IN MEMORY OF MIKE BROWN. DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT BELIEVES "BLACK LIVES MATTER"!

A SLAP VERSUS A PUNCH: IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES CAN LAW ENFORCEMENT TELL THE DIFFERENCE?

I might as well say right now that I have been a victim of domestic violence and so in writing this I am speaking from my own personal experience.  I won't say it was from my marriage because I don't want to get into that.  But let us say that I was subjected to violence before I got married and we'll call the guy who did it Tom. 

One of the things I remember about Tom the most, aside from how strong he was, is that he never took responsibility for his actions.  Whenever he beat me up, it was always my fault that it happened.  One time I can recall I was sitting in a chair reading a book and Tom threw a full can of soda at me which would have hurt me seriously if it had hit me.  Luckily, I ducked and the soda can  sailed through the window completely smashing the window pane. 

Tom had the window repaired and kept following me around afterward asking me to pay half the cost of the window saying it was partially my fault that it got broken.  I still give myself credit for not agreeing to do so. 

This is why I am particularly upset with the fact that yesterday former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice won the appeal of his indefinite suspension from football.

More than anything else, the inept way in which this case has been handled is very frustrating.  What occurred in this case reflects a completely inadequate understanding of what domestic violence is all about.  But before I proceed with those ideas, let me just review exactly what happened. 

Apparently, both Ray Rice and his then fiancé Janay Palmer had been out socializing with some friends; they acknowledge they had been drinking.  As Janay describes it, the two were generally bad tempered with each other when they returned to their hotel and got on the elevator to go back to their room. 

Once on the elevator, she says that she made a grab for Ray's cell phone and he spat at her.  She then slapped him, and in return he knocked her unconscious.  However, she is rather vague about her memory of what happened because she says when she woke up, she was in a fog. 

Other versions I've heard of the story say that she spat at him. The video is grainy and Ray Rice had a hat on.  He is also quite bulky so it is hard to see what the interaction was--who spit at whom, who slapped whom.  Who knows exactly, but it is certain from the video that Janay was charging in Ray's direction just before he knocked her out. 

You also can't be sure what the two were talking about before their argument got physical--perhaps that might provide some clarity.  But the fact is,  Ray Rice knocked Janay out and then dragged her off the elevator and left her face down on the floor for several minutes with her skirt riding up so high that you can literally see her underpants.  This is pretty degrading and humiliating in and of itself.

A hotel security officer then showed up and questioned Ray Rice about what was going on.  From what you can see, it does not look as though either showed evidence of any concern regarding Janay's wellbeing while they were standing there. 

Subsequently, the police arrived and took Ray Rice and Janay Palmer to the police station where they were both arrested--Ray for aggravated assault and Janay for simple assault, although the latter charge was later dropped quietly.  Subsequently, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodall gave Ray Rice a two game suspension for his actions which was later expanded into an indefinite suspension in the face of the general public outcry against such a light punishment. 

Meanwhile, the NFL pressured Janay to apologize for her behavior at a press conference as if she was the one who committed the wrongdoing.

And now, just yesterday, Ray Rice succeeded in getting his suspension overturned by U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones.  Is there any better way to demonstrate judicial indifference towards victims of domestic violence, and send the message that we just don't care?

In regard to the criminal charges against Ray Rice, those charges were also dropped and  instead Ray Rice was allowed to enter a pre-trial intervention program for first time offenders which requires him to stay out of trouble for a year and obtain counseling with his now wife, Janay, who was the victim of his assault. 

The question I have, and the question I suspect many other people have is: why isn't this man in jail? 

It is bad enough that the National Football League was so ready to sweep this incident under the rug.  But the fact that Ray Rice got off so lightly says volumes about how indifferent the criminal justice system is towards victims of domestic violence.  

In particular, if you look around courtrooms throughout the State of Connecticut you will see pamphlets and posters warning people against domestic violence.   They could actually give you the impression that the State of Connecticut genuinely opposes domestic violence.  But this is not truly the case. 

Recently, a friend of mine who filed for divorce was attacked by her ex husband.  He ended up smacking her around, inflicting bruises and breaking some of her ribs.  You would think this would be enough to get him arrested and charged criminally.  But no, when the police arrived on the scene, her ex stated to the police that she had slapped him and so the police decided to arrest both of them. 

When they came to court, each was given a restraining order against the other as if they had both committed crimes of equal severity.  Yet there was no evidence that my friend had slapped her ex at all except his personal statement.  Furthermore, this is what  I don't get--there is every difference between a slap versus knocking a person unconscious, covering them with bruises or breaking their ribs.  Still, all an abusive man has to do to get further revenge once he has beaten up his wife is to humiliate her with an arrest by fabricating false charges such as "She slapped me first!". 

