and prevent genetic disorder by criminally prohibiting incest, especially along linear family lineages.  By contrast, blarney phrases like "parental alienation" are modern fabrications in the civil family court vernacular that aid and abet the crime of incest.

Worse still, mothers who report crimes of incest are routinely retributed against by a civil codified limited jurisdiction court like family court, who refuse to turn over evidence of reports of crimes to criminal authorities like yourselves, and instead REMOVE the child in question from her protective custody, without any legally sufficient justification, with vernacular court con accusations of "parental alienation."  We all know a mother's rights to her child is a fundamental liberty right protected by the Bill of Rights, and in common law, motherhood is a God-given right of humanity, without whom there would be no birthing or direct care of human offspring.  In our system of laws and justice, no fundamental right is permitted to be removed, abridged or deprived by the government without proper cause, and especially not for the modern civil family court vernacular fabrication "parental alienation" in retaliation for the mother exercising her common law and Constitutional right of reporting the crime of incest, the age old crime, or any crime.
 
The aforesaid Deliberate indifference is motivated by pecuniary interests.  The mothers are placed in supervised visitation, under color of law, administered by state family court officials and funded by various federal programs earmarked and intended to provide social family services, that are under contract between the federal programs and the states. These social services should therefore be free, BUT not so.  It is an unregulated cottage industry where the visitation supervisor, a family court official, affiliate or subcontractor, who charges whatever rate she desires, all the while double dipping into federal funds for the supervised visitation under various federal programs.  That is a clear cut violation of embezzlement of federal program funds under false pretenses.  A federal interest is purely implicated and a USAG is required to take the case.  I am a first hand victim and living witness.  A Rhode Island GAL Lori Giarrusso demanded that I pay her $50,000 if I wanted to see my children, written in stone in a GAL Report and criminal RICO and Syndicate Scheme to deprive civil rights under color of law complaint I filed with the Boston FBI.  The reason for placing me in supervised visitation?  Because I took my daughters on a weekend trip out of state to Texas.  How was my mother's rights removed?  On ex-parte unstenographed "emergency" petition proceeding alleging merely that it was speculated that I worked out of state.

And when I filed the FBI complaint, what happened?  The Rhode Island family court judge Stephen Capineri sua sponte recused himself.  The RI Chief Judge of family Court Haiganush Bedrosian took my file for review in an administrative capacity, during which time I reported her and Rhode Island's routine incarceration and fine of disabled, minority and English as a second language children in family court's truancy court for status offenses in closed courts without stenographic recordings, concealed these incarcerations in order to continue receiving federal funding under the Juvenile  Justice Delinquent Prevention Act which funds programs administered by the state to deter states from jailing kids for status offenses.  In other words, I reported Bedrosian's policy of embezzling federal funds under false pretenses.  I spoke and reported directly to USDOJ Larry Fiedler, who confirmed I was the only person who made the criminal report.  The Providence Journal contacted me.  Within days of my report, Bedrosian initiated on ex parte domestic violence proceeding against me; I was remarried and 8 months pregnant on the verge of giving birth over 2,500 Miles away in Texas; she alleged I caused "fear of imminent physical harm" to a man 2,500 Miles away in Rhode Island in the first week of January 2011.  Hand written firmly in Bedrosian's handwriting on the ex parte domestic violence order is the Phrase "Protect GAL Report."  There is no federal program that funds prima facie state judiciary criminal fraud that "protect GAL Report" that contains the $50,000 ransom demand for supervised visitation through a Domestic Violence proceeding under the Violence Against Women Act or any other federal social programs, that embezzles in a pattern and practice ever more federal funds and programs, to harm families, children and mothers in syndicated RICO schemes, implicating a federal interest.  This identical ex parte temporary order was renewed consecutively each time upon such type of order's 21 day expiration, an accumulated over 30 times, from January 2011 to the present.  Really, the deplorable public display of a pattern and practice of state family court judiciary's epidemic embezzlement of federal funds is flagrant, with deliberate malice, not mere indifference.

