WHAT TO EXPECT AS A SELF REPRESENTED PARTY

As you may know, I am a self represented party.  This means that when I arrive at the clerk's office to ask a question, I often get a response from a clerk which goes, "I cannot provide legal advice.  If you need legal advice, go and get an attorney."  Of course, that very same clerk, asked the very same question by a person who is obviously indigent or low income, will freely hand out legal advice.  So there is a bit of a class based double standard here. 

Be that as it may, it is important for you to know that there is a long standing legal and historical basis for your right to represent yourself rooted in the sixth and fourteenth amendments.  So when the opposing attorney attempts to prevent you from representing yourself, and she will if you are in family court, you have a strong basis for defending yourself.  Once you have established your right to act as a self represented party, what can you expect from the judicial system? 

Basically, in the U.S. judicial system there are two attitudes towards self represented parties.  One attitude is that self represented parties have the money but can't be bothered to hire attorneys and so they are absolutely not entitled to any flexibility.  The other attitude is that most people would not choose to represent themselves but are doing so because they don't have the money or don't feel they can obtain a proper defense any other way.  Connecticut is one of the few states that takes the more benign attitude towards self represented parties and, at least in theory, acts accordingly.  As one judge told me, I have a legal obligation to bend over backwards in order to accommodate your needs as a self represented party."  

Still, the handout you receive as a self represented party states that, "A self-represented person must abide by the same rules of procedure and the rules of evidence as lawyers.  It is the responsibility of self represented parties to determine what needs to be done and to take the necessary action."  This is the official position of the judicial system.  

However, if the court system actually followed through on this approach literally the whole legal system would collapse, granted that over 50% of parties are self represented and fairly incompetent. 

So what gets done to incorporate the unique needs of a self represented party in court while at the same time preserving a represented party's right to a fair and impartial hearing?  First, once the judge has determined that there is a self-represented party in the proceedings, he or she may explain the process to the self represented party before proceeding.  The judge might say something like "I'm going to hear both sides of the case.  The defendant will first explain his case, and you will have a chance to respond.  Please do not interrupt the other party when he is presenting his case, etc." In other words, the judge will provide a quick overview of proper courtroom behavior for the self-represented party. 

Second, the judge might explain to the self-represented party what are the elements of the case and what is the burden of proof required in order for the self-represented party to prove his or her case.  In one situation I was in, the judge had the clerk provide a copy to me of a central ruling which described exactly what I was required to prove in my case.  He then told me he was going to call a recess in the hearing so that I could have a chance to review the case and decide whether or how I wished to proceed further. 

During a hearing with a self represented party, the judge may cut to the chase and just say "tell me what you have", or "what is your argument" so you can just state your case outright rather than present evidence or examine a witness on the stand in your stumbling and inadequate self represented party manner.  Frequently, rather than sit back passively, in a case where there is a self represented party the judge will intervene with his own questions of both you and the witnesses in order to delve into the issues and obtain more information. 

Third, particularly in family matters, the court will lower the standards in regard to evidence so that you don't have to establish a foundation for the documents you wish to submit to the court.  The other party can object, but frequently they don't since judges can make life difficult for them if they do. 

Essentially trial courts are required to accommodate the needs of self represented parties as long as doing so does not infringe upon the rights of the other side.  I'm sure that gets to be a pretty difficult line to draw, but my impression is that they interpret the line liberally.  Of course, my impression also is that judges will give you all that accommodation and flexibility in court and then return to the office and kind of knee jerk rule on the side of the represented party all in the spirit of attorney-attorney solidarity, but that may just be an impression rather than a reality.  

In accordance with a general policy throughout the judicial system in the U.S. the courts in Connecticut will accept any papers submitted by self represented parties and, at least in theory, interpret them as liberally as possible searching them diligently in order to locate anything that might represent a meritorious claim or defense.  This means that when I went to civil court, the clerk was ready to accept anything I was going to give them.  In fact, the court has a fill in the blank form with the heading "motion" where you can simply write in by hand what you are complaining about and submit it to the court for a hearing. 

However, there are limits to the court's liberality.  For example, if you miss a deadline, you miss a deadline, just the same as any other attorney.  Too bad for you.  If a motion you submit to the court requires a fee and must be delivered by a marshall, it requires a fee and must be delivered by a marshall, so don't try to avoid the requirements. 

