PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE T. ROGERS OBJECTS TO MODEST BUDGET CUTS!

Apparently, the State of Connecticut's budget proposal's primary recommendation for the CT Judicial Branch is to dismantle the organizational and management infrastructure of its Court Support Services Division and place its various functions in multiple Executive Branch agencies.  For more information on this, see below:


http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press409.htm


For the Connecticut Law Tribune Article commenting on the budget cut to the CT Judicial Branch, see the link below:


http://www.ctlawtribune.com/home/id=1202718375885?kw=Chief%20Justice%20Opposes%20Governor%27s%20Judiciary%20Proposal&et=editorial&bu=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune&cn=20150219&src=EMC-Email&pt=Connecticut%20Law%20Tribune%20Daily%20Briefing&slreturn=20150119164737

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

DEMONSTRATION OF CART TECHNOLOGY FOR DEAF, HARD OF HEARING, AND OTHER INVISIBLE DISABILITIES IN THE COURTROOM!

Ordinarily, the words would not be projected on a large screen. Instead, you would be able to read them on a laptop at your desk. Just FYI!

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE CT LAW TRIBUNE!

Below are the names of the members of the editorial board for the CT Law Tribune:

Joette Katz, Chair
http://www.ct.gov/dcf/cwp/view.asp?a=2534&Q=480380

Dwight H. Merriam, Vice Chair
http://www.rc.com/people/DwightHMerriam.cfm

MEMBERS

Joyce Chen

Proloy K. Das

Robert Farr

Eugene Fidell

Mary Galvin

Elizabeth Gilson

Rachel Goldberg

Robert Holzberg

Wesley W. Horton

Jocelyn Kennedy

David King

James B. Lyon

Eugene Marconi

Sean McElligott

Robert Mitchell

Dennis C. Murphy

Alan Neigher

Louis R. Pepe

Thomas B. Scheffey

Mark Soboslai

James F. Sullivan

Cecil Thomas

Thomas J. Ullmann

Diane Whitney

Steven Wizner



NORM PATTIS, UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL, MARCH 10, 2015!

March 10, 2015 at Henry Carter Hull Library in Clinton, CT.

He’s known as American’s fiercest trial lawyer, but Norm Pattis is also an impassioned social philosopher. This far-ranging conversation may include commentary on guns, prisons, local and national cases. Norm Pattis’s pleas for personal liberty and commonsense rule of law will surely provoke heated social discourse– precisely his intent.

Copies of his new book, "In The Trenches" will be available for purchase.
 

Address: 10 Killingworth Tpke, Clinton


Please Note:  Unfortunately, if you want to get a copy of the book in advance, it is currently out of stock on Amazon, so you may wish to call the author directly for a copy at:  203-393-3017.

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS NEW ALIMONY RULING CAUSING LOTS OF BUZZ!

The Connecticut Law Tribune reports as follows:

Is alimony a punishment for a divorcing spouse withdrawing the income stream from a marriage?
 
Is it a mechanism to allow the recipient to live in "the style to which she (or he) has become accustomed"?
 
Or is it a short-term jump start of funding to help the recipient train for employment and self-sufficiency?
 
According to top matrimonial lawyers, decades of Connecticut case law gives no clear guidance, and recently, the picture grew more cloudy.
 
A December decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court, Dan v. Dan, held that a sharp increase in income of one ex-spouse, by itself, is not grounds for modifying alimony payments to the other divorced party. That decision has, the experts say, made it more important than ever for lawyers and trial courts to spell out the purpose of alimony payments in the settlement or trial decision, or risk a difficult modification battle later..."

THE HARTFORD COURANT REPORTS CT USES EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF SECLUSION AND RESTRAINTS WITH SCHOOL CHILDREN!

The Hartford Courant reports as follows:
 
"A 4-year-old boy identified with a developmental delay was physically restrained by school staff after he "threw (puzzle) pieces on the floor and across the room" while playing with a puzzle on a classroom rug.
 
An elementary school student was put into seclusion after "swinging her coat at staff."
 
These are among hundreds of incidents — deemed "emergencies" by school personnel — that warranted restraining and isolating preschool and elementary school students in Connecticut last year. A new report by the state Office of the Child Advocate raises "significant concern" regarding the frequency with which young children with autism and other disabilities are restrained or secluded; lapses in documentation or actual compliance with state laws; and the prevalence of "unidentified and unmet educational needs for children subject to forceful or isolative measures."
 
For more information regarding this article, please click on the link below:
 

Monday, February 16, 2015

MISTRIAL DECLARED IN TIFFANY STEVENS "MURDER FOR HIRE" TRIAL!

On December 12, 2014, David Owens of "The Hartford Courant" reported,
 
"Tiffany Stevens' murder-for-hire trial ended Friday with a mistrial after the three men and three women on the jury said they were hopelessly deadlocked.
 
The jurors sent out notes three times telling Superior Court Judge Edward J. Mullarkey that they could not reach a verdict on the charge of attempted murder. The first two times, Mullarkey sent the jurors back and asked them to keep deliberating.
 
About 4:30 p.m., jurors sent the third note. Mullarkey asked prosecutor Anthony Bochicchio and defense attorney Hubert Santos what they thought.
 
"I don't think there's any purpose in keeping them any further," Bochicchio responded..."
 
For those who are interested, it looks as though the $50 million trust fund that was alleged to go to the person who obtains custody of the child in this case apparently does not exist.  Go figure!
 
Anyway, for more information on this matter, please click on the link below: