Showing posts with label ADVOCACY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ADVOCACY. Show all posts
Friday, January 27, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
FIGHT BACK AGAINST DR. KENNETH ROBSON
For all of you many victims of Dr. Kenneth Robson's damaging and unfair custody reports here is a new tip that just came in about what you can do to fight back.
Apparently, Dr. Robson is making statements claiming that he is affiliated with the Institute of Living. However, the fact is that he was removed from his affiliation with the Institute in 1999 when the Massameno Report was issued stating that Robson's exoneration of Wilkinson was a fraudulent representation as a paid consultant.
The Institute of Living is currently owned by the Hartford HealthCare Corporation and is also a subsidiary of that corporation. I have been told that when someone falsely asserts an affiliation, as Dr. Robson did, he is using the corporation for personal gain and as such the Corporation's General Counsel is required to report his conduct under Sarbannes Oxley requirements for reporting violations of their corporate code of coduct to both state and federal authorities.
Apparently, Dr. Kenneth Robson has stated that he has provided testimony for around 70 custody cases in the state of Connecticut. If so, in each of them he apparently provided his resume including his false statement that he is affiliated with the Institute of Living. That would add up to 70 violations of his code of ethics as far as I can see.
It is my understanding, I could be wrong, but I've heard that Dr. Robson could lose his medical malpractice insurance for having made false claims about his affiliation with the IOL.
Anyway, guys, its worth a try in my book to bring this to the attention of Hartford healthCare Corporation. Also, you can request that the corporation's General Counsel issue a cease and desist order to prevent Robson from doing this any further.
To have an impact, we need people to phone the company's anonymous hotline and make a complaint. Please make that phone call yourself and also encourage others to make a call. The number is: 1-800-431-5572.
Apparently, Dr. Robson is making statements claiming that he is affiliated with the Institute of Living. However, the fact is that he was removed from his affiliation with the Institute in 1999 when the Massameno Report was issued stating that Robson's exoneration of Wilkinson was a fraudulent representation as a paid consultant.
The Institute of Living is currently owned by the Hartford HealthCare Corporation and is also a subsidiary of that corporation. I have been told that when someone falsely asserts an affiliation, as Dr. Robson did, he is using the corporation for personal gain and as such the Corporation's General Counsel is required to report his conduct under Sarbannes Oxley requirements for reporting violations of their corporate code of coduct to both state and federal authorities.
Apparently, Dr. Kenneth Robson has stated that he has provided testimony for around 70 custody cases in the state of Connecticut. If so, in each of them he apparently provided his resume including his false statement that he is affiliated with the Institute of Living. That would add up to 70 violations of his code of ethics as far as I can see.
It is my understanding, I could be wrong, but I've heard that Dr. Robson could lose his medical malpractice insurance for having made false claims about his affiliation with the IOL.
Anyway, guys, its worth a try in my book to bring this to the attention of Hartford healthCare Corporation. Also, you can request that the corporation's General Counsel issue a cease and desist order to prevent Robson from doing this any further.
To have an impact, we need people to phone the company's anonymous hotline and make a complaint. Please make that phone call yourself and also encourage others to make a call. The number is: 1-800-431-5572.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
THE CHILDREN'S LAW CENTER OF CONNECTICUT
One resource that is worth considering is The Children's Law Center of Connecticut, a non-profit agency which works on behalf of indigent children.
But before I go further providing information about the Center, I'd like to let you know that I have some misgivings about the group. Although, I do recall that a few people in a support group I attend mentioned the Center and appeared to be doing well participating in their services, I did not pursue any work with the Center because they insist that the husband and wife meet together with the therapist. As a person who was abused and severely traumatized at the time, I did not feel that I would be emotionally capable of doing that.
In my view, anyone traumatized by a psychopathic abuser should not be forced to meet in the same room for mediation with such an abuser because most victims do not have the emotional capacity to handle it. The literature in regard to abuse overwhelmingly agrees with me in regard to this point. Furthermore,most mental health professionals trained in abuse would not advise a victim of domestic violence sit in the same session with an abuser.
Therefore, it did not impress me that The Children's Law Center did not allow for meetings with each parent separately given that they are supposed to have expertise in high conflict divorce. Many of these divorces, I would assume, involve domestic violence or some other kind of spousal abuse that would preclude the parents meeting together. The very fact that the Center rules out the option of separate meetings shows very little insight into the problem of abuse.
Still, even granting this problem, it is possible that for the right kinds of people the Children's Law Center of Connecticut could be very helpful. So, what are the ways that it could be helpful?
Apparently, the Center provides support in four areas which are as follows:
First, there is representation for children. The Children's Law Center will provide experienced attorneys who can act as guardian ad litems for children whose parents are involved in high conflict divorces in family court. These attorneys are appointed by the court and are free of charge granted the parents meet the eligibility requirements established by the court to determine that they are indigent.
Second, the Children's Law Center provides mediation services through their Families in Transition Program. This program assists parents in putting together workable parenting agreements that can reduce the kinds of parental battles that arise as a consequence of high conflict divorces. This program is not just limited to those who are indigent; it is available based upon a sliding scale.
Third, there is a legal hotline where you can obtain free legal advice on Family Law at: 1-888-529-3667. This hotline provides callers with help on questions regarding divorce, custody, guardianship and any other issues regarding children in family court. Attorneys and paraprofessionals answer these calls from 9am to 5pm each day.
Four, the Center apparently involves itself in legislative and appellate advocacy on behalf children.
The Children's Law Center was founded in 1993 after a six year old girl was shot and killed by her father during court ordered supervised visitation. It was established by a coalition of professionals in the field of family law who wish to protect children from this kind of tragedy. Currently, it serves around 550 children per year, half of whom are minorities and all are poor.
Again, I have some skepticism because many of the attorneys on the Board of Directors and those listed later on in the donor lists are the same folks whose policies I have had reason to criticize on this blog. However, I don't want that to be a reason for me to act like this resources doesn't exist. Who knows, give it a shot. Maybe the Center could be helpful to you. Let me know what your experiences are and then I can do a better job of letting people know whether taking advantage of the Children's Law Center makes sense or not.
It is you guys out there who are in the midst of the shit and trying this approach and then that approach, and who end up trying out this Children's Law Center, who can give us the feedback we need so this blog can guide people properly. So, whatever you can do to let us know, I appreciate it.
FYI, the Children's Law Center of Connecticut is located at: 30 Arbor Street, North Building, 4th Floor, Hartford, CT 06106. Phone: 860-232-9993, Fax: 860-232-9996
But before I go further providing information about the Center, I'd like to let you know that I have some misgivings about the group. Although, I do recall that a few people in a support group I attend mentioned the Center and appeared to be doing well participating in their services, I did not pursue any work with the Center because they insist that the husband and wife meet together with the therapist. As a person who was abused and severely traumatized at the time, I did not feel that I would be emotionally capable of doing that.
In my view, anyone traumatized by a psychopathic abuser should not be forced to meet in the same room for mediation with such an abuser because most victims do not have the emotional capacity to handle it. The literature in regard to abuse overwhelmingly agrees with me in regard to this point. Furthermore,most mental health professionals trained in abuse would not advise a victim of domestic violence sit in the same session with an abuser.
Therefore, it did not impress me that The Children's Law Center did not allow for meetings with each parent separately given that they are supposed to have expertise in high conflict divorce. Many of these divorces, I would assume, involve domestic violence or some other kind of spousal abuse that would preclude the parents meeting together. The very fact that the Center rules out the option of separate meetings shows very little insight into the problem of abuse.
Still, even granting this problem, it is possible that for the right kinds of people the Children's Law Center of Connecticut could be very helpful. So, what are the ways that it could be helpful?
Apparently, the Center provides support in four areas which are as follows:
First, there is representation for children. The Children's Law Center will provide experienced attorneys who can act as guardian ad litems for children whose parents are involved in high conflict divorces in family court. These attorneys are appointed by the court and are free of charge granted the parents meet the eligibility requirements established by the court to determine that they are indigent.
Second, the Children's Law Center provides mediation services through their Families in Transition Program. This program assists parents in putting together workable parenting agreements that can reduce the kinds of parental battles that arise as a consequence of high conflict divorces. This program is not just limited to those who are indigent; it is available based upon a sliding scale.
Third, there is a legal hotline where you can obtain free legal advice on Family Law at: 1-888-529-3667. This hotline provides callers with help on questions regarding divorce, custody, guardianship and any other issues regarding children in family court. Attorneys and paraprofessionals answer these calls from 9am to 5pm each day.
Four, the Center apparently involves itself in legislative and appellate advocacy on behalf children.
The Children's Law Center was founded in 1993 after a six year old girl was shot and killed by her father during court ordered supervised visitation. It was established by a coalition of professionals in the field of family law who wish to protect children from this kind of tragedy. Currently, it serves around 550 children per year, half of whom are minorities and all are poor.
Again, I have some skepticism because many of the attorneys on the Board of Directors and those listed later on in the donor lists are the same folks whose policies I have had reason to criticize on this blog. However, I don't want that to be a reason for me to act like this resources doesn't exist. Who knows, give it a shot. Maybe the Center could be helpful to you. Let me know what your experiences are and then I can do a better job of letting people know whether taking advantage of the Children's Law Center makes sense or not.
It is you guys out there who are in the midst of the shit and trying this approach and then that approach, and who end up trying out this Children's Law Center, who can give us the feedback we need so this blog can guide people properly. So, whatever you can do to let us know, I appreciate it.
FYI, the Children's Law Center of Connecticut is located at: 30 Arbor Street, North Building, 4th Floor, Hartford, CT 06106. Phone: 860-232-9993, Fax: 860-232-9996
Monday, May 16, 2011
THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL REVIEW COUNCIL
We know what to do if a lawyer violates his or her professional ethics, but what do you do if a judge violates his professional ethics? I'll tell you what you do--you contact the Connecticut Judicial Review Council online at www.ct.gov/jrc, visit them at 505 Hudson Street, Hartford, CT 06106, call them at 860-566-5424 and toll free at 866-222-6075, or email them at jrs@po.state.ct.us.
The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Review Council is as follows: "To investigate and resolve complaints alleging misconduct, disability, or substance abuse of state judges, family support magistrates, and workers' compensation commissioners in order to promote public confidence in the courts and the integrity and independence of the judiciary by ensuring high standards of judicial conduct on and off the bench."
I submitted a complaint recently in regard to a judge who oversaw my case in family court. Now, don't ask me what the results were, because the case isn't over yet. But to sober you up, I'll share with you some of the statistics which I garnered from the last ten years of annual reports which are listed on the website. These reports appear to indicate that there are very few consequences to judicial misconduct in the State of Connecticut. Or, depending on how you see it, we have some really outstanding behaving judges in this state!
Every year there are a little over 100 cases where the judicial review council receives complaints about the professional behavior of judges in the State of Connecticut. On the average, out of these many complaints the vast majority are dismissed with the exception of maybe one or two.
The annual reports do not say much about the nature of these cases and why they are dismissed but around ten to fifteen of the dismissed cases consist of complaints that alleged improper conduct that occurred outside the statute of limitation as provided by law which is one year. The one year limitation is unfortunate because it seems to me that the wrongdoing of judges, as with fraud perpetrated against the IRS, should not be limited by any particular timeframe. Also, one year is a short timeframe given that so many litigants are so traumatized by the experience of judicial abuse that if sometimes takes years to formulate a coherent response.
It is also important to note that out of the 100 or so complaints per year, at least half of these complaints are submitted by self-represented parties.
In its guidelines, the council warns you that they can't do much about a decision or a ruling that you do not particularly like. Judges are allowed a great deal of disgression on the trial level and if you don't like their use of disgression, then take it up with appeals court. Also, the council is not able to affect the way a case is handled and they cannot remove a judge from a case. If you don't like the way a case is being handled, preserve your objections for appeal. If you want a judge to step down from a case, you can file a motion to recuse. But just don't waste your time bothering the judicial council with such things, because it can't do much about it, simply put.
The council concerns itself with violations of the judicial code of conduct which is located online at the judicial review council's website. This version includes substantial additional commentary and adds up to around 64 pages. The baseline code, including far fewer pages, is located in the 2011 Practice book right after the attorney's code of professional conduct.
The judicial code of conduct is broken up into four canons, which are then narrowed down further into specific rules. The four canons are as follows:
Canon 1: A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety;
Canon 2: A judge shall perform the duties of juicial office impartially, competently, and diligently;
Canon 3: A judge shall conduct the judge's personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office;
Canon 4: A judge shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
In regard to court behavior, a judge is expected to be patient, courteous, and unbiased towards the litigants that appear in his or her courtroom, and a judge should allow each litigant the opportunity to be heard. If you think this did not happen with you in your case, then you have the option of submitting a complaint with the judicial review board.