During this federal deficit and debt ceiling debate and election year, and in the context of last year's federal shut down, it is incumbent upon federal law enforcement and the justice department to prosecute a pattern and practice of epidemic state embezzlement of federal funds and programs, motivated by pecuniary gain, and perversely executed by syndicate state judiciaries  unfit to govern.  We accept all of your oaths of office and expect accountability and your fiduciary duty to enforce incest, embezzlement of federal funds, RICO laws and the proper responsible handling of this criminal report/complaint.

Very Truly Yours,
Mary Seguin

Friday, March 1, 2013

STOP S.B. 374 FORCING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS ON YOUNG CHILDREN!

ACTION ALERT FROM THE FAMILY INSTITUTE OF CONNECTICUT

See link below for direct information from FIC:

https://www.votervoice.net/FICT/Campaigns/31018/Respond

Stop S.B. 374, Mandated Assessments of Children




In all the years FIC has been fighting for pro-family values at the state Capitol, we have never seen as invasive a bill as S.B. 374, An Act Requiring Behavioral Health Assessments for Children. This bill would mandate that public school children in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 and home-schooled children at ages 12, 14 and 17 be given behavioral health assessments, whether or not parents approve.


S.B. 374 will have a public hearing on Friday, March 8th at 11:00 A.M. at Wesleyan University. We need parents to be prepared, to attend the hearing and to help defeat this bill.


No one has the right to force children to have psychological evaluations that are against the will of their parents and possibly unnecessary. This bill may violate Connecticut's HIPPA privacy law. What does the government intend to do with these assessments? If a child gets a "bad" assessment, the state is empowered to do...what, exactly? What will the test be? How will it be administered? These and other questions remain unanswered by S.B. 374.


S.B. 374 is a significant attack on homeschooling and public school families, interference by the government in compelling the upbringing of a child, something the State Board of Education does not have the authority to do.

Here are four ways you can help FIC Action stop the Mandated Assessments Bill and protect our parental rights:


1) Use FIC's Grassroots Action Center to send an e-mail directly to your state senator and state representative by clicking on the link at the bottom of this message (then click "take action" at the bottom of the next screen). We have provided some basic points, but please either put the message in your own words or add a brief introduction and conclusion! Personalized and polite messages have a much greater impact. Let our legislators know that you oppose any bill that forces children to be "assessed" without their parents' permission.
 
 

2) Attend the public hearing and testify against S.B. 374. The Public Health Committee will hold a public hearing on Friday, March 8, 2013 at 11:00 A.M. at Beckham Hall, Wesleyan University, 55 Wyllys Avenue, Middletown.
 
The Committee is accepting electronic testimony via email at phc.testimony@cga.ct.gov.
 
Please submit electronic testimony no later than 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, March 7, 2013. If you are unable to submit electronic testimony, please submit 10 copies of written testimony at the time of sign-up. Sign-up for the hearing will begin at 9:00 A.M. on the Second Floor of Beckham Hall. The first hour of the hearing is reserved for Legislators, Constitutional Officers, State Agency Heads and Chief Elected Municipal Officials. Speakers will be limited to three minutes of testimony.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

"NOW" ANNOUNCES PASSAGE OF VAWA BILL!

Major Victory for All Women: House Passes Inclusive VAWA
Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill
February 28, 2013
 
With a resounding vote of 286-138, the House passed a bipartisan, inclusive reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This is a major victory for all women, including women in the LGBT community, Native American women, women on college campuses and immigrant women. NOW thanks the steadfast champions of VAWA in both the House and the Senate as well as the activists around the country who refused to give up on the countless women who will now be protected in this bill.
 
