PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label ATTORNEY DEIRDRE M. DALY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ATTORNEY DEIRDRE M. DALY. Show all posts

Monday, February 6, 2017


In the early hours of January 19, 2017 a troop of six FBI agents banged on investigative journalist Paul Boyne's door in Virginia where he lives with his elderly parents who are in their 80s.  What were they there for?  The agents had a search and seizure warrant allowing them to take all of Mr. Boyne's computers, computer equipment, and related items based upon the laughable allegation that he had been cyberbullying, stalking or harassing family court Judge Elizabeth Buzzoto.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015


When Elizabeth A. Richter approached Attorney John Hughes of the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding ADA violations in CT's Family Court system, she was told they had no time or resources to investigate such incidents.  But they seem to have time and resources to investigate banks as Megan Spicer of The CT Law Tribune reports below.  Isn't it somewhat hypocritical  of the U.S. Attorney's Office to expect private businesses to obey ADA law when it ignores ADA violations within its own profession?  See for yourself in the following article:

"The U.S. Attorney's Office and Waterbury-based Webster Bank have reached a settlement in an Americans with Disabilities Act dispute stemming from a complaint by a deaf customer.

The complaint alleged that the bank refused to accept a call from the deaf customer using a video relay service, or VRS. The service allows a hearing-impaired person to communicate via video, using a sign language interpreter. The deaf person uses sign language to communicate with the interpreter via a webcam, phone or tablet. The interpreter then verbally conveys the message over a phone to the other caller..."

Read more:

Monday, August 31, 2015


By Elizabeth A. Richter

Buzzzz!  Times up!  Today is the last day that the Connecticut Department of Justice had to submit on time the report it has been promising regarding the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with Federal ADA mandates.  They said they'd have the report out to us at the end of August 2015; tomorrow is September 1, 2015, and it looks like they will have missed the deadline!  How did that happen?  It happened because the Washington DOJ and the Connecticut DOJ have one thing in common: a profound unwillingness to enforce the ADA at the Connecticut Judicial Branch despite the fact that so many CT citizens have contacted them to report repeatedly violations of their Federal ADA rights during family court and DCF legal proceedings.  

Now, I can't speak for what everyone else has gone through, but I can share what went into my ADA complaints which have been so colossally ignored by those whose job it is to respond to them.  My journey began way back in April 2012 when I contacted Equal Access Associates headed by Dr. Karin Huffer and had them draft a Federal ADA complaint on my behalf and that of my two children, both of whom have ocularcutaneous albinism and are visually impaired.  This was then sent out to the Washington, D.C. Department of Justice offices.  I didn't hear anything in the months afterward, so in the Fall 2012 I again sent a copy of this complaint to the Washington Department of Justice by Fax.  Again, I didn't hear anything in the months afterward.  Then, in March 2013, I again sent a copy of my complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested since I had not received a response.  Still, I did not get an answer from the Washington, D.C. Department of Justice, no information regarding whether they had received the complaint or anything about what they intended to do about it.  

Finally, I heard about the fact that there was an option to send my complaint to the Washington, D.C. DOJ offices online by email (I understand this option has since been suspended!).  Thus, on December 18, 2014, I again sent my Complaint to the Washington DOJ, the Disability Rights Section.  This time I was lucky enough to get an automatic response indicating they had finally received my complaint, "The Disability Rights Section has received your email."  it said.  Further, the automatic response continued on as follows:

"We will review the information you have submitted and will notify you of any action this office will take with respect to the issues you have raised.  Please be advised that this office receives a large volume of correspondence from the public.  If you do not hear from us within 3 months, you may contact us to determine the status of our review."  

Ok, so it took four tries to get an answer.  What about folks that are far more fragile?  How do they ever begin with a system like this?

