JUDGES ANNUAL MEETING, JUNE 13, 2014!

June 13, 2014, Friday
Judges Annual Meeting, 10:00A.M.
Jury Assembly Room, Middlesex Judicial District Courthouse
located at 1 Court Street in Middletown.


Agenda for the meeting is at the link below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/judges/judgeannual_agenda_061314.pdf


Minutes of the meeting from last year, June 14, 2013 is at the link below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/judges/JudgeAnnual_draft_Minutes_061413.pdf

GOVERNOR MALLOY NOMINATES 16 NEW JUDGES INCLUDING ATTORNEY LEO DIANA OF MANCHESTER!

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE!

March 14, 2014

 

"(HARTFORD, CT) – Governor Dannel P. Malloy today announced that he is nominating the Honorable Eliot D. Prescott of West Hartford and the Honorable Raheem L. Mullins of Cromwell to serve as judges of the Connecticut Appellate Court.  In addition, the Governor is nominating 16 attorneys to become judges of the Superior Court, two to serve as Family Support Magistrates, and one to serve as a Workers’ Compensation Commissioner.

 

“In selecting judicial nominees and reviewing the pool of candidates, I look to choose individuals with the experience, temperament and skills to be thoughtful, reasoned and fair jurists,” Governor Malloy said.  “It is a careful, meticulous process because we want to ensure that the men and women who sit on our bench will serve our state with distinction, fairness, competence, ethics, and above all, respect for the people of Connecticut.  I am pleased to nominate these two outstanding judges for elevation to the appellate bench, and proud to nominate these 16 outstanding attorneys for appointment to the Superior Court.”

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


http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?A=4010&Q=541680

RATE YOUR CONNECTICUT JUDGES - CONTACT THE ROBING ROOM"

FAQs  

1. What is the The Robing Room? 

The Robing Room is a site by lawyers for lawyers.  Our mission is to provide a forum for evaluating judges and magistrate-judges.
  
2.  Who operates The Robing Room? 

The Robing Room is owned and operated by North Law Publishers, Inc., a New York Corporation, whose principal shareholders are attorneys. 

3.  How do I contact The Robing Room? 

We encourage and value your feedback. Write to us at:

inquiries@therobingroom.com 


4.  Why do you require an e-mail address to post ratings?

We require e-mail addresses for three reasons.  First to avoid automated spamming programs that attempt to post unwanted advertisements and other notices. Second to help assure that our postings are legitimate. And third to permit a visitor to contact an evaluator for further information about a rating or comment (although the visitor will not know the evaluator’s e-mail address)   Your e-mail address will not be included in your published evaluation . 

5.  How does your rating system work? 

When you fill out an evaluation questionnaire for a judge, we post your rating scores as well as your comments.  The posted average is derived from your answers to the first starred questions in the questionnaire.   Questions not answered are not included in the calculation to derive the average.
   
6. Are comments/ratings deleted? 

We reserve the right to delete comments and ratings which we believe are libelous or not submitted in good faith.   

http://www.therobingroom.com/connecticut/Default.aspx?state=CT

MARK SARGENT RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY KIMBERLY KNOX, CBA PRESIDENT, AND HER COMMENTS REGARDING JUDGE LESLIE OLEAR!

Opinion: CBA Defense Of Family Law System Is 'Misguided'
03/13/2014

Editor's note: The author of this letter is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, a former clerk for a federal judge and a former tax lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell in New York City. Last fall, he was involved in legal proceedings in which he and his lawyer challenged the fees and conduct of a GAL involved in his divorce case.

To The Editor:

I read with great interest the recent column ("In Defense Of Family Judges, Connecticut Law Tribune, March 10) by Connecticut Bar Association president Kimberly Knox about the recent debate in the General Assembly regarding the reappointment of Judge Leslie Olear and, more broadly, the need to reform our state's very flawed family court system. While I was not in Hartford for the debate, I followed the matter closely via CT-N. I have no personal experience with Judge Olear, and I share Ms. Knox's concerns about maintaining the integrity of the reappointment process. But I also believe we should maintain the integrity of the public discussion of these issues.

While Ms. Knox wrote that Judge Olear "[b]y all accounts" "is the type of judge that Connecticut deserves and needs," the debate was to the contrary. State Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and other legislators spoke of having received a large number of complaints from parents about Judge Olear. In the debate and in related communications, legislators and parents attributed the scarcity of formal complaints about the judge to fears of retribution and frustration with a judicial complaint process that parents view as a waste of time.

Likewise, Judge Olear's positive evaluations from the Judicial Branch are not meaningful if, as I understand, such evaluations are based on lawyers who do business before her but not the pro se litigants who appear in more than 80 percent of family law matters. Sen. Jason Welch based his opposition to Judge Olear on a couple of questionable opinions she issued which were reversed on appeal. And parents protesting Judge Olear distributed flyers detailing concerns specific to the judge. In short, many parties expressed sincere concerns about Judge Olear.

Ms. Knox wrote that courts "occasionally involve guardians ad litem or other professionals to protect the children's interests." Testimony before the Task Force To Study Legal Disputes Involving Care and Custody of Children and statements by legislators indicate that, in fact: judges routinely assign GALs and an army of other individuals who purport to act "in the bests interest of the children;" that, in practice judges permit those individuals to exploit financially — and even bankrupt — families in difficult situations; and that such individuals and the judges who supposedly supervise them are not accountable in any fashion.

While Ms. Knox wrote that "[t]hose individuals have a thankless job," in fact those individuals have extremely lucrative jobs. Ms. Knox's defense of the current system is a misguided effort to protect those lucrative positions notwithstanding the resulting harm to families.

Ms. Knox's discussion of the task force established to review family court matters was, at best, misleading. The task force was formed to advise the legislature (and not, as Ms. Knox suggests, the Judicial Branch) about three specific issues. However, its hearings revealed the need for complete reform of our family law system.

As Rep. Edwin Vargas noted in the Olear debate, the task force was chaired by two professional GALs and consisted largely of divorce industry workers who have a vested interest in preserving the current system. Ms. Knox suggested that the legislators wait for the Judicial Branch to consider and act upon a task force report written by divorce industry workers. Instead, the legislators should reject the institutions that created the current family law system that destroys so many Connecticut families, including the organization Ms. Knox purports to represent.•

Mark Sargent.
Westport

JUDICIAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS: WHY THEY DON'T MATTER IN FAMILY COURT!

Members of the Coalition on Connecticut Family Court Reform sat tensely in the gallery of the Capitol Building watching the debate over the reappointment of Superior Court Judge Leslie Olear.  They had been campaigning for her ouster for a considerable amount of time prior to the debate.  When the vote came, the Coalition campaign "Say No to Judge Olear" lost by a vote of 78-67, with 5 absent & not voting. 

 

So what happened? 

 

Representatives felt that Judge Leslie Olear's performance evaluations were "overwhelmingly excellent" and that Coalition members had expressed their dissatisfaction too late to give Judge Olear an opportunity to improve her performance. 

 

But is Olear's performance as a Judge really excellent? 

 

And if there were more time available, would Judge Olear have had the opportunity to hear litigants' concerns regarding her performance?

 

Probably not. 

 

Why is that you ask? 

 

I will give you the answer, and mind you this is an answer that most of the legislators know because they are attorneys.  This means that when they are giving speeches to the general public and call the performance evaluation of a Judge such as Olear "overwhelmingly excellent" they know that such an assessment has one big major flaw. 

 

In particular, in regard to Family Court Judges, that flaw is considerable. 

 

The bottom line is, these Judicial Performance Evaluations do not include the views of the self represented parties who appear in family court whose numbers are estimated to be as high as 80%.  They also do not include the views of the remaining litigants who are represented by attorneys. 

 

For the better part, only attorneys provide significant input into the performance evaluations of trial court judges. This means that Superior Court judges in Family Court proceedings only receive performance evaluations from a small group of the cases they adjudicate, those with attorneys. 

 

It is equivalent to conducting teacher evaluations by having the teaching aides fill out all the evaluations while excluding feedback from the students. 

 

It makes no sense, does it--if you actually want a fair result. 

 

Logically speaking, if you are a judge in a courtroom and you see before you an attorney on the one side and a self represented party on the other, and you know that the attorney is going to walk out of the courtroom and write up your evaluation after the proceedings, whose side would you be on? 


Judges and opposing attorneys in Family Court cases repeatedly insist that self-represented litigants must abide by the same rules and standards that apply to attorneys.  However, as this disparate treatment in regard to Judges' Performance Evaluations reveals, attorneys have extraordinarily greater access to influence with Judges than self represented parties, and this makes a mockery of any statements that self represented parties have to rise to the level of attorneys.  Quite plainly, the system has extended an outright advantage to attorneys when it comes to Judges' Performance Evaluations, and that isn't the only one they have, as we all know.

Of course, they didn't clarify that point to you, did they, when those legislators spoke at the Capitol during the vote on February 26, 2014.  It has just been their little secret! 

Meanwhile, the CT Judicial Branch complains about what a big problem self-represented parties are, and how our lack of understanding of the legal process burdens the system.  No, that's not true.  The Problem with the CT Judicial Branch is attorneys--attorneys, attorneys, attorneys. 

 

During the reappointment hearings on Judges, Members of the Judiciary Committee asked questions based upon the performance reviews of those judges which they had received. 

 

So what do we know about these performance evaluations and why weren't all of us given copies? 

 

According to the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System based at the University of Denver, Connecticut has been conducting performance evaluations of trial judges since 1984.  Also, in Connecticut, the Judicial Branch has a Judicial Performance Evaluation Advisory Panel which is there "to review and implement" the wishes of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Committee. 

(I swear all these lengthy Committee names are simply there to confuse us!)

 

The Advisory Panel is made up of "twenty-three members who are appointed by the Chief Justice, and includes members of the bench, the bar, academia, and the Judicial Selection Commission." 

 

According to the Institute, "Attorneys are given an opportunity to rate judges as excellent, good, fair, or poor through a series of questions in the categories of comportment, legal ability, and management skills."  Juries are also given a series of questions that are different in nature but intended to assess the skills and abilities of the judge. 

 

The results of these Judicial Performance Evaluations are confidential, and only end up in the hands of the Judiciary Committee when a judge is nominated for reappointment or seeks a position on the Appellate or Supreme Court. 

 

So if you were wondering, that is how come, during the Judiciary Committee hearings to reappoint certain judges, the Committee Members were looking through the evaluations and asking questions based upon these evaluations, but the members of the audience didn't have copies and could only guess what was on them. 

 

The last time the Judicial Performance Program Committee conducted meetings to improve and update their Judicial Performance Evaluation Program was in 2009.  Apparently, a large part of the deliberations of the subcommittee that reviewed Judicial Performance Evaluations spent a considerable amount of time deciding who would be allowed to provide input into those evaluations. 

 

The Committee certainly considered whether to include information from litigants and self represented parties, but ultimately decided to turn down that proposal with a unanimous vote of 23 to zero.  The reasoning behind this unanimous vote as reported under recommendation 1 (b) of the "Report of the Subcommittee on the Improvement of the Existing System for the Evaluation of Trial Judges" dated May 19, 2009 was that, "It was concluded that the inclusion of those parties would. . .result in feedback of questionable value." 

(How condescending is that?  Of course, they don't mind taking our money!  Apparently, cash isn't of questionable value!)

