PATRICK HENRY AND BETSY ROSS' TESTIMONY AT THE MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARINGS AT THE SUPREME COURT!

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               JUSTICE EVELEIGH:  Good morning.

               MR. PATRICK HENRY:  Good morning.  Obviously, we are switching gears a little bit here based upon what we view as being a very responsive court here this morning. 

               In your folder are copies of Patrick Henry’s address of March the 23^rd of 1775.  The reason why I included that is that we’re all here this morning in a unified parental and discriminatory issue that we believe exists in the family court system in the state of Connecticut.

               We have been parents, most of us stripped of our joint legal and physical custody rights without access to due process or equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In Troxel v. Granville, the United States Supreme Court of 2005, a decision that I know that this Court is well aware of, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered an eloquent defense of the rights of parents as a fundamental liberty interest that is subject to due process and equal protection.

               In your folders today, you will find two letters to the editor, one going to my hometown newspapers in New Canaan and the other being distributed to every single weekly newspaper about the passage by the Joint Committee of the Judiciary of an endorsement of House Bill 6387 which directly emanated for more than two years of meetings that I personally attended of the family commission. 

               We have a very difficult issue about judges writing law.  Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the supreme law of this land declares the separation of powers of government.  No judge in this state has the right to submit legislation imbedded in a court operation’s bill submitted with only seven days of a public notice that this was going to occur on March the 4^th in the legislative office building. 

               I’m here to address one issue and that is Practice Book Rule 1-9a created in a seditious conspiracy by Justice Peter Zarella and captured on the June 29, 2007, minutes of the annual judges’ meeting in which a resolution was passed to start creating clandestine meetings between the legislature of this state and members of this Court.  How dare you?  And you have denied us. 

               And you, Senator McDonald --  former Senator McDonald, now Justice McDonald, participated in not conducting a public hearing as the co-chair of the judiciary committee of this legislature for 43 years and now you sit on this bench.  I wrote to you, sir, asking where is the public hearings on Connecticut General Statute 51-14a?  You never wrote back.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Patrick Henry?

               MR. PATRICK HENRY:  That was Patrick Henry.

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Then is there a Betsy Ross?

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               MS. ROSS:  Good morning, Panel.  I’m representing Betsy Ross, one who has brought about change to our nation with a symbol of our flag which stands for liberty to our freedoms of this great nation of the United States of America.

               JUSTICE NORCOTT:  Ma’am, could you lower the microphone so we can hear you, please?

               (The microphone is adjusted.)

               JUSTICE NORCOTT:  Thank you. 

               MS. ROSS:  Did you hear what I said?  My First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were serious violated and I have a rule book here, it’s called the Constitution of the United States of America which states so -- by someone on this bench here, Judge Maureen Keegan, seriously violated those rights when she falsely arraigned me in the criminal court last year by way of hearing my testimony on May 31, 2011, and then acting upon a false report that it was a conflict of interest for her to arraign me.

               And I don’t have a script written but I’m just going to be stating that many times in the family court, parents’ rights are not properly listened to.  They just rule from what they want to do with parents in the court and whosever has a bigger pocketbook, who has more money to pay lawyers, pay judges -- because I know that goes on -- pay therapists, to say what they want in their reports, and there’s many false reports written to the courts by way of therapists, evaluators, and it only hurts our children’s lives. 

               My child’s life is not afforded the same education because of faulty decisions made by judges in the courts -- in the family courts, the juvenile courts.  I don’t have to be a rocket science to know this or research the laws to know that my child’s life has been thwarted because of the inadequacy by the judges in the family courts and the juvenile courts, and it says -- and I can quote a child’s statement by saying that he looked over the juvenile justice system, a recent bill in the legislation in which I’m sure you’re all privy to and know about, that it states throughout the whole bill, best interest of the child, and that child stated that never once when he was in the system his best interests were looked at and his best interests were never taken into consideration.

