YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND ADAAA DENIED, DENIED, DENIED! (PART I)

In 2006, not long after she filed for divorce, Elizabeth Richter's ex husband contacted the custody evaluator in their case, and told him that Elizabeth was crazy and that he feared for their children under her care.  His remarks disregarded the fact that for over a year she had been taking care of their three children independently while he worked out of state in Massachusetts. 

His comments made reference to an old incident that had taken place 30 years ago when she was misdiagnosed with a severe mental illness that she did not have.  When I spoke to her about this matter, she showed me a copy of a letter of apology she had received from the psychiatrist who treated her indicating that the diagnosis was a mistake.  This did not prevent her ex husband from filing three additional motions to have her declared incompetent and to have a GAL appointed to make decisions for her. 

Elizabeth Richter is a graduate of Mt. Holyoke College and Harvard University, was the co-owner and manager of An-Path Services, a Veterinary Pathology Service for over a decade, and also was an former adjunct instructor at Tunxis Community College.  She is also a published author, the author of a memoir, a book of essays, and two books of poetry along with being a devoted mother.  "I was terrified that if my X succeeded in getting such an appointment, I would lose custody of my children simply because I wasn't deemed mentally competent. 

That kind of ruling could have happened at the stroke of a pen at any moment were a judge disposed to sign such an order." What the judge should have done was immediately rule against it, and also repudiate the document as a hate document and acknowledge that it was intended to harass and terrorize Elizabeth.

Elizabeth continued, "I was terrified that I would lose my children and everything that I had because of that old misdiagnosis and because of the stigma associated with it."  Finally, sick and tired of living in fear, Elizabeth filed a request for protection under Prong #3 of Title II of the ADA which entitles her to protection in trial court from discrimination against her based upon the fact that she is perceived as having a disability that she does not have. Amazingly enough, that request was denied.  The response she got was, "We haven't discriminated against you."  That's sort of another situation where the fox is guarding the henhouse.  We declare ourselves innocent...RIGHT!

Elizabeth eventually appealed the decision, but the appeal was denied as well.  She has since filed a Title II complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, but still has not received a response. 

Furthermore, as a result of the discrimination she has endured in trial court due to her past incorrect mental health history, Elizabeth eventually developed legal abuse syndrome, a form of post traumatic stress disorder that arose as a result of her repeated exposure to the corrupt family court system here in CT.  She then submitted a request for reasonable accommodation under prong #1 of Title II of the ADA which entitles her to such accommodations at family court. 

Again, her request for reasonable accommodations was denied, and when she appealed that decision, her appeal was denied.  Again, she has submitted a complaint in this regard to the U.S. Department of Justice and is awaiting an answer.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth tells me that she is not the only one who has simply been denied their legal rights under the ADA and the ADAAA, both federal laws which are intended to create an even playing field for persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy the same constitutional rights that their undisabled peers are able to enjoy.  When Mr. Bill Mulready inquired about his ADA rights he was told, "Don't worry, Mr. Mulready, we'll get you a wheelchair if you need one." 

So what is going on? 

Essentially, Family Courts in Connecticut are playing a divide and conquer game within the Disability Community by only providing services to folks whom they consider to be "truly disabled", folks with mobility or sensory impairments.  Thus, when you look at the judicial webpage for providing accommodations for people under the ADA and the ADAAA, the judicial branch acknowledges that it is required "to accommodate individuals with disabilities by providing equal access to their services, programs and activities" under Title II of the ADA, but it really only offers the following Auxillary Aids and Services:  Interpreter Services, Certified Deaf Interpreter Relay Service, FM Kits, Infrared System, Real Time Transcription (CART), Pocket Talkers, Braille Services, Alternate Formats of Materials, Reading Machines, and Louder-R-Electronic Ear.  

These Aids and Services are really not specific for people with invisible disabilities both physical and mental.  

What I find particularly troubling is that the Judicial Branch does not mention the use of an ADA Coach or Advocate as part of the services it will either provide or accept, should they be necessary for a person with a disability.  I have heard that some litigants have brought in an ADA coach, but Judges have ruled that the coach is not allowed to speak in any way during court proceedings.  This makes it impossible for the coach to provide the support services he or she is trained to give.

Under the judicial webpage on the ADA entitled "Access", the Branch states, "In compliance with the ADA, the judicial Branch will make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities when requested to do so.  These accommodations may include providing equipment and services such as assistive listening devices, sign language interpreters or printed material in alternate formats."

Again, the emphasis, and therefore, the welcome and support, is addressed to those with mobility and sensory disabilities, instead of the entire community of those with disabilities.  ADA legislation was not intended to differentiate between the "haves" and the "have nots" within the community of those with disabilities. 

Also the emphasis of the statement on the "Access" webpage that the Judicial Branch will provide support for people with disabilities only "when requested to do so" is wrong. I don't believe the issue is simple as that.  If a person with a hearing impairment, or some other kind of disability which becomes obvious during the course of litigation, is at family court for a case, but fails to request accommodations, the judicial court is not excused from providing reasonable accommodations simply because the litigant didn't know enough to ask.  As soon as the litigant shows up in trial court and his or her disability becomes evident during the course of proceedings, it is the clear responsibility of the trial court to offer reasonable accommodation without being asked first. 

