WHAT DOES JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER ACTUALLY MEAN?

In a Court filing requesting a restraining order against her ex-husband, Fotis Dulos, Jennifer Farber-Dulos stated, "I am afraid of my husband.  He is dangerous and ruthless when he believes that he has been wronged.  During the course of our marriage, he has told me about sickening revenge fantasies and plans to cause physical harm to those who have wronged him."  Judge Nelson-Heller denied the request for a restraining order, and in retrospect we all wish she hadn't.  Of course, with a man intent upon murder, it's not very likely a restraining order will stop him.  Still...

When I reviewed the Dulos case, primarily through reading articles published by The Hartford Courant, I wondered if there was anything about Fotis Dulos which could have warned people in advance of what he was capable of. If so, you certainly weren't going to get it from Dr. Stephen Humphrey who was Fotis Dulos' therapist.  Dr. Humphrey did a psychological examination of Fotis Dulos on behalf of the Court and determined that he "had no psychopathology" and presents "as gregarious and confident."  At this point, we'd all like to know how he drew such an absurd conclusion.  

As it turns out, Dr. Humphrey solely used one test--the PAI test (Personality Assessment Inventory) and met with him for 20 hours.  Apparently, the PAI can test for Somatic Complaints, Anxiety, Anxiety-Related Disorders, Depression, Mania, Paranoia, Schizophrenia, Borderline Features, Antisocial Features, Alcohol Problems, and Drug Problems. It is a self report inventory with 344 items that are answered on a four point scale.  What can I say? From my understanding, a psychological evaluation consists of numerous tests, not just one--some of them self report and others not. 

To be certain of this, I did a quick search of the internet and this is what I got from Psychology Today, "Psychological testing and evaluation consists of a series of tests that help determine the cause of mental health symptoms and disorders, to determine the correct diagnosis and follow up with the appropriate course of treatment."  In other words, "a series of tests", not just one.  When I had my last psychological evaluation for family court, I took five different tests.  How is it that Dr. Humphreys just used one?  Did he take one look at the charming Fotis Dulos and say why bother?  Isn't that typical of how narcissists hoodwink not only mental health professionals and court personnel as well?  I'd say it is pretty classic.  

Were there any other indications that Fotis Dulos was capable of murder? For one thing, just before the divorce he purchased an unregistered gun in Florida without a permit.  Jennifer brought this to the Court's attention in one of her filings with the Court.  In it she wrote, "I am fearful of my and my children's safety, especially because he has a handgun in the house."  And further she stated, "I asked my husband to immediately remove the gun from the house, and he insisted that he was keeping the gun for protection."  Once the divorce was filed, Fotis Dulos furned the gun over to the Farmington police and subsequently never picked it back up because he didn't have a permit for it.  You have to wonder why he was running around with a gun just before the divorce.

In another incident Jennifer reported that Fotis Dulos threatened to run her over with a car.  These kinds of incidents are hard to prove because without a witness, they are he said, she said.  However, if that actually happened, it would have far worse implications than in most situations. This is because, in September 2010, Jennifer's mother-in-law was accidentally actually struck and killed by a car the nanny was driving in the driveway of the family home.  It's striking that this kind of scenario rose again within the context of the divorce.  In fact, knowing what we know now, it takes on an ominous tone.

Otherwise, in reading the Courant, I can't say there was anything else that warned me of what Fotis Dulos was capable of.  I do think one incident alerts me to the fact that Fotis Dulos couldn't care less about Jennifer or avoiding unnecessary confrontation.  Specifically, at one point, Fotis had all his kids baptized against Jennifer's wishes.  This is particularly offensive since Jennifer was Jewish and by Jewish law, since it goes by the matriarchal line, the children were Jewish.  In addition, before Hilliard Farber died, Fotis Dulos told his father-in-law that if he didn't keep the money flowing, Fotis would take the kids to Greece and never come back. This is the "congenial" guy which Dr. Humphreys was talking about.  

Given all this, there is no doubt that Fotis Dulos was a jerk and the divorce triggered him. Jennifer Farber-Dulos absolutely outgunned him financially and she clearly felt the need to defend herself.  He spent $45,000 in a year on the divorce, while she spent $69,000 per month.  She was able to get the Court to limit his access to the children and require that he have supervised limitation.  How?  She pointed out that he had allowed the kids to have contact with his mistress, Michelle Troconis against Court orders, and then told the kids to lie about it.  For the rest of us dealing with an abuser who don't have that kind of money and status, no way could we cut off our kid's other parent by making claims like that.  Ordinarily, the Court couldn't care less.  In my case, for six years my ex refused to adhere to medical guidelines for my disabled children's care and the Court didn't do anything about it.  

So we are standing there totally shocked that Jennifer was able to impose limited and supervised visitation with the kids on such patently weak grounds.  If we objected to our ex parading around a mistress in front of our kids, we'd be told by the Court to move on or get over it.  I will say, you may have the ability to grind someone down, but is it wise under the circumstances to do so, particularly when they may crack and do something as horrific as Fotis Dulos did? Bottom line, divorce is an vulnerable and unstable time for most people.  It is not the time for extreme accusations or extreme custody orders--at least not without a solid basis. Why try to push people over the edge?

Returning to the question of what does justice for Jennifer mean.  Historically, if we could rewind the clock, I think it would have meant handling the Dulos divorce more equitably and not allowing it to become money driven.  In the present, I believe it means preserving Jennifer Dulos character and reputation.  This has not been done, and to the extent that it has not been done, the murderer wins.

From the start of the Dulos divorce case, Fotis Dulos tried to smear Jennifer Farber-Dulos reputation by calling her crazy.  In a Hartford Courant article of May 30, 2019, less than a week after her death, reporters stated, "Dulos also made serious allegations against his wife saying she was an unfit mother because she was taking medications and had been treated for mental illness and had a relative that committed suicide."  Fotis Dulos made this statement because he felt it would give him traction in Family Court where accusations of this kind can still be fatal to a mother's attempt to retain custody of her children.  

Under the ADA signed by President Bush in 1990 discrimination against people based upon the ADA is prohibited by law.  Yet discrimination is alive and well in the family courts of Connecticut at the present time.  If we were to talk about justice for Jennifer, what we can do now to give her justice posthumously, it would be to absolutely prohibit statements like the one Dulos made equating having a mental illness or anyone in the family with a mental illness to being an unfit mother.  How disgraceful that the Court allowed it then.  How disgraceful that they continue to allow it now.

