END OF THE ROAD HERE!

As a litigant, I am coming to the end of the road when it comes to my pursuit of litigation in the Connecticut Court System.  And I am afraid it is having somewhat of a bad effect. I am literally goofing off like mad.  Thus, in the last couple of weeks, I polished off Seasons 1 through 5 of Mad Men and I am now up to Season 4 of Entourage. 

 

Boy that Adrian Grenier can be so so charming! 

 

I do have one more document still to write and this is what I am supposed to be working on instead of writing this blog.  But, as I say, every time I try to focus on work, I keep on getting distracted by plain old fun. 

 

To be honest, I have been working on my lawsuit for such a long time now, I haven't really had much fun in like forever.  So now, fun takes me by surprise.  A long sunny day takes me by surprise.  Yesterday, I worked on a puzzle with my daughter, and we were able to get the moon done and the dragon done plus the frame.  I was like, this is so, so awesome. 

 

I sat around playing with the puzzle pieces, exclaiming over the successes of the project, laughed with my daughter, having a plain old good time, not worrying about this court hearing, and that court document, and this deadline, and that appointment.  I wasn't absent minded and disconnected like I often am because my situation puts so much sadness and heartbreak into my life.  I just enjoyed the moment and enjoyed the day. 

 

The problem with this, is that enforced not having that much to do in my case, just makes me so lazy and so unfocused.  So this is why I haven't written anything  valuable on this blog for quite some time. 

 

I wish I weren't like this.  Writing never comes easily to me.  I don't just switch on the faucet and flow.  There are times when I am able to write and other times when no matter how much I'd like to, I just can't do it.  I am not able to write for an endless amount of time each day.  Give me a couple hours or so, and I am done.  I wish it were different, but its not. 

 

Sometimes I really, really want to write, I walk up and down in my office,  I surf online looking for information, I hang around my computer staring at it longingly, but I am simply not able to get anything done with my writing. 

 

It doesn't help, of course, when I am in my current position, and anticipate that I am coming to the end of this chapter of the job. 

 

Of course, my plan is to continue on to federal court, but this remains a rather fuzzy, indefinite outline far in the distance. 

 

So I am in a situation where I'm inbetween things, sort of like that place where you have just graduated from college but haven't yet started graduate school.  I don't know how many of you recall "The Graduate" with Dustin Hoffman, how his life just drifted after he finished college.  I remember that when I finished college years ago, people would ask me what I intended to do with my life, and like the character in "The Graduate" I would say something like "I'm going to go into plastics." And the comment was always good for a laugh. 

 

In my spirit, right now, like Dustin Hoffman's character, I am lazing around on a raft in a swimming pool, sleeping late, mooching off my parents--maybe not quite having an affair with an older woman, but I must say I have been winking at my partner in a very meaningful way much more frequently than usual. 

 

It is a strange time for me.  Strangely quiet.  Strangely uneventful.  I will probably look back on this time as idylic when I am in the middle of my federal case, possibly well underway with my book on my experiences. 

 

We need these times, times to reflect on where we have been, where we are now.  And times to consider, are we doing what we want to do, what is right and what is best for ourselves and our families, for our communities. 

 

One of the special things about this blog, and about the work I do, and about pursuing my lawsuit, is that I know I am not just doing it for myself.  It is also a service to the community of other people who share my burdens, and also it is a service to my country.  I know that my hope and the hope of other activists is that by presenting these issues to the court for consideration, this country may find its way more clearly towards realizing the constitutional and humanitarian principles that it was founded upon. 

 

So my work is an avocation; it is a hope and a dream, a vision for the future which I share with so many people around this state. 

 

Sometimes I get frustrated because I feel like I don't quite succeed in what I am doing, or I may rub people the wrong way, but in the end, I know that if we can make even the smallest and most simple changes for the better, those small, simple changes will relieve parents and their children of so much pain and suffering, and that makes everything I am going through, writer's block, etc., worthwhile. 

 

Every day when I get up and do this work, I know that it is work that matters, work that makes an important difference in peoples' lives.  I know this is a big motivator for me, and also for my friends!  You know who you are!  So, today I am grateful.  I am grateful that I'm still standing, still writing, still hanging in there with my lawsuit demanding my legal rights, still holding the legal system to account.  One day, we will all have justice in family court.

MY FILE!

I spent a good part of yesterday going through my file making sure that I had all of the motions, letters, and court orders that should be in it.  I started with printing out my case detail and then went through my pile checking off what I did and did not have.  My stack of motions, etc. has expanded considerably since I started, but still I only have around 60% of my file.  How did that happen!  

I assume that this is simply because I am a litigant in a high conflict divorce.  As we all know, once you go over two years in family court, your brain becomes fully scrambled and you can no longer keep track of anything in your life.  Still, I thought I was better than that.  I have always thought to myself, I have had training as a secretary and so I have learned about organizing systems.  This won't be a problem for me.  

Unfortunately, it did become a problem for me because I relied on someone else to do the job.  Have you noticed how whenever you do that, the job gets f**ked up?

I have a friend who volunteered to come and help me.  She comes by every once and a while and gets busy with the court file, putting documents here and there, spreading them around on counters and floors, really looking like she is getting something done.  But really, the whole time she hasn't been doing anything else but getting the file more disorganized and losing more motions, etc.  

Deep down I always knew this was going on, but since I have been preoccupied running around going to hearings or putting together other motions, I never had adequate time to address the problem.  So while occasionally I would confront my friend and say, "What the heck are you doing?  I see no organization here, she would respond indignantly and say she had everything under control, and who was I to challenge that, knowing that she was my friend and supposedly on my side.  

However, I finally have had a stretch of good time to look into the situation, and boy have I been sorely disappointed to see what has been going on.  I am trying not to have a fight, so I am just calmly saying to my friend things like, we are missing the year 2007--that kind of thing.  Nothing judgmental, just stating facts.  But inside I am like, how can you lose an entire year, you complete and utter idiot!  

Of course, I should forget yelling at this friend.  She wasn't paid and she was trying to be nice and she just got lost in the shower of paper, the same as anyone would.  I should know better than to hand over this entire job to another person.  Ultimately, this is my file and I am the one responsible.  I know more than any other person how central it is for me to have an exact copy of my file.  Without such a copy, the opposing side can invent motions, rulings, and letters that don't exist or deny that I filed certain documents when I did and this have wreak havoc with my case.

Anything that I do for trial court requires a solid basis, and that solid basis fundamentally arises from a fully complete duplicate record of my trial court file.  I know that, so I should never have left this task to any other person than myself, because I am ultimately responsible, the buck stops right at my doorstep, and whatever consequences I have to bear because my file is not complete I will solely have to bear, not anyone else, not even my good friend who has been so hapless.  

This situation has caused me so much distress and anxiety that I stayed up late looking for missing motions until 2:00am last night and then I woke up fully aware and ready to go at 6:30am.  The real bummer is that if I can't locate most of the motions, I will have to go to trial court and request copies for $1.00 per page which could get to be expensive.  

I am so delighted when I find copies which are clearly stamped with the item # placed on the front.  Unfortunately, I am one of those people who created more motions than I filed and I did not think in advance to put a special notation on those motions that I created, but did not file.  So there are additional complications there.  

I would have been in such better shape if I had simply maintained my court file on a daily basis, keeping it constantly updated with every document verified as exactly the same as the original in the courthouse.  

But I am too hard on myself.  We all know how difficult it is to do the most simple common sense things when you are being pounded by family court.  

Still, for all you readers out there, I want to remind you, take another look at your copy of the trial court file.  Is it complete?  Is it exact?  If not, make it so.  The fundamental basis for a strong and effective lawsuit is a well kept court file.  

After that, take a look at your correspondence file.  Is that in chronological order as well?  Is it accurate and complete?  Make sure it is.  There is nothing more effective than being able to say with confidence, "I wrote you a letter on such and such date and said the following, and then you stated this, and I stated that."  Without such an ability your case will become crippled.  Again, if your correspondence file isn't straightened out, straighten it out now, without delay.  There is nothing more crucial to the health and success of your case than your ability to speak clearly and accurately.  

As for my friend, I will never trust her again with this task.  As they say, fool me once--shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me. 

GOING TO COURT AGAIN!

I recently found myself back at trial court, and what a bummer!  The anticipation began two weeks in advance when I looked at my calendar and was like, Oh My God! My mood immediately plummeted and I was so, so depressed. 

Even if I was the one who submitted the motions and got the ball rolling, I still hate to go to trial court. 

My process before going to trial court is quite intensive.  I usually take each of the motions that is going to be heard and I review them carefully, checking to see what evidence I will need in order to prove the facts that I have stated.  Then I get a large three ring binder with dividers and begin to collect that evidence and place it in the binder. 

Not only do I collect evidence, if there is any court document that I need to provide any kind of context, I will include that document.  Then I organize the documents by placing them in exactly the same order that I will be referring to them in my argument. 

Usually, I will place any of the important documents in my case that are referred to regularly right at the beginning of the notebook, even if there is only a distant chance that they will be needed.  Such documents would include the parenting agreement, the financial agreement, the prenuptial agreement, the custody evaluation, the psychological evaluations, etc. 

After that I ordinarily undertake a search at one of the law libraries for all relevant statutes, practice book references, and case law that will address the issues I have raised in my motions or by the motions on the other side. 

It is usually from this last exercise that I end up reporting results in my lovely blogs.  

After that, I usually have a bunch of miscellaneous questions that have to be answered by an investigation into my voluminous court file. 

To be honest, if I am lucky, the law will be clear on what I need to do or say, but sometimes it takes me months before I understand the meaning of what I've read.  There are legal points in my case that have taken me years to understand!

Once I have prepared everything in terms of the evidence and the legal basis for my motions, I then write up an argument by hand in my own handwriting, replete with underlining and daubed with various colored markers.  The argument is usually my final step. 

One of the real problems with this approach (even though it is essential to my process and thus unavoidable) is that it takes a lot of time and involves considerable shuffling and organizing papers, writing and revision of my presentation to the trial court.  It never fails to happen that I miscalculate how much time I need and I end up staying up all night the day before trial, so I come to court tired and crabby and then have to deal with the nonsense of the court personnel and end up wanting to bite off people's heads. 

And don't forget the buildup before trial court.  I would be interested to know if any of you get the buildup?  This includes my X staging confrontations that are unnecessary, putting the children deliberately at risk to upset me, failing to show up on time to pick up or drop off the children for visitation, so called "forgetting" to pay one of his financial obligations, or just sending me a bunch of nasty, accusatory emails. 

Another particularly annoying tactic is the opposing attorney will call the trial court and ask to have the hearing on the motions delayed or rescheduled for trumped up reasons, or even make it so impossible you end up not being able to have the motions heard at all.  My file is full of motions that never made it before a judge. 

Of course, the end result of the buildup is you are shrieking with irritation  by the time the court date arrives.  On top of that, you get the general rude and disagreeable behavior of trial court personnel.  You go to the clerk to find out which courtroom you are in and he insists that you step aside so he can help ten other people while the clock ticks closer to the time you are supposed to have the hearing.

Somehow you end up in family relations and these people are particularly hard faced and ugly minded.  Even though your X and his attorney are the source of the trouble by violating the law and lying bold faced, family relations will support your X and speak to you as though you are not only intellectually challenged but at fault for everything.  By the time you are done with them, usually you have a state marshall hovering around the entrance to the room. 

What gets me is the presumption they seem to operate with the YOU are bad when, in fact, it is the X and the attorney who are blatantly disregarding the law or any semblance of decency.  The disrespect and disregard does get to you.  So, of course, your blood pressure boils some more and you start having to work hard so you can maintain control of your emotions.  Because while doing everything possible to be incendiary, the Court will immediately refuse to work with you if you don't present yourself as cool, calm, reasoned and prepared. 

How do you get through it?  Well, a little benedryl doesn't hurt, but lots of deep breathing is helpful as well.  I have also learned to take my time during arguments before the court. I speak slowly and deliberately and if I have to find a document, I will say, "Just a moment, please" and take my time to locate what I need. 

As a rule of thumb, I would say that despite all law and all reason, I mostly lose, even when I should not.  Recently, I went to a hearing and, in a Motion to Sanction, proved irrefutably that the opposing attorney told outright lies in a pleading she submitted to the trial court.  The trial court denied my Motion to Sanction, nonetheless, stating that nothing the opposing attorney had said rose to the level of the Motion to Sanction. 

How much does a lie have to be a lie before you have violated your attorney's oath not to lie under any circumstances?  When is enough enough?  I'd love to hear it!

But that is the thing--you bring in what you think is enough evidence, and the trial court will say, we don't have enough.  Of course, you have more evidence at home.  I have multiple examples of the opposing attorney lying, but the opportunity for that motion is gone and I would have to file another motion in order to provide that additional evidence.  Whatever it is, judges always have an excuse not to do what the law says you ought to do. 

So, inevitably, a day in trial court is traumatic because you end up having done all that preparatory work and have nothing to show for it and you have been beaten over the head by the X, the opposing attorney, court personnel, etc., etc. and have nothing to show for it. 

Of course, every once in a while you may get an encouraging ruling, but that seems engineered as well, either for the purposes of continuing the litigation so everyone makes money, or to raise hopes, just to dash them again a few months later with a decisive denial.  The Trial Court, as well as other branches of the court, have multiple ways to deflect, defer, and delay the proper resolution of the cases that are put before them. 

If there is one phrase that I repeat to myself the most often it is, "Justice delayed is justice denied."  For example, with the Joe Watley case, there have been so many rulings, maneuverings, reconsiderations, appeals, and reappeals that almost a decade has gone by while the parents have been denied their parental rights.  I have no doubt that in many cases where this happens, it is done intentionally.

Trial court is no longer the scary place it once was.  I know when I go there that whatever happens I will survive and I will maintain my self respect.  It is interesting to see how many of the attorneys working with clients both inside the courtrooms and in the corridors are my former attorneys, or else they are attorneys I have consulted for second opinions along the way.  So there are so many familiar faces. 

The ones that have been the most evil unfailingly come up to me and wish to shake my hand and/or engulf me in a warm embrace.  Since I am unable to just say "fuck you" which is my most natural gut response, having been brought up to be considerably polite, I usually oblige while making suitably cutting remarks with a smile on my face.  In the days when mental health professionals were chasing me around trying to deny me custody of my children, they would call that kind of  behavior on my part "denied aggression."  I am not sure how they would define what the attorneys are doing.

On the way home, my advocate and I have a debriefing session where we go over my presentation and review what was said.  Even though it probably isn't the greatest time, I talk about the mistakes I made, any incongruities in the trial courts ruling, and then just to relieve the pressure I make fun of everyone I dealt with and laugh like hell.

When I get home, I usually take all the court documents I took with me and throw them in the corner and ignore them for several days until I'm emotionally capable of managing what happened.  I normally order transcripts of the hearing, and then all of it gets put into place as a resource to consult with for my next court appearance.  It's exhausting and stressful and probably not worth the trouble, but still I am not defeated because, as T.S. Eliot once said, "I keep on trying."

LIFE WITH OR WITHOUT FATHER, THAT'S THE QUESTION ON FATHER'S DAY

I was sitting in Starbucks a few days ago and it all of a sudden hit me. I turned to a fellow at a neighboring table and asked, "Is father's day this upcoming weekend?" 

He told me "yes".
 

I'm not sure why I chose that time to ask. Father's day had been breathing around the corner for quite some time by then. Just around the middle of May I began to feel that tense feeling in my stomach, the feeling that I have to do something and I'd better not forget. 

Trying to be good ex wife, I immediately sent a quick email to my ex asking him if there was anything special he would like to do for father's day and could I help with the arrangements to get him and the kids together for a celebration. You see, this weekend is not his weekend, so technically based on our parenting plan (clearly this is not everybody's parenting plan), I don't really have to let them get together.

We put together an arrangement which involves me doing a lot of driving I'd rather not have to do. Then I got a snippy email from him telling me to make sure the kids pick out a nice card for him as if that is apparently my job. And by the day before, which is now, I'm wondering whether this is what I really wanted to do

It is kind of a difficult dance here. On the one hand, my ex is the kids' father, but then, on the other hand, look at what he did. If I help get the kids together with their Dad, am I endorsing all those things that he did to hurt me and the children? Am I somehow saying that it is acceptable what he did? 

What kinds of messages am I sending and what lessons do I want my children to walk away with after this weekend of celebrating father's day with their Dad. Early today I said to my daughter, "I'd like you to pick out a very nice card for your Dad when we go to the store." "But he doesn't deserve it." says my daughter. 

So what do you say to that. Now, from that comment, please don't get the idea that I spend all my waking hours bad mouthing their Dad. In fact, I would like them to get along with their Dad and have a relationship with him. On the other hand, certain truths are pretty clear to the children.

They have figured out that when the electricity has been cut off in the past it isn't because some drilling in the street broke a cable; it's because I didn't have the money to pay the bill because Dad didn't pay child support. They have figured out that when I walk away from the house to talk to Dad on the phone outside of their hearing, it isn't just that I need privacy, it is because I am crying when I'm talking, or I'm upset about some new outrage that I have no control over because I don't have any attorney or a family court system to protect me. And I don't want them to know so that they get caught up into the situation. And these are the milder things that have happened.

They are old enough to see the situation very clearly and it is harder to pretend. So when they make remarks acknowledging the problems with Dad, and when they refuse to get something nice for Dad on father's day, should I validate their feelings and let them do what they want to do, or insist that they act like good citizens regardless of what is going on or how they feel.

Sometimes I feel as if no matter what I do, they are going to be harmed nonetheless.

One approach I often take is to say, yes, Dad has disappointed you in the past in regard to this or that particular area, but do you remember what a great sense of humor he has, or wasn't that fun to go on the field trip to the museum together. 

Of course, this would be much easier for me to do if what my ex had done wasn't so severely damaging. So I'm not lying, but I am ackowledging whatever strengths he has, no matter that privately I think those strengths in no way make up for all the harm he has done, and he has done considerable harm. For example, they already know that we have no money to pay for their college education because it took every dime I have to make sure that I would have residential custody. 

I have heard that it is important for children to have a father in order to grow up properly, but seriously, does it make sense for them to maintain a relationship with a father who is a schmuck? What do studies say about children who maintain relationships with schmucky fathers after divorce? I'd really like to know the answer to the question. 

Of course, I can't be sure whether my kids are telling me everything they feel about their father. To what extent could they be trying to play up the negative in a mistaken attempt to please me. Aren't there areas of relationship between these children and their father that is unique to that relationship and that I may never fully grasp? Even though I find it hard to believe that this special space still exists between my children and their Dad, aren't I obligated to make these meetings happen just in case it does, just in case it matters? Or am I just kidding myself? 

There are many occasions that happen like this, the confirmations I remind my ex of, or the graduations and award ceremonies, where I send an email saying, "Don't forget..." and provide times, locations, and directions, acting like I used to when we were married. "Don't forget your golf shirt, and do you have your cell phone, and pick up a box of donuts when you go." Maybe it is time for me to stop arranging, to stop taking responsibility. 

For this year, we will still all pack into the car and I will drop the kids off at our meeting place. For this year, I have been able to convince myself I am doing the right thing. It is a statement I am making that there is still hope for our kids and their Dad. And no matter how bad it gets, it means something to me to be able to preserve that hope. Without it, I would feel as though there was a death in the family.  So, next year, I may feel differently, but for now, I'm not going to think that far ahead.

