CAN PAUL BOYNE GET A FAIR TRIAL?

I'm a little out of practice on writing blogs so if I'm not so great writing this one, please forgive me.  However, I happened to see the Edmund H. Mahony article in The Hartford Courant , "Alleged cyberstalker case to go to trial", indicating that Paul Boyne's case is going to trial soon.  I felt I had to step up to the plate and speak out given that one of our own, Paul Boyne, is under attack.  Now, of course, I can hear you all saying--one of our own, what do you mean?  We aren't racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic.  And to be clear, I condemn hate speech of any kind, as I'm sure everyone in the family court reform movement does.

What I mean to say is that Paul is a person whose life was destroyed, as our lives were, by the family court system.  This made him lose his sense of proportion so that he spoke in ways that I'll bet the pre-family court Paul probably would never have considered.  If there is one thing I know about the suffering and pain family court causes people, it is that it can literally drive people out of their minds.  Still, despite the hate speech, despite the suffering and pain, Paul is the most giving person I know.  Over the years, in his work as a family court advocate, Paul has helped a great many people with their cases, selflessly and without pay.  This is why I'm here speaking out on his behalf.  Because any one of us can relate to Paul's situation--being a good, decent, human being and parent, and then damaged to the core by the harsh and cruel treatment meted out by the family court system.

I also believe that Paul Boyne speaks in these shocking ways not because he believes it, but because he thinks it is the only way to break through public complacency in the face of egregious family court corruption.  It is his way of shaking people and saying "Wake up!  Look at this terrible injustice that is going on!" It is very frustrating for all of us who are working for family court reform to deal with the fact that there is such an extensive coverup of the problems.  For example, when it came to the Jennifer Dulos case, the media spoke often about the fact that it involved a contentious and bitter custody dispute.  But they never explained how or why it became that way.  Without such explanations, the public will never know what was really going on.  So why don't we get them?  

My first reaction when I heard that Paul was going to trial is--how can he possibly get a fair trial? He is going to be on trial for attacking the very system that will stand in judgment on him.  His attorneys are officers of the very court system that he has been villifying.  Isn't there a major conflict of interest going on here?  I certainly think so.  There has been unfairness in Paul's case from the start.  This is a free speech case.  It is a case about the exchange of ideas, and how those ideas can be expressed.  For goodness sake!  What is he doing in jail for a whole year? Paul has no money.  Where is he going to go?  How would he flee? You may think his words are hateful and disgusting, but since when do we put people in jail for expressing their thoughts?  Here in America, how is that right under any circumstances?  Well, he insulted judges.  So what? Is there a section in the constitution stating that we cannot insult judges?  We can insult every one else, but not judges?  

The state argues that, apparently, in his blog posts Paul "identified them (judges), their homes, and even the cars they drive" and "suggested that violence is a remedy available to disgruntled family court litigants."  Yet they acknowledge that in all the time that Paul Boyne has been writing these blogs there have been no incidents of violence as a consequence.  It would be a good exercise to investigate whether other blogs around the country which also demonize certain people or groups have ever resulted in outbreaks of violence.  Just because people speak about violence in ways that prosecutors admit are vague and nonspecific, this doesn't automatically mean that the outcome will be violence against a person or persons.  The other question I ask is whether this particular kind of speech has been ruled illegal by any CT State Statute.  If prosecutors or judges or anyone else considers Paul's blog postings dangerous, it is their option to work on passing legislation to make it illegal so that Paul could have a specific law to rely on when he makes decisions on how to write his articles.  Without such legislation, we are at risk of silencing free speech simply because whether someone's written work is or is not bullying or hate speech depends upon the decision of a jury.  Meanwhile, you have to sit in jail waiting for your case to be adjudicated.  

I also want to make an objection to the term "cyberbullying" in regard to Paul.  Cyberbullying is when a person goes after his target on social media and via email and texting.  Paul is a blogger with a website posting his political and social viewpoint.  If you don't like it, don't go there.  With cyberbullying you are being attacked and a person is going after you.  If you go to read Paul's work, that is your choice.  When state prosecutors and journalists contextualize this case in a manner that is not in accordance with the facts and make deceptive choices in language that do not apply, this greatly misleads the public.  This is wrong.  

