SUPREME COURT RULING ON CASSANDRA S. DATED JANUARY 8, 2015!

For a copy of the Supreme Court ruling on the Cassandra S. case, please click on the link below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press404.pdf

DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT: COLLECTION OF ARTICLES ON AUDIORECORDINGS!

For those of you interested in the question of the access to audiorecordings of legal proceedings at the CT Judicial Branch, the following is a group of interesting articles on the subject:

Commentary on Audiorecordings by "Anonymous"!http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/01/commentary-on-how-judicial-branch-scams.html
 

 

Editorial Supporting the Public's Access to Audiorecordings

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/01/why-issue-of-audiorecordings-should.html

Part II of a Research Report on the Issue of Audiorecordings
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/01/part-ii-case-study-on-ct-judicial.html

Part I of a Research Report on the Issue of Audiorecordings
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/01/part-i-case-study-on-ct-judicial-lack.html

Review of the CT Judicial Branch Audiorecording Subcommittee Report
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/09/judicial-restrictions-on-access-to.html

The Adam McNiece Story
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/ct-law-tribune-pokes-fun-at-self.html

PART II: CASE STUDY ON THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL ADA LAW!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

DATA CONTINUED

As I previously mentioned, I had been speaking by email to Attorney Maureen Finn, the spokesperson for the CT Judicial Branch in regard to the ADA, attempting to find out how a person with a disability could obtain the reasonable modification of audiorecordings for his or her disability.  I had asked, "Would there ever be a reasonable basis for turning down such a request?"  On September 9, 2014, her response had been, "I prefer not to speculate about possibilities."


Of course, this is not so much about "possibilities" so much as it is a question of what I can say as an ADA advocate to a person with a disability who is trying to establish what reasonable modifications he or she is entitled to.  Simply put, I would like to be able to say with some measure of clarity that "yes" audiorecordings are available or "no" they are not!


Naturally, this was all very discouraging to me and so I shut down for a few days and spent some time on researching the subject of audiorecordings on the internet.  I am the kind of person who has been trained to advocate and to ask questions, so no matter what barriers I face, I am likely to return with further questions as needed.  However, what about some of the others who are members of this vulnerable population of individuals with disabilities.  Many of these folks do not have the ability to deal with the kind of obstruction that the Judicial Branch gets up to, particularly the use of bureaucratic double talk which prevents people from figuring out what their rights are.


After gathering together my emotional resources, on September 15, 2014, I sent out another email to Attorney Maureen Finn where I stated, "I think it is reasonable to request information from the Judicial Branch regarding what criteria an individual would have to meet in regard to a disability in order to qualify for the reasonable modification of the use of audiorecordings."



I further stated, "Without specific standards from the CT Judicial Branch regarding what would be a legitimate basis for a request for audiorecordings and what would not be a legitimate basis...,a litigant with a disability is really placed in a the very difficult position of guessing or being forced him or herself to speculate regarding the possibilities since you refuse to provide specific guidelines."


I then ended with the request, "Could you please provide me with a clear and understandable response to my question."


In response, one week later on September 22, 2014, Attorney Maureen Finn got back to me with the statement, "As I said before, I do not want to speculate as to possible outcomes because each person and situation is different.  As you know, there is a specific process in place for ADA requests."


Just to catch you up on where we are time wise, it is now one month since my original inquiry!


The very next day, on September 23, 2014, I again sent an email to Attorney Finn asking the following question, "Let me put this another way, why aren't audio recordings included on the list of auxiliary aids and services provided by the CT Judicial Branch listed on the website.  See link."


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

On September 26, 2014, Attorney Finn responded by saying,  "The list of auxiliary aids and services is not a comprehensive one...As Technologies change and advance, new options may become possible."  And it is true, above the list of auxiliary aids and services provided there is the statement, "These are some of the services/aids the Judicial Branch offers."  The word "some" appears to indicate that there are more.



On October 1, 2014, I then sent an email to Attorney Maureen Finn asking the following question, "So if the list of auxiliary aids and services were comprehensive it would include audiorecordings on it.  Is that what you are stating?"


I never received a response to that question, with either a yes or no, or any of Attorney Finn's favorite type answers such as, "I don't care to speculate."


I also asked Attorney Finn another vital question.  Given that there are Connecticut Practice Book policies in place under Chapter 1-10a and 1-10b for the public to request the right to make audiorecordings from the judge, would it then be correct for a litigant with a disability to go through a judge to obtain his or her reasonable modification, since the administration, as represented by Attorney Finn, was refusing to answer my questions.  However, I noted for Attorney Finn, there could be a problem in this situation because were a judge to rule improperly in response to such a request for reasonable modification, under the ADA that judge would be liable for damages and would lose his or her judicial immunity.  "What would she suggest?", I asked. 


In response, Attorney Finn stated, "As to your new question, I cannot advise you as to the best course of action."


So in total, it took a little over five weeks to go absolutely nowhere.  If I had been having this correspondence with a serious need to obtain audiorecording as a reasonable modification for an upcoming hearing, this back and forth conversation full of obstruction and obscure responses would have been incredibly stressful.  In my own case, I had conversations like this for three years and still didn't get anywhere while parallel legal proceedings were continuing on in my case.  This was incredibly difficult for me as it would be for any individual with a disability.

CONCLUSION:


The bottom line of this study is it showed quite clearly that the Connecticut Judicial Branch has no idea how to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer.

Throughout this communication with the CT Judicial Branch in regard to audiorecordings, Attorney Maureen Finn in her own person, and on behalf of all the others who were listed as receiving copies of our correspondence, was deliberately obstructive and obscure when I tried to get answers to questions in regard to the reasonable modification of audiorecordings, which it is my understanding the Branch is obligated to provide.

The Connecticut Judicial Branch is simply not in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 or the Amendments Act to the ADA of 2008. Specifically, it is not in compliance with providing equally effective communication with people who have disabilities or those advocating for those who have disabilities.

Under Title II of the ADA, the Connecticut Judicial Branch is required to take steps to ensure that their communications with people with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. Title II of the ADA requires government entities, such as the Connecticut Judicial Branch, to make appropriate auxiliary aids and services available to ensure effective communication.  In other words, the Connecticut Judicial Branch, should, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified individuals with disabilities and their advocates so they can participate equally in The Connecticut Judicial Branch's programs, services, and activities.

In their report on audiorecordings dated 2009, the Subcommittee on Audio Recording of Court Proceedings acknowledged that audiorecordings are the property of the citizens of Connecticut, and I would further note the important role audiorecordings could play in assisting persons with disabilities when it comes to obtaining access to legal proceedings.  Under those circumstances, the Connecticut Judicial Branch has no business denying people with disabilities access to these audiorecordings or obscuring information on whether such audiorecordings are available.

PART I: CASE STUDY ON THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH'S LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL ADA LAW!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

INTRODUCTION:

As a citizen, I was interested in seeing whether there had been any improvements in the CT Judicial Branch response to inquiries in regard to the ADA since I first began to approach the Branch about the ADA in 2006.  After all, in January 2014, I received a letter from Attorney John Hughes stating he intended to conduct an investigation into CT Judicial Branch compliance with the ADA.  Since several news outlets reported on this investigation, you might imagine this would make the Branch more eager to demonstrate their compliance.

With this in mind, on August 21, 2014 I approached the CT Judicial Branch with a request  for information about the option of obtaining audiorecordings as a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability.  This request showed a certain amount of prescience, because on October 14, 2014,  a Connecticut citizen, Adam McNiece,  filed a lawsuit complaining that the CT Judicial Branch denied him audiorecordings which he required as a reasonable accommodation for his disability. See link: 

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/12/ct-law-tribune-pokes-fun-at-self.html

I was making the inquiry as an advocate, not as a person with a disability.  However, had I been a person with a disability such as Adam McNiece, the process of requesting reasonable accommodation would have been incredibly frustrating.  First, I couldn't obtain a timely response to my inquiry, so if I'd been asking according to the standard timeframe, i.e. two weeks prior to the hearing, I would not have been able to obtain the accommodation on time.  Second, for the life of me, I couldn't get a clear information from the CT Judicial Branch spokespeople with whom I came into contact in response to my questions.  This latter is a complete violation of the federal ADA mandate to provide effective communication with people who have disabilities, and also the mandate to provide full and relevant responses to inquiries. 

DATA:

On August 21, 2014, I wrote to Sandra Lugo-Gines, the staff member at the CT Judicial Branch generally considered in charge of all ADA inquiries.  My question:  "Will the Connecticut Judicial Branch provide audiorecordings of Legal Proceedings for litigants who have disabilities"

After sending that email, I waited for a full ten days and did not receive a single response from Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines.  This is an unacceptably long time to wait for a response and shows how rude the CT Judicial Branch is in response to inquiries about the ADA.

On August 31, 2014, I then sent an email to other CT Judicial Branch employees, attorneys who have previously responded to my ADA questions and addressed the same inquiry to them.  The employees I sent the email to were as follows:  Heather Collins, Maureen Finn, Martin Libbin, and Viviana Livesay.  In my email, I provided a copy of the earlier August 21, 2014 email I'd sent  to Sandra Lugo-Gines and asked them to answer the question:  "What is the Connecticut Judicial Branch policy in regard to audiorecordings as a modification for a person with a disability under the ADA?"

Two days later, on September 2, 2014, I received a response from Attorney Maureen Finn stating as follows:

"There is no specific policy in regard to audio recordings.  As with any other aid or service, each request for accommodation is reviewed individually."

So, is that a "yes" or a "no"?  I wasn't sure.  In fact, Unbeknownst to me, right at that very time that I proposed that question, Mr. Adam McNiece, who had his doctor confirm the fact that he had a disability, had asked for just that accommodation of audiorecordings and had been turned down. 

To get an additional confirmation what Attorney Finn had said, I sent out the following question in response:

 

"I am assuming that anything listed on the CT Judicial Branch [website] as an aid or auxillary [service] would be automatically granted upon request [to a person with a disability].  Is that a correct?"

 

I also asked, "When you say, each case is reviewed individually, do you have a protocol for such a review?

And I asked, "What safeguards do you have in place to ensure that reasonable modifications are provided in a consistent manner?"

In response, the next day, on September 3, 2014, Attorney Finn sent me the following statement, "The items you request in the below email are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  The FOIA does not require public officials to answer questions regarding the specific laws that are relied upon when evaluating ADA requests.  The FOIA only provides a right to attend public meetings within the meaning of the FOIA."

I didn't ask for specific laws, I asked for "a protocol" and for "safeguards".  So what Attorney Finn did was simply reinterpret my request so that she could then deny it.  Also, when she states that the FOIA only "provides a right to attend public meetings" she forgets all the CT Judicial Branch internal reports and training materials that she has previously handed over to me personally in response to my FOIA requests.  That goes well beyond the opportunity to attend public meetings!  So, essentially, in her response, Attorney Finn is playing around with words, redefining my questions in a way I did not intend, if not outright lying.

Then Attorney Finn continues on to say, "I can advise you that we do not review requests for accommodation in an automated fashion.  All are reviewed on an individual basis."

In other words, no person with a disability can be guaranteed that he or she will have access to the aids and auxillary services that the CT Judicial Branch has available even if they are listed as available on its website.  And while it sounds nice that each person with a disability will be considered on an individual basis, the fact that such individuals cannot be guaranteed even a minimal level of  reasonable modifications has to be terribly anxiety provoking.  It places people with disabilities in a permanent posture of supplication, which is actually rather humiliating and degrading.

Later that afternoon, on September 3, 2014, I responded to Attorney Finn by saying, I don't get the FOIA reference, but  would the following statement reflect the CT Judicial Branch's position on audiorecordings.  See the following which I wrote:

"The CT Judicial Branch reviews request for reasonable modifications on an individual basis.  Audiorecordings are one of the reasonable modifications which are an option for litigants and jurors with disabilities and the Branch will consider whether the accommodation of audiorecordings makes sense for a litigant with a disability on a case by case basis."

In response, on September 4, 2014 Attorney Finn stated, "Again, there is no separate policy in regard to audiorecordings.  If someone requests audiorecordings as an accommodation, that request will be reviewed in the same manner as any other ADA request."

Of course, this is not a "yes" or "no"!  Also, we are well aware, that even as Attorney Finn was stating that the CT Judicial Branch would review a request for audiorecordings as an accommodation "in the same manner as any other ADA request" the Judicial Branch was turning down Adam McNiece's fully documented request for that very same accommodation!"

 

Given what McNiece was going through, my next question sent an hour later has particular relevance.  I asked Attorney Finn the following, "Would there ever be a reasonable basis for turning down such a request to a qualified individual with a disability?  If so what would that be?"

 

So there was a pause in the conversation.

September 5, 2014 goes by.

September 6, 2014 goes by.

September 7, 2014 goes by.

September 8, 2014 goes by.

Then on September 9, 2014, at 4:44p.m., I received the following answer from Attorney Finn:

"I prefer not to speculate about possibilities.  I don't think it is productive and it can create confusion."

As if I wasn't already totally confused already!

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.