ATTORNEY SHIRLEY PRIPSTEIN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST SHARED PARENTING!

WHERE VICTIMS ARE TREATED LIKE CRIMINALS: REFLECTIONS OF A FAMILY COURT ADVOCATE ON A DAY IN CRIMINAL COURT!

Last week I had my first experience of going to criminal court with a friend whose ex-husband rammed her car.  "This will not be a problem", she said in her heavily accented voice, "I am the victim." 


My friend, whom I will call Anya, is of Ukrainian extraction.  Of course, as a long time person who has participated in family court proceedings I do not consider anything at all "not a problem"--any time you appear in Court, any kind of Court, guilty or innocent you have a problem and, in my opinion, no matter what you are going in for, you have to be on high alert the moment you walk through the door until you leave. 

Criminal Court is an enormous concrete monstrosity located at 101 Lafayette Street in downtown Hartford.  It has none of the 1920s Herculean charm of the Civil Court located right across the way at 95 Washington, Street.  Once I arrived there, I had to walk up a very steep set of stairs to a common area where litigants, their relatives and supporters, sat around waiting for the Court Proceedings to begin.  Anya was sitting there with her folder of documents and it wasn’t long before a mutual friend of ours, Collette, appeared as well.   

Together, Anya, Collette, and I went down the massive staircase and walked over to the Office of the Victim’s Advocate to find out what was going to happen.  This Office was located in the same place as the Prosecutor’s Office and appeared to be abandoned.  However, we were able to find a single secretary who was able to locate Anya’s Victim’s Advocate.  We will call him Bill.  We asked Bill, what is going to happen during the proceedings today.  He didn’t seem to know for sure so he told us he would check with the prosecutor and meet us back upstairs. 
 

While he was off doing that, I thought about Anya’s situation which had brought her to Court today.  Like many abused women, Anya had been legally hounded through the Family Court system to the point where her ex had seized custody of the children and had her placed on supervised visitation despite the fact that she is a perfectly fit mother. 


Despite the supervised visitation, she had arranged by email to speak to her children after school.  So she parked her car outside the school building.  The kids were standing there with their bicycles waiting to speak to her as she started to cross the street.  Then the Father sped around the corner, his car at high speed and rammed into her car, thoroughly totaling it. 
 

His excuse?
 

He said that he thought Anya was intending to grab the children and flee the country.  These are kids who were born and brought up in this Country to a mother who now has absolutely no money after years of being in family court.  She is going to flee?  What—no seriously—she’s going to pack the kid’s bicycles in the trunk of the car and flee without money? 

Be that as it may, I can think of several better ways to stop an ex-wife from fleeing the country if you seriously believe that is what she is doing.  For example, you might want to check with your attorney or report her to the authorities.

Anyway, finally Bill, the Victim’s Advocate, returned and Anya, Collette and I huddled in a circle while Bill explained what was going to happen.   He stated it was agreed that Anya’s ex was at fault and the only question was the nature of the penalty. 


Bill explained that Anya would have an opportunity to speak to the judge and state her wishes and the opposing side would present any mitigating factors they believed should affect the extent of the penalty.  I asked Bill whether he would be assisting Anya in making her statement.  Bill said no he couldn’t do that because Anya has an attorney.  I said, as far as I know she does not have any attorney.  Bill insisted that Anya had an attorney. 
 

You probably, my reader, figure I should have stopped there and believed what an Officer of the Court had to say.  But, no, I don’t believe what any Officer of the Court says ever, ever, ever.  It is sad but these people misrepresent the facts all the time so you can never believe them.  I said, “If Anya has an attorney, then where is she?  Did your offices forget to inform her that there was a hearing today?”  I also said, “If Anya has an attorney, could you get the file for the case and show us a copy of the appearance for that attorney?”  Bill insisted, “There is an appearance for an attorney in the file.  I saw it.”  “Well, then," I said, "you shouldn’t have any problem going and getting it.”  For a while he stood there insisting we didn't have to see it.

