CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS THAT GOV. MALLOY HAS ASKED THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH TO CUT ITS MONOLITHIC BUDGET!

The CT Judicial Branch has been asked to cut its budget
by $3.1 million!

READ MORE:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202737894568/Governor-Asks-Court-System-to-Cut-Millions-of-Dollars-From-Budget#ixzz3mYk8WW83

PROFESSOR JULIA SIMON-KERR WRITES ABOUT SYSTEMIC LYING IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM!

"February 10, 2014

 Hartford, CT:

 Julia Simon-Kerr joined the [CT] Law School faculty in of 2012 as an associate professor of law and the Ralph and Doris Hansmann Scholar after spending two years as a Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Her scholarship focuses on evidence, particularly on how lying and credibility in the legal system interact with evolving cultural norms.

Professor Simon-Kerr’s work-in-progress, "Systemic Lying," explores a particular form of cooperative lying that occurs throughout the history of our legal system and in many different areas of the law. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors applying a particular principle that guides their deception across cases. Surprisingly, given the system’s clear prohibition on lying in the courtroom, it becomes an open secret and functions as a controlling mechanism within the legal system.

"Through case studies of several instances where this phenomenon occurs across legal areas and over time," explains Professor Simon-Kerr, "I develop a theory of systemic lying.” Professor Simon-Kerr's theory suggests that systemic lying is a product of severe disjunction between cultural beliefs about justice and legal prescriptions. Rather than allow the law to take its course and deliver what would be perceived as unjust outcomes, participants lie and preserve the facade of a system that delivers results consonant with popular moral intuition. The collective and open nature of systemic lying and the fact that it occurs for a justice-related rationale allows it to escape the usual stigma attached to lying, particularly lying embedded within a system that privileges truth in the courtroom. "Ultimately, systemic lying is a persistent and powerful phenomenon within the system because it achieves a legitimacy that individual lies or covert group deception tend to lack," says Professor Simon-Kerr.

Professor Simon-Kerr also has written on education law, gender and the law, and law and literature, an area of interest she examines in a recent book chapter, published by Oxford University Press, entitled, “Pious Perjury in Scott’s The Heart of Midlothian.”

FOR THE LINK TO THIS INFORMATION, SEE BELOW:

http://www.law.uconn.edu/about/press-room/professor-julia-simon-kerr-explores-theory-systemic-lying

AND FOR ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS, SEE BELOW:

According to Megan Spicer of "The Connecticut Law
Tribune"

August 10, 2015

"The oath that Connecticut lawyers take in order to be admitted to the bar is 122 words long. Much of it consists of promising to never do anything dishonest and to inform the court if they see others being dishonest. It ends: "So help you God or upon penalty of perjury."

But those words only go so far, according to a University of Connecticut School of Law professor who says that dishonesty is rampant inside and outside the courtrooms, in jury deliberation rooms and even in the judge's chambers. The phenomenon is known as "systemic lying" and Julie Simon-Kerr recently published a paper on it in the William & Mary Law Review arguing that the practice poses a threat to the legal system.

"Systemic lying isn't benign," said Simon-Kerr, who teaches courses on civil procedure and evidence at UConn. "It threatens the fabric and legitimacy of the legal system to have all these actors conspire in the courtroom." She went on to call it "sinister"..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202734373407/UConn-Professors-Research-Details-Legacy-of-Lying-in-The-Legal-System#ixzz3iXgWEKB5

PAUL E. STERN OF THE WEBSITE STATE INTEGRITY INVESTIGATION GIVES AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL PAST!

Connecticut: The story behind the score

By Paul E. Stern

"Connecticut has benefited from some spectacular corruption.

In the past decade, no branch of government has been spared from abuse, exploitation and disgrace.

There was Gov. John G. Rowland, who, in league with a prominent state contractor, turned his administration into a criminal enterprise.

There were legislators who, in the pursuit of power, were willing to be owned by lobbyists.

There was State Treasurer Paul Silvester, who used his office and the state’s treasury to extort millions in kickbacks for himself and his friends.

There were the judges who suppressed public knowledge even of the existence of court cases involving influential and prominent litigants. And there was state Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan, who delayed the release of a controversial ruling in order to win appointment for his Republican protégé.

Little wonder that Connecticut has undergone significant reform in recent years, and that, as a result, state government has never been more open to public view and inspection. In the new 

State Integrity Investigation — a joint project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International — Connecticut now ranks second in it transparency and accountability, earning a solid B grade and numeric score of 86..."

