Simply Money

Proof that Connecticut Family Court is all about money is hiding in the light.  Judges, lawyers, even the legislature conspire to defraud the people under the color of dissolution of marriage law.  The family court exists solely for the financial gain of lawyers and judges.  A simple racketeering enterprise.

If you are not spending money on a lawyer, the court has no time for you.  The Strobels were both pro se and the court wanted them gone.  Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone was not generating any revenue for her Bar buddies by letting the Strobels file motions and clog her revenue generating trial calendar; so she dismissed everything, threw them out of court and spent her time on cases that generated billable hours for her pals.  The appellate court, the giant rubber stamp of approval of judicial misconduct, upheld Holly’s denial of access to the court in Strobel v. Strobel 92 Conn. App. 662.  The court ruled that filing lots of motions is bad for kids.  Put another way, exercising one’s right to access the court for remedy is twisted to be harmful to children.  A discretionary opinion not codified in statute and contrary to state constitution, under Declaration of Rights, Article First, Section 10, which states:

All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.

But that does not apply to pro se persons in family court.  The clause really states that a citizen in a family matter can buy as much court time as he can afford; payments only processed through a law firm.  Four years later, Judge Holly Abery-Wetstone shows her true colors of financial discrimination when she presides over the 86 day, $13M trial in Tauck v. Tauck.  Not once did she scold the twenty different attorneys for filing too many motions, not once did she opine that the litigation was harmful to the children, not once did she even hint at limiting the fray of legal combat; all because her Bar buddies were having a financial feast on the Tauck’s drama.  Holly’s personally appointed AMC and GAL both walked away with over $1M each.  How much ended up in Holly’s pocket?  Do the math, a good waitress will only get a taxable 15%.

At the lowest end of the spectrum, people get absolutely nothing.  Baby Aaden had unmarried, poor brown parents.  Mom asked Judge Barry Pinkus for relief and got thrown out of court.  Baby Aaden ended up tossed off the Middletown Bridge.  No member of the Bar can make a dime off of poor parents, no matter how genuine the dispute.

Simple proof that justice must be purchased in Connecticut Family Court.  Cold hard cash for the lawyers and their overseers.  Racketeering in a public forum, supervised by the Dons in black robes.

Now take the present post judgment drama case of Grohs v. Grohs, six years of post judgment litigation which has not changed anything.  A divorce by agreement, but the dad with money can’t stop arguing about what he agreed to in 2011.  No judge tells him to stop, no judge is concerned for harm litigation is doing to the children, no judge is going to stop their Bar buddies from making a buck and paying a commission to the judicial pocket.  The court even threw in a GAL to suck up excess cash and prolong the courtroom combat.  Court time is valuable to members of the Bar.  You pay, you play.  You can’t pay, you can’t play; cold hard cash gets you all the filings and hearings your heart desires, no questions asked; don’t worry about the kids, they will be fine.  Expensive litigation is obviously a best interest criteria.

Just compare the present day cash operation of the court to the societal norm expressed in the state Supreme Court decision Amato v Erskine of 1924, where the court opined the exact opposite opinion that Holly expressed in Strobel:

More fundamentally, basic principles of jurisprudence refute the plaintiff’s proposition that a trial court has discretion, based on notions of judicial efficiency, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to consider certain motions. Courts are in the business of ruling on litigants’ contentions, and they generally operate under the “rule essential to the efficient administration of justice, that where a court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject-matter … and … obtains jurisdiction of the person, it becomes its … duty to determine every question which may arise in the cause….” Amato v. Erskine, 100 Conn. 497, 499, 123 A. 836 (1924). This general rule is particularly important in the context of marital dissolution cases because of the likelihood of continuing changes in the parties’ circumstances requiring continuing dispute resolution by the court.

It is notable that in 1924,  Chief Justice George W. Wheeler is a true jurist and guardian of the law; deciding motions was a duty, not an inconvenience to the clowns and buffoons of today’s judiciary.  Strange how the AFCC players can undo decades of stare decisis to line their pockets.  Note that Justice Wheeler did not opine about valuable court time as did Beach, J., in D’Amato v D’Amato of 2016.   In less than one hundred years the purpose of the open court has completely changed due to the greed of the Family Bar Association.  If only Baby Aaden’s cause had gone before a real judge; not the greed monster Pinkus.

Transcript of the hearing is here.  Read how Pinkus scolded two young parents for being young parents, no concern for the child, no legal representation, attacked mother from bench rather than appointing counsel, ignored father’s TRO violation, threw them out of court and told them what to do.  Not a judge, a white supremacist talking down his crooked nose to poor brown people.

Today’s family law is based on the litigant’s ability to purchase the unlimited discretion of the judge.  Payments go through law firms.  Rest in peace Baby Aaden, the court failed you for want of money; simply money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: