Divorce in Connecticut

YES, CONNECTICUT, MEDIA IS DEAD!

2026-01-01T19:21:00.011-05:00

When I was reporting on the need for family court reform, one of my biggest frustrations was the CT Media blackout on the subject. Advocates would organize major hearings before the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature and The Hartford Courant, broadcast media and other smaller outlets would simply ignore it. When media did report it, they would mock family court victims, dismiss them as disgruntled or eccentric, and provide misleading information. Eventually, I learned about the Judicial Media Committee where leaders of print and broadcast media meet regularly with judges and attorneys from the judicial system. This explained a considerable amount of the media bias I encountered and led me to question whether Connecticut media or any media is trustworthy.

As it turns out, I am not the only person who is concerned about whether they can trust media. In a recent Gallup article published on October 2, 2024 the headline stated, "Trust in Media at New Low of 28%". It also reported that Republican's faith in mass media was at 8%. Just to get a sense of how it has dropped on average, let me give you the overview. In 1970 confidence was at 68%, in 1997 it was at 53%, in 2004 it was 44%, and again, as I have stated, currently it is 28%. In general, Democrats have more trust in mass media than Republicans, and older people have more trust in mass media than young people. The Gallup article states as its bottom line, "Confidence in the mass media is historically low, with fewer than three in ten Americans now placing trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news fully, fairly and accurately." Of course, it all depends on how you approach the question. Apparently, 47% of Republicans watch Fox News regularly. If so, I'm assuming they trust Fox News considerably more than 8%. It's just any other media they don't like.

When it comes to the discussion on this issue within the public square, one of the most frequently cited causes of distrust is what the Gallup article referred to as "an increasingly polarized and skeptical public." How did this come about? I actually have an answer for that question. When older folks watched the news say in the fifties and sixties, they would regularly hear both sides of an issue. By law, the FCC, or Federal Communications Commision, had a mandate to promote competition between media outlets, ownership diversity, local content, and most important viewpoint diversity also known as the Fairness Doctrine. In support of the Fairness Doctrine the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public..."

As a consequence of the commitment to viewpoint diversity, the American public in the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s had a civil and polite awareness of a broad perspective of opinions. However, in 1987, as a result of Republican initiatives, the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine in the media. Consequently, broadcast news no longer had to consider differing perspectives in reporting the news. This led to the rise of partisan media such as the conservative Fox News and a slide into an increasingly polarized and extremist media landscape.

At the same time, there has been the rise of news reporting online via social media, which places individuals in partisan echo chambers through the use of algorithms. Related to this has been the establishment of a broad range of partisan news websites and radio programs which report massive amounts of fake or misleading news. Public figures, government officials, elected representatives have no problem making false statements for which there are no legal consequences. Thus, you have Alex Kelly claiming that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook was fake.

Furthermore, I've read reports of partisan ideologues going online and altering entries in Wikipedia and other databases to match their political agendas. This means that anyone doing online research who wants to get accurate and balanced information about what is going on has to sift through a considerable number of articles, videos, radio and television broadcasts to get at it. Meanwhile, comment sections which often kept journalists honest, are being cut back or entirely eliminated. News rooms are being cut back and decimated which means that investigative reporters, fact checkers as well as copy editors who make sure grammar, spelling, and content is correct are gone. The outcome is sloppy, inaccurate and badly written material.

Another factor leading to public mistrust in the media is the loss of ownership diversity. As I mentioned, the FCC is supposed to be supervising the broadcast industry to ensure ownership diversity. However, instead of doing so, according to "Free Press" it has overseen the development of a broadcast industry "where a few powerful and wealthy mega-corporations dominate." In the media industry, around 6 mega-corporations own all of the media including radio, TV, and print.

The Free Press continues on to state in regard to the FCC, "The agency's failures to address the substantial market power these conglomerates wield has consequences--including the stifling of independent voices and shuttering of local-news outlets--while increasing wealthy owners' influence over public opinion and national politics." A handout from an online class from lumenlearning.com states, "Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these companies control everything from initial production to final distribution."

How has the FCC allowed for a Broadcast arena so in constrast to its mandate? The answer is the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which eliminated the limits on ownership of media, which then led to massive media consolidation. Supposedly the act was intended to increase competition, but instead it did the opposite. Sort of like the Big Beautiful Bill is actually not beautiful, if you know what I'm saying. I looked at different lists of companies who now own the entirety of the broadcast industry which tend to vary because each has a different focus.What struck me is that Republicans loudly exclaim that news media is liberal, etc. etc., and as a result only 8% of them trust media. What I saw is that a good many of the companies that own or distribute the news are conservatives, if not outright Trump supporters and contributors.

Here is some of the research I did on that issue. Conglomerates such as Fox Corporation, Nexstar Media and Sinclair Broadcast Group affiliated with ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox News are all politically conservative. In print news, Alden Global Capital which purchased Tribune Publishing (owners of the Hartford Courant) in 2021 and is the second largest newspaper in the United States contributed substantially to the Trump campaign. Adams Publishing Group originally owned by Stephen Adams are ardent trump supporters. Lee, Ogden, Horizon, Hearst--all with pro-Trump owners. Just as an aside, if you were wondering, when it comes to the tech companies, the CEOs of Meta, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Open AI were all substantial contributors to the Trump campaign. New Media Investment Group which took over Gate house and Gannett in 2019 is owned indirectly by Masayoshi Son, a Korean national who lives in Japan and is also an ardent Trump supporter and contributor to his campaign..

So how do we get an owner of a major American news outlet who is a foreign national? In 2013, the FCC relaxed its rules to allow for 100% foreign ownership of a media company if it is deemed to be in the U.S. interest. This change was widely supported by industry organizations such as the National Association of Broadcasters because it was seen as bringing new sources of capitol into the industry. While this change is reported to have occurred primarily in 2013, news articles from 1990 are already reporting on the trend and indicating it might be a serious national security risk.

Seriously, how many of you reading this feel comfortable knowing that foreign countries are possibly controlling the news we have access to? It is even more alarming because it is hard to track foreign ownership, which I tried to do, because of the Russian doll effect of companies being owned by other companies which in turn are owned by other companies. What I conclude from the expansion of foreign ownership of news sources is that to American political and business leaders the public interest doesn't matter, national security doesn't matter. What matters, the only thing that matters, is money.

Not only is there the termination of the fairness doctrine, the concentration of media companies into a smaller group of elite wealthy owners and the expansion of foreign ownership, news sources are now subject to extremely prohibitive financial pressures. For instance, we have seen how big news has collapsed in the face of Trump's lawsuits paying out huge sums of money for settlements. Corporate cowardice demonstrated by the failure to defend these lawsuits means that all news sources, mainstream media, independent media, independent influencers are subect to more pressure to back away from difficult subjects.

I know that in the area of family court reform, Tom Wilkerson, Linda Wiegand's ex-husband sued the Hartford Courant for $200,000 at the end of the case. This is another reason why the Courant tries to stay away from the issue, because even if we have freedom of the press in the country, major legal fees to defend it can essentially nullify the right . These factors have all led to a substantial drop in the quality of both print and broadcast news. As a result, audiences are going elsewhere. According to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, U.S. citizens are abandoning television news, print news, and online news sites and getting the majority of their news from social media. Use of social media for news has risen by 27 points since 2013. This means that advertising revenue goes along with it, making traditional news media considerably more financially vulnerable, particularly local news. There are many citizen journalists out there on social media doing excellent work. On the other hand, the same corporations and political ideologues who are buying up national media can also buy them. So again, you have to be careful who you believe.

In their vulnerable position, local and state governments can put pressure on print media to restrict their coverage simply by threatening to stop putting public notices in their pages. These public notices provide thousands and thousands of dollars of income to these newspapers. The loss of revenue if notices are withheld can be considerable. Many news outlets around the country report being placed under this kind of pressure. It can actually go either way, government can cut back or expand on these public notices, to the point where they can act as a bribe. In the days when I was doing this kind of research, I observed considerable sums of money going from state government to the state's print media which I think impacted its ability to report honestly about what was happening in family court.

As a blogger, I have also been subjected to financial and legal pressures. Even though bloggers have the right to freedom of speech, it doesn't last too long if anyone can sue us and take us to Court over our work. I have reported on my website how I was taken to Court and asked to reveal my sources for some of my articles. Defending myself from that assault on my rights as a journalist cost me $2,000. In the face of that kind of attack, it becomes very difficult to get out there and do the work of an independent journalist. Eventually, I left the field. Recently, I looked up the domestic violence statistics for the State of Connecticut. Nothing has changed. I'd suspect nothing has changed in family court as well. That's what happens when government, by controlling media, can shut down opposition, and silence its critics. Note this happened in Democratic Connecticut, not Trump country.

RICH COHEN'S "DOLLHOUSE" ABOUT JENNIFER DULOS FULL OF ERROR!

2025-10-01T18:31:00.010-04:00

I was in my favorite place--Barnes & Noble--and saw a table display of "Murder in the Dollhouse: The Jennifer Dulos Story" by Rich Cohen. Naturally, this interested me for the blog since the Jennifer Dulos story is the paradigm for all the criticisms that I've had about the Family Court System which have been discussed on the 1800 or more blogs on this website. So--what do I think of this book. I think it is beautifully written in some remarkable ways--its language can be absolutely rhapsodic. It explains Jennifer Dulos' family, Jewish background, and fabulously wealthy New York upbringing with remarkable insight and detail.

More specifically, it delineates exactly the nature of Jennifer's husband, Fotis Dulos, abuse and how he became capable of murder in deft literary strokes that catapult you towards the dramatic finish seemingly without effort. On the other hand, Rich Cohen, who says he lives in Connecticut, doesn't seem to know Connecticut, and gets substantial details wrong when he talks about it. As a result, as you read this book and see major factual errors, you can't help wondering--what else might be incorrect?

What do I mean by this? Well, let's take a look at three pages--pages 88, 89, and 90. Let's start with page 88. Here Rich Cohen gives a description of Canton, CT where Jennifer Dulos went after she married Fotis Dulos, moving into 10 Sunrise Drive. As luck would have it, that's not very far from where I used to live for 26 years so I'm quite familiar with the territory. I know exactly when Mr. Cohen gets his facts wrong. First, he calls Canton "poor" which is simply not true. Canton is just small, but has an equivalent range of social classes and opportunities as the surrounding towns of Avon, Farmington, Burlington and Simsbury. He states that Canton "is filled with people who dreamed of living...in Farmington, ten miles southeast." Perhaps, but for a much simpler, unexpected reason than he might have thought of. Lots of people in Canton, Avon, and Simsbury want to live in Farmington, because it charges half the taxes of the surrounding towns due to its strong business base. Surrounding towns have a tax base which is largely residential. Out of all these towns, Simsbury is the one with the most social cache, if that's what Rich Cohen is trying to imply.

But let's not stop here. There are more inaccuracies.

Rich Cohen says that, "there were neither playwrights nor theatrical productions in Canton in 2004." This simply isn't true. There is a theater right in the downtown area of nearby Collinsville and local theater people have put on performances there for years. A quick internet search provides the following information, "While a comprehensive list of every production isn't available, the Farmington Valley Community Theatre (FVCT) a community theater group that services Canton and Surrounding towns, performed several shows in 2004, including the musical "Anything Goes" and the play "The Curious Savage."

Over and above that, there are numerous opportunities in the area for those interested in theater, musicals, and even Opera. There is the Simsbury light Opera Company nearby. Local adults and children are free to audition for parts in any of their productions. Furthermore, one of the reasons that I moved to Canton, CT, as opposed to the other towns I've mentioned, is because it is well known as a town that attracts artists and writers. It has a bit of a Greenwich Village funky feel to it. For instance, there is the Gallery on the Green in the center of town that regularly features local artists. In addition, at the time when Jennifer lived there (it no longer exists now) there was a Writer's Collective in town that regularly published books including the work of local authors and sponsored public readings. I myself led a few writer's groups while I lived in the town. So to characterize Canton or even the local area as uncultured is simply untrue. But let's not stop here. There are more inaccuracies.

Rich Cohen speaks about the Canton High School Cougars high school football team. There has never been a Canton High School football team called the Cougars. The Canton High School Football team was called the Warriors until 2022 when it was decided the name was an insult to Native Americans and the team name was changed to the Cobras. So I'm not sure where Rich got his information from.

Further, Canton is a small town with a combined middle/high school which means that for decades its graduating high school class was somewhere around 100 more or less. This means that for the better part it hasn't had enough students to put together a football team. A google search provides me with the following information, "Canton High School in Connecticut had a football program from 1900 to 1963, then reintroduced it in the 2007 season, nearly 40 years after it was first dropped due to lack of players. The decision to restore the team was made in the fall of 2006 with the first game played in September of that year. Even if the game was restored in 2006, it took years to build the team so that it could actually be even a minimal contender on the field. Meanwhile, as I recall, since I lived there and had three kids, it wasn't football that enjoyed the focus of high school parents and children, it was soccer. Soccer was big. How did Rich Cohen not find this out? All he had to do was ask!

Moving on to page 89, Mr. Cohen seems to have entirely overlooked the fact that Canton is made up of two separate towns combined under one government--i.e. Canton and Collinsville. As an aside, Canton and Collinsville also share some aspects of town services with Avon, CT. It's complicated. Be that as it may, what Rich Cohen proceeds to do is to provide a description of the architecture of Canton as well as its history which is actually that of Collinsville and not that of Canton. It may surprise Rich Cohen to hear this, but Collinsville has not been subsumed under the name of Canton and is very much its own place as any townsperson could tell him. All he has to do is pick up the phone to find out. So when he says Main Street is the road at the center of the town of Canton, he is wrong. Main Street is the road that goes through the center of town in Collinsville. Route 44 or Albany Avenue goes through the center of town in Canton. When Mr. Cohen says, "Canton was once a manufacturing town known for mass-producing axes..." he is wrong. Collinsville has the axe factory. Again, a quick phone call or a google search would clarify that point.

