DID "THE HARTFORD COURANT" AND OTHER CT MEDIA OUTLETS ACCEPT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO SILENCE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH CRITICS?

In May 9, 2018's Op-Ed "Legislature Fails Judge Subjected To Abuse" by Kevin Rennie, a long time "Hartford Courant" opinion leader, we could get the idea that the Family Court Reform movement here in CT is full of anti-semites and wackos. However, this simply makes no sense considering that a good many of the victims of Family Court injustice are either Jewish themselves or of Jewish origin. My own grandfather was incarcerated in the Marienkirche  Concentration Camp in Berlin, Germany. Further, Judge Jane B. Emons was not subjected to abuse. Judge Emons competence was called into question when numerous litigants reported that she had violated the judicial code of ethics.

O'BRIEN V. O'BRIEN: YES, GUYS, THE AUTOMATIC ORDER THAT PROHIBITS PARTIES FROM DISPOSING OF MARITAL ASSETS APPLIES TO YOU!

I feel somewhat out of my depth when it comes to discussing divorcing couples who deal in millions when it comes to their Court matter, but I will try in my modest way to draw some parallels between my case and that of the O'Briens.  I can't imagine having so much money to play around with and fight over!

FAMILY COURT ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT HAVE WORSE REPUTATIONS THAN PEDOPHILES!

It was tough to read the May 12, 2017 "CT Law Tribune" article in connection to the Dianne Hart-D'Amato case, particularly as a person who has walked in Dianne's shoes and experienced what she has experienced.  It was angering to read Dianne, and by inference all self represented parties in family court, spoken of as "a disgruntled litigant."  

I wonder how attorneys and judges would feel if I spoke of them automatically as crooked attorneys or crooked judges simply by virtue of the fact that I do not agree with them.  It is not often a bully pulpit such as "The CT Law Tribune" exists as a means to tongue lash the people a particular profession does not like.   

THE GUTLESS CONNECTICUT LAW TRIBUNE EDITORIAL BOARD 2017! ANONYMOUS NO LONGER!

Joette Katz, Chair 
Robert Mitchell, Vice Chair

Members:

Proloy K. Das
Felice Duffy
Robert Farr
Eugene Fidell
Mary Galvin
Elizabeth Gilson
Rachel Goldberg
Wesley W. Horton
Jocelyn Kennedy
David King
Daniel J. Klau
James B. Lyon
Eugene Marconi
Sean McElligott
Dwight H. Merriam
Dennis C. Murphy
Alan Neigher
Louis R. Pepe
Michelle Querijero
Eugene Riccio
Thomas B. Scheffey
Mark Soboslai
James F. Sullivan
Cecil Thomas
Thomas J. Ullman
Diane Whitney
Steven Wizner

CT LAW TRIBUNE RUN BY A GUTLESS EDITORIAL BOARD? SEE ATTY NORM PATTIS COMMENTARY!

A Gutless Editorial Board

LINK TO ARTICLE:  http://www.pattisblog.com/blog.php?article=A-Gutless-Editorial-Board_5521

A welcome and not altogether unexpected piece of news arrived in the mail. It was from the Grievance Committee. The panel found no further need to investigate a complaint lodged against me. I filed the complaint myself.

I learned a long time ago never to run from a fight. Meet the accusation head on. If you don’t do so, the accuser is empowered. Far better to turn the accuser’s finger back into his own eye, as I do here to the editorial board of the Connecticut Law Tribune.

THE CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS THAT DIGITAL EVIDENCE IS BECOMING MORE IMPORTANT IN DIVORCE CASES!

Karen Ali of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"Computer gurus have become the new experts in divorce cases and "do-it-yourself" sleuths are becoming more and more common. Divorce lawyers throughout the state are noticing less of a need to hire a private investigator, and more and more reliance on social media evidence.

The changes have had positive implications for clients who want to save money and time, although the trail left by digital evidence has made it easier and easier for clients to get in trouble.

