April 14, 2014
Public
Testimony
Of
Sojourner
Truth
It is my intent to remain anonymous in my testimony today
inasmuch as I fear judicial retaliation from members of this court that might
result from my commentary today on Practice Book Rule §23-68: “Where Presence of Person May Be By Means of an Audio Visual Device” (which is also
included by reference in Sec. 25-39
miscellaneous rules).
This is an example of where a Practice Book Rule expands the jurisdiction of the courts by use of the
words, “judicial discretion” since such videoconferences are allowed based upon
judicial discretion alone rather than any other factors.
Practice Book Rule §23-68 as written makes no provisions
in civil proceedings to ensure the due process and equal protection rights of
self-represented litigants who are incarcerated as defined in the 14th
Amendment. Such rights are as follows: The right…
1) To
be present in the courtroom to observe proceedings
2) To
receive proper notices for such court proceedings to ensure no elements of
surprise
3) To provide consent to the judicial authority
to waive a litigant’s who is self represented party’s fundamental right to a
writ of habeas
4) To
review and authenticate evidence which may be presented at a court proceeding
5) To
have the ability to subpoena witnesses in the same manner as an opposing
litigant
6) To
properly examine witnesses with documents which may aid in “refreshing the
recollection” of a witness
7) To
properly allow a litigant who is a self-represented party while incarcerated with
access to files which could retain documents relevant to any proceeding
Further, the
adoption of this Practice Book rule 23-68, represents an abridgment of a
substantive right of every litigant to an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus.
Article One, Section 9 of the Constitution of the United
States clearly states:
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in Case of Rebellion or Invasion the public
Safety may require it.”
At the November 2010, Rules Committee meeting, then
Superior Court Judge Michael Sheldon, and Judge Juliet Crawford objected to the
implementation of videoconferencing rules adoption in juvenile court
proceedings on the grounds of federal protections for writs of habeas corpus
The
Rules Committee had received a presentation from Judge Eliot Solomon in
November 2010 on the “cost savings” offered to the State of Connecticut in
utilizing videoconference court proceedings.
However,
there was never a discussion at the November 2010 meeting about protecting the
rights of a self-represented litigant to a writ of habeas corpus.
The
judicial branch seems unaware of the lack of library access an incarcerated
litigant is afforded in a detention facility.
There is limited access to one hour per week to library resources in
many detention facilities to perform legal research.
Therefore,
the provisions in Connecticut Practice Book Rule §23-68, must be revised to
remove the ability of any judicial authority to order a person who is a
litigant and a self-represented party to appear at a court hearing by an
interactive audiovisual device without the self-represented party’s consent.
The
Supreme Court is reminded of its duties to protect the rights of citizens who
elect self-representation under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.
Connecticut’s
Practice Book Rules must in all cases be considered in light of the Oath of
Office taken by all judicial officers to support the Constitution of the United
States and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, in Article First:
Declaration of Rights, Section 12:
“The privileges of the writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended, unless, when in case of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require it; nor in any case, but by the legislature.”
Minimally,
Practice Book §23-68 and §25-39 (which references family matters as
subject to provisions in §23-68) should be
amended as follows:
(a) No self-represented party can be ordered by
any judicial authority to participate
in any court proceeding conducted by an interactive
audiovisual device without consent.
In order to ensure compliance by the judiciary on this
proposed modification on JD-FM-201, this form would need to be modified to
contain a box with a consent waiver and signature and would require seven days
notice by certified mail:
I, __(print name)______________
consent to the use of an interactive audiovisual device for the hearing
scheduled on ___date____ as noted above
I, __(print name) ________DO NOT
Consent to the use of interactive audiovisual device for the hearing scheduled
on ___date___and request transportation to the courthouse for the hearing as
noted above.
__________________ _______________
(Signature Required)
(Date)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)