YALE LAW REVIEW STUDY ON JUDICIAL CORRUPTION!

See link below:


http://www.lawlessamerica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=824:yale-law-review-publishes-study-on-judicial-corruption-tip-of-the-iceberg&catid=43:judicial-misconduct-complaints&Itemid=90

WHAT DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY "JUSTICE"

Folks, my computer has somehow picked up a virus.  This always happens to me when I try to download a free application.  Remind me never to attempt to download any more free viruses!  Unfortunately, this means I can't respond to anyone's postings individuallly right now. 

Anyway, before I take this computer off to be de-virused, I did want to comment about some postings I have seen on this site.  I hope that readers understand that what I am endorsing in my blogsite is justice for everyone and this means due process, ADA rights, the rule of law, an impartial judge, all those rights which are based upon our constitutional rights which should result in fair and equitable decisions by any judge who decides matters in a divorce case. 

Right now there is a plague of good mothers across this country who are losing their children to abusive and criminal fathers.  Many are losing their children because the judical system has been infiltrated with millions and millions of HHS dollars that are funding these cases.  It is a national holocaust. 

The fact that I recognize this, and others commenting on this website recognize this, should not be taken as an indication that I am against good fathers who have also been screwed by the judicial system.  They are all out there as well and I am fully in support of their goals to obtain justice and due process rights within Family Court.  If there is anything we and I can do to support responsible fathers who have found themselves attacked unfairly in Family Court, we need to help these folks out. 

I hope that good fathers who review comments on this website, who see hurt and upset comments from women who have been hurt by Family court and by abusive men, don't make the assumption that these comments also apply to them.  Protective Mothers and Good Fathers have a common goal of achieving justice within the Family Court system, and while much distrust and suspicion is out there because each of us has been hurt by members of the opposite gender, it is my hope that we can stand together when it comes to the goal of supporting good parents, first of all, and second, working for the overarching goal of eliminating the abuses of Family Court. 

Let me repeat:  It is so important for worthy people not to attack one another, but instead to work together for the common good. 

Also, it is so important for good fathers to understand the bitterness of protective mothers and recognize that comments which apply to fathers who are abusive are most likely not intended to apply to good fathers, of which there are many out there.  I thank God for my father every day!  He was a truly great man. Likewise, I would hope that protective mothers who read comments by good fathers who have been mistreated in family court do not make assumptions that the hurt comments apply to them.

There are good fathers out there and I support them, and I know that protective mothers would generally agree with that that they stand behind the hurt, the abused and the vulnerable, which includes good fathers who have had their rights denied in family court. 

So let's stand together, reach out and support each other, and I hope everyone understands, you who have been abused, both economically, physically, and in other ways, you are fully supported here on the blog.  Also, when it comes to lost reputation.  The bible says that a person who bears false witness against another is essentially doing the same as committing murder.  For you who have lost reputation due to the lies and disgraceful behavior of an abusive former spouse, this blog against supports and understands your struggle. 

This goes for all Protective Mothers and Good Fathers. 

We are here to create change for our children's sake, to make the world a better place, to have America live up to its creed of liberty and justice for all.  We are not here to tear each other down when all of us know our enemies have done enough of that already. 

So I would advise readers of this blog--don't mistakenly make assumptions about what a hurt person is saying, don't assume that it means you personally.  Give one another the benefit of the doubt, and recognize, none of us here condones injustice on any level, not for Protective Mothers and not for Good Fathers. In this movement, when we talk about "justice", we aren't talking about justice for special people, we are talking about justice for ALL.  So let us stand together, united, for the cause of justice and freedom, renounce bitterness towards one another, recognizing we have all suffered deeply, and march forward shoulder to shoulder.

WICKED LAWYER JOKE (4)

A lawyer went duck hunting for the first time in Texas.  He shot and dropped a bird, but it fell into a farmer's field on the other side of the fence.  

As the lawyer climbed over the fence, an elderly farmer drove up on his tractor and asked him what he was doing.  The litigator responded, "I shot a duck.  It fell into this field, and now I'm going to retrieve it."  

The old farmer replied, "This is my property and you are not coming over here."  

The indignant lawyer said, "I am one of the best trial attorneys in the U.S. and if you don't let me get that duck, I'll sue you and take everything you own."  

The old farmer smiled and said, "Apparently, you don't know how we do things in Texas.  We settle small disagreements like this with the Texas Three-Kick Rule."  

The lawyer asked, "What is the Texas Three-Kick Rule?"  

The Farmer replied, "Well, first I kick you three times and then you kick me three times, and so on, back and forth, until someone gives up."  

The attorney quickly thought about the proposed contest and decided that he could easily take the old codger.  He agreed to abide by local custom.  

The old farmer slowly climbed down from the tractor and walked up to the city feller. His first kick planted the toe of his heavy work boot into the lawyer's groin and dropped him to his knees.  His second kick nearly wiped the man's nose off his face.  The barrister was flat on his belly when the farmer's third kick to a kidney nearly caused him to give up.

The lawyer summoned every bit of his will and managed to get to his feet and said, "Okay, you old coot!  Now it's my turn!"  

The old farmer smiled and said, "No, I give up.  You can have the duck."

FAMILY SERVICES - COURT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION

Section 25-61 of the Connecticut Practice Book 2012 states: "The Family Services Unit shall, at the request of the judicial authority, provide assistance with regard to issues concerning custody, visitation, finances, mediation, case management and such other matters as the judicial authority may direct."  

In the course of this work, the Family Services Unit uses the family relations counselor who, according the the glossary contained in the "The Divorce Handbook" provided by the Judicial Branch, "mediates disagreements and negotiates agreements in divorce cases." And, as the Handbook further states, echoing the mandate of Section 25-61 of the Practice Book, "At the request of the judge, a family relations counselor may evaluate a family situation by interviewing each parent and the children in the family and writing a report for the judge, making recommendations about custody and visitation.  Works at the branch's CSSD Family Services Office."  

Again, I am reading a brochure produced by the judicial branch and it further defines the role of family services stating that it "is to assist the Court and clients in the timely and fair resolution of family and interpersonal conflicts through a comprehensive program of dispute resolution services, evaluation and education."  

What I am not seeing is any mention of who pays for this and how?  If these services are available for free, and I think the vast majority are, why didn't my attorneys let me know about it?  And why did I end up paying for a private evaluator to the tune of thousands and thousands of dollars when these evaluative services were apparently available for free at Family Services?  Is this another example of plain old stupid going on in family court, stupid happening because of stupid, stupid, money grubbing attorneys?  

If you are now interested in what this is all about, there is a "Family Services Frequently Asked Questions" page on the Connecticut Judicial Website which is located at the following link:  

www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/family-faq.htm

  

For those of you who are victims of domestic violence, under these FAQs you can see that services are available to you under Question #4 which has the heading "Criminal Court".  In accordance with Connecticut State law in regard to domestic violence, the only DV that family services recognizes is physical violence.  If there has been verbal or economic abuse, you will have a much more difficult time having it recognized in any way.  

If you are going to say, "I'm a victim of domestic violence." the question you are going to get back is, "When has your ex been arrested?"  If you have no answer to that question because your ex has not been arrested because you cannot be arrested for verbal and economic abuse or for controlling behavior, then you will find little recognition or acknowledgment of the fact that you have been abused.  In fact, you could end up being penalized for even mentioning it because such non physical abuse will come across as simply a "he said, she said" matter or an attempt on your part to be vindictive.  