THINGS THAT MAKE ME FEEL BAD

I was at the doctor's office yesterday and, talking about things that make me feel bad, I just want you guys to know that I weigh altogether too much.  Ever since my divorce broke out years ago, I have gained approximately 45 pounds of pure flubber.  The reason why is because every time I have trouble thinking through a legal problem in one of my motions, I have a bad habit of opening up a bar of chocolate just to help me in my thought processes, so to speak.  So now I've had to buy a whole new wardrobe in 1X, luckily on sale, but still, that's expensive, so that makes me feel bad as well. 

The other thing that gets me down is that look on my doctor's face when I told her my divorce was still going on.  Some people, she says looking at me meaningfully, figure out that they should just cut their losses and move on!  If only I could.  What is it you are fighting about now?  She asks.  My mind goes over the last few years and quickly touches upon all the areas of litigation that are currently open.  My heart sinks.

I looked at her dismayed guinea pig face with that earnest look enveloping it and wondered, does she have the rest of the day to listen to what is going on now?  I mean seriously?  Honestly?  Concluding quickly that she did not have the time I cut my description of my case really short and said something vague like,  "Well, he keeps on taking me to court."  And also, "There are just quite a few ongoing proceedings in the case." 

"But you are divorced, aren't you?" asked the good doctor.  That's the thing that puzzles so many people.  But you are divorced--right?  What possible legal action could take place after you are  divorced?  And the implication goes further, "Unless you are chasing after your poor old ex and trying to hurt him, you mean old bitchy ex wife?" 

It is unspoken, but definitely there.  Why else would you keep litigating in Trial Court with your ex for so long.  There has to be something the matter with you.  This, my dears, is one of the things that make me feel bad more than anything else.  I hate that look, the once over with the eyes, the judgment, the condemnation which leaves me spluttering with some kind of defensive comment on the level of, "I really am a good person.  I really, really am.  I know you don't think so, but I actually am not responsible for what has gone on." 

But that usually incoherent conglomeration of rolling explanations usually goes unnoticed because people who have made up their minds about you have made up their minds, and nothing you say, nothing about how well you dress or how well you speak or how clean and well scrubbed your children are will make any difference. 

The worst of it is, ok, here is my confession, don't hate me too much, the bottom line is that I'm not in court about the children any more, I am in court about money.  Yes, money, filthy lucre, you are correct.  I won the child custody thing a long time ago, but then this thing about unreported bank accounts showed up and I was off and running. 

Now, if I knew how the courts would turn the financial issue into the most ridiculous example of the court and attorneys churning a case for all the money it is worth, I wouldn't have touched litigation with a ten foot pole.  But at the time I had no clue, and now I'm stuck with it.  Because if I stop, I have a mountain of debt that will fall onto me and my children that is so great that we will be impoverished for the rest of our lives.  

So there you have it folks, I am not nobly seeking the custody of my children, I'm just trying to hold off debt and grab hold of money.  Talking about things that make me feel bad.  That certainly makes me feel bad. 

Somehow there is something squalid and ignoble about insisting on your fair share of the money in a divorce.   You should just walk away with nothing, hold your head up high and let him be the rich scumbag and be satisfied with that.  Of course, it is hard to feed and clothe and house young children when your only coin is pride. 

It's like the people who judge me about insisting on litigating over money don't see that a victory in custody when you are living in a dump without any food and no hope for the future because you can't pay for it really isn't much of a victory.  Plus, if you don't have any money, even if you have the children in the custody arrangement, if you can't afford to provide a roof over their heads or pay their basic expenses, you won't be holding onto the kids for very long.  None of that computes for all the people who try to made me feel bad, who indeed succeed in making me feel bad about fighting for the money. 

I have enemies.  No, seriously, I actually do.  One of them called me the other day and in so many words asked me why I'm not on the street by now considering the length and complexity of the litigation I've undergone.  And I'll tell you why I'm not on the street.  It's because I worked my butt off.  Because I did the intellectual equivalent of lifting up a car with my bare hands, all for my children. 

But still, when I try to explain that to strangers, to acquaintances who don't know me well, to people who actually think our judicial system actually acts judicially, and I see the judgment in their faces, I'll tell you guys, I feel really bad, disheartened, unworthy.  I feel that way even though I shouldn't, because I tell you, money is essential to the happiness and wellbeing of my children. 

What would I do without money for their medicines, for soap, toothpaste, the cost of which I tell you, adds up. Without money, these kids wouldn't be anywhere, and anyone who tells you otherwise is a gosh darned liar, in my opinion.  Not that we can't live reduced life styles, but live without shelter, food, or clothing, live without gas to put in your car, or even without a car--not in your life, baby. 

Ok, but even if, I grant you, I wasn't fighting for the basics, but instead I was fighting so my daughter could have the same birthday party celebration her best friend had, or so that my other daughter can plan on going to the same kind of college her girlfriends are planning on going to, or if I was fighting so that my girls could go to that educational summer camp that will give them a boost in their CMT scores, or if I was fighting for the horseback riding lessons my youngest daughter always wanted, would that be so awful.  Would you condemn me?  Would you want to use that information to make me feel bad about myself?  Because, yes, sometimes I've been fighting to get money for just those kinds of things.  I'll admit it.

Finally, I always imagined that if I divorced, my divorce would be amicable.  I hoped that I would impress people with how simple it would be, and how quickly my ex and I would come to agreement, and then I thought people would be impressed with how maturely I handled the situation. Unfortunately, with a psychopath and a manipulator who drags litigation out in each and every technical detail, a situation that will never happen.  

By now years have gone by, the legal issues have become very complex and hard to explain.  And it is easy for people to jump to the conclusion that I'm just the evil ex wife.  And  when I try to explain to people that my ex lied and cheated, that he deceived me for years, that he is able to manipulate within the legal system on an ongoing basis and get away with murder to the point where I am trapped in a cycle of litigation I can't get out of, they simply don't believe me.

They think that I must be doing something wrong to be in the position I am in.  And that truly makes me feel bad.  I wish I lived in a different world, a world where it isn't OK to abuse women and children within the legal system, where it isn't OK to stand back and watch people like me suffer and do nothing, a world where psychopaths don't have the freedom to abuse as they please within the judicial system. But that is not the world that I live in.  And yes, that makes me feel very bad. 

