ADA rights screwed every day all in non compliance of 2010 mandate from the feds ? funding when bringing totable actions against the county on their bond .

March 2, 2014 § Leave a comment

hjmservices commented on Christian group, supporters rally for Connecticut teen in custody dispute.

Christian group, supporters rally for Connecticut teen in custody dispute By Dan Adams / Globe Correspondent / March 1, …

This kills me to see this disabled child stolen by a state that she does not even live in..

Here today where is ADA rights and protections for this child to live a life of community inclusion.
Where are the rights for the child and her parent..

I have 20$ that says the Parent never got a Procedural Safeguard Notice from Anyone or State actor/players..
I have another 20$ that No Attorney (in which is mandate to protect this 14th due process right of the disabled as attorneys) has even thought to even apply the ADA Rights to this family.

Here is a start of understanding for you all and this is out of my brief and written for me… But it’s a start great Info of the Federal ADA Mandates to understand the disabled and their parents Do have rights and Most State Actors/player, Attorney.. Etc.. Do not have No clue that they are doing is discrimination on to disabled families out right. This does applies to all states in the union.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED
SUBCHAPTER II – PUBLIC SERVICES
Part A – Prohibition Against Discrimination and Other Generally Applicable Provisions
Sec. 12131. Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
(1) Public entity
The term “public entity” means
(A) any State or local government;
(B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and
(C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority (as defined in section 24102(4) of title 49).

(2) Qualified individual with a disability
The term “qualified individual with a disability” means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.
Sec. 12132. Discrimination
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
Sec. 12133. Enforcement
The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 794a of title 29 shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title.
Sec. 12134. Regulations
(a) In general
Not later than 1 year after July 26, 1990, the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations in an accessible format that implement this part. Such regulations shall not include any matter within the scope of the authority of the Secretary of Transportation under section 12143, 12149, or 12164 of this title.
(b) Relationship to other regulations
Except for “program accessibility, existing facilities”, and “communications”, regulations under subsection (a) of this section shall be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations under part 41 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (as promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on January 13, 1978), applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance under section 794 of title 29. With respect to “program accessibility, existing facilities”, and “communications”, such regulations shall be consistent with regulations and analysis as in part 39 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, applicable to federally conducted activities under section 794 of title 29.
(c) Standards
Regulations under subsection (a) of this section shall include standards applicable to facilities and vehicles covered by this part, other than facilities, stations, rail passenger cars, and vehicles covered by part B of this subchapter. Such standards shall be consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in accordance with section 12204(a) of this title.

Sec. 12203. Prohibition against retaliation and coercion
(a) Retaliation
No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.
(b) Interference, coercion, or intimidation
It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.
(c) Remedies and procedures
The remedies and procedures available under sections 12117, 12133, and 12188 of this title shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, with respect to subchapter I, subchapter II and subchapter III of this chapter, respectively.

Sec. 12206. Technical assistance
(e) Failure to receive assistance
An employer, public accommodation, or other entity covered under this chapter shall not be excused from compliance with the requirements of this chapter because of any failure to receive technical assistance under this section, including any failure in the development or dissemination of any technical assistance manual authorized by this section.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of the Attorney General
[28 CFR PART 35
Order No. ]
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.

{35.105 Self-evaluation.
(a) A public entity shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such services, policies, and practices is required, the public entity shall proceed to make the necessary modifications.
(b) A public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments.
(c) A public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection:
(1) A list of the interested persons consulted;
(2) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
(3) A description of any modifications made.
(d) If a public entity has already complied with the self-evaluation requirement of a regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, then the requirements of this section shall apply only to those policies and practices that were not included in the previous self- evaluation.
{35.106 Notice.
A public entity shall make available to applicants, participants, beneficiaries, and other interested persons information regarding the provisions of this part and its applicability to the services, programs, or activities of the public entity, and make such information available to them in such manner as the head of the entity finds necessary to apprise such persons of the protections against discrimination assured them by the Act and this part.
{35.107 Designation of responsible employee and adoption of grievance procedures.
(a) Designation of responsible employee. A public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under this part, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to it alleging its noncompliance with this part or alleging any actions that would be prohibited by this part. The public entity shall make available to all interested individuals the name, office address, and telephone number of the employee or employees designated pursuant to this paragraph.
(b) Complaint procedure. A public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging any action that would be prohibited by this part.
{35.130 General prohibitions against discrimination.
(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.
(g) A public entity shall not exclude or otherwise deny equal
services, programs, or activities to an individual or entity because of the known disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity is known to have a relationship or association.
{35.134 Retaliation or coercion.
(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part, or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act or this part.
(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.
{35.149 Discrimination prohibited.
Except as otherwise provided in {35.150, no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity.