The other thing I would like to point out is that Judge Nelson-Heller sealed the Dulos custody report and Dr. Stephen Herman's testimony in regard to that report.  Then there was the incident on February 15, 2024 where Michelle Troconis posted the sealed custody report on her computer screen for all to see. Carrie Luft reported her actions and Michelle was charged with contempt.  On March 6, 2024, Taylor Hartz reported this incident in The Hartford Courant as follows:  "Apparently, the page Michelle was looking at included part of the psychological report of Jennifer Dulos.  It referenced the name of a particular doctor and the words Borderline Personality Disorder."  

This information, including the diagnosis for Jennifer Dulos, was placed on the warrant for Michelle Troconis' arrest.  Subsequently, the report that Jennifer Dulos had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder was stated repeatedly in other Hartford Courant articles. Why?  I thought the content of the custody report was sealed.  It was entirely possible for Carrie Luft to report on the incident without mentioning the diagnosis which was part of Jennifer Dulos' private medical information.  The same goes for the arrest warrant and the later Hartford Courant reports.  By disclosing the diagnosis, Carrie Luft, the warrant, the newspaper were all acting in contempt of the Court order sealing the contents of the custody report, just the same as Michelle was.  They should all be charged.

Why do I care about that?  Applying this diagnosis to Jennifer Dulos is simply defamatory.  Find me a mother whom the Court has demonized, and she will be diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. Seriously, the mere existence of this diagnosis in the custody report leads me to wonder whether Family Court was indeed setting Jennifer Dulos up to lose custody as Fotis Dulos and Michelle speculated.  BPD is the diagnosis given to any troublesome woman who dares to stand up for herself.  Its sexist political history and implications are extensive and decades long. 

Ultimately, l find it hard to believe that BPD was Jennifer's diagnosis.  Across the board friends of Jennifer have talked about what a great person she was.  Here is one person's description of Jennifer, "She was lovely, kind, and shy and a little funny and very private and very quiet."  She was a person who had many friends and worked well with teachers and administrators at the school where her kids got their education.  Suffice it to say, a person with a Borderline Personality Disorder is not at all like that and I'm not going to defile Jennifer's memory by defining it further.  All I have to say is that justice for Jennifer would have meant not allowing that diagnosis to make it into public view.  I am asking how it did, given that it is information from a sealed custody report.  

Meanwhile, Fotis Dulos, the killer, supposedly had no psychopathology.  It certainly makes you wonder how psychiatry is weaponized and distorted within the family court system.

Every once in a while, I drive back and forth over Avon Mountain and I see the shrine for Jennifer Dulos.  It is a very touching demonstration of love and caring for the memory of Jennifer Dulos.  But it isn't enough.  If we want Justice for Jennifer and for others just like Jennifer, we have to go further.  We have to hold the Judicial System accountable for their mistakes and we need to demand that the same things that happened to Jennifer don't happen to the next person.  That's what Justice for Jennifer actually means.

MICHELLE TROCONIS: THE FIGHT OVER THE CUSTODY REPORT!

On Friday, March 1, 2024, Michelle Troconis was found guilty of all the six counts she was charged with, i.e. conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence, two counts of tampering with physical evidence and one count of second-degree hindering prosecution.  The basis for the conviction was grounded in DNA evidence from the trash bags Fotis Dulos dropped off along Albany Avenue in Hartford while Michelle was in the car.  It also came from interviews Michelle participated in with police at different times.  There was other evidence, but my point is that very little evidence arose from the Dulos custody report.  Very little evidence came in from assessments as to whether the victim, Jennifer Dulos, was or was not a nice person.  Certainly, the whole "Gone Girl" concept never made it to the stand and so pursuing that line of thought was a waste of time.  Why then did Attorney Jon Schoenhorn spend so much of his time (and by reference his client's money) pursuing the custody report and associated hearing transcript which added nothing to Michelle Troconis' defense? I think that's where thoughts of skullduggery in the judicial system arise, which Michelle was indirectly hinting at by posting articles on the disgraced medical examiner, Henry Lee. My primary question, talking about skullduggery, is why didn't Attorney Schoenhorn simply tell Michelle that the custody report and hearing transcript were irrelevant? After all, what could possibly be in the Dulos custody report which could exonerate Michelle?  Logically, nothing.

It is with this question in mind that I will now examine the issue of the Dulos custody report because it tells you a lot about how the legal system works, or doesn't work, depending upon your viewpoint. Here it is important to note that there are two forms of evidence that Michelle Troconis and her attorney were attempting to access.  First, there was the custody report itself.  Second, there was the transcript of the hearings where Dr. Stephen Herman provided testimony in regard to his custody report.  The custody report doesn't in itself provide complete information.  It is only when it is combined with the Court testimony of its author that legal professionals can fully understand the implications of the report and how it will impact future custody decisions.  When the author of the report is on the stand, attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant have the opportunity to challenge the content and hold it up for scrutiny.  When we hear of the legal controversy over this issue related to Michelle's criminal trial, it is important to note that Michelle and her legal team obtained the custody report quite promptly.  Attorney Jon Schoenhorn requested a copy of the custody report in March 2021 and received a copy of it a month later in April 2021.  Where the controversy arose was in his attempt to obtain copies of the transcript of the hearing on the report which took place on March 14-15, 2019.  This is where Attorney Jon Schoenhorn faced one obstruction after the other, some of them, interestingly enough, of his own making.  Why?  Was he doing that deliberately?

The sequence of events is as follows.  In March 2021, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn asked the court clerk for a copy of the transcript of the hearings in regard to the custody report. In response, the clerk said no because it was sealed from the public. To verify that point, Attorney Schoenhorn went through the case file and was unable to find the Judge's sealing order.  He pointed that out and again asked for a copy of the transcript.  This is when the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut decided to intervene.  This is quite puzzling.  Why would such a high ranking official immediately become involved in a matter like this?  In my case, I had ten legal documents disappear, not just one, and that situation was simply handled by one of the judges in my case.  The fact that William Tong immediately jumped to attention and investigated the missing sealing order right away is quite striking.  It tells you how much attention Michelle's conspiracy trial was accorded all the way through the judicial system right to the top.