The appellate court simply will not accept documents that are not formated properly.  However, if you ask they will give you a break and give you more time to revise them so they meet appellate court requirements.  Of course, they would give that very same break to an attorney as well.  The appellate court will try to accommodate you by giving you a free copy of their booklet "Handbook of Appellate Procedure" plus an additional free copy of their booklet with sample forms.  Also, keep in mind that there is a section of the judicial website which is devoted to providing information for self represented parties at:  http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/SRP/default.htm

Still, even though there is all this lip service about the rights of self represented parties, you know that if you are acting as your own counsel, you are a second or even third class citizen.  The court will take advantage of the fact that you don't know the law to work injustice.  When it came to one of my motions, I had to submit a few "Requests for a Hearing" before the court would schedule my motion for a hearing.  This would never happen to an attorney.  Attorneys can just call in and demand a continuance on a court hearing and get one.  Self represented parties have to go through a song and dance for a continuance.  Attorneys can meet the judge in the hallway and have a nice chat.  You cannot.  So don't be naive.  Yes, you are not a lawyer, but you can still make your way through the system and achieve decent results if you keep your cool and follow procedure.  I will always believe that a self represented party who is committed, although he or she does not have the skills or connections of a lawyer, will always outdo an attorney who doesn't give a sh_t, and unfortunately most of them don't give a sh_t.

One point I would like to make is that as you represent yourself, do not spend your time on your emotions.  The point is, what is the law, and is what you are requesting in compliance with the law.  Nothing else matters.  If you become emotional and strident, and if you act on the basis that the injustice you are enduring in court is so severe that you have a right to circumvent protocol, you could end up being marginalized, at which point the court will automatically deny anything you ask for, or you could even lose your right to self representation.

So, that is pretty much it.  Go forth and conquer...or at least, give it a try!

THE TRIALS, TRIBULATIONS AND HEROISM OF THE SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT!

Recently, I had the experience of watching a self represented party defend himself during a court hearing.  In my day, I was also a self represented party for around two years, so I understand what it is like.  Yet watching someone else play that role was still a real eye opener. 

The most important observation I had was to see three highly intelligent, well trained, extremely experienced individuals participate in a process that was clearly damaging to everyone involved--the parents and the children.  Every member of the family involved in this case, it was clear to me, would ultimately end up with severe scars as a result of what was happening that day, and throughout the extended legal proceedings in the case. 

 

But don't let me get ahead of myself.  First, allow me to tell you some of the initial lessons I learned from the experience.

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE THE TRUE HEROES OF THE COURT ROOM

 

Again, as self represented parties we know that we are going to lose, yet we choose to represent ourselves anyway. 

 

Why?  

 

There are some very practical reasons for representing ourselves, the first being that we absolutely do not have any money left to pay an attorney to represent us.  The second most common reason is that even if we did have the money, no one would represent us anyway because we have become courtroom poison. 

 

You have to understand these attorneys, let alone the judges, are all in their little club, and they all gossip with one another, and if their little group has decided they are going to make you miserable and make sure you lose and ruin any attorney who tries to do it differently, that is exactly what they will do.  

Other than that, we do what we do because we believe in the justness of our cause. 

 

Self represented parties essentially make the heroic last stands.  We are Custer and his men and we know that the Indians are going to kill every last one of us.  We are Massada!  We are the Alamo! 

 

Yet, even though we know we will lose, nonetheless, many of us work very hard to learn court rules and the law so that we can conduct ourselves respectably.  I know I spent hours reading up on what I had to do in terms of presenting exhibits, developing an argument, responding with my objections, and examining witnesses.  I know many other people who do the same. 

 

And for what?  Why are we doing all those hours and hours of studying and hard work?  Because we are heroic and we are fighting for what is right, good and true, even though we know that the bottom line is that we will never win.

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE NOT AND NEVER WILL BE MEMBERS OF THE CLUB

 

In these recent court proceedings where I was observing, the day started with the usual introductions and the swearing in of the parties and attorneys that they agreed to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God."(yes, I know, very funny!!!) 

 

Once that was done the judge announced that it was good to see old friends again. 

 

Of course, we all know that my friend the self represented party wasn't included as one of these old friends.  I mean, self represented parties generally come in for their court proceedings, and then, once they are trashed completely, they leave and the judge doesn't get to see them again.  They don't get "old"! 

 

No, the only ones that get old are the attorneys who keep coming back for say thirty years or more. 

 

What that means is that the self represented party will most likely be representing himself for the first and last time in that court.  The opposing attorney, on the other hand, most likely has been in that courtroom for years and years and will continue on that way. 

 

So while the self represented party is a total beginner and just learning to act as an attorney, the opposing side can apply all those legal skills in his or her sleep.  So right away you have a complete imbalance of power. 

 

Plus, these folks have seen each other at meetings, spent time with one another on committees and commissions; they have loads of history. 

 

In my case, the judge had actually provided legal representation to my custody evaluator and so they had this personal and professional relationship going.  So already they trust one another ten times more than they trust you as a self represented party--you will never be designated as an "old friend."

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE HONORARY MEMBERS OF THE CRAZY CLUB

 

In family court, the most frequently used method to trash the designated losing party is to call that party crazy.  This means that self-represented parties are pretty much guaranteed to end up being called crazy since they are the losing parties.  That means they end up being honorary members of the crazy club. 

 

The crazy club, in case you didn't know, is the very special club for the mentally ill.  Mental illness is a disability and normally the fact that a person has a disability is not a reason to deny such people their constitutional and human rights.  However, in the court room, the fact that a person has a mental health disability is equivalent to stating that a person is a subhuman monster. 

 

So when the court decides that you are crazy, that is the end of any opportunity you might have to be treated fairly.

 

Usually, of course, most self represented parties aren't mentally ill at all.  They are simply highly principled individuals who are insisting upon their rights.  So what can the Court do when they have no evidence that these self-represented parties have any mental illness and the psychological test results indicate they have no mental illness and mental health professionals support the fact that they have no mental illness? 

 

They will just hint that a mental illness exists even though there is no evidence for one.  The judge, or the opposing attorney will say of the self represented party, we know that there is some mental health problem, but we haven't yet put our fingers on it yet.  The self represented party has some undiagnosed disorder.  Wink!  Wink!  Wink! 

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES COULD BE WINNING, BUT YOU'D NEVER KNOW

 

It is amazing how many details you notice when you are observing and you are not representing yourself. For one thing, as I watched my friend, it became clear to me that every time he presented a series of irrefutable facts in support of his position, the judge would immediately interrupt loudly and start berating him for some minor violation of court rules, and the opposing attorney would jump up with objection after objection, many of them with a very trivial basis. 

 

If they didn't jump up and down and make a lot of noise in response to my self represented friend's strong defense, the judge and the attorney would lapse into silence and stop responding altogether.  The judge would stop making any eye contact with my friend and would start staring fixedly at the opposite side of the courtroom. 

 

Another tactic I saw the judge employ when my friend was making too many points successfully was to ask highly technical questions about court rules which would overwhelm even an experienced attorney. 

 

Then another approach I saw was when the judge stated that a particular legal procedure my friend used was incorrect when I happen to know very well that it was correct.  I had that happen to me frequently during my time as a self represented party.  The judge had no problem making procedure up right on the spot.

 

Another tactic was when the opposing attorney drilled my friend with a whole lot of peripheral and irrelevant questions to the point where he completely lost track of what he was doing! 

 

Judges will never, ever rule in favor of a self represented party if they can help it.  So, you might have a series of motions, one after another, and if those motions are from the self represented party, they will be denied. 

 

Also, while all this is going on the judge, the marshals, the court reporter are all smirking when the self represented party is looking at his notes, or searching through papers trying to find his exhibits.  It's all really amusing to them.

 

Meanwhile, the judge is like, "Take your time, Mr. So and So.  Don't let me rush you."

 

SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES ARE ASKED TO BELIEVE TOTAL NONSENSE

 

In the case of my friend, at one point in the proceedings, he tried to prevent hearsay testimony from coming into the record.  However, the judge allowed that testimony stating that it wasn't being considered in regard to its truth, but only as an indication of how a person relevant to the case felt.  Yet I am sure every last one of us in that courtroom knew the judges' statement wasn't true, and that the hearsay evidence was being considered for its truth. 

 

With me, I was asked to believe that my children who are disabled and that the ADA Coordinator had verified were disabled, were, in fact, NOT disabled. 

 

There is other kind of nonsense we are supposed to believe, for instance, that a parent who has never harmed his or her child ever, who has never sexually molested the child, has never hit the child, has never been criticized in raising the child, all of a sudden requires supervised visitation, or could even end up being barred from seeing the child permanently without any logical justification.

 

AND THEN THE FINAL, MOST BRUTAL CUT OF ALL

 

If there is one thing that comes out most clearly from spending a day in court watching a self represented party, it is that no matter what the facts of a case are they can be spun either in favor of the one side or the other at will. 

 

It is clear that what occurred in my case and also in the case of my friend is that the judge and the attorneys had made an advanced decision in regard to who was going to win. 

 

We spent hours in the courtroom that day, undergoing a ritual that already had a foregone conclusion, going through the motions, pretending that the judge was listening and carefully considering the evidence, when in fact he was not.  His mind was already made up. 

 

Still, that wasn't all in terms of the damage.  Then came the most brutal part of this process when my friend had to sit silently as the judge gave him a long lecture full of lies and misrepresentations pretty much stating that everything that had happened wrong in the case was his fault.   

That is where the self represented party's real heroism comes in, when he or she has to face that kind of outright disrespect and wrongdoing in silence, while still maintaining a semblance of dignity and outer calm. 

 

Isaiah 53:7  "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth."

CONCLUSIONS: 

What I found absurd in this whole situation is the fact that the professionals in that courtroom were applying skills that were developed hundreds of years ago to the present situation.  We don't use leaches to cure physical ills any longer, we don't put people in the stocks.  So why are we using a legal approach that is more appropriate to prior centuries instead of living in the present and using the knowledge that we have today?  We don't put victims of polio in iron lungs; we inoculate them.  Why are we doing the same when it comes to divorce?  That is, acting like we are living in an era when we burn people at the stake?

We now know as the result of family systems therapy that when you harm one member of the family, you harm them all.  You can't just haul one person out of the family and trash that person with trumped up accusations and think that every member of that family will not suffer for that in the end.

Why can't we think that?  Because we live in the modern world and we have made major discoveries about how the human brain works long since the  legal system developed theories about hearsay.

Now, it is all very nice that the attorneys and the judge in this case cited a psychiatrist who conducted an evaluation.  However, it is important to note that the concepts upon which that psychiatrist based his report were only developed in the last 50 years and we still have a long way to go in terms of insights and understandings.  But one thing I do know since I have observed the field of psychiatry very closely over the years, and that is, I don't think that the concepts of psychiatry were intended to destroy the relationships between parents and children, or to subject parents to ritual torture in the courtroom.

These legal professionals want to have their cake and eat it to.  They want to use legal weapons invented in the medieval age to eviscerate fit parents and to use children as informants against those parents, a role that will scar them for life.  And they want the right to use the modern weapons of neurobiology to do it.  No ethical mental health professional would agree to participate in such a proceedings.  Why?  Because the mental health profession is a healing profession which has the obligation to do no harm, not to take sides in a legal proceeding which they know is antithetical to the physical and mental health of every family member involved.

I can't say that I have all the answers to the problems raised by divorce.  It's just that the one thing I do know is that what is going on and what I observed that day in the courtroom with my self represented friend is fundamentally unjust and should not be happening.  I also said to myself, here you have three highly intelligent legal professionals, all college educated and with three additional years of law school, and they can't figure out that what they are doing is absolutely appalling?  What's the matter with these people?  It's not exactly rocket science.  I'm not sure what, but we need to do something to stop this.

UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF SELF REPRESENTED PARTIES - CHECK OUT THE PREARGUMENT CONFERENCE AT APPELLATE COURT!

You know how the court system is always telling self represented parties that we are supposed to act like attorneys in every way and follow all the required court procedures?  Apparently, we aren't entitled to any special treatment because we are self represented parties.  


But don't we know how hypocritcal that is!  Don't we know how attorneys are given preferential treatment over self represented parties on many occasions! 

Well, this past week I found out another way in which attorneys get preferential treatment--in appellate court.  Up until now, a clerk at appellate court has informed  me, there has been an internal policy in appellate court denying self represented parties access to preargument conferences.  Apparently, only attorneys have been given the opportunity for preargument conferences. 

Can you believe that!  I don't know about you guys who are self represented parties, but I am getting a little sick and tired of being told I have to live up to the same exalted standards regular attorneys have to live up to while at the same time enduring constant and ongoing discrimination within the judicial system against me as a self represented party. 

Come on, now, enough is enough!!!  

The other situation I can't stand is when judges reveal their prejudice outright, ruling against you, and then when you try to argue your point further, they make it clear they will only listen if you have an attorney to argue on your behalf:  "Go get an attorney!" 

Isn't it our constitutional right to represent ourselves before the court, and when we represent ourselves don't we have the right to equal justice before the law? 

Luckily, I have been informed by an appellate court clerk that this particular policy of excluding self represented parties from preargument conferences in appellate court will be changed as of January 1, 2012.  For the future, as of that date, self represented parties will be allowed access to the preargument conference.  And even now, in advance of this change, since we are so close to the end of the year, the clerk told me that if you request a preargument conference you will most likely get one. 

I say that somewhat guardedly because when I then asked for a preargument conference in my case, I didn't get one.  Maybe I have cooties or something! 


Important Point:  Since opening up preargument conferences to self represented parties is such a new policy, I wouldn't wait passively to have your case deemed appropriate.  Give the clerk a call and demand a conference.

For those of you self represented parties who will hopefully have access to preargument conferences in the appellate court, here is a quick overview of what is involved. 

