THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS THAT A SINGLE DETERMINED LITIGANT BROUGHT DOWN THE NOMINATION OF A JUDICIAL CANDIDATE FOR REAPPOINTMENT!

According to The Hartford Courant:

 

"Gov. Dannel P. Malloy took the unusual step Friday of withdrawing a judicial nomination after allegations were raised about the jurist's temperament. Thomas F. Parker of Niantic currently serves as a state referee, overseeing civil cases in the New London judicial district. But at a Jan. 16 hearing before the legislature's judiciary committee on his reappointment to another seven-year term, lawmakers quizzed Parker for almost 90 minutes about a series of allegations made by a plaintiff in a civil matter. The plaintiff, Sylvester Traylor is African American; he accused Parker of racial bias. He said Parker mocked his manner of speaking, inappropriately detained his attorney and, at one point, grabbed his wrist. "It is my contention that Judge Parker committed a civil rights violation against me by reaching into the witness box and grabbing my wrist, then asking me if I felt intimidated by him,'' Traylor wrote in documents submitted to the judiciary committee. Parker, 79, could not be reached for comment on Saturday. But when asked during the hearing about the allegations contained in the documents, he flatly rejected Traylor's assertions. "I have no bias against him because of his race,'' Parker told lawmakers. Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, pressed Parker, asking him to explain why he grabbed Traylor's wrist.  "It didn't occur,'' Parker responded. At one point, the questioning grew sharper and Parker repeatedly interrupted Gonzalez. That prompted a warning from Rep. William Tong, co-chairman of the committee. "It's clear Judge Parker that there are going to be some questions from members of the committee about your nomination,'' said Tong, D-Stamford. "Rep. Gonzalez has the right and prerogative to ask you those questions. It would be great if you would give her the opportunity...and not answer preemptively and not try to react to her questions." He also reminded Gonzalez to give Parker time to respond. Throughout the day on Friday, while the committee was holding a series of hearings on other judicial nominees as well as appointees to the board of pardons and paroles, there were discussions over the fate of Parker's nomination behind closed doors. The governor's office ultimately opted to pull the appointment. "While Judge Parker has been a dedicated public servant, we have opted to withdraw his nomination," spokesman Devon Puglia said. He did not provide additional details. Sen. Gary Winfield, a member of the committee, said lawmakers reviewed the documents provided by Traylor. "There were some general concerns about the way [Parker] engages with people in court,'' he said. But Winfield, a Democrat from New Haven, said lawmakers had to balance those concerns with the positive aspects of Parker's long career. "The man has done a lot of good if you look at his record," Winfield said, citing Parker's pro bono work (Parker has not accepted a salary for the past five years.) Parker graduated from Hall High School in West Hartford and studied chemistry at Fordham University in New York. After a stint in the U.S. Army, he attended the University of Connecticut Law School and obtained his law degree in 1962, the same year he was admitted to the Connecticut Bar.  Former Gov. William A. O'Neill appointed Judge Parker to the bench in December 1990. During his 12 years on the bench, Parker has served at courthouses in Bristol, Hartford, Waterbury, New Britain, New London, and Middletown. In 2002, he was appointed the state's Deputy Chief Court Administrator. "Judge Parker has given tremendous service to our state for decades,'' Tong said Saturday. "He was known to be a very able, thoughtful and committed jurist."

 

Also on Friday, the judiciary committee approved the following nominees to the state Superior Court: Bernadette Conway of North Haven, Stephen F. Frazzini of West Hartford, 
Edward C. Graziani of Ellington and Earl B. Richards, III of Woodbridge. The following state referees were also approved: Taggart D. Adams of Wilton, Elizabeth A. Gallagher of Litchfield and Arthur A. Hiller of Shelton. The nominations now move to the full House and Senate for consideration.

               

Courant Capitol Bureau Chief Christopher Keating contributed to this report. 

 

For a direct link to The Hartford Courant article, please clink on the link below:

 

http://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-connecticut-judicial-nominee-withdrawn-20150124-story.html

REBEL PUNDIT REPORTS: GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE OF NEW JERSEY EMBROILED IN FAMILY COURT RICO LAWSUITS!

According to "Rebel Pundit",

"Chris Christie has been named as a defendant in two cases that are part of series of lawsuits across the country where serious concerns about violations of citizens’  rights in family courts are under scrutiny.

CALIFORNIA

An upcoming civil RICO lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the watchdog group Family Court Accountability Coalition (FCAC) will allege that a feeder system created by the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Division, in conjunction with several powerful judges, creates a racket which chooses favored divorce lawyers and makes sure those lawyers get favorable rulings in Sacramento County family court rooms.

 

In 1991, Judges Vance Raye and Peter McBrien, formed the Family Law Executive Committee (FLEC) to help deal with family law cases in Sacramento County family courts. This FLEC would be a group of lawyers, according to the upcoming suit, chosen by the Sacramento County Bar Association’s family law division which would act as judge pro temp on certain family law cases and in exchange, the suit will allege, the lawyers chosen for this task would be given favorable rulings, deserved or not, when they appeared in divorce court in their regular roles.