               The judges -- you need to enforce that the best interests of the child be taken into consideration and that’s what’s ruining our country.  Our children’s future is being damaged -- severely damaged because everybody is on a power trip in the courts and everybody thinks that, you know, we won for the best candidate, the person who has the most power, but you’re just hurting our children.  Our children’s future is being damaged. 

               So if we want this country to go forward on a positive note, I firmly believe that you should uphold our constitutional rights.  Thank you. 

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/  

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/molly-doe-1s-testimony-at-march-25-2013.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/mike-does-testimony-at-march-25-2013-51.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/jane-doe-no-1s-testimony-at-march-25.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-does-testimony-at-march-25-2013-51.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/05/john-doe-provides-his-testimony-on.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/04/comment-on-ms-monica-fores-testimony.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/04/monica-fore-provides-her-testimony-on.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/04/attorney-dan-lynchs-testimony-at-march.html

TIMING, A TICK A TOCKA, TIMING!

When you start the proceedings in a divorce, the way it is supposed to happen according to the timing is you are supposed to initiate discovery--by discovery I generally mean obtain financial information necessary to put together your financial agreement--and work on a parenting access plan at the same time.  

This means that information regarding finances and information regarding parenting is emerging at pretty much the same time volleying back and forth between the parties in the same way that a tennis match involves volleying.  This maintains a nice balance of power and a steady emergence of information that is beneficial to establishing a good rhythm to the proceedings so that when the time comes both sides are prepared to write up a fair and equitable final agreement.  

However, as you know, particularly when it comes to what happens to women in family court, and particularly in regard to what happens in a high conflict divorce, these kinds of nice arrangements fall apart.  What often occurs is that all financial matters are placed to the side while the entire legal focus is placed on establishing a parenting agreement regarding the children.  

This places the entire focus on, guess who, the Mom, who has most of the time done all the work when it comes to taking care of the children.  All of a sudden Dad, who couldn't give a sh*t before, is suddenly concerned about this or that way in which Mom handles the children.  All of a sudden every little thing that Mom has been doing is under exaggerated scrutiny.  

Did Mom ever let Junior take little sister off the bus one day--Oh, my God--Mom is parentifying Junior!  Did the puppy ever shit on the rug when it was being toilet trained? Oh my God--there are faeces all over the house!  Did Mom ever see a therapist?  Oh my God--she is crazy!  And, on and on, for month after month.  Has Mom been providing home cooked meals during the pendente lite period?  She'd better be, disregarding the fact that Dad has probably not been providing the money to pay for them.  All of this is taken very seriously by the custody evaluator and by the GAL and that is no joke.  

After months of being hammered away at by the ex's high priced lawyer most women are totally exhausted by the time the parenting agreement gets signed and by then, during the months that the legal focus has been on the children and Mom's behavior, most abusive spouses have had sufficient time to hide much of the marital assets, and most women are too exhausted to look for them, aside from the fact that they are too fearful to press too hard on the subject because they are afraid that bringing it up will lead their exes to continue to call their custody of the children into question.

Furthermore, the majority of parenting plans drawn up in a high conflict divorce include an additional clause that the issue of custody will be reevaluated within six months which means that Mom remains standing with a gun to her head in regard to the children.  And for women, what matters more than your children--nothing really, and don't guys know it.  

Oh, and by the way, if you can make sure there is no such followup clause in your parenting agreement, the more power to you. When I agreed to one in mine, I did so because I was unaware of what would happen as a result.  

 

 

Now that YOU know, don't be as stupid as I was!

I had a sense that timing would be a problem when my whole divorce started and I said to my lawyer why don't we start with the financial matters first, because that will expose my ex's character--the way he has hidden our finances from me, refused to abide by agreements, defrauded the IRS, and generally engaged in questionable business practices.  Then the focus would have been on him.  

But no, nothing I said could reverse the order of the proceedings and I ended up with a really bad financial agreement for exactly the reasons I've described.  I've seen this happening all around with women who are engaged in high conflict divorces.  For the court system, for lawyers, it's just business as usual!