Take a look at the Handbook of Connecticut Appellate Procedure (handed out free of charge to all self represented parties at the appellate court) on pages 9 and 10, which is section #4 of the Handbook.  Yes, I know this handbook was written in 2003, but it provides a good foundation for what you need to know.  Just make sure you are up to date by rechecking anything I have said here with the most recent Connecticut Practice Book. 

Purpose of the Preargument Conference:  Essentially, the preargument conference is carried out pursuant to Connecticut Practice Boook Section 63-1.  It is ordinarily conducted by judge trial referees (retired judges over the age of 70) or senior judges. 

There are three purposes to the preargument conference:  


1. The conference helps attorneys "identify their strongest and weakest claims" to see whether their case is worth pursuing further.  In doing so, each attorney will outline what the issues are on appeal and cite the authorities supporting their positions; 


2.  The pretrial conference allows attorneys to discuss with the judge the possible settlement of the case; 


3. Pursuant to the Connecticut Practice Book Section 65-1, it allows the judge to consider whether the case should be directly transferred to the Supreme Court.  


Preparation for the Preargument Conference:  Preargument conference statements must be filed in advance of the conference in accordance to the Connecticut Practice Book Section 63-4(a)(5).  


Along with the statement you should file:


1.  A copy of the trial court's written memorandum of decision or a copy of the transcript of the trial court's oral decision, if the transcript is available and 


2. A copy of your preliminary statement of issues.  


In cases deemed appropriate by the Chief Justice, Chief Judge or designee the parties are informed by letter of the date and location of the conference.  


(As I said previously, until now no cases including a self represented party were deemed appropriate!  What a lovely loophole to use in order to evade the requirement that you provide equitable treatment to all litigants!  Well, that group over there just wasn't "deemed appropriate"--RIGHT!)


Anyway, apparently they are deemed appropriate now, so self represented parties, pay attention to these instructions so you can take advantage of this new opportunity that is opening up for you.  


Pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book Section 63-10 all clients must be present at this meeting or else.  


The handbook continues on to say that experience has shown that settlement in a case is more likely to occur before the parties have invested time and money in writing briefs, so conferences of this kind are ordinarily scheduled prior to submission of the briefs.  If briefs are anticipated, they are ordinarily delayed until this preargument conference has taken place.  


The discussions that take place during this conference are confidential and subsequently direct disclosure of the content of these discussions during oral argument before the appellate court is not allowed.  


Is it of any value to attend these preargument conferences?  I don't know.  I think it depends upon your level of experience in litigating as a self represented party.  I have attended pretrial conferences and found that because I was self represented the judge simply blew off the conference and the opposing party resorted to hot air and rhetoric rather than a serious discussion of the issues.  That was a waste of my time.  


However, since I now have more experience, I think I could do a lot better job next time.  It really is up to you to utilize your skills of self assertion and knowledge of the law in order to demand that the conference be conducted properly.  I generally consider any opportunity the court gives you to speak up about your case, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, an important opportunity to refine and focus your approach and make it better.

THE LOW DOWN ON SUBPOENAS FOR A SELF REPRESENTED PARTY IN CT!

If you represent yourself in family court, you will have a difficult challenge ahead of you as I've explained in previous posts.  

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/search?q=self+represented+

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-trials-tribulations-and-heroism-of.html

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/03/for-judges-bullying-self-represented.html

What is your status?

The official position of the CT Judicial Branch in family court is articulated in a handout that they give you when you submit your appearance as a self represented party.  It states as follows:

"A self-represented person must abide by the same rules of procedure and the rules of evidence as lawyers. It is the responsibility of self represented parties to determine what needs to be done and to take the necessary action."

While this seems reasonable on face value, if you dig down deeper, keeping things equal between self represented parties and attorneys is literally impossible.

One reason for this is that the Rules of Procedure in "The CT Practice Book", and the Rules of Evidence are encylopedic and there is no way an average person would be able to wade through them and figure them out on time for a hearing or anything of that kind.

Second, self represented parties do not have the same power and authority that attorneys do when it comes to obtaining documents and ensuring that their witnesses are available for Court hearings and/or trials.  While attorneys have the power to issue subpoenas at will, self represented parties cannot do so.  

In other words, self represented parties do not have subpoena power. Unlike attorneys, if they wish to issue a subpoena, self represented parties must ask a judge for permission, and God help them if the judge doesn't want to give them permission.

What is a subpoena?

According to Findlaw, a subpoena is "a request for the production of documents, or a request to appear in court or other legal proceeding." There are two kinds of subpoenas. One is a subpoena duces tecum (pronounced "doo-seez tee-kum"), which requires you to produce documents, materials, or other tangible evidence. The second is a subpoena ad testificandum (pronounced "ad test- te-fi-kan-dum"), requires you to testify before a court, or other legal authority.

Why is this important?  Because proceedings in family court are testimony driven and evidence driven (through documents, tape recordings, video, etc.).  If you want to prove the correctness of your legal position in family court, you will need both.  Without them, you will lose your case. Period.

This is why the power of subpoena is so vital and why not having that power in a family court proceeding is so damaging to self represented parties and why it puts such parties in a position of considerable weakness in contrast to attorneys.

So how does the Family Court system handle subpoenas with self represented parties?

What it does is require self represented parties to request that a judge sign off on all subpoenas.  So if you want to subpoena either evidence or witnesses, you must file an application with a judge, who will then be required to approve it. I will post the link to the application form you would use below. At the same time as you file an application, you must also fill out the subpoena itself and file it along with your application form.  See below:

Application for Subpoena:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/CL136.pdf

Subpoena:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/CL043.pdf

This seems logical, doesn't it!  Ok, but this is the problem.  Most judges will simply refuse to approve your request for a subpoena.  They just won't.  You'd think you would have the procedural due process right to command the presence of your witnesses and obtain necessary documents to prove your position in Court, but you don't--at least not according to CT Family Court judges.  Lawyers do, not self-represented parties.

In my experience, when it came to obtaining documents from banks and corporations, my Judge declined to sign subpoenas on my behalf but instead ordered my ex to sign authorizations to obtain access to the documents.  So how did my ex sign those authorizations?  Slowly.  Further, as all judges and attorneys know, authorizations do not have the force of law. This means the banks and corporations essentially refused to cooperate, or later cooperated with great reluctance so getting the documents ended up being like pulling teeth, and I still didn't get the entire set.  Plus, I had to pay for the entire expense, not only for the copies of documents for me, but an additional set of copies for my ex.  Go figure.

So this is the paradox.  They tell you that you must act in Court exactly like an attorney, but then they don't give you the same power and authority of an attorney to pursue your case.  Not fair? Well, too bad for you.

Is there any recourse if a judge refuses to grant your application for a subpoena?

My recommendation is that whenever you submit a request for a subpoena that you attach to that request an affidavit indicating why the subpoena is necessary.  In addition to a very clear and concise statement as to the need for that particular witness or documentary evidence, the content of this affidavit would be as follows:

If the subpoena is for an expert witness, then you would include  the following information:  1)  The date when you submitted the required "Notice of Expert Witness" to the Court; 2) Confirmation that you sent the expert witness' report to the opposing party as required by Court Rules and that you have included the witness' name in your trial compliance in advance of trial.  

If you have a fact witness, then you would simply indicate that you have included the witness' name in your trial compliance in advance of trial.  

In regard to documents that you wish to subpoena, include in your affidavit exactly why those documents are important and indicate that you have listed the documents you anticipate receiving via the subpoena in your trial compliance.  So even though you don't have them yet, you list them and put the word (anticipated) in brackets to indicate you expect them to be produced per your due process right.  If you don't know quite what they are exactly, you come up with a reasonably fitting description.  This way your request is on the record in another location.

If it turns out that, despite the fact that you carefully filled out the forms appropriately and you submitted a well written affidavit, the judge still denies your request for a subpoena, as often occurs, you still have the option of requesting a hearing to have your application reconsidered.  See below the form you would need to fill out for such a hearing.

Request For Hearing/Denied Application for Issuance of a Subpoena

https://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/CL137.pdf

Of course, this is ridiculous.  Can you imagine how much time it takes to fill out the forms, be denied, submit an affidavit, resubmit request, be denied, request a hearing, wait for hearing, be denied, etc. etc. etc.  This can continue for weeks, meanwhile the day of trial is looming on the horizon and you have no idea whether you can actually present your case in a competent manner because you are being denied access to witnesses and documentation necessary to do so!

But that's all in a day's work when it comes to how the CT Family Court screws self-represented parties.  I am aware that, since my day, the website for the CT Judicial Branch has been crammed with all sorts of information and advice for self represented parties.  If you didn't know how the system works and you just looked at the website, you'd think life was delightful for self represented parties.  Bottom line, however, is that no matter how they have prettied up the website in a PR campaign, the practice of the law in family court has remained unchanged and self represented parties are just as disadvantaged as ever before.  I hope everyone gets that from this discussion.

Where do you stand if you are able to jump all these hoops?