If you are interested in getting more information in regard to this point, look up online on google and youtube, the domestic violence expert Professor Evan Stark of Rutgers University, author of "Coercive Control:  How Men Trap Women in Personal Life".  See the link: 

http://www.amazon.com/Coercive-Control-Personal-Interpersonal-Violence/dp/0195154274

When you are referred to Family Services, the first thing they will do is meet with you to conduct the Family Civil Intake Screen.  This involves responding to a series of questions "to identify the level of conflict and complexity of issues between the parties" so that the division can determine what your needs are.  Interestingly enough, as a result of using this screen a Study conducted on behalf of the CSSD and published in 2009 has shown that certain factors are generally associated with high conflict divorce.  Specifically, according to the Study "Mental health and domestic violence issues were highly related to the complexity of a case.  Disparity of facts/views resulted most often in comprehensive evaluations being ordered."  

According to the website, the screening "includes questions about current court orders, past and present parenting concerns, and level of conflict between the parents."  The intention of the screening process is triage, i.e. to identify early on what services you case would benefit from receiving and directing you straight to them, which the Study indicated was the most effective and economical approach to providing services.  

If you are interested in the content of the family services intake screen, you can locate an example by looking at Appendix A at the end of the article entitled, "Triaging Family Court Services:  The Connecticut Judicial branch's Family Civil Intake Screen" by Peter Salem, Debra Kulak and Dr. Robin M. Deutsch and published in the Pace Law Review which is available at the following link:  

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&context=lawrev&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dtriaging%2520family%2520court%2520services%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CE4QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.pace.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1561%2526context%253Dlawrev%26ei%3Dt0oVUL_BLsP76gG8voDABw%26usg%3DAFQjCNHuVbsEhB_Da7W7RXesOdt4pHBHwA%26sig2%3D-txDKhCsXf9oA6OVKiVtUw#search=%22triaging%20family%20court%20services%22

The Family Services Division provides considerable services to clients:  Alternative Dispute Resolutions Services, Evaluative Services, and Education, as well as assistance in the disposition of family violence criminal cases (i.e. ones that have ended up in criminal court as opposed to ones where there were accusations which did not result in criminal charges.)  Again, there is a big, big difference as to how cases where there are criminal charges and those where there aren't criminal charges are handled and you have to remember that when you are dealing with family services, as I have said.  Charges of abuse where there is no criminal case will be viewed with skepticism.

Alternative Dispute Resolutions Services include: 

1.  Pre-trial Settlement Negotiations; 

2. Mediation; 

3. Conflict Resolution Conferences; 

4. Conciliation Counseling; 

5. Pre-trial Mediation Settlement Services.  

Then there are the Evaluation Services which include:  

1. Issue-Focused Evaluation; 

2. Comprehensive Evaluation.  

And then finally there is Education which involves the CSSD overseeing and managing the Parent Education Programs that are run throughout the State.  


In criminal cases, the Family Services Division provides  "through a comprehensive assessment and intervention plan to prevent, reduce, and stop the frequency and severity of violence against victim/complainants."  

Both Mediation and Conflict Resolution Conferences are confidential. But still I would get verbal assurance of that every time you go to a session.  It never hurts.


Just this one disclaimer:  as I write this article, I'm just reading off the brochures.  I make no comment in regard to the quality of services.

As a matter of procedure, when you come to trial court, the first thing litigants are asked to do is sign up for a meeting with family relations to see if you can negotiate a solution to your problem in advance of standing before the judge.  Thus, if you do it yourself as a pro se party, or if you watch what your attorney is doing, there is a yellow sheet of paper that you hand in to the clerk in the courtroom where you are going to have your hearing.  Among other things, this  paper asks whether you have met with family relations and whether you have come to any agreement.  You are supposed to respond "yes" or "no" to that question.  Marshalls in the courtroom regularly walk around and check with litigants to see if they have already gone to family relations.  If they haven't, they will direct you there. 

Of course, I've looked at some of these ladies who are family relations counselors and they look as though they have been hit by several trucks, so I am not sure how capable they would be of helping you out, but officially this is what they are supposed to do, so I am letting you know.  