Eventually, Bill went in to see the prosecutor and brought him out to see us.  The prosecutor acknowledged that there was no appearance for any attorney in the file.  He continued on to state that since it wasn’t correct to proceed without an attorney, he would request a continuance and that the judge was very likely going to grant such a continuance.  He wanted to know if that was acceptable to Anya.  She said yes.  Once the prosecutor had left, Collette turned to me and said, “Honestly, the likelihood is that the prosecutor has already cut a deal and the decision has already been made. This hearing is simply a formality.  Nothing is truly at stake.”   I took that in without comment.  I’d just bet that an extremely high number of Court hearings have a similarly predetermined outcome.

The Court convened and my friend, Anya, stood before the judge with Bill, the Victim’s Advocate, at her side.  The prosecutor immediately explained that there was no attorney appearance filed in the case and since Anya was here without an attorney, the prosecutor asked the judge to grant a continuance.  The judge immediately nixed the idea of a continuance and said why would you need one?  The issue of guilt or innocence is not under dispute.  “We are only determining what the penalty should be.” said the Judge, “I think you [Anya] will do a perfectly fine job of expressing yourself without any need for an attorney.” 

I’m like so much for the idea that there was an understanding that there was going to be a continuance.  It felt like a deliberate deception—the kind of bait and switch I see so frequently in family court.  We had been told there was going to be a continuance, and suddenly it wasn’t on the table anymore.  Did this shift really make a difference in the scheme of things?  Maybe not.  But it is all part of a system that acts in a peremptory and unreliable manner and then blames litigants when they object.
 

To start the opposing side presented its case asking for a lenient penalty.  The attorney went into detail about how Anya’s ex was afraid that Anya was intending to flee the country.  I found that extremely insulting.  As I sat there, it felt as though Anya, who was indeed the victim in this case, (and that was confirmed since her ex was convicted and this was just the penalty phase of the case) was somehow being transformed into a perpetrator. 

The prosecutor then spoke up and mentioned that the case emerged from a high conflict divorce and that family court had five boxes of files on the case.  Again, I felt as though Anya, who was, in fact, the victim in the case, was being treated like the perpetrator.  The fact that her divorce case was high conflict, the prosecutor seemed to imply, was somehow Anya’s fault and detracted from her right to justice. 

The victim’s advocate and the prosecutor said nothing whatsoever about the property damage, nothing about the emotional damage to Anya, nothing about her exes subsequent verbal abuse, and nothing about the harm to the children who were there to observe the whole incident.  Lastly, the opposing attorney stated that her client had not intentionally rammed the back of Anya’s car, but that he was unable to locate his brake.  At that a titter of laughter spread through the audience of largely African-American, Hispanic and poor men and women sitting in the gallery. They were the last people to believe an explanation as stupid as all that.

Finally, Anya had the opportunity to speak.  She spoke about how her ex had committed similar acts of abuse before.  She went into the details of the crime, speaking about how witnesses heard the wheels of her exe’s car squeal loudly because he sped so quickly around the corner on his way to hitting her car.  But the judge was too impatient to hear it.  Even though he had assured Anya he would listen to what she had to say right to the end, after five minutes the judge was done and said, “Fine, fine, I get your point.  I think we are through here.”  Bill quickly jumped in and said, “I think what Anya is trying to say here, your honor, is that she does not agree with any leniency.” as if finally catching up on the fact that he was supposed to be on her side.

At that point, the judge issued his decision which was that Anya’s ex would have a restraining order against him for the next two years.  “May I approach, your honor?” said the opposing attorney.  The opposing attorney, the judge and the prosecutor went into a huddle that excluded Anya for several minutes.  Finally, it broke up and in a firm and hostile manner, the judge said to Anya, “I do not want to hear that you have deliberately gone close to your ex to force him into violating the restraining order.”  Again, I felt like saying, “Who is the victim here?”

After the hearing was over, we walked down the steps on our way out the building.  I was talking non-stop because I was so appalled by what I had seen and heard.  “You said that they understood that you were a victim, but I don’t call that being treated like a victim.” 

I explained to Anya that if I were a victim, this entire atmosphere would have completely traumatized me.  During the entire time we were there, I didn’t once hear the Victim’s Advocate express any concern about Anya’s well being or ask her how she felt or whether she needed anything to feel comfortable.  Instead, I heard absurd theories about Anya’s intention to flee the country, unjustified suspicions that Anya would set her ex up to be arrested, and I heard Anya’s pain invalidated simply because she is a victim of a high conflict divorce.  On top of that the Victim's Advocate treated Anya deceitfully and told her she was represented by an attorney when, in fact, that wasn't true.

