TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
January 14, 2013
By Elizabeth A.
Richter
We have been asked today, to come before you and comment on
the suitability of these judges to continue in their positions as judges in the
CT Judicial System.
In considering this issue, the Code of Judicial Conduct
provides an excellent standard by which we can measure the performance of
judges. This Code articulates the kind
of good behavior, good judgment, and good character which we require of our
judges in the Judicial System in the State of Connecticut.
In this Code, there are rules that particularly stand out
for me which are as follows:
Rule 1.1. A Judge
shall comply with the law.
Rule 1.2 A judge
shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Rule 2.5 (a) A judge shall perform judicial and
administrative duties competently and diligently.
There are many admirable, hardworking judges who adhere to
the Code of Judicial Conduct to the best of their ability.
However, three of the judges under consideration today
should be censored or removed from their positions because of their wrongdoing. They are as follows:
1.
Judge
Barbara M. Quinn: I am an ADA
Advocate. In the course of my work, on
October 25, 2012, I sent a letter to Judge Quinn Certified Mail/Return Receipt
Requested. In this letter I asked for
two items: first, that she provide for
me the name and contact information of the Designated Responsible Employee
under Title II of the ADA 28 CFR Part 35 Sec. 35.107. Under federal ADA law, there should be a
Designated Responsible Employee to address ADA issues in the CT Judicial
Branch, and I have the legal right to know who that individual is. Second, even though I am eligible for
reasonable modifications under Prong I, II, and III of the ADA, the CT Judicial
Branch has repeatedly refused to provide them for me. I requested an explanation for this lapse. It is
now January 14, 2013, and Judge Barbara Quinn still has not bothered to respond
to my letter. This failure to respond
does not promote confidence; it does not show competence or diligence. It represents a violation of federal ADA
law. And, quite simply, it is rude.
2.
Judge F. Herbert Gruendel: In 2009, I filed a Motion to Reopen my
case. At the end of this case, I was
unable to attend hearings because I was unwell and required surgery. I provided full documentation from several
medical doctors in regard to my illness, and requested that the final hearing
in my case be delayed until I had recovered.
The trial court denied my request and went ahead and ruled without
allowing me a hearing in violation of my due process rights. I took this particular issue to Appellate
Court. As one of a panel of three
judges, Judge F. Herbert Gruendel participated in the concealment of several
documents in my case related to the issue of my ill health. I have here a copy of my Motion For Review
dated January 12, 2012 where I ask to have these documents placed in the
record. Judge F. Herbert Groendel was a
part of the panel that denied that motion. Furthermore, he concurred in a ruling that
made several false statements about the issue of my ill health. While Judge Gruendel shares responsibility
for these actions with two other judges, but this does not excuse him. It is a violation of the law to conceal
documents relevant to a case. It is also
a violation of the law to tell lies in an Appellate Court Memorandum of
Decision. These violations show a
complete lack of the kind of integrity citizens of the State of CT minimally
expect of their judges.
In a second appeal, A.C. 33888 where Judge
F. Herbert Gruendel was again a member of the panel, I brought before the
Appellate Court the following question.
Is it correct in a Memorandum of Decision for the trial court to quote out
of context, without any advanced notice to the parties, excerpts from a
private, custody evaluation that was sealed by order of the Court. Specifically, I was referring to a custody
evaluation that was not presented to the Court as a full exhibit, and which
remained hearsay since the expert who wrote it never came to court to provide
his testimony as required by law. The
issue I raised was that of confidentiality of medical records, more
specifically, the question of whether the trial court has the right to place
confidential medical records on the internet.
Yet if you look at the two short paragraphs which represent the sum
total of the decision on this appeal, you will see no mention of these
issues. Judge F. Herbert Gruendel and
his fellows on the Appellate Panel simply ignored them, in the same way that
they simply ignored ALL of the issues I raised in both of my appeals. This response lacks honesty, lacks
diligence, and most particularly, lacks integrity. Again, Citizens in the State of Connecticut
cannot afford to have judges who do not have integrity.
3.
Judge Constance Epstein: I have already provided this Committee with a
letter dated May 1, 2012 expressing my extreme dissatisfaction with Judge
Constance Epstein’s behavior in my case.
My case has been a very difficult one, lasting from 2006 up until the
present, and I believe the responsibility for that lies with Judge Epstein. I made several points in my letter. However, what I think most important is that
Judge Epstein, totally without any evidence whatsoever, accepted as true, false
allegations Attorney Eliot Nerenberg made against me in order to get out of
representing me because I had run out of money. This took me completely by surprise and left
me traumatized and with no ability to defend myself. Next, Judge Epstein prevented me from making
full discovery in my case by denying me legitimate supoenas. As a result, my ex-husband was able to hide
his financial status from me at the time of dissolution. However, nothing equals the rude,
contemptuous and disrespectful manner in which Judge Epstein spoke to me,
entirely without cause. Family Court is
stressful enough. Nobody should be
treated in this manner. Why? Because Rule 2.2 states that “A judge shall uphold and apply the law and
shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.” And furthermore Rule 2.6 states that “A judge
. . . shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into a settlement.”
I am asking that you do not reappoint Judge Barbara M.
Quinn, Judge F. Herbert Groendel, and Judge Constance Epstein. These are judges who do not respect the law,
who do not recognize the importance of fairness and equity, and disregard due
process of the law and the fundamental human rights of Connecticut’s
Citizens. These are judges who do not
have compassion and have failed to show wisdom or the ability to make good
decisions in the cases that have come before them. I am asking you to hold these judges
accountable, so they will stop causing harm and damage to the many parents and
children who come to family court or find themselves in a situation where they
need to appeal from family court. Thank
you very much for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth A. Richter
No comments:
Post a Comment