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 CGS 51-14. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CGS 51-14. Show all posts

Sunday, May 5, 2013

JANE DOE NO. 1'S TESTIMONY AT THE MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT


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/
  

Saturday, May 4, 2013

JOHN DOE 2'S TESTIMONY AT THE MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!


CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  John Doe No. 2?

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Good morning, Members of the Supreme Court.  I elect to be known as John Doe 2.  I’m a resident of the state of Connecticut.  On March 4, 2012, the first Supreme Court hearing in 43 years was conducted in this courtroom pursuant to CGS 51-17c. 

               I arrived last year with my videotape camera to record this historic public administrative judiciary committee public hearing governed by the provisions of Chapter 14 of the Connecticut General Statutes, more commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act.

               On numerous occasions, I have been permitted to tape the public administrative committee hearings of the judiciary, including meetings of the Family Commission and the Rules Committee commencing November 17, 2010, when the chief administrative judge in the state of Connecticut, Judge Barbara Quinn, posted a notice that any public meetings conducted in any courtroom of the state of Connecticut would permit the use of video cameras.

               On March 1, 2012, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court and Appellate Court, Attorney Michele Angers, was contacted to confirm that my professional video equipment would be permitted to be used to tape the first public hearing in over 40 years, which conformed with the requirements of 51-14c; however, Justice Flemming Norcott, Jr., informed the security personnel on    March 4, 2012, to not allow my camera into the Supreme Court Chambers. 

               I spoke last year as John Doe 2.  On March 20, 2013, Attorney Melissa Farley was contacted by email to confirm that the same obstruction of the proper implementation of the court rules concerning the use of video cameras set forth by the chief administrative judge in 2010 would be enforced for today’s public hearing. 

               It was not until late on Wednesday afternoon March 21, 2013, that Ms. Farley, the judiciary’s external affairs director, who approved my previous clearances to tape any Rules Committee meeting, notified me that an unidentified judicial authority refused to grant my request to tape the second public administrative hearing conducted in accordance with 51-14c.

               Immediately upon this public administrative hearing required by CGS 51-14c, it is my intent to order a transcript of this public hearing governed by the FOI Act and file a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission to challenge the authority of this panel of appointed judges by Chief Justice Chase Rogers -- excuse me -- will be alleged to have violated my rights as a citizen and a professional to have recorded these proceedings today.

               The abridgments of the FOI Act of the Supreme Court are best captured by the failure in 2007 of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Honorable William Sullivan, to have withheld the release of the controversial opinion in FOIC v. GA 7 which Justice Sullivan failed to release a final Supreme Court opinion he authored in order to attempt to shield the legislature from questioning the then nominated Peter Zarella, who was nominated at the time by Governor Jodi Rell, to become the next chief justice of the Supreme Court.

               The lack of integrity of Chief Justice William Sullivan in withholding the release of this controversial FOI decision by the Supreme Court was revealed by Justice David Borden who became the whistleblower on his judicial colleagues.  Justice Zarella removed his nomination in consideration of the legislature for the first time in recorded history of the judiciary of Connecticut and the chief justice of the Supreme Court was subject to the, quote/unquote, grand inquisition of the Judicial Review Counsel and Justice Sullivan was then found guilty of having violated the code of judicial conduct.

               What is amazing is how justices of the Superior Court seem to fall up rather than be punished.  What is amazing  -- excuse me.  Who is the judge who -- who was the judge who also denied me my lawful right to access, the right to tape the first public hearing in 43 years conducted in accordance with the law?  Justice Flemming Norcott, Jr., was also found guilty of probable cause that he had violated the judicial code of conduct.

               Now, the irony of this preamble is that Justice Andrew McDonald will have to answer our questions, why did the senator, Andrew McDonald, as the chair of the -- co-chair of the joint committee on the judiciary refuse to conduct public hearings on the Connecticut Practice Book Rules after the Justice Sullivan debacle?

