A Concerned Citizen speaks up against Judge Jane B. Emons
Dear Legislators,In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the following summaries and attached cases.Friends and families are concerned about Judge Emons who has displayed unprofessional conduct, especially to minorities who represent themselves in front of her. We are hopeful that you will protect the public interest and VOTE NO on Judge Emons.In an effort to assist you in making an informed decision, I have summarized 3 of the cases for your convenience and also attached the cases themselves. Even the appellate court has hinted at some underlying problems that exist with Judge Emons, including comments from the appellate court in the Jordan M. v Darric M (2016) case attached:
-“The record in this case is confusing at best and certain portions of the file appear to have been entered under incorrect docket numbers. “[Appellate Court] - [Appellate Court] - Jordan M. v Darric M case
- “The court's reasoning for granting the application for the restraining order is not clear, . . . There was no evidence that there was violent or physically threatening conduct on the night of August 21, 2015, and there was no evidence that the defendant presented a threat of physical pain or injury to Jordan. “The plain language of § 46b–15 clearly requires a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury before a court can grant a domestic violence restraining order.” [Appellate Court] - Jordan M. v Darric M case
- The Appellate Court noted they were unable to review a claim due to Emons’ failure to provide adequate “findings of facts.” This seems to be a recurrent theme with other cases in which Emons was overturned where she fails to make adequate findings of facts as she is required to do - perhaps to further insulate her decisions from being overturned on appeal. The Appellate Court stated:
“Due to a lack of an adequate record, we are unable to review this claim.” [Appellate Court]
In another line of appellate cases, there is a disturbing trend by Judge Emons to violate the well known "American Rule" where all litigants pay for their own representation. However, Judge Emons has decided to make it onerous for litigants to bring their cases up for appeal by ordering them to pay the opposing side's attorney fees as was done in the Rinfret (appellate court reversing Emons' order to pay $90,000 in attorney fees) and the Lederle case (reversing Emons' order to pay $30,000 in attorney fees) which are attached. By doing so, Judge Emons is less likely to see these cases go to appeal and have her decisions overturned.
In Clark v. Clark, Judge Emons ordered - without motion of either parent - that the parents have their children evaluated at their expense and then, after she reviewed the resulting report, ordered that the report NOT be released to the parents and then made further orders in connection with the children based on the report which she had ordered not be provided to the parents. She did this when in a post-judgment proceeding when one parent had already been awarded custody of the children. How can Emons's acts be constitutional?In another matter (Sargent v Sargent), when a parent sought to remove the GAL, Judge Emons appointed a lawyer, AT THE PARENT'S EXPENSE and with no legal precedent or authority to do so, to defend the GAL (who has complete immunity) against the allegations of misconduct. This attorney for the GAL then charged $850/hr to defend the GAL. Judge Emons has threatened to remove legal custody of children from a parent as a "judicial sanction" when the parent challenged the conduct of the GAL .
I have also included transcript excerpts that demonstrate the following:- Judge Emons' disregard for Rules of Evidence- Judge Emons' disrespect for how hearsay evidence is to be considered- Judge Emons' steering testimony – perhaps wrongly to achieve the outcome she desires- Judge Emons' disrespect for other lawyers and litigantsThank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important matter whereas she impacts the lives of many families and friends and her reappointment should not be taken lightly. Another 8 years of Judge Emons is almost another decade of her continued abuse. The public is owed a duty of respect and well considered decisions in accord with the rule of law.