Mistrial!

The now-famous Blog spotlights the malfeasance of the Connecticut Family Court for its inability to conduct a simple administrative no-fault divorce proceeding without abusing due process to the point of conducting a Salem style witch trial out of public view. Judge Tammy Nguyen highlights the fact that you can take the communist out of the rice paddy, but you can’t take the communist out of the judge. Here is how she violates the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments under the color of state dissolution law. Hiding judicial proceedings is a sure way to get Blog’s attention. First Amendment bites!!!

Illegal Closure

Judge Tammy Viet-Cong closed the courtroom for testimony of Dr. Smith regarding her work product that was contracted by the parties.  Closure is a due process failure as the requirements of PB §25-59 are ignored.  Sealing order on work product failed to comply with PB § 25-59A lacking overriding interest.  There was no proper two-week notice given for a public hearing to oppose the Tammy’s tyrannical need to hide a jewish opinion for the goy. Excluding the public from scrutiny of matters in a public forum is an American no-no.  No public hearing was noticed nor held.  There was no finding of a private interest that overrides the presumption of open trials.  There was no opportunity to appeal any court fabricated interest. Jewish third party opinions are always of great public interest.  See [641.01-04] close and sealing orders do not reference an order from the requisite public hearing establishing the override interest to seal and close.  References to [346, 605, 606.1] are improper to exclude the public.  There is nothing in the report that was not already subject to public disclosure under the contract terms with Smith.

Tammy is so stupid as to ignore the commentary to practice book sections §25-59, §11-20, §42-49, which expound upon the seriousness of open courts, public scrutiny and safeguards to a fair trial. Obviously she works to a shadowy private agenda, inconsistent with constitutional principles. She is so slick as to avoid the courtroom closure orders, while sealing the transcripts on the sly. If the courtroom was not closed, transcripts can’t be sealed…duh! See her after the fact orders here. She belongs in a rice paddy.

Here is the wise commentary of the Rules Committee cautioning judicial miscreants against excluding the public:

The public and press enjoy a right of access to attend trials in civil as well as criminal cases. Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 752 F.2d 16, 22 (2d Cir. 1984); Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984). This right is implicit in the First and Fourteenth amendments. In civil cases, public access to trials ‘enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the fact finding process . . . fosters an appearance of fairness . . . and heightens public respect for the judicial process . . . while permitting the public to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process—an essential component in our structure of self government . . . ‘ Obviously Tammy cannot read!

The court foolishly applies great weight to third party jewish opinions in application of parens patriae powers, such jewish work product, methodology, and opinion being of great public interest.  As the parens patriae powers are vested in the sovereign people, only executed through the court, the people have heightened cause and civic duty to inspect the ‘jewish evidence’ on which a judge may rely to make a purely discretionary ruling regarding children.  Concealing  the work product and testimony thwarts the public duty, but advances the jewish agenda of trafficking children. 

Opinions

The public is aware that the testimony in question is not provided under a professional  license issued by the state for ‘forensic psychology’.  The public is aware that there is no legal definition of the term ‘custody evaluation’.  The public is aware that there is no legal standard of care for the work product.  The public is aware that forensic psychology is not a regulated professional field, merely a court created derivative.  The public is aware that the field of psychology holds no scientific method to make a determination of child custody in an administrative no-fault divorce action of two fit parents.  The public is aware that the term ‘evaluation’ means nothing more than ‘opinion’.  The public is painfully aware that the opinions of Dr. Linda Smith are not qualified by any professional expertise, studies or protocols related to patient care, but are rooted in viewpoint discrimination, lacking professional references, or citations.  Concealing the work product and testimony from public scrutiny undermines confidence in the courts.  The integrity of the judiciary is compromised where such evidence is deliberately concealed, reasonably questioning the impartiality of the offending judge.

“The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.  We have long recognized that the Amendment’s Due Process Clause, like its Fifth Amendment counterpart, guarantees more than fair process. The Clause also includes a substantive component that provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57, 65.

The closure and sealing order is a deprivation of public liberty by failure of due process.  The error is not harmless and compromises the adjudication process, causing a mistrial.  There is no other remedy available to remedy the jewish trickery at hand.

The court gravely erred when it issued a ‘gag’ order, by Connors J, [346] at 4.  To wit:  4) Counsel and the Parties shall not share any information from the evaluation with anyone not authorized by a specific court order to have access to it.

Said order is the unconstitutional form of ‘prior restraint’ and is not necessary for the court to execute its adjudication duty in the instant matter, being overly broad.  A pro se litigant can not be barred from discussing the draconian opinions with others for his own edification and preparation for trial.  The public holds a First Amendment right to discuss and share a work product that was contracted and purchased by the parties and not created by appointment or order of the court.  Judge Cobb ruled in Sakon v Smith (HHD CV20 6136500, #111) that quasi-immunity does not apply as Smith is not an appointee.  The public does not violate any provisions of the contract in discussing the work product with others.

Gag Order

The court further erred in [346] at 5 in barring public review of the work product.  To wit:  5) Counsel and the Parties shall not disclose any aspect of the report on any social media site, or other public forum.

Given Dr. Smith’s reputation in family court, public knowledge of her work products in other cases, there is cause for review with members of the public who have had unpleasant interactions with Smith, who are often found in online groups and networks of present and former family court litigants.  As Smith is a vendor in this matter, terms specified by contract, the work product is subject to public scrutiny by litigants’ choosing, even legislators.  As the product is extremely negative, defense requires disclosure, being a due process right, which the gag order only impedes, imposing a disadvantage, creating an unfair trial; judicial bias & prejudice notwithstanding.  Uniform Commercial Code applies, the court states no compelling reason to restrict review of the work product, nor is there subject matter jurisdiction to do so. Tammy is a nutjob! 

Secret Witch Trial

“The traditional Anglo-American distrust for secret trials has been variously ascribed to the notorious use of this practice by the Spanish Inquisition, to the excesses of the English Court of Star Chamber, and to the French monarchy’s abuse of the lettre de cachet. All of these institutions obviously symbolized a menace to liberty.”  In re Oliver, 333 US 257, 268 (1948).  The public trial is a safeguard against efforts to employ the courts as instruments of persecution and provide a restraint against abuse of judicial power.  Extensive public scrutiny and criticism guards against the miscarriage of justice.  The secrecy of the instant trial is a menace to liberty for the same reasons, resulting in a witch trial where a fit parent must prove he is not a witch against accusations of Smith lest the witch be stripped of custody by the unbridled discretion of the inquisitor, hardly the essence of a court of equity.

Where there is no threat or menace to the integrity of the trial, American jurisprudence requires that the public and the press be afforded the right of scrutiny, a right so enshrined in the First Amendment.  See Sheppard v Maxwell, 384 US 333, 350 (1966)

The restrictions made by the court prevent sharing the work product with members of the General Assembly on the Judiciary committee who are tasked with oversight, holding cause to examine the rational basis for an opinion that contradicts legislative intent in §46b-56(b) for active and consistent involvement of the both parents in the child’s life.  The First Amendment prohibits the court from muzzling legislative debate over adequacy of third party opinions applied to strip a fit parent of custody, where no State interest exists.  The callous reasoning by the judicial authority implicates the court in a criminal conspiracy to frustrate the legislature for some undisclosed judicial agenda, a rather sinister concept, requiring a mistrial be declared.

The court has not stated any overriding interest to seal the work product once it has come in as evidence in the trial.  Absent a proper determination placed on the record by proper process, the concealment can only be viewed as arbitrary & capricious, holding no purpose in law, proving the court conspires to prevent the public from collecting versions of Smith’s work product across various cases for rigorous scrutiny. Jews hate dat attention!  A sinister consequence is that the judicial authority acts intentionally to hide the report and testimony from members of the Judiciary Committee of the General Assembly for what is a sinister unconstitutional purpose.

Constitutional Violation

Tammy’s incompetence creates grave constitutional violations with regard to excluding the public from its First Amendment right to scrutiny of matters in a public forum, denying public right to be heard, failing to override the open court presumption, intentional acts to conceal evidence from the public, failing branch mission to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters in a fair, timely, efficient, and open manner, placing a pro se litigant at an adversarial disadvantage, muzzling right of expression, impeding his ability to obtain advice, acting with malice of prior restraint, conducting a secretive trial, concealing matters from the General Assembly, simple communist style tyranny in the CONSTITUTION STATE.

Editor’s Note: This nutjob Tammy hears testimony in open court, no closure order, then issues an order sealing the transcript of Dr. Smith, after the fact. There is obviously a judicial conspiracy afoot, as Adelman did the same sleight of hand, where he closed/seal Dr. Caverly’s testimony after she had already testified in open court. Conspiracy theories abound. Jew judges will fuck the goy at every turn.

The ignorant, incompetent, nutjob Tammy Nguyen, too stupid to count to First.
Constitution State? Not in Tammy’s court!
Jew child predators. Destruction of childhood for a few shekels.
Tammy d’Retard does not understand the message of equal protection in SNEETCHES … cunt so fuckin’ stupid.