 

From the Minutes of the June 4, 2009 meeting of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Committee the thinking behind denying litigants and self-represented parties participation in Judge's Evaluations was that "During discussion it was pointed out that other avenues exist for litigants and self-represented litigants to make complaints regarding a judge's conduct; e.g. complaints to the Judicial Review Council."

 

The latter comment motivated me to look up the Statistics associated with the Judicial Review Council to see whether there have been any good results for people who complained.  The bottom line is that in eight years only eight people have been reprimanded for judicial improprieties.  This is an extremely minimal level of accountability. 

A considerable number of complainants see their complaints dismissed simply because they miss the one year Statute of Limitations.  Of course, often with Family Court litigants it takes at least a year to recover from the pain and suffering that an unethical Judge causes so that they can begin to articulate what happened.  Finally, it is worth noting that from 2006 when there were 51 complaints to 2013 when there were 110, the Council saw the number of complaints double. I would also like to add that since it is widely known that Statewide Grievance and the Judicial Review Council pretty much ignore even the most egregious behavior, many abused litigants simply don't bother to submit their complaints. 

 

Readers should know that filing a complaint isn't that simple.  You have to write up your complaint in a clear and concise manner and provide documentation to prove your points.  If you are experiencing the symptoms of PTSD from Legal Abuse and you are emotionally devastated, this is very hard to do. In essence, what the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program Committee is doing is asking litigants with complaints about judges to provide feedback using the most labor intensive approach that exists.  My conclusion on that, of course, is that the Committee doesn't want to hear from litigants and simply wished to look for excuses to silence their voices.  Then, in the legislature, that silence gets used as an excuse to allow for the reappointment of corrupt and abusive judges.

 

The May 19, 2009 Report did recommend soliciting feedback regarding a judge's performance from "court staff personnel, probation officers, family relations officers, victim advocates, courtroom clerks, and interpreters" but recommended that this feedback be channeled through the Presiding Judge.  I suspect that would considerably white wash a lot of that feedback.  Still, what this means is, pretty much everyone has the opportunity to contribute to Judge's Performance Evaluations except the people directly affected by those Judge's actions, i.e. the litigants themselves. 

The end result of restricting feedback regarding a judge's performance to attorneys, peers, jurors who really know very little about the process, and to a limited extent court personnel, and superiors at the CT Judicial Branch while ignoring input from litigants and self represented parties is that Judges are receiving considerably skewed and flawed results to their Performance Evaluations. 

 

Like many corporate and political leaders Judges then become surrounded by interested parties with questionable motivations or by fawning sycophants who tell them what they want to hear.  This results in cases of "robitis" which one jocular Member of the Judiciary Committee pointed out.  The CT Judicial Branch needs to reconsider this flawed policy in regard to evaluating its judges.

LIST OF JUDGES AND THEIR LOCATIONS!

For anyone who is interested, a contributor provided the following link to the names and locations of the judges of the CT Judicial Branch:

http://www.jud2.ct.gov/judsearch/judsup.asp

If you are interested in looking up individual judges or the assignment of judges, please go to the following link:

http://www.jud2.ct.gov/judsearch/Default.htm

If anyone has any comment or additional information regarding judges, don't hesitate to contact me at:

Slopercathy@gmail.com

LIST OF CT STATE REPRESENTATIVES WHO DECIDED TO VOTE FOR A CORRUPT, ABUSIVE JUDGE--JUDGE OLEAR!

ABERCROMBIE

ALBIS

ALTOBELLO

ARCONTI

ARESIMOWICZ

BARAM

BECKER, B.

DARGAN

DAVIS

DEMICCO

ESPOSITO

FLEXER

FOX, D.

FOX, G

GENGA

GENTILE

GROGINS

HADDAD

HENNESSY

JANOWSKI

JOHNSON

JUTILA

KINER

LUXENBERG

MARONEY

MEGNA

MORIN

MOUKAWSHER

MUSHINSKY

NAFIS

RILEY

RITTER, M.

