Gigantic Judicial Undertaking
by Christine Stuart | May 25, 2006 4:05 PM
Posted to Courts
Supreme Court Justice David Borden gave the 18 members of the Judicial Public Access Task Force less than five months to make “concrete recommendations” for public access to the courts. 
Supreme Court Justice David BordenIn a recent Supreme Court case, a majority of the justices voted to deny access to certain computer records and upheld the lower court’s decision that the records were part of the court’s administrative function and not public information. The Freedom of Information Commission, a party in the case, decided not to challenge the court’s 4-3 decision.Nonetheless, judges, attorneys, and members of the news media undertook Borden’s mission in its first working session Thursday where it outlined and then grouped the access issues into subject areas for three subcommittees.
The access issues that were listed on six tablets during the more than hour long brainstorming session included: What is a court record? What court proceedings should be open to the public? Should there be an appeals process for when access to records is denied? What are other states doing? What is available under the current laws? What judicial administrative records should be open and how?Judge Trial Referee, Aaron Ment, kept turning around in his seat during the meeting to consult with Hartford Courant reporter Lynne Tuohy who was in the audience. Ment offered issues that praised her reporting when he asked the question about should there be a distinction in what cases are filed and ones that are lodged, referring to the “super-sealing” of cases Tuohy and the Courant challenged in 2002. 
Back of Ment’s headA veteran-report, Tuohy reported last week that two judges picked to be part of the task force were replaced by Borden because they had been involved in the “super-sealing” of cases. No one knew which judges engaged in the practice of allowing the wealthy and politically connected to file lawsuits with no case numbers and no names until Tuohy reported the matter last week. The practice has since been abolished. Click here to read Tuohy’s article on the first task force meeting. There wasn’t much debate amongst the mismatched cast of characters on the task force, Thursday, however, attorney Alan Neigher of Byelas and Neigher in Westport protested when a Connecticut Networks cameraman, Francis Knize, voiced several lengthy concerns about court access after task force chairman, Supreme Court Justice Richard Palmer asked if any members of the public wished to contribute to the mostly brainstorming session. 
Francis KnizeNeigher opined Knize was out-of-order when he started to speak on the discourse of the judicial branch. “We’re here on our own time,” Neigher reminded the chairman. Knize accused Neigher of being out-of-order and continued. Palmer rushed Knize through his concerns by interrupting him when he felt his point had been sufficiently made. 
Justice Richard PalmerAt the conclusion of the first meeting, Palmer said he would place each of the members on one of the three subcommittees by Tuesday taking into consideration their preferences. The subject matter the three subcommittees will report on by Sept. 15 include access to judicial records, access to judicial meetings and administrative functions in the court, and access to judicial proceedings. Palmer said he expects the subcommittees to meet at least twice before another full task force meeting June 15. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has formed her own judicial review panel. Rell’s 18-member judicial review panel includes nine attorneys, four judges, two legislators, two members of the news media, and the attorney and former executive director of the Freedom of Information Commission. The Rell panel’s first meeting is June 1. The legislature’s Judiciary Committee will also convene in June to discuss former Supreme Court Justice William “Tocco” Sullivan’s decision to withhold the court’s 4-3 decision in the FOI case that sparked the judicial openness debate and how it cost his friend, Justice Peter Zarella, his appointment to chief justice. Since Rell’s nomination of Zarella, which he has since withdrawn, she has yet to nominate someone to the position. 
Judge Patrick Clifford, left, and Journal Inquirer reporter, Heather Nann Collins, right.
Comments (6)
Posted by: Francis Knize | May 29, 2006 12:05 PM
Being that I am seeking Public Opinion about the Borden Task Force for a TV Show, I request anyone to comment why a member of the board, ie: Att'y Neigher, would think for a second why he would want to "Nay Say" my presence at a hearing about Open Government and Open Courts?
I think he should be removed from the Task Force immediately for his display of "Independant Jury over Public Openness". He seems prejudice and bias.
Let you thoughts be known brothers and sisters of the Constitution State....
Francis C. P. Knize
Posted by: irwin r. eisenstein | May 29, 2006 9:05 PM
In the past, I have found that judges are not adequately prepared to control other judges or lawyers.
I would suggest that when this repubulic was formed, the issue of judicial immunity was left open. Without a sword hanging over their heads by a silken sword, many judges believe they are god like and may in fact, violate the law.
Posted by: Francis Knize | May 30, 2006 6:05 AM
Thanks Irwin for that comment. KEEP IT GOING FOLKS! I will be reporting ALL YOUR COMMENTS and will presenting them also to the Borden Task Force. TIME TO SPEAK UP IS NOW!
They are going to wham, bam, thank you maam the hearing. I will work to prevent that. We need to enter your comments NOW! Call for the removal of any non-impartial Task force members. What do you think about how Atty'y Neigher tried to silence voice from the community? Should he be removed?
Even the task force recognizes this is a unique time in Conn. History to reform the law. We won't see this again for a long, long time.
With Conn. being the reform state, your thoughts now will reverberate around the country. I AIM TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THE OPPORTUNITY HERE.
I NEED YOUR HELP TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEMS OF THE JUDICIARY.
LET'S SHOW THEM WE CARE ABOUT HOW JUDGES OPERATE.
HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO TRULY JUDGE THE JUDGES AND PROCEDURES OF LAW.
DO IT!
Francis
Posted by: Francis Knize | May 31, 2006 5:05 AM
Hi Dan,
For some reason people's response in this Posting area does not show up under article, and it says there are no comments when indeed there are... when you click comments link...so far four postings are there but hidden.... Please fix it Mr. Editor so we can get public responxe:
Francis
Posted by: Francis C. P. Knize | June 28, 2006 9:06 AM
Message-----
From: Frankknee@aol.com [mailto:Frankknee@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:57 AM
To: newstips@nbc30.com
Subject: HOT TIP on Chief Justice Sullivan!
HOT TIP on Chief Justice Sullivan! This involves a JRC case against Sullivan and a television program on Conn.Judicial Reform.
#
203 544 9603
Francis Knize
Producer
There soon will be a Judicial Review Council Case against Chief Justice Sullivan concerning throwing out divorce defenses by a defendant on the basis the judge did not think a near fatal accident of one's mother was a just cause to file a motion late, and that he failed to prove his jurisdiction on an attack on a party's First Amendment rights. Proving jurisdiction is basic to law and cannot be ignored through denial without a finding. In a nutshell, he blatantly broke the law. He broke local policies, national policies, and cares not to hear cases with constitutional elements. The message to the community is that Connecticut wants true law reform (Gov Rell, Att'y General, Judicial external affairs, the legislature) and we don't want a repeat of unconstitutional mentality ruling the Supreme Court (Zarella). Justice Zarella may be proven to exhibit the same characteristics at the JRC as he has a case against him also. The defendant was damaged by $1,000,000.
This is going to become quite a nasty case as Sullivan has recently revealed a pattern of unconstitutional behavior and non-accountability to all the state. He is also responsible for removing the states initiatives started by Chief Justice Callahan for Public Confidence and Trust. There will follow a Reality Show of all these events for Public Access Television and possibly even Court TV.
Please call for more information 203 544 9603.
Francis C. P. Knize
Posted by: Steven G. Erickson | February 3, 2007 5:02 AM
Judges should not be able to get away with anything they want.
A Judge can be more dangerous than a Serial Killer.
Minorities and poorer Whites are abused by the court system, and judges, to be labeled criminals to be permanently separate and unequal.
Judges are following the rules in Connecticut. They don't care as they aren't punished. Judges can do as they please.
let's end their little party.