SOJOURNER TRUTH SPEAKS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT ON THE ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF VIDEOCONFERENCING!

April 14, 2014

Public Testimony

Of

Sojourner Truth

            It is my intent to remain anonymous in my testimony today inasmuch as I fear judicial retaliation from members of this court that might result from my commentary today on Practice Book Rule §23-68:  “Where Presence of Person May Be By Means of  an Audio Visual Device” (which is also included  by reference in Sec. 25-39 miscellaneous rules).

            This is an example of where a Practice Book Rule  expands  the jurisdiction of the courts by use of the words, “judicial discretion” since such videoconferences are allowed based upon judicial discretion alone rather than any other factors.

            Practice Book Rule §23-68 as written makes no provisions in civil proceedings to ensure the due process and equal protection rights of self-represented litigants who are incarcerated as defined in the 14th Amendment.  Such rights are as follows:  The right…

1)    To be present in the courtroom to observe proceedings

2)    To receive proper notices for such court proceedings to ensure no elements of surprise

3)     To provide consent to the judicial authority to waive a litigant’s who is self represented party’s fundamental right to a writ of habeas  

4)    To review and authenticate evidence which may be presented at a court proceeding

5)    To have the ability to subpoena witnesses in the same manner as an opposing litigant

6)    To properly examine witnesses with documents which may aid in “refreshing the recollection” of a witness

7)    To properly allow a litigant who is a self-represented party while incarcerated with access to files which could retain documents relevant to any proceeding

            Further, the  adoption of this Practice Book rule 23-68, represents an abridgment of a substantive right of every litigant to an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

            Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United States clearly states:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

            At the November 2010, Rules Committee meeting, then Superior Court Judge Michael Sheldon, and Judge Juliet Crawford objected to the implementation of videoconferencing rules adoption in juvenile court proceedings on the grounds of federal protections for writs of habeas corpus

The Rules Committee had received a presentation from Judge Eliot Solomon in November 2010 on the “cost savings” offered to the State of Connecticut in utilizing videoconference court proceedings. 

However, there was never a discussion at the November 2010 meeting about protecting the rights of a self-represented litigant to a writ of habeas corpus.

The judicial branch seems unaware of the lack of library access an incarcerated litigant is afforded in a detention facility.  There is limited access to one hour per week to library resources in many detention facilities to perform legal research.

Therefore, the provisions in Connecticut Practice Book Rule §23-68, must be revised to remove the ability of any judicial authority to order a person who is a litigant and a self-represented party to appear at a court hearing by an interactive audiovisual device without the self-represented party’s consent.

The Supreme Court is reminded of its duties to protect the rights of citizens who elect self-representation under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.

Connecticut’s Practice Book Rules must in all cases be considered in light of the Oath of Office taken by all judicial officers to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, in Article First: Declaration of Rights, Section 12:

“The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; nor in any case, but by the legislature.”

            Minimally, Practice Book §23-68 and §25-39 (which references family matters as

subject to provisions in §23-68) should be amended as follows:

(a)   No self-represented party can be ordered by any judicial authority to participate

in any  court proceeding conducted by an interactive audiovisual device without consent.

            In order to ensure compliance by the judiciary on this proposed modification on JD-FM-201, this form would need to be modified to contain a box with a consent waiver and signature and would require seven days notice by certified mail:

            I, __(print name)______________ consent to the use of an interactive audiovisual device for the hearing scheduled on ___date____ as noted above

           I, __(print name) ________DO NOT Consent to the use of interactive audiovisual device for the hearing scheduled on ___date___and request transportation to the courthouse for the hearing as noted above.

__________________                    _______________

(Signature Required)                              (Date)

 

FILING AN APPEARANCE

Once you have hired a lawyer and signed a retainer agreement with him or her, that lawyer will then go to the Court where your case will be heard and sign an Appearance Form indicating to the court that he or she is going to represent you.  

Once that Appearance Form has been signed, this means that the lawyer has told the Court that he or she advocates on your behalf and all notices sent from the Court or by the opposing attorney should be sent to the address that he or she has provided on the form.  This means that every time you go to court regarding a matter, this attorney will step forward and speak on your behalf and negotiate agreements on your behalf.  

The law governing the appearance of an attorney on behalf of a client in the State of Connecticut is detailed in the Connecticut Practice Book 2011 Chapter 3-1 to 3-21. 

The one question I have most frequently heard regarding the appearance of an attorney is whether a self-represented party can join his or her attorney and represent him or herself along with the attorney side by side.  I looked all over the Practice Book to see if this was possible.  While I never saw this arrangement expressly denied in the Practice Book, the attorneys I spoke to simply dismissed the idea and all the clerks spoke to said it just isn't possible.  I've seen other self-represented parties give it a try before the judge, but judges don't buy it either.  So, I don't think there is any possibility of trying that approach.  