The advantage of working with private mediators is that they are not as overwhelmed simply by the massive numbers of individuals requiring help.  The down side is that private mediators cost considerable sums of money.  And, of course, there is the whole other issue of whether mediation of any kind is called for under circumstances where one of the parties is an abuser.  That is an entirely different conversation which would be extensive and detailed and goes beyond the scope of this current blog.  

I would be interested in hearing what your experiences are.  Have you benefited from family services?  Or do you have a nightmare story to tell!

SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (CRPD)!

Senate Unilaterally Exempts U.S. from International Disability Requirements

In a meeting yesterday, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations dismantled protections intended for the disability community in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is being considered for ratification by the full Senate. The Senate’s actions operated to deprive United States citizens with disabilities of the full benefit of international standards. 

While some of us who are activists in the area of parental rights have been concerned that the treaty would somehow limit our parental rights as parents of children with disabilities, let me say right away that this simply is not the case.  In no way would this resolution limit our parent rights.  Statements to the contrary are simply incorrect and represent a completely wrong headed attempt to undercut this vital international treaty which safeguards the rights of people with disabilities both in America and throughout the world.

In yesterday's meeting – enroute to voting the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities out of committee - it took the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations less than two hours to dismantle the protections offered the disability community by this treaty. In a demonstration of what some are describing as arrogance, Senators simply declared that “current United States law fulfills or exceeds the obligations of the Convention.” They also approved a number of additional reservations, understandings and declarations (called RUDs). The combined effect is to deprive people with disabilities in the United States of the benefits of the treaty's standards by limiting United States obligations to enforcing current law and periodic reporting.


The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an international treaty ratified by 117 nations. The treaty sets forth comprehensive and integral international standards aimed at protecting the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities. A monumental undertaking of international faith and goodwill, the treaty follows decades of effort by thousands of members of the disability community from numerous countries worldwide to change attitudes and approaches impacting persons with disabilities.


The rationale for the Committee's action? To quote Committee Chair Senator John Kerry: “We’re already way ahead of where the Disabilities Convention seeks to go. It simply requires and encourages other countries to come up to where we are.”


“This is outrageous,” says Daniel Hazen, a long-time proponent of Convention and the current director of Voices of the Heart, a human rights organization in the disability sector. Hazen observes: “My rights personally have been violated on numerous occasions. Every day, we hear from people whose rights are being violated within the realms of current law."


Human rights lawyer and disability leader Tina Minkowitz played a key role in drafting the Convention and is considered an expert on its provisions. According to Minkowitz, “The Senate restrictions adopted yesterday appear to mean that the U.S. is disclaiming the obligation to work towards full implementation in the areas where state and federal law do not meet the CRPD standards. This stance is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty and should be rejected by other countries that are parties to the CRPD.”


Sarah Knutson, a disability rights advocate from New York, remarks: “It’s ironic that all this occurred on the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was a landmark piece of legislation that genuinely changed people’s lives for the better. But, let’s not get so full of ourselves that we refuse to even look at what the international community has to offer. How can we say we lead the world in an area when we won’t even hold ourselves to the same standards that are being asked of everyone else?”

The full Senate is expected to vote on U.S. ratification of the Treaty as early as July 31st.

###

For further information contact:

Voices of the Heart, Inc.
http://www.voicesoftheheart.net/
Daniel Hazen 518-932-3137
voicesdirector@gmail.com

TELL CONGRESS WE NEED TO REVOKE IMMUNITY FOR FAMILY COURT JUDGES! SIGN THE PETITION!

CAMPAIGN ALERT!

The Campaign for Judicial Reform is an effort led by the 501c3 non-profit Foundation for the Child Victims of the Family Courts (FCVFC) and its supporters to bring about crucial reforms in the family court and foster-care systems across America. Together, we can ensure that the desperately needed changes to bring about fairness and justice for all – not just the system and the elite, but 

children and families – can be achieved.