January, February, and March 2015 went by, and still I had no response.  Finally, in June 2015 I contacted the DOJ directly and asked them what the Washington, DOJ intended to do with my complaint.  The people there referred me to a very nice lady named Carmen Romero who said that she would forward my question on to decision makers via email.  Looking for an answer to that email, I followed up with phone calls to Carmen on June 23, 2015, June 29, 2015, July 9, 2015, July 21, 2015, July 22, 2015, and August 3, 2015.  In the end, I never received a response to my inquiry.  

Now I am not asking for anything extraordinary.  Yes, I would like the Washington DOJ to pursue my case seriously and demand a correction of CT Judicial Branch's outrageous behavior.  But at the very least, it would be nice to receive a timely acknowledgment [i.e. not over two years!] that I have sent a complaint, as well as a statement regarding what they are going to do about it, or if nothing is to be done, why not.  In fact, my understanding is that the latter response is mandatory.  Specifically, under Item #6 of the "Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act" published by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division it states as follows:  Since we receive a high volume of ADA complaints and have limited resources, we cannot investigate or litigate every complaint.  If we cannot investigate your complaint due to lack of resources or for some other reason, we will send you a letter explaining why your complaint will not be investigated."  I am still waiting for the letter, as I am sure many thousands of others are as well.  Keep in mind that Item #7 of this Information Sheet delineates the period of three months as their optimal time frame, not all of eternity.

Here is a department that is especially set up to deal with the needs of persons with disabilities, yet it has the nerve to ignore and play games with the needs of people with disabilities who send them legitimate complaints.  I find that an incredibly traumatizing way to deal with people who deserve so much better because they have already been traumatized enough.  As ADA documents have said, persons with disabilities have historically been disenfranchised and excluded from access to the services, programs, and activities of government.  There is no better example of disenfranchisement and exclusion than the silent treatment, which is what the Washington DOJ greeted me with, as well as all of my fellow advocates who also sent in complaints which were also ignored.

Given that I wasn't receiving any satisfaction from the Washington DOJ, several friends advised me to approach the Connecticut DOJ.  Thus, On December 24, 2012, I sent a letter to Attorney John B. Hughes certified mail, return receipt requested.  In that letter I stated that the "CT Judicial Branch is not complying with the ADA and ADAAA" and I asked him to intervene.  

I also noted that the CT Judicial Branch is acting only according to employment law, Title I, and not according to that of a public agency under Title II as it should.  I mentioned that the CT Judicial Branch has no Designated Responsible Employee under Title II of the ADA, 28 C.R.F. Sec. 35.107(a).  I pointed out that the CT Judicial Branch doesn't have a meaningful grievance procedure as required under Title II of the ADA, 28 C.R.F. Sec. 35.107(b).  I further stated that the CT Judicial Branch has not conducted a self-evaluation as required under Title II of the ADA 28 C.F.R. Part 35 Sec 35.105.  And I also pointed out that while the CT Judicial Branch was accommodating those with visible disabilities it was limiting the access of those with invisible disabilities.  Finally, I documented in detail how I was denied access to my ADA reasonable modifications from March 2009 until December 2012 in violation of Federal ADA law.  I received no response to this letter.  

Then, On June 10, 2013, I hand delivered an additional letter addressed to Attorney Deidre [sic] M. Daly, acting United States Attorney at the Connecticut DOJ.  In that letter, I mentioned that I had filed a federal complaint on November 16, 2012 against the CT Judicial Branch, et. al. based upon the fact that it discriminated against me and failed to provide me with reasonable accommodations.  I included a copy of the earlier December 24, 2012 letter to Attorney John Hughes so that she could become oriented to my complaint.  I asked Attorney Daly to authorize the Connecticut DOJ to file an Amicus Brief on my behalf.  

In response, on July 9, 2013, Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and her assistant Ndidi N. Moses send me a letter which stated, "I have reviewed your complaint dated June 24, 2013 [incorrect date!  I had sent in two letters--one dated December 24, 2012 and the other dated June 10, 2013] alleging that the state of Connecticut Judicial Branch has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.  You complaint is under review by this office, and we will contact you if we have any questions."

Months went by and she never responded to my complaint  indicating whether she thought it was legitimate or not, and she never responded to my request for an Amicus Brief either with a yes or no.  I still have not heard what the outcome of the so-called "review" of my case was.

Meanwhile, during the same time period that I was complaining to the Connecticut DOJ about the CT Judicial Branch's refusal to comply with Federal ADA and ADAAA law, so was Ms. Susan Skipp of Litchfield and potentially others.  Thus, on January 8, 2014, I received a letter signed by both Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and Attorney John B. Hughes stating as follows:

"...the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division have elected to conduct ADA compliance review of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.  This review will examine ADA complaints that the Judicial Branch has received, the responses, and the accommodation process.  It will also examine the training that the judges and support staff receive regarding the ADA.  Included in the review will be inquiries into the family court and divorce court processes.  I must inform you, however, that, consistent with our jurisdiction, the review will focus on the ADA, and not other matters.  This review, which is already underway, is expected to take some time."

In the weeks that followed this January 8, 2014 letter I dropped off documents in relation to my ADA complaint and that of my daughters.  I also hand delivered a copy of the ADA complaint from the Joseph Watley and Karin Haseman case.  I am also aware that many other people dropped off or sent emailed information to Attorney Deirdre Daly and Attorney John Hughes regarding the ADA violations in their cases.  The response?  Silence, silence, and more silence.  During the remainder of the year in 2014, I occasionally sent out an email with additional information in regard to further violations by the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  In addition, I made further inquiries regarding when this investigation would be completed.  Again, I received no answer.  Finally, in November 2014, I hired an attorney so that I could get an answer: Attorney Donna Drumm.

On February 25, 2015, Attorney Drumm sent an email inquiry to Attorney Hughes just reviewing the history and asking for a copy of the report that the Connecticut DOJ had promised in its letter of January 8, 2014.  Now, this is a full year later that Attorney Drumm asked this question.  On March 18, 2015, Attorney John Hughes responded by stating, "The report is still in a draft form and it is not expected to  be finalized for several more months.  When it is competed, you and Ms. Richter will receive a copy."  This is what is outrageous--that for over a year Attorney Hughes refused to respond to my emails asking the very same question, but after I hired an attorney at considerable expense, then he was willing to respond to the attorney.  It is as if, as far as Attorney John Hughes is concerned, I am not even a human being entitled to reasonable courtesy!  This is the person that the government chooses to put in charge of Civil Rights investigations!

In regard to my complaint, and the complaints of so many others, Attorney John Hughes went a step further and said that the Connecticut DOJ did not intend to take any action on them stating, "We are not investigating individual claims of ADA violations or attempting to set aside court orders relating to divorce, alimony, custody, appointment of guardians ad litem and related financial orders."  For those who had been waiting now for over a year for the Connecticut DOJ's investigation to be completed, this was devastating news.  You would have thought that if the DOJ did not intend to address peoples' complaints that the issue was of such significance, they would have clarified that from the beginning.  Instead, the Connecticut DOJ kept everyone dangling for months on end, and then said we don't intend to help you.  

Again, on June 12, 2015, Attorney Donna Drumm wrote to Attorney Hughes and asked, "Can you please give us a projected date of completion?" [for the report on the ADA compliance of the CT Judicial Branch].  She also asked again in regard to what would be done about my specific complaint.

A month later, on July 13, 2015, Attorney John Hughes responded with the following: 

"In response to your email from June 12 in which you enclosed a letter from yourself about previous correspondence related to ADA complaints made by your client, Elizabeth Richter, I wanted to let you know that the current projected completion of a Report is the end of August [emphasis added]. While I understand that Ms. Richter and several others have made individual ADA complaints about the State Judicial Branch, the focus of our review is the overall compliance process by the State and not those individual claims. This office and the Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice are empowered to investigate a pattern or practice of ADA violations. That is what the subject of the Report will be."