"From tracking devices to social media, there is a significant decrease in the need to hire a PI. Sometimes a person's own conduct on social media is the best evidence of their judgment," said Renee Bauer, of Bauer Law Group, LLC, of Hamden..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202772209450/Digital-Evidence-Outmodes-Physical-Evidence-in-Divorce-Cases?kw=Digital%20Evidence%20Outmodes%20Physical%20Evidence%20in%20Divorce%20Cases&et=editorial&bu=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune&cn=20161114&src=EMC-Email&pt=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune%20Daily%20Briefing&slreturn=20161014224713

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS STATE SUPREME COURT THREW OUT $12 MILLION AWARD AGAINST BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA IN SEXUAL ABUSE CASE!

Greg Land of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"A splintered Connecticut Supreme Court has thrown out a $12 million award against the Boy Scouts of America following a 2014 trial in which a former scout claimed he was sexually abused by his troop leader in the 1970s.

Four of the court's justices agreed with Chief Justice Chase Rogers that the trial judge had improperly rejected the defense's requested jury charge that, in order to be found liable for the John Doe plaintiff's abuse, the BSA would have had to know or have reason to know that scout leader Siegfried Hepp posed a threat to the boy.

But three of those justices disagreed with Rogers' analysis on statute of limitations. Writing in concurrence and dissent, Justice Peter Zarella, joined by Justices Carmen Espinosa and Richard Robinson, said the statute of limitations for Doe's claims of negligence and recklessness had expired, while Rogers found the claims were not time-barred.

Writing in support of the trial court's verdict was Justice Dennis Eveleigh, joined by Justice Andrew McDonald, who said that even if the trial judge had erred in refusing to give the requested jury charge, it was harmless error..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202769128457/State-Justices-Toss-12M-Boy-Scout-Sex-Abuse-Verdict?mcode=0&curindex=0

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS: THE JUDICIAL BRANCH CUTS BACK ON LIBRARY HOURS!

Michelle Tuccitto Sullo of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"Staffing shortages and the state's budget situation have prompted officials to reduce the hours of more of the state's law libraries.

Deirdre McPadden, director of judge support services, said the financial crisis, combined with the retirement of two law librarians, resulted in this decision.

The latest budget season hit the court system hard, with the state Judicial Branch having to deal with a $77 million reduction in the budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/home/id=1202768277756/More-State-Law-Libraries-Going-on-Reduced-Schedule?mcode=1202617073650&curindex=0

ANOTHER CT LAWYER BITES THE DUST: ATTORNEY THOMAS M. MURTHA MISHANDLING FUNDS!

MICHELLE TUCCITTO SULLO OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:

"Longtime attorney Thomas M. Murtha has resigned from the bar amid a state disciplinary action alleging he misappropriated clients' funds.

In one case, a client claims to be owed $100,000. Murtha submitted his resignation and waived his right to apply for readmission to the bar in Superior Court in Bridgeport on Sept. 8.

The state Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel had submitted an application for order of interim suspension against Murtha on Aug. 18..."

READ MORE: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202767300293/Attorney-Resigns-From-Bar-Amid-Disciplinary-Probe?cn=20160913&pt=Breaking%20News&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune&slreturn=20160813185212

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS THE STATE OF CT IS SHORTCHANGING SPECIAL ED STUDENTS!

MEGAN SPICER OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:

"Connecticut's disability rights agency says the state is cutting off school a year too soon for some special education students.

The Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities filed a federal class action July 15 against the state board of education, alleging that it is treating disabled students differently from their peers by terminating education services at age 21.

General education students can obtain their high school diplomas via adult classes at any age. The federal Individuals with Disabilities Act requires that schools provide the same opportunities to special education students at least until their 22nd birthday, the suit contends..."

READ MORE:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202763358227/Special-Ed-Students-Being-Shortchanged-a-Year-Suit-Says?mcode=0&curindex=0

SUIT AGAINST STATEWIDE GRIEVANCE REVEALS SERIOUS FLAWS IN HOW GRIEVANCES AGAINST ATTORNEYS ARE HANDLED!