The problems are many, and the task ahead is daunting. Powerful entrenched interests will fight us every step of the way. But for the sake of the thousands of victims grinded up and spit out by the corrupt system every year – especially innocent parents, children and families – we must do what needs to be done.

The problems are many, and the task ahead is daunting. Powerful entrenched interests will fight us every step of the way. But for the sake of the thousands of victims grinded up and spit out by the corrupt system every year – especially innocent parents, children and families – we must do what needs to be done.

Thank you for checking out our campaign. We sincerely hope that you will help us in this massive undertaking, if not for yourself, then for the countless victims who are being literally destroyed by a corrupt, unaccountable system. Please go to the link to find out what you can do. If we can help you, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

http://fcvfc.org/judicialreform.html?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email

---

View the petition  | 

READ OUR THREE PART SERIES ON YOUR ADA AND ADAAA (NONEXISTENT) RIGHTS IN CONNECTICUT FAMILY COURT

PART I:
http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-rights-under-ada-and-adaaa-denied.html


PART 2:
http://www.divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-rights-under-ada-and-adaaa-denied_24.html


PART 3:
http://www.divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2012/07/your-rights-under-ada-and-adaaa-denied_26.html

TAKE THIS POLL!

Does family court in Connecticut discriminate against people who have invisible disabilities?
	Yes
	No
	Maybe
pollcode.com free polls

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND THE ADAAA: DENIED, DENIED, DENIED, PART 3

As you may recall, I mentioned that the Judicial Branch invited around 22 agencies and advocates to meet on three separate days to discuss the barriers to justice that prevent people with disabilities from obtaining access in court services, programs and activities.  Since the focus groups were held in 2008, one of the most significant achievements of the Judicial Branch in regard to the ADA has been the development of the ADA page on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website. 

This means that when you go to the website for the Connecticut Judicial Branch online there is a readily identifiable ADA link on the homepage.  You will find this link on the upper right hand side at the top of the list under "Quick Links".  This link provides hyperlinks to: an overview of the ADA at the Judicial Branch; a complete list of branch-wide ADA contact people (I am careful to say contact people although the ADA Committee notes refer to these people as coordinators.  Such a term is a special term under ADA legislation and not to be used carelessly or, as in this case, inaccurately), a description of currently available auxiliary aids; information about wheelchair access to courthouses; a link to the homepage for the Americans with Disabilities Act Committee, and a link to the homepage for the Advisory Board on the American's With Disability Act, including internal and external subcommittees. 

The ADA link also has a hyperlink to Request for Reasonable accommodation forms as well as forms that describe the procedure for obtaining reasonable accommodation.  In addition, for both the superior court and the appellate courts, there are hyperlinks to grievance forms for both the superior court and the appellate courts, as well as a hyperlink to the write up of the procedures for both. 

The ADA Committee made a real effort to make these forms clear and easy to understand and have succeeded in this effort, so they are to be commended for that. 

Finally, there is a juror accommodation form which allows potential jurors to inform the trial court online of their disability in advance.  Of course, this form makes me nervous simply for reasons of confidentiality.  I mean, who is on the receiving line for getting these emailed forms--just anyone?  I wouldn't like to see forms like that going into outer space.  But that is just my personal preference. 

I am glad to see the work that has been done to inform the public of their rights under the ADA on the judicial website.  On the other hand, now that these items have been posted on the website, this is when litigants begin to ask the question:  Do they work?  Are requests for reasonable accommodation taken seriously?  If the branch denies a request for reasonable accommodation, does it then have a meaningful grievance process to review that denial?

The problem I have here is that, from what I have heard, unless you have a visible or sensory disability, the CT Judicial Branch is unlikely to grant any reasonable accommodations for a litigant.  In other words, unless a request for accommodation is for a condition that is clearly visible to one of the contact people, the request will go up to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, who will then automatically deny that accommodation.  So for a considerable number of people, particularly those with invisible disabilities, they are unlikely to receive the ADA Accommodations to which they are entitled by federal law. 