For one thing, you are completely stressed out because in the weeks prior to trial you just didn't know if you'd have the witnesses or documents you needed to present your case.  You've probably done double or triple the work preparing to argue a case despite not having what you needed.  Then you ended up getting discovery after all.  At the last minute, you might have found new documents with completely new evidence.  You realize that the expert you thought wouldn't come is now going to be there.   So now you have to rewrite your argument again.  That's one scenario.

Another scenario is that the opposing party will simply ignore the subpoena or dispute the subpoena. What the judge is supposed to do is enforce the subpoena, but often he or she just won't do that. The same goes for subpoenas sent to banks or other corporations--they'll ignore them or dispute them, and you won't be able to do anything to force them to comply because the judge will refuse to take action on your behalf.

This is not all the aggravation you are likely to deal with.  For instance, when you get all your witnesses to Court, most likely at considerable expense--most require several thousands of dollars to appear--the Judge will refuse to allow them to provide testimony.  No, the Judge may not be so blatant as to say you can't put your witnesses on the stand!  What the Judge might do is continue the trial to a later date so you would have to go through another round of requesting subpoenas to get them to come back.  Plus, you would have to pay the witnesses additional witness fees. As for any documentary evidence you may wish to submit, unless you have memorized every detail of the Rules of Evidence, good luck getting them accepted by the Court as evidence!  In my case, I had 90% of my exhibits denied admission as evidence.

I hope you see how self-represented parties are completely screwed here.  This is why I consider them so heroic because the odds against them are extraordinary.  This is one observation I have in regard to the subpoena situation for self represented parties.  The other observation I have is how hypocritical the CT Family Court system is to conduct business in this manner.

CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH: ACCESS TO JUSTICE COMMISSION, FIRST ANNUAL REPORT, OCTOBER 2012

On October 10, 2012, the Access to Justice Commission of the Connecticut Judicial branch headed by the Honorable Raymond R. Norko published its first annual report. 

 

This report has been posted on the Connecticut Judicial Website at the following link:

  http://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/access/ATJ_AnnualReport.pdf

 

According to Judge Raymond R. Norko in his cover letter, the goal of the Access to Justice Commission is to provide "equal access to justice for all people." 

 

The Commission did a considerable amount of work, and according to its report, its primary focus was "ongoing support for stable legal aid funding, pro bono recruiting and training, accessible Web pages for people with disabilities, and the streamlining of information to justice partners." 

 

For a little bit of history, in the Introduction to the report, Judge Norko makes reference to the Strategic Plan for the Judicial Branch which has five outcome goals of "improving access to justice, responding to changing demographics, improving the delivery of services, collaborating with internal and external stakeholders, and accountability to all." The Public Services and Trust Commission established in 2007 developed the Strategic Plan, and its successor organization the Access to Justice Commission was established in 2011 to follow through on its initiatives. 

 

According to Judge Norko, Chief Justice Chase Rogers charged the Access to Justice Commission with "developing recommendations to help ensure equal access for all people, regardless of income; ethnic, cultural, or racial backgrounds; physical intellectual, or psychological abilities; or English-speaking ability." 

 

The intention behind this work, as stated, is purportedly to "increase the public trust" in the Connecticut Judicial Branch "through improved delivery of services." 

As I am writing this, I wonder at the reaction of the many folks who have been abused by the Connecticut Judicial Branch to the expression of such lofty principles?   To me, and I'm sure it appears to others, as though Chief Justice Chase Rogers and Judge Norko have invited members of the Connecticut Judicial Branch and the attorneys who practice there to play a game of limbo, with the stick raised so high to the ceiling that any complete fool could slip under it!

Let's start with the whole concept of including "internal and external stakeholders" in the process.  I'm looking specifically at the list of members of the Access to Justice Commission.  Amazing!  It looks as if all the members are internal stakeholders only! 

We've got judges, mucho attorneys, some law librarians, and our buddy Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who is notorious for regularly refusing to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities who ask for them. 

But where are the external stakeholders, people like me, for instance, other litigants who come from the various communities that the Connecticut Judicial Branch is ostensibly attempting to serve?  I've looked and looked, and golly gee, I can see any of them.  See, it is great and admirable to be aspirational, but you just look like a complete doofus when you totally act in such a way as to scuttle your aspirations, which is exactly what the Connecticut Judicial Branch does. 

Of course, the Connecticut Judicial Branch doesn't just scuttle their aspirations; they grind them down into the dust and kick them into the gutter! 

Although I want to give a shout out to the law librarians who are completely professional individuals.  I have always been treated with respect by law librarians and they have always provided me with the information I needed to the very best of their ability.  Of course, the Connecticut Judicial Branch has made law librarians pay for their professionalism and intelligent service to litigants and attorneys by cutting over a million dollars from the budget that supports them, even though this is probably the only part of the Connecticut Judicial Branch that actually works!

So what are some of the concerns of the Access to Justice Commission?

For one thing, they are very troubled by the large numbers of self represented parties, whose numbers have risen to about 87% of cases in family court.  As the Commission Report puts it, they are concerned about "the challenges of increasing numbers of self-represented parties that have the potential to overwhelm the court system and slow some processes to a crawl." 

Members of this Commission refuse to acknowledge the reality that they are well aware of, that is that these self represented parties are quite often litigants who are simply voting against corrupt attorneys and a corrupt judicial system through their choice to represent themselves. 

They are sick and tired of attorneys charging exorbitant fees, and engaging in racketeering schemes where attorneys create false conflicts and engage in deceptive billing practices as a means to fleece litigants of all their assets.  What's more, it makes self represented parties angry to see that their attorneys have made agreements in advance of the litigation and have already determined the outcome of a case from the beginning. 

Again, the Commission talks about self represented parties slowing court processes "to a crawl" and implying that this is the result of a lack of legal representation and knowledge. 

This is simply untrue. 

What is slowing trial court processes to a crawl is the discrimination that Judges and the judicial system exercises against self represented parties, and which self represented parties fight against.  

For example, quadrupling the complications of the system so that self represented parties don't understand what is going on, violating the constitutional rights of self represented parties, disregarding the law when a self represented party is participating in a hearing, judges lying from the bench, attorneys lying in trial court hearings, all of that takes up time and resources, particularly when self represented parties fight back and they do fight back. 

The Access to Justice Commission devotes a considerable amount of its discussion to encouraging attorneys to provide their services voluntarily to self represented parties. 

The big advantage to the judicial system if attorneys do this is that such attorneys will use their considerable skills and training to shut self represented parties up and persuade them to give up their legitimate demands for justice.

However, as you and I know, attorneys have an insatiable love of cold cash, so I don't anticipate that there will be a plethora of volunteer attorneys any time soon. 

Second, the Commission continues on with its completely clueless commentary by observing that along with a rise in self represented parties, funding for legal aid declined considerably because of problems with the economy. 

In Connecticut, to resolve this problem, the Commission reports that the Judicial System responded by increasing court fees.  This means that in 2010, according to the report they were able to raise $9 million through raising court fees, which is a considerable amount of money.  Further, these increases  are expected to generate approximately $4.8 million annually through 2015.

Ironically, I am assuming fee increases of such magnitude must have limited Connecticut citizens access to justice by making it too expensive to pursue litigation!

Third, the Commission report recommends redesigning the Judicial Branch's web pages and site so that it is accessible to "people with varying abilities".  This is highly amusing! I mean this is a Judicial System that is, apparently, so overwhelmed by the challenge of meeting the needs of persons with different abilities, it was incapable of providing functioning wheelchairs to litigants.  How can it possibly be sufficiently competent to develop accessible web pages? 

Seriously, though, what litigants with varying abilities want is simply their reasonable modifications which they are entitled to based upon Title II of the ADA which is a federal law.  However, Judges and Contact Persons, and most particularly, Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, the latter a member of this very Commission have repeatedly and consistently refused to provide them. 

It is not about having cute websites.  It is about giving people the right to testamentary and participatory access to the judicial system, no matter what kind of abilities they have.  Currently, the judicial system is denying Connecticut citizens their rights under the ADA, yet this Commission has the nerve to speak about making the Judicial System accessible to all citizens? 

What kind of nonsense is that? 

That's what I'd say adds up to putting the limbo stick on the ceiling. 

The Access to Justice Commission Report is around 38 pages long and is filled with considerable detail, so I cannot cover every point.  I would encourage all of you to take a look at it. 

Before I close, on another down note, the report includes a discussion of developing rules for teleconferencing and videoconferencing under the direction of Judge Elliot N. Solomon.  Many of us hearing about this and who have experienced teleconferencing and videoconferencing in lieu of face to face hearings are very concerned about whether such hearings are constitutional.  If there were a legal challenge, I don't believe they would be found constitutional. 

As one piece of good news, it appears that the Commission is working towards making the audio recording of hearings available to litigants online at a minimal cost.  This is a welcome development for litigants, particularly those who are self represented, who have long complained about the fact that transcripts were being tampered with in their cases.  The sooner this happens and the recordings become available, the better. 

For those of you who are interested, the Access to Justice Commission holds meetings which are open to the public and is required to obey the Freedom of Information Act.  Thus, Commission notices, agendas and minutes will be posted online at the Connecticut Judicial Website and available to the public.

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.