Foundation for Litigant Parity
2017-3-17 - Whitnum Testifies at Appellate 2nd Circuit for
Dismissal of Judge Jane Emons
IN HER ONGOING QUEST for justice, on Wednesday politico Lee Whitnum argued before the Appellate Court Second Circuit, for the dismissal of Judge Jane Emons as a Connecticut Family Court judge based on the United States Constitution Article III Section 1 called the “good behavior clause.”
“It was a long-shot but worth the try,” said Whitnum, who filed the interlocutory appeal from Judge Stefan Underhill’s ruling in case 3:15-CV-0959 (Whitnum v. Emons, et al.) a case alleging Constitutional violation by Whalen and Emons.
Whitnum in court documents claims Superior Court Judge Jane Emons, was politically motivated, and set her up for incarceration. She requested to the Appellate Court fire Emons or precluded her from collecting a salary as Article III Section 1 states Judges shall, “hold their offices during good behavior.”
Whitnum addressed the three member Appellate Court on Wednesday, March 15, 2017. They included Judge Cabranes, Judge Wesley, and Judge Sessions. Whitnum must now wait to find the outcome.
“There presently exists no way to rid of bad judges in Connecticut,” stated Whitnum to the panel “They are all rubber-stamped into office every eight years by the Connecticut Legislature. If the Appellate Court grants this, it will pave the way for Connecticut residents to fire judges. We are ranked 48th in the country for good reason. For this one woman standing before you there are thousands behind me.”
Whitnum claims in court documents that there was a criminal setup by Jane Emons and John Whalen, Assistant Chief States Prosecutor of Connecticut. In a Woodbridge Police Report, Emons claimed Whitnum rang her bell and ran on June 22, 2013 at 1:38 am. Although Emons claims in the police report she saw no one, she still demanded the Woodbridge Police arrest Whitnum. Emons who presides over hundreds of litigants as a divorce judge, non-the-less named Whitnum by name in the Woodbridge Police Report (Annexed below).
Whitnum claims in court documents that her phone records differ than those reported on the Statewide Prosecutor’s Report #2013-00203 signed by John Whalen. That report was necessary to get the stalking charge, harassment charge and a protective order against Whitnum.
“My phone records on John Whalen’s report #2013-00203 differ from my phone records obtained via federal subpoena directly from Sprint. It is my belief that this is proof positive that the ring-and-run was orchestrated and the report altered in order to get a judge to issue the charges and the protective order.”
Whitnum arranged via subpoena to have a copy of her phone records mailed directly to Judge Underhill. The Sprint Corporation did so and Judge Underhill, presiding at the federal district court case in this matter (3:115-CV-0959), has placed them under seal. Whitnum claims it is proof positive.
Woodbridge Police investigated, and then refused to arrest Whitnum for stalking or grant’s Emons wish for a protective order. Next, Emons’ enlisted long-term buddy John Whalen – friend since both were prosecutors, 35 years ago. Whalen tacked on the charge of “stalking” and presenting his report #2013-0203 to a judge to grant Emons a protective order. Whitnum was never told about either and so she missed the opportunity to question the validity of the protective order.
“You only have 14 days to request a Fernando Hearing to question the validity of the protective order,” said Whitnum. “I was not told the nature of the charges until months later in open court on the day the charges were dismissed. Believe me I would have argued against the protective order as it was based on a lie. On the night before my birthday I was in Manhattan and my phone records proved it..”
Judge Underhill shot down Whitnum’s request the first time claiming that the Article III Section 1 is only for Federal judges. Whitnum disagreed and appealed.. Article III Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:
“The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”
Before this appeal, Whitnum had argued in Bridgeport federal court to Judge Underhill that the statute claims “inferior courts” and that the time has come for the ability to fire judges. “Sovereign immunity is a concept that needs to be abolished. If you behave badly by abusing your power or violating the law you need to be out of a job, judge or not.”
A month prior to the stalking charge, Whitnum, a first time offender, was charged with “disorderly conduct” when she called Judge Jane Emons on the phone to beg her to allow access to her husband. At that point Whitnum had been kept from her infirmed husband for 13 months without any contact by Emons who denied subpoena, denied conciliation and denied due process. “I’ve since learned that Family Court judges keeping people from loved ones is commonplace in Connecticut. It is a self-serving ploy to feed the system. Emons violated every right we had. The judges in Connecticut violated my due process rights and allowed the self-interested to railroad my husband and I into divorce.”
The Appellate Court Second Circuit is located in the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY10007. ###