CT LAW TRIBUNE POKES FUN AT SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S DISABILITY!

On November 19, 2014, "The CT Law Tribune" reported that Adam McNiece of East Lyme, CT was suing the CT Judicial Branch because it denied him the Audiorecordings he requested under the ADA to accommodate his disability of migraine headaches. 

What is interesting about this article is the way it makes fun of Adam McNiece, and mocks and ridicules him for making such a request, as if the fact that he has a disability indicates that he is some kind of wacko who is not worthy of being treated with decency. 

More than anything else, the tone of the Tribune's article says so much about the disrespect that the legal profession has for citizens as a whole, and for those who have disabilities in particular.  Since when is it such a joke that a person has a disability and needs to request a reasonable modification in order to accommodate that disability? 

I also found the general characterization of a Connecticut citizen, Adam McNiece, pretty offensive.  Tell me, is it fair for the Tribune to present a self represented person as a clown simply by virtue of the fact that he or she is self represented.  Really, what is so funny about that? 

The "CT Law Tribune" describes Adam McNiece as being a person with "a reputation for being litigious".  Based on that description, I thought I would find tons and tons of cases listed under Adam McNiece's name.  In fact, this is not the true.  There is one case in 2013 against the Town of Waterford, another lawsuit against the Attorney Firm representing the Town of Waterford, and also this last lawsuit in regard to the CT Judicial Branch and the ADA, the latter two from 2014.  What this essentially adds up to is a single lawsuit with a lot of branches, all starting with an incident where a citizen's civil rights were violated.

I know many people in family court who have just the same amount of lawsuits--one the initial divorce complaint, perhaps an appeal or two on that divorce action, then foreclosures that came upon them as the result of their divorce, plus collection actions against them from former attorneys who represented them.  Does that make them "litigious" as well? 

If you have lived say 40 or 50 years, and you only have a few lawsuits pending from one or two of those years, that can hardly be called litigious!  Except, of course, if you are the "CT Law Tribune" and you like to trash citizens who are clearly defending their civil rights, but have little money to do so and have to represent themselves. 

Mr. McNiece's lawsuit appears legitimate to me.  I would also be pretty upset if the Town of Waterford conducted an illegal search of my home, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly what happened in this case.  I would agree that Adam McNiece has listed on his lawsuits an inordinate number of defendants, but that is what many newcomers to the legal field tend to do.  It is not an indication of eccentricity or wacko-ness, but simply an example of the kind of behavior that is standard among many self represented parties who are new to the court system.  I'm not sure if that is worth ridiculing a man for.  If you did, you'd have to pretty much ridicule the vast majority of self represented parties, which I suppose most attorneys actually do. 

Interesting, isn't it, how the legal field fosters an attitude of contempt and condescension towards average people. 

In regard to Adam McNiece's request for reasonable modifications, that request should have received an immediate response, and one that is in the affirmative.  Instead, what happened is that Mr. McNiece's request was passed on from one court official to another until eventually a court planner, Ms. Heather Collins, sent him a list of six questions for his doctor to respond to before the court would consider his request.  Mr. McNiece then provided that information from his doctor, and still they turned down him down!

This kind of extensive inquiry into the nature of Adam McNiece's disability is a direct violation of the ADAAA of 2008,  a federal law which was specifically designed to prevent mini-trials into the nature of an individual's disability.  According to the ADAAA the appropriate focus of the public entity under Title II should be on meeting the needs of the person requesting the accommodation, not on demanding that such an individual prove that he has a disability. 

In fact, recent court decisions indicate that it is sufficient for the individual to state that he has a disability.  And even further, recent ADA law indicates that he should not even be required to provide a diagnosis. 

The Connecticut Judicial Branch regularly demands that litigants such as Adam McNiece provide extensive documentation regarding their disabilities, but such demands are blatantly illegal and intrusive.  Thus, the focus of the "CT Law Tribune" article should have been not how funny and laughable it is that a person with a disability requests an accommodation, the focus should have been on why the CT Judicial Branch chose to flout Federal ADAAA law. 

Another interesting point the Tribune article makes is that the Attorney General is defending the CT Judicial Branch in this case.  Why is the Attorney General who is supposed to be representing the best interests of the citizens of the State of Connecticut, particularly its vulnerable citizens such as the disabled, defending the illegal actions of the CT Judicial Branch in violating Federal ADA law? 

Altogether, what we have are a series of examples of disgraceful behavior within the legal profession.  1)  the CT Judicial Branch violating federal ADA law; 2) the Attorney General attacking disabled  citizens it should be protecting; and 3) the "CT Law Tribune", the mouthpiece of the Connecticut Bar Association ridiculing and making fun of an individual with a disability.  Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the legal profession generates such a widespread lack of respect.

In 2009 , the CT Judicial Branch established a subcommittee which conducted an extensive examination of the role of audiorecordings during judicial proceedings.  In the report of this subcommittee two reporters who were members of the subcommittee--Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey of the "CT Law Tribune" (ironically) and also Mr. Patrick Sanders of the Associated Press--expressed their view that "what occurs in Connecticut's courtrooms belongs to the people of Connecticut, and therefore recordings made of those proceedings, should be available to the public in the [same] way that official paper transcripts are available."

