CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COUNSEL FOR THE MINOR CHILD AND GUARDIAN AD LITEM!

The new Code of Conduct for Counsel For the Minor Child and Guardian Ad Litem is available today in compliance with Bill #494.  See the link below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/family/GAL_code.pdf

COURT REPORTERS SCAM FAMILY COURT LITIGANTS AND CONNECTICUT TAXPAYERS TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS!

During the proceedings of the 2009 subcommittee on audio recordings, I was struck by the fact that three dozen court reporters and court recording monitors spoke out about the sanctity of audio recordings and vociferously opposed making them available freely to the public.  See article at the following link:


http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/09/judicial-restrictions-on-access-to.html

As you may or may not know, it remains the current policy of the Connecticut Judicial Branch that it will not distribute or sell copies of the audio recordings that it makes itself of legal proceedings.  These are part of what is considered to be the official record of a case. 

Court Reporters and Court Recording Monitors jealously guard these recordings from the hands of members of the public or litigants because they state they are concerned that the audio recordings could be tampered with.  Of course, litigants often state that if anyone was to tamper with them, it would be Court Reporters!

The only way to find out what is on those audio recordings is through court reporters who are solely authorized by statute to make transcripts of those recordings for a fee upon request.  It is through this monopoly on the production of court transcripts that court reporters have been able to develop one of the most lucrative scams in the history of the Connecticut Family Court system. 

While court reporters may have wished that the subject would die after the subcommittee on audio recordings completed their work in 2009, in fact the following year in 2010 another committee, the Committee on Court Recording Monitors and Court Reporters issued a scathing report which pretty much exposed their whole racket. 

Interestingly enough, this Committee was headed by then Associate Supreme Court Justice Joette Katz, a person I understand is not a crowd favorite among court reformers. 

According to the report, for years, while on the public payroll, court recording monitors and court reporters have been additionally compensated separately by private clients and Connecticut state agencies for typing transcripts of audio recordings of legal proceedings.  In 2010, this still occurred, as I understand it, even when the person ordering transcripts of the legal proceedings is a judge or a magistrate! 

Through these activities, court recording monitors and court reporters made a ton of additional money over and above their actual state salaries producing transcripts not only for private litigants, but also for the State of Connecticut. 

In regard to the latter, in the words of the 2010 report, "As the Committee learned, and as is discussed further in this report, the Judicial Branch and the agencies of its co-equal branches of government are annually paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional compensation for typed transcripts of legal proceedings." 

Laughably, this committee, instead of condemning these exploitative, if not criminal practices, expressed concern that they find a way to stop them while at the same time "ensuring that the salaries of these Branch employees remain unchanged and the opportunity to earn extra income still exists." 

Oh, really! 

Imagine how much money these folks made in the years up until 2010.  Already, a court reporter, depending upon rank, received from the state a salary ranging from $74,069 to $107,532, and then you added to that the thousands and thousands of dollars they made providing transcripts to private litigants and other State Agencies.  During the same time period, the court recording monitors had salaries ranging from $41,257 on up to $54,257. 

In total, the budget for all these employees added up to $11,413,000, at least in the year 2010, simply to pay their official base salaries--not even talking about all the additional money they made moonlighting on State of Connecticut taxpayer time! 

So how much were these court reporters and court recording monitors earning over above their State salaries? 

Apparently, it was and remains very expensive to purchase a transcript from one of these court reporters.  Rates are set by statute and are not subject to negotiation.  Officially, they range from between .75 cents and $6.45 per page based upon who is ordering the transcript and how quickly the transcript is needed.   According to the report, "Transcripts prepared for judges, judge trial referees, magistrates, prosecutors, public defenders and state agencies are by statute charged lower fees, while the highest fee represents a request for an overnight transcript by a private party." 