This is why I find it ridiculous that the NFL put pressure on Janay Palmer to apologize for her behavior and act as though what she did is on an equal level with what Ray Rice did.  She should not have been asked to apologize any more than I should have had Tom asking me to pay half the price of getting that window fixed. 

The question is:  Who is the victim here?  And the answer is Janay Palmer, as I was in my day, and as my friend was who endured bruises and broken ribs. 

No we do not share responsibility for those attacks against us.  Why?  You might ask.  Because men are ten times stronger than women any day of the week. 

And if you are going to dispute me on that, I will simply say that it is pretty clear that Ray Rice, as a trained football player, was definitely much stronger and bigger than Janay.  My friend's soon to be ex-husband is a weight lifter.

I can recall trying to get help in getting Tom to stop and people would say to me, "Oh, but you are a such a big, strong girl, how can Tom get away with it?" implying that I had to be making the story up.  It didn't matter how big and strong I was.  Men are simply much, much stronger, bottom line.  I found that out, and my friend with the bruises and broken ribs found it out as well, as did Janay Palmer. 

People who think otherwise are watching too many staged versions of "Superwoman." 

Earlier today, I drove by a Karate studio which had a big sign up advertising self defense classes for women.  I would never waste my time taking a course like that.  Sure you might learn how to do something unexpected that would buy you a little extra time, if you were assaulted.  But, again, the bottom line is no woman is going to be able to fight a guy off who has decided to beat her up.  What these courses do is give women a false sense of security they would be foolish to indulge in if they want to stay safe. 

Women's advocates are working hard to improve the lives of women across the line.  But no one can say we have dealt properly with violence against women until we can differentiate between a slap versus a punch, or even more wisely recognize that there is absolutely no possible explanation or excuse when a man beats up a woman.  And no woman should have to apologize or face arrest simply because she is a victim.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING FROM "DIVORCE IN CONNECTICUT"!

CORRUPTCT WEBSITE REPORTS PETER SZYMONIK, PROMINENT FAMILY COURT REFORM LEADER THREATENED WITH JAIL!

During the hearings in regard to family court reform, we heard members of the judicial branch state that no litigants are threatened with jail in family court.  Here we have another example to the contrary as Mr. Peter Szymonik is threatened with jail if he fails to pay fraudulent attorney's fees to Rhonda Morra, one of the most corrupt GALs practicing in Connecticut today.  For the full story, please go to the Corruptct website at the following link:

 

http://www.corruptct.com/corrupt/ct-judge-bozzuto-retaliates-pay-gal-9600-or-go-to-jail/

WHAT DOESN'T KILL ME!

UCONN PROFESSOR AND ATTORNEY RON MURPHY CAUGHT SOLICITING PROSTITUTES!

FOX CONNECT REPORTS,

SOUTHINGTON–The Southington Police Department arrested six men on Friday, Nov. 14 after an undercover prostitution operation that was planned after numerous reports of prostitutes actively working at several motels in the area.

An officer posed as a prostitute and responded to numerous requests for sexual activity in exchange for money. The officer arranged to meet at a local motel room, and the suspects who showed up were arrested and charged with patronizing a prostitute.
The six men who were arrested include Lukasz Kaziul, 31, of Southington; Paolo Mazzicato, 40, of Avon; Ronald Murphy, 56, of Farmington; Paul Tommasino, 54, of Meriden; Dana Layton, 59, of Union City, California; and David Tonseth, 58, of Marlborough, New Hampshire.

Ronald Murphy was also charged with interfering with a police officer. Murphy is a prominent trial lawyer who is bar certified in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

http://foxct.com/2014/11/17/uconn-law-professor-and-lawyer-arrested-in-prostitution-sting/

LAUGHABLY FLAWED STUDY ON CT JUDICIAL BRANCH COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADA MAKES IT ONTO THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH WEBSITE AND THE PAGES OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

On November 17, 2014 I was struck by an article in the CT Law Tribune stating that the CT Judicial Branch had been cited by the National Center for Access to Justice (NCAJ) as having "the highest overall ranking for any state for its programs aimed at providing equal court access to all citizens." 

 

This was a surprise to me since I have been closely involved in advocacy aimed at getting the CT Judicial Branch to comply with the ADA, which for the better part it does not do.  I then today took note of the fact that the CT Judicial Branch itself is boasting of its great work as well on the front page of its website, also citing the NCAJ. 

 

Wanting to get a better grasp of this absurd announcement, I actually clicked on the link to the National Center for Access to Justice and was not surprised to see that the touted justice index which praises Connecticut so greatly is brand new and was first started on February 25, 2014.  Well, I think then, given how new this index is that it can be forgiven a little idiocy until it catches up with the rest of us more grizzled participants in the field of disability rights! 

 

The next thing I did was take a look at the parameters which earned the Connecticut Judicial Branch such high ratings, despite the fact that it has such a widespread reputation among litigants for obstructing the ADA at every turn.  So, folks, these are the parameters that the Justice Index used as the basis of its determinations.  Mind you, they didn't speak to anybody--either judicial branch employees or litigants with disabilities.  What they did was surf judicial branch websites in states throughout the nation for answers to the following questions:  

 

1.  Are courts required or allowed to charge deaf or hard of hearing for sign language interpreters?

 

2.  Certification of sign language interpreters a. Is there a State statute, rule, or other guidance requiring courts to use only certified sign language court interpreters? b. Are courts required to give preference to sign language interpreters who have training in how to interpret in a legal setting?

 

3.  Does the state judiciary’s web site tell court users: a. How to request an accommodation because of disability or who to contact to request an accommodation? b. How to file a complaint about difficulty accessing court facilities or services because of disability? c. Who to contact to file a complaint?

 

4.  Is there a State statute, rule or other guidance requiring courts to allow service animals?

 

 - See more at: http://www.justiceindex.org/methodology/#sthash.zCSlL2ZX.dpuf

 

Questions one and two out of the four questions are in regard to the deaf.  I would suspect this is directed towards the CT Judicial Branch which signed a settlement with the Department of Justice in November 11, 2003 agreeing to provide accommodations for folks who are deaf.  Hard as it is to believe, prior to that date, they were not doing so. 

 

From the data I have, deafness is pretty much the only disability the CT Judicial Branch accommodates.  So what about all the other various disabilities that need to be accommodated--they don't receive any honorable mention? 

 

Question three appears to indicate that the Connecticut Judicial Branch provides litigants with information on who to contact in order to request an accommodation and who to contact in order to submit a grievance.  In fact, this is not true.  The CT Judicial Branch website tells you to speak to a contact person--and there are over a 100 listed on the website--at the clerk's office for a request for accommodation. 

 

This is hardly a name. 

 

For a grievance, you are asked to submit your documents to the Director of the Human Resources Management Unit. 

 

So you do not actually get the name and contact information of a specific individual, i.e. Designated Responsible Employee, who is in charge of the implementation of the ADA at the CT Judicial Branch which is what the ADA actually requires. 

 

What this comes down to is the fact that this so called justice index has been produced on the most superficial level possible and has no more credibility than, say, a law diploma ordered from the internet for a modest fee. 

 

Apparently, a considerable number of Carbozo Law students were involved in compiling the data used in the making of this justice index.  Oops!  Sorry, I meant Cardozo School of Law students.  Ok, call me a snob, but I would probably have been more impressed with these results if they had been compiled by students from Harvard Law, Cornell Law, or Columbia Law--you know, schools with some actual prestige--but, you know, they would probably not have been willing to participate in such a laughable project no matter how many brib--excuse me--much money you gave them. 

 

Ok, so students from the University of Pennsylvania Law school (ranked 7th or 8th in the country) did some research as well, but what with the Sandusky affair and the kids for cash scandal, I wouldn't credit any institution from Pennsylvania! 

 

The bottom line in any investigation of compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act is whether the CT Judicial Branch actually provided accommodations to the litigants who used the court system and whether the Branch actually reached out to litigants to let them know that such accommodations were available.  Yes, item number four regarding service dogs is important, but not half as important making sure that the ADA is applied to everyone.

 

I myself was unaware of the existence of  ADA accommodations  at the CT Judicial Branch until three years after my case was filed, and I am not the only one who has had that kind of experience. 

 

That is a pretty miserable record, in my humble opinion. 

 

From what I can see, the National Center For Access to Justice is largely made up of and funded by -- you guessed it -- attorneys!  I thought it was interesting to see the Pfizer Legal Group is participating since Pfizer is such a major corporation in Connecticut. 

 

Needless to say, when lawyers and their legal institutions start praising themselves and their accomplishments, which they are never too modest to do--see the Super Lawyers website which is equally powered by scuzzy brib--excuse me--financial contributions--you've got to start feeling a little nervous. 

 

I can only assume that this recent desperate ploy of establishing a fake justice index indicates that the Connecticut Judicial Branch and its judges are feeling the heat from several Federal and State ADA Lawsuits which have been filed against it within the last two years for non-compliance with the comprehensive civil rights mandate of the ADA.  My response is only to say one day we shall overcome, we shall overcome.