On page 90, we again have more distortions and misinformation. He describes the home where Jennifer Dulos lived with Fotis Dulos--10 Sunrise Drive--as "perched on the lip of a ravine. One wrong step and it's goodbye." I drove by that house pretty much every day for that last 26 years and just between you and me that house isn't going anywhere. It's right at the bottom of the hill and you have to drive downwards to get to it. Further, Mr. Cohen describes the surrounding neighborhood as infested with houses which are "dilapidated" and "ramshackle". This is simply ludicrous. I'd really like to see a $400,000 house that is dilapidated and ramshackle. The hills on Lovely Street which lead up to the Dulos home, the development further up the hill on Queens Peak and leading over to Kingswood in Avon are just about the highest end homes that the Farmington offers. Far from being lived in by "misanthropes, nature lovers, and criminals on the lam", this area, and again I lived there, consists of corporate executives, judges, lawyer, doctors, successful business people and politicians. Rich Cohen's comments about the area are just plain wrong

I don't want to keep on going here. It seems as though my review is only touching upon a mere three pages of this book. But what a three pages--riddled with error! There are other inaccuracies I picked out in the book as well which I won't go into, but the one that troubled me the most was the mischaracterization of Hartford as a city overridden by drug gangs and criminals. His last phrase describing Hartford says it looked "dark and smoky in the distance." I don't know what day Mr. Cohen was driving around, but I've lived in the Hartford area for over 35 years and I've rarely found it anything but clear and metropolitan looking, except when you have a day of extreme weather which happens in a New England state. Sure, Hartford has its struggles with poverty and homelessness. At the same time, it is the insurance capitol of the world with a thriving nightlife. So what is he honestly talking about? I don't get it, or maybe I do and the issue of racism is not one I want to get into right now.

Finally, Rich Cohen pretty much skips the entire family court reform movement which was extremely active in the years prior to Jennifer Dulos death. There had been several hearings at the CT State Legislative Office building in Hartford where dozens of victims of family court injustice came to testify about the kinds of damaging and destructive processes were in play in family court. Representative Minnie Gonzalez led the charge in advocating for the reform of the judicial system, starting with more rigorously vetting family court judges, and suggesting the elimination of the controversial Guardian ad Litem (GAL) system which Jennifer Dulos encountered.

Why doesn't Mr. Cohen mention any of this in any way whatsoever?

Jennifer Dulos death was culmination of many atrocities which had been committed in family court system immediately prior. Mr. Cohen talks about the law protecting women from the kind of coersive control Jennifer Dulos faced which was passed in the years after her death. But again here he gets it wrong, referring to it as Jennifer's Law. In fact, it was actually called Jennifers' law--the apostrophe after the "s"--because there was another Jennifer--Jennifer Magnano--who was also murdered by her ex-husband in cold blood when she tried to protect her children from his sexual abuse. The family court system was in massive disarray before Jennifer Dulos arrived to face it, and it still is. The fact that Rich Cohen doesn't make a single mention of this is simply remarkable.

I'm not saying don't read this book, because there are sections regarding Jennifer Dulos family, her life in New York, and the complex relationship she had with Fotis Dulos which I found extremely informative. Anyone who wants to be expert on this subject matter definitely needs to read it. I'd just say double check anything you read with other sources.

IN LEGAL RESEARCH, BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT USING AI!

2025-08-11T14:44:00.008-04:00

Just up front, I will tell you that I am mostly a liberal with a few areas of conservatism thrown in for good measure. What it adds up to is that I have many liberal friends, but also many conservative ones as well. What with the Trump movement thrown in nowadays, I now have friends who are what I'd call right wing extremists. Because I am a purveyor of ideas, I'm not the kind who defriends people who have radically different political views than my own.

It is because of my generally tolerant attitude that a friend recently sent to my inbox an email with what I consider an extremely offensive article about Derek Chauvin, the killer of George Floyd, basically saying the guy was dealt with unjustly and should get a Trump pardon. The contents were absolutely ugly and racist, but I will spare you that and just give you the headline: "Why Derek Chauvin Will Languish in Prison--Regardless of the Facts".

This led me to wonder about the issue of whether George Floyd actually used a $20 counterfeit bill. In my old days, prior to AI, if I typed a question into google, I'd get results including a series of articles most often going from latest to oldest. Now when I type questions into google, I get a summary of what appears to be the top articles on the subject. To be honest, I appreciate getting a summary so I don't have to spend time reading the articles in detail. It saves a lot of work which, I admit, I'm too lazy to do. But if you are doing legal research, I urge you to be very careful about the results AI gives you. Because as I found to my chagrin, AI can be inaccurate. This is a situation you can not afford in you are going to Court.

As I proceed, I want to let you know that anything I type into this article in reference to how AI responded to me is directly typed from the computer. I don't want you to think I plagiarized. I just thought you should get the words straight from the source. So here goes. This was my interaction with AI. First, I typed in my question as follows:

Was the $20 George Floyd used counterfeit?

AI responded:

Yes, the $20 bill that George Floyd used at the Cup Foods convenience store was suspected to be counterfeit.

I was satisfied with that answer for a few days. But then I thought to ask the question again. That's when I looked at the word "suspected". What does that mean, "suspected". The answer is either yes or no. When I first looked at the answer, I saw the word "Yes" and stopped reading. In a more critical state of mind that next day, I was like, what do you mean "suspected" and I wanted more answers. I then clicked on AI's link for further information and found out that there had been no official confirmation from the Minnesota field office of the Secret Service as to whether George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit or not. Huh? How did AI get "Yes" out of that kind of statement?

Returning to google, I decided to ask a different question because I wanted AI to explain itself. This was my question:

Why am I getting a wrong answer from AI? I asked whether George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit. AI responded "Yes" but reports online indicate authorities don't know if it was counterfeit or not.

This is the answer I received from google:

Here is why the AI might have given you a definitive "yes" when the situation is more nuanced.

1. Training Data Limitations:

AI models are trained on vast amounts of data, which includes new articles, social media posts, and other online content. This data can be biased, incomplete, or contain misinformation. If the AI's training data contained a strong correlation between the $20 bill and the word "counterfeit" (due to media reports at the time, for example), it might have learned to associate the two even if there wasn't official confirmation.

2. Lack of Context and Nuance:

AI excels at recognizing patterns and generating responses based upon those patterns. However, it lacks the ability to understand the subtleties of human situations, including the intricacies of legal investigations or the potential for initial reports to be unconfirmed or even inaccurate.

3. "Hallucination" or Generation Plausible Content:

AI models are designed to generate plausible content, sometimes even making up details if they don't have enough information. This is sometimes referred to as "hallucination" and it means the AI prioritized creating a coherent response over absolute factual accuracy.

4. Evolving Information:

News and investigations surrounding sensitive topics like the George Floyd case are constantly evolving. Information that seems definitive at one point can be later challenged or proven incorrect. An AI's knowledge base may not be updated in real-time, leading to responses based on outdated information.

In Summary:

It is important to remember that AI models are still under development and can sometimes provide inaccurate or misleading information, especially when dealing with complex and evolving situation. Always fact-check information from AI with reliable source, especially for topics with significant social impact.

None of this sounds very reassuring.

What this means is that you have to be very careful about what these AI summaries are telling you. Again, I find myself returning to the wisdom and integrity of my pre-technologically informed College professors who advised me always to review my originally sources very carefully, and whenever possible use primary, not secondary resources. I will admit the concept of AI hallucinating was very, very funny--almost human.

At the end of its lengthy explanation on why AI can be inaccurate, AI then gave me the following answer to my question regarding whether George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit. See AI's elaboration on the question below:

What was the actual story about George Floyd's $20.00?

The 911 that led to the police encounter stemmed from a report by a store clerk alleging that George Floyd had used a counterfeit $20 bill to purchase cigarettes.

However, there is no official confirmation from authorities or the Secret Service, whose Minneapolis Field Office investigates counterfeit money cases, as to whether the bill was definitively counterfeit.

The clerk who accepted the bill testified that he believed it was fake because of an unusual blue pigment, but he also thought Floyd might not have known it was counterfeit and even considered paying for the cigarettes himself.

The owner of the store where the incident took place has stated that they had previously called the police about similar issues, and the police had never responded in the past.

I ended that google search, and started a new one. This time I decided to ask my original question again. Interestingly enough, upon returning to my original question, I found myself still getting the original answer that "Yes" George Floyd's $20 was counterfeit. I pressed on the link asking AI to give me more detail. AI then quoted to me a CBS News report dated May 26, 2021 stating as follows, "It has been confirmed by the US Secret Service that the $20 bill used by George Floyd to purchase cigarettes at the Cup Foods convenience store was counterfeit...their Minneapolis Field Office investigates counterfeit money and determines its authenticity." When I tried to get back to the response page that stated authorities hadn't yet provided any confirmation, I was unable to do so.

From that time on, as I tried to get at the truth, AI became more and more adamant that, indeed, the bill was counterfeit. On social media, however, I found comments to the effect that the George Floyd $20 bill had never been determined to be counterfeit along with comments stating that the $20 bill had been determined to be counterfeit. In the end, I wasn't sure if AI was responding to a perceived need on my part to get a Yes answer so it was looking more and more at that kind of data, or whether, in fact, that was the correct answer. Perhaps you folks can let me know what the story is in the comments below.

To my friend who sent me the original article, I responded no one should be killed over a $20 bill. Police should have better judgment than that. I was also reminded of a recent experience I had. A few months ago, I went into a local CVS. While I was there, I tried to purchase an item at a self-service machine using, you guessed it, a $20 bill. The machine refused to accept the bill, so I called a sales clerk over to help me. He took a look at the bill and announced that it was counterfeit. He made a bit of a display about the bill, holding it up and waving it around so that I became embarrassed. I ended up using a credit card to pay for my purchases instead.

Still, I was fired up about that $20 bill because it was humiliating the way the sales clerk had behaved. Immediately, I drove over to my bank, showed my $20 bill to the bank teller and asked if it was counterfeit. She reviewed it carefully, and then told me it was perfectly fine and not counterfeit. I was nervous about taking it back after the big fuss the clerk had made, so that bank teller gave me a new $20 and put mine in the till with the others. I can just imagine how the outcome might have been different if I were a stocky black man like George Floyd.

Returning to the issue of legal research, I again want to emphasize--you must be very critical and observant when you are doing your legal research with the help of AI because AI can be wrong, and you don't want to make a fool of yourself, particularly when it counts and when the lives of your children depend upon you being accurate and credible.

NO MORE COMMENTS

2025-04-03T14:28:00.041-04:00

I'm one of these people who loves to review the comment sections that appear after news articles and social media videos. I just enjoy seeing what people are thinking whether it is bad or good or indifferent. Often, I find the comments very informative, providing essential context which I wasn't aware of. Not only that, I really appreciate the comments from other countries which require I hit the translate button. This way I know I'm getting reactions from all over the world from people with a broad variety of cultural backgrounds. It's great to know that each of us is uniquely individual and sees the world in a different way. I like that special vision that each person has who contributes a comment.

Not only do I enjoy looking at other people's comments, I also enjoy contributing mine. Now I will admit, I get a particular kick when adding my comments to an article or video where the content is totally in opposition to my views. Is that bad? I'm not sure. I'm pro-Israel in the Gaza conflict (OK, OK, don't shoot me!!!) and I'm part of an organization that is pro-Palestine to the extreme, calling the conflict a genocide and using the term ethnic cleansing repeatedly. Now, before I got into this group, I had no idea they took this position. But now that I'm there, I've launched a vigorous defense of Israel whenever I see a particularly inflammatory comment. Today the President of the organization sent me an email saying, in capital letters, STOP! JUST STOP!

Should I listen to him? Should I resign from the organization? Is it wrong to stand in intellectual opposition to a group of people who strongly disagree with me? Does politeness require that I shut up and leave? I don't know.

Recently, I purchased a computer which posts MSN news as the first screen that appears when I open the computer. MSN has a lot of what I'd call clickbait titles to articles. Inevitably there are some extremist articles which I disagree with which I just itch to respond to. I'm like that. I'm sure you folks have seen this in the many blogs I've produced. I love to argue and I love to take controversial stands. That's just who I am. I was brought up that way by two educators who loved to debate the Vietnam War, among other incendiary topics, at the dinner table.

Recently, I tried to post a very well written (in my humble opinion) comment in response to an MSN article and Big Brother AI told me it violated community standards. I couldn't figure out why because in every way my comment was respectful, but no matter how I rephrased my comment to make it as inoffensive as possible, I was unable to post the comment. This has happened to me a few times before with MSN and it's very frustrating. I then went onto Mother Google and researched what is going on with the MSN comment sections and found all sorts of irate comments about how MSN's community standards have been misused in the opinion of the many people who complained about it.

I was equally annoyed as they were, and that led me to investigate further what is happening with comment sections affiliated with major print media, Broadcast News, and Social Media. What I found out is that there are tons of articles on this subject including a separate wikipedia page. As it turns out, comment sections have been disappearing since approximately 2013. CNN, The Washington Post, Popular Science, The Boston Globe, The Hartford Courant, NPR, IMDb all have eliminated their comment sections. Vice Media and MediaNews Group shut down their comment sections around 2016 and 2017, and a more recent shut down of the comment sections of newspapers owned by Gannett publishers took place in 2023.

Many people think this is a good development. As Heather Taylor of The Orion put it, "Overall, I believe that moving away from the comment section on news articles is a positive decision. In times of increasing polarization and distrust of media it is unfortunately a forum for harassment, often behind a shield of anonymity or physical distance." She continues on to say, "While I have long since learned to ignore my local paper's comment section, there was a time when I couldn't resist scrolling through it. I was often disgusted by the comments shared, as they were not beneficial to the general public and could quickly turn into ugly arguments marked by personal attacks." She continued on to talk about how comments were particularly used to harass women, people of color, and members of minority groups. What Ms. Taylor held up as compensation for eliminating the comment sections is that, "Without distracting comments underneath a news story, the focus will hopefully be shifted to the content of the story itself."

I certainly am aware that many news outlets have simply shifted their opportunity to comment on news articles to social media such as Facebook. This puts the onus on moderating the comment on those social media companies rather than the news outlets themselves. This must have saved them considerable money. On the other hand, without comment sections how can news outlets be held accountable for the contents of their material. At one point, The Hartford Courant, my local paper, had a Reader Representative you could speak to if something concerned you regarding accuracy, bias, or format, but that position has long gone with the dinosaur.

I know publishers were concerned that critical remarks regarding an article could reduce the credibility of that article, which made them even more eager to eliminate the comment section. On the other hand, perhaps the criticisms were legitimate and not just harassment. It's something to consider. Not all people reading and watching broadcast news are ill informed. Many are only too much informed! Only 25% of comments are defined as toxic, not all of them. From my experience, the remaining 75% consists of very thoughtful readers.