But I hold onto my conviction that I am doing the very best for  my children, and that one day they will understand the principles that drove me to take the actions that I did.  How much I loved them, how much I have always loved them, that I would do anything for them. It is a small hope, but it is an inspiring one.  So when my children return from visitation, and make critical and mocking remarks that make me feel bad, and tell me, "Why don't you just leave Dad alone and stop causing him trouble in court." I take comfort in the fact that the work I do fighting for my rights in court, working as an advocate and writing this blog will make a difference in the lives of other people who are going through the same things that I am going through, and that one day my children will see that.

So what is it that makes you feel bad?  Let us know so we can examine the issue and see what we can do about it!

THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM AND FAMILY COURT

As a litigant, when you walk into Family Court, the official story is that you are walking into a system that is operating according to what is known as the Adversarial System.  I don't think it is necessarily the first thing most litigants think about, but they should think about it, because the nature of the system has everything to do with the outcome of the cases they bring to Family Court. 

According to Wikipedia, the Adversarial System is a legal system where two advocates, each representing either the Plaintiff or the Defendant, faceoff and represent their parties' position before an impartial judge or jury and the intention is to determine the truth of the case. 

The Adversarial Process has its origins in the medieval mode of trial by combat where certain litigants, particularly women, were allowed a champion to represent them.  Think of Heath Ledger in "A Knight's Tale"! 

The idea behind the Adversarial Process is that two equally skilled advocates who argue their cases before an impartial judge can arrive at the truth.  Fundamental to this process is the concept of the examination and cross examination of witnesses and the presentation of reliable and relevant evidence, thus the development of the rules of evidence.  The attorneys are there to argue the case, determine which evidence and witnesses should be presented to the judge and/or jury, and the judge plays the role of neutral observor who makes sure that both sides adhere to proper Court procedures.  In the end, the judge could be the one to determine what is the verdict or else it could be a jury.  

The Adversarial System presents a contrast to the Inquisitorial System in which a judge or a group of judges work together to investigate a case.

In the Adversarial System, once a Defendant admits to a crime, the process is over, since you know who is guilty.  This means that the Adversarial System allows for opportunities for negotiations, agreements, and plea bargaining, and often many cases don't even end up going to trial. 

In contrast, when it comes to the Inquisitorial System, the fact that a Defendant has admitted to a crime means nothing and the proceedings will still continue, so there is little if any room for the Parties to work things out independent of a trial under that system.   

So, do we really have an Adversarial System in the Family Court System in Connecticut?  That's the big question, because a lot of us are saying that it appears to us as though Attorneys for both sides get together in a back room, make up their minds regarding how the divorce is going to go, and then play the rest of it all off as show.  And while they are at it, they cash in on as much money as they can get from the litigants.

What others are experiencing is a situation where they can't get an attorney to represent their position, and are left in the stigmatizing and compromised situation of having to represent themselves.  Some of these people have interviewed dozens of attorneys, but have been unable to get an attorney to represent them.  And this may not be simply a matter of lack of agreement with what a litigant is asking them to do, but also a fear of ostracism within the profession.  No attorney wants to take on a case that their peers have decided is not worthy of representation, a decision that is often based upon discriminatory attitudes regarding race, gender, or disability as well as other misplaced social and cultural values.  Then, to get you to shut up and go away, these lawyers will lie to you and tell you that you have no case based upon the law. when in fact you do.  So, nothing adversarial going on here.

This is a denial of citizens' access to justice by the denial of any access to attorney representation.

Granting the whole thing isn't a sham, which I suspect it is, in my experience of participating in Family Court Trials, there appears to be a mixture of both The Adversarial System and the Inquisitorial System going on in Family Court, particularly during the hearings on issues brought before the Short Calendar which usually take around 15 to 20 minutes.  In these hearings, the Trial Court Judge isn't simply a neutral, impartial factfinder, sitting back sagely while the attorneys present their cases, and only commenting to make a determination.  On the contrary, these judges play a significant role in asking questions, examining and cross examining litigants and witnesses in ways that ordinarily only an attorney would do, as well as explaining Court Procedures to litigants who are often self represented.  Judges will sometimes express opinions or draw conclusions about the evidence presented to the Court, a role which would ordinarily be left to expert witnesses, were they there to provide testimony. 

This can lead judges into a situation where they make memorable remarks, some of them sharply derogatory of litigants, which can lead to lasting bitterness and anger.  It can also lead judges to intrude into the process in a way that calls into question their neutrality and their willingness to adhere to the law.  In these circumstances, in family court, the so called adversarial process, if there is one, breaks down entirely.

So  does it make sense to have the Adversarial System or some modified version of the Adversarial System in Family Court?  Some people believe that this system is the only way to ferret out the truth and to hold the Court to a high standard of accountability when it comes to applying the law to the evidence.  However, as this discussion shows, in family court, this doesn't seem to be working.

What is more, there are problems unique to family court which make the adversarial system detrimental for the litigants.  Specifically, this is a system in which you have only two Parties, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and only one can be the Victor which pretty much leaves the other as the Loser.  If the children are sucked into the proceedings in a dispute over custody, they often end up as pawns in the battle.  Even when everything is done to protect them from the harm that can result from a custody battle, they can end up injured simply because their relationship with either one parent or the other is under dispute. 

Futhermore, in Family Court such considerable sums of money are often spent on legal fees, much of it out of college funds for the children or from financial resources intended the secure the family's future, that the financial damage occurring as the result of a divorce action can end up lasting for years, and the litigants may never even be able to recover. 

In situations like this, and there are many of them, no matter that the Plaintiff or the Defendant may end up on paper as the Victor, ultimately both sides lose.

Not only that, one of the unique aspects of divorce, as opposed to criminal or civil law, is that after the trial or the settlement of the case, a good majority of the time both sides can't simply just walk off and never see each other again.  Whether they won or lost, they will be required to work together for the best interests of their children for years subsequent to their Court Case.  They will have to consult regarding the childrens' academic achievements, regarding summer and holiday vacations, regarding medical and religious decisions, and eventually participate in weddings and baptisms of grandchildren. 

If a legal divorce proceeding is all about how to destroy the other side and grind the other side into smithereens, how can the litigants then be expected to work together jointly on behalf of their children after all that damage has been done?  And if they do so much damage that the other side is too crippled to proceed further in living a productive life, what is the consequence of that other than harm and destruction to the children of the marriage?  

I don't have any quick solutions to this problem.  However, I do think that vast numbers of litigants have already recognized this problem and are revolutionizing the Family Court System by choosing to represent themselves.  At this point, up to 80% of litigants in Family Court are self represented.  This is an extraordinary vote of no confidence in the attorneys here in the field of family law in the State of Connecticut.     