Elizabeth Richter, a litigant I mentioned in my initial blog, has, among other things, a physicial disability that is not visible.  Thus far, despite repeated requests, Elizabeth has not been granted her requests for reasonable accommodations for that disability.  From her subsequent experience in regard to complaints/grievances, Elizabeth indicated that she did not believe that the complaint/grievance procedure was at all meaningful.  She pointed out, and rightly so, that on all of these ADA Committees and workgroups the names repeat themselves again and again:  The Honorable Patrick L. Carroll III, Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines, Mr. Patrick R. Caron, Ms. Laurie Parent, Attorney Stephen N. Ment, Attorney Mark Ciarciello, Attorney Stephen Pelletier, Attorney Richard D. Coffey, etc., etc. 

These folks have created their own little private club within the Judicial Branch running the ADA their way whether anyone likes it or not.  These are people who rub elbows against one another in committee meetings all the time.  Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that you have a meaningful grievance process when a grievance on a denial of a request for reasonable accommodation ends up in the hands of one or other of these committee members instead of in the hands of an independent grievance committee outside the Judicial Branch. 

I can just imagine how that works.  Ms. Lugo-Gines picks up a grievance complaint from her desk, wanders down the hallway and dumps it on, say, her pal Attorney Coffey's desk and says, "Got another one of these jokers for you, Richie." 

Furthermore, Elizabeth Richter complained that when they reviewed her grievance, the Judicial Branch didn't even bother to obey the procedure that they had outlined in their own grievance procedure.  When she confronted them about that, they said in so many words, "We are only required to have a grievance procedure, not to obey it."

The end result is that the Judicial Branch simply dismisses or denies a considerable number of perfectly valid requests for accommodations from litigants with disabilities.  This was not the intention of the creators of the ADA legislation and is a complete disgrace.  The end result is that litigants give up asking for any reasonable accommodations.  Also, attorneys advise their clients, no matter what, even if you ask you will not be allowed to have reasonable accommodations under the ADA, so don't even bother to try.  And then, I guess, the contact people the ADA can say, "We don't get that many requests so we don't have to put much effort into complying with the ADA because it isn't necessary."  Obviously, that would be a lie, but that is another way the judicial branch can cover up their lousy, non complying asses.

So if the Judicial Branch isn't doing what it is supposed to be doing, i.e. complying with the ADA, what is it doing? They have sort of been doing the proverbial fiddling while Rome burns.  Apparently, among other things (fiddling), they continue big time to update their ADA webpage.  They have edited their official judicial branch publications to update the telephone numbers available for people with hearing or speech difficulties.  They are keeping track--i.e. making sure of the existence--of their auxillary aids and services such as wheelchairs.  They are continuing to do research and to provide training on the ADA to staff.  They will be offering an ADA newsletter, and, wonder of wonders, it looks like we are going to have an art exhibit with artwork made by persons with disabilities! 

This latter focus seems pretty misplaced to me.  You will forgive me for saying I'd much rather have my rights as a person with a disability instead of an art exhibit, but that's just me.  Training, websites, inventories of auxillary aids!  Yes, but what about my rights?  Can we hear about those? 

When it comes to requests for reasonable accommodation, how many of them has the trial court granted? Can we get a number?  We are asking because so many of us have been denied reasonable accommodation, we are skeptical about whether anyone is being accommodated.  And that is a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Judicial Branches' compliance, or rather lack of compliance, with federal law as dictated by the ADA and the ADAAA.     

SADIE CARPENTER FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS SPEAKS UP ABOUT CPS TAKING CHILDREN FROM FIT PARENTS!

DIVORCE360.COM | LIVING WITH A HABITUAL LIAR?

divorce360.com | Living with a Habitual Liar?