I do recall when I worked at The Atlantic Monthly once reading internal documents prepared by Senior editors stating that the audience will like whatever we give them. Could that also be meant to say believe whatever we tell them? What an attitude. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now. Getting rid of the comment section is just sad. When you cut that intimate bond between journalists and their audience, when you protect journalists from the rough and tumble of the thought marketplace, what you end up with are a privileged bunch of people (and with AI and the downfall of print media there are less and less) off in their ivory towers disconnected from the reasons why they do the writing job in the first place.

Meanwhile, on social media, places like Youtube the comment sections are alive and well, adding up to the thousands on many videos. It does make you think if they can do it why can't media and broadcast news manage to do it? Are they pussies? It seems to me that media content rises and falls based upon its truth, relevance, and the solidity of its material. If it doesn't achieve good results, then it should get off the field and be replaced by content that does. So what if some of the comment sections are deep down and dirty. If you believe what you have said, jump on in there and speak for what you believe in. That's what the free marketplace of ideas is all about.

Finally, just before I sign off, I want to say that there have been many thousands of comments posted on this website, the majority very respectful, thoughtful, and informative. In the light of what they could have been, given the research I've done for this blog, I want to thank all of you who have commented while keeping it real and respectful of your fellow readers.

PAUL BOYNE RELEASED FROM JAIL ON BAIL!

2025-02-09T13:28:00.005-05:00

Paul Boyne was released from jail on Thursday, January 16, 2025. Friends were able to raise the bail money, and after many hours of waiting, he was released and took the first train to Washington, D.C. the first step on his journey back to Virginia. Many thanks go to his public defender, Attorney Denis O'Malley, who guided everyone through the complex process.

We got some great pictures of Paul happy and delighted to be released, but I have not posted them here since Paul definitely has experienced considerable wear and tear in prison. It was an extremely cold day, but he was wearing a light jogging outfit upon his release. Luckily, a friend had brought a winter coat, but things would have been tough without one. I can't imagine what people are expected to do under these circumstances.

In the hours that followed, Paul spoke about being locked up in his cell for 20 hours a day, and only being allowed out for four hours per day. This is the punishment for speaking out in ways the State doesn't like. Further details are available through independent journalist, Michael Volpe in the link below:

https://luthmann.substack.com/p/paul-boyne-freed-family-court-hostage?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

GOV. NED LAMONT NOMINATES 22 NEW JUDGES!

2025-01-28T12:09:00.002-05:00

See Link Below:

Governor Lamont Nominates 22 Jurists To Serve as Judges of the Connecticut Superior Court

KEITH HARMON SNOW, LONG TIME FAMILY COURT ACTIVIST, HAS DIED!

2025-01-16T02:44:00.003-05:00

It is with great sadness that I share the obituary for Keith below:

"Keith Harmon Snow

Williamsburg, MA - Keith Harmon Snow, February 14, 1960 - December 8, 2024

After a long journey with his health and a powerful life lived, Keith Harmon Snow died in the early morning hours of December 8th, 2024. Keith will be missed by many.

He is survived by his son Birch Ivo Snow Aronson, age 11, his son's mother, Chaya Leia Aronson, his brother and sister-in-law, James and Michele Snow, his sister Dawn White, and several nieces and nephews as well as an expansive, diverse community of friends and family. Keith was pre-deceased by his mother, Sondra Kay Black and David Harmon Snow.

A memorial service will be held on February 1, 2025, 11:30am to 3:30pm, at the Williamsburg Grange.

For more, please click on the link below:

https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/gazettenet/name/keith-snow-obituary?id=57222853

UPDATE ON PAUL BOYNE: BOND REDUCED! ONGOING BIASED REPORTING!

2025-01-11T15:40:00.003-05:00

Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant reports that family court activist and blogger Paul Boyne's bail has been reduced. Apparently, Superior Court Judge Peter Brown has set his bail at $5,250.00 to be deposited with the court, or a $75,000 surety. Since Paul Boyne is indigent, it is unlikely he will be able to meet this bond. For a copy of this article, please click on the link below:

https://www.courant.com/2025/01/11/bond-reduced-for-man-accused-of-cyberstalking-ct-judges-he-awaits-trial-on-18-counts/?lctg=D4E5F4D155726419E473E4B87E&utm_email=D4E5F4D155726419E473E4B87E&active=yesP&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.courant.com%2f2025%2f01%2f11%2fbond-reduced-for-man-accused-of-cyberstalking-ct-judges-he-awaits-trial-on-18-counts%2f&utm_campaign=trib-hartford_courant-breaking_news_Dont_Miss-nl&utm_content=alert

Again, this is a freedom of speech case where Paul Boyne is alleged to have written a blog on family court which exposed Mr. Boyne's observations of the corruption of the CT Judicial Branch. During the course of Mr. Boyne's incarceration, which has now lasted over a year, the reporting on his case in The Hartford Courant has been particularly biased against him.

For instance, in his recent January 11, 2024 article, Mr. Mahony states that Paul Boyne "is accused of 18 felony stalking and cyberstalking charges for years of often racist and antisemitic blog posts that several judges said caused them to fear for their safety." What he fails to note is that, even though previously, in a private email among friends, a Mr. Ted Taupier was accused of quoting some movie hero in a rant against judges and was jailed for doing so, and even though Paul Boyne has supposedly posted upsetting blogs "for years", thus far no judge has been hurt as a consequence of either of these men's actions of speaking their minds. So why these judges would fear for their safety is unclear.

Mr. Mahony also states that Paul Boyne has turned down a plea agreement that would allow him to pursue a first amendment appeal of the conviction. Well, he hasn't been convicted. Also, I'm not aware that Mr. Boyne turned down any plea agreement because his former attorneys ignored any plea agreements offered and requested a competency exam instead. So as far as I know, Mr. Boyne never had the opportunity to say yes or no to a plea agreement. Perhaps Mr. Mahony can clarify this point for me. Meanwhile, Mr. Mahony's blank statements, as they accumulate, can have a very damaging impact on Paul Boyne's reputation. This is unethical in my view.

Journalist Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant then continues on to partly blame Paul Boyne for refusing to cooperate in a baseless request for a competency examination which his attorneys made. Why should he cooperate? In what way would such an examination be beneficial to him? Be that as it may, not long afterwards the judge declared that Paul Boyne was legally competent. This issue of competency was simply a red herring. But Mr. Mahony's outrage over Paul Boyne's refusal is laughable. Apparently, Mahony states in an outraged tone, Mr. Boyne "refused to leave his prison cell" for the psych examination. Well, why should he? Just because Mr. Boyne was falsely accused of being mentally incompetent, this does not signify that he should subject himself to intrusive mental health scrutiny. It is ridiculous for Mr. Mahony to imply that Paul Boyne was somehow at fault for insisting upon maintaining his personal boundaries which he has a right to do.

Mr. Mahony then said it took weeks to replace Paul Boyne's attorneys. It is not Paul Boyne's fault that his first attorneys were incompetent. It is also not Mr. Boyne's fault that it took so long to get new ones. There is a lengthy list of public defenders and it shouldn't take long to find replacements. Mr. Boyne is not responsible for the court's administrative incompetence.

Journalist Edmund H. Mahony of The Hartford Courant then talks about the Paul Boyne's family court case which is what motivated Mr. Boyne to become a blogger. Mr. Mahony defines that situation by stating Paul Boyne "is said by associates to be consumed by what he believes was unfair treatment in his divorce and custody case." But then Mr. Mahony fails to explain what that unfair treatment might be, leaving his readers in the dark. I have rectified that failure below by providing a full description of the case at the link below:

https://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2024/11/the-boyne-case-paul-boyne-v-heather.html

Paul Boyne's divorce case was an egregious miscarriage of justice which caused lasting damage not only to Paul but also to his children. This case is a shame and a disgrace for which the CT Family Court system should be held responsible. Since Mr. Mahony fails to clarify this point, he makes Paul Boyne appear to be unreasonably obsessed--"consumed" OMG! This is totally unfair to Mr. Boyne and also to the citizens of the State of Connecticut who have a right to know the real story.

Ultimately, this is why I ended up establishing the "Divorce in Connecticut" website because of the failure of media in Connecticut to report accurately on the news related to what is going on in Family Court. I have to wonder. Who or what is stopping Mr. Mahony from telling the truth about Paul Boyne in the pages of The Hartford Courant. The Courant may be the oldest continuously published newspaper in the United States, but if it is unable to publish the news fairly and equitably, do we really care any more?

MICHELLE TROCONIS AND THE REID TECHNIQUE!

2024-11-18T17:33:00.026-05:00

I have just been looking at the March 6, 2024 Taylor Hartz Hartford Courant article entitled, "Attorneys agree: Michelle Troconis 'had everything to lose' in interviews with CT Investigators". According to the article, Troconis underwent three interviews, "The first one at the New Canaan Police Department on June 2, 2019, the second at [her Attorney Andrew] Bowman's office on June 6, 2019, and the third in Bridgeport on August 13, 2019. These three interviews played a major role in her conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of tampering with evidence, two counts of conspiring to tamper with evidence, and second-degree hindering the prosecution, for which she received a sentence of 14 1/2 years.

According to Michelle Troconis' second attorney, Jon Schoenhorn, the entire case against Troconis was 90% based upon these interviews. This is why I find it so remarkable that Michelle Troconis' first attorney, Andrew Bowman, a highly regarded professional with years of experience, would even begin to allow them. According to Hartz, Linda Urso, the attorney for Dulos' former project manager, Pavel Gumienny, stated she would never allow such an interview without an immunity deal on the table. From what I gather, Michelle Troconis appears to have thought she had an informal immunity deal on the table, but that is entirely meaningless as we all know, and any attorney would know that. Hartz again reports that Attorney Schoenhorn commented, "I have no insight as to why any lawyer without either an immunity agreement or a proffer agreement would walk their client into a police interrogation without knowing very much about the offense."

For those of us who have gone through the family court system, we probably have some very similar questions. I personally had one of the top family court attorneys at the beginning of my divorce and he literally destroyed my case within the first five months. This is where you start to wonder whether there is some conspiracy going on or some kinds of back room dealings. I know it sounds paranoid, but seriously, what else are you going to speculate when a distinguished attorney, i.e. Attorney Andrew Bowman, with years of experience acts like a rooky. Actually, even less than a rooky because any one of us who have watched "Law and Order" know better than to cooperate in a police interview without some kind of deal or a defense attorney who actually provides a defense. I actually tend to see Michelle Troconis' complete naivete on that point, or alternatively what you might call a total lack of street smarts, as an indication that maybe she was innocent.

I'm just looking at my notes regarding these interviews. For the better part, from what I see, during these interviews, Michelle was not provided with an interpreter. This is a major issue given that cognitive processing and access to memory can be impacted by the language a person uses. Again, the fact that Attorney Bowman did not request an interpreter, which any person on the street would know should have been done, raises significant questions about what the heck Attorney Bowman thought he was doing.

The first interview was conducted under really horrendous circumstances. Apparently, she was arrested in the middle of the night at the hotel room she was staying in with her mother and daughter. Upon arriving at the police department in New Canaan, she was asked to undress to be photographed, and then peppered with questions from three to five detectives who sometimes lied about the facts of the case. Taylor Hartz of the Hartford Courant reports that detectives stated they had "found hard evidence of a murder" even though they actually didn't. They also stated they found a pillow in one of the bags Fotis Dulos tossed out along Albany Avenue with Farber Dulos' blood on it. In fact, they didn't have any such thing.

Prosecutors have talked about how there were many contradictions and inconsistencies in Michelle Troconis's interviews with detectives. On the other hand, given how many threats and lies the detectives attacked Michelle with, is that so surprising? According to Attorney Mark Sherman, a criminal defense attorney in Stanford, "Police can say whatever they want and there are no consequences." Taylor Hartz of the Hartford Courant reports further, "Police are allowed to lie to suspects during interrogations to gather evidence..." I can imagine that if you have any mental health disability or physical problem such as a lack of sleep or are under a great deal of stress, with people aggressively attacking you verbally, lying to you and tripping you up verbally, you could end up saying all sorts of off the wall remarks.

(As an aside, it is worth noting the point Taylor Hartz further makes that lying to anyone under 18 during a police interrogation in CT was made illegal in 2023. Slowly, but surely, people are waking up to the fact that these tactics are simply no good.)

So when these investigators were lying and misrepresenting facts to Michelle Troconis, what were they doing? They were implementing The Reid Technique, a method of interrogation developed by John E. Reid in the 1950s and currently used as a standard in police departments around the country. (Yes, I know, a 74 year old technique).

This technique is notorious for the fact that 29% of wrongful convictions in criminal cases were the result of false confessions elicited by The Reid Technique. In fact, what is interesting about The Reid Technique is that the first time the technique was used, it elicited a false confession. This took place In 1955, in Lincoln, Nebraska, when John Reid was able to get a suspect, Darrel Parker, to confess to killing his wife. Even though Parker recanted his confession the next day, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. However, later on, another man confessed to the crime. Parker sued the state and received $500,000 in compensation.

Despite this miserable failure at the start in the use of this technique, Reid continued on to write a book on his approach which was published in 1962 entitled "Criminal Interrogations and Confessions". Miranda warnings, made the law in 1966, were actually instituted in order to respond to the abuses of the Reid Technique.

Substantial parts of the Reid Technique have been called into question. For instance, the implication that a police officer can determine guilt or innocence from body movements like fidgeting has been debunked. Further, studies done on the application of the Reid Technique indicate that police are no better than anyone else at determining whether a person is lying or not. In connection to what Michelle Troconis experienced during her interrogations it is worth noting the following reported by CBC News in January 28, 2003, "Abuses of interrogation methods [i.e. Reid Technique] include officers treating accused suspects aggressively and telling them lies about the amount of evidence proving their guilt. Such exaggerated claims of evidence, such as video or genetics, have the potential, when combined with such coercive tactics as threats of harm or promises of leniency, to cause innocent suspects to become psychologically overwhelmed."

Given Michelle Troconis was being threatened over access to her daughter, she was being told she was the most hated woman in America, she was being lied to and grilled under conditions that compromised her mental capacity to cope, then the fact that her responses were inconsistent would make perfect sense. So why didn't her attorney, Jon Schoenhorn put The Reid Technique itself on trial? Other civilized Western nations have stopped using it. Why are we still using it here in Connecticut when it has been so discredited and there are many other more effective approaches? Is there a sort of joy in bullying and railroading people we don't like into jail regardless of whether they are guilty or innocent?