 
We should not have had to work so hard and for so long to get such a bill passed. Since its initial authorization in 1994, VAWA has rightly enjoyed bipartisan support -- until the last Congress, which failed to reauthorize VAWA for the first time in the bill's history. The House GOP leadership was responsible for this delay, introducing a regressive version of the bill in 2012 and again this year. But our friends on Capitol Hill would not back down, and we salute their courage and support.
 
 
While we celebrate today's victory, we must begin immediately on the hard work of ensuring that VAWA's authorized programs are fully funded. NOW calls on Congress to appropriate every last dollar authorized in this bill. Women's lives are on the line. How could we settle for anything less?

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

SUPPORT CHERYL MARTONE, LONG TIME PARENT'S RIGHTS ADVOCATE AS SHE STANDS UP FOR HERSELF AND HER SON!

COME JOIN OTHER ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT OF PARENTS' RIGHTS ADVOCATE, CHERYL MARTONE AT HER FAMILY COURT HEARING ON 12/13/12 AT 10:00 AM,  235 CHURCH ST. NEW HAVEN, CT. 3RD FLOOR.
 
In her own words, Cheryl describes her struggle:
 
"I have been violated many times by the Westbrook Middle School Principal Mr. House, the SDE, the CPS court in Middletown, CT.(Judge Stuart Bear, who is now in the Appeallate court, HMMM), the West HavenPD(assaulted by them and false reported by my son's fathers girlfiend to)GAL-Sue Cousineau, The Middletown Juvenile court Clerk- Kirsten NIchols Golden, troop F or Ftroop in Westbrook, DCF workers; Jeannine Weiss (Middletown),Nancy Kavanaugh(Norwich), and James Shea (Milford), there's more and everywhere I stand up for my child and I. Please support me at my family court hearing on 12/13/12 at 10AM 235 Church ST. New Haven, CT. 3rd floor and I will continue to support you. Contact me for details: ctparent@gmail.com"

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

MICHAEL NOWACKI, PARENTAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE CHALLENGES ILLEGAL VIOLATIONS OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!

BE THERE FOR MR. MICHAEL NOWACKI'S UPCOMING COURT DATE:  DECEMBER 18, 2012, 9:30AM AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, 141 CHURCH STREET IN NEW HAVEN
 
Have you ever had your constitutional or civil rights abused by a police department, a school district or a public official who has threatened your arrest if you entered public property without permission?

On December 18, at 9:30am at the U.S. District Court in New Haven, the Honorable Janet C. Hall will preside upon a Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Plaintiff Michael Nowacki who has sued the Town of New Canaan, Connecticut in federal court for abuses of his constitutional
and civil rights.

As you know, Michael Nowacki was arrested on February 22, 2010 and was exonerated from the allegations set forth by his ex-wife Susanne Sullivan and a child care provider which resulted in his arrest.
 
Nowacki has sued the NCPD and other Town officials for his malicious prosecution on these unsupported allegations and various public officials engaged in a series of retaliations which deprived him of various fundamental First, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
 
On September 7, 2012, Nowacki sued the Town of New Canaan in federal court and then on October 28, 2012 his lawyer John R. Williams filed a Motion for Temporary Injunctive Relief.
 
Five lawyers for the Town of New Canaan who represented the Board of Education and the NCPS, NCPD, and other Town of New Canaan officials argued that this lawsuit was not a matter for federal court jurisdiction in a Motion filed on November 5.
 
Various legal briefs were exchanged and the Honorable Janet C. Hall ruled on November 20, in Nowacki's favor, setting forth a hearing for injunctive federal court relief to be considered on December 18, 2012.
 
Nowacki, through his amended federal complaint filed on December 1 in docket 3:12cv1296 TJCH), is seeking a cease and desist order be issued by the federal court at the December 18 to order the Board of Education, the NCPD and New Canaan public to remove these deprivations of his rights that require Nowacki to receive permissions for the Superintendent of Schools to attend public events conducted on public facilities operated by the NCPS system.
Nowacki has asked for a jury trial on the allegations set forth in his federal suit.
 