In regard to personal recordings, Mr. Patrick Sanders further argues that there should be a "presumption of openness".  He continues on to state that an open judiciary is of overriding importance in the courts in the State of Connecticut, and he argues, "I disagree with the court reporters' opinion that their members should have exclusive rights to record court proceedings for sale and distribution for their personal gain.  Courts are a public domain and not a monopoly."  His associate Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey pointed out that tellingly, the U.S. Supreme court has made audiotapes of oral arguments available going back to the 1950s, and that there is even a CD of its "Greatest Hits" available on amazon.com.

As the Judicial - Media Committee determined (of which the above mentioned subcommittee was a part), not only is the concept that what takes place in courtrooms throughout Connecticut the property of the public a wonderful aspirational statement, legally, the CT Judicial Branch's audio recordings of legal proceedings are, in fact, the property of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch is merely the caretaker of these audiorecordings on behalf of those citizens.  Therefore, Adam McNiece's request for access to those audiorecordings is essentially a request for property that is his by right, and the Connecticut Judicial Branch's refusal to hand over those audiorecordings is a violation of that right.

What is interesting is that, when both sides talk about limitations to accessing these audiorecordings, both accuse each other of potential wrongdoing in similar ways.  It is a standard for self represented parties to accuse the Connecticut Judicial Branch of tampering with audiorecordings so as to eliminate any record of sections of the legal proceedings that Judges and their cohorts think might interfere with their rigged verdicts.  Likewise, Judges and attorneys in their statements for the subcommittee expressed concern that members of the public would make bootleg audiorecordings and alter them in order to challenge the official record of the legal proceedings.

Clearly, there is a great deal of tension and distrust between these two groups.  In particular, the "Connecticut Law Tribune's" recent hostile targeting of Adam McNiece provides a very clear example of this disgruntlement from the side of the legal profession.  The bottom line, however, is that the Connecticut Judiciary, Judges, and attorneys who practice the law are supposed to be there to serve the public, and the only way to do this is through openness and transparency. 

As long as the Connecticut Judicial Branch continues to collude in obstructing this openness and transparency, people will proceed on an ongoing basis to engage in lawsuits such as the one that Adam McNiece filed.  The "Connecticut Law Tribune" can go ahead and mock all it wants, but that's not going to stop them.

_____________________

*As a final note, the "CT Law Tribune" journalist, Isaac Avilucea, who wrote the original law tribune article, was previously fired from another job because of his inappropriate reporting.  This is the quality of journalist that the "CT Law Tribune" sees fits to hire for its freelance work.  See the link below:

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/226646/reporter-fired-after-story-cast-aspersions-on-the-academics-of-local-school-compared-another-to-mean-girls/

 

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.

MAD IN AMERICA'S UPCOMING FILM FESTIVAL IN BOSTON! STARTING OCTOBER 9, 2014!

WHAT GIVES WITH ADAM LANZA'S MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY? WHY IS IT SUCH A BIG SECRET?

On February 13, 2014, Ablechild asked the question,


Is Lanza’s Psychiatrist’s Drugging Indicative of Connecticut’s Mental Health Services?

In today’s Connecticut News Times there was a brief article spelling out the State’s legislative agenda, including efforts to block the right of the public to have access to information on homicides.  This legislative measure is in response to the State’s continued unwillingness to make public the mental health records of Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza.

The obvious point of having public disclosure of Lanza’s mental health records is two-fold. First, it is important to know whether Lanza was prescribed any psychiatric mind-altering drugs that may have played a part in his violent behavior. The disclosure of these records also is necessary in order for lawmakers to make informed decisions about costly, mental health legislation.

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

http://www.pacificrimcoins.com/content/lanza%E2%80%99s-psychiatrist%E2%80%99s-drugging-indicative-connecticut%E2%80%99s-mental-health-services

WHO REALLY LACKS INSIGHT? DR. HAROLD I. SCHWARTZ OR MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMERS AND SURVIVORS?

On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza of Newtown, CT walked into a local elementary school and gunned down 20 little children and 6 of their teachers. 

In the aftermath of this tragic event, citizens of the State of Connecticut have asked themselves what can be done to prevent a situation like this from occurring ever again.  In response, the State Legislature put together the "Task Force to Study the Provision of Behavioral Health Services For Young Adults."  

While testifying before this task force, Dr. Harold I. Schwartz spoke out in favor of his preferred solution -- forced outpatient treatment -- stating, "Chronic schizophrenia and certain other chronic and severe mental illnesses are often marked by denial of illness."  Further, he stated, "The failure to recognize illness and the need for treatment ... is a function of the disease's impact on the brain -- not unlike the stroke victim who is unable to recognize that one side of the body is paralyzed." 

The term that Dr. Harold Schwartz has used to describe this condition is "anosognosia". 

But has anyone considered the capacity for insight that Dr. Harold Schwartz and his psychiatric cohorts showed at the Institute of Living during pedophile priest scandals that hit the Catholic Church and the Institute of Living in the 1990s and the early 2000? 