In the end, I found it surprising that no one was willing to consider the bottom line in all these abuse cases here in Connecticut.  What Anya’s ex had done was a part of a pattern of bullying behavior that had been going on for a long time.  How was it possible that Anya was the parent still on supervised visitation?  Who could possibly trust the judgment of a man who had seen fit to ram his car into the Mother’s car while his kids were watching?  How could any responsible agency leave these children in his care?  For irrational, irresponsible actions like this you only have to direct your attention to our Connecticut Family Court for your answer!   

JOSEPH VISCONTI'S POSITION ON JUDICIAL REFORM!

I would have liked to establish what every politician's position is in regard to judicial reform, but Joe Visconti is the only one among all the candidates running for Governor who appears to have issued one.  So for everyone's information I am publishing it below.  Needless to say, I am fully in support of his position and commend him for speaking out:

Judicial Reform: Access to Justice

The heartbreaking stories about our probate, family, and foreclosure (civil) court systems are countless as the lives and rights of our children, parents, grandparents and those who have left us continue to be impacted by a court system rife with conflicts of interest, waste and indifference.
Recently Joe addressed the Supreme Court and asked how a foreclosure mill attorney can sit on the benchmark committee, which sets the rules for the foreclosure process.


Our probate system was recently given a sobering assessment by Forbes, stating it was riddled with conflicts of interest and antiquated procedures.
Lastly, the family court system has resulted in horror stories about exploitation and ethical lapses in the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) system that have made thousands of parents realize there is no justice to be found.


We can do better and Joe will demand reforms of the judicial system that must adhere to the letter and spirit of justice for all.  To help correct these problems Joe will create a Governor’s Task Force that will seek to:

• Identify conflict of interest and potential for collusion between judges, lawyers, and law firms.
• Improve the process to remedy complaints within the judicial system.
• Recommend changes to provide pro se parties the same access to the judicial process that is granted to those who can afford legal representation.  This includes allowing subpoena power and forensic analysis of documents.
• Reverse the lawyerization of the court system by expanding the role of judges in pro se litigation.

IS THE HARTFORD COURANT MANIPULATING THE NEWS? JOE VISCONTI AND DANI MCEVOY SPEAK UP ON THE SUBJECT!

NORM PATTIS MAKES COGENT REMARKS ON CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS IN JUVENILE COURT!

NORM PATTIS ASKS:

"Whose Best Interest Served in Child Custody Cases?

There are secret courts operating in our midst, and I am not referring to those tribunals whose focus is national security. I’m talking about something more basic and closer to home. I’m talking about our juvenile courts, where the fate of children is sometimes determined.

Consider the case of Jane Doe and John Doe, two Connecticut parents stuck in Kafkaesque proceedings. They are in the midst of a divorce. They have three children. Those children are now in foster care, and it is not clear when the parents will again have the right to raise them as they see fit. In fact, it is not even clear when the father will even get to see his children again."

For the full content of this article, please click on the link below:


http://www.pattisblog.com/index.php?article=Whose_Best_Interest_Served_in_Child_Custody_Cases__6683

WHY I SUPPORT REP. MINNIE GONZALEZ AND CONDEMN THE HARTFORD COURANT!

In a recent October 24, 2014 editorial regarding candidates who are running for political office, The Hartford Courant lashed out against Rep. Minnie Gonzalez who is running for the third house district. 

In its statement opposing Rep. Gonzalez, Hartford Courant editors justified their position as follows:  "This year, as a Judiciary Committee member, she's voted against the reappointment of at least a dozen respected judges in her bitter campaign for family court reform." 

Now wait just a minute--I have some serious problems with the adjectives that The Hartford Courant is throwing around here.  For example, "a dozen respected judges"?  Respected?  Is The Hartford Courant sure about that defining word "respected"?  Where did The Hartford Courant obtain its information on whether these judges were respected or not? 