ARGUMENT
THIS REQUEST APPLYS TO ALSO TOO CONN. DEP OF SOCIAL SERVICES,ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS REPESENTION BY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNY GENERAL THOMAS CREAN #415598 WHO HAS REFUDCED THE RIGHTS OF THE ADA
RAYMOND v. ROWLAND, Civil Action No. 3:03CV0118 (MRK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT.
►DSS workers will provide extra help for people who need it because of disability when applying or recertifying for benefits. DSS must also tell you that you can ask for this help.

►DSS will have a grievance or complaint process for people with disabilities who believe they were treated unfairly because of their disability.

►DSS will change its offices to make them more welcoming and easier to use.

►DSS is changing its procedures, written notices and phone and computer systems to help people with disabilities.

►DSS is training its staff about people with disabilities and their rights.
►DSS will hire staff to make these changes happen.

A. The developmental disabilities of this child are not properly addressed within the confines of “normal” court procedures. II.4 of the Judicial Branch Strategic Plan:
II.4 – Ensure that judges and staff carry out their duties in a manner that shows an appropriate understanding of the developmental stages of children and adolescents. *** It is imperative to provide the appropriate services and programs — from education to therapeutic treatments — to those children, and that such programs are based on an understanding of their intellectual and psychological capacities.

There are proper procedures for guidance the Judicial Branch can use and not have to reinvent the wheel, under the mandates of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), that the Judicial Branch is mandated to utilize being that the State of Connecticut receives Federal monies for the free appropriate education of our children.
B. This case was affirmed to the judgment of the trial court in part by the ignorance and or barriers including applying Title I employment regulation that an individual needs to inform the employer of his/her disability and request accommodation(s), under Title II as applied to courts, the public entity must identify and offer modifications. In contrast to Title I regulation of employment, Title II, which governs the provision of public services, programs and activities, addresses state conduct that impinges upon fundamental constitutional rights embodied in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. In such a case, a higher standard of scrutiny applies. As applied here the Plaintiff denied; he did not raise an ADA claim prior, did not inform the Court that he/she had any disability, did not request an accommodation under ADA, Termination of Parental Rights are not a activity, program, or service of the Judicial Branch (Logan v. Logan, 96 Conn. App. 842, 845-46, 902 A.2d 666 (2006) declining to review claim that court failed to provide ADA accommodations during contempt hearing when ADA claim was not raised in trial court); In RE: Antony B., 54 Conn. App. 463, 472-73, 735 A.2d 893 (1999); and Barbara McKechnie v. Dennis McKechnie (AC 31498, July 26, 2011) that Termination of Parental Rights Proceeding is “not a service, program or activity under the ADA”.
The ADA targets three particular areas of discrimination against persons with disabilities. Title I, 42 U.S.C. 12111-12117, addresses discrimination by employers affecting interstate commerce; Title II, 42 U.S.C. 12131- 12165, addresses discrimination by state and local governmental entities in the operation of public services, programs, and activities; and Title III, 42 U.S.C. 12181- 12189, addresses discrimination in public accommodations operated by private entities.
This case arises under Title II of the ADA, which provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. 12132.
A “public entity” is defined to include “any State or local government” and its components, 42 U.S.C. 12131(1)(A) and (B). Title II’s coverage of “services, programs, or activities,” 42 U.S.C. 12132, *** Public entities need only ensure that “each service, program, or activity * * * when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. 35.150(a).
Title II’s Reasonable Modification Provision Is Consistent With States’ Responsibilities Under The Constitution.
Given the pervasiveness of past prejudices and inequitable actions by states toward individuals with disabilities, Congress determined in its legislative judgment that it was not enough merely to prohibit future unconstitutional discriminatory conduct. Rather, to remedy and deter state discrimination against people with disabilities and further implement its Section 5 power, Congress required “reasonable modifications” for qualified individuals
with disabilities. A national problem of the magnitude documented by Congress and recognized by this Court, see, e.g., City of Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 454, 464 65, demands a solution that affirmatively prevents state-sponsored disability discrimination, provides meaningful access to public services, programs and activities, and thus integrates individuals with disabilities into public life.
In contrast to the overbreadth of the reasonable accommodation standard of Title I, which was a central part of the Garrett Court’s analysis, Title II’s analogue, reasonable modification, appropriately effectuates the states’ constitutional responsibilities. The protection of fundamental rights often requires a state to do more than simply refrain from discriminating against its citizens. This and other courts have found that states are constitutionally required “to shoulder affirmative obligations” to ensure meaningful access to public services, as well as abolish barriers preventing such meaningful access.
Faced with well-documented incidents of state discrimination against people with disabilities in public services, Congress designed a comprehensive and integrated response that recognized the states’ central role in the provision of such services. Unlike Title I, Title II of the ADA involves an area of regulation for which people with disabilities have no options. That is, in contrast to employment, governments are the sole suppliers of public services. Because of the states’ central role in the provision of public services, a limitation on the ability of people with disabilities to enforce Title II against the states may substantially diminish Title II’s effectiveness. In this situation, the Court should grant Congress reasonable latitude in crafting remedies that people with disabilities can use without restriction. SEE U. S. SUPREME COURT NO. 02-1667 STATE OF TENNESSEE, v. GEORGE LANE, BEVERLY JONES, AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BRIEF OF THE STATES OF MINNESOTA, CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, MISSOURI, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, WASHINGTON AND WISCONSIN AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