That is why I started this blog with a buzz, because clearly, the end of August has now passed and we still do not have a finalized report.  Do you think the Connecticut DOJ has ever heard of the Langston Hughes quotation, "Justice delayed is justice denied!"  I do also want to note that Attorney John Hughes states that they are "empowered to investigate a pattern or practice of ADA violations."  Well, yes, an upper level government official may have limited the investigation, however, the mandate of both the Washington DOJ and the Connecticut DOJ is to investigate specific complaints and a look at the case law in the State of Connecticut indicates that is exactly what they have done.  Why these departments chose to deviate from what they do normally in the face of litigants' complaints regarding the CT Judicial Branch is a very good question we should all ask.  It seems as though the DOJ is good at telling everyone else to obey federal ADA law, but when it comes to demanding that their own fellow attorneys and institutions obey the law, it seems they don't want to.  How hypocritical is that?

I will say that on August 15, 2015 the Washington DOJ and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a joint statement entitled "Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities" which resoundingly supports the rights of parents with disabilities in accordance with Title II of the ADA and the ADAAA in legal proceedings related to child welfare cases and the court system.  Of course, if this is a statement without any teeth because of the DOJ's refusal to enforce the expressed policies, it is a piece of nonsense.  Still, it is admirable that these policies have been articulated.  The link to this statement is below:

It could be that this statement is the result of the work of activists throughout Connecticut who have been fighting for the rights of parents with disabilities in family court and in regard to DCF.  I certainly know that this issue has concerned people here in Connecticut as well as activists all over the country.  We may never know.  One thing I do know is that we were promised a report from the Connecticut DOJ in regard to the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with the ADA and we still haven't gotten it.  

We are waiting.


As a followup, on September 1, 2015, the CT Law Tribune reported that the CT DOJ is planning on investigating CT hotels for non-compliance with the ADA.  See the link below:

In the last decade, several Connecticut residents, many representing their children's interests as well, have contacted the CT Department of Justice and requested assistance in obtaining their federal ADA rights.  Well over a year and a half ago, the CT DOJ stated it would proceed with a compliance review of the CT Judicial Branch.  When I made an inquiry about when that review would be completed, as I stated, I was reprimanded because Attorney John Hughes stated that his offices were overwhelmed with work and could we possibly ask them to do more.  Yet now we get a news report indicating that after delaying any kind of response to the complaints of family court victims and refusing to address their individual concerns the CT DOJ is now volunteering to take on a new area of concern, i.e. hotels.  This is a slap in the face of all family court victims with disabilities who have been waiting for years for redress. 

Friday, March 27, 2015


According to the Hartford Courant:

NEW HAVEN - Federal law enforcement officers, struck by what they called the persistent criminal behavior of government officials in Connecticut, said Wednesday that they have created a multi-agency, federal task force to fight public corruption in the state.

U.S. Attorney Deirdre M. Daly, who announced the task force and whose office will run it, said graft has become so pervasive in Connecticut that it is "discouraging and troubling" and a "persistently present problem."

She also questioned the legislature's refusal to provide local prosecutors with effective crime fighting tools. "High profile government corruption persists in Connecticut," she said, "So the time is opportune for us to put together a top notch team."

For more information on this article, please click on the link below:

Tuesday, March 10, 2015


Dear Attorney Hughes and Attorney Deirdre Daly:

Is it our turn yet?  May we expect individual interviews in short order as a follow through on the announcement of last year, January 8, 2014 that your offices were conducting an investigation into the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with federal ADA law?  May we expect affirmative actions similar to these provided by your brothers, sisters and cousins at the DOJ and HHS in Massachusetts?  Can we get equal and the same treatment here in Connecticut from you, Attorney Perkins and Attorney Daly?  Many CT citizens with disabilities have contacted the Civil Rights Division of the CT DOJ in response to your announcement of an investigation, and yet there seems to be no action on your part. 