ROSE

SEAR

SERRA

TONG

VERRENGIA

VICINO

WIDLITZ

WRIGHT, C.

WRIGHT, E.

LABRIOLA

LAVIELLE

MINER

ODEA

O'NEILL

PERILLO

REBIMBAS

SAWYER

SCRIBNER

SHABAN

SMITH

WALKO

WILLIAMS

WOOD

ZUPKUS

ADINOLFI

ACKERT

BELSITO

BUCK-TAYLOR

CAFERO

CANDELORA, V.

CAMILLO

CARPINO

CASE

FLOREN
D'AMELIO

FREY

KLARIDES

SHARKEY (SPKR)

FINAL VOTE ON JUDGE OLEAR, PROTESTERS WERE NOT HEARD! THE FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN!

REPRESENTATIVE ED VARGAS STANDS UP FOR FAMILIES DESTROYED BY THE CT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM!

Rep. Vargas compares family court to North Korea!

CT STATE REPRESENTATIVES GATHER TO VOTE ON THE NOMINATIONS OF JUDGES!

SHAMED REP. GERALD FOX KEEPS HEAD DOWN AT LEGISLATIVE SESSION YESTERDAY!

OUTSTANDING REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ WITH ANTI-OLEAR PROTESTERS YESTERDAY AT THE STATE CAPITOL!

PROTESTERS AT THE LOB "SAY NO" TO JUDGE OLEAR YESTERDAY!

ANTI-OLEAR DEMONSTRATORS AT THE LOB YESTERDAY!

LEGISLATORS FOX AND RORABACK MISSING IN ACTION WHEN IT COMES TO OVERSIGHT OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT!

Many of us have been watching Members of the Judiciary Committee interviewing judges who are currently under consideration for reappointment this week.  When they did so, I noticed that the Members of the Committee often referred to evaluations of the judges they had before them.  This led me to investigate more about the evaluations themselves. 

 

My questions about the evaluations brought me to the Public Service and Trust Committee which was established in 2007 to improve the performance of the CT Judicial Branch in serving the public.  Part of the work that the Public Service and Trust Commission did was to establish a Committee to investigate the Branch's Judicial Performance Evaluation Program.  As an aside, the last time this program was investigated was in 2001, so it was about time to take another look.  Taking a look at Judges' Performance evaluations was a part of the mandate of the Committee.

 

In order to address this mandate, the Committee broke up into four separate subcommittees which were entitled as follows: 

 

1. Evaluating Judges Assigned to High Volume Courts and as Presiding Judges;

 

2. Evaluating Judge Trial Referees;

 

3.  Evaluating Supreme Court Justices and Appellate Court Judges;

 

4. Improvement of the Existing System for Evaluating Trial Judges.  

 

The first meeting of the Subcommittee on the Improvement of the Existing system for Evaluating Trial Judges took place on February 5, 2009 and included Judiciary Committee Member Senator Andrew W. Roraback. 

 

The first meeting of the Subcommittee on Evaluating Judges Assigned to High Volume Courts and as Presiding Judges took place on February 11, 2009 and included Judiciary Committee Member Representative Gerald Fox, III. 

 

The problem is that when it came to these Subcommittees where both of these Judiciary Committee Members could have acted on behalf of  the Citizens of the State of Connecticut, for the better part these Members--Roraback and Fox--were missing in action. 

 

They simply did not bother to attend most of the meetings! 

 

This is unfortunate since the two were the only legislators invited to participate in the examination of the Judicial Performance Evaluation Program.  Representative Gerald Fox attended two out of the seven meetings he was supposed to go to, while Senator Andrew Roraback attended two out of the eight he was supposed to go to. 

 

This is pretty disgraceful given how important it is to have a fully responsible and ethical group of judges in our courtrooms throughout the State.  The only way to make sure we have such high quality judges is to hold them accountable through well crafted and conducted performance evaluations.  

 

Since these two legislators weren't there for many of the meetings important to the development of such evaluations, clearly they could not make the kinds of valuable contributions to the process which Citizens of the State of Connecticut had the right to expect that they would. 

 

Both were absent at the June 4, 2009 meeting when the Subcommittees presented the results of their deliberations to the umbrella Committee to investigate the Judicial Evaluation Program. 

 

You would think these two would be ashamed to neglect their responsibility to the public or at least that the Judiciary Committee itself would recognize that these are two legislators without any motivation to do the work they are assigned. 

 

But no. 

 

According to Representative Gerald Fox's website, "In 2011 Representative Gerald Fox was named House Chairman of the Judiciary Committee." 

 

The website goes further into the responsibilities of this Committee, stating, "The Committee, among the most important statewide, is responsible for legislation related to all courts, judicial procedures in criminal and civil law, probation and parole.  The committee provides oversight and guidance for the Judicial Department, the Department of Corrections and the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities in addition to all judicial nominations." 

 

So having thoroughly shirked his responsibilities earlier in relation to the Connecticut Judicial Branch, and having completely disregarded his obligations to the Citizens he represented, Representative Gerald Fox still obtained the honor of Chairing the Judiciary Committee which has such major responsibility for guiding the CT Judicial Branch. 

 

The question I have for those who appointed him to this position is, since he couldn't care less the first time, what made them think he would be bothered to do a decent job the second time? 

 

Certainly, victims of family court, taxpaying Citizens of Connecticut have been appearing before the Judiciary Committee reporting on the abuse and corruption of Family Court for a number of years now and nothing has been done under his leadership. 

 

Perhaps now is the time for a change?  It certainly is something to consider! 

 

What about Senator Andrew Roraback who could not be bothered to appear in order to assist in developing the procedures which are now used to evaluate the work of the very judges who have abused so many victims of family court in custody cases throughout the State? 

 

He was sworn in as a Connecticut Superior Court Judge by Governor Daniel Malloy in April 2013. 

 

What can you say about that other than here we have another example of how the State of Connecticut rewards negligent and irresponsible behavior and puts the worst offenders in positions of responsibility with the Connecticut Judicial Branch. 

 

Then Members of the Judiciary Committee act like they have no idea what we are talking about when we come to provide testimony before the Judiciary Committee, they look at us with blank faces, and fail make the kinds of probing inquires which could result in the correction of the problems. 

 

They know very well what is going on and they need to do something about it and stop shirking their responsibilities.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS UNDER REVIEW! BE THERE AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!

Judiciary Committee

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

10:00 AM in Room 2D of the LOB

 

I. JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW
 

To be a Judge of the Appellate Court:
 

The Honorable Douglas S. Lavine of West Hartford
 

To be a Judge of the Superior Court:
 

The Honorable Julia L. Aurigemma of Cromwell
The Honorable Harry E. Calmar of Stonington
The Honorable Joseph W. Doherty of Naugatuck
The Honorable Maria Araujo Kahn of Cheshire
The Honorable Denise D. Markle of Branford
The Honorable Michael G. Maronich of Monroe
The Honorable Sheridan L. Moore of Naugatuck
The Honorable Kevin A. Randolph of Stamford
The Honorable Antonio C. Robaina of Essex
The Honorable Angela C. Robinson of New Haven
 

    To be a State Referee:
 

           The Honorable David M. Borden of West Hartford
           The Honorable Howard Scheinblum of West Hartford
           The Honorable Barbara J. Sheedy of Middlebury
           The Honorable Samuel H. Teller of Bolton

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS UNDER REVIEW THIS FRIDAY! MAKE YOUR OPINIONS KNOWN!