Finally, what is my solution?  I'd like to propose that we ask our representatives to pass legislation that would limit the amount of money that attorneys, GALs, and mental health professionals are able to earn in any divorce.  Once it is no longer possible to profiteer on the suffering brought on by divorce, and once there is no longer a benefit to be had by inciting litigants into lengthy and expensive legal proceedings, then we will see the development of more sensible and reasonable approaches to divorce.

TAKING THE LONG WALK!

As you know, I have been dealing with Appellate Court for most of 2011 and the experience is beginning to wear away at me.  Today I received three orders of the Appellate Court denying my motions.  I'm like, what is this? I'm cute, I'm good looking, I have a compelling argument--how could you possibly deny me? 

Along with this more recent annoyance, I have also begun to suspect that I'm been played with by some of the Appellate Clerks.  More specifically, I have had Court Clerks refuse to accept motions I submitted stating that they were not in the right format when I know very well that the opposing attorney submitted motions using the exact same format which were accepted. 

The first and second time I confronted them on this issue, the clerks stated that they had not received any such documents from the opposing attorney.   What is more, they said, since the format was incorrect, they wouldn't accept any such documents and that they were not in the Court File. I came in twice and on two occasions the clerks assured me of this. 

Then I came in another time and--low and behold!!!--they found out that they had the documents all along and that they had accepted them despite the so called improper format. As a result, I missed the opportunity to respond to these motions because I wrongly believed they had not been officially submitted to the Court. 

When I then challenged the Clerks about accepting the opposing attorney's documents even though they said they were in an incorrect format and wouldn't accept them, all of a sudden they had an excuse saying it was OK with the particular document she had submitted.  So I then submitted my motions which were exactly the same as the opposing attorney's motions, using the same format as the opposing attorney in my case, and they again insisted the format was wrong and that I couldn't hand it in. 

I'm like, didn't you just tell me it is ok and didn't you just show me how you accepted the exact same format in motions submitted by the opposing attorney.  Oh, no, they said, you have to have this prescribed format no matter what. 

So I said, well you didn't ask the opposing attorney to do that.  So, I'm like, what is this, I'm getting nonsense every time I come down here.  I need fresh air.  I need a new crew of people.  I need the Federal Court--right now--today! 

To effectuate this change, I called my Case Manager at Appellate Court whom I will call Mr. Joe Schmoe.  Mr. Schmoe, I say, I would like to transfer my case to Federal Court, so what is the procedure for doing that?  Can I transfer it now or do I have to wait until the Appellate Court arrives at a decision?  Well, says Mr. Schmoe, I truly have no idea about that.  You would have to go to Federal Court and ask a Federal Court Clerk that question. 

This is where my reference to "taking the long walk" comes in.  The Federal Court in this area is somewhat of a hike from the Family, Civil, Criminal, Appellate and Supreme Courts so you have to take a bit of a long walk to get there.  So I took that walk.  And, of course, symbolically it is a long walk, a walk, supposedly into a more cosmopolitan, and legally sophisticated level of jurisprudence.  Or at least you hope!

I was met at the door by Men in Black Suits who provided building security.  This was in considerable contrast to the blue workmen uniforms of security guards in the State of Connecticut Courthouses.  Already, I felt like I was taking a step up. 

I obtained directions to the Federal Clerk's Office which is downstairs in the basement of the building. 

The Clerk's Office was a very large room with the service counter at a considerable distance from the clerk's desks.  There was an old fashioned silver bell there for me to ring for service, but I was not happy with the idea of ringing it; it seemed so 1920s.  There were no other customers in the office, which gave me the impression that not many people come in there. 

Eventually, a nice lady came up to me and asked me whether she could help me.  I was like, Yes, I want to transfer my Appellate Court case from State Court over to Federal Court, so how would I do that?  The clerk answered, I am really not sure.  I think you would have to ask at the Appellate Court to get an answer to that question. 

But Appellate Court told me to come down here and ask you, I responded. 

I can't say anything about that, says the clerk, but you would have to ask an Appellate Court clerk for an answer to the question. 

I responded, but you ought to know how this works.  Isn't this your business? 

No, we are not allowed to give out legal advice, answers the clerk. 

But this isn't legal advice, I said, this is simply a request regarding your procedures.  I would like to know what are the procedures involved in getting a case moved over here. 

When the clerk realized that I intended to stand there stubbornly continuing to ask questions, she said why don't I check with my supervisor and ask what she thinks. 

Then off the Clerk went and disappeared in the maze of desks where I knew people must be hidden, but couldn't see anyone.  Eventually, the clerk came back and said, you really need to ask Appellate Court. 

So I responded, don't you have anything that you can show me in the Federal Practice Book that provides guidelines, or do you have any book that gives you information on how to proceed? 

Let me just check, she says, goes back to her desk and returns with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and after around ten minutes she gets to the page about removing a case from State Court to Federal Court.  The first thing she lets me know is that most of the time it is Defendants that come to Federal Court and not Plaintiffs. 

Already, I was feeling bad since I am a Plantiff. 

She also told me that most of the time litigants come directly to Federal Court from Superior Court.  And again, I am not feeling so good because I left Superior Court a while back and I'm now in Appellate Court. 

Does being a litigant already in Appellate Court preclude you from transferring your case to Federal Court, I asked?  I don't know, answered the clerk, you would have to ask the Appellate Court whether that is the case.  Honestly, I answered, you have all these litigants coming to file cases here in Federal Court and you have never dealt with the case like mine?  Not you or anyone else in this office?  Are you for real about that?  Yes, she says, I simply don't know.  I have never dealt with a situation like this. 

Then just as if it is an afterthought, the Clerk says, we do have a Handbook for Self Represented Litigants in Federal Court.  Would you like a copy of it?  I'm like Praise the Lord--of course I would. And I took a moment to congratulate myself that I'm one of those people who keeps on hanging around asking questions no matter how many times I'm told "no".  Because If I'd accepted this Clerk's first response that I should check with Appellate Court, and if I had just picked myself up and left, I never would have found out about that Handbook!  Being persistent and annoying works!

So we get out the Handbook of Federal Procedure for Self Represented parties and looked up removal of cases.  What it said is that a Plaintiff has to file a complaint with Federal Court in order to remove a case to Federal Court while a Defendant has to file a Notice of Removal. 

I pointed out that it looks as though the Plaintiff only has to file a complaint, forget the Notice of Removal.  But the clerk disagreed with me.  She asked, how will the court know you have left their jurisdiction if you don't file a Notice of Removal?  I'm like, I don't know, because they'd get a copy of the complaint?  Still, the wording seemed a little iffy to me, so I continued to feel that I didn't have enough information.  And at that point it became clear that I'd milked the Clerk for all she could give me.  So I left.

