I realise this isn't exactly on point but for those interested I dug up the document JS filed against the Court Reporter in Family Court to get the sealed documents.
Here is link:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's action for a writ of mandamus ordering Defendant, the chief court reporter for the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, to produce transcripts that were sealed by another trial court in a separate proceeding...
law.justia.com
I'm posting this because I firmly believe this entire tactic to make the sealed private Family Court documents public in this case was part of what would have turned into a VICTIM SHAMING AND BLAMING ATTACK by the Defence that hasn't been seen recently on this potential scale in DV cases that I'm aware of.
In the above case we see JS suing the COURT REPORTER to get the Family Court documents and then the entire lunacy gets escalated to Supreme Court in CT. That opinion reprimands JS imo for not, "...adequately protecting the interests of the children..." amongst many other things but I thought the reference to the children as particularly telling as to the disgust of the CT Supreme Court at the actions of JS on behalf of his client MT.
So, just to be clear here MT and Troconis Clan were willing to go to the mat to get the Family Court documents EVEN IF THE IMPACT OF SHARING THEM WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE DULOS CHILDREN! I realise the great animosity that exists between the Troconis family and JF, but to transfer this great hate and anger to an action that could potentially impact the 5 Dulos children is something that I simply cannot wrap my head around, let alone understand how any so called legal professional involved in a case could or ever would support on any level.
I don't think I've ever issued a compliment to the CT Judiciary on an opinion but thank goodness someone was thinking about the Dulos children because we know from the record that the Family Court Judge at the time (Judge Heller) did little to nothing to protect JF OR HER CHILDREN. Sadly it appears that Judge Heller remains on the bench and was no doubt protected by a Judiciary that protests its own no differently than it protects attorneys that withhold evidence and potentially hinder investigations such as imo JS did with the black hoodie and also in his discussion in Court yesterday of the sealed family court document that was issued by discredited Dr Herman and tossed from the record by the imo disgraceful and wholly incompetent Judge Heller who also imo should have been sent for remedial training in non physically violent DV (ditto for the GAL at the time who was party imo to FD shenanigans with the discredited report, Atty. Meehan iirc).
Think about what JS just did here in this Troconis case with the SEALED Family Court documents for a second. He first tried to get them and was denied by the Court BUT THEN when that tactic fails he turns around, disregards the Courts denial of access to Family Court documents and instead thinks the right or ethical thing to do would be to use a discredited report from a sealed file that I don't believe he was entitled to have (MT was absolutely not entitled to have that report either and Atty Bowman knew it!) in the first place to attempt to Victim Shame and portray FD as the better parent etc.
These are the sham and frankly disgusting shameful imo tactics that are being used by JS AND ENDORSED BY MT AND TROCONIS CLAN imo and I continue to be quite angry that we are not seeing consequences for these actions from the Court or even objections to from the State.
FD the 'better parent' indeed....but, using reports that could be damaging to Victims children imo is as about as low as low can go to say nothing of being ethically and morally repugnant imo.
Snippets from above document:
The plaintiff’s (aka JS) action seeking to compel the defendant to produce the transcripts at issue constituted an
impermissible collateral attack on a sealing order issued by a different court in a different action involving different parties. (BBM).
The plaintiff’s mandamus action, like the administrative appeal in Valvo,
did not adequately protect the interests of all affected parties, such as the children in the marital dissolution action whose custody was the subject of the hearing at issue, and, because the trial court in the present case had no continuing jurisdiction over the marital dissolution action and no custody or control over the sealed transcripts, it had no authority to overturn the family court’s sealing order. (BBM)
This court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s action was non justiciable accorded not only with Valvo and the principles cited therein but also with this court’s deep-rooted public policies favoring consistency and stability of judgments, the orderly administration of justice, and the prevention of inconsistent rulings. (BBM)
Moreover, although the plaintiff claimed that Valvo was distinguishable from the present case because a trial court’s powers in a mandamusa ction are broader than they are in an administrative appeal and thathis mandamus action was justiciable by virtue of a trial court’s broad, equitable powers to issue a writ of mandamus, the mere fact that the plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus did not relieve him from proving that his claim was justiciable, and when a plaintiff brings an impermissible collateral attack on another court’s sealing order by way of a mandamus action, no practical relief can be granted, and the court lacks competency to adjudicate the matter.
MOO
www.nbcconnecticut.com
