Thanks to @Gardinista and
@Seattle1 for all the documents, links, timelines, and other critical information. There is just a treasure-trove of information that resides here; and, I love it when I run a Google search, and I get hits on Webslueths!
This post is a bit long - but sometimes putting things in chronological order is so worth it. (Pardon any typos and/or spelling names wrong).
Venue 1: Family Court (Superior Court)
The Family Court closed the case of
Dulos v. Dulos on
2/4/20 under very grim circumstances for Jennifer, her kids, family and friends.
Schoenhorn begins his quest for a copy of the Hermann hearing transcript and report, from the Family Court, shortly after he was retained by MT (
3/11/20)(this is after after the Family Court case is
closed)(MT told Horn the report existed because FD
told her of it and believed it was “favorable”).
The Family Court denied Schoenhorn’s request because the hearing was closed by the judge, to the public, due to the sensitive nature of the custody situation, as to the 5 motherless minors; and, accordingly, the transcript and report were sealed
aka not-public.
CT Courts must give the public advance notice that a hearing is to be closed to avoid public perception that courts are acting in secret. All this does is to allow the public “to be heard and/or object to the hearing being closed”. The Judge can then promptly rule that there are interests (minor children caught in a custody fight) that outweigh the general interest of the public (transparency of courts; things not done in “secret”). The opportunity to be heard goes on the record. Everyone moves on, except for the
unhinged.
Undeterred by the denial of the Hermann transcript/report, Schoenhorn looks for the Family Court public record confirming that the hearing had been properly closed to the public.
Annoyed,
but just warming up, he cannot find said record; so, he continues to pester the Family Court for the hearing transcript and report because he sees no record of the hearing being closed. Henceforth - hand it over.
The Family Court replies that it inadvertently failed to publish the sealing notice, but the transcript and custody report are nevertheless still sealed due to the sensitive material per the oral order of Judge Heller.
Schoenhorn is provided with the unsealed portion of the transcript where Judge Heller addresses the lack of advance public notice straight on (this is Judge Heller knowing how to do her job
before Schoenhorn has even been retained!) Judge Heller: “we don’t always have the advantage of two weeks…what we are going to do this afternoon is I’m going to post a sign on the door; it seems to be very quiet here, if it turns out we have people coming in and out, I will deal with that but for now I’m closing the courtroom during Dr. Herman’s testimony…”
So the judge did in fact address the procedural issue that Schoenhorn later finds to be a violation of constitutional law.
Schoenhorn continues to agitate the Family Court until the Court ultimately tells him the case is closed (because it is sadly a moot custody case now) and to go away.
For those of you waiting for some extended horning -
here you go “it’s not a legitimate order, and if it’s not a legitimate order, it doesn’t have to be followed by anyone; it is deserving of no credit or deference, unlike the situation where a court issues a legitimate order, subject to reversal; I am saying that this wasn’t legitimate, it didn’t follow any legitimate procedure, it is invisible, it didn’t even exist in the docket.”
Invisible! Yikes!
Venue 2: Judge Blawie Criminal Court (Superior Court)
So Horn spent the better part of
2020 sparring with the Family Court about whether Judge Heller can properly run her own courtroom in the best interest of the minors.
He wasted all this time instead of doing what a
rational and competent criminal lawyer would do - which is to file a flipping
Brady motion
in the court where his client is charged with conspiracy to commit murder (in the Blawie court). The State (it being in possession of the Hermann report because it was obtained by LE under a warrant, has a duty under Brady, to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense; otherwise, prejudicial error on the part of the trial court might be found and a new trial ordered).
Now - he finally realizes he should have used his time more wisely with a
Brady motion and filed one in/around
January 2021 (in Blawie’s court). He did not succeed in getting the Hermann report in Blawie’s court the first time around (
February 18, 2021). But that isn’t a defeat yet.
Venue 3: Judge Sheridan Random Superior Court
At this point,
April 26, 2021,
the Horn pressure cooker has a full head of steam; getting the report is now
personal (never mind his client). Schoenhorn then takes the Family Court technical fumble to the next level;
so far so, I think, he became
possessed and unable to behave rationally and in the interest of his client.