On the way back to my car, I got on my cell phone and called Appellate Court.  I explained my problem to the Appellate Court Clerk.  How can I transfer my case from the Appellate Court to Federal Court.  What is the procedure?  Do I have to wait for a ruling in Appellate Court before transferring or can I just skip the whole thing and move on to Federal Court? 

Again, I got my answer.  You would have to speak to a Federal Court Clerk about that because we do not have that information.  Well, I said, I just spoke to a Federal Clerk and she said that I would have to get the answer from an Appellate Court Clerk.  Well, says the Clerk, I don't have that information.  And I'm not allowed to give you legal advice.  This isn't legal advice, I said.  I am simply asking you a question about procedure.  Well, says the Clerk, I really don't have the answer to that. 

Does that mean you have never been asked this question before, I asked?  Nobody has ever gone to Federal Court from Appellate Court before?  No, says the clerk, I just simply don't know.  So how would I get that information, I asked.  You would have to speak to the Case Manager, says the Clerk. 

Ok, I say, could you transfer me to Mr. Schmoe?  No, Mr. Schmoe isn't in right now, says the Clerk.  Oh, he isn't, I said, so where is he?  I don't know, says the Clerk.  Is he in today?  I ask.  Well, yes, he is, says the Clerk, but I don't know where he is.  Is he in Court I ask?  We are not paid to keep track of where our Case Managers are, says the Clerk.  Well, is he in Court or at his desk? I asked, (Seeing as I'm getting the runaround feeling and I've had too much of the runaround feeling today, and along with the I'm beginning to feel a little bit jokey, now.  I'm beginning to toy with the guy a bit, I admit, but still I am well within my rights to know the answers to my questions--honestly!) 

How can I get to speak to Mr. Schmoe, I ask.  Ok, Mrs. Sloper, says the clerk,  (just beginning to figure out what a comedian I am) I've done as much as I can today.  I've told you as much as I can, his voice fading away indicating he's ready to move on.  But, I say quickly, could you connect me first to Mr. Schmoe's voice mail?  But the Clerk has already hung up. 

So I called back and some other Clerk answers.  Could you connect me to Mr. Joe Schmoe's voice mail I say, and I leave the message including my detailed question. 

Will I hear back from Mr. Schmoe?  Well, it's several hours later and the work day is coming to a close and I still haven't heard from him.  Will I be able to get a straight answer from him about the procedure for transferring a case to Federal Court?  I doubt it.  By rights, I should get one, but the likelihood is still very low.

The big question is, the question I walk away with, is, why do they give people such a runaround.  Why do they make it so difficult for citizens in the State of Connecticut to find their way to Federal Court so they can gain access to their civil rights?  It's a good question.  Going to Federal Court shouldn't be such a tough job. 

JAC PATRISSI AND LUNDY BANCROFTS NEW BOOK: SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO!

LETTERS FROM THE OPPOSING ATTORNEY

It is a lovely Sunday afternoon, the sun is shining, the birds are singing and...oh heck.  Guys, I have a problem. 

I've had a problem for a week now.  I'll tell you what it is.  I have two letters sitting on my desk from the opposing attorney in my case. 

Let me take a look at them.  Oh, they are thick.  What do you think?  Should I open them and ruin my lovely day?

That's the question. 

As soon as I open these two letters and read the contents I will be pissed off. Why?  Because I am always pissed off at what the opposing attorney has to say.  That's why.  Remember how your Mom told you, "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say it at all."  Well, the opposing attorney wasn't there for that lesson. 

So there I'll be having a nice day, similar to the one I've described in my opening line and then I will receive one of those darned letters from the opposing attorney and my day is ruined, sometimes not even my one day but several days.  Not only is my day ruined but my relationships with others also, my ability to think straight, literally everything.  That is how bad it is. 

Ok people.  I'm touching these two envelopes, two fat plump envelopes that sink into my fingertips.  What do you say?  Should I just get it over with, or just wait another day and at least have today to enjoy.  I'm just not sure. 

Earlier in the week I didn't open the letters because I had a few legal papers I needed to get submitted to court and I wanted to be able to get them done without interference.  That was my excuse for not opening these letters.  Now the legal work is done I don't have any more excuses, but still I haven't opened them.

Do I need to be pissed off?  Do I need to be annoyed? Wouldn't I prefer to play yahtzee with my daughter?  Yes, actually, yes, is actually the answer to that question. 

Now, you, gentle readers, must now be thinking to yourselves, does she do this EVERY TIME a letter comes in from the opposing attorney.  Yes, actually, again, yes, is actually the answer to that question. 

I walk around with letters from the opposing attorney unopened; I stick them on kitchen counters, and next to bathroom sinks.  I bring them into the bathroom with me and turn them over while I'm on the toilet.  I put them inbetween the pages of my notebooks, I stuff them down my pants and throw my shirt over them to prevent my partner from seeing them.  I dump them on the floor of my car.  I blank out about them, forget they exist and leave them on the garage stairs.  You mention it, I've done it to those letters. 

Why?  Because they are nothing but trouble.  Years ago, when my divorce was new, and I still had a few remaining drops of adrenaline in my body, I would get churning feelings in my stomach at the sight of these letters.  The veins on my forehead would throb and my teeth would clench. I would even open the letters quickly because I was so angry about the situation, I wanted to respond right away with a volley of letters all my own. 

Now I'm like, nope, I'm fine, thank you very much.  You can just stay there right where you are on my dresser underneath the bottles of perfume.  My body feels dead, silent, disinterested, indifferent. 

Still, not opening the letters is a torture unto itself.  Everywhere I go I have this naggy feeling of incompleteness in my head, the needling irritation that arises from a task left undone that must inevitably be done.  People who work with me on the case, who have learned to keep their mouths shut about my irrational letter related behavior, still have the courage to shoot me meaningful looks and raise their eyebrows in the direction of my office and deny they have done so when I call them on it. 

Of course, there are deadlines, and I only have so much time to respond to the opposing attorney.  So, I do have to open the letters some time.  But when. When?  That is the question.  The tearing sound of paper, the rip, rip, rip.  Oh, it's awful.  I can't bear it.  I'm not going to do it.  Not now.  Of course, there are risks to this kind of constant evasiveness, like opening the letters and realizing I had to respond to them yesterday and the opportunity has been lost.  Yes, the deadlines, the deadlines, which I just mentioned.  They don't go away no matter how much you wish them away. 