I would suspect they didn't investigate those facts at all.  I'd suspect they just linked the word "respected" with judges the same way the rest of us join the word "Merry" with Christmas at certain times of the year.  Just because words seem to go along with one another euphoniously speaking, that doesn't actually mean they do in reality.  The Hartford Courant should really think about that.  Many Family Court litigants had reported to the State Legislature that the judges Rep. Minnie Gonzalez criticized had violated their professional ethics and had acted arbitrarily and maliciously.  Before making any statements implying the contrary, The Hartford Courant should actually investigate these accusations.  I, for one, seriously doubt that it did. 

Let us also consider the use of the word "bitter" in connection to the concept of the campaign for Family Court reform.  Bitter for whom?  As a person who played a central role in the campaign for Family Court reform let me just say right now I never found it bitter.  I can think of some other adjectives such as "liberating", "Validating", "Empowering", perhaps "Inspiring"!  The only people for whom the Family Court reform movement was "bitter" were the criminal elements who were being exposed--perhaps some of the "respected" Family Court judges The Hartford Courant previously mentioned. 

Let me tell you about the Rep. Minnie Gonzalez I know.  A few years ago, I received a phone call from Keith Harmon Snow, a well known investigative journalist who wrote about the corruption of the Connecticut Family Court System in the cogent and thoroughly researched article "A Life Sentence" which appeared online in May 2012. 

He invited me to meet with Rep. Minnie Gonzalez along with several other protective mothers, the majority of whom had lost custody and, for most, all access to their children based upon fraudulent and deceitful Family Court proceedings.  During the course of this meeting which lasted for at least three hours, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez listened patiently to each one of these mothers tell their story about what had happened to her.  Not only did she listen but she expressed her concern and compassion for the pain and suffering these mothers had endured, while at the same time asking intelligent and probing questions to discover why the judicial system had failed them. 

A few months later, we had another such meeting where additional mothers met with Rep. Minnie Gonzalez and told their stories of the pain and horror which they had endured from the abusive Connecticut Family Court system. 

Since that time, I am aware that Rep. Minnie Gonzalez has literally spoken with hundreds and hundreds of victims of Connecticut Family Court abuse and corruption, both Mothers and Fathers.  At a certain point, I am aware that Rep. Minnie Gonzalez offered to actually review all of the documentation that these parents had in regard to the Family Court abuses they had experienced. 

In response, she received a deluge of documentation from litigants throughout the state who had written evidence of the corruption and fraud they experienced in Family Court.

As a result of so many Connecticut citizens coming to her for help in dealing with Family Court corruption, Rep. Gonzalez eventually came to the point where she devolved into the unofficial spokesperson for our movement.  As she  herself has stated frequently, this is not something she volunteered for, and she is unlikely to benefit from it personally.  But her innate sense of justice and her fundamental opposition to corruption placed her there, no matter how reluctant she may be personally to take on such a prominent role in connection to such a difficult and problematic issue. 

The Hartford Courant may object to Rep. Minnie Gonzalez opposition to some judges, or to her broad ranging critique of the Family Court system.  But the editors should keep in mind that when Minnie Gonzalez spoke up, she cited direct conversations with litigants.  She held up documents parents had given her which specifically showed evidence of the abuses she spoke of.  She didn't just talk off the top of her head. She did her homework, she proceeded with a thorough investigation and then she confronted the legislature with the results. 

That is what I would call being a highly successful, well qualified, thoroughly efficient legislator. 

So what is going on with The Hartford Courant?  How could it be so wrong in regard to such an important matter?  Why is it wrong on Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, wrong on incompetent and arrogant Family Court judges, and soft on Connecticut Family Court injustice and corruption? 

There is actually a good answer to that question. 

As I understand it, the media is supposed to be "the fourth estate" which acts as a watchdog to ensure the proper conduct of the other branches of government.  In the word of one expert, "Access to information from the media is essential to the health of democracy for at least two reasons. First, it ensures that citizens make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out of ignorance or misinformation. Second, information serves a "checking function" by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.  In the United States, the media is often called the fourth branch of government (or "fourth estate"). That's because it monitors the political process in order to ensure that political players don't abuse the democratic process." 

So why isn't The Hartford Courant, let alone other Connecticut media, playing this critical watchdog role in regard to the Connecticut Judicial Branch?  Why is our Connecticut media pretty much giving the Judicial Branch a free pass to carry out whatever nonsense it cares to? 