After Michelle Troconis' conviction, in an article published in the Hartford Courant on July 5, 2024 Taylor Hartz quotes Detective John Kimball, one of the lead interrogators in Michelle's case as saying, "I am sure with 100% certainty that she has additional information that could help us determine what happened to Jennifer and where she is located." At the same time, during her trial, Kimball admitted to "using ruse style tactics" against Michelle. Given the history of The Reid Technique, I think it is laughable for him to speak with such confidence. 100 percent. Really? Detective Kimball said that the ultimate goal with Michelle Troconis was to get at the truth. Yet he relied upon a flawed, old fashioned technique with a long history of error when it comes to ascertaining the truth. If he actually cared about the truth, why did he use it?

I can't say that I think much of Michelle Troconis. How foolish could she be to think that she Jennifer and the kids were all going to be one big happy family in Farmington. But did she conspire to commit murder, tamper with evidence, and hinder the prosecution? I'm not sure. The fact is that she was no where near the crime when it occurred. Pavel Gumienny, on the other hand, was in the local area where the crime took place. Unfortunately, the electronic data in the vehicle he drove seems to have had some glitch so it wasn't possible to track his movements. Law enforcement said at the time that there is no way to tamper with that data. However, I've looked it up in google and, in fact, you can tamper with it according to the articles I read.

So what am I saying? I don't know. It is ironic that a mother gets killed in a domestic violence incident and none of the men charged in the case have yet been brought to trial and convicted, but we have the woman, by gosh!

THE BOYNE CASE: PAUL BOYNE V. HEATHER BOYNE 2007

2024-11-05T13:39:00.206-05:00

To be honest, I have only recently taken the time to look at the Boyne case to determine what is the basis for blogger Paul Boyne's anger towards the CT Family Court system. I did not assume his case was the initial motivation because there is so much wrong with the CT Family Court system, you can become enraged by its actions without ever being a party to a case. Nonetheless, as I found out, Paul Boyne did have a very difficult family court case which could be the basis for his ongoing anger and disillusion.

The Boyne divorce took around two years from November 2, 2005 to June 25, 2007 which is pretty standard for contentious divorces, although clearly a whole lot of action took place post-judgment both in Connecticut and New York. FYI, I'm going to just write down my ongoing impressions of the decision in this Boyne case as they occur to me. As I've said before, I can't do the fine tuning I'd prefer to do in my written work because of my current life circumstances. So I hope you will cut me some slack for that.

The first point I noticed is that there is a "Memorandum of Decision" in this case. This means that the case went to trial on October 3-4, 2006 and again on November 1, 2006 and March 1, 2007. At the trial, according to the Memorandum of Decision, "The parties presented testimony and introduced documentary evidence. The Court, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the exhibits and proposed orders" drew conclusions and formulated orders applying to custody and financial arrangements post divorce. Given that all of this testimony and documentary evidence came before the Court, what is striking about this Memorandum of Decision is how little of this evidence made its way into the decision. If I didn't know better, I might think this Memorandum of Decision is actually a Memorandum of Understanding or some kind of agreement between the parties because it is written more like an agreement.

In fact, a later custody decision in New York state includes some discussion of the Memorandum as an agreement with Paul Boyne insisting it is not an agreement. I mean, I get that. Some so called agreements are forced upon the parties. However, this document is not referred to as an agreement, but it still reads like one. How, you might ask? It does not have the backup evidence from testimony and documentation which would ordinarily be used as the basis for the judge's decision. Also, it doesn't have the kind of explanations for how the law applies to the decisions made in the Memorandum of Decision that you would ordinarily expect. For me, this is a major red flag.

In any legal document there is the surface intention, and then there are all the unspoken issues and political machinations which remain underneath the surface. Whenever you get a legal document that is not in conformity to other similar documents, there is something wrong. So right away I have concerns about what is going on in this case. Of course, I can't go beyond the documents to speculate what that might be. I've had people get angry at my work because I strictly limit myself to the evidence at hand. I don't listen to gossip or speculation and I'm not moved by a lot of razzle dazzle. This is not the intention of my work. I'm interested in finding the problems and pointing out where further investigation might be helpful.

Here is one area in the Paul Boyne case. The Memorandum of Decision states that Paul Boyne is an engineer and that he has had 11 jobs in 16 years. I would like to know why. What is going on here? Is there some background factor which has led to frequent job changes such as challenges in his area of employment? Does he have some kind of personality disorder which makes him a difficult employee? All of this should have been investigated. The Memorandum of Decision also states that Paul Boyne had "substantial mood swings." Who said that? His estranged wife? It would be standard in a divorce case, for both parents to take psychological evaluations to determine their mental health status. If Paul Boyne had bipolar, which this observation seems to hint at, then the Court should have ordered an examination. If the Court ordered such an examination and Paul Boyne refused to take one, then that should be mentioned as well. All these kinds of details are very helpful when it comes to a later Court, and there were many in this case, making any kinds of determinations.

The Court continues on to say that when it came to the proceedings, "the defendant's hostility was palpable." Why? What was going on that Paul Boyne, right at this early stage of what came to be a multi-decade critique of the CT Family Court, felt such hostility to the point that some Family Court vendors resigned and didn't want to be part of the case? Whatever it was is not said. I know that on some level, by not explaining, the Court doing that universal gesture of circling a pointer finger around the ear and implying we have a crazy person here. But that kind of action is not helpful to the successful resolution of a Court case and now we can see the final results of doing so in the current cyberbullying case against Paul Boyne.

If there is a problem, the Court has to say what it is, put a name to it, otherwise we are all left guessing and my radar is saying this is the kind of ADA case which violates federal law. If Paul Boyne had a disability it needed to be addressed. But we don't know, do we, because of how the memorandum is worded.

Moving on, the custody arrangement in the Boyne case is extraordinary in that it gives Heather Boyne sole custody of the parties' four minor children and states that "The defendant shall have no visitation with the minor children, except at the discretion of the Plaintiff and initiated only by the Plaintiff." These are extraordinary orders and would never be put into place in the present day. Not only are such orders illegal now in Connecticut, but they are also illegal in New York where Paul Boyne appealed the case.

Upon reviewing these orders, the New York state Court observed, "There is no order of protection of which this Court is aware--a circumstance confirmed by counsel this date--which prevented the father from contacting the mother to request or arrange for visitation. Nor has the father alleged that the mother rebuffed or otherwise denied any such efforts." Still, these are profoundly humiliating orders for any divorced parent placing total control in the hands of one party. The wisdom of doing any such thing at any time is questionable as subsequent Court decisions have stated.

The remainder of the Memorandum of Decision in the Paul Boyne case pretty much hands over most of the marital assets to the mother, i.e. 1. All educational accounts for the children are placed under mothers control; 2. Paul is required to quitclaim the marital home to his ex-wife; 3. Paul is asked to give his ex-wife $80,000 from his IRA; 4. Joint mutual funds go to the ex-wife; and 5. Paul is ordered to pay his exes attorney $15,000. These are tremendous financial burdens which must have come along with the fees Paul owed to his own attorney which must have been considerable.

Then Paul, on top of all that, was ordered to pay around $750 or so per week for the next 7 years. That pretty much wipes him out financially is my best guess. On top of that, the judge added an extra provision stating that "it is hereby further ordered that all of the obligations of this judgment are in the nature of support and shall not be dischargeable by either party in the event of a bankruptcy filing." All of them? That is an extraordinary ruling!

Further, the Court ordered Paul to guarantee these payments with a $500,000 insurance policy with the ex-wife and children as beneficiaries, and also to obtain a bond to cover these costs for the first year post divorce. Meanwhile, what we have is a guy who has changed jobs 11 times in 16 years. The Court acknowledged that in making its decision it was going on the basis of "earning capacity" rather than actual earned income. Paul had only earned $41,000 in the three years leading up to the decision. Still, this seems to me to be balancing an extremely heavy financial burden on a very fragile foundation. I say this recalling Paul's job instability and references to his mood swings. All of this needed to be addressed in order to conclude the case in a realistic manner which would provide a pathway for both sides to regain their financial and emotional stability after the divorce. This is the goal, not to burden either party so greatly that he or she is never able to recover.

The orders in this case, both custody and financial, strike me as extreme and impossible for Paul Boyne to follow through on successfully. The better part of wisdom would have been to establish Court orders post judgment which were achievable for the parties involved. I would expect some mention in the custody order of what steps Paul Boyne could have taken in the future in order to make it more equitable. I would have thought some mention of options for reducing child support and alimony if Paul were unable to get a job after reasonable attempts to do so. Of course, more deeply, I would have expected some report by a professional evaluator as to what Paul Boyne's true earning capacity was. To me, this issue was not open and shut, given Paul's employment history.

There are many mysteries in this case. So much is left unsaid and unreported. I will note that one GAL in the case stated that "she felt she was in fear of her safety by [Paul]" but best guess if she is dead today, this is not by Paul Boyne's hand and that was almost 20 years ago. I've known this accusation of "fear of safety" by family Court vendors to be directed towards anyone who disagrees with them or who is smart enough to expose their flaws. I don't know what to make of it. But so far, no one has died because of Paul Boyne. I do think that the CT Judicial system has got to stop beating around the bush, jailing and legally persecuting people regarding issues the public is not fully informed about because Judges use the process of writing up decisions to conceal rather than reveal.

HARTFORD COURANT: PAUL BOYNE COMPETENT TO STAND TRIAL!

2024-11-05T12:52:00.004-05:00

An October 31, 2024 "Hartford Courant" article by Edmund H. Mahoney reports that blogger Paul Boyne has been found competent to stand trial. See below:

"A man accused of cyberstalking for tormenting judges with malicious blog postings was found competent to stand trial Thursday and fired his public defenders for questioning his mental fitness.

The decision by Paul Boyne to discharge his two court-appointed lawyers puts his case, with its first amendment implications, on hold.

Boyne has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that his arrest should be dismissed because it violates his free speech rights. He has been in custody, unable to post bond, since his arrest 15 months ago on 18 felony stalking and cyberstalking charges."

For the rest of this article, click on the link below:

https://www.courant.com/2024/10/31/man-accused-of-harassing-ct-judges-found-competent-to-stand-trial-fires-lawyers/?clearUserState=true

THE FRANK REPORT COVERAGE OF PAUL BOYNE CASE

2024-11-05T12:41:00.007-05:00

For those of you who are interested in a different perspective on the Paul Boyne case, here are some articles from "The Frank Report" written by independent journalist Mr. Frank Parlato. I have included the links below. What I found even more interesting when I read these articles were the comments below them. So make sure you continue to read the comments underneath the articles because they give you a real insight into the inner workings of family court from the perspective of people who have lived experience and have done a great deal of research.

Paul Boyne From Jail Says His Lawyers Killed Plea Deal; Judge Orders Mental Competency Test on Jewish Conspiracy Blogger

https://frankreport.com/2024/09/15/paul-boyne-from-jail-says-his-lawyers-killed-plea-deal-judge-orders-mental-competency-test-on-jewish-conspiracy-blogger/

Savior or Cyberstalker? Paul Boyne Still Fighting For Free Speech From Behind Bars

https://frankreport.com/2024/10/28/savior-or-cyberstalker-paul-boyne-still-fighting-for-free-speech-from-behind-bars/

Blogger Paul Boyne Held Without Bail for Posts Suggesting Violence Against Jewish Judges Seeks Release Based on First Amendment

https://frankreport.com/2024/09/02/blogger-paul-boyne-held-without-bail-for-posts-suggesting-violence-against-jewish-judges-seeks-release-based-on-first-amendment/

EDMUND H. MAHONY ON PAUL BOYNE'S RETURN TO COURT!

2024-10-23T17:56:00.009-04:00

I woke up this morning to another "Hartford Courant" article on Paul Boyne courtesy of Edmund H. Mahony. It is entitled "Man accused of cyberstalking CT judges refuses to submit to court-ordered competency exam." I'm going to do a cheating way of writing this article because I'm so busy I can't do the kind of heavily reviewed work I'd like to do. Instead, I'll give you an example of the kind of critical reading that I do which often ultimately leads to a finalized blog with thorough research. So keep in mind that my writing here is on the draft level.

Looking at the title, I see it says that "Man"--ok, we all know this is Paul Boyne. That's not rocket science. I'm not sure why the "Hartford Courant" has such a hard time saying the name. We family court advocates are saying it and have been saying it for the over a decade we have known him. Is he a "notorious blogger" as Edmund H. Mahony describes him? I don't think so. If I ever mentioned him to the man on the street--and I just did to one of the librarians at the library I'm typing this article in--I'm likely to get a puzzled look and the word "Who?" Paul is only notorious to corrupt family court players. As I say, if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear from Paul because he won't mention you.

So what's new with Paul? He refuses "to submit to court-ordered competency exam". Is there any reason that he should? Everyone who knows Paul is well aware that he may be annoying but he isn't crazy--not according to any legal definition of the term. I believe that obeying an order to cooperate with a psychological evaluation in criminal court would be kind of like being forced to incriminate yourself. That's illegal as far as I know. I mean, they force people to take psychological examinations all the time in family court, but I don't think it is legal in criminal court. Plus, I think when they are talking competency, they aren't talking about being argumentative, they are talking about being psychotic to the point where you can't even have a coherent conversation with your attorney. The fact that the Court has actually ordered a competency exam for a person who writes his own motions and argues his case pro se in Court is actually kind of an embarrassment for the Court. When you do something really stupid like this, it makes you look totally incapable of running a Courtroom.

What has caused this big hullabaloo? Paul has apparently been charged with using "racist and anti-semitic language to promote conspiracy theories about control of the state judiciary." As far as I know, this is not illegal. Is the criminal justice system for real? You may not like Qanon type theories and you may think anti-semitism is distasteful, but it sure isn't illegal as far as I know. So the Court has kept Paul Boyne in jail for fourteen months for exercising his freedom of speech? Is that what this is all about? How silly is that?

It doesn't seem fair to me that the State of Connecticut can jail a person without trial for 14 months and require an amount of bail that he will never be able to meet. Paul Boyne lives on social security at his parents house. Where is he going to run with no money? Couldn't they put an ankle bracelet on him and hold him in house arrest? They sure gave Michelle Traconis a better deal and she was charged with conspiracy to murder!