However, because Family Court in Connecticut routinely doesn't consider itself responsible for identifying disabilities as they become evident and offering accommodations,  the end result is that a considerable number of people with disabilities are being excluded from equal access to the services, programs and activities of Family Court.  

For example, I was in family court when a litigant with a serious head injury (TBI) was participating in the adjudication of a case.  Every time he was supposed to make a decision or agree or disagree in regard to a question the judge posed to him, this litigant turned around and looked towards his wife for a signal regarding what to do.  Of course, this eventually became disruptive to the proceedings and the Judge reprimanded the litigant.  However, to everyone watching, it was pretty clear that the litigant wasn't at fault, he simply wasn't able to follow what was going on.  Later, I asked him whether he was aware that there were reasonable accommodations available to him based on the ADA, and he had no idea. 

I can assure you that the problems this Gentleman had in regard to comprehending what was going on were so pronounced there was no way the average person couldn't notice.  And yet, no one in family court, not a judge, not a family support enforcement officer, family relations officer, not a clerk, or anyone else employed by the judicial system had bothered to suggest that he speak to the ADA contact person at the courthouse.  This is ridiculous.  No, it is worse than ridiculous.  It is simply unjust. 

On the "Access" page of the judicial website regarding the ADA, the judicial branch advertises that the Outcome Goal One of the Strategic Plan of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, Public Service and trust Commission is as follows:  "The Judicial Branch will provide equal access to all of its facilities, processes and information through the identification and elimination of barriers." 

Let me just give them a "heads up" right now.  Hello, the Judicial Branch is failing miserably at this goal to the detriment of everyone in the community of those with disabilities, and at the same time it is dividing this community and creating dissent with the implication that some kinds of people with disabilities are more "truly worthy" of access to the Family Court System than others.  We must do something to change this dynamic in order to create a "truly just" judicial system in family court for people of all abilities. 

National GAL alert: What Have We Learned about GALs?

National GAL alert: What Have We Learned about GALs?: As we near the end of the Judicial Branch's time for public postings (July 1st), we have been reflecting on two questions: What have we lea...

COMMENTS ON THE GAL SYSTEM BY THE CITIZENS OF MAINE!

See the link below to read comments from the citizens of Maine in regard to the GAL system:

http://www.courts.state.me.us/maine_courts/supreme/gal_comments.shtml

MONICA FORE ON THE RIGHT TO AN INTERVIEW IN A COMPLAINT TO THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL AND THE STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE!

July 18, 2012

Joint Committee on Judiciary

Room 2500, Legislative Office Building

Hartford, CT 06106

RE; DUE PROCESS: COMPLAINANTS RIGHT TO INTERVIEW AFTER COMPLAINT

Dear Judiciary Committee:

According to the testimony of the judges during the 2012 Legislative Session, pro se litigants and complainants to the Judicial Review Council and the Statewide Grievance Committee do not know how to file proper complaints with those offices.  Judges have stated that this is a serious problem in their courts but that they understand why pro se litigants are representing themselves for financial reasons.

In response to those hearings, I am coming before the judiciary committee with a solution to the problem as it pertains to filing complaints to the Judicial Review Council and the Statewide Grievance Committee.  In order to provide fundamental fairness there needs to be a required "IN PERSON INTERVIEW" with the complainant and their witnesses (if needed) to a member of the board or employee so that any questions that need to be clarified can be addressed and all necessary evidence can be submitted for review.   This process also allows the complainant the ability to know that they at least have filed a proper complaint with those agencies whether it is in writing or orally. 

This is a huge problem.  There are judges who are abusing their positions as well as some attorneys who are stealing from and abusing their clients.  The constitution affords citizens with a right to due process and equal protection of the law.  As the law stands now, our state is putting complainants in harms way.  Currently, the only right a complainant has is the right to file a complaint.  The judges have testified, under oath, that they know the people do not make a proper complaint.  And yet, the rules of both committees require a proper complaint.  That is how the ball is being dropped and corrupt government officials and attorneys are getting away with their crimes.  It is time for that to stop. 

The people need a fair process. A right to be heard.  By establishing an "in person interview" with the complainant, things that they aren't able to say in writing can be said orally.  That way the individual will know that they made a proper complaint and the committees can move forward in their decision making on the matter.   The interview process (recorded) will also create a verbal recording so the committee reviewing the complaint can have a complete understanding of the issue.  As it stands now, people are only 'thinking" they know the issue because all the facts aren't on the table. 

It is time now for the people, taxpayers, to receive due process as the constitution guarantees. 

Sincerely,

Monica Fore

583 Prospect Avenue, Unit 24

West Hartford, CT 06105

860-206-1440

monicafore@aol.com

ADVOCACY ALERT!

To show your support for Monica Fore's proposal write a letter of support to the Joint Committee to the address listed above or contact your representative.  Your voice counts!