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE ADA AND THE ADAAA, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED! PART 2

I had earlier reported that when Mr. Bill Mulready inquired about his ADA Disability Rights, he was told, "Don't worry, Mr. Mulready, we'll get you a wheelchair if you need one!"  Apparently, whoever told him that should not have been so sanguine.  

In a meeting of the Advisory Board on the Americans With Disabilities Act held on January 17, 2012, Mr. Ronald J. Macchio reported that of the 18 wheelchairs currently available at the judicial branch, only 4 appear to be in good usable condition.  Furthermore, according to Mr. Macchio, "there does not appear to be an existing policy outlining their use."  Apparently, the Board agreed to investigate to see if there was any policy regarding their use, but did not make plans to assure that all the wheelchairs were repaired so they could be usable once the policy is available.  This reflects the foolish thinking and lack of vision of the judicial branch when it comes to the complying with the ADA.  

But it isn't for a lack of asking! 

At the meeting of the Americans with Disability Act Committee held on November 14, 2008, Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines reported that she had prepared a letter to be sent to 22 identified groups and advocates for people with different abilities, inviting them to take part in one or more of three scheduled focus groups.  According to Ms. Lugo-Gines, "The purpose of the focus groups [was] to determine specifically, what issues arise for people with varying physical, intellectual, or developmental abilities when they are attempting to access Judicial Branch facilities, processes, or documents."  

Now, already I have a problem with the manner in which the purpose for the focus groups is articulated because, as it stands, this wording does not include people with mental illness at all. Just so you know, if you were wondering, the terms intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities do not include those with mental health disabilities.  What happened?  We are going to disregard the entire group of people, officially one in five citizens, who have mental health disabilities?  Are you kidding me?  Well, from the wording you see here, seems like they are.

Of course, this reflects quite accurately the policies of the judicial branch which are to deny persons with mental health disabilities any meaningful accommodations for their disabilities.  I have received reports of this from people all over the State of Connecticut.  I am hearing that people are getting laughed at, mocked, disregarded and treated with profound skepticism when they have asked for accommodation for mental health disabilities.  This is unbelievably disgraceful for this worthy group of citizens, some of whom belong to our military who have fought for our country in Iraq.  

Be that as it may, the Focus Group meetings were scheduled for December 3, December 11, and December 16, 2008 and were open to all members of the public.  Of course, were these important meetings advertised to the public, I'd like to know.  I was in trial court in December 2008 and I didn't know of any focus group meetings being held.  This is another genuine concern.  If people don't know about these meetings, how meaningful is it that the meetings are open to them.  Probably not that meaningful!  

In looking at the notes of the focus groups, much is written in short phrases that are missing out words, so it is difficult to get a complete sense of what these discussions were like.  But I will do the best I can to convey the contents of these meetings.  

The first item I noticed was the concern in regard to ADA coaches.  Apparently, overall, focus group members expressed concern that the judicial court did not allow litigants to have the support of their ADA coaches.  How outrageous is that!  In light of the fact that so many citizens who are differently abled need assistance in filling out forms, most importantly forms requesting reasonable accommodation, this is particularly unfortunate.  

Thus, when it came to suggestions, one was to "allow a third person--a non party to the action--to attend proceedings to support the participant and make it easier to request assistance."  In the alien and sometimes frightening environment of the judicial courthouse, this is essential. And just to confirm for you the reality of this problem, I was in trial court recently and I was not allowed to bring my ADA coach with me into the proceedings.  So this is happening.

Members of the focus groups also expressed concern that there were no ADA coordinators at the courthouse.  That was in 2008. It is worth noting that there still are no ADA Coordinators in 2012 anywhere that I can see, even though the ADA and ADAAA specifically require one.  What we have instead are Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who is a Project Manager. What the heck is a Project Manager and what authority does that give her?  Your guess is as good as mine!  