ACCORDING TO CHRISTIAN NOLAN OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE:

"State grievance officials have escaped a lawsuit brought by a family accusing their former lawyers of collecting $4.3 million more in legal fees than they were entitled to in connection with a high-profile medical-malpractice settlement.

In 2011, a jury awarded $58.6 million to Cathy and Domenic D'Attilo and their son, Danny, for permanent brain injuries he sustained during his birth at Stamford Hospital.

The amount was a medical-malpractice record in Connecticut. But rather than embark on years of appeals, the family, through their lawyers, opted to settle with the hospital for $25 million..."

TAKE AWAY:  

1.  Attorney General George Jepsen fought against the rights of the people to have attorneys held to account;

2.  Statewide Grievance has simply flipped off procedures in place to hold attorneys to account.

FOR MORE ON THIS STORY, SEE LINK:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202763060280/Family-in-Record-MedMal-Case-Loses-Suit-Against-Ethics-Panel?mcode=0&curindex=0

AS CUTS IN THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH PROCEED, HERE IS A COMMENT POSTED ON THE CT LAW TRIBUNE WEBSITE!

Judge Crater

Apr 13, 2016

Judicial Department-State of Connecticut-(insider information) The following positions could easily be eliminated, with a savings of approximately 21 million dollars. Many positions have been “created” for friends and family of upper management. The list here barely scratches the surface of the abuse, nepotism, and double dipping that goes on. There are many more positions that could be eliminated. For example, there is wife of a chief clerk who is paid as a research attorney, close to 150k a year. She shows Judges how to use their laptops, I kid you not. Isn‘t that why we have an IT dpt? Our department for years was run by one person, it now has a deputy director, 2 program managers, and 3 admin. assistants, there is no need for any of these positions. It‘s outrageous. (These figures are estimated on the low end, many make more than what is listed)-----------19 senior judges @ $50k per year (in addition to collecting their pension)= $950,000.0069 Judge Trial Referees @ $50k per year (already collecting pension) = $3,450,000.0043 deputy directors @$120,000.00 per year = $5,160,000.0057 deputy clerks @80,000 per year = $4,560,000.0070 program managers @ $100,000.00 per year = $7,000,000.00Total: $21,120,000.00These figures do not take into account monies spent for pension plans, medical, cars, ins. mileage, etc. A true detailed examination into this abuse would save our State at least 100 million dollars per year, but those in power refuse to truly do what is right, most likely because they themselves are raping the system. DEMAND ACTION!--Judge Crater

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202754887691/Conn-Chief-Justice-Says-Layoff-Notices-Will-Go-Out-Thursday#ixzz45kx7JUQd

DEFENSE ATTORNEY MILES GERETY MOST SAVVY REMARK FOR THE DAY!

"You know, it's amazing to me that in 2016 we're still dealing with [a situation] where, if a woman defends herself, suddenly she's complicit in her battering."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202754163549/Advocacy-Groups-Applaud-After-Conn-Domestic-Violence-Victim-Is-Acquitted-of-Murder#ixzz44z73Hgj7

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ADVOCACY GROUPS REJOICE AT RELEASE OF DV VICTIM!

Megan Spicer of the CT LAW TRIBUNE reports as follows:

"Cherelle Baldwin walked free March 31 after being found not guilty of murder. She had crushed her ex-boyfriend against a wall with a car, claiming that she was acting in self-defense against a man who had abused her time and again.

Baldwin's acquittal was hailed by leaders of more than three dozen national advocacy groups who had signed letters urging the state prosecutor to drop the charges against the Bridgeport woman. Among other things, the groups have misgivings about Connecticut's "dual arrest" policy — that is, the practice of arresting both parties in domestic altercations. Speaking to the media arm of the advocacy group Democracy Now, Baldwin emphasized what her supporters had been saying while vying for her release: That women who are defending themselves from attackers should not be prosecuted..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202754163549/Advocacy-Groups-Applaud-After-Conn-Domestic-Violence-Victim-Is-Acquitted-of-Murder#ixzz44z5r2NjQ

NATIONAL DV ADVOCATES SUPPORT CT DV VICTIM!