Digging into the issue deeper, Edmund Mahony states that in his blog "Family Court Circus", Paul Boyne suggested that "violence is a remedy for disgruntled litigants." According to the law, which I just looked up, freedom of speech protects most speech except that which consists of a "true threat", i.e. speech that is intended to communicate a serious threat of violence to a specific person. From what I gather, Paul's statements have been so broad, you can't nail them down that closely. It is important to note that proving "true threat" is not easy. In prosecuting this point of law, the attorney must demonstrate that the speaker has some understanding that the statement is threatening. The speaker must be aware of the effects of their speech. The speaker must also know that the threat can be carried out. How the recipient responds to the statement is also a factor.

More specifically, "the Supreme Court ruled in Counterman v. Colorado that the speaker must have a reckless state of mind to be considered a true threat. This means that the speaker must have consciously disregarded the risk that their statement would be perceived as threatening." I obtained this information from AI on google. From what I can see, this is a pretty high standard. I also looked at an affidavit and application for a search and seizure warrant in Paul's case which was used to seize his electronics. Listed among the grounds for this warrant, I did not see any condition which would rise to the level of a true threat.

Perhaps I need to continue investigating, but at this point, this is my conclusion. In fact, what I see in the warrant is the desperate attempt to invade the contents of an independent journalist's private electronics in order to fish for some evidence of something incriminating. I don't think that is how the law is supposed to be used.

Mahoney goes on to report that there is a standoff between Paul Boyne and his attorneys. According to Mahony, "Boyne's public defenders asked the court to order the competency evaluation a month ago..." All I can say to that is, why in the world would they request a competency evaluation or call into question Paul's competence if they are truly representing him. In fact, it is my understanding that Paul was in the final stages of a beneficial plea deal when his so called attorneys derailed the agreement with this request for a competency exam. This is not an unusual situation for the Court system in the State of Connecticut, i.e. to fake that a person has a defending attorney simply because they have a warm body next to them. Clearly, this is not the case when it comes to Paul.

Mahony makes the point that Paul's attorneys are upset with him because Paul insists that a "former associate justice of the state Supreme Court" is behind the case against him. From what I understand, there is concrete documentary evidence of this fact. So if Paul's public defenders are using that as the basis for claiming he lacks competence, that's kind of silly.

Apparently, when Judge Peter Brown asked Paul Boyne whether he was going to cooperate with the psychological evaluation, Paul asked Judge Brown why he should. Judge Brown said, "I'm not going to argue with you." Perhaps this is because he actually doesn't have a legitimate legal argument. You may be annoyed that a pro se attorney asks you as a judge for the legal basis for your decision making, but you are legally required to provide one, or some semblance of respect for the process should lead you to provide one.

At the end of this hearing, Paul Boyne's attorney, Jennifer M. Buyske, bemoaned the fact that there has been a breakdown of communication between his defense attorneys and Paul. Boy, I wonder why!

There isn't much more to respond to in this Edmund H. Mahony article. Mr. Mahony quoted people who said Paul Boyne is "consumed by what he believes was unfair treatment in his divorce and custody case." Given Paul's committed and dedicated advocacy for family court reform during the course of a decade, it might make sense for a responsible journalist to find out what was involved in the Boyne case. Why has it brought up major concerns for Paul and many others over the corrupt and unethical practices of the CT Family Court System. Why not investigate this question? In 2013, approximately 80 current and former litigants provided testimony to the CT State Legislature regarding the horrific and abusive practices of family court. Paul Boyne's actions do not arise out of a vacuum. This freedom of speech case is not complete without a full investigation of the motivations behind Paul Boyne's actions. The fact that it has not been done thus far is simply a disgrace.

Finally, "not long ago [Paul] suffered a head injury in a prison dispute." Let's get real. Paul was attacked by fellow inmates. Our prison system can't even keep prisoners safe who have not been convicted in a court of law and who are innocent before being proven guilty. That's just bad. As citizens of CT, we should be ashamed that this kind of injustice is taking place in our state, the birthplace of the constitution. I'm sorry this may not be as well written as some of my other blogs, but I hope all of you see that it comes from the heart, and with great sympathy for a writer who has been silenced for speaking his mind as I have been many times during the course of writing this blog.

DIAGNOSING JENNIFER DULOS!

2024-10-17T15:16:00.010-04:00

What does justice for Jennifer mean? Historically, if we could rewind the clock, I think it would mean handling the Dulos divorce more equitably and not allowing it to become money driven. It would certainly mean providing Jennifer with more legal protections. In the present, I believe it means preserving Jennifer Dulos character and reputation. This has not been done, and to the extent that it has not been done, the murderer wins.

From the start of the Dulos divorce case, Fotis Dulos tried to smear Jennifer Farber-Dulos reputation by calling her crazy. In a "Hartford Courant" article of May 30, 2019, less than a week after her death, reporters stated, "Dulos made serious allegations against his wife saying she was an unfit mother because she was taking medications and had been treated for mental illness and had a relative that committed suicide." Fotis Dulos made this statement because he felt it would give him traction in Family Court where accusations of mental illness, in violation of ADA law, can still be fatal to a mother's attempt to retain custody of her children. Also, having relatives with mental illness, remarkably, can reduce your chances of getting custody. It is as if mental illness of any kind is a form of modern day leprosy.

Under the ADA signed by President Bush in 1990, discrimination against people based upon disability is prohibited by law. Yet discrimination is alive and well in the family courts of Connecticut at the present time. If we were to talk about justice for Jennifer, to give her justice posthumously, it would be to absolutely prohibit statements in Court such as the one Dulos made equating having a mental illness or anyone in the family with a mental illness to being an unfit mother. How disgraceful that the Court allowed it then. How disgraceful that they continue to allow it now.

The other thing I would like to point out is that Judge Nelson-Heller sealed the Dulos custody report and Dr. Stephen Herman's testimony in regard to that report. This was followed by the effort on the part of Michelle Troconis defense team to unseal the report, an effort which failed miserably. Still determined to get information out there, on February 15, 2024 during her criminal trial, Michelle Troconis posted the sealed custody report on her computer screen for all to see. That day, the Farber family spokesperson, Carrie Luft, noticed the custody report on Michelle's computer screen and reported her. This led to Michelle being charged with contempt. On March 6, 2024, journalist Taylor Hartz reported this incident in The Hartford Courant as follows: "Apparently, the page Michelle was looking at included part of the psychological report of Jennifer Dulos. It referenced the name of a particular doctor and the words Borderline Personality Disorder." This information, including the diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder for Jennifer Dulos, was placed on the warrant for Michelle Troconis' arrest for contempt of court.

Subsequently, the report that Jennifer Dulos had been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder was stated repeatedly in other Hartford Courant articles. Why? I thought the content of the custody report was sealed. It was entirely possible for Carrie Luft to report on the incident without mentioning the diagnosis which was part of Jennifer Dulos' private medical information. The same goes for the arrest warrant and the later Hartford Courant reports. By disclosing the diagnosis, Carrie Luft, the warrant, the newspaper were all acting in contempt of the Court order sealing the contents of the custody report, just the same as Michelle was. They should all be charged.

Why do I care about that? Applying this diagnosis to Jennifer Dulos is simply defamatory. Find me a mother whom Family Court has demonized, and she will be diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder. BPD is the diagnosis given to any troublesome woman who dares to stand up for herself. Its sexist political history and implications are extensive and decades long. Meanwhile, Fotis Dulos, the killer, supposedly had no psychopathology. It certainly makes you wonder how psychiatry is weaponized and distorted within the family court system. Only in family court could a killer walk around diagnosis free while his victim is labeled with a damning one.

Ultimately, l consider the BPD diagnosis for Jennifer to be completely bogus. Across the board, friends of Jennifer have talked about what a great person she was. This is completely contrary to a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder. Here is one person's description of Jennifer, "She was lovely, kind, and shy and a little funny and very private and very quiet." And another, "She was a person who had many friends and worked well with teachers and administrators at the school where her kids got their education." Suffice it to say, a person with a Borderline Personality Disorder is not capable of such positive social interactions with others. Again, another friend said, "her insatiable curiosity about the world, the delightful way she could find the humor in anything and laugh at the absurdity of everyday life, and the fierce way she protected those she loved was typical of Jennifer." Finally, her Mom, Gloria Farber, said "My daughter left behind a legacy of love for her children. Her patience, empathy, discipline and loyalty stay with them."

Justice for Jennifer would have meant not allowing that false diagnosis to make it into public view. It is patently false from the perspective of everyone who knew her. I am asking how it did become public, given that it is information from a sealed custody report. I'm also asking how Jennifer was labeled with a complete inaccurate diagnosis. Was there in fact a custody switching scheme in the works to label Jennifer crazy and put all the children in Fotis Dulos sole custody and keep Jennifer paying forever to get them back. Did her murder interrupt that scheme?

Every once in a while, I drive back and forth over Avon Mountain and I see the shrine for Jennifer Dulos. It is a very touching demonstration of love and caring for the memory of Jennifer Dulos. But it isn't enough. If we want Justice for Jennifer and for others just like Jennifer, we have to go further.

We have to hold the Judicial System accountable for their mistakes and we need to demand that the same things that happened to Jennifer don't happen to the next person. Whoever is responsible for disseminating the information regarding Jennifer's purported diagnosis should be censored and it should be removed from the public record. That's what Justice for Jennifer actually means.

WHAT DOES JUSTICE FOR JENNIFER ACTUALLY MEAN?

2024-09-13T16:11:00.025-04:00

In a Court filing requesting a restraining order against her ex-husband, Fotis Dulos, Jennifer Farber-Dulos stated, "I am afraid of my husband. He is dangerous and ruthless when he believes that he has been wronged. During the course of our marriage, he has told me about sickening revenge fantasies and plans to cause physical harm to those who have wronged him." Judge Nelson-Heller denied the request for a restraining order, and in retrospect we all wish she hadn't. Of course, with a man intent upon murder, it's not very likely a restraining order will stop him. Still...

When I reviewed the Dulos case, primarily through reading articles published by The Hartford Courant, I investigated whether there was anything about Fotis Dulos which could have warned people in advance what he was capable of. In doing so, I realized we certainly weren't going to get any information from Dr. Stephen Humphrey who was Fotis Dulos' therapist. Dr. Humphrey did a psychological examination of Fotis Dulos on behalf of the Court and determined that he "had no psychopathology" and presents "as gregarious and confident." After what happened to Jennifer, we'd all like to know how he could be so far wrong.

As it turns out, the reason why is that Dr. Humphrey solely used one test--the PAI test (Personality Assessment Inventory) along with meeting him for 20 hours. According to google, the PAI can test for Somatic Complaints, Anxiety, Anxiety-Related Disorders, Depression, Mania, Paranoia, Schizophrenia, Borderline Features, Antisocial Features, Alcohol Problems, and Drug Problems. It is a self report inventory with 344 items that are answered on a four point scale. This is a problem because, as "Scientific American" reports, self inventory personality tests are not as accurate as others. Not only that, from my understanding, a psychological evaluation consists of numerous tests, not just one--some of them self report and others not.

To be certain of this, I did a quick search of the internet and this is what I got from Psychology Today, "Psychological testing and evaluation consists of a series of tests that help determine the cause of mental health symptoms and disorders, to determine the correct diagnosis and follow up with the appropriate course of treatment." In other words, "a series of tests", not just one. When I had my last psychological evaluation for family court, I took five different tests. How is it that Dr. Humphreys just used one? Did he take one look at the charming Fotis Dulos and say why bother and then spent the rest of the 20 hours having nice chats? Isn't that typical of how narcissists hoodwink not only mental health professionals and court personnel as well? I'd say it is pretty classic.

Were there any other indications that Fotis Dulos was capable of murder? For one thing, just before the divorce he purchased an unregistered gun in Florida without a permit. Jennifer brought this to the Court's attention in one of her filings. In it she wrote, "I am fearful of my and my children's safety, especially because he has a handgun in the house." And further she stated, "I asked my husband to immediately remove the gun from the house, and he insisted that he was keeping the gun for protection." Once the divorce was filed, Fotis Dulos turned the gun over to the Farmington police and subsequently never picked it back up because he didn't have a permit for it. You have to wonder why he was running around with a gun just before the divorce.

In another incident Jennifer reported that Fotis Dulos threatened to run her over with a car. These kinds of incidents are hard to prove because without a witness, they are he said, she said. However, if that actually happened, it would have far worse implications than in most situations. This is because, in September 2010, Jennifer's mother-in-law was accidentally actually struck and killed by a car the nanny was driving in the driveway of the family home. It's striking that this kind of scenario rose again within the context of the divorce. In fact, knowing what we know now, it takes on an ominous tone.

Otherwise, in reading the Courant, I can't say there was anything else that indicated what Fotis Dulos was capable of. I do think one incident alerts me to the fact that Fotis Dulos was a total jerk. Specifically, at one point, Fotis had all his kids baptized as Christians against Jennifer's wishes. This is particularly offensive since Jennifer was Jewish and by Jewish law, since it goes by the matriarchal line, the children were also considered Jewish. In addition, before Hilliard Farber died, Fotis Dulos told his father-in-law that if he didn't keep giving money to him, Fotis would take the kids to Greece and never come back. This is the "congenial" guy which Dr. Humphreys was talking about.

The record shows that Jennifer Farber-Dulos absolutely outgunned Fotis Dulos financially. She clearly felt the need to defend herself to the fullest extent she was capable. While he spent $45,000 in a year on the divorce, sometimes filing his own motions, she spent $69,000 per month. She had enough clout to get the Court to limit Fotis' access to the children and require that he have supervised visitation. How? She pointed out that he had allowed the kids to have contact with his mistress, Michelle Troconis, against Court orders, and then told the kids to lie about it. For the rest of us who don't have that kind of money and status to help deal with our abusers, no way could we cut off our kid's other parent by making claims like that. Ordinarily, the Court couldn't care less. We are told we should just move on and get over it. In my case, for six years my ex refused to adhere to medical guidelines for my disabled children's care and the Court didn't do anything about it.

With all the Court processes, Fotis Dulos was staring financial ruin right in the face. This makes me question what Jennifer Dulos' attorneys were doing. I mean, you may have the ability to grind someone down, but is it wise under the circumstances to do so. Was it at all possible to arrive at a financial agreement which would have allowed Fotis Dulos to transition his business to a state of independence from his former in-laws without bankrupting him? Was all out assault necessary?