Judiciary Committee

PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA

Friday, February 14, 2014

10:00 AM in Room 2D

 

I. JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS FOR REVIEW

 

If you have an opinion on any of these judges, come to this meeting and provide your testimony before Members of the Judiciary Committee

 

To be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:

The Honorable Richard A. Robinson of Stratford

To be a Judge of the Superior Court

The Honorable Patrick J. Clifford of Madison

The Honorable Juliett L. Crawford of New Haven

The Honorable Julia DiCocco Dewey of Wallingford

The Honorable Roland D. Fasano of North Haven

The Honorable Maureen M. Keegan of Cheshire

The Honorable Leslie I. Olear of West Hartford

The Honorable Carl J. Schuman of West Hartford

To be a Senior Judge:

The Honorable Deborah Kochiss Frankel of Monroe

The Honorable Samuel J. Sferrazza of Somers

To be a State Referee:

The Honorable Barbara A. Coppeto of Milford

The Honorable Lloyd Cutsumpas of Danbury

The Honorable Robert G. Gilligan of Wethersfield

The Honorable Lawrence C. Klaczak of Somers

The Honorable William J. Lavery of Newtown

The Honorable Howard T. Owens, Jr. of Bridgeport

The Honorable Lois Tanzer of West Hartford

BILL MULREADY RESPONDS TO POSSIBLE REAPPOINTMENT OF HON. CHASE T. ROGERS!

RE:  Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers

In her Administrative position, Hon. Chase T. Rogers has the responsibility and has the supervisory powers to ensure that the Judicial Branch is compliant fully with the ADA, and to immediately remedy ADA violations.  Within a month of her appointment to be the Chief Justice of the CT Judicial Branch, Hon. Chase T. Rogers was made aware of ADA violations within the Branch.   Justice Rogers was repeatedly made aware of ADA violations and non compliance.  Instead of doing something about it, Hon. Rogers and her "GANG", founded the Public Service Trust Commission. 

 

As a result of the work of the Commission, Appellate Court Justice, now Chief Appellate Court Justice Alexandra DiPentima and its focus groups determined that the Judicial Branch is in non compliance and has no non discriminating policy in regard to Title II of the ADA.  Meanwhile, in regard to Title I of the ADA, under Judge Roger's leadership, the Branch implemented an employment non discrimination policy that she claims to be not a "paper commitment".  So on every level, under Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers, the CT Judicial Branch has done all it could do to avoid meeting its obligations under Title I and Title II of federal ADA law.  Does this sound like someone who should be reappointed?

Judge Rogers, and to be completely fair each of her predecessor's, Sullivan and Peters, for instance, were required under the law to issue annual reports to the Governor and Legislators and CHRO on the efforts of the Judicial Branch to comply with Federal ADA law.  There are no such reports--at least prior to 2013.  That is a State Law.  Also, it is State Law that all training for the ADA be operated either through or approved by CHRO.  The CT Judicial Branch has not complied with that obligation.  They have gone to outside venders and have no oversight or real review in regard to the training and/or quality of the individuals who are in place to inform the Branch of its obligations under the ADA. 

 

One person they often call on to provide such training is Ms. Kathy Gips of the New England Training Center.  When litigants from CT call the New England Training Center for help, they are frequently referred to Ms. Gips whose ties to insiders at the CT Judicial Branch has led her to downplay or fail to mention the rights of litigants under the ADA, so that such litigants who call the Training Center often end up not pushing for their rights under the ADA because the CT Judicial Branch has cleverly taken out of commission the resource they would ordinarily go to in order to be informed of those rights.

 

In addition, as you know, Judge Rogers hides behind various smoke screens and cover ups that you each have experienced and has tolerated the isolation between our children and ourselves that has arisen as a consequence of the violation of Title II of Federal ADA law, all the while boasting of her pride and joy in her relationships with her own children.  Can any of you say "privileged"!!!!!!!

Judge Rogers "HOLDS" solid to the opinion that the ADA is not a defense in Court and that termination of parental rights is not a program, service, or activity as defined by the ADA and as such the Connecticut Courts and DCF are not obligated to comply with the ADA.  Imagine, in one single fell swoop, Judge Chase T. Rogers has simply wiped out decades of federal ADA law--what a remarkable level of arrogance!  For anyone who is interested, this issue arose during the Joseph Watley and Karin Hasemann case where the two were falsely accused of having mental illness that they do not have.  This is a violation of Prong 3 of Title II of Federal ADA law.

In her capacity as Chief Justice, Chase T. Rogers had refused to take ADA arguments denied by the lower Courts including the Appellate Court which has repeatedly denied litigants their ADA rights.  Further, she has held other misguided opinions, among other illegal opinions, that if a litigant did not ask for ADA protections back at the beginning of a case, they then lose the right to argue it in the present.  See Logan v. Logan, See Martocchio v. Savior, and others.

Hon. Chase T. Rogers as Chief Justice has full Supervisory Authority, yet she cowers behind her Black Robe, because she may someday be holding Supreme Court authority over an "active case".  What a convenient excuse for avoiding her legal obligation to address Disability Discrimination complaints, comments, requests, demands, and expectations.

Disability Discrimination is not supposed to be a part of or take place in any case; as such, disability discrimination complaints are not normally supposed to be in active litigation.  Disability Discrimination from and in the Courts are supposed to be handled administratively for efficiency in time and expense and to reflect a ZERO TOLERANCE policy to enforce a remedy for past disability discrimination.  It is there to eliminate current disability discrimination and prohibit future disability discrimination.  It is supposed to weed and ween out all disability discrimination and should have NO EFFECT on Judge Rogers Rightful Obligations to "active Case Review" as Chief Justice of The State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.  

I hope someone rises in opposition to address Hon. Chase T. Rogers reappointment.  I will try hard to make it, let me know the date, and I suggest input to the Judiciary committee prior to the public hearing.

Yours For Barrier Free Courts With Sober And Honest Judges, and Justices including Chief Justice, With Non Discrimination Attorneys, Vendors and other State Contractors!

If you have been isolated and segregated from your Children or families because of Disability Discrimination; DEMAND they be returned and that you receive a full remedy in equity and law as proscribed in the ADA

Sincerely,

 

Bill Mulready   

JUDGES UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT! MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN!

The following 16 judges whose terms are up in 2015 and are coming before the Judicial Selection Committee for reappointment.  If any of these judges were a problem for you in your divorce, make sure that you report their wrongdoing to the Judiciary Committee and hold these judges accountable.  The names of the judges up for consideration are below:

 

SUPREME COURT

 

Hon. Chase T.  Rogers

 

SUPERIOR COURT

 

Hon. James E. Abrams

Hon. R. Curtissa R. Cofield

Hon. Bernadette Conway

Hon. James J. Devine

Hon. Stephen F. Frazzini

Hon. Edward C. Graziani

Hon. Robin Pavia

Hon. Earl B. Richards, III

Hon. Vincent E. Roche

Hon. Robert B. Shapiro

Hon. Wilson J. Trombley

Hon. Robert F. Vacchelli

Hon. Elizabeth A. Gallagher

Hon. Robert A. Martin

Hon. Wendy W. Susco

 

Comments regarding the reappointment of any of the judges on the reappointment list for 2015 may be submitted to the Judicial Selection Commission, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT 06106 on or before January 31, 2014. 

 

Reappointment interviews of the listed judges will commence in February 2014 and continue through June 2014. 

 

Accordingly, comments received after January 31, 2014 will be considered if received prior to a judge's reappointment interview.  Anonymous submissions will be considered but afforded less weight than signed submissions.

CORRUPTCT REPORTS THAT JUDGES MUNRO, ADELMAN, AND WETSTONE ARE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR JUDICIAL ETHICS!

Recent news reports from Corruptct.com indicate that AFCC Judges Munro, Adelman, and Wetstone are in violation of their judicial ethics.  For more information on this matter, please click on the link below:

 

http://www.corruptct.com/corrupt/ct-judges-monroe-adelaman-wetstone-in-violation/