READ MORE:

http://www.stateintegrity.org/connecticut_story_subpage

CT JUDICIAL BRANCH FAMILY COMMISSION DISBANDING, HOPING TO EVADE PUBLIC SCRUTINY!

Recently, I was reviewing the online page for the Family Commission located on the CT Judicial Branch website.  As I did so, I was quite surprised to read commentary in the September 10, 2014 minutes of the Family Commission meeting indicating that the Commission is planning on shutting down its operations. The pertinent wording is as follows:

Under Section V.

"The Commission discussed the past, present, and future missions of the Family Commission.  The Commission was originally created to review and update the practice book rules for family cases.  All members present agreed that the Commission has gone beyond its original charge."

They did?  They said they had gone beyond the original charge?  How?  We would all like to know.  One way, I would suggest, is to become involved in the legislative process and personally write some of the Connecticut General Statutes.  This strikes me as a violation of the concept of the separation of powers.

To continue:

"The members also agreed that it was no longer necessary to meet on a regularly scheduled basis [emphasis added].  The Commission will continue to meet from time to time when there are issues brought to its attention by the bench and the bar for discussion.  All members agree that the family bar has always been comfortable bringing important matters to the attention of the bench when needed [emphasis added]."

What does that mean?  Does it mean that in cases the family bar speaks to judges in chambers and pretty much gets its way?  If so, this is a privilege self represented parties clearly aren't allowed!

So, in essence, they are taking discussions regarding the operation of family court outside of the public eye and into back corridors and private rooms.

I wonder if the increased scrutiny on the operations of the Family Court Section of the CT Judicial Branch has led to this outcome? I am aware that the much maligned AFCC has shut down its operations here in Connecticut.  Could the one event have led to the other?  Who knows?  One thing is for certain, the Family Commission has certainly not appreciated the increased scrutiny on its activities which has included a considerable number of interested citizens and family court victims attending its proceedings.

I reviewed the number of meetings of the Family Commission which have taken place from its inception in 2008 up to the present.  There has definitely been a considerable decrease in meetings and an increase in the cancellations of meetings as the public has taken it upon itself to observe in person many of the Family Commission meetings, and has expressed greater concern about the misdeeds of family court and its exploitation of Connecticut citizens.  

A chart following this trend is posted below:

YEAR          #MEETINGS          #CANCELLED MEETINGS

2008                     5                                              0

2009                     7                                              1

2010                     7                                              0

2011                     8                                              1

2012                     4                                             3

2013                     6                                             3

2014                     3                                             2

2015                     1                                             0

I also think it is interesting that the founding members of the Family Commission have remained on the Commission for the entire seven year period that it has been in existence.  While the Family Commission has added additional members, earlier members have stayed.  So the culture of this Commission has remained the same, and the people dominating the Commission from the start and establishing the agenda on a meeting to meeting basis has remained steady.

Some of these legal professionals whose names dominate the Commission are known AFCC members or legal professionals whose names are considered notorious among family court critics because they are perceived as corrupt.

The names of the founding Commission members are as follows:

Hon. Holly Abery-Whetstone
Hon. Sandra Sosnoff Baird
Hon. John Boland
Attorney Steven Dembo
Hon. Anne Dranginis
Attorney Gaetano Ferro
Hon. Steven Frazzini* (no longer a member)
Attorney Constance Frontis
Hon. Elaine Gordon
Attorney Johanna Greenfield
Hon. Lynda Munro (Chair)
Attorney Maureen Murphy* (Now a judge)
Attorney Thomas Parrino
Hon. Elliott Solomon

Members who have been added to the Commission since its original founding are as follows:

Hon. Elizabeth Bozzuto (Current Chair)
Attorney Michael Blanchard
Attorney Michael Fasano
Attorney Deborah Grover
Attorney John Colella
Attorney Alan Palmer
Hon. Barry Pinkus

These are the individuals who apparently no longer feel they ought to be held accountable to the public, despite the fact that it is their failed policies that have generated so much dissatisfaction in recent years.  

Judge Elliott Solomon is one judge who has stated that he is responsible for training pretty much all of the judges in Hartford Family Court and that they would all do what he said.  If so, he is the first one who should answer for the gross miscarriages of justice which has taken place there in recent years.

THE CT MIRROR REPORTS GOVERNOR MALLOY APPOINTS A MORE DIVERSE JUDICIARY!

