PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label SUE COUSINEAU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SUE COUSINEAU. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 28, 2015


Last year, I spent a considerable amount of time observing meetings of the "Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care & Custody of Minor Children" which resulted in several reforms of the Guardian Ad Litem system.  

At one point during these proceedings, I observed one member of the task force, Attorney Sue Cousineau, harshly and loudly say to her daughter, who was also observing the proceedings along with me,"Don't talk to a crazy person like that"  or words to that effect, clearly indicating that she was referring to a fellow task force member, Ms. Jennifer Verraneault who was standing nearby.  

As a result, Ms. Verraneault was so upset that she left the hearing room with Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and the proceedings were delayed for a considerable amount of time.  I am not sure what they did--whether they reported the incident, or whether Ms. Verraneault merely spoke to Rep. Gonzalez out in the hallway to regain her composure.  The bottom line is that Attorney Sue Cousineau's verbal attack was directly harmful and abusive to Jennifer Verraneault and resulted in the disruption of official business of the task force that had been authorized by the Connecticut General Assembly.  

At the very least, I felt it was a demonstration of very poor character on the part of Attorney Sue Cousineau, which was particularly reprehensible since she acted in such a manner in front of her own daughter and showed a very poor example to the younger generation.  

More to the point, in the light of the recent arrest and conviction of Ted Taupier for 1st and 2nd degree threat, disorderly conduct and breach of peace for an email that was never sent to his supposed victim, how come Attorney Sue Cousineau wasn't immediately arrested for face to face, directly using "fighting words" to her victim, a form of ""disorderly conduct" which ultimately resulted in a "breach of the peace" since it meant interference in Jennifer Verraneault's ability to continue to conduct business which she had been entrusted to carry out by the CT State Legislature.  

How come there is one form of justice for legal professionals such as judges and attorneys and another, inferior, form of justice for Connecticut citizens like Ted Taupier or Jennifer Verraneault?  

I would also hasten to add that I would characterize Attorney Sue Cousineau's statement as a form of hate speech because the word "crazy" in the sense that she used it, and I heard it, was intended to convey the same meaning that the N word would have if it were directed towards an African-American.  

So why do I characterize Attorney Sue Cousineau's words as fighting words?  Fighting words doctrine was first established in the United States as a limitation on freedom of speech in the 1942 case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.  Here the Supreme Court held that the State has the authority to limit "insulting or 'fighting words" which are those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace."  Calling a person "crazy" and implying that such a person should be silenced because they have been defined as such represents a direct infliction of injury.

Clearly, Attorney Sue Cousineau both created an injury and incited an immediate breach of peace when she made a statement indicating her contempt for people with mental health disabilities, one that she knew would upset Jennifer Verraneault and that indeed made it impossible for Ms. Verraneault to continue to participate in official proceedings she was a part of for a considerable period of time.  

Further, under 8.4 "Introduction to Breach of Peace and Disorderly Conduct" published by the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, the charge of breach of peace includes conduct that includes "abusive or obscene language"  I'd say calling someone "crazy" is absolutely abusive.  

In regard to disorderly conduct, the statute says that it is "conduct that is grossly offensive, under contemporary community standards, to a person who actually overhears or sees it (for example me), [or] it impedes the lawful activity of that person." State v. Indrisano, supra, 228 Conn. 818.  To repeat, Attorney Sue Cousineau's words interfered directly with Ms. Jennifer Verraneault's participation in the task force.  Thus, Attorney Cousineau's actions met the standard for disorderly conduct.

Returning to the issue of how Attorney Sue Cousineau's remarks constituted a hate crime, here is how the law sees it.  Connecticut hate crime statutes, according to Attorney Christopher Reinhart, are intended to "address certain actions that intimidate or harass another person because of his actual or perceived race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression."  Under the hate crime statutes, any conduct that results in the deprivation of a citizen's legally guaranteed rights based upon disability is a crime.  

I'd say that Ms. Jennifer Verraneault had the legally guaranteed right to carry out her official responsibilities on that task force without enduring the constant threat that she would be subjected to hate speech from Attorney Sue Cousineau in the course of her duties.  

Again, keep in mind that the verbal abuse Attorney Sue Cousineau subjected Ms. Jennifer Verraneault to was face to face, not by email, and also verbalized directly to her, as opposed to arriving indirectly in the kind of whisper down the lane manner that took place in Ted Taupier's situation.  

So again, my question is, if Mr. Ted Taupier is facing fines and many years in prison for braggadocio that he did not even intend Judge Elizabeth Bozzutto to know about, how come Attorney Sue Cousineau isn't held to account for what comes across to me as a direct verbal attack on a fellow official in a task force, carried out with the express intention of disrupting Ms. Verraneault's ability to contribute to that task force in a meaningful way.  

What's with that double standard?  

Going beyond this single incident which is so representative of the kind of discrimination against people with disabilities here in the State of Connecticut, what about the many litigants in family court who have had attorneys or judges falsely accuse them of mental illness with the express intention of denying them their fundamental constitutional and human rights?  

How about those legal professionals who bring up litigants' disabilities and then ignore the fact that such litigants have rights under Title II and Title III of the American's With Disabilities Act?  Those rights include protection from discrimination, protection from the deprivation of their rights, as well as reasonable modifications which they require in order to obtain access to those rights.

Jesus said in Mathew 7:2-4, For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?" 

These are words that Judge Gold should seriously consider.

And Jennifer, if you are reading this, ten to one you still have the right to sue, so keep that in mind.

Monday, April 27, 2015


On April 17, 2015, GAL Sue Cousineau filed an ethics complaint with the Office of State Ethics stating that the Coalition for CT Family Court Reform had failed to obey the Code of Ethics for Lobbyists, Chapter  10, Part II, General Statutes.  

She indicated that The CT News Junkie had published an article  by Susan Papuano dated April 7, 2015 and entitled "Family Court Reformers Target Chief Justice" which indicated that the Coalition spent $4,500.00 on billboards to influence   state legislators.  Attorney Cousineau expressed her doubt as to whether the Coalition had yet registered as a lobbyist organization as required by state law.  

Following up on this complaint, I looked up the Office of State Ethics, a website I have never seen before, and investigated what is going on.  The link for this  website is below for those who might take an interest:

Apparently, if you as an individual or a group spend up to $2,000.00 in a given year attempting to influence state legislators, you are required to register as a lobbyist.  The official definition of a lobbyist from the Office of State Ethics is as follows:

"Lobbyist is any person who either expends or agrees to expend, or receives or agrees to receive, $2,000 or more in a calendar year to communicate directly or to solicit others to communicate directly or to solicit others to communicate with any public official or their staff in the legislative or executive branch, or in a quasi-public agency, in an effort to influence legislative or administrative action."

The are two types of lobbyists-- the client lobbyist who pays another individual $2,000.00 in order to do your lobbying for you, and there are communicator lobbyists who receive $2,000.00 in order to lobby on a client's behalf.

I am looking at the article where it appears as though the Coalition paid $4,500.00 in order to put up those billboards opposing the reappointment of Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers and supporting the passage of H.B. 5505.  


It is looking an awful lot as though Attorney Susan Cousineau caught the Coalition with its pants down!  "I surrender, Susie!  You got me!  I'm a miserable no good ethics violator and I failed to report that I spent considerable amounts of my money (which I could have used for a lovely trip to Florida) in the service of the vulnerable and the defenseless.  So shoot me why don't you!"

More seriously, I am amazed that the Coalition has gotten so far as to warrant a complaint of this kind.  Since when is it a particular organization?  

As far as I know, a tiny minority of individuals in this group has established a non profit 501 (c) 3 corporation using the name Coalition for CT Family Court Reform.  But to my knowledge they stole the name from me, Bill Mulready, and Henry Martacchio who were the first to coin the phrase during a buzz filled night at some bar in Unionville.  So the real people who are the Coalition should be us three.  And certainly, when I make reference to the Coalition here on my blog, what I mean are us three, plus all of MY friends.

On the other hand, the rogue group that stole our name calls itself the Coalition as well and has a lovely website posted which uses the name.  Not only that, I believe there are a bunch of men's rights rabble running around  on a Facebook page as well declaring themselves to be the Coalition for CT Family Court Reform--this includes a real one and a fake one I believe.  Then again, as I said, I also use the term Coalition since I believe I have one third right to it having invented it along with my buddies, and I believe it refers to all mother's rights people such as myself.   

There are people all over the place both in and out of Connecticut who would identify as members of the Coalition--none of them have filled out any form to that effect and neither have they contributed any money--pretty scummy of them, yet they consider themselves part of the group.

So, who is Attorney Sue Cousineau complaining about?  

As far as I know, a bunch of random individuals passed a hat around and purchased a billboard.  At the last moment, whoever was selling the space asked who shall I say this is for?  Everyone then looked at each other and said Coalition for CT Family Court Reform.  Of course, when I said it, I meant everyone who reads my blog not those scumbag father's rights people on Facebook.  And certainly not those creeps who stole the name and established a 501 (c) 3 with it, not even asking my permission.

What do you think, since I contribute over $2,000.00 of my free time writing this blog, do you think I ought to register? I'd sure get a shiny badge which would be an ego booster!

I know a few people who believe that the Coalition is an anti-pedophile organization out to root out the multi-million dollar pornography industry that riddles the tri-state area.  You know, or maybe you didn't know, my reader friends, but there is a lot of devil worshipping going on in the State of Connecticut and someone needs to eliminate it.  Let's call the Coalition for CT Family Court Reform!  What better organization to do it.  Who do you call?  Devilbusters! (or CCFCR!)

You know, Sue, could we just figure out who we are first before you go jousting with our newly built windmill?