I also want to take some time out to make a point that has been on my mind for a long time related to Attorney General William Tong.  Beginning in 2013, dozens of family court litigants made their way to the judiciary committee of the CT State Legislature and presented testimony regarding the corruption, exploitation, and dysfunction they experienced in the CT Family Court system.  In response, they were mocked, disrespected, and generally disbelieved and treated as though they were crazy.  In 2018, during William Tong's tenure as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he presided over hearings where he was particularly rude, disrespectful and uncaring of the family court victims who came to provide testimony of the tragic and horrific experiences they'd had in family court.  In particular, Tong demanded that people who gave testimony remove T-shirts they were wearing which expressed their views, a demand for which he had absolutely no legal basis.  In fact, it violated their first amendment rights to freedom of speech. I can't help thinking that if the Judiciary Committee had exercised a modicum of wisdom in respecting the effort it took for these advocates to come to the State Capital and speak up about the legal abuses of family court, if they had only taken that testimony seriously and passed essential reforms at that time, Jennifer Dulos might still be alive today.  Instead, ironically, we have the infamous William Tong, who I believe gained his current position as Attorney General by frustrating the hopes of family court reform advocates, intervening in the details of the prosecution of Michelle Troconis.  It is interesting how everything intersects.  

Anyway, getting back to the main point, Attorney General William Tong investigated the missing sealing order.  He found that there was a public sealing order, but due to clerical error it wasn't properly posted in the case file.  He also stated that due to clerical error, the entire transcript of the hearing that day was sealed including the discussion about closing the courtroom and sealing Dr. Herman's testimony.  In fact, the only part of the transcript that should have been sealed was Dr. Herman's testimony, not the hearing on the motion to seal Dr. Herman's testimony.  That's quite a bit of clerical error.  Just like the ten documents which disappeared from my file was the result of clerical error.  What the clerical error in the Dulos case was hiding is that the courtroom was closed illegally during Dr. Herman's testimony and the transcript of the hearing was also sealed illegally.  What a convenient clerical error.  In this case, and in my own case of the missing ten documents, like Michelle, you start to think maybe there is some skullduggery involved here.

So how was the court closed and the transcript sealed illegally.  Apparently, if you wish to close the courtroom and seal a transcript, you are required to provide a 14 day public notice in advance and provide a record of a compelling reason to override the public interest in judicial transparency.  This was not done.  Presiding Judge Donna Nelson-Heller simply ignored the legal requirements and did what she wanted to do because she had the power and she could.  Now, I will acknowledge that it is standard to seal custody reports and the court transcripts of testimony by the authors of those reports.  In fact, the custody report in my case was sealed and I was glad that it was.  Who wants all that private information, much of it detailed mental health evaluations, not only of the parents but also the children, available to the public.  Of course, no one wants that.  On the other hand, the law is the law, and it is intended to be obeyed.  There are proper steps that are supposed to be taken according to state statute if you intend to seal information from the public.  They were crafted as a consequence of lengthy negotiations with the media and private citizens after considerable abuses related to the issue. Yet this cavalier disregard for legal requirements is typical of family court judges.  They simply do whatever they want to do regardless of the law, regardless of case law, and regardless of the CT Practice Book which is supposed to guide their actions and their decisions.  The failure of judges to obey the law is what has undermined the public trust in the legal system and led to the family court reform protests of 2013-2018.

In an attempt to access these court transcripts, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn submitted motions to two other Superior Court judges asking them to overturn Judge Nelson-Heller's sealing order.  But again, why?  Of what possible value could the transcripts be when it came to Michelle's defense?  Help me here, because I seriously have no idea.  Both of these Superior Court Judges denied Attorney Schoenhorn's motions based upon Valvo v. Freedom of Information Commission which declared it illegal for one Superior Court judge to overturn another Superior Court judge's decisions.  I have to say even I knew that.  How is it that Attorney Schoenhorn didn't know?  Can he honestly say he was ignorant of this fundamental legal insight?  I find that hard to believe.  What was he doing?  Putting on a big act for Michelle instead of just telling her this transcript won't help you in the least?  Next, Attorney Schoenhorn took his request to the Supreme Court and again asked for access to the transcripts.  In response, the Supreme Court asked why Attorney Schoenhorn didn't simply go to criminal court with his request.  Exactly!  Why didn't he?  The end result is Michelle Troconis wasted her time during her criminal trial looking at a custody report, and putting herself at risk of a contempt, for a document that really didn't have much of an impact when it came to convincing the jury of her innocence. 

MICHELLE TROCONIS: WHY RISK A CONTEMPT OF COURT?

On February 15, 2024, on the 22nd day of her criminal trial, Michelle Troconis sat before her computer scrutinizing the Dulos Custody report in large font, a report which was sealed by court order. Eagle eyed in the gallery, long time Jennifer Dulos friend and the Farber Family spokesperson, Carrie Luft spotted the report and notified a Court Marshal.  Michelle's Mom, Marisela Arreaza, noticed the activity and quickly tapped Michelle on the shoulder to get her to shut down the screen.  But the damage had already been done.  By the end of the day, the Court had taken steps to have Michelle Troconis charged with Contempt of Court, a class B felony which could lead to a fine and up to six months in jail if convicted. 

From the beginning of the Dulos case, the custody report has been the center of ongoing controversy. What is it all about? One aspect of this is that the custody report was used to exonerate Fotis Dulos of his wife's murder. Specifically, Fotis Dulos and his supporters stated the he would have no motivation to murder his ex-wife, Jennifer Farber-Dulos, because the custody report indicated that the case was heading in his favor.  The report was presented to the Court on May 14, 2019 within days of Jennifer Dulos' death.  Prepared by Dr. Stephen Herman, it apparently cast Fotis Dulos in a very positive light. As an aside, Dr. Herman is known widely because he opposed the Yale Study done in the Woody Allen case which stated that Dylan wasn't abused.  

The Dulos custody report, I would suspect, was a substantive report because it goes up to a page 50, which was the page Michelle Troconis was reading when Carrie Luft reported her.  I point this out because I've seen custody reports that were only three pages long.  My question is, why would Michelle have put herself at risk of additional prosecution just so she could wave this custody report around?  What in the world did she expect to accomplish?  Is she trying to tell us that the custody report showed Jennifer was such a bad person she deserved to die?  Was she trying to tell us that actually, despite all evidence to the contrary, Jennifer pulled a "Gone Girl" and the sealed custody report would explain why?  Is she trying to comment on the corruption of the Court system for not allowing her to present the custody report which she considered relevant evidence?  What?  

In order to get as close to an answer as possible, I returned to the early articles which report on Michelle Troconis' attempts to unseal the custody report and transcripts of the May 14, 2019 Court hearings when Dr. Stephen Herman provided testimony regarding his report. 