Town lawyers, who are being paid through liability insurance coverage by the Town of New Canaan, attempted to also seek a protective order from the federal court, in a Motion filed attempting to obstruct access to information requested by Nowacki pursuant to the application of the Freedom of Information Act. The Honorable Janet C. Hall on November 6, 2012 denied the Town of New Canaan's attempts to block the access to public records to prove widespread corruption in the NCPD, NCPS and the operations of the Town of New Canaan's municipality's operations
 
Nowacki is seeking the support of this blog's followers and others that have been similarly abused.
 
He is inviting all those who have an interest in the protection of fundamental constitutional and civil rights of parents to attend the December 18, 2012 hearing in the federal court building at 141 Church Street in New Haven.
There you can observe the testimony of as many as ten public officials and the presentation of the foundation for Nowacki's request for the preservation of fundamental rights which have been deprived since May 20, 2011.
 
Under such civil rights cases, Nowacki has also filed for the application, after trial for these constitutional and civil rights abuses, to have his Attorney's costs covered pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988.
 
Nowacki notified the Town Attorney of New Canaan just this morning, that yesterday he provided a series of documents to the U.S. Attorney's office in New Haven, documents which provide evidence of the corruption in the Town of New Canaan.
 
Nowacki's plight has been chronicled on his website www.no-wackileaks.com, where you can find background on the initial federal complaint and other documents supporting his allegations of constitutional and civil rights abuses following his filing of the federal suit.

Friday, November 30, 2012

OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE WATLEY CASE FROM ELIZABETH A. RICHTER, TO WATLEY ATTORNEY SAM CHRISTODLOUS

Dear Attorney Christodlous:

I am writing to you in regard to Mr. Joe Watley whose children were stolen from him through unjust proceedings carried out against him by DCF.  I understand you are representing him in his custody case.
 
I am a person who has advocated for people with mental health disabilities for many years. I am a member of both MindFreedom and also Psychrights located in Alaska.
 
I have to say that I am completely puzzled by the discrimination which Joe Watley has faced in regard to his three children, all three of whom are currently in the care of DCF.  Nothing that I have read about this case indicates to me that he would be a harm to his children. 


During the course of my advocacy, I have met many people who have mental health disabilities and I am familiar with the symptoms. My own situation was that 36 years ago I was misdiagnosed with a serious mental illness and was hospitalized with people who had severe mental health problems. So I am good a detecting when a person has a serious issue such as bipolar, schizophrenia, or something of that kind. I do not see problems like this when it comes to Mr. Joe Watley.


Furthermore, I have been in family court in regard to my own high conflict divorce for a considerable period of time.  Yes, there is major discrimination against people with mental illness in family court all the time.  Still, people with addiction problems, substance abuse problems, serious mental illness such as bipolar have the right to  parent their children. In fact, as you know discriminating against people with disabilities, denying them their parental rights, is a violation of federal and state law.
 
 
I was particularly bothered by the idea that the Supreme Court voiced in their recent ruling in this case, which is that if Mr. Watley wished to exercise his ADA rights, he would need to have a GAL assigned to him. As you know, people with various forms of mental illness can assert their ADA rights in regard to their mental illnesses without requiring that they be under the supervision of a conservator or a GAL. What is even more absurd, however, is that the State in making this statement has implied that somehow Mr. Watley is disabled by mental illness to the point where he might need one. What nonsense! 
 
I think what concerns people like me is the outright, blatent, unashamed affirmation our judicial branch makes that they have the right to discriminate at will against people with mental health disabilities despite both State and Federal laws that prohibit them from doing so. This kind of viewpoint the judicial branch espouses, simply that they will violate the law whenever they please, as they please, is completely anarchistic.
 