The Americans with Disabilities Act is not an option, it is the law. Title II of the ADA, as applied to individuals Fundamental Constitutional Right to access our Courts provides appropriate prophylactic protections under the 14th Amendment.
Title II’s affirmative obligation to accommodate persons with disabilities in the administration of justice cannot be said to be “so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.” Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532; Kimel, 528 U. S., at 86.24 It is, rather, a reasonable prophylactic measure, reasonably targeted to a legitimate end.
For these reasons, we conclude that Title II, as it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of Congress’ §5 authority to enforce the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore affirmed. See TENNESSEE v. LANE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 02-1667. Argued January 13, 2004–Decided May 17, 2004

C. “The judicial system belongs to the people of the state”. See STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH Public Service and Trust Commission
By refusing to review Plaintiff’s request for Certification and ADA complaints, you are covering up ADA violations and discriminating against the Plaintiff and denying justice going forward to disabled persons that are not employed by the Branch.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/Publications/EEO.pdf The Branch has policy and statement of no paper commitment to the Branch employees Title I, but not the public under Title II.
EXTERNAL DISSEMINATION
The Judicial Branch is committed to the goals of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action and has initiated activities to ensure that Equal Employment Opportunity is more than a paper commitment. Well that’s Title I, where was and is my Title II?

This case provides the Court the opportunity to provide definitive direction to the questions raised that effect the Plaintiffs and the public interests of Fundamental Constitutional Rights embodied in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.
III. SUMMARY OF THE CASE
The ADA became the Law on July 26, 1990, and compliance with Title II of the ADA by Public Entities, was effective on January 26, 1991. To this day the Branch is not in compliance with Title II of the ADA. The subject matter is the Minor child with multiple developmental disabilities and the Plaintiffs’ care of the child multiple needs. Confusing and not equal not the same as a subject matter with a child without multiple developmental disabilities. The Plaintiff made request and mention of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and there is no dispute by the Court or Defendants of the Childs multiple developmental disabilities. Deny of Plaintiff’s Appeal, Reconsideration en banc, and Petition Request for Certification all brings us to this Request for Reconsideration of Petition Request for Certification.
c. Title II of the ADA proscribes:
Sec. 12132. Discrimination
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
Sec. 12133. Enforcement
The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in section 794a of title 29 shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title.
Under and through out all of the above Judicial Branch programs, activities, services, policies, and practices, the Plaintiff was either or both not provided notice of ADA rights or denied the rights of the ADA by all Courts and the various Courts Contractors including attorneys in total violation of the ADA. The Probate Court identified the child’s disabilities and did not offer ADA Rights or notice of ADA rights to the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Identifies and requests to the Superior Court, the Appellate Court, and this Supreme Court the Childs Disabilities and for ADA Rights; all deny ADA rights to the Plaintiff. However; all the Branch including every Court and Justice are required by Federal law to take immediate remedial action to eliminate the impediments to Plaintiff’s full and equal participation.
Once a public entity identifies programs, activities, services, policies and practices that deny or limit the participation of individuals with disabilities in its programs, activities and services, it should take immediate remedial action to eliminate the impediments to full and equivalent participation. See ADA Technical Assistance Manual

See also Connecticut discriminatory statues including:

Sec. 46a-69. Discriminatory practices by state; Sec. 46a-77. (Formerly Sec. 4-61j). Cooperation with commission required of state; agencies. Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act ; Sec. 46a-78. (Formerly Sec. 4-61k). Annual agency reports to Governor. Review by commission.; Sec. 46a-95. (Formerly Sec. 31-128). Enforcement by Superior Court of order of presiding officer; Sec. 46a-96. Hearings take precedence.;Sec. 46a-99. (Formerly Sec. 4-61l). Discriminatory state practice: Cause of action; relief..