               Isn’t it true that on June 29, 2007, at the annual judge’s meeting that Justice Zarella cut a deal with Senator McDonald --

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Mr. Doe?

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  -- as a --

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Mr. Doe?

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  -- resolution of --

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Mr. Doe?

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Yes?

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Five minutes is up, sir, and --

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Okay.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  -- I know that you have submitted written testimony --

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Yes.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  -- and we have it.

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 2:  Thank you very much.  

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you very much.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/
  

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

JOHN DOE PROVIDES HIS TESTIMONY ON MARCH 25, 2013 AT THE 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!


John Doe No. 1, please.

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               MR. JOHN NO. 1:  Good morning, Your Honors.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               MR. JOHN DOE NO. 1:  My name is John Doe and I am a former citizen of the state of Connecticut who currently still has litigation in the state of Connecticut and my choice to speak anonymously today is no sign of disrespect for this Court or for this state; however, all of us who opt to choose self-representation in the courts in the state of Connecticut have been victimized by discriminatory conduct in the construction of the rules of practice formulated since 1968 when the legislature ceased conducting public hearings as required by Connecticut General Statute 51-14(a).

               As a self-represented party who has been victimized by the denial of access of my due process and equal-protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by the family court system of the state of Connecticut, it is imperative that this discrimination against pro se representatives cease and desist and cease and desist immediately.

               Today, I am proposing the following forms in family matters be modified: 

               (1) That all financial affidavits using the form JD-FM-6 or any document filed in lieu of JD-FM-6 as a financial affidavit shall be signed under the penalties of perjury by each litigant and by their counsels;

               (2) The financial affidavit form JD-FM-6 shall contain specific questions that reference gross income and assets that are “foreign-held assets” declared on Federal IRS Form 1116 or on Federal IRS Form FBAR TD F 09-22.1;

               (3) The financial affidavit form JD-FM-6 shall add a specific section in the gross income assets section which declares assets held in any state in the United States or territory.  The use of moving assets to foreign countries during a divorce proceeding was cited in the The Wall Street Journal as one of the top six reasons why 57,000 Americans moved assets to UBS, which paid a $970 million fine in February of 2009. 

               Judges in Connecticut cannot allow lawyers who serve in the family commission to use “attorney-client privilege” with a trust attorneys [sic.] overseas or foreign and domestic estate attorneys to move assets overseas or to another state to avoid truthful disclosures of assets in a divorce proceeding or a modification of children’s expenses proceeding post-judgment.

               (1)  The following Practice Book rules should be created concerning property distribution:  (1)  New Practice Book Rule 25-19a.  In any final dissolution order issued by a trial court as a MOD, if the value of an asset cannot be determined at the time of the dissolution of marriage and if the value of that asset is incorporated into the property dissolution orders as alimony by the trial court, the portion of the property distribution declared as alimony shall be declared as non-modifiable.

               (2)  New Practice Book Rule 20-7.  Any litigant, pursuant to Rules of Professional Conduct 1.OC (as read) may submit in writing written request to a judicial authority in any proceeding to require a court reporter be assigned in chambers to make an official record of any conversations conducted in a family matter and the following Practice Book rule shall be modified to include the following provision:  Practice Book Rule 25-61(h) and Practice Book Rule 1-13A shall both be amended so that all sworn statements of expenses, assets, etcetera, shall be filed on Form JD-FM-6 or any other sworn financial affidavit filed by any judicial -- with any judicial authority and 1-13A shall be amended to add the following language:  No self-represented party can be incarcerated without being provided counsel. 

               These rule modifications are necessary to prevent the continuing discrimination which is represented in current Practice Book rules.

               Thank you very much, Your Honors.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you. 

               JUSTICE ZARELLA:  Thank you. 

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  John Doe No. 2?

               (Pause in the proceedings.)


FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/
  

Tuesday, April 30, 2013

COMMENT ON MS. MONICA FORE'S TESTIMONY, ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES!

I think it is important to clarify the specific issue that Ms. Monica Fore raises in regard to the expectation that pro se litigants must be held to the same standards as attorneys. 
 
Such a standard is not equitable to pro se litigants first of all because pro se litigants do not get the same respectful treatment that attorneys receive.  Frequently, judges don't even listen to what pro se litigants have to say, simply by virtue of the fact that they are what they are:  i.e. pro se litigants. 
 
If you go to trial court representing yourself, even though you have a perfectly correct, constitutionally supported right to do so it is often, if not always, a way to lose automatically.  Judges simply don't like self represented litigants no matter who they are.  If you prepare effectively as a self represented party, then Judges see you as arrogant and defiant of authority.  If you don't prepare effectively, then you are disrespectful of the trial court process because you didn't.  Either way, you lose. 
 
So that is the first strike against you. 
 
Second, you can take full responsibility and read The Connecticut Practice Book (a compendium of the rules of court) to be prepared for what is going on in the courtroom, but that will not actually give you sufficient information.  The Connecticut Practice Book is extremely difficult to understand and interpret--and I say that as a College Graduate with a humanities degree. 
 
What Ms. Monica Fore is asking us to consider, and the Supreme Court as well, is how are folks without high school degrees going to figure this out! 
 
The Connecticut Practice Book should be rewritten so that it is clear and understandable to the average person who is coming in for services at the Judicial Branch. 
 
Why does the Connecticut Judicial Branch skew its practices and its publications in such a way that it benefits solely attorneys, and then say self represented parties have to catch up to them ready or not? 
 
Furthermore, there are many trial court policies and procedures that are not mentioned in The Connecticut Practice Book  but which are a standard aspect of legal practice.  For example, Ms. Fore mentioned to me what is called an "Offer of Proof" where you indicate to the Court why a piece of evidence that was rejected as a full exhibit should be accepted. 
 
So there are a great many trial court traditions, understandings, practices that are not in any book a self represented party has access to, and therefore, holding such a party to the standard of knowing as much about them as an attorney who has often spent years absorbing them all would clearly be an injustice. 
 
It is also true that attorneys have access to professional meetings and trainings, and also various data bases through their professional offices which self represented parties clearly cannot share. 
 
In the interests of justice, therefore, it seems to me reasonable, that there should be a way to adjust trial court practices so that attorneys and also self represented parties can operate on a level playing field. 
 
Thus far, what the Connecticut Judicial Branch has done is simply complain about the fact that there is self representation, as if to say perhaps we should make self representation illegal.  And, of course, judges kind of do that by making the experience of representing yourself so unpleasant and so unjust.  But they have not acted to make sure that self represented parties get a fair shake by adjusting policies, procedures, practices, and informative materials so that they provide self represented parties improved access to justice. 
 
On another note, I did want to mention that, indeed, we do have more litigants deciding to represent themselves despite the well known dangers involved in doing so.  I believe the number in Connecticut is like 79% self represented or some high number like that. 
 
To me, this situation exists because there has been such malfeasance on the part of attorneys, such blatant corruption and wrong doing, that the legal profession has totally lost credibility in regard to its involvement in family matters.  The responsibility for correcting this situation lies with the legal profession itself and the timeframe for getting the job done is none too soon given the fact that the number of those who choose to represent themselves inside family court continues to rise.   

Monday, April 29, 2013

MONICA FORE PROVIDES HER TESTIMONY ON MARCH 25, 2013 FOR THE 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!


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/
  

 

Sunday, April 28, 2013

MR. DAN LYNCH'S TESTIMONY AT MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!


So I have a list of speakers.  The first one is Daniel Lynch. 

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning, Mr. Lynch.

               ATTY. LYNCH:  Good morning, Your Honors.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  As you know, you’ll have five minutes.  Also, if you are going to exceed that time, you’re free to submit any written testimony that you would like to do so.