However, even though you can't join your attorney shoulder to shoulder in representing yourself, you can have multiple lawyers representing you.  This means that not only does the appearance form allow lawyers to check off a box on the appearance form indicating the lawyer is appearing "in lieu of" another attorney it also allows lawyers to indicate that they are appearing "in addition to" another attorney.  

Sometimes this allows you to assemble a dream team.  But more often than not it is a good way to get rid of a bad attorney without making yourself look bad, because you can just bring one attorney to the forefront and leave the other behind, not out of the case, but not doing anything either.  

Where this becomes relevant is when you get to your third attorney or so.  That is when the opposing side will begin the litany of "He or She has been represented by more than one attorney"--Oh my God, Call out the National Guard!!!" or worse, "He or She has been represented by several attorneys!".  Of course, in high conflict divorces, particularly with the losing side, several attorneys do get involved in the case.  Usually, the lawyer saw you were losing and didn't want to be in a losing case and quit, or the lawyer was helping the opposing side and got angry when you objected to him or her doing so, or you simply ran out of money and the attorney was unwilling to work for nothing.  It really shouldn't be held against you, but it is.  

According to their professional ethics, an attorney cannot simply walk out on you and abandon you right in the middle of your case, but they do it all the time, so don't start feeling secure as though they can't do it, because they can and they will.  In order to do so, they have to withdraw their appearance.  However, they can't do so without getting a judge's permission and so they are required to file a "Motion to Withdraw" which must be heard by the judge.  

They can't put down as a reason for their wish to withdraw something as crass as you haven't been paying them, or they don't like you or your dang case, because the Judge won't want to hear it and they don't want it public in the courtroom how much money or character matters in the legal system.  Instead, what a lawyer will put down as the basis for a Motion to Withdraw is something vague like "a breakdown of the attorney client relationship." 

My best advice here is DO NOT SHOW UP FOR THIS HEARING.  Let the attorney obtain permission from the judge to withdraw by default because you were absent from the hearing.  Otherwise, the lawyer will invent very damaging reasons for needing to withdraw and those inventions will end up being on the record and will follow you from motion to motion, hearing to hearing.  Yes, in these situations attorneys are dirty, lice ridden ugly scum.  You are right.  Now run away as fast as you can.  

Moving along, likewise, you cannot just get rid of an attorney who is representing you and has an appearance filed on your behalf by telling them something as clear and understandable as "You are fired!".  I have heard frequently of people who fired their attorneys only to have them show up unannounced at the next hearing and try to take over.  And "no", you cannot just fire your attorney and replace him or her by filing an appearance as a self represented party.  The only way you can actually get rid of your attorney is to hire another attorney and have that new attorney file an appearance "in lieu of" the old attorney and send a copy of that appearance form to the old attorney you want to get rid of.  

If you didn't start off as a self represented party and you want to replace your lawyer with yourself as a self represented party, you have to get a judge's order in order to do that.  No Fair!  Well, get used to it.  There is lots of "no fair!" in family court.  Where this situation can be difficult is when you are trying to become a self represented party and replace an idiot attorney who was sucking up to the opposing side.  Then the opposing attorney who really, really loved the old suckup will come to court on your motion to represent yourself and oppose your motion vigorously.  In that case, you could end up legally ordered to continue on with an idiot attorney you hate.  So you end up being in quite a bind.  

It's quite a mine field as I well know, having gone through it myself.  All I can say is, despite it all, I did end up being able to represent myself.  What was particularly persuasive to the judge was that even before I became a self represented party I was bypassing my lawyer and submitting my own motions, so the judge simply said, she is already doing it, she might as well keep on with it.  I am not necessarily advising you to do what I did, but it tells you how things can go in court sometimes.  

Anyway, look up Chapter 3 of the 2011 Practice Book for more information.  Also, I will provide here the URL of a video presentation prepared by the Connecticut Judicial Court explaining how to fill out an Appearance Form.  Good Luck!  

 

See the URL: http://www.jud.ct.gov/forms/Filing_an_Appearance.pdf

JANE DOE NO. 1'S TESTIMONY AT THE MARCH 25, 2013 51-14 HEARING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you very much.  

               Jane Doe No. 1?

               (Pause in the proceedings.)

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Good morning.

               MS. JANE DOE NO. 1:  Good morning, Justices.  My name is Jane Doe.  I am a citizen of the state of Connecticut and I will be commenting on video conferencing in regard to Rule No. 23-68.