And before I proceed, let me say that I sympathize with Michelle in some ways.  I've been in numerous hearings in my own family court case were I had significant evidence which I couldn't present because of the rules of evidence or simply the Court's refusal to be bothered to look at it.  There is nothing more frustrating than that experience, where you feel you have information that would exonerate you, but your can't present it.  I have often felt that there is a pyramid of evidence, and the judge is on the top of it where there is the least to know.  Many times, judges make decisions based upon a very limited, by statute, body of information.  This explains decisions that often don't make sense to the general public when they come to light because of a tragic circumstance such as the Dulos case.  Of course, I can only speculate Michelle felt this way. I've never spoken to her.  

Be that as it may, prior to Michelle's trial, on July 10, 2022 Edmund H. Mahoney, a journalist with The Hartford Courant, reported that Michelle's attorney, Jon Schoenhorn filed a motion stating that he wanted "a transcript of the custody hearing to look for anything that could help Troconis by revealing what may have precipitated Jennifer Dulos' disappearance."  This language directly echoed the kind of language Fotis Dulos and his attorney, Norm Pattis, were using when they were in the middle of their speculations that Jennifer had pulled a "Gone Girl."  If you look at The Hartford Courant article cowritten by Dave Altimari and Nicholas Rondinone and published on July 17, 2019, Attorney Norm Pattis wrote in a motion he submitted to Court that he wanted access to "the diagnosis and treatment Ms. Dulos received in the weeks before her disappearance as such information may shed light on what may have motivated her to disappear."  

This overlapping language leads me to believe that, even now, despite the evidence, a part of Michelle Troconis still believes that Fotis Dulos is innocent and that Jennifer did a "Gone Girl" or she wishes to argue that.  I guess love is blind, huh! I conclude this because of Michelle's laser focus on the custody report and the transcript of the court hearing on it, when neither had any significant relevance to the proceedings in her criminal trial. I think it is quite clear that Jennifer Dulos is dead, simply from the items Fotis Dulos threw out during his cruise down Albany Avenue in Hartford on the evening of the murder.

So what's up with posting this custody report and incurring a criminal charge for doing so?  At the very least, Michelle could have been saying Jennifer was such a bad person she deserved to die. However, it's amazing, but bad character or behavior still is not solid grounds for killing someone. I guess in our day and age with Trump I actually feel the need to say that. So if Michelle thought that was important to point out, she was sorely mistaken.

On the other hand, Michelle could have been hinting that Jennifer committed a "Gone Girl". Still, the forensic evidence says otherwise and why won't Michelle believe that evidence?  The answer to that question lies perhaps in another incident where Michelle posted an article on her computer for all to see about how the State's former top medical examiner, Dr. Henry Lee, falsified forensic evidence, thus leading to the conviction of innocent people.  This incident occurred when the Court was hearing testimony about the forensic evidence in Michelle's criminal trial. This leads me to believe that Michelle simply doesn't believe Jennifer is dead to the point where she thinks the forensic evidence is fabricated, or she wants to argue that. 

This would explain why Michelle Troconis pled the fifth and refused to cooperate one single iota when she was asked to provide testimony in Fotis' civil trial held in November 2019 regarding the millions of dollars he allegedly owed the Hilliard Farber estate.  At every turn, Michelle's acknowledgement of Fotis Dulos' guilt has been weak and unconvincing.  I can see it must have been difficult for Michelle to process the fact that the man she passionately loved was also a murderer.  Of course, that depends upon wat she did or did not know.  

Still, there is no doubt that Fotis Dulos was a very charming man who had a way with the ladies.  As soon as Fotis realized that Michelle Troconis was no longer useful to him, he dropped her for a gullible Anne Curry. Then, even as the police closed in and the evidence mounted that Fotis Dulos was clearly guilty, he was able to talk Ms. Curry into lending him $147,000 for bail.  As far as I know, as of March 28, 2024, she is continuing to fight to get her money back.  What a sucker in a series of suckers Fotis Dulos found it easy to cultivate.

Of course, Michelle Traconis has been convicted in a court of law of conspiracy to commit murder, so perhaps her focus on the custody report is just an attempt to distract us from the true facts of the case pointing towards her guilt.  Otherwise, there are so many mysteries in the Dulos case--perhaps this is one of them.  

UPDATE ON PAUL BOYNE!

I just received an update on Paul Boyne from independent reporter Michael Volpe from his substack reporting venue. 

As you know, Paul Boyne has now been sitting in jail for over a year because he posted what the Connecticut judicial branch considers offensive articles on his blog www.thefamilycourtcircus.com. Apparently, Paul's case was going to go to trial in September 2024, but it has been canceled.  Volpe speculates that the reason is that the state's case against him is so weak.  

From what I understand is that there was a plea deal in place on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 which would have allowed Paul to plead guilty and the state would have accepted time served as punishment so that Paul could have walked out a free man.  However, at that point Paul's attorneys allegedly intervened, refused to proceed with the plea deal and claimed that he was incompetent.

Anyone who knows Paul is aware that this is nonsense.  As Michael Volpe states, "If you listen to any interview, you know he's plenty competent.  He's prepared to help with his defense, but his court appointed lawyers have been phoning it in from the beginning.  Now, they are suggesting he's incompetent."  Throughout the years, Paul Boyne has advocated for family court reform, provided emotional and legal research support to litigants, written articles for his ongoing blog, as well as been a good friend to many.  You may not agree with his views, but the idea that he is not competent is just silly.

Recently, as a self represented party, Paul Boyne submitted a federal motion for injunction to the federal courts. Could he have done this if he weren't competent? He was forced to write the motion by hand because the prison doesn't have computers or typewriters.  His court appointed attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers of the Kirschbaum Law Firm--have refused to assist him in his federal court filings.  Apparently, one reason they gave for refusing to assist him is that they don't know anything about the first amendment.  

This is beyond ridiculous. 

On the other hand, as a person who was subjected to numerous accusations--which were found to be false, fyi--that I was incompetent myself in family court, I am curious as to how they are going to go about this.  What foolish mental health professional would be dumb enough to take this on?  What parameters are they going to use?  Welcome to the therapeutic state everybody!

*Again this is an update from Michael Volpe's reporting venue on substack.  For more detailed analysis than I am able to provide, please refer to his substack account. 

Followup:

I did have a chance to speak to Paul Boyne today about what happened.  He explained to me that this week they were supposed to start jury selection for his case.  However, Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers weren't prepared to proceed with trial.  They hadn't submitted any lists of witnesses, sent out any supoenas or prepared a list of exhibits for the court.  In essence, they had done nothing.  Instead, they spoke to the judge in chambers without Paul present and agreed to request a competency evaluation instead.  Later, Alice Powers went to speak to Paul and informed him of their intentions.  

Upon arriving in open court, his attorneys submitted a verbal motion to the court, but they didn't bother to submit a written motion. This gives me the impression that the move to examine Paul for competency was an off the cuff motion to obscure the fact that the attorneys weren't prepared. The grounds they provided were that Paul Boyne considered Joette Katz, former head of CT DCF, as part of the reason for his arrest.  Also, they stated he had suffered a concussion, which did occur when he was attacked by another inmate.  However, the doctor who examined him at the time did not indicate the concussion interfered with Paul's competency.  

Another interesting fact Paul Boyne shared with me is that Kirschbaum Law, the firm his attorneys are associated with, is not contracted with the New Haven Judicial District public defender to provide services.  It is contracted with Hartford and Waterbury, but not New Haven.  I consider it a very questionable practice to provide services without a proper contract. 

As a point of interest, I did look up whether it is legal for a judge to order a defendant to have a competency evaluation in criminal court.  Apparently, it is legal.  Apparently, "a court in Connecticut may order a competency exam for a criminal defendant if there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime and the request for an exam is justified."  Justification for such an exam would be 1. the defendant appears delusional or incoherent; 2. the defendant has a mental disease or defect; 3. the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against them; 4. the defendant is unable to assist in their defense.  Number two appears to me to be unusually broad--like any kind of mental disease or defect?  Any?  Wow.  

It does appear that the attorneys here are not acting in Paul Boyne's best interests when they nullify an advantageous, though unjust, plea deal in favor of a competency exam.  This has led Paul to question whether Alice Powers and Jennifer Buyske of Kirschbaum law can continue to represent him legally since they appear not to be acting in his best interests.

 

MY DIVORCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF JESUS

Here on this blog I have spent at least a decade talking about divorce and yet I have never spoken directly about why my marriage ended in divorce.  My divorce took place as a result of religion.  That's right.  In a way, you can say God came between my husband and me.  Actually, I shouldn't say God.  The truth is, a religious cult came between us, and that cult believed that it was speaking for God.  So to a certain extent, my first way of putting it was correct.

Originally, I lived out of state, but I came to live in Connecticut when my ex and me agreed to live together for a year and see if we were compatible.  After a year, if everything worked out, we agreed to get married.  During that year, I began to attend a nearby Church that was within walking distance of my home, and before long my ex came along with me.  I had understood that while my ex was brought up in a religious household, during his entire life as an adult and while I had known him (ten years) he had shown no interest in religion at all.  Still, he was the great great great great grandson of a famous Baptist preacher who eventually founded Gordon College in Massachusetts.  In contrast, I was brought up in an family of agnostics who did not attend Church, although I was deeply religious in my way.  My father came from a German Jewish background and his family had been decimated by the holocaust.  This made him skeptical of any kind of religious faith.

Before long, we were swept into the life of the Church and pretty much every social activity we went to was Church related in some way.  I began to attend bible study for women each week which the Senior Pastor of the Church was leading.  This is when I first heard mention of the Community of Jesus which was founded in 1970 by two Episcopal laywomen--Cay Anderson and Judy Sorenson.  In the Church library there was a large collection of cassettes of talks given by the two women who were founders of the Community of Jesus.  The Pastor would encourage us to listen to the tapes and recommended their content. Furthermore, the Pastor talked about visiting the Community of Jesus in Cape Cod, Massachusetts where the group had its headquarters.  He spoke about staying overnight there and how nicely people were treated.  He acknowledged there were complaints about children being abused by the Community of Jesus, but he insisted such accusations were all nonsense.  He laughed it off in scorn as if it were hardly possible that this occurred.  

It was a full two decades later when I saw the Canadian news report on the abuse of children in a Community of Jesus related high school, Grenville Christian College.  This was a school which educated students from pre-school through high school  Quite recently, five former students from that school won a lawsuit against the administrators of the school for the abuse they experienced there.  In the 2020 decision, the judge stated, "I have concluded that the evidence of maltreatment and the varieties of abuse perpetrated on student's bodies and minds in the name of Community of Jesus values of submission and obedience was class-wide and decades long."  Not only that, there have been reports from people who grew up in the Massachusetts Community of Jesus compound that as children they were taken from their parents, passed around from family to family, and forced to do hours and hours of manual labor.  So the reports of abuse weren't nothing as the Church Pastor implied.  

The first few years I was in the Church I was surrounded by warmth and attention.  After a year, my ex and I decided to get married and the following year I had a baby, my oldest son.  When he was born, I literally received a card of congratulations from every member of the Church.  During Church choir practice, which I attended every week, a group of young girls would take the baby and care for him until choir practice was over, with no expectation of reward or compensation.  I could literally do no wrong.  The Pastor of the church provided couples counseling and individual counseling for me free of reward or compensation.  When my son had his first few birthdays, over half the people who came to celebrate were Church members.  Before I knew it, our pediatrician, our accountant, our real estate agent, our primary care physician--you name it--were all Church members.

But as time went by, the situation darkened.  I have always been deeply Christian, but my faith has not been unshadowed by many doubts and dark nights of the soul.  And I have left my faith only to come back, and then leave again, then return, etc.  I have always been frank about my thoughts on this, and I was quite open in the Church regarding the ups and downs of my faith journey.  In contrast, my ex, who never previously had any interest in Christianity, pretty much turned into a holy roller.  In time, my frankness about my doubts and hesitations led to ostracism. Instead of the warm embrace I was originally welcomed in with at the start of my attendance at this Church, I found people criticizing my shoes as being too expensive, etc., and taking offense at what I thought and intended to be harmless remarks.  At Church meetings, I often found myself sitting in a corner on my own.  At one point, I was assisting in a fundraiser for a youth group.  We were selling fancy bread in the social room, when I was approached by a deacon of the Church.  He insisted that fundraising was like having moneylenders in the Church.  He ordered me on the spot to take the kids, the table, the boxes of fancy bread and sell them outside the Church building on what was a cold, windy day.  It was harassment of this nature that occurred repeatedly.

Meanwhile, my ex-husband received the Church's whole hearted embrace.  He was appointed to the Board of Trustees and other Church Committees.  Before long, he was down at the Church all the time attending various Church functions.  This meant that I was at home with very young children alone while my ex was participating in a bunch of social and business functions at the Church.  I didn't think much about what this meant until one evening, it concerned me that since my ex was going to a meeting right after work, he might not have had dinner.  I therefore wrapped a plate with a nice chicken dinner in tin foil and brought it down for him to eat during the meeting.  Instead of being appreciative of my effort, my ex was angry and annoyed.  What I came to understand later was that what my ex had been telling people was that I didn't feed him.  My ex was using his opportunity away from me at the Church to tell stories about how I was a bad wife and was abusing him.  This was remarkable given that not only did I assist unpaid in our home business, but I was taking care of our children pretty much alone as well.  My ex didn't so much as change a diaper.  As soon as the ink was dry on our wedding certificate, he reverted back to an attitude towards our respective roles that was more suitable to the Edwardian age.