The website listed above for the judicial review council includes a complaint form, FAQs, as well as an explanation of the process. Its probably a good idea to send your complaint to the judicial review council by certified mail just in case they try to deny they received it. And I've kept an extra copy of the complaint I filed for myself so I have a copy in case they lose it. I'll let you know what happens.
The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Review Council is as follows: "To investigate and resolve complaints alleging misconduct, disability, or substance abuse of state judges, family support magistrates, and workers' compensation commissioners in order to promote public confidence in the courts and the integrity and independence of the judiciary by ensuring high standards of judicial conduct on and off the bench."
I submitted a complaint recently in regard to a judge who oversaw my case in family court. Now, don't ask me what the results were, because the case isn't over yet. But to sober you up, I'll share with you some of the statistics which I garnered from the last ten years of annual reports which are listed on the website. These reports appear to indicate that there are very few consequences to judicial misconduct in the State of Connecticut. Or, depending on how you see it, we have some really outstanding behaving judges in this state!
Every year there are a little over 100 cases where the judicial review council receives complaints about the professional behavior of judges in the State of Connecticut. On the average, out of these many complaints the vast majority are dismissed with the exception of maybe one or two.
The annual reports do not say much about the nature of these cases and why they are dismissed but around ten to fifteen of the dismissed cases consist of complaints that alleged improper conduct that occurred outside the statute of limitation as provided by law which is one year. The one year limitation is unfortunate because it seems to me that the wrongdoing of judges, as with fraud perpetrated against the IRS, should not be limited by any particular timeframe. Also, one year is a short timeframe given that so many litigants are so traumatized by the experience of judicial abuse that if sometimes takes years to formulate a coherent response.
It is also important to note that out of the 100 or so complaints per year, at least half of these complaints are submitted by self-represented parties.
In its guidelines, the council warns you that they can't do much about a decision or a ruling that you do not particularly like. Judges are allowed a great deal of disgression on the trial level and if you don't like their use of disgression, then take it up with appeals court. Also, the council is not able to affect the way a case is handled and they cannot remove a judge from a case. If you don't like the way a case is being handled, preserve your objections for appeal. If you want a judge to step down from a case, you can file a motion to recuse. But just don't waste your time bothering the judicial council with such things, because it can't do much about it, simply put.
The council concerns itself with violations of the judicial code of conduct which is located online at the judicial review council's website. This version includes substantial additional commentary and adds up to around 64 pages. The baseline code, including far fewer pages, is located in the 2011 Practice book right after the attorney's code of professional conduct.
The judicial code of conduct is broken up into four canons, which are then narrowed down further into specific rules. The four canons are as follows:
Canon 1: A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety;
Canon 2: A judge shall perform the duties of juicial office impartially, competently, and diligently;
Canon 3: A judge shall conduct the judge's personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office;
Canon 4: A judge shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.
In regard to court behavior, a judge is expected to be patient, courteous, and unbiased towards the litigants that appear in his or her courtroom, and a judge should allow each litigant the opportunity to be heard. If you think this did not happen with you in your case, then you have the option of submitting a complaint with the judicial review board.
The website listed above for the judicial review council includes a complaint form, FAQs, as well as an explanation of the process. Its probably a good idea to send your complaint to the judicial review council by certified mail just in case they try to deny they received it. And I've kept an extra copy of the complaint I filed for myself so I have a copy in case they lose it. I'll let you know what happens.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
HOLD YOUR JUDGES TO ACCOUNT!
I was in court the other day when I saw a notice on the bulletin board. It was addressed to the clerks and originated from Michael P. Thompson, Chairperson of the Judicial Selection Committee. His telephone was listed as 860-713-5300. The notice was in regard to the 2012 Reappointment of Judges, Notice to be Posted. The notice was dated December 1, 2010.
The subject matter of this notice was a "Notice for public viewing of judges for the State of Connecticut whose terms will expire in the year 2012." In other words what this notice was all about was as stated on the top of the page, "notice of evaluation of incumbent judges who seek reappointment" and the intent of the notice was to solicit the public's views on the performance of these judges.