Has anyone fully examined Dr. Harold Schwartz's disingenuous and self serving explanations for the Institute's culpable actions in certifying pedophile priests as fit to return to work where they inevitably continued on to molest other children? 

Has anyone considered the role of the Institute of Living's psychiatrists who, in three separate extensive evaluations, certified that Dr. George Reardon, who viciously molested up to 130 children for a period of 30 years, was not a pedophile, even though one of his child victims was able to describe his genitals in full detail? 

Further, let us put aside the multiple decades of ongoing and repeated reports from consumers and psychiatric survivors that they were misdiagnosed, wrongly medicated and improperly subjected to unwanted and harmful treatments such as ECT.  Instead, let us focus on the Institute of Living, the foremost proponent of forced treatment laws. 

The treatment that the Institute offers is so extraordinarily negligent and incompetent as indicated by the priest pedophile scandal and the case of Dr. George Reardon that the only conclusion you can draw, in my view, is that the real people who actually lack insight, or have anosognosia, are the psychiatrists at the Institute of Living, not consumers, and certainly not the psychiatric survivors of their wrongdoing. 

For those of you for whom this is news, what is the connection between the Institute of Living and the pedophile priest scandal?  

On March 17, 2002, The Hartford Courant reported that Cardinal Edward M. Egan, the head of the Archdiocese of New York, while bishop of Bridgeport had knowingly allowed several priests accused of multiple acts of sexual abuse to continue working. 

In response to the outrage, the Cardinal wrote a pastoral letter saying that he had sent accused priests "immediately to one of the most prominent psychiatric institutions in the nation for evaluation."  In other words, the priests were sent to the Institute of Living, which had been providing treatment for pedophile priests since the early 1980s and often certifying them as fit to return to work.  

The Institute's director at the time, Dr. Harold I. Schwartz, denied that the Institute had any responsibility for this wrongdoing stating that the Church had withheld information about past complaints of abuse and thus misled them about how bad the situation was with some priests. 

But seriously, is this a legitimate explanation?  Shouldn't even a single incident of child abuse be considered sufficient to bar a priest from returning to work?  Plus, isn't that the work of a psychiatrist, i.e. to ferret out the truth underneath all the lies?

Nonetheless, Dr. Harold Schwartz's statement is simply not correct.  For instance, in the case of Father John Geoghan, who ultimately molested over a hundred young boys, even though the Institute was not aware of every complaint against the priest, they were aware that there had been several confirmed incidents since Father Geoghan himself admitted to them.  Still, according to an article in The New Yorker, the Institute's discharge summary for Father Geoghan was "notable for its sympathetic tone and its reliance on Geoghan's own accounts of his past behavior" and ultimately the Institute recommended that he be allowed to return to work. 


And why did they do this?  For money!  As the New Yorker article states, "The eighties were a decade of ruin for the Institute" according to a former staff member, "In 1981 the institute had three hundred and eighty beds, drew patients from around the country, kept them for months, and had a six-month waiting list.  By 1990, after H.M.O.s had rewritten the rules for private in-patient care throughout the Northeast and elsewhere, the institute had become a cash-strapped regional facility with a hundred and twenty beds, many of them available." 


"Amid fears that the institute might go out of business, the board of directors aggressively expanded its programs for priests...whose care could be provided for by generous third-party payments.  With priests, of course, the pocket was bottomless."  According to this psychiatrist, 'the Church would pay what it took, for as long as was necessary.'  He added that the treatment of troubled priests...soon became one of the institute's most lucrative services."

Does anyone truly want to give Dr. Harold Schwartz and his ilk full authority for running forced outpatient treatment programs for people with mental health disabilities, doctors who in their day had no problem justifying a policy of returning priest pedophiles to situations where they could molest again? 

Dr. Harold Schwartz's second explanation in defense of the Institute in connection to the pedophile priest scandal was that the profession of psychiatry has no way of predicting how any individual might act in the future. 

Yet isn't that what mental health professionals represent that they are capable of doing when they come as experts in termination of parental rights proceedings, or in family court proceedings or criminal proceedings?  Isn't that what they will be doing in coming to probate court to certify that persons with mental health disabilities are incapable of making their own decisions?

How come psychiatrists can deny they are capable of certain kinds of work when it doesn't suit them, but readily take on such tasks when the money is right? 

Dr. Harold Schwartz can point the finger at people who are labeled with mental health disabilities and declare they have no insight, but what about him?  Isn't his defense of the Institute of Living during the pedophile priest scandal sufficient evidence that he himself has absolutely no insight? 

I can understand that we need to address the problem of violence and make sure that incidents such as the Newtown shooting does not happen again.  But I do not believe that the solution is to deny people with mental health disabilities their civil rights and subject them to forced treatment conducted by the likes of Dr. Harold Schwartz whose complete lack of insight is ten times worse and more harmful to society than that of any mental health consumer or survivor.

AOL ARTICLE EXPOSES WIDESPREAD USE OF TORTURE ON PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AT JUDGE ROTENBERG CENTER IN MASSACHUSETTS!

Writing for AOL, JENNIFER C. KERR and LAURAN NEERGAARD report as follows,

CANTON, Mass. (AP) -- Some cut themselves. Others slam their heads against walls or desks - so hard that one girl detached both retinas and a young man triggered a stroke. Another pulled out all his teeth.

"Self-injury is one of the most difficult behaviors associated with autism and other developmental or intellectual disabilities, and a private facility outside Boston that takes on some of the hardest-to-treat cases is embroiled in a major debate: Should it use electrical skin shocks to try to keep patients from harming themselves or others?

The Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to ban devices used by the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center in Canton, Massachusetts, the only place in the country known to use skin shocks as aversive conditioning for aggressive patients..."

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

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/09/14/skin-shocks-still-used-at-mass-school-draw-fda-look/20962074/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmaing7%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D529041

NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY COMMENTS ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PARENTS WITH DISABILITIES!

Attorney Robyn M. Powell reports,

"The right to raise a family is undoubtedly one of the rights most cherished by Americans.  The United States Supreme Court has avowed continuously and with conviction that parents’ rights to the care and custody of their children are protected under the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment.  Parental rights have long been held as fundamental, beginning with the seminal 1923 decision in Meyer v. Nebraska,[1] in which the Supreme Court held that parents have the due process right to see to the education of their children together with the duty to give children a suitable education.  Two years after Meyer, the Supreme Court, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, ruled that parents have the liberty “to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”[2]  In this landmark case, the Supreme Court found, “The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”[3]  Subsequent decisions have further defined the contours of the law’s protections of parental rights.[4]"

See more at:

http://healthlawreporter.bbablogs.org/2014/09/06/delivery-room-courtroom-ensuring-rights-parents-disabilities/#sthash.XFS4fKJz.rIvHuNo6.dpuf

CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH POSTING ON SERVICE DOGS AND THE ADA!

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

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Law/serviceanimals.htm

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION TO INVESTIGATE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL ILLNESS AMONG ATTORNEYS!

Karen Sloan of "The American Law Journal" reports as follows:

"Research suggests that lawyers suffer addiction at double the rate of the general population, but some experts fear the situation is even more dire. To find out, the American Bar Association and the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation plan to survey lawyers about addiction, anxiety and depression.

“It appears the problem may be growing even worse,” said Patrick Krill, who leads the Hazelden legal professional program. “It’s time to update the research and, in doing so, highlight the apparent need to devote more attention and allocate greater resources to this important issue.”

A 2012 report by Hazelden cited findings that, as of 1990, 18 percent of attorneys had drinking problems, compared to 10 percent for the general population. One-quarter of the attorneys who’d practiced for 20 years or more had an alcohol problem, and lawyers suffering substance-abuse problems were also more likely to face malpractice suits."

Read more:

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202667322541/ABA-Undertakes-Study-of-Substance-Abuse-Mental-Illness#ixzz3AxqSNMPL

* Ms. Sloper notes:  "This is in regard to a profession that regularly in family court uses the fact that a parent could be in recovery from mental illness or alcohol addiction as the basis for denying the parent access to his or her children, despite clear cut evidence that the parent is responsible and a fit parent."

RELATED ARTICLES: 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-price-attorneys-pay-for-being.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-price-attorneys-pay-for-being_12.html






 

2014 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S ADVISORY BOARD ON THE ADA REVEALS MAJOR FLAWS!

After another year of observing the Connecticut Judicial Branch repeatedly deny Litigants with Disabilities their reasonable modifications in Family Court, it is with some skepticism that I picked up a copy of the 2014 Annual Report of the Judicial Branch's Advisory Board on the ADA.  This report was submitted to Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers by Judge Patrick L. Carroll III who is the Chair of this Advisory Board. 

My problem with Judge Carroll is that he seems to have taken responsibility for the Connecticut Judicial Branch's initiatives in regard to the ADA.   Yet I have never heard of him speaking to an actual Person with a Disability directly in order to find out what is really going on with folks coming to hearings in Family Court who require reasonable modifications but are not getting them. 

That is the bottom line here--the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has published a complete annual report touting their "ongoing compliance with the ADA." while I continue to receive desperate phone calls and emails asking me if I have any idea how particular Litigants can obtain their reasonable modifications because the Judicial Branch is refusing to provide them.  The inconsistency here is glaring--at least to me! 

I mean take a look at this year's Report.  The ADA Advisory Committee's Annual Report from last year contained 12 recommendations while the Annual Report from this year contains 16.  Tell me something, not a single one of the recommendations possibly includes giving Litigants the reasonable modifications that they request?  28 recommendations in total and not one includes, stop denying Litigants with Disabilities equal access to Judicial services? 

Because I certainly think I should see that one somewhere from the reports I am getting!  

I mean, we have 28 recommendations and a 14 page report--but nothing about ensuring Family Court Litigants with Disabilities the opportunity to have testimonial and participatory access to the Court? 

That's just so amazing!  

How much paper and how many words can you generate over a period of years and still not accomplish anything at all to meet your obligation to provide reasonable modifications to Litigants who request them!  Remember, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was around 40 years ago, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 was 24 years ago, and the ADA Amendment's Act of 2008 was 6 years ago.  How long is it going to take the Connecticut Judicial Branch to meet its obligation to Citizens with Disabilities in the State of Connecticut? 