Mr. Hughes, on January 8, 2014 you provided a letter of hope to Elizabeth and Susan and indeed all the disabled subjected to programs, services and activities of Connecticut public entities, in particular the Connecticut Judicial Branch and Department of Children and Families.  Since that time you 3 have received unlimited numbers of verifiable ADA and 504 violations, past, present, future, regarding on going non compliance, exclusions from participation, denials of benefits from CT Judicial Branch and DCF programs services and activities, and you have had testimony regarding how CT citizens have been subjected to ongoing discrimination by reason of disabilities and >90% of the time the issue is related to gender. 

We turn to you 3, Attorneys Daily, Perkins and Hughes for redress from these civil rights and disability rights violations.

The Gordon's in Massachusetts got many personal interviews and it looks like on going updates and "transparency"! 

We here in  Connecticut see delays and what looks to be even guidance and collusion in connection to the CT Judicial Branch and DCF to promote a smoke screen and railroading of citizens as well as a general cover up of ADA violations.  We are seeing the CT Department of Justice allow the CT Judicial Branch to avoid meeting the requirements of federal ADA law by allowing them to use the deceptive phrase that they are cooperating with " continuing compliance" rather than immediately obeying in full which they have had sufficient time to do.
It is not acceptable that the JB and DCF at first ignores, denies, provides misleading and confusing findings and rulings in response to person's inquires, complaints, requests, begging, comments, suggestions, arguments and then at a later time the Judicial Branch or DCF pronounces their provision of such as part of their "continued compliance.
We are onto this and ask why are your offices at the DOJ allowing it?  We ask where was compliance on our individual cases, each and every one?  Where are our remedies for past disabilities discrimination?  Where is the elimination of current disabilities discrimination, and prohibitions against future disabilities discrimination, including today?
I write the above alone at this time Mr. Hughes. I write for my self first and in support of ALL my earlier and probably most if not ALL of my writings.  But I write also for all other persons subjected to disability and gender and any discrimination by the Judicial Branch or DCF.  How many are here in Connecticut? 18% of 3,000,000 Connecticut citizens at a minimum amounts to 540,000? Plus, friends and family associated with persons with disabilities amounts to another 540,000 minimum at 1 to 1 which adds up to about 1,800,000?  Of course, there are many more as all of the United States and indeed the World expect "comprehensive ADA compliance". 
Please respond with information on the steps you intend to take to remedy this disgraceful situation which I have described.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Yours For Barrier Free Courts With Sober And Honest Judges And None Discriminating Attorneys And State Actors And State Contractors,
Bill Mulready

Additional Endorsements For This Letter From:

Susan Skipp Tittle
Next friend and parent of G.A.T., 14 and W.G.T., 12
Elizabeth A. Richter,
Parent of M.R.R. and P.U.R.

Monday, February 9, 2015


Elizabeth A. Richter

On December 24, 2012,  I wrote a letter to Attorney John B. Hughes of the Civil Division of the Connecticut Department of Justice informing him of the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not comply with Federal ADA Law and also the Federal ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  I asked the CT DOJ to intervene in this situation and do something about it on behalf of the citizens in the State of Connecticut who have disabilities and need to obtain access to the legal system in order to obtain justice.
I stated that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is not compliant in the following areas:
1.  The CT Judicial Branch only offers reasonable accommodations not the more extensive reasonable modifications which it is required to provide under Title II of Federal ADA Law;
2.  The CT Judicial Branch has failed to appoint a Designated Responsible Employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out the Judicial Branch's responsibilities under Title II of the ADA, as required by 28 C.R.F. Sec. 35.107 (a);
3.  The CT Judicial Branch has failed to provide a meaningful grievance procedure for resolving complaints of violations of the ADA as required by Title II, 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.107 (b);
4.  The CT Judicial Branch has not conducted a self-evaluation which is required under Title II of the ADA according to Federal ADA law under 28 C.F.R., Part 35, Sec. 35.105, or if it has one, it has repeatedly refused to provide one to the people who have inquired and requested a copy;
5. The CT Judicial Branch is unfairly limiting reasonable accommodations to those with visible disabilities and denying them to litigants with invisible disabilities in violation of the law.
I made these complaints based on my work as an advocate for people with disabilities where I saw that people were being denied their reasonable modifications and thus prevented from obtaining access to legal proceedings they wished to participate in.
In addition, I had my own personal experience of discrimination in the CT Family Court system under the "perceived as" category of Federal ADA law because I was being falsely accused of having a mental illness I did not have.  As I explained to Attorney John Hughes, 30 years prior to filing my divorce in 2006 I experienced an incident in which I was misdiagnosed with a severe mental illness I do not have and hospitalized for two years.  Follow up psychiatric testing confirmed that the original diagnosis was a mistake. 