Mark Pazniokas of "The CT Mirror" reports as follows:

"It happened to Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1994, John G. Rowland in 1996 and M. Jodi Rell in 2010: Those governors faced outcries for failing to include a single black lawyer in large classes of Superior Court nominees.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, whose latest nominees await confirmation votes by the General Assembly before it adjourns June 3, is the first Connecticut governor in two decades to avoid controversy over judicial diversity.

Thirty percent of the 47 judges Malloy has nominated to the Superior Court since taking office in 2011 have been minorities, twice the percentage of those named by his immediate predecessors, Rell and Rowland.

The higher percentage of minority lawyers being named to the bench reflects Malloy’s commitment to diversity, but also nearly two decades of effort by the judiciary and legal profession to demystify the process and broaden the pool of potential judicial candidates..."

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

http://ctmirror.org/2015/05/28/under-malloy-a-more-diverse-judiciary/

DID THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH PUNISH INDIVIDUAL LITIGANTS BY POSTING PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CASES ONLINE?

During this past year, several family court litigants have talked during public hearings about the tragedy visited upon their families when the CT Judicial Branch published the memoranda of decision of their cases online.  The authority for publishing these memoranda of decision arises from Conn. Gen. Statute Section 51-215a - (Formerly Sec. 51-21): Publication of decisions of the Superior Court and the Appellate Court.  This statute states as follows:

"(a) The clerks of the Superior Court shall file with the Reporter of Judicial Decisions copies of memoranda of decisions in Superior Court cases. The reporter shall select therefrom for publication such decisions as he deems will be useful as precedents or will serve the public interest and shall prepare them for publication and index them in substantial conformity with the manner in which decisions of the Supreme Court are prepared and indexed. The decisions selected shall be published by the Commission on Official Legal Publications in the Connecticut Law Journal and in such bound volumes as the Reporter of Judicial Decisions deems necessary."

In other words, the Reporter of Judicial Decisions has been statutorily required to do the job of selecting memoranda of decision that he thinks will be "useful as precedents or will serve the public interest" and put them out there for publication.  In real terms, this means that private information regarding litigants' divorces has ended up out there on the internet available for all of the world to see and has resulted in considerable harm and damage to the families involved.  

Several family court litigants have talked about the damaging impact that the publication online of their court  decisions had on them.  For instance, in one situation, the memoranda of decision included the psychiatric diagnoses of the litigants' children, where they lived and what school they went to.  Any pedophile could have used that information to stalk the children, kidnap them, or cause some other kind of devastating harm to them.

It was not unusual for litigants to find private medical information such as psychiatric diagnoses, substance abuse problems, or chronic physical conditions ending up online in these memoranda of decision.  False accusations of domestic violence or sexual impropriety as well as financial wrongdoing also made there way into these memoranda of decision and ended up online.  Others talked about how they found themselves unable to obtain employment or were fired from a job because of the contents of the memoranda of decision.  

The worst of it is knowing that your friends and neighbors can simply go online and look up the decision in your case online and thus find out about the most intimate and private details of your life, or what is reported as having occurred in your life, when you know very well that nothing of the kind happened.  They could do it at any time and you would never know.  So the next time you go to a school event you might spend your time wondering -- do these people know about what has been said about me in my case?  

In my situation, knowing that the memorandum of decision was online was particularly difficult for me because the entire memoranda was fabricated out of false, misleading, and out of context information.  Most particularly, I objected to the fact that information that was purely hearsay ended up in the decision and included statements the judge made deliberately in order to smear my reputation permanently.  Why did the Reporter of Judicial Decisions choose my case?  There was nothing significant or precedential about it.

It wasn't long before many of us who were victims of this situation began to ask ourselves if there was some pattern to the publication of these decisions.  If you consider that at least 15,000 - 17,000 cases go to trial each year, how is it that our cases were particularly selected for publication?  Was there an intention to silence us?  It did not escape notice that many of the memoranda of decision chosen for publication were ones where the attorneys in the cases or the judges had a particular interest in silencing us.  

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a judge or an attorney would drop by the office of the Reporter of Judicial Decisions and say informally, don't forget to publish that case!  Why not!  A lot worse has happened in our corrupt family courts!

Thus, it is interesting to see in the 2015 legislative session that the Judiciary Committee is considering Section 11 of proposed S.B. Bill 1033 An Act Concerning Court Operations which would eliminate this section (a) from the CT General Statutes and would prevent the CT Judicial Branch from publishing these memoranda of decision in the future.  

I would strongly recommend that everyone call their representatives and also encourage members of the Judiciary Committee to pass this bill.  We need to protect the privacy of CT Family Court victims and stop individual judges and attorneys from using these memoranda of decision to get back at people and take revenge and permanently ruin their lives.

THE DAY REPORTS GOVERNOR PROPOSES MAJOR CHANGES TO CT JUDICIAL BRANCH IN UPCOMING BUDGET PLANS!

Karin Florin of The Day reports as follows,

"Gov. Dannel P. Malloy’s budget would remove more than 1,508 positions and about $260 million (approximately half of the Branch's budget) in annual funding from the Judicial Branch, which operates state courts, and place them into agencies within the Executive Branch.

Under the plan, 755 positions in juvenile probation, juvenile residential services and family services would transfer from the Judicial Branch’s court support services division to the Department of Children and Families.

The Department of Correction would assume adult probation services and the alternative incarceration program, a total of 753 positions.

The Court Support Services Division would retain 339 positions including bail commissioners, pre-trial intake services support enforcement and victim services..."

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

http://www.theday.com/article/20150218/NWS12/150219756

A POSSIBLE 50% OF FAMILY COURT LITIGANTS ARE VICTIMS OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION PERPETRATED BY THE LEGAL PROFESSION!

If there is one piece of nonsense that bothers me the most about CT Family Court it is the mythology the legal community likes to spread around that the people who are being defrauded and exploited in Family Court are just a small minority of crazy people. 

 

The first time I heard this theory of the small crazy minority was from the discussion in the December 2002 report of the Governor's Commission on Divorce, Custody and Children.  This report stated as follows, "Conflict between parents during and after separation presents a major risk to children and a major challenge to the system.  The majority of divorcing and separating parents recognize their personal responsibility to meet the financial, emotional, and developmental needs of their children.  These parents, with some assistance from the Family Services Unit, private mediators or therapists, do their best to work out arrangements for the future life of their children within the changed family.  However, a small minority of parents engages in persistent conflict because of anger, characterological or mental health problems, or force of personality." 

 

I had forgotten this discussion regarding the cause of the problems associated with the CT Family Court system.  However, in January 2014, when the report was published of the Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and custody of Minor Children, to my surprise, instead of providing new insights based upon the testimony of the many individuals who came to speak to the Task force, the members of the Task Force simply repeated what the 2002 Commission had to say--blaming CT Family Court problems on a small minority of mentally ill people. 

 

But where did this claim originate?  That is what I don't get. 

 

We actually do not have any statistical basis for that conclusion; there has been no study, no investigation of CT Family Court records, nothing that establishes this claim in fact. 

 

During the testimony in regard to CT Family Court I heard victims of family court talk of Guardian Ad Litems who couldn't be bothered to meet with their child clients, I heard about attorneys who padded their bills and who created conflicts deliberately in order to increase their legal fees.  I heard about judges who refused to allow victims of family court to present their witnesses or their documentary evidence.  I heard about mental health professionals who deliberately manipulated family court litigants, pushed quack theories regarding Parental Alienation Syndrome, and aided and abetted in custody switching schemes. 

 

I certainly heard about people being driven to desperation and despair by the CT Family Court system, but I did not see that you could line up a group of people who had been labeled with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or personality disorders and point at them as the source of all the complaints directed towards the legal system.  

 

I asked myself:  could it be that pointing fingers at people with mental health labels was simply a way that corrupt family court officials--judges, attorneys, and GALs--had of scapegoating an unpopular social class in order to explain away their wrongdoing? 

 

This is why I was extremely interested in the Biannual Report of the CT Judicial Branch 2012-2014.  As soon as it came out, I grabbed the report and quickly flipped to the back where the statistics are located.  So this is the story I got out of these statistics. 

 

Based upon the stats in this biannual report, there are approximately 34,000 divorces more or less filed each year in the State of Connecticut.  According to the report, half of these cases go to trial, and half of them are disposed of in other ways.  So that means approximately 17,000 go to trial.  According to retired Judge Lynda Munro, 35% of those continue on to appeal.  So that is 5,950 per year that are high conflict, simply by virtue of the fact that not even the trial was sufficient to settle matters. 

 

The CT Judicial Branch and the Legal profession want to say that the people involved in high conflict divorce are a tiny minority.  Does approximately 5,950 cases per year seem like a teensy, tiny minority to you guys? 

 

Of course, I am just associating high conflict with the concrete numbers of individuals who are unable to resolve their family court issues to the point where they continue on to appellate court.  What about the many more who are also high conflict, but can't afford the legal fees to go any further.  What about those who simply give up and accept the fact that they have lost all of their money or won't ever see their children again.  What about the additional group of individuals who may never end up in Appellate Court but continue on with years and years of post judgment legal issues.  Then there are those who have been blackmailed and intimidated by family court professionals that they are afraid to speak out.

 

Now you may be getting up to numbers that include at least 50% of litigants or more. 

 

Of course, you could get to 50% simply by saying that any divorcing couple that has to go to trial is automatically high conflict.  The bottom line is that any significant trial can cost up to $30,000 for a single litigant, and as much as $60,000 for both.  If you are willing to pay that much to go to trial, yes, I would say what you have is high conflict.

 

I am speculating here with a broad range of numbers.  It is good speculation in that I think that the conclusion I've drawn is correct that we have at least 50% or more of litigants entangled in devastating and fraudulent divorce proceedings. 

 

On the other hand, I think that the CT Judicial Branch could go a long way towards ensuring greater accuracy if the Branch actually collected more concrete numbers in a way that was geared towards understanding the actual causes of the problems, rather than just blaming people with mental illness as a way to avoid accountability. 

ACCORDING TO THE CT LAW TRIBUNE THE GOVERNOR HAS ORDERED A $6 MILLION BUDGET CUT FROM THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH!

According to Jay Stapleton of the CT Law Tribune,

 

"The State budget cut will apparently be felt in the court system.

 

The Judicial Branch will have its current fiscal year budget cut by $6 million as Gov. Dannel Malloy seeks to close a projected budget shortfall.  The spending cuts, formerly known as rescissions, were announced January 23.  In all, the governor ordered $31.5 million in cuts, with social service programs, public colleges and universities and state watchdog agencies also taking a hit.  The cutbacks affecting more than two dozen state agencies follow $54.6 million in reductions ordered by Malloy in November.

 

A Judicial Branch spokeswoman said officials are still reviewing the rescission and won't comment on the matter until at least Monday, Feb. 2.  Legislative Judiciary Committee leaders did not immediately return emails seeking comment."

 

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

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202716360752/Governor-Orders-6-Million-Cut-in-Court-System-Spending#ixzz3Q9ytASB2 

ELIZABETH A. RICHTER'S FEDERAL ADA COMPLAINT CONTINUES ON TO APPEAL AT THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT!

In the Fall of 2012, Elizabeth A. Richter filed a Federal ADA Complaint with the Connecticut District Court stating that she had been repeatedly denied accommodations for her disability and faced disability   based discrimination during her divorce case which took place in Hartford Superior Court and the State's Appellate Court from 2006 until 2012.  Ms. Richter's Federal Complaint was dismissed in March 2014 and has now been appealed to the Second Circuit Court in New York City.

 

Elizabeth Richter's original Federal Complaint was filed against the following Defendants: The Connecticut Judicial Branch, an attorney firm O'Connell, Attmore & Morris, LLC, and also an individual judge, Herbert Barall, the same judge who presided over the Linda Wiegand case. 

 

Ms. Richter brought the action in Federal Court to obtain redress for these Defendants' violations of Title II and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and as Amended in 2008.  The Americans With Disabilities Act is a civil rights law which is intended to enfranchise the many millions of Americans who have disabilities throughout the United States.  Further, Ms. Richter also brought the action based upon Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, an early version of the ADA, and also based upon the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States constitution. 

 

As a result of the violations of due process and her right of access to state court legal proceedings, the Plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Richter requested that the Federal District court provide her with declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.  She also requested the reversal of her state court judgments as well as monetary compensation for the intentional infliction of emotional distress which she endured as a result of the Defendants' actions.

 

Elizabeth Richter's struggles with discrimination began  over 30 years ago when Ms. Richter was misdiagnosed as having a severe mental illness she did not have and locked up in a psychiatric facility for a little more than two years.  Ms. Richter spoke of this incident before the Task Force on the Care and Custody of Minor Children which took place last year.  See the link below:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZD16s-18To

 

Despite the fact that this hospitalization was mistake, throughout her divorce the opposing side in the case repeatedly brought the subject up as the basis for denying Elizabeth Richter custody.  The opposing attorney in her case also repeatedly attempted to have Ms. Richter declared incompetent and to have a Guardian Ad Litem appointed to make decisions on behalf of Ms. Richter. 