When it comes to custody, I was really struck by how clueless both Fotis Dulos and Michelle Troconis were. Michelle made the comment at one point during the custody battle that she would love to get together with Jennifer and chat over a cup of coffee. Was she kidding? Then there was Fotis peculiar idea that he could have himself, Michelle and her daughter, plus Jennifer and the five kids all living together in the same house. He thought his kids would make friends with Michelle's daughter and ultimately go to the same school together. That is so pie in the sky only a totally insensitive fool would think of it. But apparently, Fotis had concrete plans for that scenario. This is where Jennifer's kids arrived at the conclusion that Michelle was trying to erase Jennifer and take her place which, to be honest, seems entirely plausible.

If Jennifer felt she was going to lose her primary role as mother in the lives of her children, no wonder she fought with such vigor. However, this is not a situation new to family court. This is why Court orders are regularly put into place stating that romantic partners must be kept separate from the children. If people violate those orders, they can be warned, held in contempt of Court, fined, or lose privileges in many ways. However denying the offending parent access to the children or putting them on supervised visitation for that kind of offense is rather excessive. It might have made sense for Fotis' sessions with Dr. Stephen Humphrey to include some discussions about arriving at more realistic expectations for custody post divorce. But it seems like the attorneys, GALs, and custody evaluators were more interested in keeping the conflict going instead of arriving at common sense solutions.

Bottom line, divorce is a vulnerable and unstable time for most people. It is not the time for extreme accusations or extreme custody orders--at least not without a solid basis. It is not an opportunity to drive people into bankruptcy or for calling parents crazy. Why try to push people over the edge? But if the legal team involved in the Farber-Dulos case were going to act so unwisely, thank God for the supervised visitation with the children. If Fotis Dulos was willing to kill Jennifer in cold blood, had he not been restricted by supervised visitation, what might he have done to the children? It is chilling to speculate.

Justice for Jennifer would have meant that the judicial system and the legal professionals involved handled the Dulos divorce with wisdom and common sense. Instead, they used it as an opportunity to churn the case and seize as much money as possible from both Jennifer and Fotis. I suspect that the attorneys in the case were poised to carry out a custody switch from Jennifer to Fotis Dulos prior to her death. This is why Fotis was cleared of any mental health pathology while the custody evaluator, Dr. Steven Herman, labeled Jennifer with a serious mental health condition which she could not possibly have had. There were massive sums of money involved, and the kids came along with multi-million dollar trust funds.

If we were truly invested in Justice for Jennifer, this kind of nonsense would stop. The judicial branch and family court professionals would open themselves up for scrutiny and self criticism, and put a halt to the greed and corruption which has dominated the system for so long. It would end the news media blackout and allow newspapers and broadcast journalism to report on the judicial system fairly and honestly. Jennifer paid the ultimate price as a result of the CT Family Court's miserable failures. It is about time that the State of CT did something about it.

MICHELLE TROCONIS: THE FIGHT OVER THE CUSTODY REPORT!

2024-09-12T15:49:00.206-04:00

On Friday, March 1, 2024, Michelle Troconis was found guilty of all the six counts she was charged with, i.e. conspiracy to commit murder, two counts of conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence, two counts of tampering with physical evidence and one count of second-degree hindering prosecution. The basis for the conviction was grounded in DNA evidence from the trash bags Fotis Dulos dropped off along Albany Avenue in Hartford while Michelle was in the car. It also came from interviews Michelle participated in with police at different times.

There was other evidence, but my point is that very little evidence arose from the Dulos custody report. Very little evidence came in from assessments as to whether the victim, Jennifer Dulos, was or was not a nice person. Certainly, the whole "Gone Girl" concept never made it to the stand and so pursuing that line of thought was a waste of time. Why then did Attorney Jon Schoenhorn spend so much of his time (and by reference his client's money) pursuing the custody report and associated hearing transcript which added nothing to Michelle Troconis' defense? I think that's where thoughts of skullduggery in the judicial system arise, which Michelle was indirectly hinting at by posting articles on the disgraced medical examiner, Henry Lee. My primary question, talking about skullduggery, is why didn't Attorney Schoenhorn simply tell Michelle that the custody report and hearing transcript were irrelevant? After all, what could possibly be in the Dulos custody report which could exonerate Michelle? Logically, nothing.

It is with this question in mind that I will now examine the issue of the Dulos custody report because it tells you a lot about how the legal system works, or doesn't work, depending upon your viewpoint. Here it is important to note that there are two forms of evidence that Michelle Troconis and her attorney were attempting to access. First, there was the custody report itself. Second, there was the transcript of the hearings where Dr. Stephen Herman provided testimony in regard to his custody report. The custody report doesn't in itself provide complete information. It is only when it is combined with the Court testimony of its author that legal professionals can fully understand the implications of the report and how it will impact future custody decisions. When the author of the report is on the stand, attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defendant have the opportunity to challenge the content and hold it up for scrutiny.

When we hear of the legal controversy over this issue related to Michelle's criminal trial, it is important to note that Michelle and her legal team obtained the custody report quite promptly. Attorney Jon Schoenhorn requested a copy of the custody report in March 2021 and received a copy of it a month later in April 2021. Where the controversy arose was in his attempt to obtain copies of the transcript of the hearing on the report which took place on March 14-15, 2019. This is where Attorney Jon Schoenhorn faced one obstruction after the other, some of them, interestingly enough, of his own making. Why? Was he doing that deliberately?

The sequence of events is as follows. In March 2021, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn asked the court clerk for a copy of the transcript of the hearings in regard to the custody report. In response, the clerk said no because it was sealed from the public. To verify that point, Attorney Schoenhorn went through the case file and was unable to find the Judge's sealing order. He pointed that out and again asked for a copy of the transcript. This is when the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut decided to intervene. This is quite puzzling. Why would such a high ranking official immediately become involved in a matter like this? In my case, I had ten legal documents disappear, not just one, and that situation was simply handled by one of the judges in my case. The fact that William Tong immediately jumped to attention and investigated the missing sealing order right away is quite striking. It tells you how much attention Michelle's conspiracy trial was accorded all the way through the judicial system right to the top.

I also want to take some time out to make a point that has been on my mind for a long time related to Attorney General William Tong. Beginning in 2013, dozens of family court litigants made their way to the judiciary committee of the CT State Legislature and presented testimony regarding the corruption, exploitation, and dysfunction they experienced in the CT Family Court system. In response, they were mocked, disrespected, and generally disbelieved and treated as though they were crazy.

In 2018, during William Tong's tenure as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, he presided over hearings where he was particularly rude, disrespectful and uncaring of the family court victims who came to provide testimony of the tragic and horrific experiences they'd had in family court. In particular, Tong demanded that people who gave testimony remove T-shirts they were wearing which expressed their views, a demand for which he had absolutely no legal basis. In fact, it violated their first amendment rights to freedom of speech. I can't help thinking that if the Judiciary Committee had exercised a modicum of wisdom in respecting the effort it took for these advocates to come to the State Capital and speak up about the legal abuses of family court, if they had only taken that testimony seriously and passed essential reforms at that time, Jennifer Dulos might still be alive today. Instead, ironically, we have the infamous William Tong, who I believe gained his current position as Attorney General by frustrating the hopes of family court reform advocates, intervening in the details of the prosecution of Michelle Troconis. It is interesting how everything intersects.

Anyway, getting back to the main point, Attorney General William Tong investigated the missing sealing order. He found that there was a public sealing order, but due to clerical error it wasn't properly posted in the case file. He also stated that due to clerical error, the entire transcript of the hearing that day was sealed including the discussion about closing the courtroom and sealing Dr. Herman's testimony. In fact, the only part of the transcript that should have been sealed was Dr. Herman's testimony, not the hearing on the motion to seal Dr. Herman's testimony. That's quite a bit of clerical error. Just like the ten documents which disappeared from my file was the result of clerical error. What the clerical error in the Dulos case was hiding is that the courtroom was closed illegally during Dr. Herman's testimony and the transcript of the hearing was also sealed illegally. What a convenient clerical error. In this case, and in my own case of the missing ten documents, like Michelle, you start to think maybe there is some skullduggery involved here.

So how was the court closed and the transcript sealed illegally. Apparently, if you wish to close the courtroom and seal a transcript, you are required to provide a 14 day public notice in advance and provide a record of a compelling reason to override the public interest in judicial transparency. This was not done. Presiding Judge Donna Nelson-Heller simply ignored the legal requirements and did what she wanted to do because she had the power and she could. Now, I will acknowledge that it is standard to seal custody reports and the court transcripts of testimony by the authors of those reports. In fact, the custody report in my case was sealed and I was glad that it was. Who wants all that private information, much of it detailed mental health evaluations, not only of the parents but also the children, available to the public. Of course, no one wants that.

On the other hand, the law is the law, and it is intended to be obeyed. There are proper steps that are supposed to be taken according to state statute if you intend to seal information from the public. They were crafted as a consequence of lengthy negotiations with the media and private citizens after considerable abuses related to the issue. Yet this cavalier disregard for legal requirements is typical of family court judges. They simply do whatever they want to do regardless of the law, regardless of case law, and regardless of the CT Practice Book which is supposed to guide their actions and their decisions. The failure of judges to obey the law is what has undermined the public trust in the legal system and led to the family court reform protests of 2013-2018.

In an attempt to access these court transcripts, Attorney Jon Schoenhorn submitted motions to two other Superior Court judges asking them to overturn Judge Nelson-Heller's sealing order. But again, why? Of what possible value could the transcripts be when it came to Michelle's defense? Help me here, because I seriously have no idea. Both of these Superior Court Judges denied Attorney Schoenhorn's motions based upon Valvo v. Freedom of Information Commission which declared it illegal for one Superior Court judge to overturn another Superior Court judge's decisions. I have to say even I knew that. How is it that Attorney Schoenhorn didn't know? Can he honestly say he was ignorant of this fundamental legal insight? I find that hard to believe. What was he doing? Putting on a big act for Michelle instead of just telling her this transcript won't help you in the least?

Next, Attorney Schoenhorn took his request to the Supreme Court and again asked for access to the transcripts. In response, the Supreme Court asked why Attorney Schoenhorn didn't simply go to criminal court with his request. Exactly! Why didn't he? The end result is Michelle Troconis wasted her time during her criminal trial looking at a custody report, and putting herself at risk of a contempt, for a document that really didn't have much of an impact when it came to convincing the jury of her innocence. Then to top it off, Attorney Schoenhorn made a song and dance about the transcripts regarding the custody report, pretending he was making serious efforts to obtain copies when he was really making deliberate and obvious legal mistakes and, wasting everyone's time, and doing it in such a way that everyone knew it, even non-attorneys like me.

Again, as Michelle's attorney, Jon Schoenhorn stated, 90% of the case against Michelle came from the interviews.

MICHELLE TROCONIS: WHY RISK A CONTEMPT OF COURT?

2024-09-10T15:26:00.012-04:00

On February 15, 2024, on the 22nd day of her criminal trial, Michelle Troconis sat before her computer scrutinizing the Dulos Custody report in large font, a report which was sealed by court order. Eagle eyed in the gallery, long time Jennifer Dulos friend and the Farber Family spokesperson, Carrie Luft spotted the report and notified a Court Marshal. Michelle's Mom, Marisela Arreaza, noticed the activity and quickly tapped Michelle on the shoulder to get her to shut down the screen. But the damage had already been done. By the end of the day, the Court had taken steps to have Michelle Troconis charged with Contempt of Court, a class B felony which could lead to a fine and up to six months in jail if convicted.

From the beginning of the Dulos case, the custody report has been the center of ongoing controversy. What is it all about? One aspect of this is that the custody report was used to exonerate Fotis Dulos of his wife's murder. Specifically, Fotis Dulos and his supporters stated the he would have no motivation to murder his ex-wife, Jennifer Farber-Dulos, because the custody report indicated that the case was heading in his favor. The report was presented to the Court on May 14, 2019 within days of Jennifer Dulos' death. Prepared by Dr. Stephen Herman, it apparently cast Fotis Dulos in a very positive light. As an aside, Dr. Herman is known widely because he opposed the Yale Study done in the Woody Allen case which stated that Dylan wasn't abused.

The Dulos custody report, I would suspect, was a substantive report because it goes up to a page 50, which was the page Michelle Troconis was reading when Carrie Luft reported her. I point this out because I've seen custody reports that were only three pages long. My question is, why would Michelle have put herself at risk of additional prosecution just so she could wave this custody report around? What in the world did she expect to accomplish? Is she trying to tell us that the custody report showed Jennifer was such a bad person she deserved to die? Was she trying to tell us that actually, despite all evidence to the contrary, Jennifer pulled a "Gone Girl" and the sealed custody report would explain why? Is she trying to comment on the corruption of the Court system for not allowing her to present the custody report which she considered relevant evidence? What?

In order to get as close to an answer as possible, I returned to the early articles which report on Michelle Troconis' attempts to unseal the custody report and transcripts of the May 14, 2019 Court hearings when Dr. Stephen Herman provided testimony regarding his report.

And before I proceed, let me say that I sympathize with Michelle when it comes to her frustration. I've been in numerous hearings in my own family court case where I had significant evidence which I couldn't present because of the rules of evidence or simply the Court's refusal to be bothered to look at it. There is nothing more irritating than that experience, where you feel you have information that would exonerate you, but your can't present it. I have often felt that there is a pyramid of evidence, and that judges only get to see a small amount of it. Many times, because of statutes regulating how information is presented to the Court, judges are forced to make decisions based upon a very limited body of information. This explains decisions that often don't make sense to the general public. For instance, when they come to light because of a tragic circumstance such as the Dulos case. Of course, I can only speculate Michelle felt this way. I've never spoken to her.

Be that as it may, prior to Michelle's trial, on July 10, 2022 Edmund H. Mahoney, a journalist with The Hartford Courant, reported that Michelle's attorney, Jon Schoenhorn filed a motion stating that he wanted "a transcript of the custody hearing to look for anything that could help Troconis by revealing what may have precipitated Jennifer Dulos' disappearance." This language directly echoed the kind of language Fotis Dulos and his attorney, Norm Pattis, were using when they were in the middle of their speculations that Jennifer had pulled a "Gone Girl." If you look at The Hartford Courant article cowritten by Dave Altimari and Nicholas Rondinone and published on July 17, 2019, Attorney Norm Pattis wrote in a motion he submitted to Court that he wanted access to "the diagnosis and treatment Ms. Dulos received in the weeks before her disappearance as such information may shed light on what may have motivated her to disappear."

