Written by a Concerned Citizen
In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the attached case, Jeffrey Emons, Jane Emons, and Lesley Emons v. RBS Citizens Bank (NNH-12-6030462-S).
In that case, Judge Emons and her immediate family members brought a lawsuit in a Connecticut court against the bank, RBS, because RBS apparently required Judge Emons and her husband to pay an extra 1.75 points over what RBS initially offered in order for them to secure a mortgage for their daughter. In addition, in that lawsuit Judge Emons and her family also brought a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, because, apparently, Judge Emons and the other Plaintiffs had “to spend dozens of hours on the telephone.”In my opinion, the above case drives home many of the concerns already brought to the legislature by a growing number of litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, including the following:
1. Judge Emons lacks the demeanor, temperament, and resiliency required of a family court judge.
To prevail in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a Plaintiff must show that they suffered emotional distress severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm. See the case of Olson v. Bristol-Burlington Health Dist., 87 Conn. App. 1, 5, 863 A.2d 748, 752 (2005).
Here, we must take Judge Emons at her own word, in that having to pay extra points at a real estate closing and spending hours on the phone caused her severe emotional distress, to the point that illness or bodily harm could result to her. If that is the case, Judge Emons cannot seriously contend to have the temperament or demeanor required of a family court judge, who must often make difficult decisions concerning the wellbeing and custody of minor children, all the while operating in the heated environment of divorce proceedings.
Yet clearly, the many members of the public who have spoken at length reveal that Judge Emons regularly displays those same type of hypersensitive reactions in her own courtroom, whether it be by snapping at and demeaning litigants, issuing orders that are spiteful and/or vindictive, ignoring the law, or simply continuing matters perpetually so that families and children of this State are denied meaningful access to the courts. The claims Judge Emons makes in her lawsuit simply affirm what so many have also stated to this legislature in phone calls, in writing, and by personal testimony: she is not the right person for this job.
2. Judge Emons lacks the empathy and understanding required of a family court judge.
In conjunction with temperament issues, we must also consider what this lawsuit says about Judge Emon’s worldview, and her ability to understand or value the position of family court litigants.
While Judge Emons lives in a world where it is acceptable to be outraged and aggrieved because you are required to pay an extra 1.75 points on a mortgage, family court litigants live in world where everything, from their homes, their financial security, to their very children, could be lost at the hands of an out of touch judge. Sadly, this again echoes what has already been stated by many citizens who have come forward to express their opinions against Judge Emon’s re-nomination.
Ironically and tragically in this State, family court litigants are expected to tolerate gross procedural violations, abusive treatment, and complete disregard for families and children, all with little to no complaint, lest they be labeled as “disgruntled parents.”
Yet, in her own (very) different world, Judge Emons expects white glove treatment for her and her children, and is willing to bring a lawsuit when those expectations are not met. That may certainly be her right, but it is also the right of litigants and children in this State to expect much more, and a family court judge who is this tone deaf is simply out of touch with the needs of those in her courtroom.At this point, the record is clear:
- multiple Federal lawsuits, all articulating egregious violations of constitutional rights, in particular due process, naming Judge Emons:
1: 2011 -3:11-cv-01841-SRU, Roque v. Iannotti et al.
2: 2013 - -cv-00016-JBA, Nowacki v. Emons et al.
3: 2013 - -cv-00863-JBA, Sargent v. Emons et al.
4: 2014 - -cv-01869-JAM,Hansen-Hodgkinson v. Emons et al.
5: 2015 - -cv-00959-SRU, Whitnum v. Emons et al.
6: 2017 - -cv-00127-VLB, Manchanda v. Emons et al.;
- approximately 30 grievance complaints;
- a groundswell of Connecticut residents, litigants, non-litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, from all walks of life who have spoken out, sometimes at great personal risk, to prevent this re-nomination.
Connecticut can, and must, do better. Please vote NO on the re-nomination of Judge Jane Emons.