My general impression is that the court system is simply playing games with Mr. Watley, making rulings it knows to be improper, then bouncing the case up to the appellate system, then getting it remanded to the trial court again, where there again, rulings are made that are improper and then on and on. The whole intent, it seems, is simply to avoid ruling according to the dictates of the law by bouncing Mr. Watley from court to court and hearing to hearing year after year without end. It is simply, as Langston Hughes so aptly put it, a situation where "Justice delayed is Justice denied. This is a game and everyone knows that it is a game. I suspect even you know it is a game.
 
I think it is wrong to keep Mr. Watley and his children dangling in regard to this case. I think it is wrong to make a pretense of defending him. He should get a genuine defense. Mr. William Mulready, a researcher and expert on the ADA, has suggested that you use the ADA as the basis for defending Mr. Watley's case. I get the impression that you feel such an approach is useless.
 
Why is it useless? The ADA is federal law. And our State of Connecticut is thumbing its nose at federal law? By what right?
 
This is a civil rights issue that folks such as myself who are part of the one in five citizens with a history of a mental health disorder would like to see addressed efficiently and effectively. If this is something you do not think that you are capable of doing you should step down and allow another attorney to do the job, one who believes in this case as much as Mr. Joe Watley's supporters do. 


I do want to point out, also, that Mr. Watley does have a considerable number of supporters. If he were truly mentally ill in the manner the the judicial court tries to make out, then how would it be possible for Mr. Watley to gather together so many supporters? The fact is that he does have a considerable number of backers, and this alone is an indication that the State is simply manipulating the judicial system and using the stigma surrounding the label of mental illness as a weapon to deny Mr. Watley his parental rights.
 
Thank you very much for reading this email. I urge you to take effective action on Mr. Joe Watley's behalf.
Sincerely,

 
Elizabeth A. Richter,
Advocate

For more information on this case, see the link below:

http://www.foothillsmediagroup.com/articles/2011/07/08/thomaston/news/doc4e1708e987817301863969.txt

OTHER RELATED ARTICLES:
 
 
 

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

THIS NEW INFO IN RE VAWA FROM NOW

VAWA Programs Face Uncertain Future -
 
 Please Take Action
 
After taking action,
please support our work!
November 28, 2012
Action Needed:

Congress still has not reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act. If Congress fails to pass VAWA in this "lame duck" session, we will have to start all over again with the new Congress in January. Even more concerning is the possibility of sequestration, or the Budget Control Act's ability to slash funds across the federal budget, including funds set aside for survivors. If Congress fails to pass a new budget, sequestration will result in nearly 200,000 fewer victims receiving lifesaving and cost-effective services. There is very little time left for this Congress to take action on VAWA.
 
Please call your House member, and tell her/him that it is critical that the Senate version (S. 1925) of the Violence Against Women Act be passed before the 112th Congress adjourns and that funding for VAWA programs should not be cut in the negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff." House Speaker John Boehner needs to schedule a floor vote as soon as possible. Please send your message NOW.
 
Background:
 
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) must be reauthorized by this Congress. An inclusive, bipartisan bill (S. 1925) passed in the Senate earlier this year (68-31) contained important improvements that strengthen protections for a number of vulnerable populations, like battered immigrant women, Native American women, LGBT persons and violence survivors on college campuses. A very different House bill (H.R. 4970) was passed that actually reduces services and protections for undocumented immigrants and LGBT individuals. Prior to the November elections, progress on VAWA reauthorization was stymied. As an interim measure to keep VAWA and other federal programs funded at least through March 2013, a continuing resolution was passed. But the time has come to get this bill passed.
 
We need House members to pressure Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to schedule a vote on the Senate-passed bill. Some House members may think that they have voted for VAWA reauthorization, but you should let them know that the House version was a sham VAWA. In fact, 23 Republicans voted against H.R. 4970, which leaves out protections for anyone who isn't considered a "real" victim. House members cannot possibly be proud of a bill that would ignore improvements for victims of dating and sexual violence at colleges and universities; roll back protections for vulnerable groups, including communities of color; toss out strengthened housing protections for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking; ignore important provisions to improve services and accountability in programs; and leave out prevention initiatives.
 