The answer is that Judges, Attorneys, and Employees of the Connecticut Judicial Branch have systematically cultivated friendships with highly placed media executives and journalists.  These friendships have developed to the point where the media in Connecticut has come to believe that it has a greater obligation to defend the Connecticut Judicial Branch from all potential challengers rather than investigate and critique it on behalf of the citizens of the State of Connecticut which it has a fundamental obligation to serve.

I know that at this point you are probably curious to know how this media shift in perspective from outsider to insider took place. 

What happened is that in 2007, Judge Chase T. Rogers established the Judicial-Media Committee to discuss media access to Connecticut Judicial Branch legal proceedings and records.  The founding documents for this Committee state the following, "The goals of the Judicial-Media Committee are to foster and improve better understanding and relationships between the Judicial Branch and the media, both print and electronic, and to discuss and recommend resolutions of problems confronted by the media and the public in gaining access to court proceedings and documents." 

If you think this sounds like the basis for a judicial branch-media mutual admiration society, I would suspect you are correct. 

The bottom line is, if the media has the legal right to access to legal proceedings and documents, that would be something their lawyers would need to attend to.  But instead, what actually happened is that the Connecticut Judicial Branch arranged for ongoing friendly meetings over a period of seven years sometimes at the offices of one of the media moguls and sometimes at the Judicial Branch.  Clearly, these meetings were fundamentally unnecessary and intended solely for the purpose of skewing the opinions of media leadership in the direction of the Connecticut Judicial Branch. 

Some of the big media names involved in this Committee are as follows:  G. Claude Albert, Managing Editor, The Hartford Courant (retired); Tom Appleby, General Manager and News Director, News 12 Connecticut; Karen Florin, Staff Writer, The Day of New London; Eric Parker, Morning News Anchor, Reporter, WFSB, Channel 3; Chris Powell, Managing Editor, Journal Inquirer;  Thomas Scheffey, Connecticut Law Tribune, editorial board;  Nancy Schoeffler, Editor, Metro Desk, The Hartford Courant; Paul Giguere, President & CEO, Connecticut Network; Michael St. Peter, News Director, WVIT-TV Channel 30;  Kirk Varner, Vice President & News Director, WTNH-TV Channel 8;  Dave Ward, Assignment Editor, WFSB-TV, Channel 3; John Long, Photographer, retired from The Hartford Courant; Ken Margolfo, Assignment Manager, WTIC-TV Fox 61; Melissa Bailey, Managing Editor of the New Haven Independent. 

As you can see, this is an extraordinary lineup of media industry leaders and stars many of whom for a period of seven years conducted regular meetings with judges, attorneys, and judicial branch employees and essentially cemented relationships that could not help but be wide ranging and influential. 

This represents unprecedented access to opinion makers and information gatekeepers solely gathered for the benefit of the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  Those of us who are working for the reform of the Connecticut Judicial Branch had nothing like such access whatsoever and, as a result, have not been able to get the media to cover our stories and work with us for fundamental reforms that the legal system desperately needs. 

In  essence, what this amounts to is that the Connecticut Judicial Branch used its superior power and influence and its control over information sources that the media desperately wanted access to in order to win over the media and shut down any criticism the media might raise of its fraudulent and criminal activities. 

It is a strategy that is both brilliant and, at the same time, fundamentally in opposition to our nation's democratic principles. 

The result is that The Hartford Courant as well as other media outlets in the State of Connecticut have reneged on their professional responsibility to speak up about the many abuses of Connecticut Family Court.   Even worse, the media in Connecticut has  colluded in a conspiracy to deny the wrongdoing and act as apologists for the criminal actions of Family Court judges, attorneys, and mental health professionals. 

Thus, it is the Connecticut media we rightly condemn for their collusion with corruption and injustice. 

In contrast, Rep. Minnie Gonzalez has alone, among the many, fought for the vulnerable, the downtrodden, and the terribly wronged victims of family court.  I urge all of her supporters to do whatever they can to make sure that she is reelected for another term. 

ATTORNEY ROBIN YEAMAN CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY SPEAKS OUT ABOUT CORRUPT FAMILY COURT, WE IN CONNECTICUT ARE EXPERIENCING THE SAME SITUATION!