At that time, which was the early and late 90s, there were a few books out that presented married life in a form that would have made Phyllis Schafly proud.  The prototype for these kinds of books, which you might recall, was "Fascinating Womanhood" by Helen B. Andelin published in 1963. Many copycat type books came out in the 1990s and pretty much advocated that under God you be obedient to your husband and focus on becoming a good housewife and mother.  They advised you to spend all day cleaning and baking, and always meet your husband at the door looking sexy and ready to go and etc.  Somehow, not long after my marriage, Church members made sure to pass that book along to me.  It tells you just exactly how that particular Church viewed women and their role in society. Too bad no one reminded them of that part of the marriage ceremony that goes, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mathew 19:6). Still, you wouldn't have observed this conservatism from superficial conversations with Church members. I had joined a Church denomination which is known as one of the most liberal in the United States.  However, every congregation is allowed to interpret that freely among themselves.  Nothing was written on the walls, and you wouldn't have heard it directly in a sermon, but somehow it was a very present sentiment.  The fact that I did not feed my husband was damning.  And the accusation was somehow taken as a fact, because my husband said it, and he was a man.

At one point, I became really public about my complaints.  I spoke up about the how controlling the Church was and how it felt as though Church members were interfering in every aspect of my life.  I felt as though the pastor was violating appropriate boundaries when he provided counseling for me and my ex. and I decided to stop going.  Apparently, news spread that I had done this and before long I had people outside the Church coming to me speaking about the Community of Jesus, and how they had been bullied and decided to leave it.  I did not know at the time that the reason I was hearing from them was because my Church was so closely associated with the Community of Jesus.  I was still new to the situation.  The divide between my husband and me continued to grow and I had the impression that Church members felt that we were unequally yoked and that while they thought my ex was wonderful, they could do without me.  Eventually, I decided that I wanted to leave the Church and I spoke to my husband about it.  To my shock and surprise, he told me that the Church was more important than I was.

By then, we had three children and so it wasn't that easy for either of us to leave the marriage.  So it took another eight years before we finally ended up with a divorce.  During that time, if my ex had a disagreement with me, instead of working it out with me, he went to the Church to complain. Even worse, there were times--, rarely, I will admit--that if we began to get into a heated conversation, my ex would literally fall on his knees and begin to pray out loud.  At Church, my ex found a ready and willing audience for all of his anger and unhappiness. It is my belief that the ministers in the Church provided him with extensive counseling at the Church, but I was never included or officially informed about it. To them, he appeared more credible to people given his ancestry. There is a theme that runs within some Christian traditions that holiness is generational.  As he spread more disinformation about me, I became more isolated and unhappy.  It didn't help that I had a Jewish background which made me easier to dislike.  The subtle sneers I was subjected to regarding Jews, or Hebrews as they were often called, made me feel terribly uncomfortable.

I was reading an article written by blogger Carrie Buddington, former victim of the cult, on the common attitude that continues to prevail in the Community of Jesus and its associated Church communities. She said, "It was about receiving correction from everyone around you, confessing your sins constantly, and being absolutely obedient without question."  As a woman, I felt it was about disempowerment, and accepting the role of second class citizen.  Ultimately, I was not able to tolerate that and this is why our marriage broke down.  There is more to this, and I may speak about it in the future.  But in a nutshell, this is basically what happened.  Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.  The Community of Jesus was certainly that for me.

For more about the Carrie Buddington and her experiences in the Community of Jesus, see the link below:

https://www.amazon.com/Exquisite-Torture-Life-Christian-Cult-ebook/dp/B0BWVMKW2B?ref_=ast_author_mpb

98% OF CRIMINAL CASES END IN PLEA BARGAINS, SAYS NPR!

I was saddened when I heard that Paul Boyne is preparing to accept a plea bargain in his case because I'd like to see him defend his rights in open court.  But the Judicial System in this country has essentially eliminated the right of American citizens to go to trial.  Take a moment to read the NPR article on this subject and find out how it happened.  See below:

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice

Of course, if Paul Boyne decides to take a plea, this would be entirely understandable since prosecutors have a team of attorneys, paralegals, and administrative assistants to help them with their case, along with a plush state budget.  In contrast, all Paul Boyne has are two pro bono attorneys. It's an unfortunate situation which has led to many innocent people being locked up in jail.  This is also exacerbated by our for profit jail system which benefits from having innocent people locked up.  For more information on this, see below:

https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/

CT LAW REGARDING SEALED CASES

One piece of information that has come out recently about Paul Boyne is that his case has been sealed. I was looking his case up online and when I clicked on the case number for his files (there were three) I received an automatic notice that his case has been statutorily sealed. This made me feel concerned about what was going on.

As a result, I sent an inquiry about this to Paul Boyne's attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Osedach--but did not hear back from them.  I also sent an inquiry to the Hartford Courant journalist--Mr. Edmund H. Mahony--who has been covering Paul Boyne's case, but he said he didn't know anything about it. Just to be sure, I contacted the clerk at the New Haven criminal courthouse to confirm Paul Boyne's case has been sealed and she stated that it has, indeed, been sealed from both the public and journalists.  

Eventually, I read in an article Edmund H. Mahony published today that Paul Boyne has applied for a diversion program.  It turns out that when a defendant does that, his case is automatically sealed. The article is so biased, I'm not going to include the link, but it is easily accessible.  Still, I am breathing a sigh of relief that everything is above board.  Aside from court files from diversionary programs, only court records such as juvenile arrest records and the records of victims of sexual offenses are automatically restricted from public view.

Still, the sealing of court cases is a rather touchy subject in Connecticut.  I can recall that when John Rowland was first running for the office of governor in Connecticut in 1994, the rumor was that he had committed acts of domestic violence with his first wife.  However, it wasn't possible for journalists to find out because his case had been sealed.  Here are some of the links on this situation below:

https://www.courant.com/1994/09/30/domestic-incident-rtdata-withheld/

https://www.courant.com/1994/10/26/closed-divorce-files-not-unusual-among-well-known-people-2/

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2003_02_09_Rich_EliteEnjoy_Felix_Maguire_2.htm

As you can see, the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch was sealing cases for people it considered privileged has been a major source of conflict in Connecticut.  Eventually, the Hartford Courant sued the Connecticut Judicial Branch demanding that it stop this practice.  The decision in this case is in Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 which affirmed a qualified first amendment right of access to court files. As a result, since that time, it is rare for cases to be sealed or the public denied access to a trial.  See below:

https://casetext.com/case/hartford-courant-co-v-pellegrino-2

To see how that translates into reality, I went onto the Judicial Branch website. In reviewing information provided by the Connecticut Judicial Branch, I found out that Connecticut doesn't have a particular law in place when it comes to sealing records.  However, "a Court can seal a file if the Judicial Authority determines that it is necessary to protect an interest that is more important than the public's interest in viewing the materials or attending the proceedings."  