Recognizing that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is far from compliant with the ADA, what did this Advisory Committee possibly have to report to anyone about its activities?  Well, it has built a lovely website online which is accessible to persons of all abilities (their words) and which includes the forms you need to submit in order to obtain reasonable accommodations, i.e. the ones they regularly refuse to provide. 



And what is with the word "accommodations"?   Aren't accommodations supposed to be offered under Title I for Employers?


What about the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is a Title II entity which should provide reasonable modifications--not just accommodations--under Title II ADA law! Shouldn't The Branch be providing the more expanded and broad ranging supports required under Title II reasonable modifications? 

Even with something as simple as terminology the Connecticut Judicial Branch shows itself completely ignorant of the Title II Federal ADA law it is supposed to be following!


And there's the rub, the general, pervasive, and stubborn unwillingness of the Connecticut Judicial Branch to be compliant with Title II Federal ADA law or acknowledge what it requires. 


For instance, according to Title II Technical Manual Sec. II-8.5000, the Connecticut Judicial Branch is by law supposed to have a Designated Responsible Employee whose job it is to coordinate the efforts of the Branch to comply with and fulfill its responsibilities under the ADA and also deal with complaints.   In particular, the 2008 focus groups consisting of individuals who work directly with folks who have disabilities, focus groups which the Connecticut Judicial Branch itself organized, specifically mentioned the need for such a person who could take final responsibility for the implementation of the ADA within the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  


Yet I can't find the name or contact information of a Designated Responsible Employee mentioned anywhere in this Annual Report for 2014, and I can't find the name of a Designated Responsible Employee mentioned anywhere on the Connecticut Judicial Branch Website that they are so proud of.  Several people I know have formally requested this information and have received nothing but evasive and deceptive answers in response.


So how does the Connecticut Judicial Branch think that it is acceptable to flout this requirement? 


What they told me when I inquired about this is that the Branch has five ADA Coordinators, and over a hundred ADA contact people whom they have assigned to fill the role of a Designated Responsible Employee.  However, the problem with that response is that this is not what Congress intended when it framed ADA law.  They were looking for a specific individual who would take the final responsibility for this job. 


If you ask any employees of the Judicial Branch who is that person, they won't be able to tell you because there isn't one. 


We have the 24 years of ADA law and the Connecticut Judicial Branch under the leadership of Judge Patrick L. Carroll III just blows it off. 


I could attribute this to simple indifference or carelessness, but that is not what this is.  What this has to do with in a very fundamental way is that Judge Carroll and the Connecticut Judicial Branch as a whole simply couldn't care less about People with Disabilities. 


Of course, this isn't surprising.  Judicial Systems around this country have fought ADA disability rights from its inception in 1990, interpreting the term disability with such extreme narrowness that practically nobody fit its definition.  As a consequence, Congress had to go back to the drawing board and redraft the law in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in order to correct the problem. 


The bottom line is our Judicial Systems around the country can't stand being forced to accord equal constitutional and human rights to People with Disabilities; they think we should wait our turn and accept our role as fourth class citizens. 


Meanwhile, the Members of the Advisory Committee, according to this 2014 Annual Report, think that we will forget all about our legal rights as long as we have a lovely Art Exhibit featuring the work of Persons with Disabilities.  It is like, pat the dumb disabled folk on the head, let them post their art, and then they will forget all about their rights.  You see, that's not how it goes, surprisingly enough--although, I know that this is a big surprise to the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  


The 2014 Annual Report continues on with other areas where the Connecticut Judical Branch believes it has made progress in regard to the ADA.  Signage, for instance.  The Branch has better signs in its various court houses indicating that it is compliant with the ADA. 


Oh, but we already explained that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is NOT compliant.  Not that the truth was ever a bar to the Connecticut Judicial Branch saying whatever it wants. 


The Connecticut Judicial Branch has also placed a Comments and Suggestions box on its website.  Of course, if the Connecticut Judicial Branch is unwilling to provide reasonable modifications to litigants when they apply for them in person, I am not sure why exactly the Branch would be willing to respond more effectively to written requests for the same thing! 


Looking at the Annual Report of 2014 in more detail, again it is notable that the preference among these Advisory Committee members is for those with visible disabilities.  Their work reflects tremendous interest in individuals who are hearing impaired, visually impaired, or in wheelchairs.  When it comes to people who have say diabetes, high blood pressure, traumatic brain injuries, or mental health issues, etc. this report refers to them in derogatory terms stating they have "so-called" invisible disabilities subtly implying that they are fabricated, imaginary, or not worth considering. 


As of this writing, for instance, if you look up the list of Auxiliary Aids of Services on the Connecticut Judicial Website, you will see that the list only addresses the needs of people with visible disabilities.  See below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/cl085_ADA.pdf






This is how the Connecticut Judicial Branch tries to play one group of Persons with Disabilities against another, seeking to undercut any organized protest against their actions.  The Branch even seeks to do that within the mental health communities by promoting extensive training in regard to schizophrenia, but neglecting to provide that level of specialized training for any of the other mental health disabilities which are equally challenging. 