We cannot let Congress ignore our call to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act before the end of this year. And we cannot allow negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff" to result in cutting VAWA programs -- these programs are already under-funded and do not provide sufficient resources to meet the need. According to a one-day census conducted by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, nearly 10,000 requests for help are likely turned away each day for lack of shelter space and staff resources.
 
Check out
for more information.
 
U.S. House of Representative office phone numbers: http://www.house.gov/representatives
 
You can also tweet:
 
» @[your legislator]: What steps are you taking to make sure the real #VAWA is reauthorized in lame duck session? #nowvawa
» @[your legislator]: Make the real #VAWA a lame duck priority – reauthorize it now! #nowvawa

Monday, November 5, 2012

DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT ENDORSES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

FOR SO MANY REASONS:   

EQUALITY IN MARRIAGE RIGHTS,

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS,

THE RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HEALTH CARE,

THE RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT IN AMERICA AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO OUTSOURCING,

THE CONDEMNATION OF ROBBER BARONS

VOTE THE PARTY OF COMPASSION. 
VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA.

BE AT THE POLLS, TOMORROW,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2012 FROM 6:00AM TO 8:00PM

IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS CASTING YOUR BALLOT, PLEASE CALL: 1-860-560-1775 
WRITE THAT NUMBER DOWN!
KEEP THIS EMAIL, OR SAVE IT IN YOUR PHONE!

IF YOU NEED A RIDE TO THE POLLS, CALL 1-855-444-DEMS


THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO FREEDOM!

CHERYL MARTONE OF US CONCERNED PARENTS ENDORSES BARBARA RUHE

CHERYL MARTONE ENCOURAGES ACTIVISTS TO VOTE FOR
BARBARA RUHE FOR THE FIRST STATE SENATE DISTRICT ELECTION
 
Dear Barbara Ruhe:

I know and have seen you at many places in the state always there for the constituents of CT. lawfully and helping other candidates.

Our biggest problem in state government is the CPS/DCF and unruly behavior and false reporting to kidnap children to make muko dollars off the backs of our children from the federal government, and maybe someone like you can help innocent families with this issue in corrupt government.

I hope you do win and I'm routing for you as I know you are an honest person and lawmaker.

Go get em Barbara Ruhe! I know you can do it because you have the drive. I will blast this out for you as you deserve to win, you are the best and our state needs you. Love you Barbara Ruhe.

I encourage all my contacts in her district to get and vote tomorow, Tuesday, November 6 for
Barbara Ruhe.

Respectfully, Cheryl Martone
P.O. Box 165
Westbrook, CT. 06498
'US Concerned Parents' support group &
Parents MOVEment

Sunday, August 26, 2012

NEW HAMPSHIRE'S EQUIVALENT TO CT GENERAL STATUTES 51-14

Stop judicial abuse in the State of New Hampshire!  Help pass NH CACR26!

Remember the violations of CT General Statutes 51-14 that activist Michael Nowacki alerted us to?  The fact that judges in the CT judicial system were making changes to the CT Practice Book rules without bringing them before the state legislature and CT's citizens before instituting them.  Well, New Hampshire has a very similar problem!  In the upcoming elections, New Hampshire citizens are fighting for repeal of a law that allows the judicial system to do just that.  Let us show them our support.
 
Just in case folks are interested, New Hampshire is having similar problems with the Judicial System taking over the Legislative System and attempting to plunder the rights of its citizens.  See Carolyn McKinney's Op Ed article from the website "Granite Grok" at the link below:
 

Spread the news to voters you know in New Hampshire, leave your supportive comments, post the information on websites, in facebook, twitter, and elsewhere.  Let your brothers and sisters in New Hampshire know that you care and that you stand behind them 100%!