Megan Spicer of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"Advocates from across the country are rallying behind a Bridgeport mother and domestic violence victim who is on trial for killing the man who allegedly abused her during their relationship..."

Read more:

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202753469767/National-Groups-Say-Prosecution-of-Conn-Domestic-Violence-Victim-Highlights-Flaws-in-State-Law#ixzz44EvgvT3V

More on the criminalization of African-American women who are victims of domestic violence and fight back:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31178-black-domestic-violence-survivors-are-criminalized-from-all-directions

LETS GET HONEST! THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH COULD EASILY CUT $70 MILLION FROM ITS BUDGET IN NON JUDICIAL SERVICES!

In a recent report of the "CT Law Tribune" dated February 19, 2016, Michelle Tuccitto Sullo reported that Governor Malloy is recommending that the CT Judicial Branch cut its budget by $70 million.

In response, Chief Court Administrator Judge Patrick Carroll III made dire apocalyptic predictions regarding what would happen if this cut goes through, "If a budget reduction of this magnitude goes into effect, the court system as we know it will not exist after July 1, 2016."

Of course, those of us who have been harshly treated by this very system, those of us who have lost children and have been driven into bankruptcy as a result of family court corruption, are not going to feel too upset about that. In fact, we are looking forward to it. In fact, if the CT Judicial Branch would like, I can easily compile a list of those judges, family relations personnel and judicial marshals we think the CT Judicial Branch can easily do without. If they are itching to close up some courts because of the expense, and need a few suggestions, I think we could do away with some of the nonsense going on in Middletown.

In discussing budget cuts it is interesting that for the better part the CT Judicial Branch talked about cutting financial resources to the most vulnerable, not to the fat cat money producing departments like family relations. The Branch proposed cuts to juvenile detention centers, alternative to incarceration programs, the Office of Victim Services, and translators. Nothing was said about cuts to services to persons with disabilities because, as we know, the CT Judicial Branch can't be bothered to serve those with disabilities, preferring to deny such people access to Judicial Services instead.

Anyway, before legislators and citizens in the State of Connecticut start running scared in the face of the terrifying scenarios that Judge Patrick Carroll describes, I think it is important to consider exactly what we are talking about. Specifically, for those of you who may not have known, it is worth taking note that while most people think the budget for the CT Judicial Branch pays for courthouses, judges, prosecutors, etc., it may come as a surprise to discover that The CT Judicial Branch also pays for what they call "a full range of alternatives to incarceration and evidence-based services for adult and juvenile populations." The latter definition is so general, it could pretty much cover anything, and does.

What this means is that, in other words, the CT Judicial Branch has economic tentacles in a broad range of areas--churches, hospitals, community organizations, and other government agencies--which goes well beyond their mandate "to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner." A selected list of such places is as follows:

21st Century Media Newspaper, LLC  $11,116

Access Rehab Centers, LLC  $75.00

Advanced Trauma Solutions, INC.  $373,272

Apostolic Community Church of Jesus & Ministries  $9,988

All Souls Unitarian Universalist Congregation  $14,664

African Caribbean American Parents of Children With Disabilities,  $100,000

APT Foundation: Treatment, Research, &
 Recovery  $370,000 

Aspire Family Medicine & Wellness Center $25.00

Association of Religious Communities, INC  $144,985

Attorney General $20,000 - why?