               MR. LYNCH:  Thank you, Your Honors.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning at this forum.  I have submitted three pages of written testimony prior to my statements which I’ll make, and I’m not going to use my time to, kind of, read it into the record.  I think that would be, you know, counter-productive and insulting, as well, and I don’t mean to do that at all.  I will have to glance down from time to time.

               In short, Your Honors, I have been involved in litigation in the state of Connecticut, sadly, since 2008, litigation which I think was kind of unnecessary, but, be that as it may, I stand here today, in March of 2013. 

               I had been previously represented at the trial court and at the Appellate Court by counsel.  I am still in those courts now currently without counsel primarily because I have no funds available, not because I want to exercise my right to try to be my own attorney.  I’d much rather have people like Attorney Gallagher representing me on an appeal again but sadly I can’t do that.

               But I’m not here to talk about the details of my case.  I think anybody who is here today could probably go on and on about that and a lot of emotion, a lot of everything else.  What I am here to talk about is what I think are some flaws as -- respectfully, by the way, I do say this -- as from my view as I’ve seen in practice as it pertains to primarily Rule 2-52 that deals with the resignation and waiver by an attorney.

               Now, in an instance where you have an individual who perhaps thinks an attorney did something wrong, if that attorney was their attorney, they can pursue that through civil matters and so forth, grievance -- not only grievance, but they can also file a civil complaint. 

               In an instance where somebody like myself had very specific and numerous issues dealing with opposing counsel, the only remedy available to me in the state of Connecticut currently is through the Statewide Grievance Committee, period.  I recognize -- and I was here in this room on September 19 of 2012 when the matter of Simms v. Seaman was taken up and there’s no decision on that yet, but I’ve watched that case closely.

               In an instance where opposing counsel in an underlying matter had caused harm or was alleged to have caused harm, the litigation privilege or absolute immunity protects that attorney from any civil remedy that I might have against them.  The Statewide Grievance, while I’m able to pursue that, on paper it looks good and I could pursue that, but sadly the first hurdle that somebody would have to go through and cross is the local reviewing panel; and I would submit that sadly it’s a big state, but it’s a small fraternity of attorneys who, in many cases, will -- it’s difficult to say respectfully, but, especially when there’s a pro se party bringing the complaint forward, in many cases some of the attorneys would kind of look the other way and protect the individual.

               In my instance, what I also experience is getting past a review panel of finding of probable cause, disciplinary proceedings, a public hearing of discipline, and two weeks prior to a decision actually being issued in the matter, the attorney was allowed to resign with a waiver in an unrelated matter which immediately closed mine, as well as two other grievance issues pending against them; and, while for disciplinary counsel’s office that might seem, you know, like a home run because they’re able to resolve three or four matters all with one resignation, for somebody like me, it’s devastating because I was the only person who had no other remedy, none whatsoever. 

               And, so -- so even though there was probable cause of misconduct, there was clear and convincing evidence at the public hearing of the misconduct, this attorney who had -- who at 69 years old went and built a house down in North Carolina, he’d already decided that he wasn’t going to be practicing law in the state of Connecticut anymore anyway, so, really, there’s no penalty to him, but the damages to me are very real. 

               And, so, that’s why I stand before you today is -- with some very specific suggestions to rule changes, very small and very minor, which I think make sure that at least the Court is very conscious of when accepting a resignation from an attorney of what the ramifications that might have for their potential litigants. 

               And while I focused on Rule 2-52, I would like to point out that I think that there is the possibility that, I think in any rule change, of course, it may implicate other minor changes or at least review of other rules. 

               And, so, I think, possibly 2-59 and 2-71, the client security fund, I wasn’t a client, so I can’t make a claim under the client security fund. 

               You know, I know it was kind of a sprint to put all that information out in five minutes.  I don’t do this for a living, so I did my best.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you very much and we have what you have -- what you submitted in writing and we’ll review that.

               MR. LYNCH:  Any questions at all?

               (Pause.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you. 

               MR. LYNCH:  Thank you. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/
 

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!