Basically what Mr. Thompson had to say was "The terms of the following Judges of the State of Connecticut will expire during the year 2012 and the nominations by the Governor will come before the Judicial Selection Committee for review commencing in February 2011."
As Michael P. Thompson, Chairperson stated, "Comments regarding the reappointments of any of the Judges on the Reappointment List for 2012 may be submitted to the judicial Selection Commission, 165 Capital Avenue, Room 241, Hartford, CT 06106 on or before January 31, 2011." Well, granted you've missed that deadline, you still have time because "Reappointment interviews of the listed Judges will commence on February 2011 and continue through June 2011. Accordingly, comments received after January 31, 2011 will be considered if received prior to a Judge's reappointment interview."
Should you sign your name to your comments? You don't have to, but it would be better if you did. As Thompson states, "Anonymous submissions will be considered but afforded less weight than signed submissions. The judges being considered are as follows in alphabetical order:
Hon. Richard E. Arnold
Hon. John F. Blawie
Hon. Patrick L. Carroll, III
Hon. Edward J. Dolan
Hon. Christina G. Dunnell
Hon. Nina F. Elgo
Hon. Michael Hartmere
Hon. William Holden
Hon. Frank A. Iannotti
Hon. Burton A. Kaplan
Hon. Richard M. Marano
Hon. Grant H. Miller
Hon. Edward J. Mullarkey
Hon. Susan A. Peck
Hon. Eliot D. Prescott
Hon. Michael E. Riley
Hon. Thelma A. Santos
Hon. Dan Shaban
Hon. Kenneth L. Shluger
Hon. Jorge A. Simon
Hon. Elliot N. Solomon
Hon. Hillary B. Strackbein
Hon. Mark H. Taylor
Hon. Bruce W. Thompson
Hon. Theodore R. Tyma
Hon Elpedio N. Vitale
Hon. Bradford J. Ward
I can't say for certain if writing to this Commission will do anything, but if there is any chance that it might, I say: GO CRAZY GUYS!
The subject matter of this notice was a "Notice for public viewing of judges for the State of Connecticut whose terms will expire in the year 2012." In other words what this notice was all about was as stated on the top of the page, "notice of evaluation of incumbent judges who seek reappointment" and the intent of the notice was to solicit the public's views on the performance of these judges.
Basically what Mr. Thompson had to say was "The terms of the following Judges of the State of Connecticut will expire during the year 2012 and the nominations by the Governor will come before the Judicial Selection Committee for review commencing in February 2011."
As Michael P. Thompson, Chairperson stated, "Comments regarding the reappointments of any of the Judges on the Reappointment List for 2012 may be submitted to the judicial Selection Commission, 165 Capital Avenue, Room 241, Hartford, CT 06106 on or before January 31, 2011." Well, granted you've missed that deadline, you still have time because "Reappointment interviews of the listed Judges will commence on February 2011 and continue through June 2011. Accordingly, comments received after January 31, 2011 will be considered if received prior to a Judge's reappointment interview."
Should you sign your name to your comments? You don't have to, but it would be better if you did. As Thompson states, "Anonymous submissions will be considered but afforded less weight than signed submissions. The judges being considered are as follows in alphabetical order:
Hon. Richard E. Arnold
Hon. John F. Blawie
Hon. Patrick L. Carroll, III
Hon. Edward J. Dolan
Hon. Christina G. Dunnell
Hon. Nina F. Elgo
Hon. Michael Hartmere
Hon. William Holden
Hon. Frank A. Iannotti
Hon. Burton A. Kaplan
Hon. Richard M. Marano
Hon. Grant H. Miller
Hon. Edward J. Mullarkey
Hon. Susan A. Peck
Hon. Eliot D. Prescott
Hon. Michael E. Riley
Hon. Thelma A. Santos
Hon. Dan Shaban
Hon. Kenneth L. Shluger
Hon. Jorge A. Simon
Hon. Elliot N. Solomon
Hon. Hillary B. Strackbein
Hon. Mark H. Taylor
Hon. Bruce W. Thompson
Hon. Theodore R. Tyma
Hon Elpedio N. Vitale
Hon. Bradford J. Ward
I can't say for certain if writing to this Commission will do anything, but if there is any chance that it might, I say: GO CRAZY GUYS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)