CT LAW TRIBUNE POKES FUN AT SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S DISABILITY!

On November 19, 2014, "The CT Law Tribune" reported that Adam McNiece of East Lyme, CT was suing the CT Judicial Branch because it denied him the Audiorecordings he requested under the ADA to accommodate his disability of migraine headaches. 

What is interesting about this article is the way it makes fun of Adam McNiece, and mocks and ridicules him for making such a request, as if the fact that he has a disability indicates that he is some kind of wacko who is not worthy of being treated with decency. 

More than anything else, the tone of the Tribune's article says so much about the disrespect that the legal profession has for citizens as a whole, and for those who have disabilities in particular.  Since when is it such a joke that a person has a disability and needs to request a reasonable modification in order to accommodate that disability? 

I also found the general characterization of a Connecticut citizen, Adam McNiece, pretty offensive.  Tell me, is it fair for the Tribune to present a self represented person as a clown simply by virtue of the fact that he or she is self represented.  Really, what is so funny about that? 

The "CT Law Tribune" describes Adam McNiece as being a person with "a reputation for being litigious".  Based on that description, I thought I would find tons and tons of cases listed under Adam McNiece's name.  In fact, this is not the true.  There is one case in 2013 against the Town of Waterford, another lawsuit against the Attorney Firm representing the Town of Waterford, and also this last lawsuit in regard to the CT Judicial Branch and the ADA, the latter two from 2014.  What this essentially adds up to is a single lawsuit with a lot of branches, all starting with an incident where a citizen's civil rights were violated.

I know many people in family court who have just the same amount of lawsuits--one the initial divorce complaint, perhaps an appeal or two on that divorce action, then foreclosures that came upon them as the result of their divorce, plus collection actions against them from former attorneys who represented them.  Does that make them "litigious" as well? 

If you have lived say 40 or 50 years, and you only have a few lawsuits pending from one or two of those years, that can hardly be called litigious!  Except, of course, if you are the "CT Law Tribune" and you like to trash citizens who are clearly defending their civil rights, but have little money to do so and have to represent themselves. 

Mr. McNiece's lawsuit appears legitimate to me.  I would also be pretty upset if the Town of Waterford conducted an illegal search of my home, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly what happened in this case.  I would agree that Adam McNiece has listed on his lawsuits an inordinate number of defendants, but that is what many newcomers to the legal field tend to do.  It is not an indication of eccentricity or wacko-ness, but simply an example of the kind of behavior that is standard among many self represented parties who are new to the court system.  I'm not sure if that is worth ridiculing a man for.  If you did, you'd have to pretty much ridicule the vast majority of self represented parties, which I suppose most attorneys actually do. 

Interesting, isn't it, how the legal field fosters an attitude of contempt and condescension towards average people. 

In regard to Adam McNiece's request for reasonable modifications, that request should have received an immediate response, and one that is in the affirmative.  Instead, what happened is that Mr. McNiece's request was passed on from one court official to another until eventually a court planner, Ms. Heather Collins, sent him a list of six questions for his doctor to respond to before the court would consider his request.  Mr. McNiece then provided that information from his doctor, and still they turned down him down!

This kind of extensive inquiry into the nature of Adam McNiece's disability is a direct violation of the ADAAA of 2008,  a federal law which was specifically designed to prevent mini-trials into the nature of an individual's disability.  According to the ADAAA the appropriate focus of the public entity under Title II should be on meeting the needs of the person requesting the accommodation, not on demanding that such an individual prove that he has a disability. 

In fact, recent court decisions indicate that it is sufficient for the individual to state that he has a disability.  And even further, recent ADA law indicates that he should not even be required to provide a diagnosis. 

The Connecticut Judicial Branch regularly demands that litigants such as Adam McNiece provide extensive documentation regarding their disabilities, but such demands are blatantly illegal and intrusive.  Thus, the focus of the "CT Law Tribune" article should have been not how funny and laughable it is that a person with a disability requests an accommodation, the focus should have been on why the CT Judicial Branch chose to flout Federal ADAAA law. 

Another interesting point the Tribune article makes is that the Attorney General is defending the CT Judicial Branch in this case.  Why is the Attorney General who is supposed to be representing the best interests of the citizens of the State of Connecticut, particularly its vulnerable citizens such as the disabled, defending the illegal actions of the CT Judicial Branch in violating Federal ADA law? 

Altogether, what we have are a series of examples of disgraceful behavior within the legal profession.  1)  the CT Judicial Branch violating federal ADA law; 2) the Attorney General attacking disabled  citizens it should be protecting; and 3) the "CT Law Tribune", the mouthpiece of the Connecticut Bar Association ridiculing and making fun of an individual with a disability.  Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the legal profession generates such a widespread lack of respect.

In 2009 , the CT Judicial Branch established a subcommittee which conducted an extensive examination of the role of audiorecordings during judicial proceedings.  In the report of this subcommittee two reporters who were members of the subcommittee--Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey of the "CT Law Tribune" (ironically) and also Mr. Patrick Sanders of the Associated Press--expressed their view that "what occurs in Connecticut's courtrooms belongs to the people of Connecticut, and therefore recordings made of those proceedings, should be available to the public in the [same] way that official paper transcripts are available."

In regard to personal recordings, Mr. Patrick Sanders further argues that there should be a "presumption of openness".  He continues on to state that an open judiciary is of overriding importance in the courts in the State of Connecticut, and he argues, "I disagree with the court reporters' opinion that their members should have exclusive rights to record court proceedings for sale and distribution for their personal gain.  Courts are a public domain and not a monopoly."  His associate Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey pointed out that tellingly, the U.S. Supreme court has made audiotapes of oral arguments available going back to the 1950s, and that there is even a CD of its "Greatest Hits" available on amazon.com.

As the Judicial - Media Committee determined (of which the above mentioned subcommittee was a part), not only is the concept that what takes place in courtrooms throughout Connecticut the property of the public a wonderful aspirational statement, legally, the CT Judicial Branch's audio recordings of legal proceedings are, in fact, the property of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch is merely the caretaker of these audiorecordings on behalf of those citizens.  Therefore, Adam McNiece's request for access to those audiorecordings is essentially a request for property that is his by right, and the Connecticut Judicial Branch's refusal to hand over those audiorecordings is a violation of that right.

What is interesting is that, when both sides talk about limitations to accessing these audiorecordings, both accuse each other of potential wrongdoing in similar ways.  It is a standard for self represented parties to accuse the Connecticut Judicial Branch of tampering with audiorecordings so as to eliminate any record of sections of the legal proceedings that Judges and their cohorts think might interfere with their rigged verdicts.  Likewise, Judges and attorneys in their statements for the subcommittee expressed concern that members of the public would make bootleg audiorecordings and alter them in order to challenge the official record of the legal proceedings.

Clearly, there is a great deal of tension and distrust between these two groups.  In particular, the "Connecticut Law Tribune's" recent hostile targeting of Adam McNiece provides a very clear example of this disgruntlement from the side of the legal profession.  The bottom line, however, is that the Connecticut Judiciary, Judges, and attorneys who practice the law are supposed to be there to serve the public, and the only way to do this is through openness and transparency. 

As long as the Connecticut Judicial Branch continues to collude in obstructing this openness and transparency, people will proceed on an ongoing basis to engage in lawsuits such as the one that Adam McNiece filed.  The "Connecticut Law Tribune" can go ahead and mock all it wants, but that's not going to stop them.

_____________________

*As a final note, the "CT Law Tribune" journalist, Isaac Avilucea, who wrote the original law tribune article, was previously fired from another job because of his inappropriate reporting.  This is the quality of journalist that the "CT Law Tribune" sees fits to hire for its freelance work.  See the link below:

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/226646/reporter-fired-after-story-cast-aspersions-on-the-academics-of-local-school-compared-another-to-mean-girls/