V. CONCLUSTION

Title II of the ADA, and CGS in support of Title III of the ADA, and as shown in the Plaintiff’s petition for Certification on Oct. 5, 2011, the proper position of the State of Connecticut; overrides that discretionary choice and makes mandatory on every public entity and as such every public employee an obligation to no disability discrimination and affirmative action responsibility to enforce Title II purposes to eradicate the shameful effects of disability discrimination. The ADA says you are with the obligation and responsibility to take this case for no less of a reason than the State takes the Federal Governments moneys for a whole host of reasons. Everything in this case is a violation of the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights and of significant public interest. Plaintiff respectfully requests our rights under the ADA and granting of them. And if you chose to deny, the Plaintiff respectfully request certified signature from each public entity and parties of this case that is in this matter to certifying such independent reviews and full review of legal grounds for denial/grant of Plaintiffs ada rights, as without the certification, In this request, the Plaintiff files verified complaint that the above named defendants/litigants have engaged in pernicious, “wanton”, “neglectful” or “malicious” conduct which has been discriminatory against this self-represented party, have interfered with the rights of a fair trial and engaged in Constitutional and civil rights abridgments which have collectively violated Federal laws or regulations, “wanton”, “neglectful” or “malicious” conduct in the course of their duties which have abridged the Articles of the Constitution of the United States or its Amendments and have violated the laws in the State of Connecticut.. Designate at least one employee to coordinate its efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under this part, including any investigation of any complaint.
_______________________________ Henry J Martocchio, Pro Se

Now on to what Fit Parents are doing in Conn. today

The state actors are trying to put our group down any way they can.. here is hyper links … it was great sitting up top and having rep point us out… send back the feed back you are see…. here us… what are you all seeing about us… any hyperlinks for me to read.. henry
“Task Force Hears Testimony of Victimization By Family Court” by Anne Stevenson
http://www.commdiginews.com/life/connecticut-task-force-hears-accounts-of-victimization-by-family-court-11123/

ann s. latest article in CDN details my personal experience writing stories about the families affected by corruption in the CT courts. It provides a breakdown of the logistics of what I perceive is a false billing scam involving the misuse of family court legal and mental health experts.

