In May 9, 2018's Op-Ed "Legislature Fails Judge Subjected To Abuse" by Kevin Rennie, a long time "Hartford Courant" opinion leader, we could get the idea that the Family Court Reform movement here in CT is full of anti-semites and wackos. However, this simply makes no sense considering that a good many of the victims of Family Court injustice are either Jewish themselves or of Jewish origin. My own grandfather was incarcerated in the Marienkirche Concentration Camp in Berlin, Germany. Further, Judge Jane B. Emons was not subjected to abuse. Judge Emons competence was called into question when numerous litigants reported that she had violated the judicial code of ethics.
PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Friday, May 11, 2018
DID "THE HARTFORD COURANT" AND OTHER CT MEDIA OUTLETS ACCEPT LARGE SUMS OF MONEY TO SILENCE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH CRITICS?
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
As Michael Skakel exits the CT Judicial System after years of persecution, it is interesting to see family court victims succeed in their efforts after similarly fighting years of persecution. When it comes to Michael Skakel, the press is beginning to understand that there might have been a miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, when it comes to family court victims the media still lacks any insight.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
by Mark Pazniokas
The House of Representatives stripped Superior Court Judge Jane B. Emons of her job Friday. There was no debate, no vote, no fingerprints. Her eight-year term expired at midnight, when Emons became the first judge in recent history — perhaps ever — forced from the bench in Connecticut by legislative inaction.
Emons lost her job without the legislature’s reaching a formal conclusion about her fitness. Critics who testified against Emons, whose judicial career was spent presiding over divorces and child custody cases in family courts, initially were unpersuasive: The legislature’s Judiciary Committee endorsed her confirmation in February on a vote of 30 to 3."
FOR MORE ON THIS STORY, SEE LINK BELOW:
Ms. Mary Puzone speaks out agains Judge Jane B. Emons!
Thursday, May 3, 2018
TO LEGISLATORS: JUDGE JANE B. EMONS DISREGARDS THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE, BULLIES PARENTS, AND IS UNWORTHY OF REAPPOINTMENT!
A Concerned Citizen speaks up against Judge Jane B. Emons
Dear Legislators,In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the following summaries and attached cases.Friends and families are concerned about Judge Emons who has displayed unprofessional conduct, especially to minorities who represent themselves in front of her. We are hopeful that you will protect the public interest and VOTE NO on Judge Emons.In an effort to assist you in making an informed decision, I have summarized 3 of the cases for your convenience and also attached the cases themselves. Even the appellate court has hinted at some underlying problems that exist with Judge Emons, including comments from the appellate court in the Jordan M. v Darric M (2016) case attached:
-“The record in this case is confusing at best and certain portions of the file appear to have been entered under incorrect docket numbers. “[Appellate Court] - [Appellate Court] - Jordan M. v Darric M case
- “The court's reasoning for granting the application for the restraining order is not clear, . . . There was no evidence that there was violent or physically threatening conduct on the night of August 21, 2015, and there was no evidence that the defendant presented a threat of physical pain or injury to Jordan. “The plain language of § 46b–15 clearly requires a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury before a court can grant a domestic violence restraining order.” [Appellate Court] - Jordan M. v Darric M case
- The Appellate Court noted they were unable to review a claim due to Emons’ failure to provide adequate “findings of facts.” This seems to be a recurrent theme with other cases in which Emons was overturned where she fails to make adequate findings of facts as she is required to do - perhaps to further insulate her decisions from being overturned on appeal. The Appellate Court stated:
“Due to a lack of an adequate record, we are unable to review this claim.” [Appellate Court]
In another line of appellate cases, there is a disturbing trend by Judge Emons to violate the well known "American Rule" where all litigants pay for their own representation. However, Judge Emons has decided to make it onerous for litigants to bring their cases up for appeal by ordering them to pay the opposing side's attorney fees as was done in the Rinfret (appellate court reversing Emons' order to pay $90,000 in attorney fees) and the Lederle case (reversing Emons' order to pay $30,000 in attorney fees) which are attached. By doing so, Judge Emons is less likely to see these cases go to appeal and have her decisions overturned.
In Clark v. Clark, Judge Emons ordered - without motion of either parent - that the parents have their children evaluated at their expense and then, after she reviewed the resulting report, ordered that the report NOT be released to the parents and then made further orders in connection with the children based on the report which she had ordered not be provided to the parents. She did this when in a post-judgment proceeding when one parent had already been awarded custody of the children. How can Emons's acts be constitutional?In another matter (Sargent v Sargent), when a parent sought to remove the GAL, Judge Emons appointed a lawyer, AT THE PARENT'S EXPENSE and with no legal precedent or authority to do so, to defend the GAL (who has complete immunity) against the allegations of misconduct. This attorney for the GAL then charged $850/hr to defend the GAL. Judge Emons has threatened to remove legal custody of children from a parent as a "judicial sanction" when the parent challenged the conduct of the GAL .
I have also included transcript excerpts that demonstrate the following:- Judge Emons' disregard for Rules of Evidence- Judge Emons' disrespect for how hearsay evidence is to be considered- Judge Emons' steering testimony – perhaps wrongly to achieve the outcome she desires- Judge Emons' disrespect for other lawyers and litigantsThank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important matter whereas she impacts the lives of many families and friends and her reappointment should not be taken lightly. Another 8 years of Judge Emons is almost another decade of her continued abuse. The public is owed a duty of respect and well considered decisions in accord with the rule of law.
Written by a Concerned Citizen
In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the attached case, Jeffrey Emons, Jane Emons, and Lesley Emons v. RBS Citizens Bank (NNH-12-6030462-S).
In that case, Judge Emons and her immediate family members brought a lawsuit in a Connecticut court against the bank, RBS, because RBS apparently required Judge Emons and her husband to pay an extra 1.75 points over what RBS initially offered in order for them to secure a mortgage for their daughter. In addition, in that lawsuit Judge Emons and her family also brought a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, because, apparently, Judge Emons and the other Plaintiffs had “to spend dozens of hours on the telephone.”In my opinion, the above case drives home many of the concerns already brought to the legislature by a growing number of litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, including the following:
1. Judge Emons lacks the demeanor, temperament, and resiliency required of a family court judge.
To prevail in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a Plaintiff must show that they suffered emotional distress severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm. See the case of Olson v. Bristol-Burlington Health Dist., 87 Conn. App. 1, 5, 863 A.2d 748, 752 (2005).
Here, we must take Judge Emons at her own word, in that having to pay extra points at a real estate closing and spending hours on the phone caused her severe emotional distress, to the point that illness or bodily harm could result to her. If that is the case, Judge Emons cannot seriously contend to have the temperament or demeanor required of a family court judge, who must often make difficult decisions concerning the wellbeing and custody of minor children, all the while operating in the heated environment of divorce proceedings.
Yet clearly, the many members of the public who have spoken at length reveal that Judge Emons regularly displays those same type of hypersensitive reactions in her own courtroom, whether it be by snapping at and demeaning litigants, issuing orders that are spiteful and/or vindictive, ignoring the law, or simply continuing matters perpetually so that families and children of this State are denied meaningful access to the courts. The claims Judge Emons makes in her lawsuit simply affirm what so many have also stated to this legislature in phone calls, in writing, and by personal testimony: she is not the right person for this job.
2. Judge Emons lacks the empathy and understanding required of a family court judge.
In conjunction with temperament issues, we must also consider what this lawsuit says about Judge Emon’s worldview, and her ability to understand or value the position of family court litigants.
While Judge Emons lives in a world where it is acceptable to be outraged and aggrieved because you are required to pay an extra 1.75 points on a mortgage, family court litigants live in world where everything, from their homes, their financial security, to their very children, could be lost at the hands of an out of touch judge. Sadly, this again echoes what has already been stated by many citizens who have come forward to express their opinions against Judge Emon’s re-nomination.
Ironically and tragically in this State, family court litigants are expected to tolerate gross procedural violations, abusive treatment, and complete disregard for families and children, all with little to no complaint, lest they be labeled as “disgruntled parents.”
Yet, in her own (very) different world, Judge Emons expects white glove treatment for her and her children, and is willing to bring a lawsuit when those expectations are not met. That may certainly be her right, but it is also the right of litigants and children in this State to expect much more, and a family court judge who is this tone deaf is simply out of touch with the needs of those in her courtroom.At this point, the record is clear:
- multiple Federal lawsuits, all articulating egregious violations of constitutional rights, in particular due process, naming Judge Emons:
1: 2011 -3:11-cv-01841-SRU, Roque v. Iannotti et al.
2: 2013 - -cv-00016-JBA, Nowacki v. Emons et al.
3: 2013 - -cv-00863-JBA, Sargent v. Emons et al.
4: 2014 - -cv-01869-JAM,Hansen-Hodgkinson v. Emons et al.
5: 2015 - -cv-00959-SRU, Whitnum v. Emons et al.
6: 2017 - -cv-00127-VLB, Manchanda v. Emons et al.;
- approximately 30 grievance complaints;
- a groundswell of Connecticut residents, litigants, non-litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, from all walks of life who have spoken out, sometimes at great personal risk, to prevent this re-nomination.
Connecticut can, and must, do better. Please vote NO on the re-nomination of Judge Jane Emons.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Monday, March 12, 2018
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
I do not support reappointment of Judge Emons due to my personal experience which has been far from the best interest of a handicapped child, and has left the child to continuously be psychologically abused for years and the custodial parent unable to provide safety from this abuse for the child.
In a case with blatant incidences of negligence of the family unit and the child’s best interest by the non-custodial parent, Judge Emons ignored all the clear evidence of Domestic Abuse, Parental Alienation and Coercive Abuse throughout the unnecessary 2-1/2 yrs. of court process.