GOING TO COURT AGAIN!

I recently found myself back at trial court, and what a bummer!  The anticipation began two weeks in advance when I looked at my calendar and was like, Oh My God! My mood immediately plummeted and I was so, so depressed. 

Even if I was the one who submitted the motions and got the ball rolling, I still hate to go to trial court. 

My process before going to trial court is quite intensive.  I usually take each of the motions that is going to be heard and I review them carefully, checking to see what evidence I will need in order to prove the facts that I have stated.  Then I get a large three ring binder with dividers and begin to collect that evidence and place it in the binder. 

Not only do I collect evidence, if there is any court document that I need to provide any kind of context, I will include that document.  Then I organize the documents by placing them in exactly the same order that I will be referring to them in my argument. 

Usually, I will place any of the important documents in my case that are referred to regularly right at the beginning of the notebook, even if there is only a distant chance that they will be needed.  Such documents would include the parenting agreement, the financial agreement, the prenuptial agreement, the custody evaluation, the psychological evaluations, etc. 

After that I ordinarily undertake a search at one of the law libraries for all relevant statutes, practice book references, and case law that will address the issues I have raised in my motions or by the motions on the other side. 

It is usually from this last exercise that I end up reporting results in my lovely blogs.  

After that, I usually have a bunch of miscellaneous questions that have to be answered by an investigation into my voluminous court file. 

To be honest, if I am lucky, the law will be clear on what I need to do or say, but sometimes it takes me months before I understand the meaning of what I've read.  There are legal points in my case that have taken me years to understand!

Once I have prepared everything in terms of the evidence and the legal basis for my motions, I then write up an argument by hand in my own handwriting, replete with underlining and daubed with various colored markers.  The argument is usually my final step. 

One of the real problems with this approach (even though it is essential to my process and thus unavoidable) is that it takes a lot of time and involves considerable shuffling and organizing papers, writing and revision of my presentation to the trial court.  It never fails to happen that I miscalculate how much time I need and I end up staying up all night the day before trial, so I come to court tired and crabby and then have to deal with the nonsense of the court personnel and end up wanting to bite off people's heads. 

And don't forget the buildup before trial court.  I would be interested to know if any of you get the buildup?  This includes my X staging confrontations that are unnecessary, putting the children deliberately at risk to upset me, failing to show up on time to pick up or drop off the children for visitation, so called "forgetting" to pay one of his financial obligations, or just sending me a bunch of nasty, accusatory emails. 

Another particularly annoying tactic is the opposing attorney will call the trial court and ask to have the hearing on the motions delayed or rescheduled for trumped up reasons, or even make it so impossible you end up not being able to have the motions heard at all.  My file is full of motions that never made it before a judge. 

Of course, the end result of the buildup is you are shrieking with irritation  by the time the court date arrives.  On top of that, you get the general rude and disagreeable behavior of trial court personnel.  You go to the clerk to find out which courtroom you are in and he insists that you step aside so he can help ten other people while the clock ticks closer to the time you are supposed to have the hearing.

Somehow you end up in family relations and these people are particularly hard faced and ugly minded.  Even though your X and his attorney are the source of the trouble by violating the law and lying bold faced, family relations will support your X and speak to you as though you are not only intellectually challenged but at fault for everything.  By the time you are done with them, usually you have a state marshall hovering around the entrance to the room. 

What gets me is the presumption they seem to operate with the YOU are bad when, in fact, it is the X and the attorney who are blatantly disregarding the law or any semblance of decency.  The disrespect and disregard does get to you.  So, of course, your blood pressure boils some more and you start having to work hard so you can maintain control of your emotions.  Because while doing everything possible to be incendiary, the Court will immediately refuse to work with you if you don't present yourself as cool, calm, reasoned and prepared. 

How do you get through it?  Well, a little benedryl doesn't hurt, but lots of deep breathing is helpful as well.  I have also learned to take my time during arguments before the court. I speak slowly and deliberately and if I have to find a document, I will say, "Just a moment, please" and take my time to locate what I need. 

As a rule of thumb, I would say that despite all law and all reason, I mostly lose, even when I should not.  Recently, I went to a hearing and, in a Motion to Sanction, proved irrefutably that the opposing attorney told outright lies in a pleading she submitted to the trial court.  The trial court denied my Motion to Sanction, nonetheless, stating that nothing the opposing attorney had said rose to the level of the Motion to Sanction. 

How much does a lie have to be a lie before you have violated your attorney's oath not to lie under any circumstances?  When is enough enough?  I'd love to hear it!

But that is the thing--you bring in what you think is enough evidence, and the trial court will say, we don't have enough.  Of course, you have more evidence at home.  I have multiple examples of the opposing attorney lying, but the opportunity for that motion is gone and I would have to file another motion in order to provide that additional evidence.  Whatever it is, judges always have an excuse not to do what the law says you ought to do. 

So, inevitably, a day in trial court is traumatic because you end up having done all that preparatory work and have nothing to show for it and you have been beaten over the head by the X, the opposing attorney, court personnel, etc., etc. and have nothing to show for it. 

Of course, every once in a while you may get an encouraging ruling, but that seems engineered as well, either for the purposes of continuing the litigation so everyone makes money, or to raise hopes, just to dash them again a few months later with a decisive denial.  The Trial Court, as well as other branches of the court, have multiple ways to deflect, defer, and delay the proper resolution of the cases that are put before them. 

If there is one phrase that I repeat to myself the most often it is, "Justice delayed is justice denied."  For example, with the Joe Watley case, there have been so many rulings, maneuverings, reconsiderations, appeals, and reappeals that almost a decade has gone by while the parents have been denied their parental rights.  I have no doubt that in many cases where this happens, it is done intentionally.

Trial court is no longer the scary place it once was.  I know when I go there that whatever happens I will survive and I will maintain my self respect.  It is interesting to see how many of the attorneys working with clients both inside the courtrooms and in the corridors are my former attorneys, or else they are attorneys I have consulted for second opinions along the way.  So there are so many familiar faces. 

The ones that have been the most evil unfailingly come up to me and wish to shake my hand and/or engulf me in a warm embrace.  Since I am unable to just say "fuck you" which is my most natural gut response, having been brought up to be considerably polite, I usually oblige while making suitably cutting remarks with a smile on my face.  In the days when mental health professionals were chasing me around trying to deny me custody of my children, they would call that kind of  behavior on my part "denied aggression."  I am not sure how they would define what the attorneys are doing.

On the way home, my advocate and I have a debriefing session where we go over my presentation and review what was said.  Even though it probably isn't the greatest time, I talk about the mistakes I made, any incongruities in the trial courts ruling, and then just to relieve the pressure I make fun of everyone I dealt with and laugh like hell.

When I get home, I usually take all the court documents I took with me and throw them in the corner and ignore them for several days until I'm emotionally capable of managing what happened.  I normally order transcripts of the hearing, and then all of it gets put into place as a resource to consult with for my next court appearance.  It's exhausting and stressful and probably not worth the trouble, but still I am not defeated because, as T.S. Eliot once said, "I keep on trying."

JOE WATLEY ON THE DANGERS OF THERAPEUTIC JUSTICE

KILLER DAD AARON SCHAFFHAUSEN MURDERS HIS THREE DAUGHTERS

Tragedy strikes Wisconsin divorced mother when ex husband kills their three little girls.  Copy and paste the link below into your browser:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/aaron-schaffhausen-murder-daughters-amara-sophie-cecilia_n_1669792.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D178915

LEGAL SEPARATION CONVERSION TO DISSOLUTION AGREEMENT, BUGGY V. BUGGY (2)

The procedure to convert a legal separation agreement into a dissolution agreement is governed by C.G.S. Sections 46b-65 and 46b-66 and Practice book Sections 25-36 and 25-37.

According to these statutes, a motion for a decree of dissolution after a legal separation may be filed at any time after the entry of a decree of legal separation and must state in the motion that the parties have not resumed marital relations.  Mignosa v. Mignosa, 25 Conn. App. 210, 214, 594 A.2d 15 (1991). 

Then, in order to grant such a decree dissolving and terminating the marriage, the court need only find that the parties have not resumed marital relations since the entry of the decree of legal separation. Schaefer v. Schaefer, 26 Conn. Sup. 224, 224-225, 217 A.2d 70 (1965).  So not only does the litigant have to state there are no marital relations, the trial court then has to confirm that the statement is, indeed, a fact.  First step one, then step two. 

So what does that mean "marital relations"?  I just looked it up in the English Dictionary online, and apparently it is a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse.  So the term marital relations is to be distinguished from marital relationship, the former just having to do with the sexual part of a marriage, while the latter having to do with the whole being in a relationship, having dinner together, sitting in the same house, chit chatting, etc. etc. 

I don't know about putting Memoranda of Decision online--I mean does everyone have to know this?  THEY AREN'T HAVING SEX ANYMORE, GUYS!  I can just imagine how this plays out in trial court.  First the plaintiff's motion on not having sex, then there is the defendant's response on not having sex.  Then you have testimony in trial court regarding not having sex, then the trial court's verbal determination that you are not having sex, and then you get the written one that you are not having sex. 

I mean, damn, if this happened to me, I wouldn't want to talk about sex for the rest of my life! 

But then, the whole decision gets onto the internet, and then your neighbors know you aren't having sex, folks on the pew next to you at Church know that you aren't having sex, pretty much the whole world knows you aren't having sex.  I mean, at least with your ex. 

What I want to know is if there have been situations--and I'm sure there have been--where the one party disputes the lack of marital relations and says, yes, we did too have funky, hot diggity dog marital relations under the dining room table two weeks ago and these are the details!  I can, seriously, imagine a full day of testimony trying to prove or disprove that. 

No, it was a makeout session--that doesn't really count. I let him kiss me once.  Ok, Ok, Ok.  Maybe twice, but just on the lips and there was no tongue involved.  

I did not have sex with that woman! 

It would be a pretty interesting day of testimony, as you can imagine!  More on that later. 

Anyway, in regard to converting a separation agreement into a dissolution agreement there is some disagreement as to how that is to be done .  On the one side, C.G.S. 46b-66 and considerable case law dictates that the court inquire into the financial resources and actual needs of the spouses before doing so.  In other words, "The fact that the agreement was presumably found fair and equitable at the time of the legal separation, does not excuse the failure of the court to make such determination (i.e. a determination regarding whether a legal separation agreement should be turned into a dissolution agreement without any kinds of changes) in the light of the situation of the parties at the time of the dissolution and to afford an opportunity for a hearing on the issues involved." Mignosa v. Mignosa, supra, 25 Conn. App. 215-216.

However, an earlier case Mitchell v. Mitchell, 194 Conn. 312, 481 A.2d 31 (1984)  disagrees, stating that the intention of the statutes in regard to legal separation is to reduce the role of the trial court when the parties on their way to dissolution have acknowledged that they have not resumed marital relations.  Under those circumstances, "the statute requires the court to give effect to the parties' status and convert a de facto dissolution into a de jure disolution."  In other words, change what is a matter of fact into a legal reality without making changes in the legal separation agreement and just incorporating it as is into the dissolution agreement. 


The reason why Mitchell v. Mitchell should have a greater impact in making a decision is because an earlier decision provides a better precedent. If you recall my earlier blog regarding the development of Common Law, you will remember how I said that Courts of Law are bound by precedent, meaning that cases are decided based upon what has been decided previously.  So Mitchell, as an earlier decision, is more significant than the later decisions that, for some reason or another deviated from it.

If the parties agree that there has been no resumption of marital relations, then the trial court would move forward with a summary process to dissolve the marriage.  However, if there was dispute over whether the parties had or had not resumed marital relations, then the parties could not proceed under the summary method and would have to move forward with ordinary dissolution proceedings. 

At question is not the issue of fairness and equity, but simply the question of did the parties or did they not have marital relations. 

If they did resume marital relations, then they would be required to continue forward with regular dissolution proceedings to determine whether the legal separation agreement is fair and equitable at the time of dissolution.  Thus, Gilbert v. Gilbert FA 04 0485657 (May 13, 2008) states, "The actual holding of Mitchell is that once the marital relations have resumed, the parties have vacated the decree of legal separation, and, therefore, in order to obtain a decree of dissolution, the parties must proceed under Sec. 46b-40." 

In other words, if marital relations were resumed, then the legal separation agreement can be changed.  And that is where, as I said previously, you could end up having very entertaining court hearings on whether marital relations did or did not resume.  Because if one or the other party doesn't like the legal separation agreement, making the case that you did resume marital relations could be quite beneficial. 

The central point to understand is in the following remarks from the holding in Gilbert v. Gilbert, "conversely, when there has been no resumption of marital relations and no intervening change in their relationship, the statute requires the court to convert the decree [of legal separation into one of dissolution].  To require a fresh look at the agreement when there has been no resumption of marital relations makes the decree of legal separation a nullity.  There would be no purpose in obtaining a legal separation.  Doing so fails to give any effect to General Statutes Sec. 46b-67(b) which provides:  'A decree of legal separation shall have the effect of a  decree dissolving the marriage except that neither party shall be free to marry.'

In other words, "If the parties' relationship is unchanged, the court plays a minor role and merely converts the de facto dissolution to a de jure dissolution."  Elaborating further, Bemonte v. Bemonte, 44 Conn. Sup. 431, 435-36, 693 A.2d 739 [16 Conn. L. Rptr. 336] (1995) states that in a situation where there has been no resumption of marital relations, "the judgment of legal separation, once the appeal period has expired, is final.   The division of assets and liability is also final.  An assignment of property is nonmodifiable." 

What this means to me is that, under circumstances where there is a legal separation agreement, and that agreement is a good one for you and you like it, and then the trial court tries to change it, you have considerable grounds to challenge such an attempt. 

In the Buggy case, after all this discussion, the trial court continued on to make changes in the financial agreement that was in the parties' legal separation agreement.  If the parties in the case had not agreed to allow these changes, granting the discussion I've just read, I seriously suspect that it would have been very tough on the trial court to have ordered those changes.  Has anyone had any experience here on this issue?  I would love to hear your comments.

WICKED LAWYER JOKE (3)

A certain lawyer was quite wealthy and had a summer house in the country where he retreated for several weeks every year.

Each summer, the lawyer would invite a different friend of his (no, that's not the punch line) to spend a week or two at this home, which happened to be in a backwoods.

On one particular occasion, he invited a Czechoslovakian friend to stay with him. The friend, eager to get a freebee off of the lawyer, agreed.

They had a splendid time in the country -- rising early and living in the great outdoors. Early one morning, the lawyer and his Czechoslovakian companion went out to pick berries for their morning breakfast. As they went around the berry patch, gathering blueberries and raspberries in tremendous quantities, along came two huge Bears -- a large male and a smaller female.

The lawyer, seeing the two bears and sensing danger, immediately dashed for cover. His friend, however, being ignorant of nature, was not so lucky. The male bear charged the paralyzed Czechoslovakian, then swallowed him whole.

Terrified, the lawyer rushed back to his car and sped into town to get the local sheriff. The sheriff, upon hearing the lawyer's unsettling story, grabbed his rifle and dashed back to the berry patch with the lawyer following closely behind. Sure enough, the two bears were still there.

"He's in THAT one!", cried the lawyer, pointing to the large male bear, all the while visions of lawsuits from his friend's family flashed through the back of his mind.

He just had to save his friend!

The sheriff looked at the two bears, and without batting an eye, leveled his rifle, took careful aim, and SHOT THE FEMALE.

"What did you do that for!", exclaimed the lawyer, "I said he was in the other one!"

"Exactly," replied the sheriff, "Would YOU believe a lawyer who told you the Czech was in the male?"

DON'T GO DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT! DON'T GO DOWN INTO THE BASEMENT! BUGGY V. BUGGY! (1)

Have you ever watched a horror movie where people are being cut and chopped, sliced and diced, and then one of the few remaining characters hears a noise in the basement and says, "I'm going to go check and see what that noise is."  The music mounts dramatically, the basement door creaks open, and the heroine goes slowly step by step down the stairs waving a completely inadequate flashlight, and you the audience are screaming the whole time, "Don't go down there!  Don't go down there!"  But inevitably the lady goes down there gets her head chopped off or something like that, and you're like, "I knew it!"  Of course, we know it.

The same goes for getting a divorce from an abuser.  Every bone in our body tells you when you are filing for divorce from an abuser, don't do it, don't do it, but do we listen to ourselves?  No.  And then we get hit with the eternal lawsuit where our lives and reputations get dragged through the court, let alone the muck and mud, for years to come.

The ultimate wisdom is that you should never get a divorce from an abuser.  Now, of course, I know all you feminists are shrieking "How could you possibly say that!"  But see it from our perspective.  Before the divorce, we just have our abuser torturing and controlling us, but once the divorce has been filed, we now have the entire family court system, their mental health cronys, and DCF torturing and controlling us, so what do YOU think is best?  Right.  The answer is, "Don't go down there!" same way as any self respecting, smart character in a horror flick, if there are any, wouldn't go down into the basement like you told them to. 

This is pretty much what seems to be going on in Buggy v. Buggy.  The plaintiff, Sandra Buggy filed for a dissolution of marriage from the defendant, Glenn Buggy on July 1, 2005.   The Parties have two children J. born on August 23, 1997 and K. on April 6, 2000.  Then, on August 3, 2006 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint requesting a legal separation which was granted on August 11, 2006.  Their separation agreement was incorporated into the judgment of legal separation.  

Two years later, the Parties decided to go ahead with the dissolution of their marriage.  In preparation for the trial, which was held from June 7, 2010 to June 25, 2010, the Defendant, Glenn Buggy submitted a Motion for Modification proposing that he be given sole custody of the children and residential custody of the children.  In other words, Glenn Buggy wished to take custody from a good mother who had always been primary caretaker of the children.  Why?  You guessed it, Parental Alienation, again!

Multiple paragraphs of the motion to change the custody state variations on "The defendant's relationship with his children has been adversely affected by the actions of the plaintiff such that a transfer of custody from the plaintiff to the defendant is in the best interest of the minor children."  Right.  And who is involved in encouraging this change in custody?  You guessed it, our old friend Dr. Kenneth Robson! If you are not familiar with Dr. Robson, this is a custody evaluator who specializes in taking children away from their mothers making bogus diagnoses such as parental alienation. See "A Life Sentence" by Keith Harmon Snow at the following link:

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/05/a-life-sentence-family-courts-sacrificing-mothers-and-children-in-america/ 

Then, Mr. Buggy also wished to reduce his financial obligations, including the amount of educational expenses he owed.  Now, I can understand wanting to cut back on child support and alimony, but money for your children's college education?  Money for your children's future success?  You want to cut back on that AND get custody.  Right.

So, can that be done?  At the time of dissolution, can you change the agreements made in a separation agreement?  In general, the answer would be "no", and sorting that question out could have been quite a challenge to the trial court in this case.  But again, in general, whatever might not be possible ordinarily can actually happen if you as the parties in the matter agree to it. 

And that is what took place in this particular case.  The parties agreed to allow modification of the separation agreement, or as the memo states, "Subsequently, on June 10, the parties agreed that the following provisions of the separation agreement were modifiable:  Article II (custody and visitation), Article III (unallocated alimony and child support) except 3.10 (debt of $78,450.46 owed by the defendant to the plaintiff), 3.11 (amount of $2,000 borrowed from the minor children's account by the defendant) and 3.12 (payment of 1/2 of the moving expenses of the plaintiff by the defendant)  The parties further agreed that Articles IV, VIII through XVIII were nonmodifiable.  Article V was not mentioned."  Article V had to do with college expenses. 

Now, as I am reading through the list, I'm like shame on you Mr. Buggy for "borrowing" from the minor children's account.  How many times do you I have to hear about so called borrowing from children's accounts during a divorce.  That is a shame and a disgrace, I don't care how small the amount is.  Don't take things from your kids, please.

Furthermore, Mr. Buggy complained that there had been a "significant decrease in his earning" which meant that he could not meet the financial obligations he had agreed to.  Seriously, folks, there should be a law about either party deliberately reducing their income just around the time of divorce and complaining they have no money.  I'd like to see a statistical analysis of how many litigants do this because I hear it so, so often. What is it about divorce that leads the more financially responsible party to become suddenly brain dead and unemployable?  Beats me!

Clearly, just reviewing the Memorandum of Decision in the Buggy case, the question of changing the separation agreement is the source of considerable legal head scratching and convoluted reasoning.  

The bottom line is that it was not in Sandra Buggy's interest for the the separation agreement to be changed.  Were it me I would have fought that question out before the trial court and made it as hard as possible to change the separation agreement.  Instead, Ms. Buggy agreed, which saved the trial court considerable trouble because it could then shift responsibility off their shoulders and say, "Well, she agreed to change the separation agreement to a stipulation." 

That's where I would say, were it me, or were I Ms. Buggy's attorney, I'd have been saying, "Don't go down into the basement!" 

Of course, maybe there is something I don't know, but I see this happening, how many times?  Often.  I've been told by my attorney, the court, or someone, go and sign this stipulation, which, as it turns out, will cause me nothing but harm.  Then the trial court justifies the harm by saying, "But you agreed to it." which is what the judge in the Buggy decision did at the end of the discussion. 

Trust me, if you feel uncomfortable, if it doesn't feel right, if you see everyone in the room all prepared to break out into happy grins, don't sign it.  Think it over.  Put off the decision for another day.  Do anything, but don't go down there! 

To be continued. . . 

LAWLESS AMERICA VISITS CT AS PART OF CORRUPTION DOCUMENTARY!

As many or some of you know, Bill Windsor is traveling across the United States working on a documentary about the corruption in this so called “great nation”.  Tomorrow, he will be arriving here to listen about the corruption in CT, from our corrupt judges, lawyers, state agencies, if there is corruption this man wants to know about it.  This event will be held at the following location:

Homewood Suites
338 Asylum Street
Hartford, CT  06103

For more information, see the following link:

http://www.corruptct.com/corrupt/lawless-america-visits-ct-as-part-of-corruption-documentary/

FACTS ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: IT'S PRETTY SHOCKING!

I know Violence Against Women is a reality lots of people don't want to know about, but it's real, it's happening and it has affected you or someone you know, people in your life whom you love. 

Father's rights groups don't want you to know it, but the vast majority of perpetrators are men. 

See the link below:

http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

THREATS OF RAPE ON FACEBOOK AGAINST PROTECTIVE MOTHERS

Maine attorney Michael Waxman has launched a facebook attack against Protective Mother Lori Handrahan resulting in threats of rape and sodomy against her, primarily coming from Jeff Pyle, a Colorado man with a grudge.  '

While Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and most other protective parents' stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain unknown and unheard, where the judicial system covers up their stories so they are not believed, Lori Handrahan's courageous efforts to save her child, Mila, have resulted in a very high profile case garnering national attention, thanks to the internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country.

Sadly, despite their strenuous efforts to save their children, and to obtain justice for their children, neither Lori Handrahan and Sunny Kelley have seen their children for months.

Hell for Lori Handrahan came in the form of her daughter, Mila, being raped by her husband, Igor Malenko, a foreigner who has now apparently gained citizenship under questionable circumstances.  Like most mothers abused by the family court system, Lori Handrahan technically never lost custody of the her daughter, Mila, yet the trial court did nothing to protect Mila from ongoing sexual abuse.

At this time, according to the "Saving Mila" Facebook page, Mila continues to be sexually abused, the abusive father has received free lawyer services over several years, and the girl is barred from leaving this dangerous situation.  Waxman has said many times that his estimated cost for providing legal services to Mila's father is approximately $250,000.  Now, to divert attention from this criminal activity, Waxman has escalated the slander against Lori Handrahan and threatens to have her committed and jailed.

Then, in a recent facebook discussion, Jeff Pyle, a Waxman supporter (mentioned above) took it upon himself to sexually berate women who were discussing the Handrahan case and threatened to "come back there" to find, rape and sodomize them.  The post has now been deleted.  But so has a post defending the women by Investigative Reporter Keith Harmon Snow been deleted and Facebook has informed Mr. Snow that HE is under investigation for his post.

There is also additional abuse online directed towards Lori Handrahan in the Waxman created STEAM website which reports disingenuously on child abuse cases largely committed my mothers and/or their boyfriends and featuring Lori as their central news item.

Online sexism is rampant, but the problem is systemic and institutionalized  sexism and support for domestic violence arises due to online media's attempts to be social friendly and compatible to as many users as possible.  While censoring some people and interests, these social media often end up punishing the victims and supporting the abusers. 