This also brings forward another question. When a file is sealed, does that mean the trial will also be closed from the public?  Because if you seal the file, the next step is to close the trial to the public.  I don't think that makes sense in every case.

It is also important to note that in order to seal a case, the attorney making this request is required to follow through on a specific protocol detailed by the honorable Michael P. Shea at the link below:

https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sheaConfidentiality%20and%20Sealing%20Documents%20Instructions.pdf

This protocol requires that there is a hearing on the question of whether a file should be sealed.  Do such hearings always take place? It is certainly a question worth asking.  Somehow, and you may think me cynical, I think those steps are skipped and files are simply sealed during hearings without prior notice.

Of course, there is the sealing of individual documents which can take place quite routinely in a case.  For instance, financial affidavits and custody evaluations are routinely sealed in divorce and custody cases.  We saw that in the Michelle Troconis trial where the custody evaluation was sealed.  However, sealing an entire case?  I don't think that happens as often as it used to.  

There is considerable additional information that Judge Shea provides for the legal basis of the public's first amendment right of access to court files in his review of the process.  So make sure you take the time to read it.  

PAUL BOYNE CASE IS SOLELY A FREEDOM OF SPEECH CASE! SEE INTERVIEW!

 

CAN PAUL BOYNE GET A FAIR TRIAL?

I'm a little out of practice on writing blogs so if I'm not so great writing this one, please forgive me.  However, I happened to see the Edmund H. Mahony article in The Hartford Courant , "Alleged cyberstalker case to go to trial", indicating that Paul Boyne's case is going to trial soon.  I felt I had to step up to the plate and speak out given that one of our own, Paul Boyne, is under attack.  Now, of course, I can hear you all saying--one of our own, what do you mean?  We aren't racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic.  And to be clear, I condemn hate speech of any kind, as I'm sure everyone in the family court reform movement does.

What I mean to say is that Paul is a person whose life was destroyed, as our lives were, by the family court system.  This made him lose his sense of proportion so that he spoke in ways that I'll bet the pre-family court Paul probably would never have considered.  If there is one thing I know about the suffering and pain family court causes people, it is that it can literally drive people out of their minds.  Still, despite the hate speech, despite the suffering and pain, Paul is the most giving person I know.  Over the years, in his work as a family court advocate, Paul has helped a great many people with their cases, selflessly and without pay.  This is why I'm here speaking out on his behalf.  Because any one of us can relate to Paul's situation--being a good, decent, human being and parent, and then damaged to the core by the harsh and cruel treatment meted out by the family court system.

I also believe that Paul Boyne speaks in these shocking ways not because he believes it, but because he thinks it is the only way to break through public complacency in the face of egregious family court corruption.  It is his way of shaking people and saying "Wake up!  Look at this terrible injustice that is going on!" It is very frustrating for all of us who are working for family court reform to deal with the fact that there is such an extensive coverup of the problems.  For example, when it came to the Jennifer Dulos case, the media spoke often about the fact that it involved a contentious and bitter custody dispute.  But they never explained how or why it became that way.  Without such explanations, the public will never know what was really going on.  So why don't we get them?  

My first reaction when I heard that Paul was going to trial is--how can he possibly get a fair trial? He is going to be on trial for attacking the very system that will stand in judgment on him.  His attorneys are officers of the very court system that he has been villifying.  Isn't there a major conflict of interest going on here?  I certainly think so.  There has been unfairness in Paul's case from the start.  This is a free speech case.  It is a case about the exchange of ideas, and how those ideas can be expressed.  For goodness sake!  What is he doing in jail for a whole year? Paul has no money.  Where is he going to go?  How would he flee? You may think his words are hateful and disgusting, but since when do we put people in jail for expressing their thoughts?  Here in America, how is that right under any circumstances?  Well, he insulted judges.  So what? Is there a section in the constitution stating that we cannot insult judges?  We can insult every one else, but not judges?  

The state argues that, apparently, in his blog posts Paul "identified them (judges), their homes, and even the cars they drive" and "suggested that violence is a remedy available to disgruntled family court litigants."  Yet they acknowledge that in all the time that Paul Boyne has been writing these blogs there have been no incidents of violence as a consequence.  It would be a good exercise to investigate whether other blogs around the country which also demonize certain people or groups have ever resulted in outbreaks of violence.  Just because people speak about violence in ways that prosecutors admit are vague and nonspecific, this doesn't automatically mean that the outcome will be violence against a person or persons.  The other question I ask is whether this particular kind of speech has been ruled illegal by any CT State Statute.  If prosecutors or judges or anyone else considers Paul's blog postings dangerous, it is their option to work on passing legislation to make it illegal so that Paul could have a specific law to rely on when he makes decisions on how to write his articles.  Without such legislation, we are at risk of silencing free speech simply because whether someone's written work is or is not bullying or hate speech depends upon the decision of a jury.  Meanwhile, you have to sit in jail waiting for your case to be adjudicated.  

I also want to make an objection to the term "cyberbullying" in regard to Paul.  Cyberbullying is when a person goes after his target on social media and via email and texting.  Paul is a blogger with a website posting his political and social viewpoint.  If you don't like it, don't go there.  With cyberbullying you are being attacked and a person is going after you.  If you go to read Paul's work, that is your choice.  When state prosecutors and journalists contextualize this case in a manner that is not in accordance with the facts and make deceptive choices in language that do not apply, this greatly misleads the public.  This is wrong.  

Another reason I'm sympathetic to Paul is that, as a blogger here in Connecticut, I have also had attorneys threaten to take me to court.  I was once threatened with jail if I didn't not reveal my sources in an article I'd written about a case.  One attorney went to the West Hartford police department and filed a formal complaint that I was blogging about family court cases. I have been illegally ordered out of the courtroom and threatened with security for no other reason than that I was sitting quietly in support of one of the parties. At another time, I cut and pasted an attorney's bio onto my blog which happened to include the fact that this attorney lived in West Hartford. It was information that came from the law firm's own website.  Nonetheless, they contacted me and told me they were considering suing me for "incitement to violence" for posting the information.  I immediately took it down because I do respect people's privacy.  However, from the beginning of my work as a blogger I have been well aware of the fact that I was taking on this task at my own risk.  It has not been easy and I've experienced a great deal of trauma and anxiety as a result. 