 

Elizabeth Richter also brought up the fact that she experiences so much discrimination and stigma as a result of that incident that, over the years, she has had to have counseling for the stress and anxiety it has caused her. 

 

Despite this extensive history which qualified the Plaintiff for protections under Title II of the ADA, the Superior Court at Hartford where Ms. Richter's case was adjudicated, refused to acknowledge that she was a qualified individual under the ADA and refused to provide her with any reasonable modifications during the entire six years that her case was going through the Court. 

 

Elizabeth Richter also pointed out in her Complaint that the Connecticut Judicial Branch subjected her to a systemic pattern of discrimination and the denial of her ADA rights such that she was unable to obtain testamentary and participatory access to justice throughout her divorce.  Most particularly, the Connecticut Judicial Branch hid documents Elizabeth Richter had provided to the Court which showed evidence of her disability and explained what accommodations were necessary for her.   

 

Furthermore, Ms. Richter reported that she experienced discrimination from her own attorneys who failed to provide her with adequate representation and made statements regarding her which were intended to incite a bigoted response from the Court.  In particular, her attorney, Attorney James T. Flaherty, who was named in the lawsuit, failed to inform her of her rights under Title III of the ADA, failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations so that she could access the attorney firm's legal services, and also discriminated against her based upon her disability, and also based upon the firm's false perceptions of the disability they thought she had.  The attorney firm also refused to protect her from discrimination based upon the false perceptions that arose from the misdiagnosis she received over 30 years ago.  

 

During her post-judgment matters in her divorce, Elizabeth Richter complained that Judge Herbert Barall refused to provide her with reasonable accommodations, discriminated against her based upon the perception of disability, and interfered with her ADA advocate when he tried to do his job.  She also complained that Judge Barall used derogatory language while referring to her two children who have a disability and refused to acknowledge that they are legally blind although this fact was well documented and he was fully informed of their disability. 

 

In addition, in her Complaint, Elizabeth Richter brought to the attention of the Federal Court the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch does not have a publically identified ADA Coordinator as required by ADA law according to II-8.5000 of the Title II Technical Assistance manual.  Further, it has provided confusing and misleading responses when asked to identify one.  Also, the Judicial Branch does not have a meaningful grievance procedure. 

 

Finally, Elizabeth Richter complained that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has been restricting ADA law to Title I of the ADA, instead of Title II as required by federal law, in an attempt to avoid providing the broader based and more encompassing modifications it is required to provide under Title II. 

 

It is also important to note that since Ms. Richter filed her lawsuit in federal court, the Connecticut Judicial Branch has subjected her to interference and harassment in her role as an ADA Advocate in support of litigants with disabilities.  This is also a violation of ADA law.  

 

Ms. Richter's initial filing of her complaint was in November 2012 and then she Amended her complaint in April 2013.  Despite that, the decision of the Federal Court  dismissing her case was issued a full year later at the end of March 2014.  Apparently, according to Ms. Richter, this is quite typical of legal proceedings.  As she stated, "The Courts regularly drag out proceedings and delay responding to motions until the very last day because they hope that by doing so litigants will become discouraged and give up.  That way the Court can avoid taking proper action and avoid bearing the consequences for a wrong decision." 

 

And in this particular case, the decision really was wrong. 

 

As Ms. Richter explains it, "What the federal court basically did was declare that I do not have a disability which is just totally ridiculous.  I have been a person with a disability, and have a record of receiving treatment for anxiety over a period of many years, particularly since my misdiagnosis and wrongful hospitalization which ended in 1980.  Furthermore, during the divorce I was diagnosed with acute stress disorder as a result of the legal proceedings as well as legal abuse syndrome.  There is no way that I did not have a disability prior to the legal proceedings as well as during those proceedings.  And I am continuing to take a pounding as I pursue my legal rights in Federal Court." 

 

Ms. Richter continued on to say, "Even if you grant what the Federal Court said that I currently don't have a disability, that isn't even relevant.   Under ADA law it is recognized that a misdiagnosis such as the one I had many years ago still qualifies you as having a disability."  Nonetheless, the federal court decision of March 2014 denies that this is so. 

 

Not only  that, there is more to why the Federal Court made a completely misguided decision in Ms. Richter's case.  Apparently, to be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability, defined by the ADA as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.  Otherwise, a person must have a history or record of such an impairment, or be a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. "What the Court did," stated Elizabeth Richter, "was argue that I only had temporary anxiety and it ignored my statement that I'd basically had a 30 year history of anxiety on and off.  It twisted my words around and deliberately misinterpreted them." 