For more information, please see the following link:

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/06/threats-on-facebook-to-rape-women-supporting-protective-mothers/

PRO HAC VICE: GETTING AN ATTORNEY FROM OUT OF STATE

Once you get sick and tired of what your own attorney is doing, and once you have gone through several other attorneys in the course of your high conflict divorce, you might start thinking about going out of state for help.  This is not uncommon in a high conflict divorce.  

Is it possible to obtain legal representation from out of state for an action within the State of Connecticut?  Yes, you can.  Under those circumstances, you would obtain an attorney pro hac vice.  I have no idea of what that means in latin!  Maybe one of the readers of this blog knows and can tell me!  

This means you bring in an attorney from out of state by obeying Section 2-16 of the Rules of Superior Court.  

This section of the rules allows "any attorney who is in good standing at the bar of another state, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, upon written application presented by a member  of the Connecticut bar, to be permitted in the court's discretion to participate to such extent as the court may prescribe in the presentation of a cause or appeal in any Connecticut state court."  

In order to be admitted pro hac vice, an attorney from another state must provide an affidavit stating the following:

1) certifying whether he has a grievance pending against him in any other jurisdiction, has ever been reprimanded, suspended, placed on inactive status, disbarred, or has ever resigned from the practice of law, and if so setting forth the circumstances concerning such action; 

2) designating the chief clerk of the superior court for the judicial district in which he will be appearing as his agent upon whom process and service of notice may be served, and agreeing to register with the statewide grievance committee while appearing in the matter in Connecticut and for two years after the completion of the matter in which he appeared; and 

3. identifying the number of cases in which he has appeared pro hac vice in Connecticut superior court.  The attorney from out of state must agree to have a member of the Connecticut bar be present at all proceedings and this member must sign all pleadings, briefs, and other papers filed with the court and assume full responsibility for them and for the conduct of the cause and of the attorney to whom such privilege is accorded.

Where feasible, the application to represent a client pro hac vice shall be made to the judge before whom such a case is likely to be tried.  If that judge is not available, the application should be made to the administrative judge in the judicial district where the matter is to be tried.  

The rule requires that there has to be a good reason for granting such a privilege and states that such a reason will be limited to personal or financial reasons that affect the client, not the attorney.  

An example of this could be a longstanding attorney-client relationship that predates the cause of action or subject matter of the litigation such that the attorney has acquired a specialized skill or knowledge with respect to the client's affairs important to the trial of the cause, or that the litigant couldn't obtain services of a Connecticut counsel.

Upon the granting of an application to appear pro hac vice, the clerk of the court in which the application is granted must immediately notify the statewide grievance committee of such an action.  

Rule 62-8A contains similar rules for appearing pro hac vice in the Connecticut Appellate or Supreme Court.

Arbitrations:  Apparently, in 2005, Judge Berger banned the use of out of state attorneys from Connecticut Arbitrations, thus joining a short list of states which won't allow them for such proceedings.  

The bottom line is that there are so many requirements for having an attorney appear for you out of state that it is ultimately prohibitive for anyone to do it.  

Also, how many attorneys here in Connecticut do you know that would be willing to sign his or her name endorsing some other attorney's briefs and pleadings and take full responsibility for another attorney's actions, particularly when they are going to represent a client with a difficult case who has already tried and failed with several other attorneys?  I don't see that happening.  

My best guess is this kind of situation happens with corporate attorneys with a large company which can take responsibility for the actions of the attorney coming from out of state.  But it is not likely to happen in high conflict divorce cases.  

Also, are you ready to pay for two attorneys when you go to a hearing in your case?

But don't rule this approach out entirely.  If you are willing to be flexible, the law doesn't prevent you from obtaining valuable support and advice from attorneys out of state by phone or email.  Many of the procedures for pursuing a case in family court are similar no matter what state you are in, so out of state attorneys can provide you with direction, while you follow through with the practical steps.  

WICKED LAWYER JOKE (2)

     A truck driver would amuse himself by running over lawyers he would see walking down the side of the road.
     Every time he would see a lawyer walking along the road, he would swerve to hit him, and there would be a loud "THUMP" and then he would swerve back onto the road.  
     (At this point, some of you are probably wondering how the trucker could distinguish the lawyers from the humans.  Obviously, he saw the trail of slime they left!)  
     One day, as the truck driver was driving along he saw a priest hitchhiking.  He thought he would do a good turn and pulled the truck over.  
     He asked the priest, "Where are you going, Father?"
     "I'm going to the church 5 miles down the road." replied the priest.  
     "No problem, Father!  I'll give you a lift.  Climb in the truck."  
     The happy priest climbed into the passenger seat and the truck driver continued down the road.  
     Suddenly the truck driver saw another lawyer walking down the road and instinctively he swerved to hit him.  But then he remembered there was a priest in the truck with him so, at the last minute, he swerved back away, narrowly missing the lawyer.  
     However, even though he was certain he missed the lawyer, he still heard a loud "THUD".  
     Not understanding where the noise came from he glanced in his mirrors and when he didn't see anything, he turned to the priest and said, "I'm sorry Father, I almost hit that lawyer."  
     "That's okay", replied the priest.  "I got him with the door!"