 

One of the most high profile case examples of this scheme which will be featured in the suit is that of Ulf Carlsson who appeared in front of Judge McBrien and whose story received significant media attention culminating with a lengthy feature in the documentary Divorce Corp."

 

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

 

http://rebelpundit.com/chris-christie-named-in-two-lawsuits-alleging-violations-by-family-courts/

TELEPHONIC HEARINGS: HOW THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST OUT OF STATE RESIDENTS!

As if I didn't have enough trouble in this State, I once became involved in an important legal matter in another State.  This meant that every time I was supposed to have a hearing, I could have been required to get on a plane and spend hundreds of dollars for the flight ticket, rental car and hotel accommodations. 

 

However, lucky for me, this was a State where the Court felt quite comfortable holding telephonic hearings and went out of the way to make them possible for me.  Yes, I did have the occasional problem with an officious clerk here and there who tried to obstruct me, but basically the judge was supportive.  Also, in this State they have a rule of Court that allows for telephonic hearings and so I could just cite the provision as the basis for my motion for a telephonic hearing. 

 

Unfortunately, while this other State was so courteous and respectful of my needs, this is not the case when it comes to the State of Connecticut.  If anyone from that other State tried to get a telephonic hearing here in Connecticut, they would not necessarily be treated to reciprocity.

 

Recently, a friend of mine who wished to participate in a hearing this upcoming week in CT Family Court by telephone had the judge deny her request for a telephonic hearing.  My belief is that he did this simply because he is mean spirited.

 

Now, if we were talking a telephonic hearing from say New Jersey or New Hampshire, I could see turning that down.  I mean seriously, New Jersey has the nerve to call itself The Garden State!  And that live free or die thing gets pretty annoying.  These New Hampshire types need to stop hiding away in the woods.  However, this friend of mine lives in far away California. 

 

Like many other people, I have been subject to that East Coast/West Coast fever that drives coasters to go for the other coast on the other side of the country.  I have, therefore, travelled to Los Angeles and San Francisco and enjoyed its sun drenched streets to the full.  What I want you folks to know who haven't yet caught the bug is that it takes pretty much a full day to travel all the way across country. 

 

So were I to travel round trip for a hearing in California, that means the one full day, or night, I suppose you can catch a red eye, there, plus another full day back, plus the day of the hearing.  That is a full three days in order to make it to a single one or two hour hearing.  

 

Given the time involved, I have to say I thought that it was pretty unfortunate that the judge here refused to be flexible enough to allow my friend to have a telephonic hearing.  It kind of makes the people of Connecticut look like a bunch of rednecks. 

 

Since our judicial system is based on some important Judeo-Christian values, I took a look at what the bible has to say about such nasty behavior towards people from Out of State.  In fact, the bible specifically says don't act like that.  For example, Deuteronomy 1:16 (NRSV)  "I charged your judges at that time: 'Give the members of your community a fair hearing, and judge rightly between one person and another, whether citizen or resident alien."   There is also Deuteronomy 27:19 (NRSV) “Cursed be anyone who deprives the alien, the orphan, and the widow of justice.”  All the people shall say, “Amen!” 

 

So if you are a judge and you are depriving an alien (read Out of State person) justice, you are in direct violation of what God wants from you.  And just in case you were wondering, there are many more injunctions of a similar kind throughout the bible--I was just mentioning a few.  For instance my personal favorite, Hebrews 13:2 (NRSV)  "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it."  

 

My point is not to get all religious on you, but simply to say that this is what civilized behavior is all about.  I am personally embarrassed when a Judge in my own State can't seem to understand that concept.  

 

I was lucky that the State where my legal proceeding was taking place had a policy regarding telephonic hearings.  But what about the State of Connecticut.  What do we have in place?  Was there any legal basis for the judge's decision to deny my friend a telephonic hearing?  The closest I could get to a provision on telephonic hearings was in the Connecticut Practice Book 25a-4 in Procedures in Family Support Magistrates Matters.  This section goes as follows:

 

Sec. 25a-4. Telephonic Hearings

(a) In any case where mandated by law, the

judicial authority shall upon written motion or on

its own motion permit an individual to testify by

telephone or other audio electronic means.

(b) In any case where permitted by law, the

judicial authority may, upon written motion or on

its own motion, permit an individual to testify by

telephone or other audio electronic means.

(c) Upon an order for a telephonic hearing, the

judicial authority shall set the date, time and place

for such hearing and shall issue an order in connection

therewith.

 

There are other provisions such as Connecticut Practice Book Chapter 13-30(g) which allows for depositions to be taken by telephonic means. 

 

I am also aware that for self-represented persons who are incarcerated there are provisions in place to conduct hearings by videoconferencing. 