 

Also, the Federal Court essentially argued that a temporary disability is not covered under ADA law.  This is, in fact, untrue.  Many temporary disabilities are covered under ADA law.  Not only that, according to Elizabeth Richter, "The Federal Court simply refused to discuss the second and third categories under which I could have been held to be eligible for ADA protection, i.e. the fact that I had a record of a disability from my earlier psychiatric hospitalization, let alone my subsequent treatment for anxiety, and also my complaint that I was perceived as having a disability I did not have." 

 

"What this really amounts to," stated Ms. Richter, "is the Judicial Nullification of Federal ADA law on the highest level." 

 

This is particularly outrageous granting  the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  Essentially, Congress enacted the ADAAA of 2008 because it wanted to stop the mini-trials on whether a person had a disability or not and instead wanted to force attention on the merits of the case.  This means that the Federal Court's extensive focus on whether Elizabeth A. Richter did or did not have an eligible disability was completely in violation of the law. 

 

Furthermore, according to Chai R. Goldblum, a national expert on ADA policy, since the passage of the ADAAA in 2008, "The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred, not on whether the individual meets the definition of disability."  In its decision in Ms. Richter's case, the Federal Court simply refused to address the fact that The Connecticut Judicial Branch failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations and it failed to consider any of her other complaints.  The Federal Court decision solely focused on whether Ms. Richter had a disability or not, in direct opposition to the spirit of the ADAAA.

 

What is even more ridiculous about the Federal District Court's decision in this case is that finally, after years of stonewalling, on December 7, 2012 a Judge of the State of Connecticut confirmed the fact that Elizabeth Richter has a disability that entitles her to the protections of Federal ADA law.  As Ms. Richter stated, "Given the fact that a State Court judge has already confirmed that [I have] a disability based upon the same information that District Court has before it, how can the District Court then contradict that decision?" 

 

This is not the first time that the Connecticut District Court has ruled that an individual everyone knows has a disability does not have a disability.  For instance, in a recent decision in Andrew Adams v. Fun Festival Parks (Lake Compounce), the Court ruled that Mr. Adams was not disabled despite the fact that he'd been developmentally disabled since birth and in special programs throughout his public school education.  In making its determination the Connecticut District Court cited exclusively pre-ADAAA of 2008 case law to justify its decision.  This is exactly the same thing it did in the Richter case. 

Even more troubling is the remark Elizabeth Richter made about the decision in her case in Connecticut District Court when it came out.  She stated, "I am not even sure that a Judge wrote this decision.  It shows such a profound lack of insight into Federal ADA law, it doesn't seem possible that a Judge wrote it.  My guess is that the Judge had her clerk write it and then just signed off on it with just a cursory glance.  That is a pretty outrageous way for our Federal Courts to be operating.  Of course, I have no proof, but that is the way the decision looks and reads."
 

In ruling as it did in complete violation of Federal ADA law in these two cases, the Connecticut District Court has essentially signaled to CT State Government and its Agencies as well as to businesses throughout Connecticut that they are free to violate Federal ADA law. 

 

People with disabilities better watch out, because it is open season on eliminating their human rights, their civil rights, and their constitutional rights. 

 

Still, Elizabeth Richter has not allowed her complaint to end there.  She has continued on with an appeal to the Second Circuit Court where she just submitted her final brief.  We will eagerly await the results of that appeal.

LAUGHABLY FLAWED STUDY ON CT JUDICIAL BRANCH COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA MAKES IT ONTO THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH WEBSITE AND THE PAGES OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

On November 17, 2014 I was struck by an article in the CT Law Tribune stating that the CT Judicial Branch had been cited by the National Center for Access to Justice (NCAJ) as having "the highest overall ranking for any state for its programs aimed at providing equal court access to all citizens." 

 

This was a surprise to me since I have been closely involved in advocacy aimed at getting the CT Judicial Branch to comply with the ADA, which for the better part it does not do.  I then today took note of the fact that the CT Judicial Branch itself is boasting of its great work as well on the front page of its website, also citing the NCAJ. 

 

Wanting to get a better grasp of this absurd announcement, I actually clicked on the link to the National Center for Access to Justice and was not surprised to see that the touted justice index which praises Connecticut so greatly is brand new and was first started on February 25, 2014.  Well, I think then, given how new this index is that it can be forgiven a little idiocy until it catches up with the rest of us more grizzled participants in the field of disability rights! 