I may have more to say about this topic.  I have many difficult things going on in my personal life and so I may not have the time.  But one thing I will say is that we in the family court movement have repeatedly asked for an investigation of the family court system in regard to its failure to obey the law.  Unfortunately, there appear to be no vehicles for self scrutiny in place for the family court system.  This is pretty ridiculous given that I get asked for my opinion of the services I receive all the time--please hold for our quick survey--you know what I mean.  But family court seems to feel that they are above accountability.  That's pretty sad.  Apparently, in going after Paul Boyne state prosecutors have been investigating him scrupulously for five years. Imagine how many resources were tied up in that investigation.  I can't help wondering if, instead of going after Paul Boyne, legal professionals had invested that same energy and intelligence into investigating family court, Jennifer Dulos would be alive today.

THE DISPUTE: RESPONSE TO THE DEATH OF JENNIFER DULOS

 

THE DISPUTE 

                                                I

He lay in wait

Entangled in a lengthy hostile divorce and custody battle

Entangled in a contentious divorce and custody battle

A bitter divorce and custody battle

In the midst of a heated divorce and custody battle

Embroiled in a heated divorce and custody dispute

Embroiled in a bitter custody dispute

 

He lay in wait.

Through an ongoing custody fight and divorce

A continued strategy of complete and total war

Two years of torture

A  Back and forth Hellish conflict

A divorce and custody battle

Contentious, protracted

Hotly and continuously contested

 

                                                II

 

One morning, she disappeared after dropping

her kids off at school, leaving behind

spatter, stains, smears, blood-like

on the garage floor, paper towels, trash can, steering wheel, trunk

In darkness, luminol blazed forth a nightmare

She likely sustained an injury or multiple injuries

that experts would consider unsurvivable

They put him in an empty cold room

full of spotlights

naked with a metal bed rack

and a Velcro blanket.

 

It was a bitter breakup

Lengthy and expensive, with no end in sight

GAL fees at approximately $180 thousand, and more to come

Attorneys’ fees: $90K father; $1,650,000 mother and more to come

Custody evaluation: $20 thousand approximately, and more to come

A bloody shirt and bra, fingerprints, DNA

all dumped in a conveniently “creepy” neighborhood

Then a 43 page arrest warrant

“I didn’t do it.” says his mistress,“He did it!”

He is dead.  She’s in jail.

And the desire for justice reaches beyond the grave to seize the living

How do you respond to the charges?  Not guilty.

No one, it seems, is guilty.

 

It was an intense divorce and custody battle

For he lay in wait

He lay in wait.

 

July 11, 2024

 

 

LAMONT NOMINATES 22 TO POSTS AS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES!

"The CT News Junkie" reports as follows:

Gov. Ned Lamont nominated 13 women and nine men as judges of the Superior Court Friday, a move aimed at ensuring diversity and expertise within the state judiciary. Notable nominees include former Hartford Mayor Pedro E. Segarra and Christine Jean-Louis, general counsel to the lieutenant governor.

“One of the most notable honors of my responsibilities as governor is to fill vacancies in our court system with capable jurists whose qualifications meet the high standards that the people of Connecticut deserve on the bench,” Lamont said. “This group of nominees I am forwarding to the legislature today continues this administration’s effort to ensure that the people who are serving as judges in our state reflect the diversity, experience, and understanding of the people who live here.”

For more information, please see the following link below.  The juciest tidbit on the list is the inclusion of well known family court Attorney Steve Dembo.  I'd be interested to know how people feel about that!

https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/03/04/gov-lamont-nominates-22-to-superior-court-bench/#:~:text=Gov.%20Ned%20Lamont%20nominated%2013,counsel%20to%20the%20lieutenant%20governor.

DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT SENDS HOLIDAY GREETINGS FOR 2023!

 

ADSENSE IS NONSENSE

 

In 2019, I received notice that the adsense account for this "Divorce in Connecticut" blog was terminated.  The reason they provided at the time was that there was insufficient original content.  Now losing adsense isn't really that much of a big deal.  I can't say I made that much money off of it.  It really is the principle of the matter.  The fact is that at least 90% of the material on this blog is original material which has been thoroughly and carefully researched.  I think that you as my readers would vouch for me in this matter.   Where I have not had original material, I had links to newspaper articles relevant to the topic of divorce, or Youtube videos centrally relevant to current events.  For instance, I might have videos of testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the CGA.  Is Adsense telling me you simply can't have any content at all that isn't original on a blog?  How can you conduct a social justice blog with that kind of restriction?  To complicate matters, the notice Adsense provides is in a "no-reply" format, and they don't give you any information on how to appeal their decision!  Recently, I sent a request to reinstate Adsense on my account, and I received the following reply: Your application status Thank you for your interest in AdSense. After reviewing your application, our specialists have found that it does not meet our program criteria. Therefore, we are unable to accept you into our program.

Our AdSense program policies are designed to ensure the effectiveness of Google ads for our publishers as well as for our advertisers. We review all publishers and we reserve the right to decline any application. If you are able to make changes to meet our program criteria, you may reapply for AdSense in the future.

Please note that we may not be able to respond to inquiries regarding the specific reasons for our decision. Thank you for your understanding.

Thanks, The Google AdSense Team Again, this is as puzzling as the previous notice I received cancelling adsense. What do they mean when they say, "Our specialists have found that it does not meet our program criteria?" To find out, I looked up the definition and found that again the issue of original content is at play: "To be eligible for Google AdSense, a website must have a significant amount of original and high-quality content. Websites that lack content, have content copied from other sources, or contain poorly written content are likely to be rejected by Google AdSense."  As I've said, and as you know, the vast majority of material on my website is original material.  If the folks who review my website are responsible and honest, they will acknowledge that.  I spent some time trying to find a way to contact the people who make these decisions. I looked for an appeal form which I could use to appeal the decision, and it was nowhere to be found. It is all very puzzling and difficult to figure out.  Talking about a nameless, faceless bureaucracy, Adsense has it.   I also wondered, and perhaps its paranoid, but could it be a disgruntled attorney wrote to complain about the content of this blog, and that's why it was cancelled?  It does make me curious as to whether political content impacts the decision adsense makes to remove or retain a blog, or to determine what is "poorly written content."