               On November 2, 2010, Superior Court Judge Michael Sheldon delivered an eloquent defense of why video conference hearings, if challenged in the federal court, would need withstand a federal constitutional challenge. 

               On December 20, 2010, Judge Sheldon capitulated on his position objecting to the adoption of teleconferencing rules and voted in favor of them.  When Justice Peter Zarella delivered his own reprise of the history of the Rules Committee before he handed the baton as chair of the Rules Committee to Justice Dennis Eveleigh.  Fifteen months later, Superior Court Judge Michael Shelden became an Appellate Court judge fulfilling the promise Justice Zarella made to Judge Shelden if he endorsed the Video Conferencing Rule 23-68.

               Despite the Constitution of the United States protecting the writ of habeas corpus as a constitutionally defined privilege in Article I, Section 9, in the Constitution, there are no protected federal constitutional rights in this state.  If these comments sound rather harsh, then these prepared remarks are carrying the desired message.

               In a recent Appellate Court oral argument, there was the use of video conference hearings in a hearing in which an incarcerated, self-represented party was denied the access to any paperwork prior to the hearing.  In the oral argument questioning, one judge actually suggested that the issue regarding the use of teleconferencing -- sorry, video conferencing, was moot because later hearings conducted included the presence of the self-represented party in court.

               The absurdity of this legal argument was apparent to me as an observer; in other words, that if legal proceedings conducted using video conferencing does not involve a final proceeding of the trial court, then it doesn’t matter if due process and equal protection rights are obliterated.

               The Appellate Court is -- the Appellate Court’s argument suggested that the constitution has no applicability in court proceedings in Connecticut as long as the final hearing is constitutionally -- sorry.  The Appellate Court’s argument suggesting that the Constitution has no applicability in court proceedings in Connecticut, as long as the final hearing is constitutionally sound, is pure circumlocution.

               Accordingly, having also been a victim myself of the abusive utilization of teleconferencing hearings without my agreement, I am suggesting the following modification of Connecticut Practice Book Rule 23-68 to add the following additional caveat emptors: 

               Additions to the Practice Book Rule 23-68(e):  No self-represented party who is incarcerated can be ordered to participate in a videoconferencing hearing without written consent to be secured seven days in advance of such a hearing.  If the self-represented party refuses to provide consent for such a videoconferencing hearing, the trial court is provided no authority to deny a writ of habeas corpus. 

               (f) In the event that an incarcerated self-represented party consents to a videoconferencing hearing, all motions, papers, evidence to be considered or reference by any party in such a videoconference proceeding shall be provided to the inmate at the correctional facility by certified mail no later than six days before such proceedings. 

               (g) All Superior Court judges who have access to the use of such videoconferencing equipment shall be required to be trained for the use of videoconference hearings by attending training classes conducted at a correctional facility equipped with video conference equipment. 

               There are simply no circumstances in which judicial discretion should be utilized in order for videoconference hearings proceedings as a means to create a prejudicial judicial proceeding against a self-represented party.

               Thank you very much.  

               CHIEF JUSTICE ROGERS:  Thank you.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS HEARING, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

http://www.no-wackileaks.com/  

NEW BARRIERS TO ACCESSING JUSTICE, SELF REPS SEE CUTBACKS IN LAW LIBRARIES!

On October 19, 2012, the Access to Justice Commission published its Annual Report consisting of 38 pages.  In its report, the Access to Justice Commission expressed particular concern regarding self represented parties and the abilility self represented parties had to obtain information necessary to pursuing their cases in Court. 

 

Recent statistics have indicated that in the State of Connecticut, 87% of parties in Family Court are self represented.  This means that there are a great many self represented parties who are in desperate need of information not only in regard to which forms to use, but also in regard to Practice Book rules and case law. 

 

It is surprising then, that in the past year, an April 9, 2012 article by Lauren Sievert of the "Middletown Press" reports that "law libraries in Connecticut have suffered major cutbaks in the last three years."  As Ms. Sievert reports about it, the situation is grim.  Two law libraries have closed since 2009.  Also, according to Judge Barbara Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer of the Judicial Branch, since 2009, eight librarians have been let go and two are on leave of absense. 

 

In addition, according to Ms. Sievert, Judge Quinn states that "the budget [for the library] spent in 2009 was $2.485 million, and the estimated budget expenditure for 2012 is $1.1 million."  This is a drastic reduction in the operating budget of the legal libraries in this State. 

 

According to Sievert, "Law Librarians help the public when they are in need of assistance in finding the materials and laws regarding their cases.  The librarians, who must have Master's Degrees in library science, can help the public print material regarding cases, draft motions and point them in the right direction to move along their cases." 