 

The next thing I did was take a look at the parameters which earned the Connecticut Judicial Branch such high ratings, despite the fact that it has such a widespread reputation among litigants for obstructing the ADA at every turn.  So, folks, these are the parameters that the Justice Index used as the basis of its determinations.  Mind you, they didn't speak to anybody--either judicial branch employees or litigants with disabilities.  What they did was surf judicial branch websites in states throughout the nation for answers to the following questions:  

 

1.  Are courts required or allowed to charge deaf or hard of hearing for sign language interpreters?

 

2.  Certification of sign language interpreters a. Is there a State statute, rule, or other guidance requiring courts to use only certified sign language court interpreters? b. Are courts required to give preference to sign language interpreters who have training in how to interpret in a legal setting?

 

3.  Does the state judiciary’s web site tell court users: a. How to request an accommodation because of disability or who to contact to request an accommodation? b. How to file a complaint about difficulty accessing court facilities or services because of disability? c. Who to contact to file a complaint?

 

4.  Is there a State statute, rule or other guidance requiring courts to allow service animals?

 

 - See more at: http://www.justiceindex.org/methodology/#sthash.zCSlL2ZX.dpuf

 

Questions one and two out of the four questions are in regard to the deaf.  I would suspect this is directed towards the CT Judicial Branch which signed a settlement with the Department of Justice in November 11, 2003 agreeing to provide accommodations for folks who are deaf.  Hard as it is to believe, prior to that date, they were not doing so. 

 

From the data I have, deafness is pretty much the only disability the CT Judicial Branch accommodates.  So what about all the other various disabilities that need to be accommodated--they don't receive any honorable mention? 

 

Question three appears to indicate that the Connecticut Judicial Branch provides litigants with information on who to contact in order to request an accommodation and who to contact in order to submit a grievance.  In fact, this is not true.  The CT Judicial Branch website tells you to speak to a contact person--and there are over a 100 listed on the website--at the clerk's office for a request for accommodation. 

 

This is hardly a name. 

 

For a grievance, you are asked to submit your documents to the Director of the Human Resources Management Unit. 

 

So you do not actually get the name and contact information of a specific individual, i.e. Designated Responsible Employee, who is in charge of the implementation of the ADA at the CT Judicial Branch which is what the ADA actually requires. 

 

What this comes down to is the fact that this so called justice index has been produced on the most superficial level possible and has no more credibility than, say, a law diploma ordered from the internet for a modest fee. 

 

Apparently, a considerable number of Carbozo Law students were involved in compiling the data used in the making of this justice index.  Oops!  Sorry, I meant Cardozo School of Law students.  Ok, call me a snob, but I would probably have been more impressed with these results if they had been compiled by students from Harvard Law, Cornell Law, or Columbia Law--you know, schools with some actual prestige--but, you know, they would probably not have been willing to participate in such a laughable project no matter how many brib--excuse me--much money you gave them. 

 

Ok, so students from the University of Pennsylvania Law school (ranked 7th or 8th in the country) did some research as well, but what with the Sandusky affair and the kids for cash scandal, I wouldn't credit any institution from Pennsylvania! 

 

The bottom line in any investigation of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act is whether the CT Judicial Branch actually provided accommodations to the litigants who used the court system and whether the Branch actually reached out to litigants to let them know that such accommodations were available.  Yes, item number four regarding service dogs is important, but not half as important making sure that the ADA is applied to everyone.

 

I myself was unaware of the existence of  ADA accommodations  at the CT Judicial Branch until three years after my case was filed, and I am not the only one who has had that kind of experience. 

 

That is a pretty miserable record, in my humble opinion. 

 

From what I can see, the National Center For Access to Justice is largely made up of and funded by -- you guessed it -- attorneys!  I thought it was interesting to see the Pfizer Legal Group is participating since Pfizer is such a major corporation in Connecticut. 

 

Needless to say, when lawyers and their legal institutions start praising themselves and their accomplishments, which they are never too modest to do--see the Super Lawyers website which is equally powered by scuzzy brib--excuse me--financial contributions--you've got to start feeling a little nervous. 

 

I can only assume that this recent desperate ploy of establishing a fake justice index indicates that the Connecticut Judicial Branch and its judges are feeling the heat from several Federal and State ADA Lawsuits which have been filed against it within the last two years for non-compliance with the comprehensive civil rights mandate of the ADA.  My response is only to say one day we shall overcome, we shall overcome.