Personally, I find it a demonstration of very poor character that the Connecticut Judicial Branch seeks to pit one group of vulnerable and fragile individuals against another. 


I could continue in this manner.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch has conferences and training sessions on the ADA, it communicates from one part of the Branch to the other about the ADA, it has meetings on the ADA and provides reports on it, and even makes speeches about it--thanks Judge Carroll--but the bottom line is that it does not obey it.  What is more, it sure isn't holding itself accountable  to organizations such as the National Council on Disability, that represent Persons with Disabilities to obtain feedback in regard to its compliance with the ADA.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch's ADA activity represents a bunch of insiders celebrating among themselves and congratulating themselves for their own good work in regard to a subculture that they do not belong to. 


This is hardly credible. 


When it comes to people with mental illness, in particular, I want to make a quick point.  The State has recently taken several initiatives to provide more treatment to People with Mental Illness and in a recent ADA agreement between the Office of Protection and Advocacy and the State of Connecticut, we will see more People with Mental Health Disabilities living in their communities.  All of this is very important. 


However, if Folks with Disabilities continue to see their constitutional and civil rights disregarded within the Legal System, if they continue to have experiences within the Connecticut Judicial Branch where they are discriminated against based upon disability, this will create widespread discontent. 


This is not like the old days where Persons with Disabilities were grateful for anything they could get.  African-Americans have spoken out and demanded their rights, and likewise Hispanic-Americans are demanding their rights.  Women are no longer willing to be confined within gender stereotypes, and homosexual and transgender folks are demanding their civil rights as well. 


We proud Americans With Disabilities are the next in line.  We are no longer willing to accept charity.  We want our rights as equal American Citizens.  It is not enough to provide treatment.  Americans with Disabilities want hope, and that hope can only achieve fulfillment through the provision of equal constitutional, civil, and human rights along with all other Americans. 


It is not enough for the Connecticut Judicial Branch to declare that it operates according to the spirit and the letter of the ADA without actually doing so.  


The Branch should be ashamed of itself attempting to fake compliance it does not have.   


We Citizens with Disabilities want the reality of equality within the Connecticut Judicial Branch, and we will continue to fight for it and we will not be stopped by the Branch's lying PR, bureaucratic games, or fabricated annual reports.    

NEW ONLINE WEBINAR BY DR. KARIN HUFFER OF EQUAL ACCESS ASSOCIATES!

Now taking registration for LIVE ONLINE WEBINAR

Become a Certified ADA Advocate:

Taught by Dr. Karin Huffer

September

11AM – 2PM MST/ 1PM – 4PM EST

Starts Sept 30 and every Thursday in Oct.

Please visit for registration at http://www.equalaccessadvocates.com

For details and questions e-mail Legalabuse@gmail.com

• Expected 16.5 CEU’s and 18 CLE’s, 6 Ethics Credits, approved

by Nevada Bar Association and Nevada Board of Social Workers

• Sponsored by King’s University accredited in U.S. and Europe

Tuition $495

EARLY-EARLY BIRD SIGN UP BY AUG 15 DEDUCT $100

EARLY BIRD SIGN UP BY SEPT 15 DEDUCT $50

Includes:

THE BOOK:  "UNLOCKING JUSTICE" BY DR. KARIN HUFFER

Graduates receive ongoing support and updates as to

pertinent laws and empirical research

*Members receive automatic renews of their

recertification

Handouts

Certificate/

Identification

Badge

You will learn:

• ADAAA Federal Laws mandating equal access

• Huffer’s 8 Steps for Coaching the client toward self-protection and coping with litigation stress

• How to recognize and ease symptoms of PTSD/LAS

• How to design and pre arrange ADA Accommodations for clients

• How to assist the client during court proceedings

• How to be comfortable in the courtroom in the role of an advocate

• How to assist the court to maintain momentum and protect client functionality while preventing

discrimination and exploitation

• How to assist in grievances if accommodations are not provided

• How to protect client confidentiality under ADAAA and HIPAA

• When to refer for medical intervention

• To adhere to unwavering ethical obligations regarding disabilities in court

• You will learn the new process of Therapeutic Mitigation if litigation and mediation are failing

JUDICIAL NULLIFICATION OF THE ADA IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT!

On March 16, 2011, Mr. Andrew Adams submitted a Complaint to Federal District Court in Connecticut against Festival Fun Parks, LLC (more commonly known as Lake Compounce) stating that while working for them, because of his disability, i.e. the fact that he'd been diagnosed as mentally retarded, he was subjected to sexual harassment   by his co-workers including one named Justin Walters.  The Complaint was brought under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 

Immediately, I was alerted to a problem because I wondered whether Mr. Andrew Adams' attorney James V. Sabatini of Sabatini and Associates had any idea of the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008 which considerably altered several aspects of the ADA of 1990 and should have been referenced in the Complaint.  The ADAAA of 2008 broadened the definition of those deemed to be eligible for the protections of the ADA.  It is now 2014, six years after the ADAAA was passed and yet so many people in the legal profession are unaware of the legislation, to the point where it is quite striking. 


Is this occurring because of the judicial nullification of Federal ADA law in Courts across the United States today, including the State of Connecticut?  The examination of two cases: Andrew Adams v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC and Elizabeth A. Richter v. The Connecticut Judicial Branch, et. al. could provide some insight into the answer to that question.

In the case against Festival Fun Parks (or Lake Compounce) in regard to Andrew Adam's disability, Item #7 of his Complaint stated that he "suffers from mental retardation." 

Now, as a long time advocate, I of course flinched at the word "suffers"--shall we all get over the idea that folks with disabilities must be suffering and afflicted!  Nonetheless, upon reading the court materials I could see very clearly that Mr. Adams had been identified as being intellectually disabled very early in life  and on up to the present.

According to the allegations in his Complaint, a co-worker, identified as Justin Walters, called Mr. Adams stupid, and told him he didn't know what he was doing.  This employee wrote the word "sucks" next to Mr. Adam's name on his blow torch.  On another day, Justin Walters  threw an apple at Mr. Adam's truck. 

Further, Walters also told Andrew Adams that "being on his knees was [Adams] best position and that he liked being on his knees because he liked guys so much."  Apparently, Walters would make comments like that when Andrew Adams was required to get on his knees to perform his job duties.  Justin Walter also told the plaintiff that he "had" plaintiff's mother last night and that she was good. 

 

When the Andrew Adams spoke to his immediate supervisor, John Fitch, about the harassment, Adams was told he would have to deal with it if he wanted to work in the department.  John Fitch did nothing to stop the harassment.  Then Mr. Adams spoke to Fitch's supervisor, Mario Abela, about the harassment and was told to give Walters a chance and that he was not so bad.  Finally, Andrew Adams spoke to the general manager, Jerry Brick, and asked if he could transfer to the painting department, so he wouldn't have to deal with the harassment, but Mr. Brick stated there were no openings available.  Eventually, Andrew Adams either resigned or was fired on October 31, 2009.   Attorney Sabatini, Andrew Adams attorney, argued that Mr. Adams was put in a position where the environment was so hostile that he had no other choice but to resign.

Fast forward to the Judge Janet Bond's March 12, 2013 ruling  to dismiss the case in response to Lake Compounce's Motion For Summary Judgment.  Judge Bond ruled against Andrew Adams because she stated that Adams documentation which he used to prove that he had a disability, an evaluation by Dr. Cynthia K. Niedbala, at Newington Children's Hospital, was hearsay, and that his own testimony to that effect at deposition, or the statements he had made to his employers to that effect would be considered self serving and therefore not reliable.  How ridiculous is that?

Here is what I don't understand about the March 12, 2013 ruling.  Summary judgment should not be granted when there are genuine issues of material fact that exist, for example, the issue as to whether a person is disabled.  So how could Judge Bond go ahead and rule on a motion for summary judgment when the facts of the case were still under dispute and could only be resolved through a proper trial including the submission of further documentary evidence and testimony?  

Be that as it may, this case went on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  In response, several disability organizations:  the National Employment Lawyers Association, The Arc of the United States, the National Disability Rights Network, the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities, and Disability Rights Vermont filed an Amicus Brief urging the 2nd Circuit Court to reverse the District Court's decision denying that Andrew Adams had a disability.  In making their case, these organizations pointed out that according to the broader and more liberal definition of disability provided by the ADAAA of 2008, Andrew Adams was covered by the ADA, and it also stated that in quoting case law the District Court had relied upon rulings that were pre-ADAAA of 2008.


The ADAAA of 2008 is very specific that it did not want litigants to be put through the wringer when it came to determining whether they had a disability or not.  As Chai R. Goldblum, an ADAAA expert stated, "Congress passed the ADAAA because it wanted to stop the "mini-trials' on whether a person had a disability and to force attention on the merits of the case."  Furthermore, Goldblum stated, "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."  He also quoted the ADAAA, C.F.R. Sec. 16301.4, in stating, "The question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis."  In other words, disability coverage under the ADAAA of 2008 is broad and extensive.

Very reluctantly, and cautiously, in its decision in this case dated March 21, 2014, the 2nd Circuit Court did state that "we are skeptical that the district court applied the correct standard in assessing whether Adams was disabled" but it continued on to state that it did not intend to rule on that matter "we do not reach the issue of whether Adams has shown that he is disabled for purposes of the statute."  So the Circuit Court knew that the District Court determination in regard to Andrew Adam's disability was incorrect, but it wasn't going to accord Adams the benefit of acknowledging it formally in a way that could advantage his case. 

Essentially, what we are left with is the understanding that Andrew Adams was identified as mentally retarded in early childhood, that he did have a report confirming his diagnosis written by a medical expert which needed to be presented to the court in obedience to court rules (even though it hadn't been up to that point), that he had self reported himself as having this diagnosis, and also he had told his employers that he had that diagnosis.  Still, the District Court refused to acknowledge his disability. 

There is something absurd where the law declares a situation where an object walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has DNA like a duck, looks like a duck to everyone who runs into it, but is not a duck according to the legal definition of the court.  Andrew Adams had been identified as having mental retardation very early in his life and spent his life with this understanding, as did everyone who knew him, but somehow for this court, it wasn't true! 


It is also important to note that in the Richter case, same time frame, same kind of ADA claim of disability, the Federal District Court based its decision entirely upon the statements she made in her Complaint.  The Court never made the demand that she provide documentation from an expert medical report or an expert witness to prove her disability as was required in the Andrew Adams case.  There is no explanation for the shifting of standards from one case to the other, i.e. expectation documentation from one litigant and not for another, except for what I've heard many people say--the Court simply makes up the law as it goes along. 

As an absurd finish to this case, representatives of Lake Compounce stated, "Lake Compounce cares deeply about its employees and guests, and does not condone or allow discrimination of any kind,...Lake Compounce firmly believes that [Adams] was extremely well treated throughout his many years of employment at the park, which is precisely why he wanted to be rehired." (See Law360). 

They really ought to wake up to the fact that allowing sexual harassment of an employee with a disability does not add up to caring.  Caring takes place when you make sure discrimination does not occur through your company policies and through the actions of your managers and supervisors who strictly prohibit such behavior on the part of their employees.

A very similar situation occurred in the case Elizabeth A. Richter vs. the Connecticut Judicial Branch, et. al. submitted in November 15, 2012.  In this case, Elizabeth Richter stated that she had an anxiety disorder on and off for many years.  She also reported in her Complaint that she had submitted a document from a medical doctor indicating that she had acute stress disorder, and again at a later time in her complaint she reported submitting information indicating that she had legal abuse syndrome, a form of PTSD.  She stated that on the basis of these diagnoses that she was entitled to protection under the ADA during her family court case at the Connecticut Judicial Branch in Hartford.  However, from 2006 until December 2012, she was told that she was not eligible under the ADA and even though she was occasionally provided with accommodations, this was not done so in an effective and consistent manner. 

Similar to the Adams case, when Sandra Lugo-Gines at the Connecticut Judicial Branch denied Elizabeth Richter's requests for ADA accommodation, Lugo-Gines made repeated statements to the effect that the judicial branch will provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities when clearly it has not done so for Elizabeth Richter, and continues not to provide accommodations for the majority of litigants who apply for them. 

Elizabeth A. Richter also stated that from October 2010 until around April 2011, she had a temporary physical disability for which she required major surgery and that when she asked for accommodations based on that disability, the Connecticut Judicial Branch failed to provide them.  Also, she stated that in order to cover up their tracks, family court at 90 Washington Street and also the Appellate Court concealed the documents related to her physical disability and then ruled against her citing the fact that the concealed documents weren't there as the basis for their ruling.

The Federal District Court ruling in the Richter case was dated March 28, 2014, not long after the 2nd Circuit Court decision came out in the Andrew Adams case casting doubt on the District Court's pre-ADAAA decision in regard to whether Adams had a disability.  In its ruling, Judge Janet Bond Arterton stated that she acknowledged that Elizabeth Richter had a disability according to ADA law, but stated that she was still not considered eligible under the ADA because her disability was only "a temporary result of the anxiety caused by the judicial proceedings, and not an ailment that would continue permanently even after those proceedings were completed."  The District court in its decision, in the same way as in Andrew Adams case, cited a considerable amount of case law that was pre-ADAAA of 2008

However, since the legal proceedings had continued on for eight years, Elizabeth Richter's anxiety under that definition was well within the ADAAA of 2008 definition of temporary disabilities which are covered under Federal ADA law. 

So again, the Federal District Court simply blew off the requirements of ADA law for its own purposes. 

It did so even though it must have had sufficient knowledge through the Andrew Adams case that the Courts are required to consider the guidelines promulgated in the ADAAA of 2008.  Judges of Federal District Court are not dumb--they are well aware of the ADAAA of 2008.  Could it be that these judges simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious disabilities of plaintiffs because they simply cannot stand the ADA and they cannot bear the thought of according equal rights and opportunities to a group of citizens that they feel are inferior and should know their place? 

Doesn't the denial of ADA eligibility which took place in the Adams and Richter cases essentially add up to the judicial nullification of the federal ADA law as a whole? 

For those who are skeptical of this, I would point out the fact that Congress had to return to the ADA and write a whole additional set of Amendments in 2008 because the Federal Courts were disregarding the Will of Congress and interpreting eligibility standards far more narrowly than they were ever intended to be interpreted--see Sutton v. United Airlines and Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams. 

Will it take another Act of Congress before the judicial system in this country finally realizes that equal rights extends to the disabled as well as to other racial, ethnic, and gender groups?  I think so. 

As an advocate who has worked for reform in the judicial system for many years, it is very clear to me that there is nothing judges and attorneys hate more than the ADA and the concept that they cannot use disability to deny citizens their civil and constitutional rights.  This means that unless they are forced to do otherwise, judges will continue to judicially nullify the ADA and attorneys will continue to act as though it doesn't exist, unless, of course, their own interests are involved.