However, during the course of my divorce, I faced constant discrimination based upon that old diagnosis.  In particular, I cited the fact that opposing counsel in my divorce case terrorized me with three motions to have me declared incompetent.  Not only that, because of this misperception, I was denied access to the services of the trial court such as family relations, mediation, special masters, or any meaningful participation in pre-trial hearings. 
I was also denied the reasonable modifications I required based upon a disability I actually did have--anxiety disorder--in order to participate in the legal proceedings in CT Family Court.  Thus, in 2009 and subsequently, when I ended up having to represent myself, I filed requests for reasonable accommodations--the court makes no reference in their forms to reasonable modifications, the more extensive category they are actually supposed to provide under Title II of the ADA. 

Nonetheless, despite my repeated requests, the judges ignored my requests, and the ADA contact person--not Designated Responsible Employee as required under federal ADA law--denied me the right to the assistance I needed in order obtain access to the legal proceedings taking place in my case.  I then appealed my case to the ADA Grievance Committee where the Committee denied my appeal and also did not comply with their own grievance procedures in drawing their conclusion.  Despite all these denials, eventually, in 2012, a Judge of the Superior Court granted me reasonable accommodations and acknowledged that I have a disability.  In doing so, he used the same information I'd been using all along since 2009. 

The bottom line is that from 2006 when I first filed for divorce up until 2012 when that judge signed my request for accommodations, I was denied any accommodations I needed to access the legal proceedings in my case. 
I didn't hear anything back in response to my letter to Attorney John Hughes.  He didn't acknowledge that he had received my letter or in any way indicate that he had any intention of doing anything about the civil rights and ADA rights violations I had brought to his attention.  At the very least, this was simply rude and disrespectful of a citizen of the State of Connecticut, a taxpayer who is currently funding his salary. 
Six months later, on June 10, 2013, I wrote another letter to Attorney John Hughes' boss, Attorney Deirdre M. Daly.  This time I hand delivered the letter.  The prior letter to Attorney John Hughes was sent registered mail, return receipt requested.  I decided this letter was going straight from my hand to that of Attorney Daly.  I also attached to this letter to Attorney Deirdre Daly a copy of the exact same letter which I had written to Attorney John Hughes. 