Aside from Ms. Lugo-Gines, there are numerous contact people at various courthouses.  But the impression I get, and that other people are getting, is that the judicial branch simply grabbed people out of the blue and said "Abracadabra, you are now a Contact Person for the ADA!"  But these people have no training, no understanding of ADA and ADAAA law, no experience with persons of different abilities, and no capacity to do anything other than collect your materials and then pass them back to Ms. Sandra Lugo-Gines who then makes all the decisions across the State.  I hardly think that this is a workable situation.

Since there is no point person for the ADA, or a completely ill trained person available to deal with ADA concerns, trial clerks often respond to questions regarding the ADA with blank faces or statements to the effect that they have no idea how to respond to the concerns of those with disabilities, or indications that they don't consider the trial court responsible for making the judicial system accessible.  As members of Focus Group 3 put it, "No one wants to take responsibility" and "Passing the buck is common."  

The most frequently mentioned theme throughout the discussions was how judicial court personnel were consistently insensitive to the needs of citizens with disabilities and how this lack of awareness often led to discrimination, particularly towards parents with disabilities in family court.  

Focus group 2 mentioned how important it is to "Soften the paramilitary approach of the marshalls".  This group also mentioned how "Metal detectors can frighten people, particularly those with mental illness."  

Overall, the focus groups complained of the prejudice, discrimination, and rudeness that their members face in judicial court.  They talked about "verbally abusive behavior by judges [who] don't consider your hidden disability."  They talked about the "denial of accommodations", the "lack of cultural competence of staff", the incapacity to understand "behaviors often associated with disabilities" and the widespread lack of sensitivity towards those with disabilities.  

The end results for these persons were: 1.  Feeling disrespected; 2. Poor communication with court personnel, including judges, attorneys, and family relations officers; 3.  Discrimination against people of different abilities with the resulting effect of frustration, depression, fatigue, stress, and anxiety; 4. Inability to participate in the proceedings; 5. Unequal treatment; 6. The denial of due process rights; 7.   Feelings of being excluded, isolated and victimized.    

Repeatedly, focus group members stated that the end result of this situation is that persons with disabilities were unable to participate in the judicial process and felt that their position had not been heard in the judicial proceedings, or that bias so affected the proceedings that the results of the judicial proceedings were not fair, equitable, or just.  


Now, I understand that these focus groups were held in 2008 and it is now 2012, but, from what I am hearing, the problems described in the minutes of these meetings still remain.  Inevitably, this raises the question of "How long, Oh Lord, how long!"

I think you would agree with me that these observations of the judicial system by people with disabilities who have experienced it personally are pretty damning.  So how does the Judicial Branch respond to these serious and widespread concerns.  It says that "The Judicial Branch is committed to maintaining its compliance with the ADA."  Excuse me, what was that?  "Maintaining"?  Are they kidding, profoundly stupid, or deliberately disingenuous?  

To be continued...

YES, AND WHAT'S MORE, OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY CORRUPT!

BILL WINDSOR OF "LAWLESS AMERICA" EXPLAINS HIS MISSION! LET'S GIVE HIM OUR FULL SUPPORT IN WHATEVER WAY WE CAN!

(Bill talks about a call in period at the end of this video. That date is from last January and is not relevant, but all his other remarks are right to the point. Thanks for listening)

FIGHT BACK AGAINST DCF! JOIN THE PROTEST!

Join Corruptct in organizing a protest against the Connecticut Department of Children and Families which was recently cited by the Supreme Court for improperly removing children from homes based upon the debunked, unconstitutional, voodoo psychiatric theory known as "predictive neglect."  In other words, DCF has the right to take your children away from you permanently based upon the idea not that you actually neglected them, but that you MIGHT neglect them.  If this outrages you, as it should, contact Corruptct at the link below:

http://www.corruptct.com/dcf-cps/its-picket-time-ct-dcf-stealing-children-contact-us/#!prettyPhoto/0/

or email them at:  info@corruptct.com

The people united, can never be defeated!

Justice Today!  Justice Tomorrow!  Justice Forever!