 

Of course, many attorneys have online resources, but that is not always true of self represented parties. 

 

In addition, self represented parties often need the assistance of librarians simply to define the kinds of good questions they need to ask and then to pursue the answers in their research.  This is why State Law Libraries are so valuable.  One of the most important services that the Law Libraries provide are the Pathfinders which provide vital information in regard to key issues in the law that self represented parties are likely to face.  Retired Middletown Librarian, Lawrence Cheeseman, played a major role in developing these Pathfinders. 

 

It is particularly troubling that the State has started to cut back the hours of these Law Libraries.  For example, the Hartford Law Library, probably one of the most used in the State, is closed on Thursdays and Fridays, and the Waterbury Library is closed on Wednesday.  When the Libraries start to reduce their hours, we as citizens should start to be very concerned. 

 

The mission of the Judicial Branch is to be more open and accessible to litigants; however, that is a hard goal to achieve when you are restricting access to your law libraries. 

 

As Law Libraries are faced with major cutbacks and closures, it is ironic that a recent report issued this month by Connecticut Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers proposes that most state judges receive pay raises of $45,000 over the next four years.  This would raise judicial pay in Superior Court from $147,000 per year to about $192,000 over four years, and it would then raise the pay of Supreme Court justices from $163,000 to $212,000.

 

According to David Collins of the Associated Press who initially reported on this pay raise proposal on October 18, 2012, the last pay raise for judges in the State of Connecticut was in 2007 and left them with an annual salary of $147,000.  He goes further to state, "that's the 14th highest salary level in the country for general trial court judges, but 45th in the nation when the state's high cost of living is factored in, according to the National Center for State Courts." 

 

He goes further to state that, "The average trial court judge's salary nationwide is about $137,000."  Thus, Connecticut's Salary is a little above the median.  

 

This pay raise should cost approximately $3.8 million.  Personally, I have trouble cutting the budget for the State's Law Libraries drastically by approximately $1.3 million in order to make way for pay raises for judges.  After all, don't Law Libraries benefit us a whole lot more than additional judges?  Isn't the use of law libraries on the level of teaching a man to farm rather than just giving him a handout?  Don't we save a lot more money teaching litigants to do things for themselves through Law Libraries rather than hiring more clerks and other personnel to guide them through the process so they don't clog up the court because of their lack of knowledge?

Some citizens have said that we should raise Judges' salaries higher if we want to make sure we retain the services of the highest quality of talented judges.  This is similar to the thinking we have gone along with before in the State of Connecticut, that having well paid teachers will lead to the highest quality of teachers.  Thus, salaries in the State of Connecticut for teachers are among the highest in the country.  Certainly, the proposed salary for judges of $192,000 would be well above the highest salary for judges in the nation, propelling us to first place.

However, as one commentator has stated, "There is no need for this...Keep in mind that these judges were the "talented judges" who in a 4 - 3 ruling on October 2, 2012, overturned the sexual assault conviction of a man who raped a disabled woman with severe cerebral palsy, who has a functional intellectual I.Q. of a 3 year old, and who cannot verbally communicate because she didn't leave evidence of "biting, kicking, scratching, screeching, groaning or gesturing" to indicate her lack of agreement with the act.

So what is your choice in regard to this issue?  More funding for libraries, or more funding for Judges' salaries?  Let me know your opinions.

For a look at the original article about Law Libraries, see link below:
http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2012/04/09/news/doc4f822dededc18179387483.prt

For a directory of all the Legal Libraries, see link below:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/staff.htm

For the article in regard to Judges' salaries, see link below:
http://www1.salary.com/Judge-Magistrate-Salary.html

HOW KATHI SORRENTINO WAS JAILED FOR WRITING A CHECK OUT TO THE WRONG PERSON!

On June 11, 2013, Kathi Sorrentino came to court with two separate checks--one made out to her ex-husband Saverino Sorrentino and the other made out to his attorney, Kevin Finch--each made out for $1,000.  When the parties finally arrived before Judge Corinne Klatt, the judge stated "Last week the Court found the defendant in contempt and ordered her to pay a one thousand dollar fine today."  

Still, there was a possible way out of the fine. Judge Klatt had also told Kathi Sorrentino she could avoid paying the fine, if she obtained mental health treatment to stop her from filing so many motions.  

Like the vast majority of judges in Connecticut, instead of acknowledging the domestic violence that Sam Sorrentino had committed against Kathi, and for which there was ample evidence, Judge Klatt preferred to attribute all the problems in the case to Kathi Sorrentino's mental illness.