Get the vote out on NH election day for this important bill:  November 6, 2012!







Wednesday, August 22, 2012

THEY FOUGHT FOR THEIR RIGHTS!


JUSTICE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABLITIES DOES NOT STOP AT THE COURTHOUSE DOOR!


LET US LISTEN AGAIN TO THE WORDS OF JUSTIN DART, THE FOUNDER OF THE ADA!

Let us listen again to the stirring words of Justin Dart, the founder of the ADA.  After learning the disappointment of the news that the DOJ has betrayed us, we can be inspired and renewed by the spirit of Justin Dart.  The spirit of justice never dies!  Our quest for justice never dies!  We will stand together and fight injustice! Listen to his words at the close of his life:

"Dearly Beloved:

Listen to the heart of this old soldier. As with all of us the time comes when body and mind are battered and weary. But I do not go quietly into the night. I do not give up struggling to be a responsible contributor to the sacred continuum of human life. I do not give up struggling to overcome my weakness, to conform my life - and that part of my life called death - to the great values of the human dream.

Death is not a tragedy. It is not an evil from which we must escape. Death is as natural as birth. Like childbirth, death is often a time of fear and pain, but also of profound beauty, of celebration of the mystery and majesty which is life pushing its horizons toward oneness with the truth of mother universe. The days of dying carry a special responsibility. There is a great potential to communicate values in a uniquely powerful way - the person who dies demonstrating for civil rights.

Let my final actions thunder of love, solidarity, protest - of empowerment.

I adamantly protest the richest culture in the history of the world, a culture which has the obvious potential to create a golden age of science and democracy dedicated to maximizing the quality of life of every person, but which still squanders the majority of its human and physical capital on modern versions of primitive symbols of power and prestige.

I adamantly protest the richest culture in the history of the world which still incarcerates millions of humans with and without disabilities in barbaric institutions, backrooms and worse, windowless cells of oppressive perceptions, for the lack of the most elementary empowerment supports.

I call for solidarity among all who love justice, all who love life, to create a revolution that will empower every single human being to govern his or her life, to govern the society and to be fully productive of life quality for self and for all.

I do so love all the patriots of this and every nation who have fought and sacrificed to bring us to the threshold of this beautiful human dream. I do so love America the beautiful and our wild, creative, beautiful people. I do so love you, my beautiful colleagues in the disability and civil rights movement.

My relationship with Yoshiko Dart includes, but also transcends, love as the word is normally defined. She is my wife, my partner, my mentor, my leader and my inspiration to believe that the human dream can live. She is the greatest human being I ever known.


Yoshiko, beloved colleagues, I am the luckiest man in the world to have been associated with you. Thanks to you, I die free. Thanks to you, I die in the joy of struggle. Thanks to you, I die in the beautiful belief that the revolution of empowerment will go on. I love you so much. I'm with you always. Lead on! Lead on!

Justin Dart

Thursday, August 9, 2012

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER'S LETTER TO LESLIE CARON OF THE ADACC: MS. CARON SIMPLY IGNORED IT AND DID NOT RESPOND!


May 21, 2012

Ms. Lisa Caron, Project Director
Americans With Disabilities
Act Coalition of Connecticut
60B Weston Street
Hartford, CT  06120

Dear Ms. Caron:

I participated in the recent training workshop held on May 8, 2012 regarding the Implementation of the ADA in Municipalities and State Government presented by Attorney Kathy Gibs, Director of Training at the New England ADA Center.

At the time, I had many questions about how the ADA is supposed to be implemented at the Family Court located at 90 Washington Street.  I noted that while the Judicial System has a poster on its website which speaks of its compliance with the ADA, it fails to mention the ADAAA as well, and I am surprised that isn’t included.  In addition, my experience is that Family Court at 90 Washington Street has consistently denied me the protection from discrimination and the reasonable accommodations that I have requested.

I wanted to follow up on the comments I made that Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, the ADA Coordinator at 90 Washington Street routinely denies Requests For Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA.  Not only have I been denied ADA protections, so have several other people who have spoken to me about this problem.  This routine denial of ADA requests makes a mockery of the Honorable Judge Patrick Carroll’s remarks of July 26, 2010 where he stated, “there can be little doubt that the Branch is meeting its obligation to maintaining compliance with the ADA by assuring access…”  Such a statement is simply not true.

In 2006, when I first filed for divorce, it was clear I had a “perceived as” mental health issue under Prong #3 of the ADA, since my ex-husband raised a 30 year old misdiagnosis as an issue.  Based on his concerns, the opposing attorney in my case submitted three motions to the trial court to have me declared incompetent.  The trial court never denied or repudiated these motions, leaving them to hang over my head throughout the pendente lite period and beyond.  This is discrimination pure and simple.  In addition, I was denied my fundamental due process rights on a consistent basis in trial court based upon the perception of disability and the legal representation I received from counsel was pronouncedly substandard.

When I was finally able to represent myself in 2009, I submitted a Request for Reasonable Accommodations to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines based upon the diagnosis of Acute Stress Disorder provided by my psychologist.  Despite this, Ms. Lugo-Gines has continued to deny me eligibility for the ADA and Reasonable Accommodation up to the present time.  While she has acknowledged that my two daughters who have albinism are eligible for reasonable accommodations, she has refused to provide those accommodations.

I did file a grievance, but the grievance process at Family Court which I dealt with was not a meaningful one.  First of all, the people on the grievance panel in my case had no greater authority than did Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines.  Second, when the grievance panel reviewed my complaint they did not follow the grievance procedure outlined in the handout that I was given.  When I challenged the panel in regard to this, Attorney Robert Coffey pretty much stated that the while the federal government requires that the judicial branch have a grievance procedure, it does not require that they follow it.

Family Court in Connecticut discriminates against people who have mental health disabilities all the time. The practice of using a psychiatric label to vilify, discredit, and demonize parents who are fit parents yet have mental health disabilities is rampant.  This is unacceptable.

I was speaking to the mother of five children who has been denied residential custody of her children.  In a recent court hearing, it was clear Father maintained an unstable lifestyle and was incapable of retaining the nannies he hired to care for the children.  As a result, the attorney for this mother suggested that she take care of the children granting Father’s deficits in caring for the children.  “She can’t do that,” stated the Judge, “She’s bipolar!”  In fact, this mother was accused of being bipolar by opposing attorney, but the psychiatrists who examined her did not conclude that she was bipolar.  Even so, there are many persons with bipolar disorder who are excellent parents and the simple fact that mother might have a mental health disorder is not a reason to deny her the right to her children, particularly since up until the filing for divorce she was the primary caretaker of the children and no one had a problem with it. 

This is why it is so important that people with mental health challenges have the protections and reasonable accommodations that they are entitled to in order to obtain access to the services and activities that Family Court provides.

Since I did not receive the protection from discrimination and the reasonable accommodations I should have had, my case has now languished in the family court system and the appellate court system for six years, has incurred costs of well over $200,000 and the case still isn’t over. 

I have spent a considerable amount of my time seeking ADA protections and have been repeatedly denied, which has completely compromised my case.  Recently, I was forced to file a Title II Complaint to the Department of Justice and am currently awaiting a response.  I know there are many other people who have had the same experiences as I have had with family court and feel frustrated enough to do the same.

I am interested in finding out from you what strategies you and your organization intend to employ in order to meet the needs of people with mental health disabilities in Family Court.  I would also like to know what you suggest people like me do who are repeatedly denied the ADA protections we are entitled to by Family Court.  Who can we turn to?  What recourse do we have?

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,







Elizabeth A. Richter
P.O. Box 5
Canton, CT  06019
860-693-9028
860-751-4668



cc:       Attorney Kathy Gibs