This overlapping language leads me to believe that, even now, despite the evidence, a part of Michelle Troconis still believes that Fotis Dulos is innocent and that Jennifer did a "Gone Girl" or she wishes to argue that. I guess love is blind, huh! I conclude this because of Michelle's laser focus on the custody report and the transcript of the court hearing on it, when neither had any significant relevance to the proceedings in her criminal trial. I think it is quite clear that Jennifer Dulos is dead, simply from the items Fotis Dulos threw out during his cruise down Albany Avenue in Hartford on the evening of the murder.

So what's up with posting this custody report and incurring a criminal charge for doing so? At the very least, Michelle could have been saying Jennifer was such a bad person she deserved to die. However, it's amazing, but bad character or behavior still is not solid grounds for killing someone. I guess in our day and age with Trump I actually feel the need to say that. So if Michelle thought that was important to point out, she was sorely mistaken.

On the other hand, Michelle could have actually been hinting that Jennifer committed a "Gone Girl". Still, the forensic evidence says otherwise and why won't Michelle believe that evidence? The answer to that question lies perhaps in another incident where Michelle posted an article on her computer for all to see about how the State's former top medical examiner, Dr. Henry Lee, falsified forensic evidence, thus leading to the conviction of innocent people. This incident occurred while the Court was hearing testimony about the forensic evidence in Michelle's criminal trial. This leads me to believe that Michelle simply doesn't believe Jennifer is dead even to the point where she thinks the forensic evidence is fabricated, or she wants to argue that.

This would explain why Michelle Troconis pled the fifth and refused to cooperate one single iota when she was asked to provide testimony in Fotis' civil trial held in November 2019 regarding the millions of dollars he allegedly owed the Hilliard Farber estate. At every turn, Michelle's acknowledgement of Fotis Dulos' guilt has been weak and unconvincing. I can see it must have been difficult for Michelle to process the fact that the man she passionately loved was also a murderer. Of course, that assessment depends upon what she did or did not know. I can't know that for certain.

Still, there is no doubt that Fotis Dulos was a very charming man who had a way with the ladies. As soon as Fotis realized that Michelle Troconis was no longer useful to him, he dropped her for a gullible Anne Curry. Then, even as the police closed in and the evidence mounted that Fotis Dulos was clearly guilty, he was able to talk Ms. Curry into lending him $147,000 for bail. As far as I know, as of March 28, 2024, she was continuing to fight to get her money back. What a sucker in a series of suckers Fotis Dulos found it easy to cultivate.

Of course, Michelle Traconis has been convicted in a court of law of conspiracy to commit murder, so perhaps her focus on the custody report is just an attempt to distract us from the true facts of the case pointing towards her guilt. Otherwise, there are so many mysteries in the Dulos case--perhaps this is one of them.

UPDATE ON PAUL BOYNE!

2024-09-10T13:49:00.013-04:00

I just received an update on Paul Boyne from independent reporter Michael Volpe from his substack reporting venue.

As you know, Paul Boyne has now been sitting in jail for over a year because he posted what the Connecticut judicial branch considers offensive articles on his blog www.thefamilycourtcircus.com. Apparently, Paul's case was going to go to trial in September 2024, but it has been canceled. Volpe speculates that the reason is that the state's case against him is so weak.

From what I understand is that there was a plea deal in place on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024 which would have allowed Paul to plead guilty and the state would have accepted time served as punishment so that Paul could have walked out a free man. However, at that point Paul's attorneys allegedly intervened, refused to proceed with the plea deal and claimed that he was incompetent.

Anyone who knows Paul is aware that this is nonsense. As Michael Volpe states, "If you listen to any interview, you know he's plenty competent. He's prepared to help with his defense, but his court appointed lawyers have been phoning it in from the beginning. Now, they are suggesting he's incompetent." Throughout the years, Paul Boyne has advocated for family court reform, provided emotional and legal research support to litigants, written articles for his ongoing blog, as well as been a good friend to many. You may not agree with his views, but the idea that he is not competent is just silly.

Recently, as a self represented party, Paul Boyne submitted a federal motion for injunction to the federal courts. Could he have done this if he weren't competent? He was forced to write the motion by hand because the prison doesn't have computers or typewriters. His court appointed attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers of the Kirschbaum Law Firm--have refused to assist him in his federal court filings. Apparently, one reason they gave for refusing to assist him is that they don't know anything about the first amendment.

This is beyond ridiculous.

On the other hand, as a person who was subjected to numerous accusations--which were found to be false, fyi--that I was incompetent myself in family court, I am curious as to how they are going to go about this. What foolish mental health professional would be dumb enough to take this on? What parameters are they going to use? Welcome to the therapeutic state everybody!

*Again this is an update from Michael Volpe's reporting venue on substack. For more detailed analysis than I am able to provide, please refer to his substack account.

Followup:

I did have a chance to speak to Paul Boyne today about what happened. He explained to me that this week they were supposed to start jury selection for his case. However, Jennifer Buyske and Alice Powers weren't prepared to proceed with trial. They hadn't submitted any lists of witnesses, sent out any supoenas or prepared a list of exhibits for the court. In essence, they had done nothing. Instead, they spoke to the judge in chambers without Paul present and agreed to request a competency evaluation instead. Later, Alice Powers went to speak to Paul and informed him of their intentions.

Upon arriving in open court, his attorneys submitted a verbal motion to the court, but they didn't bother to submit a written motion. This gives me the impression that the move to examine Paul for competency was an off the cuff motion to obscure the fact that the attorneys weren't prepared. The grounds they provided were that Paul Boyne considered Joette Katz, former head of CT DCF, as part of the reason for his arrest. Also, they stated he had suffered a concussion, which did occur when he was attacked by another inmate. However, the doctor who examined him at the time did not indicate the concussion interfered with Paul's competency.

Another interesting fact Paul Boyne shared with me is that Kirschbaum Law, the firm his attorneys are associated with, is not contracted with the New Haven Judicial District public defender to provide services. It is contracted with Hartford and Waterbury, but not New Haven. I consider it a very questionable practice to provide services without a proper contract.

As a point of interest, I did look up whether it is legal for a judge to order a defendant to have a competency evaluation in criminal court. Apparently, it is legal. Apparently, "a court in Connecticut may order a competency exam for a criminal defendant if there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime and the request for an exam is justified." Justification for such an exam would be 1. the defendant appears delusional or incoherent; 2. the defendant has a mental disease or defect; 3. the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against them; 4. the defendant is unable to assist in their defense. Number two appears to me to be unusually broad--like any kind of mental disease or defect? Any? Wow.

It does appear that the attorneys here are not acting in Paul Boyne's best interests when they nullify an advantageous, though unjust, plea deal in favor of a competency exam. This has led Paul to question whether Alice Powers and Jennifer Buyske of Kirschbaum law can continue to represent him legally since they appear not to be acting in his best interests.

MY DIVORCE AND THE COMMUNITY OF JESUS

2024-08-10T15:05:00.023-04:00

Here on this blog I have spent at least a decade talking about divorce and yet I have never spoken directly about why my marriage ended in divorce. My divorce took place as a result of religion. That's right. In a way, you can say God came between my husband and me. Actually, I shouldn't say God. The truth is, a religious cult came between us, and that cult believed that it was speaking for God. So to a certain extent, my first way of putting it was correct.

Originally, I lived out of state, but I came to live in Connecticut when my ex and me agreed to live together for a year and see if we were compatible. After a year, if everything worked out, we agreed to get married. During that year, I began to attend a nearby Church that was within walking distance of my home, and before long my ex came along with me. I had understood that while my ex was brought up in a religious household, during his entire life as an adult and while I had known him (ten years) he had shown no interest in religion at all. Still, he was the great great great great grandson of a famous Baptist preacher who eventually founded Gordon College in Massachusetts. In contrast, I was brought up in an family of agnostics who did not attend Church, although I was deeply religious in my way. My father came from a German Jewish background and his family had been decimated by the holocaust. This made him skeptical of any kind of religious faith.

Before long, we were swept into the life of the Church and pretty much every social activity we went to was Church related in some way. I began to attend bible study for women each week which the Senior Pastor of the Church was leading. This is when I first heard mention of the Community of Jesus which was founded in 1970 by two Episcopal laywomen--Cay Anderson and Judy Sorenson. In the Church library there was a large collection of cassettes of talks given by the two women who were founders of the Community of Jesus. The Pastor would encourage us to listen to the tapes and recommended their content. Furthermore, the Pastor talked about visiting the Community of Jesus in Cape Cod, Massachusetts where the group had its headquarters. He spoke about staying overnight there and how nicely people were treated. He acknowledged there were complaints about children being abused by the Community of Jesus, but he insisted such accusations were all nonsense. He laughed it off in scorn as if it were hardly possible that this occurred.

It was a full two decades later when I saw the Canadian news report on the abuse of children in a Community of Jesus related high school, Grenville Christian College. This was a school which educated students from pre-school through high school Quite recently, five former students from that school won a lawsuit against the administrators of the school for the abuse they experienced there. In the 2020 decision, the judge stated, "I have concluded that the evidence of maltreatment and the varieties of abuse perpetrated on student's bodies and minds in the name of Community of Jesus values of submission and obedience was class-wide and decades long." Not only that, there have been reports from people who grew up in the Massachusetts Community of Jesus compound that as children they were taken from their parents, passed around from family to family, and forced to do hours and hours of manual labor. So the reports of abuse weren't nothing as the Church Pastor implied.

The first few years I was in the Church I was surrounded by warmth and attention. After a year, my ex and I decided to get married and the following year I had a baby, my oldest son. When he was born, I literally received a card of congratulations from every member of the Church. During Church choir practice, which I attended every week, a group of young girls would take the baby and care for him until choir practice was over, with no expectation of reward or compensation. I could literally do no wrong. The Pastor of the church provided couples counseling and individual counseling for me free of reward or compensation. When my son had his first few birthdays, over half the people who came to celebrate were Church members. Before I knew it, our pediatrician, our accountant, our real estate agent, our primary care physician--you name it--were all Church members.

But as time went by, the situation darkened. I have always been deeply Christian, but my faith has not been unshadowed by many doubts and dark nights of the soul. And I have left my faith only to come back, and then leave again, then return, etc. I have always been frank about my thoughts on this, and I was quite open in the Church regarding the ups and downs of my faith journey. In contrast, my ex, who never previously had any interest in Christianity, pretty much turned into a holy roller. In time, my frankness about my doubts and hesitations led to ostracism. Instead of the warm embrace I was originally welcomed in with at the start of my attendance at this Church, I found people criticizing my shoes as being too expensive, etc., and taking offense at what I thought and intended to be harmless remarks. At Church meetings, I often found myself sitting in a corner on my own. At one point, I was assisting in a fundraiser for a youth group. We were selling fancy bread in the social room, when I was approached by a deacon of the Church. He insisted that fundraising was like having moneylenders in the Church. He ordered me on the spot to take the kids, the table, the boxes of fancy bread and sell them outside the Church building on what was a cold, windy day. It was harassment of this nature that occurred repeatedly.

Meanwhile, my ex-husband received the Church's whole hearted embrace. He was appointed to the Board of Trustees and other Church Committees. Before long, he was down at the Church all the time attending various Church functions. This meant that I was at home with very young children alone while my ex was participating in a bunch of social and business functions at the Church. I didn't think much about what this meant until one evening, it concerned me that since my ex was going to a meeting right after work, he might not have had dinner. I therefore wrapped a plate with a nice chicken dinner in tin foil and brought it down for him to eat during the meeting. Instead of being appreciative of my effort, my ex was angry and annoyed. What I came to understand later was that what my ex had been telling people was that I didn't feed him. My ex was using his opportunity away from me at the Church to tell stories about how I was a bad wife and was abusing him. This was remarkable given that not only did I assist unpaid in our home business, but I was taking care of our children pretty much alone as well. My ex didn't so much as change a diaper. As soon as the ink was dry on our wedding certificate, he reverted back to an attitude towards our respective roles that was more suitable to the Edwardian age.

At that time, which was the early and late 90s, there were a few books out that presented married life in a form that would have made Phyllis Schafly proud. The prototype for these kinds of books, which you might recall, was "Fascinating Womanhood" by Helen B. Andelin published in 1963. Many copycat type books came out in the 1990s and pretty much advocated that under God you be obedient to your husband and focus on becoming a good housewife and mother. They advised you to spend all day cleaning and baking, and always meet your husband at the door looking sexy and ready to go and etc. Somehow, not long after my marriage, Church members made sure to pass that book along to me. It tells you just exactly how that particular Church viewed women and their role in society. Too bad no one reminded them of that part of the marriage ceremony that goes, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mathew 19:6). Still, you wouldn't have observed this conservatism from superficial conversations with Church members. I had joined a Church denomination which is known as one of the most liberal in the United States. However, every congregation is allowed to interpret that freely among themselves. Nothing was written on the walls, and you wouldn't have heard it directly in a sermon, but somehow it was a very present sentiment. The fact that I did not feed my husband was damning. And the accusation was somehow taken as a fact, because my husband said it, and he was a man.

At one point, I became really public about my complaints. I spoke up about the how controlling the Church was and how it felt as though Church members were interfering in every aspect of my life. I felt as though the pastor was violating appropriate boundaries when he provided counseling for me and my ex. and I decided to stop going. Apparently, news spread that I had done this and before long I had people outside the Church coming to me speaking about the Community of Jesus, and how they had been bullied and decided to leave it. I did not know at the time that the reason I was hearing from them was because my Church was so closely associated with the Community of Jesus. I was still new to the situation. The divide between my husband and me continued to grow and I had the impression that Church members felt that we were unequally yoked and that while they thought my ex was wonderful, they could do without me. Eventually, I decided that I wanted to leave the Church and I spoke to my husband about it. To my shock and surprise, he told me that the Church was more important than I was.

By then, we had three children and so it wasn't that easy for either of us to leave the marriage. So it took another eight years before we finally ended up with a divorce. During that time, if my ex had a disagreement with me, instead of working it out with me, he went to the Church to complain. Even worse, there were times--, rarely, I will admit--that if we began to get into a heated conversation, my ex would literally fall on his knees and begin to pray out loud. At Church, my ex found a ready and willing audience for all of his anger and unhappiness. It is my belief that the ministers in the Church provided him with extensive counseling at the Church, but I was never included or officially informed about it. To them, he appeared more credible to people given his ancestry. There is a theme that runs within some Christian traditions that holiness is generational. As he spread more disinformation about me, I became more isolated and unhappy. It didn't help that I had a Jewish background which made me easier to dislike. The subtle sneers I was subjected to regarding Jews, or Hebrews as they were often called, made me feel terribly uncomfortable.

I was reading an article written by blogger Carrie Buddington, former victim of the cult, on the common attitude that continues to prevail in the Community of Jesus and its associated Church communities. She said, "It was about receiving correction from everyone around you, confessing your sins constantly, and being absolutely obedient without question." As a woman, I felt it was about disempowerment, and accepting the role of second class citizen. Ultimately, I was not able to tolerate that and this is why our marriage broke down. There is more to this, and I may speak about it in the future. But in a nutshell, this is basically what happened. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. The Community of Jesus was certainly that for me.

For more about the Carrie Buddington and her experiences in the Community of Jesus, see the link below:

https://www.amazon.com/Exquisite-Torture-Life-Christian-Cult-ebook/dp/B0BWVMKW2B?ref_=ast_author_mpb

98% OF CRIMINAL CASES END IN PLEA BARGAINS, SAYS NPR!

2024-07-31T02:19:00.008-04:00

I was saddened when I heard that Paul Boyne is preparing to accept a plea bargain in his case because I'd like to see him defend his rights in open court. But the Judicial System in this country has essentially eliminated the right of American citizens to go to trial. Take a moment to read the NPR article on this subject and find out how it happened. See below:

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-criminal-cases-justice

Of course, if Paul Boyne decides to take a plea, this would be entirely understandable since prosecutors have a team of attorneys, paralegals, and administrative assistants to help them with their case, along with a plush state budget. In contrast, all Paul Boyne has are two pro bono attorneys. It's an unfortunate situation which has led to many innocent people being locked up in jail. This is also exacerbated by our for profit jail system which benefits from having innocent people locked up. For more information on this, see below:

https://news.wsu.edu/press-release/2020/09/15/privatized-prisons-lead-inmates-longer-sentences-study-finds/

https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/capitalizing-on-mass-incarceration-u-s-growth-in-private-prisons/

CT LAW REGARDING SEALED CASES

2024-07-29T17:27:00.051-04:00

One piece of information that has come out recently about Paul Boyne is that his case has been sealed. I was looking his case up online and when I clicked on the case number for his files (there were three) I received an automatic notice that his case has been statutorily sealed. This made me feel concerned about what was going on.

As a result, I sent an inquiry about this to Paul Boyne's attorneys--Jennifer Buyske and Alice Osedach--but did not hear back from them. I also sent an inquiry to the Hartford Courant journalist--Mr. Edmund H. Mahony--who has been covering Paul Boyne's case, but he said he didn't know anything about it. Just to be sure, I contacted the clerk at the New Haven criminal courthouse to confirm Paul Boyne's case has been sealed and she stated that it has, indeed, been sealed from both the public and journalists.

Eventually, I read in an article Edmund H. Mahony published today that Paul Boyne has applied for a diversion program. It turns out that when a defendant does that, his case is automatically sealed. The article is so biased, I'm not going to include the link, but it is easily accessible. Still, I am breathing a sigh of relief that everything is above board. Aside from court files from diversionary programs, only court records such as juvenile arrest records and the records of victims of sexual offenses are automatically restricted from public view.

Still, the sealing of court cases is a rather touchy subject in Connecticut. I can recall that when John Rowland was first running for the office of governor in Connecticut in 1994, the rumor was that he had committed acts of domestic violence with his first wife. However, it wasn't possible for journalists to find out because his case had been sealed. Here are some of the links on this situation below:

https://www.courant.com/1994/09/30/domestic-incident-rtdata-withheld/

https://www.courant.com/1994/10/26/closed-divorce-files-not-unusual-among-well-known-people-2/

https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2003_02_09_Rich_EliteEnjoy_Felix_Maguire_2.htm

As you can see, the fact that the Connecticut Judicial Branch was sealing cases for people it considered privileged has been a major source of conflict in Connecticut. Eventually, the Hartford Courant sued the Connecticut Judicial Branch demanding that it stop this practice. The decision in this case is in Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d 83 which affirmed a qualified first amendment right of access to court files. As a result, since that time, it is rare for cases to be sealed or the public denied access to a trial. See below:

https://casetext.com/case/hartford-courant-co-v-pellegrino-2

To see how that translates into reality, I went onto the Judicial Branch website. In reviewing information provided by the Connecticut Judicial Branch, I found out that Connecticut doesn't have a particular law in place when it comes to sealing records. However, "a Court can seal a file if the Judicial Authority determines that it is necessary to protect an interest that is more important than the public's interest in viewing the materials or attending the proceedings."

This also brings forward another question. When a file is sealed, does that mean the trial will also be closed from the public? Because if you seal the file, the next step is to close the trial to the public. I don't think that makes sense in every case.

It is also important to note that in order to seal a case, the attorney making this request is required to follow through on a specific protocol detailed by the honorable Michael P. Shea at the link below:

https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/sheaConfidentiality%20and%20Sealing%20Documents%20Instructions.pdf

This protocol requires that there is a hearing on the question of whether a file should be sealed. Do such hearings always take place? It is certainly a question worth asking. Somehow, and you may think me cynical, I think those steps are skipped and files are simply sealed during hearings without prior notice.

Of course, there is the sealing of individual documents which can take place quite routinely in a case. For instance, financial affidavits and custody evaluations are routinely sealed in divorce and custody cases. We saw that in the Michelle Troconis trial where the custody evaluation was sealed. However, sealing an entire case? I don't think that happens as often as it used to.

There is considerable additional information that Judge Shea provides for the legal basis of the public's first amendment right of access to court files in his review of the process. So make sure you take the time to read it.

PAUL BOYNE CASE IS SOLELY A FREEDOM OF SPEECH CASE! SEE INTERVIEW!

2024-07-28T21:06:00.003-04:00

CAN PAUL BOYNE GET A FAIR TRIAL?

2024-07-18T22:48:00.012-04:00

I'm a little out of practice on writing blogs so if I'm not so great writing this one, please forgive me. However, I happened to see the Edmund H. Mahony article in The Hartford Courant , "Alleged cyberstalker case to go to trial", indicating that Paul Boyne's case is going to trial soon. I felt I had to step up to the plate and speak out given that one of our own, Paul Boyne, is under attack. Now, of course, I can hear you all saying--one of our own, what do you mean? We aren't racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic. And to be clear, I condemn hate speech of any kind, as I'm sure everyone in the family court reform movement does.

What I mean to say is that Paul is a person whose life was destroyed, as our lives were, by the family court system. This made him lose his sense of proportion so that he spoke in ways that I'll bet the pre-family court Paul probably would never have considered. If there is one thing I know about the suffering and pain family court causes people, it is that it can literally drive people out of their minds. Still, despite the hate speech, despite the suffering and pain, Paul is the most giving person I know. Over the years, in his work as a family court advocate, Paul has helped a great many people with their cases, selflessly and without pay. This is why I'm here speaking out on his behalf. Because any one of us can relate to Paul's situation--being a good, decent, human being and parent, and then damaged to the core by the harsh and cruel treatment meted out by the family court system.

I also believe that Paul Boyne speaks in these shocking ways not because he believes it, but because he thinks it is the only way to break through public complacency in the face of egregious family court corruption. It is his way of shaking people and saying "Wake up! Look at this terrible injustice that is going on!" It is very frustrating for all of us who are working for family court reform to deal with the fact that there is such an extensive coverup of the problems. For example, when it came to the Jennifer Dulos case, the media spoke often about the fact that it involved a contentious and bitter custody dispute. But they never explained how or why it became that way. Without such explanations, the public will never know what was really going on. So why don't we get them?

My first reaction when I heard that Paul was going to trial is--how can he possibly get a fair trial? He is going to be on trial for attacking the very system that will stand in judgment on him. His attorneys are officers of the very court system that he has been villifying. Isn't there a major conflict of interest going on here? I certainly think so. There has been unfairness in Paul's case from the start. This is a free speech case. It is a case about the exchange of ideas, and how those ideas can be expressed. For goodness sake! What is he doing in jail for a whole year? Paul has no money. Where is he going to go? How would he flee? You may think his words are hateful and disgusting, but since when do we put people in jail for expressing their thoughts? Here in America, how is that right under any circumstances? Well, he insulted judges. So what? Is there a section in the constitution stating that we cannot insult judges? We can insult every one else, but not judges?

The state argues that, apparently, in his blog posts Paul "identified them (judges), their homes, and even the cars they drive" and "suggested that violence is a remedy available to disgruntled family court litigants." Yet they acknowledge that in all the time that Paul Boyne has been writing these blogs there have been no incidents of violence as a consequence. It would be a good exercise to investigate whether other blogs around the country which also demonize certain people or groups have ever resulted in outbreaks of violence. Just because people speak about violence in ways that prosecutors admit are vague and nonspecific, this doesn't automatically mean that the outcome will be violence against a person or persons. The other question I ask is whether this particular kind of speech has been ruled illegal by any CT State Statute. If prosecutors or judges or anyone else considers Paul's blog postings dangerous, it is their option to work on passing legislation to make it illegal so that Paul could have a specific law to rely on when he makes decisions on how to write his articles. Without such legislation, we are at risk of silencing free speech simply because whether someone's written work is or is not bullying or hate speech depends upon the decision of a jury. Meanwhile, you have to sit in jail waiting for your case to be adjudicated.

I also want to make an objection to the term "cyberbullying" in regard to Paul. Cyberbullying is when a person goes after his target on social media and via email and texting. Paul is a blogger with a website posting his political and social viewpoint. If you don't like it, don't go there. With cyberbullying you are being attacked and a person is going after you. If you go to read Paul's work, that is your choice. When state prosecutors and journalists contextualize this case in a manner that is not in accordance with the facts and make deceptive choices in language that do not apply, this greatly misleads the public. This is wrong.

Another reason I'm sympathetic to Paul is that, as a blogger here in Connecticut, I have also had attorneys threaten to take me to court. I was once threatened with jail if I didn't not reveal my sources in an article I'd written about a case. One attorney went to the West Hartford police department and filed a formal complaint that I was blogging about family court cases. I have been illegally ordered out of the courtroom and threatened with security for no other reason than that I was sitting quietly in support of one of the parties. At another time, I cut and pasted an attorney's bio onto my blog which happened to include the fact that this attorney lived in West Hartford. It was information that came from the law firm's own website. Nonetheless, they contacted me and told me they were considering suing me for "incitement to violence" for posting the information. I immediately took it down because I do respect people's privacy. However, from the beginning of my work as a blogger I have been well aware of the fact that I was taking on this task at my own risk. It has not been easy and I've experienced a great deal of trauma and anxiety as a result.

I may have more to say about this topic. I have many difficult things going on in my personal life and so I may not have the time. But one thing I will say is that we in the family court movement have repeatedly asked for an investigation of the family court system in regard to its failure to obey the law. Unfortunately, there appear to be no vehicles for self scrutiny in place for the family court system. This is pretty ridiculous given that I get asked for my opinion of the services I receive all the time--please hold for our quick survey--you know what I mean. But family court seems to feel that they are above accountability. That's pretty sad. Apparently, in going after Paul Boyne state prosecutors have been investigating him scrupulously for five years. Imagine how many resources were tied up in that investigation. I can't help wondering if, instead of going after Paul Boyne, legal professionals had invested that same energy and intelligence into investigating family court, Jennifer Dulos would be alive today.

THE DISPUTE: RESPONSE TO THE DEATH OF JENNIFER DULOS

2024-07-11T16:13:00.006-04:00

THE DISPUTE

He lay in wait

Entangled in a lengthy hostile divorce and custody battle

Entangled in a contentious divorce and custody battle

A bitter divorce and custody battle

In the midst of a heated divorce and custody battle

Embroiled in a heated divorce and custody dispute

Embroiled in a bitter custody dispute

He lay in wait.

Through an ongoing custody fight and divorce

A continued strategy of complete and total war

Two years of torture

A Back and forth Hellish conflict

A divorce and custody battle

Contentious, protracted

Hotly and continuously contested

One morning, she disappeared after dropping

her kids off at school, leaving behind

spatter, stains, smears, blood-like

on the garage floor, paper towels, trash can, steering wheel, trunk

In darkness, luminol blazed forth a nightmare

She likely sustained an injury or multiple injuries

that experts would consider unsurvivable

They put him in an empty cold room

full of spotlights

naked with a metal bed rack

and a Velcro blanket.

It was a bitter breakup

Lengthy and expensive, with no end in sight

GAL fees at approximately $180 thousand, and more to come

Attorneys’ fees: $90K father; $1,650,000 mother and more to come

Custody evaluation: $20 thousand approximately, and more to come

A bloody shirt and bra, fingerprints, DNA

all dumped in a conveniently “creepy” neighborhood

Then a 43 page arrest warrant

“I didn’t do it.” says his mistress,“He did it!”

He is dead. She’s in jail.

And the desire for justice reaches beyond the grave to seize the living

How do you respond to the charges? Not guilty.

No one, it seems, is guilty.

It was an intense divorce and custody battle

For he lay in wait

He lay in wait.

July 11, 2024

LAMONT NOMINATES 22 TO POSTS AS SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES!

2024-03-06T01:37:00.005-05:00

"The CT News Junkie" reports as follows:

Gov. Ned Lamont nominated 13 women and nine men as judges of the Superior Court Friday, a move aimed at ensuring diversity and expertise within the state judiciary. Notable nominees include former Hartford Mayor Pedro E. Segarra and Christine Jean-Louis, general counsel to the lieutenant governor.

“One of the most notable honors of my responsibilities as governor is to fill vacancies in our court system with capable jurists whose qualifications meet the high standards that the people of Connecticut deserve on the bench,” Lamont said. “This group of nominees I am forwarding to the legislature today continues this administration’s effort to ensure that the people who are serving as judges in our state reflect the diversity, experience, and understanding of the people who live here.”

For more information, please see the following link below. The juciest tidbit on the list is the inclusion of well known family court Attorney Steve Dembo. I'd be interested to know how people feel about that!

https://ctnewsjunkie.com/2024/03/04/gov-lamont-nominates-22-to-superior-court-bench/#:~:text=Gov.%20Ned%20Lamont%20nominated%2013,counsel%20to%20the%20lieutenant%20governor.