Please share and comment on the CDN website.Your legislators will get a copy of this article, and your comments will show them that this issue is relevant to their district and they have a responsibility to fix it.
here is the day…
On February 26, 2014, the CT House & Senate voted on the reappointment of several judges, including Judge Leslie O’Lear, whose reappointment was opposed by many parents who had appeared before her. While Judge O’Lear’s reappointment was eventually approved, the legislators engaged in serious discussion about the abuses in and need for reform of CT’s family law system.
To aid those who wish to view the discussions, I’ve compiled the start and end times below. Please advise of any errors or omissions.
Regards,
Mark Sargent
HOUSE DEBATE
Here’s the link to the CT-N video of yesterday’s House Session:http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=9979.
1:10: The discussion of O’Lear’s appointment starts at about 1:10.
1:17: Minnie Gonzalez’s speech starts at (voting no; very impassioned).
1:24: Rep. Carter speaks (voting no).
1:26 Rep. Candelaria speaks (voting no).
1:27: Rep. O’Dea (voting yes, but says O’Lear “needs help with her demeanor”; understands GAL process needs to be improved).
1:30:49: Rep. Vargas (voting no; very impassioned).
1:40:50: Rep. Kokorudo (voting no).
1:42:15: Rep. Gonzalez: 1:42:15 (second time speaking; very, very impassioned).
1:47:15: Rep. Fox (voting yes).
1:50:24: Rep. Vargas 1:50:24 (second time speaking, rebutting Rep. Fox).
1:53:30: Picture of parents protesting O’Lear (during Rep. Vargas’s second turn speaking).
1:55: Debate ends; voting opens: 1:55.
1:59:45: Voting ends.
2:00:00 Tally announced. The House approves Judge O’Lear’s renomination 78-67, with 5 absent & not voting.
SENATE DEBATE
Here’s the link to the CT-N video of yesterday’s House Session: http://ct-n.com/ctnplayer.asp?odID=9977
2:07:29: Court Clerk calls the O’Lear renomination matter
2:07:43: Sen. Colemanrecuses himself per Senate Rule 15
2:07:55: Sen. Doyle: voting yes; but noting concerns about large GAL fees and the family law system; stating such concerns need to be addressed by the legislature; stating that Judge O’Lear got “excellent” ratings in evals by Judicial Branch.
2:13:30: Sen. Kissel: voting yes; citing advice of Atty Frank Santi; noting high cost of divorce litigation; citing his role in creation of GAL program; stating it worked for 20 yrs, but now “a handful of GALs have used this as a cottage industry,”; he views bad GALs as a minority not a systemic problem; noting litigants were threatened with jail for refusing or being unable to pay GAL bills;
2:18:05: Sen. Kissel(continuing) cited Chief Admin. Judge Carroll for the position that citizens have been putting judges personal info on FaceBook and/or the internet; distinguishing b/w proper and improper protests. Stating it takes a lot for him to oppose a judge, saying he cannot remember the last time he voted against a judge. [Ed.: I am not aware of any such activities.]
2:21:50: Sen Kissel(continuing): stating that while he supports the judge, he understands the need to reform family court and committing to address it this session.
2:22:30: Sen. Fasano: explaining he had a friend & constituent who spent “well over $300k” just on GAL & AMC fees, saying “that’s crazy, that’s ludicrous, that’s insane”. He notes the criticism of the judges, but he says it’s the fault of the legislature and the Bar Assoc. Says the “system is out of control.” He notes how “everybody knows each other and everybody’s friendly with each other.” He says the issue has boiled over over the last 2 years. Says the judge is just following the law. [Ed.: Sen. Fasano seems unaware that most operative “law” in this area consists of judge-created rules and immunities for divorce industry operatives from other laws.] Criticizes the failure of the Bar Assoc to address this. Reform “is going to be in our front door this session.” “If people won’t regulate their own system, then we will.”
2:27:10: Sen. Fasano(continuing): Says citizens should not be putting judges pictures & salary and family info & derogatory comments about judges on FaceBook. [Ed.: I am not aware of ANY such situations.] Criticizes protestors for failing to control how they express their concerns. “If they are listening to this, tone it down because we get the message.”
2:28:44: Sen. Witkos: Notes that only recently has legislature started to address concerns about family court issues, including GAL fees and being denied access to their kids. Cites mental health issues among constituents, including one whose ex was bipolar. His GAL bills are “almost $100k.” But he lost his house in part b/c of GAL fees. Says “GALs don’t even know who they are representing.” Notes judges have power to remove bad GALs, but they refuse to do that. Notes how divorce industry operatives know each other. But states they have to deal with the judges. Notes parents “are going back to court every single day, and their bills are getting larger and larger and larger. And there is one person in that courtroom who can stop that from happening. And that’s the judge. And in my opinion they are allowing it to continue.”
2:32:10: Sen. Welch(voting no): Fears the discussion has become about GAL issues rather than the judge. Notes that “too often judicial nominees get rubber-stamped by the legislative bodies” and deserve better performance reviews. He expresses concerns about a couple incidences in which Judge O’Lear’s decisions, which he found surprising, were reversed.
2:34:05: Clerk calls Roll Call and opens voting.
2:37:13: Voting closed. Resolution passes 28 yea, 4 nay; 3 absent & not voting).
New Haven Register picked up Susan Haigh’s AP press release also. We may be seeing more pubs as well

http://www.telegram.com/article/20140226/NEWS/302269743/1052

The good thing is that when people google Judge Leslie O’Lear. The fact that there is an article which shows high up in searches which writes that she is a Judge that was passed by in an unusually narrow lead and was protested against, also very unusual, will cause a lot of discomfort to this judge.

Hi All,
Here is a link to the Hartford Courant press that just came out.

I kind of snapped reading it and just sent the coward Rep. Gerald Fox this email below. Do you think it is too harsh? I don’t live in Stamford but I work for all the executives that moved a global company to Stamford and go there to work! I am so pissed at this guy and that that bo-zo from New Canaan Tom O’Dea! Grrrrrrrrr I would like to wear green boxing gloves in the parade with Fox’s name on one and O’Dea’s name on the other!
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-family-court-judges-0227-20140226,0,359816.story?track=rss
Hector,

The Associated Press ran the story and quoted you!

http://www.telegram.com/article/20140226/NEWS/302269743/1052

Advertisements

Tagged: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading ADA rights screwed every day all in non compliance of 2010 mandate from the feds ? funding when bringing totable actions against the county on their bond . at Will County Pro-se.

meta

%d bloggers like this: