Foundation for Litigant Parity
August 12, 2015 - Politico Lee Whitnum is facing new criminal charges in
the ongoing feud with Judge Jane Emons
Politico Lee Whitnum is facing new criminal charges in the ongoing feud with Judge Jane Emons. Whitnum turned herself in on Aug. 11, 2015 to the Woodbridge Police. Whitnum claims the charges are unfounded.
“I did not break the law,” Whitnum said. “I have two lawsuits against Jane Emons and my assistant sent her the court documents because I am required to do so under Connecticut’s general statutes and federal law. I am required to provide copies of the documents to all litigants.”
Whitnum was charged with two counts each of criminal violation of a protective order and second-degree harassment (police report below) for Emons’ receipt of the two motions in the cases Whitnum has against her. Whitnum was released on $10,000 bond and is due in court for arraignment in New Haven on Aug. 19, 2015.
In court documents Whitnum claims Emons claimed Whitnum rang her bell and ran on the morning of June 22, 2013. Whitnum claims in court documents the charge was a criminal frame and for the sole purpose of getting a protective order and the high jail time it implies.
“My phone records obtained via federal subpoena differed than my phone records on John Whalen’s report #2013-0213. My phone records were altered,” said Whitnum. John Whalen, assistant chief state’s prosecutor and Emons’ 35-year-friend filed the charges after the Woodbridge Police refused to do so.
“The Woodbridge Police, the first time, were smart but today they made a mistake, this time as there is no active protective order,” said Whitnum.
Back on June 22, 2013 the Woodbridge Police must have smelled a rat because despite Emon’s demand that they arrest Whitnum for the ring-and-run, the Woodbridge Police investigated and refused to press charges. Instead Emons cop shopped. She next went to the State Police who turned her away. Emons then enlisted old friend Assistant Chief State’s prosecutor John Whalen.
Whalen in July 2013 presented his report #2013-0213 (Whitnum claims her phone records differ than those on Whalen’s report) to a judge and got the arrest order and the “bogus” protective order. Whalen then dropped the charges on April 5, 2013 but the protective order remained and it was modified on October 23, 2013 by Judge Richard Arnold.
“In September 2013, the State Police called and suggested I have the protective order modified as Emons kept calling them demanding my arrest every time I walked into the Stamford Courthouse for my divorce,” said Whitnum. “It was crazy.”
Judge Arnold modified the protective order on October 23, 2013 to allow Whitnum into the courthouse for what she calls her “railroad into divorce.’ “As soon as Judge Arnold modified the protective order on October 23, I was still in the Courthouse when I got a phone call from Officer Keily of the State Police telling me I was off the hook. It was little bit Big Brotherish but I didn’t care, I was so relieved. Now this!”
Whitnum claims the Woodbridge Police’s arrest today is a mistake as the bogus protective order expired on October 23, 2014. If Whitnum is convicted she faces 14 years in jail.
“This is insane,” said Whitnum. “The protective order did not have an end date and was based on the bogus ring-and-run, and so according to statute it expired on October 23, 2014, one year after it was modified by Judge Arnold,” said Whitnum. “There was no protective order in place when my assistant, a paralegal, mailed copies of motions to all defendants, he mailed Emons two motions in the lawsuits. We are required by statute to do so.”
Whitnum is seeking justice against Emons and Whalen in two cases for what she calls “the unlawful criminal setup” the alleged ring-and-run on June 22, 2013 and other denials of Whitnum and her husband’s rights by Emons.
Emons is a defendant in Superior Court case and one federal court case ( WHITNUM, LISA v. EMONS, JANE - FST-CV-15-5014842-S, FST-CV-16-5015817-S and 3:15-CV-0959). The State is a defendant in another Superior Court case. Whitnum is seeking justice for the ring-and-run and what she calls, in court documents, a criminal set up by Emons and Whalen. Whitnum claims in the federal case that Emons abused her position to violate Whitnum’s right to free speech as punishment for Whitnum’s outspoken views against the Country of Israel.
“Believe me, I had better things to do on the night before my birthday then drive two hours north to ring a bell and run,” said Whitnum. “I was in Manhattan on Amsterdam Avenue and my phone records proved it. If they had chosen any other night to claim I rang a bell and ran, I would have home in bed without an alibi. God was with me,” said Whitnum.
Whitnum has claimed she has become a target due to her political views in opposition of the U.S. funding of Israel and that her Constitutional Rights have been violated repeatedly.
Whitnum may be right as in a Judicial Marshal Report, Marshal Kirshner quotes Emons as describing Whitnum as a “member of the Abolish Israel Platform.” A charge Whitnum says is ludicrous. “I have been vocal against the US funding of Israel as counter-productive but I don’t know anything about the Abolish Israel Platform.”
Whitnum claims in the federal case that Emons abused her position to violate Whitnum’s right to free speech as punishment for Whitnum’s outspoken views against the Country of Israel. In addition, in court documents Whitnum claims Emons on July 16, 2012 denied conciliation with her husband, subpoena, and later repeatedly denied due process. Whitnum was railroaded into divorce without a private conversation with her own husband.
"Emons wasn't satisfied to railroad me into divorce by denying all access to my husband, Emons then set out to destroy my life by framing me for incarceration and smearing me," said Whitnum. "Read the police report (annexed below), she names me and demanded my arrest."