Unfortunately, very few private litigants can do anything other than request an overnight or expedited transcript because they need the documents for a currently running hearing or trial.  If they were to wait for the cheaper, standard rate, they could end up waiting up to six months or more, which often happens in cases on appeal where the deadlines are less stringent. 

As the report observed in its understated way, the profits available to court reporters in these circumstances were, and I'm sure still are "suffice it to say...quite...lucrative". 

In one case that the report mentioned, the plaintiff paid $30,000 for transcripts while the defendant paid $20,000 which amounted to $50,000 in money for transcripts which the court reporter and the four court recording monitors in the case earned over and above the state salaries they were already earning!  This situation is such a profit making endeavor for these court reporters and court monitors that in the fiscal year 2009-2010 they made nearly $1 million dollars over and above their base salaries from transcripts ordered by the Judicial Branch and other Connecticut State Agencies alone. 

And, again, this is not even talking about the considerably greater profits they obtained from private litigants at the very same time! 

But don't even begin to think that this is the sum total of the financial damage policies regarding court reporters and court recording monitors have caused for the Connecticut taxpayer.  The report continues to state that not only does money for transcripts increase an employer's salary, it also increases his or her state retirement pension in the same way that overtime increases pensions for police and firefighters.  This is a big problem when the State's retirement system is already underfunded considerably, and in 2010 when this report was written, it was underfunded to the tune of $9 billion, a staggering sum. 

But again, as I said, in 2010 the damage still doesn't stop. 

There is an additional way that, in 2010, these court reporters and court recording monitors continued to make out like robber barons siphoning money from the Connecticut Judicial Branch and taxpayers at massive rates! 

Apparently, court reporters were allowed to leave work early to take outside employment for outside employers without claiming vacation, personal, or sick leave.  When court reporters did this it was called taking "U-time".  Apparently, they were only supposed to be able to do this when these court reporters had no other work to do, would not need someone else to take over their duties if they left, and/or if they departed after 2:00p.m.  

Nonetheless, according to the report, between 2005 and 2008, the result was a situation where court reporters had taken approximately 4,490 hours of  U-time worth approximately $159,889 of extra-compensated time while working for the State.  According to Attorney Martin Libben, legal counsel for the Connecticut Judicial Branch, this practice has been terminated.  But still, think about the fact that it went on for years without anyone, apparently, voicing any objection to it!

The members of the committee who compiled this report referred to this practice of taking U-time as "an ethical minefield."  Further, committee members brought up an advisory opinion issued by the Citizen's Ethics Advisory Board stating that it is not ethical for hearing reporters to use time when they are receiving a salary from the State of Connecticut to then do work for private contractors.  

In their report, Committee Members recommended several solutions to these unethical practices. 

First, they recommended instituting the practice of digital audio recordings in all courtrooms.  This would then render audio recordings freely available to the public so transcripts aren't necessary.  As the Committee stated, this kind of practice would "unquestionably improve access to justice for people of all means and needs." In this regard, the Committee particularly emphasized how valuable digital audio recording would be for persons with disabilities who are entitled to reasonable modifications under the ADA.  

Second, transcript preparation could be outsourced from the judicial branch and transferred to outside vendors.  Any branch employees who wished to continue with such work could then do so outside of employment hours.  Committee members felt that the big advantage of this approach would be to eliminate the existing monopoly on transcript production and drive down costs for everyone involved. 

Attorneys and judges who criticize the Connecticut Family Court Reform movement are fond of pointing fingers at advocates and implying that their grievances are solely the consequence of mental illness, attempting to invalidate the concerns of victims of family court abuse by exploiting the stigma towards those with mental illness. 

The bottom line is that the Connecticut Judicial Branch should not have aided and abetted practices that are clearly unethical and grossly exploitative and continue to exploit the Connecticut taxpayer and private litigants to the tune of thousands and thousands of their hard earned dollars. 

Recently I contacted Attorney Martin Libben, legal representative for the Connecticut Judicial Branch, and asked him to update me regarding whether any of the recommendations of the report had been implemented.

In his response email he stated, "The recommendations of the committee contained both short term and long terms goals.  Some of the short term goals have been implemented...The rest of the recommendations are in varying stages of development or further review."

I was unable to obtain a comment from Attorney Joette Katz who was the original Chairperson of this committee.

Still, according to the National Center For State Courts there has been no significant change in regard to how court reporters and court recording monitors charge private litigants and other state agencies in the State of Connecticut. 


Just yesterday, a friend of mine reported a bill of $3.00 per page for the standard rate and explained that she is going to have to pay at least $2,000.00 for transcripts related to her appeal.  Thus, for those who have more than a few days of trial, charges for court transcripts can still end up being extremely costly, an unfortunate situation which acts as a barrier to justice.

This means that current solutions still have not been adequate to change the way court reporters and court recording monitors do business with private litigants or other state agencies.  Seriously, what does it take?

BILLY BOB THORNTON ON KEEPING DREAMS ALIVE!

WHAT GIVES WITH ADAM LANZA'S MENTAL HEALTH HISTORY? WHY IS IT SUCH A BIG SECRET?

On February 13, 2014, Ablechild asked the question,


Is Lanza’s Psychiatrist’s Drugging Indicative of Connecticut’s Mental Health Services?

In today’s Connecticut News Times there was a brief article spelling out the State’s legislative agenda, including efforts to block the right of the public to have access to information on homicides.  This legislative measure is in response to the State’s continued unwillingness to make public the mental health records of Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza.

The obvious point of having public disclosure of Lanza’s mental health records is two-fold. First, it is important to know whether Lanza was prescribed any psychiatric mind-altering drugs that may have played a part in his violent behavior. The disclosure of these records also is necessary in order for lawmakers to make informed decisions about costly, mental health legislation.

For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.pacificrimcoins.com/content/lanza%E2%80%99s-psychiatrist%E2%80%99s-drugging-indicative-connecticut%E2%80%99s-mental-health-services

NEW 2014 EDITION OF HANDBOOK OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE AVAILABLE!

For those of you who are interested, the CT Judicial Branch recently updated the Handbook of Appellate Procedure and is now available online.  For the link to the new Handbook, see below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/Handbook_Ap_proc.pdf

PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL ABUSE!

JUDICIAL RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO AUDIO RECORDINGS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS!

A few years ago I was working as an advocate at a friend's legal proceeding.  For convenience, I will call my friend Anne.  As the judge opened the session, Anne shoved her phone over to me and said, "press record" which I did, not thinking too much about it.  At the time, I was unaware that there were any particular policies in regard to audio recordings of legal proceedings. 

Around 45 minutes into the proceedings, a Marshall approached me and asked, "Is that phone recording?"  I answered, "yes."  Please switch it off or I'll have to take the phone." said the Marshall.  Immediately, I switched the phone off, feeling very embarrassed. 

When the hearing was over, I was then walking out of the door with Anne when a clerk approached me and reprimanded me about the fact that I had tried to record the proceedings with my phone.  "It is against court rules."  Again, I apologized and said I would never do that again. 

Thinking that we had come to an understanding, I then walked into the lobby with Anne and we began to talk about what had happened during the hearing.  Suddenly there was a considerable amount of noise and I looked around to see clerks and Marshalls walking in and out of a courtroom.  It turned out that our case was called back to the Courtroom.  We all took our places, Anne and I on one side and the opposing attorney and Anne's ex on the other.  The Judge walked in and took his seat with the Marshall crying out "All rise!"  I was filled with curiosity about why we were all back again.  "It has come to my attention," stated the Judge, "that the defense was recording the proceedings and I am here to say that no recordings are allowed in the courtroom during legal proceedings." 

First a Marshall, then a clerk, now a judge and an entire open court proceedings to affirm this policy that members of the public may not make audio recordings in the courtroom!  Clearly, everyone associated with the CT Judicial Branch felt strongly regarding this issue.