Bridges - A Community Support System, Inc.  $2,174

Catholic Charities & Family Services  $70,703

Catholic Charities INC Archdioceses of Hartford  $1,035,507

Center For Children's Advocacy  $10,500

Central Connecticut State University  $722,933

Central Washington Comprehensive Mental Health  $2,500

Child & Family Agency Southeastern CT INC  $1,599

Child Advocates of Connecticut  $50,000

Child Guidance Center of Southern Connecticut  $220,727 

Child Health and Development Institute INC  $262,500

Children in Placement Conn INC  $199,999

Children's Law Center of CT  $109,836

Clifford W. Beers Guidance Clinic  $251,664

Communicare INC  $98,028

Community Health Resources INC  $687,558

Community Partners in Action INC  $12,976,031

Community Renewal Team INC  $567,650

Community Resources For Justice  $116,305

Compass Group/Chartwells  $931,857

Compass Youth Collaborative, INC  $56,833

Connecticut Children's Medical Center  $10,926

CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence  $3,159,621

CT Community Providers Association  $45,785

CT Counseling Centers INC  $771,347

Concentra Medical Center  $26563

CT Junior Republic Association  $11,800,351

CT Renaissance INC  $4,049,142

CT Sexual Assault Crisis Services  $1,743,950

CT Youth Services Association  $275,000

David Mandel & Associates, LLC  $18,408
Department of Administrative Services  $2,294,497

Department of Rehabilitation Services  $144,750

Department of Children and Families  $3,264,180

Department of Corrections  $1,762,508

Department of Labor  $80,000

Department of Mental Health and 
  Addiction Services  $9,426,716

Department of Public Safety  $5,170

Department of Social Services  $72,412

Department of Transportation  $408,562

Domestic Violence Crisis Center  $140,934

Families in Crisis, INC  $765,113

Families and Children's Aid, INC  $106,673

Family Centered Services of CT INC  $269,192

Family Centers INC  $2,375

Family Reentry INC  $876,608

Hearst CT Post  $9,881

Intercommunity INC  $205,659

Klingberg Comprehensive Program Services INC  $255,211

Life Strategies Network LLC  $303,701

Lifebridge Community Services INC $163,050

Midwestern CT Council of Alcoholism INC  $1,306,552

NAFI Connecticut, INC  $6,137,086

New Directions INC of N. Central CT  $183,772

Newtown Youth & Family Services INC  $1,091,249

Post Traumatic Stress Center, LLC  $23,010

Removed For Privacy  $171,752

St. Anthony of Padua Church  $59,000

St. Francis Hospital & Medical Center  $1,212,736

Republican American  $3,230

Rushford Center INC  $492,075

Southwest Community Health Center INC  $251,172

St. Mary's Hospital Corp.  $25,400

St. Vincent Medical Center Foundation  $119,260

The Child and Family Guidance Center  $20,430

The Connection INC  $4,008,576

The Consultation Center INC  $226,750

The CT Law Tribune  $31,082

The Governor's Prevention Partnership  $559,389

The Hartford Courant  $2,082

UConn Health Center  $1,138,457

Wheeler Clinic  $7,250,401

William W. Backus Hospital  $16,214

Yale New Haven Hospital  $342,849

YMCA of Metropolitan Hartford INC  $375,000

TOTAL:  $86,543,553

Again, as I have said, none of the items on this considerable list has anything to do with judges, attorneys, clerks, courthouse upkeep, marshals, etc. etc.  These expenditures are all for social services.  Pretty much, if we eliminated them, it looks as though the CT Judicial Branch could save well over $70 million.  Keep in mind that this is just a selected list, so there are more social services that could be cut, if these are insufficient and the State of Connecticut would like to go further.

I did find it interesting to see the CT Judicial Branch contributing financial support to so many other agencies in Connecticut government such as the Department of Children and Families, the Department of Labor, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Attorney General, etc. etc. Here we have the CT Judicial Branch giving the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services over $9 million dollars, then giving  over $2 million to the Department of Administrative Services and over $3 million to DCF.  I can imagine this tossing money back and forth between departments can be a good way of hiding who is getting what money.  You don't just have the State directly give DCF money, you funnel it through the CT Judicial Branch, or through some other government agency.  I can imagine there is a lot of playing around that goes on with this kind of activity.  Further, there is no doubt that this ability of the Judicial Branch to contribute financially to other agencies provides it with a powerful way to extend its influence throughout other State Agencies and potentially dictate their policies. 

The section on "Removed For Privacy" in CT Judicial Branch budget is the most extensive one that I've seen. It goes on for pages and adds up to $171,752.  That's a lot of under the table money.  I checked with other Agencies to see if they had a similar situation and they did not. Apparently, as soon as it was clear that the information on the budget would be free for public review, the other Agencies simply stopped using that label. This wasn't true of the CT Judicial Branch. I'll bet if the CT Judicial Branch eliminated all the expenses in the removed for privacy category, that would be a considerable sum of money.

If there is one conclusion you can draw from simply looking at this review of how the CT Judicial Branch spends its money it is that a considerable chunk of the CT Judicial Branch budget is not applied to running its courthouses, paying its clerks, or its judges. Instead, Judicial Branch money is going to what it said which is alternatives to incarceration, evidence-based services for adult and juvenile populations, and goodness knows what else, since they have a broad lattitude to spend public's money. 

The question we have as taxpayers, however, is since when did the CT Judicial Branch become a social services agency? Is that even constitutionally sound? We are supposed to have three branches of government, and judicial is one, and it should remain judicial, in my view. If it is going to be a social services agency distributing money for mental health services far and yonder, then it is no longer what our founding fathers imagined when it spoke of a judiciary. 

I also thought the Judicial Branch's contribution of approximately $3,159,621 to the CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence was considerable. Perhaps this explains the Coalition's weak and inadequate response to the legal abuse of victims of domestic violence in the family courts throughout the State of CT. Most of the women I've spoken to about the services they have received from this Agency express themselves in terms that can only be summed up by the word "wimpy."

Fatherhood Initiative funding extends throughout the vast majority of social services agencies, literally being tacked onto anything vaguely mental health related. So anything on this list with the words "family" or "children" probably has some fatherhood initiative funding associated with it either directly or indirectly. Most particularly I would focus my attention on the considerable sums of money given to the Catholic Church and also other Christian Churches. A considerable amount of fatherhood funding has been faith based funding.

I would also like to point out the many expenditures on print media. In particular, the CT Judicial Branch does contribute approximately $31,000 to "The CT Law Tribune" which acts as the mouthpiece of the CT Judicial Branch and the CT Legal profession as a whole. Money means control in my book. And while I am sure that the CT Judicial Branch is legally required to advertise positions available for employment, and money gets spent on PSAs such as advertising against human trafficking and similar topics, which would be, on the surface, legitimate, I wonder if the CT Judicial Branch is also spending on print media as a means to impact editorial decision making in favor of Branch policies. 

In this regard, I would like to point out that while "The Hartford Courant" only earned approximately $2,082 in the last fiscal year from the CT Judicial Branch, as a rule it has generally received from approximately $18,000 to $27,000, and from State government as a whole, it has received considerably more.

The bottom line is that when The CT Judicial Branch weeps and wrings its hands about the prospect of cutting its budget and talks in dire tones about having to shut down courthouses and fire personnel, I wouldn't be that concerned. It can survive perfectly well by sticking to its mandate of providing legal services and leave social services, and influence peddling to others.

The truth of the matter is that what we have here is the CT Judicial Branch expanding its power by extending its economic power throughout the State of Connecticut by adding social services to its mandate.  Then, at the same time, the CT Judicial Branch has been expanding its legal power and authority by manipulating The Connecticut Practice Book in its favor, and ignoring CGS 51-14 which requires that it ask permission of the State Legislature and the people first prior to doing so.

THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH TAKES REVENGE AND THE CT LAW TRIBUNE SILENCES ITS CRITICS! THE TED TAUPIER DEBACLE CONTINUES!

I'm not the kind of blogger who goes for casual updates as many of you can attest.  However, I did find it hard to keep quiet about some of the more recent developments in the Ted Taupier case.  