I look outside my window.  The sun is shining.  The neighbor's poodle is chasing falling leaves around the driveway.  How I wish I were the poodle and not this person that I am, the person who has to open these two envelopes. 

Maybe I should just put them down for now, take a walk, breath deeply, put the evil moment off, for just this minute, this hour, whatever it takes to make me strong enough.  But I will never be strong enough.  Ultimately, I just have to do what I am able to do, the very best that I can.  And that is all anyone can ask of me. 

And I keep in mind that things do get better.  I used to be so terrified of the opposing attorney I couldn't even speak to him or call his secretary on the phone.  Now if I have something to say, I just speak up or get on the phone.  There comes a point where you just don't care any more. 

In the end, nothing, nothing is as horrifying and as intimidating as the opposing attorney in a high conflict divorce, particularly when you are on the losing side.  But once you get over that fear, nothing will ever frighten you again.  And there is something very liberating, very freeing, about that. 

So now, here I go. I have one of the letters in my hand and its time to follow through.  Wish me luck. And I wish you luck when you open your letters.  Go get the bastards!

RICK GREEN MAKES US LAUGH WITH SHOUT OUT TO LAWYERS ASKING THEM TO ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE!

Mr. Rick Green, a commentator for The Hartford Courant published an editorial on Friday, September 30, 2011 challenging attorneys, particularly large legal firms to step in and "aid the poor".  Isn't that hilarious!?!  A reporter actually believes that attorneys give a hoot about the poor.

What is this guys problem?  Is he mental or something?  Hasn't he heard the running jokes about attorneys such as the following: 

Question:  What do sperm and attorneys have in common?  Answer:  One in a million becomes a human being!

Question: How do you know an attorney is lying?  Answer:  His lips are moving. 

Question:  You are trapped in an elevator with a tiger, a rattlesnake and a lawyer. Your gun only has two bullets.  What should you do?  Answer:  Shoot the lawyer twice to make sure he is dead. 

Question:  What's wrong with lawyer jokes?  Answer:  Lawyers don't think they are funny and nobody else thinks they are jokes!  

Seriously, what's the problem with this guy Rick.  Where has he been?  Lost on a desert island somewhere?  Ok, ok, I'll stop cracking the jokes.  Let me get serious about this problem here. 

Apparently, according to Mr. Green, in divorce, domestic abuse, eviction, and foreclosure cases more and more folks are representing themselves which results in a a situation in which the Court is not as "fair" as it ought to be. 

Fair?  Fair?  Ok, I'm laughing so much my sides ache.  Ricky actually thinks the courts ought to be fair?  Really?  Boy, from my experience of the Court, and that of so many other people, particularly protective mothers, I would never have known that the courts were supposed to be fair.  What's going on doesn't look fair to me.  I wonder--has this guy Rick actually been in Court so that he would know what's going on, because I think any one of us could share with him--hello, the Courts are not fair.  And if you don't like it, too bad for you, because the Court couldn't care less. 

Ok, this is interesting--apparently, it looks as though around 85% of all family court cases have an least one self represented party.  That is definitely an increase from when I last looked the numbers up when I heard around 70% of family cases had a self-represented party. 

Apparently, in Rockville Court almost all of the cases have a self-represented party.  And God bless them too, because at least that way when these self-represented parties speak, they know that they are getting to ask for what they want to ask for and make the statements about their cases that they want made instead of having some dick lawyer shut them up.  They may not win, but at least they can get what they have to say on record. 

And let's get real, there isn't really a problem with self representation; the problem is that judges are so prejudiced against self represented parties that they routinely rule against them.  Then, since this prejudiced kind of ruling often results in injustice, self-represented parties simply file appeals or file additional motions to rectify the wrongs done to them which leads to what Ricky tells us is a court system that is "clogged." 

That sure is correct.  Repeated and unrelenting cases of Injustice sure do clog the good old system. He got it right there.  

And Ricky has it right as well that it is the poor representing themselves that causes the problem, or rather the newly poor.  Because, you see, these self-represented parties might have started out with a little nest egg for themselves, they may have had retirement plans, maybe a little real estate after many years of backbreaking hard work, but then they hired your average family attorney in Connecticut, and you see, after that attorney sucked these self represented parties dry of every dime they had, they then became poor and needy of "help" from the same kind of attorney that exploited them in the first place. 

Do you want to know how much it should actually cost to get a divorce in Connecticut it is such a simply matter--maybe $500.00. 

How then do cases start vacuuming up multiple thousands of dollars in legal fees?  I'll tell you how, from the vicious and exploitative practices of these very attorneys Ricky thinks should offer up their assistance for "free". 

Judge William Bright is worried that self represented parties don't know what they are doing?  Is he kidding?  If you go to any court service center all the forms you need in order to obtain a divorce along with explanatory material is freely available along with the assistance of a law clerk who will spoon feed you through it.  If you don't know what you are doing as a self-represented party, you should be ashamed of yourself.  And that is without bothering to google all the information you need or go to the library where the librarian will show you all the reference material you need in order to get your legal matter completed. 

No, no, no, what Judge Bright really doesn't like are the litigants who are not represented by attorneys who will stab their clients in the back and manipulate them into agreements that are not in their best interests, get them out of the court system, and back onto the street minus all their money, their children, and whatever self respect they might have had.  Litigants who are represented by attorneys are far more easily manipulated into shutting up and doing what they are told.  This is the real need this article seeks to meet, the need for attorneys who will make deals with other attorneys and with judges in back rooms and screw their clients. 

That way the Court, judges, and attorneys can eliminate that pesky issue of "fairness"  and justice and the constitutional rights of American citizens, concepts that are violated and ignored daily and hourly in our broken judicial system. 

Make no mistake.  Our legal system is corrupt, our legal system is evil, our legal system is harmful to the most vulnerable, to the strong, the weak, the average honest citizen, to us all.  In fact, legal rights are an illusion to all but the elite few who are wealthy enough and well connected enough to obtain them. 

So don't be fooled.  This editorial isn't about helping the poor and the less fortunate.  It's about continuing to shut up people who are self represented, who have investigated how the law is supposed to work, i.e. with fairness and justice, and who demand their legal rights.  Yes, of course they have no idea what they are doing, because if they did they would know that the last place on earth to expect fairness and justice would be in a Connecticut Courtroom. 

The legal profession should be ashamed, and not only the legal profession, but also journalists such as Mr. Rick Green who fail to dig deeper and investigate fully, and then tell fake stories fed to them by corrupt court insiders, ones that gloss over what is really going on and allow the corruption of the court system, particularly the family court system, to continue on without any scrutiny or accountability.