What is the official policy in regard to audio recordings?  According to The Connecticut Practice Book Sec. 1.10a any member of the public is allowed to make audio recordings with the permission of the judge. 

So my mistake was that I failed to ask permission of the judge.  However, even if I had, I may not have received permission.  According to the journalist Thomas B. Scheffey, who spoke early in 2009, "at this writing “P.B. 10-1a has apparently never been used to allow in-court recording." 

What about the media?  Does the media have any better access than the general public? 

Under The Connecticut Practice Book Sec. 1-11C the media has the privilege to audio record legal proceedings subject to the approval of the court.  The media is allowed to use these recordings not just for personal note taking, but for broadcast purposes as well.  This is actually quite a broad ranging mandate that benefits the press.

However, audio recordings created by the CT Judicial Branch are not available for access or distribution.  Thus, in a recent memo dated November 8, 2013, an employee of the CT Judicial Branch, Attorney Richard Loffredo, stated, "Except as noted below, unless otherwise ordered by the Court or provided by law, access to audio recordings of court proceedings is not available to the public, the parties, or their counsel.  Transcripts of proceedings that are open to the public, however, are available upon request."  

The audio recordings created by the CT Judicial Branch, and the transcripts based upon those recordings are considered part of the official record which is used as the basis for court decisions.  No other recordings are considered acceptable for that purpose. 

It is also important to note that The Connecticut Practice Book may allow the public and the media to make personal audio recordings in both civil and criminal matters, but what goes unstated here is that the CT Judicial Branch particularly does not want to have to allow audio recordings in more private areas of the law such as family court, juvenile court, or in cases of sexual crimes.  So again, we are faced with rules and off the record practices which eliminate accountability in Family Court where so much of the corruption and wrongdoing that we complain about is taking place. 

Many of us who are in Family Court have expressed concern that both the audio recordings and transcripts in family court  cases are doctored and that they cannot be relied upon.  Of course, it is true that if there is a dispute regarding the accuracy of the transcripts, a litigant can listen to the disputed area on the audio recording under the supervision of a court clerk and request a change on the transcript if there is a mistake.  However, without an independent recording, it would be difficult for a litigant to develop a good argument once a controversy arose. 

In 2009, a subcommittee established by the Judicial-Media Committee of the CT Judicial Branch spent four months examining just these issues.  The members of this subcommittee consisted of Attorney Charles L. Howard (Chair); Deputy Chief Court Administrator, the Honorable Patrick L. Carroll III; the Honorable David P. Gold, Presiding Judge, Part A, Hartford Judicial District; Ms Nancy Brown, Judicial Branch Program Manager in the Court Transcripts Services unit; Mr. Thomas B. Scheffrey, Senior Writer, CT Law Tribune; and Mr. Patrick Sanders, CT News Editor, The Associated Press. 

This subcommittee investigated what other States have been doing in regard to audio recordings.  According to Judge Patrick Carroll in his statement to the Subcommittee, "no state currently has court rules in place which authorize members of the public to make audio recordings of court proceedings, even with the permission of the court."   

So it looks as though the CT Judicial Branch is well in advance of other States.

In fact Judge Carroll stated, "While we have not ourselves researched the rules of every state, those rules which have been examined expressly limit their scope and applicability to the audio recording of proceedings by bone fide media outlets only."  California is the one exception in that it allows members of the public to make their own audio recordings for note-taking or personal use.

Members of the subcommittee strongly disagreed with one another regarding the rights of members of the public to make audio recordings of legal proceedings to the point where they were unable to come up with joint recommendations at the end of the report.  Instead, each member of the subcommittee provided an individual statement for the report.  One member, journalist Patrick Sanders of the Associated Press resigned from the Subcommittee to protest the positions of the court professionals.