It seems as though after sentencing Ted Taupier to a crushing 18 months in jail simply for speaking his mind privately among a small group of likeminded friends, the CT Judicial Branch is unable to control itself and is going for the jugular in seeking further revenge.  As you know, I had posted a link to a Go Fund Me page for Ted Taupier in order to defray the expenses related to his legal defense and also to help him pay for his mortgage so he has a roof over his head.  For those of you interested in that story, please see the link below:  

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2016/01/go-fund-me-account-now-open-fundraiser.html

However, from what I've heard the CT Judicial Branch contacted the "Go Fund Me" website and has had Ted's Go Fund Me account shut down.  Go figure!  Among those of us who have spent the last few decades observing and experiencing the bullying and racketeering directed towards family court victims, even we didn't expect this level of outrageous behavior! Does anyone know if this is even legal?  Oh, but now, now, when has the CT Judicial Branch ever had respect for the law!  In my dreams, perhaps! 

Next, I had recently reported on Attorney Norm Pattis' even handed and reasonable commentary on the Ted Taupier case.  See the link below:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2016/01/norm-pattis-addresses-reality-of-how.html

Like many who read Attorney Norm Pattis' Op-Ed in the on-line CT Law Tribune website, I left my commentary at the bottom of his remarks.  From my understanding the comment section was eventually filled with as much as 40+ comments and yet I was recently informed that all of these comments have been deleted.  It looks to me as though by deleting public comments the CT Law Tribune has also destroyed any claim it may have had to journalistic neutrality.  The claws have been removed from the velvet glove and now we know who runs the Tribune--yes, it's the CT Judicial Branch.  

Seriously, I imagine the CT Judicial Branch oozing with corrupt legal functionaries covered with the blood of its victims, arrogant and gleeful, grinning widely exposing its fangs, reaching its chubby hands out for more.  Somebody draw that, because it would be the most truthful portrayal of the CT Judicial Branch ever!

NORM PATTIS ADDRESSES THE REALITY OF HOW OUTRAGED FAMILY COURT VICTIMS ARE!

ATTORNEY NORM PATTIS SPEAKS OUT AS FOLLOWS IN THE CT LAW TRIBUNE:

"Criminal sentencings are a decidedly dismal affair, but rarely do they frighten me. The sentencing of Edward "Ted" Taupier in Middletown the other day did scare me. I had the sense that the center really did not hold any longer, and that warring worlds had converged without hope of doing anything other than colliding.

I attended the sentencing because I have been retained to take an appeal in Taupier's case. After a court trial, he was convicted of threatening and related offenses.

The underlying facts were essentially undisputed: Taupier sent an email to several others in which he described the physical layout of a judge's home, the distance from her bedroom window to a vantage point from which a sniper's shot could be fired, the type of weapon and ammunition it would take to penetrate the bedroom window, and the fact that he possessed such a weapon..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202747422170/Norm-Pattis-Family-Court-Rage-Revealed-in-Ugly-Email-About-Judge#ixzz3xoTnTFhr

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS THAT TED TAUPIER WAS SENTENCED TO 18 MONTHS IN PRISON!

MICHELLE TUCCITTO SULLO OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS AS FOLLOWS:

MIDDLETOWN — A Cromwell man who made threatening statements in an email about the judge who was handling his divorce case was sentenced Tuesday to 18 months in prison.

Superior Court Judge David Gold imposed the sentence on Edward Taupier, who was found guilty last year of threatening, disorderly conduct and breach of peace.

"Mr. Taupier's speech in this case was not merely tasteless, it was threatening," said Gold. "It was not just crude, it was criminal. Threats inflict harm and have no societal value. A true threat carries fear and disrupts a person's sense of safety and security. He laid out where and how he was going to shoot her."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202746918688/Man-Sentenced-in-Threat-Against-State-Judge#ixzz3x9KjgqOv

THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN CT HAS TIME TO INVESTIGATE BANKS, BUT PREFERS TO IGNORE FAMILY COURT ADA VIOLATIONS! SEE CT LAW TRIBUNE ARTICLE!

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: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202743621095/ConnBased-Bank-Settles-Claim-That-It-Discriminated-Against-Deaf-Customers#ixzz3t4RvazJt