Another reason I'm sympathetic to Paul is that, as a blogger here in Connecticut, I have also had attorneys threaten to take me to court.  I was once threatened with jail if I didn't not reveal my sources in an article I'd written about a case.  One attorney went to the West Hartford police department and filed a formal complaint that I was blogging about family court cases. I have been illegally ordered out of the courtroom and threatened with security for no other reason than that I was sitting quietly in support of one of the parties. At another time, I cut and pasted an attorney's bio onto my blog which happened to include the fact that this attorney lived in West Hartford. It was information that came from the law firm's own website.  Nonetheless, they contacted me and told me they were considering suing me for "incitement to violence" for posting the information.  I immediately took it down because I do respect people's privacy.  However, from the beginning of my work as a blogger I have been well aware of the fact that I was taking on this task at my own risk.  It has not been easy and I've experienced a great deal of trauma and anxiety as a result. 

I may have more to say about this topic.  I have many difficult things going on in my personal life and so I may not have the time.  But one thing I will say is that we in the family court movement have repeatedly asked for an investigation of the family court system in regard to its failure to obey the law.  Unfortunately, there appear to be no vehicles for self scrutiny in place for the family court system.  This is pretty ridiculous given that I get asked for my opinion of the services I receive all the time--please hold for our quick survey--you know what I mean.  But family court seems to feel that they are above accountability.  That's pretty sad.  Apparently, in going after Paul Boyne state prosecutors have been investigating him scrupulously for five years. Imagine how many resources were tied up in that investigation.  I can't help wondering if, instead of going after Paul Boyne, legal professionals had invested that same energy and intelligence into investigating family court, Jennifer Dulos would be alive today.

LIST OF JUDGES UNDER REVIEW FOR REAPPOINTMENT! SOME MAJOR NAMES HERE!

NOTICE OF EVALUATION OF 

INCUMBENT JUDGES WHO SEEK REAPPOINTMENT

The terms of the following Judges of the State of Connecticut will expire during the year 2020 and the nominations by the Governor will come before the Judicial Selection Commission for review commencing in February 2019.

There are 14 judges with terms expiring in 2020:

 

         SUPERIOR COURT

                                                 

                                      Hon. John F. Blawie

Hon. Patrick L. Carroll, III

Hon. Anna M. Ficeto

Hon. Donna Nelson Heller

Hon. Frank A. Iannotti

Hon. Maureen M. Murphy

Hon. Sybil V. Richards

Hon. Dan Shaban

Hon. Kenneth L. Shluger

Hon. Hillary B. Strackbein

Hon. Mark H. Taylor

Hon. Theodore R. Tyma

Hon. Elpedio N. Vitale

SENIOR JUDGE

Hon. Jorge A. Simón

Comments regarding the reappointment of any of the Judges on the Reappointment List for 2020 may be submitted to the Judicial Selection Commission, 18-20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT 06106 on or before January 31, 2019.  Reappointment interviews of the listed Judges will commence in February 2019 and continue through June 2019.  Accordingly, comments received after January 31, 2019 will be considered if received prior to a Judge's reappointment interview.  Anonymous submissions will be considered but afforded less weight than signed submissions.  

                                        Robert S. Bello,

                                        Chairperson

FAMILY COURT VICTIMS NOT SORRY ABOUT THE DOWNFALL OF JUDGE JANE B. EMONS!

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.  

JUDGE JANE B. EMONS OUT! SEE CT MIRROR ARTICLE BELOW!

"LEGISLATORS USE THE CALENDAR TO KILL A JUDGES CAREER

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:

https://ctmirror.org/2018/05/04/legislators-using-calendar-kill-judges-career/

Ms. Mary Puzone speaks out agains Judge Jane B. Emons!

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 litigants

Thank 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.

CONNECTICUT VOTERS CONTINUE TO CALL INTO QUESTION JUDGE JANE B. EMONS FITNESS FOR RENOMINATION!

 Written by a Concerned Citizen

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 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 - 3:13-cv-00016-JBA, Nowacki v. Emons et al.

3:  2013 - 3:13-cv-00863-JBA, Sargent v. Emons et al.

4: 2014 - 3:14-cv-01869-JAM,Hansen-Hodgkinson v. Emons et al.

5:  2015 - 3:15-cv-00959-SRU, Whitnum v. Emons et al.

6:  2017 - 3:17-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.

REP. MICHAEL DIMASSA SAYS THE CT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

ATTORNEY PAUL GARLINGHOUSE CHALLENGES JUDGE JANE B. EMONS ON HER HANDLING OF A FATHER'S CASE!

REPS. JUAN CANDELARIA, ED VARGAS, AND ROBYN PORTER DEMAND FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

STATE REP. CHRISTOPHER ROSARIO SPEAKS OUT ABOUT FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IN THE CT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!