The essence of the disagreement was as follows.  Ms. Nancy Brown, on behalf of court reporters, expressed concern about preserving the official record and not having competing versions of audio recordings which could muddy up the legal proceedings and lead to appeals. 

She also expressed concern that "fraudulent or inaccurate transcripts made from personal recordings could be produced and sold" and further undercut the official record. 

In addition, court reporters could end up losing substantial income if they lost their exclusive hold on copies of the audio recordings. 

Attorney Charles L. Howard was concerned that conversations between counsel and clients, side bars with the court and statements by jurors might be recorded which would be entirely inappropriate.  Judges commented on the fact that you could announce when individual members of the public should cease recording, but it would be literally impossible to stop people from doing so if they choose to ignore the instruction.  Copies of these recordings could end up on the internet and they could be used to ridicule judges.

The journalists argued for public access to all CT Judicial Branch audio recordings and also argued that individual members of the public and the media should be allowed permission to make their own audio recordings.

Specifically, the 2009 subcommittee report stated that the journalists felt "that providing an accurate accounting [through free access to audio recordings] of what transpires in the peoples' judicial system only further strengthens the public's understanding of the Judicial Branch and its processes, and as such should be allowable as a matter of practicality.” 

The report continued on to say that, “Mr. Sanders, in particular, felt that the Judge should only have the authority to restrict personal audio recordings if there was a compelling reason to do so, if there are no reasonable alternatives, and if such a limitation or preclusion is no broader than necessary to protect the compelling interest at issue."

Further, the journalists expressed their view that "what occurs in Connecticut's courtrooms belongs to the people of Connecticut", that "the need for an open judiciary is paramount", and that "the official court record belongs, collectively, to the public." 

The journalists also recommended that the Judicial Branch implement the recommendation that court-made recordings are made available for purchase by the public as it is in many other state and federal courts.  As Journalist Thomas B. Scheffrey stated, “"One of the more stunning things we learned was that our federal court system has a strikingly different approach to digital court recordings.  Through the nationwide PACER document retrieval system, digital records of court hearings and trials in many federal courts can be obtained for $26 per compact disk, or just eight cents for a computer download of an audio file of an entire trial. " 

And further, the U.S. Supreme Court audiotapes of oral arguments are available going back to the 1950s.  There is even a CD of its "Greatest Hits" available on Amazon. 

To that, Journalist Patrick Sanders added,  "Courts are a public domain not a monopoly." 

And again, Thomas B. Scheffrey remarked, "Simply put, I believe that there should be a presumption of openness, as expressed by the Chief Justice, in allowing audio recording of court proceedings.  Much as executive and legislative public meetings and a hearings are open to citizens and reporters who are using personal recording devices, so should actions taken in a public forum by the state's judiciary.  the Judicial Branch cannot justify holding itself to a different standard than other equal branches of government."  

Despite these clarion calls for openness and transparency which theses journalists articulated so courageously, since the 2009 report, to my knowledge, there have been no changes in the stated policies of the CT Judicial Branch in regard to audio recordings. 

As long as this is the case, litigants in Family Court will continue to believe that they are being denied their due process right to access to the court audio record of the legal proceedings.  They will continue to speculate that the audio recordings are being tampered with and they will continue to view the transcripts that court reporters produce with a jaundiced eye. 

However, even if we get some movement in this area of the law, the likelihood is that, as stated, Family Court will be the last to open up court proceedings to audio recordings by members of the public, if it ever happens at all.  It is this overall lack of transparency in family court proceedings which has led to so many constitutional and human rights violations over the years. 

As a final note, I would also like to point out that the Subcommittee Report of 2009 doesn’t make a single mention of the fact that the CT Judicial Branch has an obligation to provide audio recordings as a reasonable modification for people with disabilities under Title II of Federal ADA Law.  Since the CT Judicial Branch continues to refuse to comply with Federal ADA Law this topic was kind of the elephant in the room that no one, apparently, cared to mention.