 

I will grant you that there is nothing in Chapter 25 the section on family matters, unlike Chapter 25a which has to do with child support issues, which allows for a telephone conference.  But if there isn't, shouldn't there be? 

 

Is there some implication that hearings on child support more easily lend themselves to a telephonic conference than would other issues related to family matters?  If so, I don't think that makes sense. 

 

There is no doubt that in this day and age with videoconferencing equipment pretty much available in the majority of courthouses, with Skype available on everyone's computer for free, and cell phones everywhere you go, there is no excuse for refusing to allow a telephonic hearing, particularly if neither party objects. 

 

It would be different if no one used telephonic hearings in family matters, but in fact, it is my impression that Family Court uses telephonic hearings frequently.  In my Family Court matter, when I was disabled by a temporary health problem, the Judge ordered a telephonic hearing even though I hadn't asked for it and didn't want one.  

 

Ultimately, I guess, in Connecticut the question of whether to allow a telephonic hearing is a matter of judicial discretion. 

 

I would think that in the situation with my friend any judge would realize that a round trip ticket to Connecticut, plus hotel and rental car pretty much adds up to $1,000.00 in expenses plus minimally two days of lost time at work.  As a matter of leveling the playing field and showing respect for the challenges any Out of State resident faces in a Family Court matter where there are sure to be numerous hearings, you would think that the better part of judicial discretion would have been to approve the telephonic hearing. 

 

But there is such a thing, and we know all about it, where the Judge has local ties to the litigant here in Connecticut and prefers to burden the Out of State litigant with extra costs.  What this kind of judge doesn't take into account is that children have a relationship with both parents.  Even when one relationship is stronger than the other, or one side has greater legal rights than the other, if you bully the losing party, the child will always end up being hurt one way or another.

 

The time is now for judges to use their judicial discretion to allow for telephonic hearings on behalf of Out of State litigants.  The time is now for judges to stop the mean spiritedness.  The time is now to put Practice Book Rules into place for telephonic hearings in Family Court Matters with Out of State litigants, and to stop the nonsense. 

INTRODUCED BY REP. PEGGY SAYERS, PROPOSED BILL NO. 6486, EXPANDING PATIENTS' RIGHT TO KNOW!

General Assembly		Proposed Bill No. 6486
January Session, 2015		LCO No. 1217
		*01217*
Referred to Committee on PUBLIC HEALTH
Introduced by:
REP. SAYERS, 60th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING INFORMED MEDICAL DECISIONS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That title 19a of the general statutes be amended to require health care providers to (1) assist patients in evaluating treatment options based on each patient's goals, concerns, personal values, preferences and life circumstances in order to facilitate deliberation and decision-making, and (2) provide information to each patient concerning the benefits and risks of treatment options by using a decision aid such as that developed by the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation in order to arrive at an informed decision on health care treatment that is in the best interest of the patient.

Statement of Purpose:
To require health care providers to engage in a collaborative process of shared decision-making with patients.

INTRODUCED BY REP. JAMES ALBIS, PROPOSED BILL NO. 6481,TO EXPAND GRANDPARENT'S RIGHTS IN CUSTODY MATTERS!

General Assembly		Proposed Bill No. 6481
January Session, 2015		LCO No. 832
		*00832*
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by:
REP. ALBIS, 99th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING A GRANDPARENT'S RIGHT TO VISITATION WITH HIS OR HER GRANDCHILD.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That section 46b-59 of the general statutes be amended to provide that there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a grandparent is entitled to a right to visitation with his or her grandchild.

Statement of Purpose:
To expand a grandparent's right to visitation with his or her grandchild.

INTRODUCED BY SEN. JOHN KISSEL, PROPOSED BILL NO. 676, TASK FORCE ON ALIMONY REFORM!

General Assembly   Proposed Bill No. 676   January Session, 2015   LCO No. 1752   *01752* Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by:
SEN. KISSEL, 7th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TASK FORCE TO STUDY ALIMONY REFORM.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That a task force be established to study reforms relating to the award of alimony in the state.

Statement of Purpose:
To establish a task force that shall study the process and practice of awarding alimony in the state.

INTRODUCED BY SEN. JOHN KISSEL, PROPOSED BILL NO. 661, TO REDUCE TENSIONS BETWEEN PARENTS AND THE CT FAMILY COURTS!

General Assembly		Proposed Bill No. 661
January Session, 2015		LCO No. 2319
		*02319*
Referred to Committee on JUDICIARY
Introduced by:
SEN. KISSEL, 7th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONNECTICUT PARENTAL RIGHTS ADVISORY COMMISSION.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to establish the Connecticut Parental Rights Advisory Commission, which shall advise the Judicial Branch regarding family court issues with the intent of reducing conflict between parents and the state's family courts.

Statement of Purpose:
To establish the Connecticut Parental Rights Advisory Commission.