All I can say is that Kathi can thank her lucky stars that Judge Corinne Klatt didn't call her "intelligent" the way so many judges describe other victims of domestic violence and stalking through the court system. 

Putting the joking aside, however, the fact is that using a mental health diagnosis or calling someone "crazy" for the purpose of discriminating against a family court litigant is a violation of the non-discrimination statutes of the State of Connecticut.  Family Court Judges are not allowed to ascribe the refusal of an abused woman to accept the abuse to some sort of psychiatric problem, not only because it violates the Constitutional mandate against discrimination based upon disability, but also because it violates the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and As Amended in 2008.  

Still, blithely unaware of these mandates against discrimination, and happily complaisant in her right to call a person who doesn't agree with her crazy, Judge Corinne Klatt stated as follows:  [Filing many motions is a sign not of] mental illness but some sort of, some type of mental health issue...the repetitive nature of these filings indicates to me...that it was almost so compulsive that it might be indicative of some of mental health issue..."

Apparently, on June 4, 2013, Judge Klatt had stated that if Kathi Sorrentino could make a good faith showing that she had attempted to obtain some counseling for this so-called mental health issue, she would consider canceling the fine of $1,000 for the order of contempt.  What Kathi did was see a person at her local domestic violence shelter.  The counselor at the domestic violence shelter basically said that it looked as though the problem that was going on was that Kathi did not have an attorney.  

Immediately, Judge Klatt intervened and said, you can't say that; it's hearsay.  

But the DV shelter advocate was correct.  Every self-represented party I know has had a problem with filing what the Court considers to be far too many motions.  Of course, I know what the Court really wants is for all of us self-represented parties to do is shut up and go away.  So even one motion from a self-represented party is much too much as far as a Judge is concerned.  Still, I hardly think it is fair to single out Kathi Sorrentino for showing evidence of a problem that pretty much every self-represented party  in the State of Connecticut has.  I myself was fined $35,000 in attorneys fees for filing too many motions.  

So, I guess in comparison to me, Kathi Sorrentino should consider herself lucky.  $1,000 is nothing in comparison to $35,000!  

However, since when does Judge Corinne Klatt think it is acceptable to define Kathi Sorrentino as mentally ill or intransigent based upon behavior that pretty much every self represented party is guilty of.  Doesn't this all again add up to an unconstitutional attack on the right Citizens of Connecticut have to represent themselves at all.  Isn't this a way to send the message, sure represent yourself, but as soon as you cross a single line, we are going to fine you into bankruptcy and call you nuts?

The bottom line is that Judge Corinne Klatt did not consider the letter acceptable and proceeded to demand that Kathi Sorrentino pay the $1,000 contempt fine.  At that point Judge Klatt demanded that Kathi pay the fine to the Clerk of the Court.  Unfortunately, since Ms. Sorrentino did not have enough money herself to pay the fine, her daughter had written out both of the checks to different people--one to Sam Sorrentino and the other to his Attorney Kevin Finch and there were no other checks available to write out to the Court Clerk.  

Immediately, both Judge Corinne Klatt and Attorney Kevin Finch dumped blame on Kathi Sorrentino for not knowing who to write the checks out for.

Attorney Finch:  Again, this is just another effort of Mrs. Sorrentino to delay matters.

Judge Corinne Klatt:  I ordered her a week ago to come in with a payment of a thousand dollars.  I gave you the week as a courtesy more than anything to you.  I gave you a week in which to pay the fine, ma'am.  And you come in today without a fine payment."

Ok, well, Judge Klatt, not exactly.  She had the fine payment, but it was written out to the wrong person.    While Judge Klatt insisted that she had told Kathi Sorrentino who to write the check out to at the hearing on June 4, 2013, a review of the transcript for that date indicated that she had not.

And, you see, here's the thing, how would anyone know that the fees on a motion for contempt would be payable to the clerk of the court.  As Kathi Sorrentino stated, "Nobody told me who to make the checks out to and if you look in the records, nobody did."  I have to say that I've been in and out of the Court for a decade and I sure didn't know that you would have to give the fine to the Clerk of the Court and not to opposing counsel.  If its news to me, I'm not surprised its news to Kathi Sorrentino.  

These kinds of scenarios show up in court repeatedly where the Judge and the opposing attorney in an abusive case will set up a major problem that's simply invented, but a self represented party wouldn't know, and put on a big show of outrage and indignation just to demoralize the victim of legal stalking through the court system.  This is why victims of long term stalking develop symptoms of PTSD and often lose their ability to function in daily life or hold down a job.  And, of course, that's intentional as well.