By then I had filed a Federal lawsuit against the CT Judicial Branch for the violations which I had detailed in my letter to Attorney Hughes.  I asked Attorney Deirdre Daly if her offices would be interested in filing an Amicus Brief on my behalf for my federal lawsuit.  In conclusion, I stated, "I know that I am not alone in facing discrimination and the denial of [federal ADA rights] at the CT Judicial Branch.  If necessary, I can provide you with the specific names of individuals whose experiences parallel mine.  This is an urgent and compelling matter."
In the same way that I had not heard a thing from Attorney Hughes, again I did not hear a single thing from Attorney Deirdre M. Daly in response to my request.  Not even a simple acknowledgement letter, which in my book is merely a matter of courtesy and respect to a CT taxpayer.
Another six months went by and I received a letter dated January 8, 2014 signed by both Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and Attorney John Hughes, copy to Ms. Susan Skipp, another litigant who had been raising issues to the DOJ re ADA law, stating that they would be pursuing an "ADA compliance review of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch."  According the letter, "This review will examine ADA complaints that the Judicial Branch has received, the responses, and the accommodations process.  It will also examine the training that the judges and support staff receive regarding the ADA.  Included in the review will be inquiries into the family court and the divorce processes."
Ok, so as of January 8, 2015 it was a full year since both Susan Skipp and I received that letter from the CT DOJ Attorneys Daly and Hughes.  During the year both of us made repeated inquires regarding the progress of this investigation and received no response.  We also made inquiries among our friends asking them if the DOJ had approached any one of them for information and the answer, with one exception, was uniformly no. 
Since I could not get a response from Attorney John Hughes or Attorney Deirdre Daly in regard to the outcome of their investigation, or a response as to whether they would join my lawsuit with an amicus brief, on December 31, 2014 I hired an attorney to send both DOJ attorneys an inquiry regarding what they intended to do specifically in regard to the amicus brief. 
On February 5, 2015 I received a response.  Of course, I only received this response because I had hired an attorney at considerable personal expense to do so.  But I will put this aside for the moment.  Essentially, Attorney John Hughes sent an email stating his offices refused to authorize an amicus brief for the reasons as follows, "The specific issue presented in the Richter appeal is one of “perceived” disability and that is a difficult issue which Disability Rights is not prepared to recommend for participation as an amicus."
I want to bring you all here, my readership as witnesses, from what you read in this blog does my complaint solely address the issue of the "perceived as" category of Title II ADA law?  You recall, don't you, how I listed five separate areas in which I indicated that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is not in compliance with Federal ADA law.  You can recall, I assume, that I talked about the fact that the CT Judicial Branch denied I had an anxiety disorder and denied me reasonable accommodations for that disorder for six years? 

So out of this broad range of issues I presented, the CT DOJ essentially sifted through to the one issue it doesn't like to address, claims that this is the only one that exists in my complaint, and then says, "we don't want to deal with it because it is too difficult"!  Oh please, give me a break!  And remember, I first brought my concerns in 2012, and it took them up until 2015 to finally say, please don't come to us for help even though we are legally mandated to provide you with help.  Stop waiting outside our door, because it will never open.  I mean, was it that hard for the Office of Civil Rights at the CT DOJ operated by Daly and Hughes to figure out that it was going to abandon people with disabilities in the State of CT who are being denied access to legal proceedings at the CT Judicial Branch that it took three years for them to figure this out?
Now, we have a new announcement from these very same people--Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and Attorney John Hughes stating that they are heading an investigation into corrupt CT government officials.  See the links below:

What is this?  A bit of public relations?  A bit of let's silence our critics by launching another fake investigation? 
At the very least, could we first get a report on the so-called investigation into the CT Judicial Branch compliance with Federal ADA law under Title II before embarking on the next investigation?  Unless the CT DOJ is going to say that the simply laughable study the CT Judicial Branch posted on its website in Nov. 2014 is all they intend to do with it.  See below:
You know, if it isn't one bit of nonsense, its another!

Many of us who have experienced this injustice from the CT Judicial Branch have been suffering for over a decade, and many more are newly embroiled in family court cases that are shot through with graft and corruption.  We had the Commission of 2002 that resulted in nothing, a task force in 2014 that resulted in flawed legislation--bill 494--which judges, attorneys and GALs are busily ignoring.  There is the ADA investigation into the CT Judicial Branch which the CT DOJ refuses to comment on, and now they've come up with another?  You will excuse me if I say I am a  bit skeptical about this.  
The bottom line is that since 2010 Attorney Deirdre Daly has been in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the CT DOJ during a time when citizens have been in regular communication with her regarding violations of civil rights and violations of ADA law.  She is the first person we should be investigating in regard to corruption based upon her do-nothing response to the outcry of the suffering people of Connecticut.