He
shines on the Family Court’s jurisdiction and files an action in another Superior Court jurisdiction hoping that court will
school the closely-related Family Court for such an egregious procedural error.
What? Appealing to another Superior Court - that is not how this works.
So, Schoenhorn becomes a
Plaintiff in a writ of mandamus against the Chief Court Reporter of the Family Court (now a
Defendant!), in Judge Sheridan’s courtroom, on the grounds that Defendant didn’t comply with the written portion of the public notice requirement in violation of her constitutional duties.
Really?
Didn’t Judge Heller put a note on the door?
Erstwhile, Schoenhorn tells the media he is “proceeding with the case on principle”, as a Plaintiff, he says he is injured because Judge Heller “did not properly seek a sealing order for the divorce hearing…This being done on the idea that this was a public hearing that is constitutionally required to be held in open court. I’m just another member of the public who is curious about what happened in a public courtroom in contentious litigation between rich people.”
Huh?
Further, he deflects the notion that this filing is “forum shopping”. “So I have to ask a judge to lift an order that was never legal in the first place?”
And some more horning “I believe that the illegal withholding of court transcripts without a public hearing, a right to object, and a finding of good cause, outweighs the public’s right to attend court proceedings, and is unconstitutional. I brought the civil action on my own behalf as a matter of principle. I guess the court is not as concerned as I remain about the secret proceedings held behind closed doors without a good cause finding.”
Not surprisingly, Judge Sheridan does not bring Schoenhorn good news. “This court lacks jurisdiction to issue a mandamus because it will require this court to invalidate the sealing order of another Superior Court judge in another case.”
How many judges is he willing to burn through in the state in which he practices law?
Back to Venue 2: Judge Blawie‘s Criminal Court
After a month after ranting and raging, and burdening more courts, unsuccessfully, he gets another shot at his
Brady motion before Judge Blawie, on
May 25th, 2021, having filed more motions for reconsideration in this venue (at least this motion is in the name of his client and not himself).
This is the
remote video hearing,
with additional horning, through a Covid mask, whilst turning himself purple with outrage - and
voila - he gets a copy from Blawie because “it is reasonable to conclude the report may have exculpatory information, and if the State has it, I see no reason that the Defense should be restricted from having a copy.” This Judge doesn’t want to have a trial verdict thrown out because of a
Brady violation. (Set aside whether the document comes in at trial; that is an evidentiary/admissibility issue different from the Defense being entitled to see the potentially exculpatory evidence in the first instance.)
But Judge Blawie rightly conditions Schoenhorn’s access per the Practice Book. Schoenhorn can’t disseminate the report; it’s still under seal; and,it’s premature to say if it is admissible ever, in any shape or form. This ruling is just to preserve any possible appellate issue related to the defendant not being given access to exculpatory evidence under
Brady.
Venue 4: CT Supreme Court
So now he has the damn report! But it is under seal and can’t be made public. That isn’t good enough if he can’t use it in trial; so back to Plaintiff mode!
Endless pages of pleadings are generated by Plaintiff and Defendant (so much wasted resources) as Schoenhorn is not done
scorching the earth.
Schoenhorn goes to the CT Supreme Court - hoping the highest state court will box the ears of the junior courts and declare the Hermann transcript/report “public” by virtue of the Family Court procedural fumble.
I can’t even begin to get into the weeds of the 67 page CT Supreme Court filing he submitted on
his own behalf. Suffice to say, the Plaintiff was rebuked, in the harshest of terms by the high court (
again in the state where he practices law).
He is a bull in the china shop at this point.
“When a plaintiff brings an impermissible collateral attack on another court’s sealing order, by way of an action for a writ of mandamus, no practical relief can be granted, and the Court lacks competency to adjudicate the matter.”
Super Court Chief Justice Richard Robinson said granting Plaintiff’s motion would result in “Judge Shopping” and “chaos in our courts”.
If I am a member of the Connecticut State Bar, the last thing I want my name associated with, as a plaintiff before the State Supreme Court, is that my legal position would result in chaos.
Ouch!
Venue 5: Judge R
So there we have it up until Judge Randolph inherited the turd in the punch bowl.
To be continued … after Contempt of Court Hearing (
Venue 6 and counting)…