So what did Kathi Sorrentino do here, stuck in the middle of court without a proper check.  What she said to Judge Klatt is give me a little time and I will go and get a proper check and be back by lunchtime.  But that would be much too easy.  Instead, Judge Corinne Klatt decided to put Kathi Sorrentino in jail because she hadn't written the check out to the right person.  

You know, I have a sneaky idea how the Court could have avoided putting Kathi Sorrentino in jail.  She could have had Kathi hand over the check she had written out to Attorney Kevin Finch and then Attorney Finch could have written out a check to the Court Clerk!  That could have been another approach to getting the fine paid.  But that would have been much too easy, wouldn't it?  

The bottom line, though, is that if there is any concern that a self-represented party might end up incarcerated, isn't that party entitled to representation by a Court appointed attorney?  So what happened to that law?  Not important if you are too busy abusing someone?

I know that many of you reading this blog will think that situations like this are the exception.  Unfortunately, this isn't so.  They are the rule.  This is why we so desperately need to reform our family court system.

As a final note, Kathi Sorrentino did send a complaint about this incident to the Judicial Review Council, but by the time she did so the year long statute of limitations had gone by.  This is what happens frequently when judges abuse litigants; it ordinarily takes at least a year to recover from the shock before any one of them begins to think about filing a complaint and by then the opportunity is gone.  As one of the reforms of our legal system, I think the deadline should be extended up to two years.

CT LAW TRIBUNE POKES FUN AT SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S DISABILITY!

On November 19, 2014, "The CT Law Tribune" reported that Adam McNiece of East Lyme, CT was suing the CT Judicial Branch because it denied him the Audiorecordings he requested under the ADA to accommodate his disability of migraine headaches. 

What is interesting about this article is the way it makes fun of Adam McNiece, and mocks and ridicules him for making such a request, as if the fact that he has a disability indicates that he is some kind of wacko who is not worthy of being treated with decency. 

More than anything else, the tone of the Tribune's article says so much about the disrespect that the legal profession has for citizens as a whole, and for those who have disabilities in particular.  Since when is it such a joke that a person has a disability and needs to request a reasonable modification in order to accommodate that disability? 

I also found the general characterization of a Connecticut citizen, Adam McNiece, pretty offensive.  Tell me, is it fair for the Tribune to present a self represented person as a clown simply by virtue of the fact that he or she is self represented.  Really, what is so funny about that? 

The "CT Law Tribune" describes Adam McNiece as being a person with "a reputation for being litigious".  Based on that description, I thought I would find tons and tons of cases listed under Adam McNiece's name.  In fact, this is not the true.  There is one case in 2013 against the Town of Waterford, another lawsuit against the Attorney Firm representing the Town of Waterford, and also this last lawsuit in regard to the CT Judicial Branch and the ADA, the latter two from 2014.  What this essentially adds up to is a single lawsuit with a lot of branches, all starting with an incident where a citizen's civil rights were violated.

I know many people in family court who have just the same amount of lawsuits--one the initial divorce complaint, perhaps an appeal or two on that divorce action, then foreclosures that came upon them as the result of their divorce, plus collection actions against them from former attorneys who represented them.  Does that make them "litigious" as well? 

If you have lived say 40 or 50 years, and you only have a few lawsuits pending from one or two of those years, that can hardly be called litigious!  Except, of course, if you are the "CT Law Tribune" and you like to trash citizens who are clearly defending their civil rights, but have little money to do so and have to represent themselves. 

Mr. McNiece's lawsuit appears legitimate to me.  I would also be pretty upset if the Town of Waterford conducted an illegal search of my home, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is exactly what happened in this case.  I would agree that Adam McNiece has listed on his lawsuits an inordinate number of defendants, but that is what many newcomers to the legal field tend to do.  It is not an indication of eccentricity or wacko-ness, but simply an example of the kind of behavior that is standard among many self represented parties who are new to the court system.  I'm not sure if that is worth ridiculing a man for.  If you did, you'd have to pretty much ridicule the vast majority of self represented parties, which I suppose most attorneys actually do. 

Interesting, isn't it, how the legal field fosters an attitude of contempt and condescension towards average people. 

In regard to Adam McNiece's request for reasonable modifications, that request should have received an immediate response, and one that is in the affirmative.  Instead, what happened is that Mr. McNiece's request was passed on from one court official to another until eventually a court planner, Ms. Heather Collins, sent him a list of six questions for his doctor to respond to before the court would consider his request.  Mr. McNiece then provided that information from his doctor, and still they turned down him down!

This kind of extensive inquiry into the nature of Adam McNiece's disability is a direct violation of the ADAAA of 2008,  a federal law which was specifically designed to prevent mini-trials into the nature of an individual's disability.  According to the ADAAA the appropriate focus of the public entity under Title II should be on meeting the needs of the person requesting the accommodation, not on demanding that such an individual prove that he has a disability. 

In fact, recent court decisions indicate that it is sufficient for the individual to state that he has a disability.  And even further, recent ADA law indicates that he should not even be required to provide a diagnosis. 

The Connecticut Judicial Branch regularly demands that litigants such as Adam McNiece provide extensive documentation regarding their disabilities, but such demands are blatantly illegal and intrusive.  Thus, the focus of the "CT Law Tribune" article should have been not how funny and laughable it is that a person with a disability requests an accommodation, the focus should have been on why the CT Judicial Branch chose to flout Federal ADAAA law. 

Another interesting point the Tribune article makes is that the Attorney General is defending the CT Judicial Branch in this case.  Why is the Attorney General who is supposed to be representing the best interests of the citizens of the State of Connecticut, particularly its vulnerable citizens such as the disabled, defending the illegal actions of the CT Judicial Branch in violating Federal ADA law? 

Altogether, what we have are a series of examples of disgraceful behavior within the legal profession.  1)  the CT Judicial Branch violating federal ADA law; 2) the Attorney General attacking disabled  citizens it should be protecting; and 3) the "CT Law Tribune", the mouthpiece of the Connecticut Bar Association ridiculing and making fun of an individual with a disability.  Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the legal profession generates such a widespread lack of respect.

In 2009 , the CT Judicial Branch established a subcommittee which conducted an extensive examination of the role of audiorecordings during judicial proceedings.  In the report of this subcommittee two reporters who were members of the subcommittee--Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey of the "CT Law Tribune" (ironically) and also Mr. Patrick Sanders of the Associated Press--expressed their view that "what occurs in Connecticut's courtrooms belongs to the people of Connecticut, and therefore recordings made of those proceedings, should be available to the public in the [same] way that official paper transcripts are available."

In regard to personal recordings, Mr. Patrick Sanders further argues that there should be a "presumption of openness".  He continues on to state that an open judiciary is of overriding importance in the courts in the State of Connecticut, and he argues, "I disagree with the court reporters' opinion that their members should have exclusive rights to record court proceedings for sale and distribution for their personal gain.  Courts are a public domain and not a monopoly."  His associate Mr. Thomas B. Scheffey pointed out that tellingly, the U.S. Supreme court has made audiotapes of oral arguments available going back to the 1950s, and that there is even a CD of its "Greatest Hits" available on amazon.com.

As the Judicial - Media Committee determined (of which the above mentioned subcommittee was a part), not only is the concept that what takes place in courtrooms throughout Connecticut the property of the public a wonderful aspirational statement, legally, the CT Judicial Branch's audio recordings of legal proceedings are, in fact, the property of the citizens of the State of Connecticut.  The Connecticut Judicial Branch is merely the caretaker of these audiorecordings on behalf of those citizens.  Therefore, Adam McNiece's request for access to those audiorecordings is essentially a request for property that is his by right, and the Connecticut Judicial Branch's refusal to hand over those audiorecordings is a violation of that right.

What is interesting is that, when both sides talk about limitations to accessing these audiorecordings, both accuse each other of potential wrongdoing in similar ways.  It is a standard for self represented parties to accuse the Connecticut Judicial Branch of tampering with audiorecordings so as to eliminate any record of sections of the legal proceedings that Judges and their cohorts think might interfere with their rigged verdicts.  Likewise, Judges and attorneys in their statements for the subcommittee expressed concern that members of the public would make bootleg audiorecordings and alter them in order to challenge the official record of the legal proceedings.

Clearly, there is a great deal of tension and distrust between these two groups.  In particular, the "Connecticut Law Tribune's" recent hostile targeting of Adam McNiece provides a very clear example of this disgruntlement from the side of the legal profession.  The bottom line, however, is that the Connecticut Judiciary, Judges, and attorneys who practice the law are supposed to be there to serve the public, and the only way to do this is through openness and transparency. 

As long as the Connecticut Judicial Branch continues to collude in obstructing this openness and transparency, people will proceed on an ongoing basis to engage in lawsuits such as the one that Adam McNiece filed.  The "Connecticut Law Tribune" can go ahead and mock all it wants, but that's not going to stop them.

_____________________

*As a final note, the "CT Law Tribune" journalist, Isaac Avilucea, who wrote the original law tribune article, was previously fired from another job because of his inappropriate reporting.  This is the quality of journalist that the "CT Law Tribune" sees fits to hire for its freelance work.  See the link below:

http://www.poynter.org/news/mediawire/226646/reporter-fired-after-story-cast-aspersions-on-the-academics-of-local-school-compared-another-to-mean-girls/

 

WHEN ATTORNEYS SET YOU UP TO FAIL: ATTORNEYS DAVID DEROSA AND ALISHA MATHERS!

"How can they call this due process?"  This has been my question from my early experiences of Family Court setups.  

I have always had the impression that within the first few months of my case, the attorney and the judge had essentially arrived at an understanding.  It appeared to me that no matter what I did, that understanding drove the case from the beginning to the end.  So what does that mean for attorneys?  If everything is arranged beforehand, can they truly be thought of as exercising their professional expertise and advocating for their clients diligently as they are required to do?

FROM THE CT LAW TRIBUNE: JUDICIAL BRANCH PRODUCES EDUCATIONAL VIDEOS!

Judicial Branch Launches Series Of Educational Videos JAY STAPLETON
2013-10-17 15:46:15.0

A basic understanding of legal terms and courtroom procedures can be daunting for anyone who tries to get a divorce without the help of a lawyer.

 

To help smooth the process of self-represented divorce cases, the Connecticut Judicial Branch has gone into the movie business.

 

No, family court judges are not trying to win an Academy Award with a remake of the classic family drama Kramer vs Kramer. Instead, court administrators are producing instructional videos to teach the masses how to resolve a divorce case. The hope is that the videos will help real-life litigants to more effectively navigate the system.

 

The production costs are being covered in part by a $20,000 grant from State Justice Institute, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit corporation that awards grants with the intent of improving the quality of justice in state courts.

 

Technical support, including help writing scripts for the videos, is being provided through a partnership between the Judicial Branch and the New Haven Legal Assistance Association.

 

"Some people are visual learners, and some people have limited literacy skills, so we found the videos are a great way to demystify the court system and help people feel more comfortable using the courts," said Susan Nofi-Bendici, the executive director of the New Haven-based legal aid organization, who worked on the videos in an advisory capacity.

 

"Look, a video is never going to be as good as lawyer," she said, "but if we can't meet the legal demand for providing legal services for everyone, at least we can give a lot of support to people by providing them with information on how to represent themselves."

Since the Judicial Branch video program started in June, two of the instructional videos have been completed and put on its website, as well as on YouTube. The first to be uploaded in the news section of the Judicial Branch website is called "Your Uncontested Divorce."

More recently, a seven-minute video, titled "How to File For Divorce," was added. With court clerk, secretaries and even a judge "acting" out the roles of court personnel and divorcing couples in front of the camera, both videos walk viewers through the steps to file for a divorce in Connecticut Superior Court.

 

The videos show viewers the various forms that are filed in divorce cases. Key phrases that are used in court are clearly defined.

 

In the first video, for example, the narrator, Jim Lawlor from the Waterbury Court Service Center, instructs viewers by using simple, everyday language. "Broken down irretrievably," Lawlor says. "This is the most common reason people give for wanting a divorce. It means there is no hope of the spouses getting back together."

 

Late-Night Viewing

 

Krista Hess, who is the court service center programs manager for the Judicial Branch, said the idea for creating instructional videos has been tossed around for a few years.

 

The idea for the videos was born out of the strategic plan created by the Self-represented Parties Committee. The committee was formed in 2008 to study the changing legal landscape and to look for ways to implement tools and resources to adapt to the growing number of self-represented parties in the courts.

 

The idea was to increase the availability of information, to better help pro se litigants navigate the court system in an efficient and timely manner.

 

Hess was on the committee. She said members agreed videos would be a good educational resource, to be used in addition to help center locations and law libraries that provide instructional materials at 13 of the state's 15 judicial districts.

 

"Primarily, the idea is that since courts are only open from 9 to 5, and people have to go into the courts to get that information, that could be problematic for a lot of people," Hess said. "If we provide electronic access to the instructional materials, people can watch them when they get home from work, even if it's 11 o'clock at night."

 

Many court employees appeared in the videos, including clerk's office staff, foreclosure mediators, court service center workers and marshals. "We're really trying to give people a very basic understanding of what they might expect in court," she said. "For example, when they go to the courthouse, they will have to go through a metal detector, and when they go to court, they will have to stand and raise their right hand and be sworn in'."

 

A third video was recently created on filing restraining orders, but it hasn't yet been posted online. All of the videos are available in English, Spanish and Polish. Hess said each of the videos took about six months to complete. Other possible court areas that could benefit from similar videos include small claims, housing and foreclosure, "where we have the largest concentration of self-represented parties," Hess said. •

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/PubArticleCT.jsp?id=1202624069861