Foundation for Litigant Parity

​​​​​​​Lawfare Victim and Former Politico Lee Whitnum has accused Federal Magistrate Judge Sarah Merriam of Lying to throw the case against Kevin Kane and to Protect the Powerful including Disgraced Former Judge Jane Emons
 

In the Whitnum v. Kevin Kane and the Chief States attorneys’ office et al (3:18-cv-1991) Whitnum accuses Federal Judge Sarah Merriam of lying on the record to throw the case for the powerful.

“I have been fighting for justice against some very powerful people and Sarah Merriam became the 23rd judge or state employee, who has violated one or more of my rights and/or lied on the record," said Lee Whitnum.

In the case Whitnum has accused Kevin Kane and his office of a Brady violation, conspiracy, and other causes of action that go to her allegation that she was criminally framed by former judge Jane Emons - accused of the ringing-the bell and running at Emons’ home on June 22, 2013.


"I never rang Jane Emons bell and ran on June 22, 2013. Emons is a liar," said Whitnum who states that Emons created the fabrication in order to abuse the protective order statutes. Three other people have also accused Emons of abusing the protective order statutes to harm them (more about that later).


Whitnum has patterned her case against Kane on two federal cases that went to the United States Supreme Court:  Brady v. Maryland, which states it is illegal for a prosecutor to bury evidence.  The second case being the City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, the failure to train, in this case by Kane of his underlings Whalen, Ramia and others. 


."I patterned my case after these two landmark cases but Federal Judge Sarah Merriam has refused to allow the Amended Complaint to move forward." 


Using the Recommended Ruling statutes Merriam is attempting to cut Whitnum off at the get-go.  But Whitnum has refused to remove her causes of action.


"If I voluntarily remove my causes of action - I have no case.  I've asked Merriam for oral argument to defend my causes of action and thus far she has refused," said Whitnum.


Worse yet, Judge Merriam has passed a judgment on Whalen's guilt in the second Recommended Ruling - even before a viable Complaint has been approved.


"Selective blindness - this was outrageous and inappropriate. Whitnum has outline the "selective blindness" she claims Merriam has displayed: Whitnum’s true phone records for the night of the ring and run, obtained via federal subpoena, placed her in Manhattan.


"An INBOUND to the tower 72 means the call was not routed and proves I was in New York City as the call hit cellular tower 72. Not only did Sarah Merriam not understand that she ignored the fact that Whalen changed my phone records on his report #2013-0213. Merriam stated the following in the Recommend Ruling:

           The only difference between the records plaintiff confirms to be
            accurate, and the recitation of the records in the Whalen
            report, is the change of the word “INBOUND” to the word
            “OUTBOUND.” Doc. #35 at 10. The import of the cell phone records
            at issue, according to plaintiff, related to the cell site
            location information provided, not to the question of whether
            plaintiff made or received a particular call. See id. The cell
            site location information is unaffected by the question of
            whether a call is inbound or outbound. In sum, the alleged
            fabrication relied upon by plaintiff is utterly irrelevant to
            the issue she raises regarding location information.


“Not true Madam,” says Whitnum. “It is proof positive I was in New York City and proof that John Whalen (Kevin Kane’s underling) altered my phone records on his report #2013-0213. If a call is INBOUND to a tower it means you are within a certain vicinity and the call was not re-routed.“

Whitnum says that Judge Sarah Merriam is either not paying attention or purposefully misreading the information provided.

“The INBOUND changed to OUTBOUND by Whalen on his report was so that on the second page he could make the false narrative that the call had been rerouted. He knew, as I did, that to make the narrative on his report #2013-0213 placing me in the vicinity of Jane Emons home that he had to change the INBOUND – which he did.”

But the above is not the lie Whitnum is accusing Sarah Merriam of. The lie is the error of omission: Sarah Merriam completely over looked paragraph 36. In paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint Whitnum states the following:

Case 3:18-cv-01991-JCH Document 35 Filed 02/18/19 Page 10 of 28

          36. Second proof: The bizarre appearance of a number on this litigant’s phone
          record that is neither to nor from this litigant’s number is a clue enough that Emons
          allegedly worked with a telephony conspirator. At the time of the alleged planted call,
          this litigant was simultaneously making a call of her own from New York City. Both calls
          ended at the exact same time, 00:19:13, with two separate tower locations - 56 and 72
          which are two hours apart. That is patently impossible and proof positive that Emons
          allegedly, with premeditation, worked with a telephone conspirator to criminally frame.

 
In above paragraph 36 of her Amended Complaint Whitnum made the point that it is patently impossible for two calls from the same phone to end at the exact same millisecond and yet be linked to two separate cell towers – two hours apart. Thus far Sarah Merriam has ignored it.

“I have a telephony expert who will testify to the fact that two calls ending at the exact millisecond and linked to two separate cell towers, 56 and 72,  two hours apart is not possible,” said Whitnum.  “Plus the call located near tower 56, which is in the vicinity of Emons' house, is not to nor from my phone number.  What the hell is it doing on my phone record?  Sarah Merriam makes no mention of paragraph 36 in her Recommended Ruling or these two facts.”

“God was on my side. I was in Manhattan on the night of the ring-and-run and received a call from my roommate regarding my cat. Normally I would have been home sleeping with no alibi and I’d be in prison now. A scary thought.“

Whitnum says she believes it is reckless and irresponsible of Sarah Merriam to pass judgement on a case at the complaint level.  The Recommended Ruling is designed to dismiss cases that are without merit.  Whitnum says that is not what is happening here.  Judge Merriam, just like federal Judge Janet Hall and 11 superior court judges are throwing the case for the powerful. 

KANES OFFICE OPENED A CASE ALREADY CLOSED BY ANOTHER POLICE DEPARTMENT

“In 2013 The Woodbridge Police investigated for three months and administrative closed the case finding no connection to me and Jane Emons’ doorbell,” said Whitnum.

After the Woodbridge Police administratively closed the case Kevin Kane’s office reopened the case, Whitnum’s true phone records differ than Whalen’s report #2013-0213, and Whitnum claims they were altered to make a case. Whalen piled on more charges and then went after Whitnum for the crime already closed!

Whitnum claims that John Whalen, assistant chief states prosecutor Kevin Kane’s underling, told Whitnum he was doing the bidding of Jane Emons “his buddy of 35-years since we were both prosecutors” were his exact words according to Whitnum. Whalen set out to prosecute Whitnum for the ring-and-run that one police agency had already deemed administrative closed!

At the time of the arrest in 2013 in Norwalk Court despite evidence, Whitnum could not have her evidence heard via six motions to dismiss.

“Judges Wenzel and Hernandez laughed in my face at every court appearance of which I made over 30 in that courthouse. They knew exactly what they were doing and it was cruel, a violation of my sixth amendment right, and abuse of the court system. I was a joke,” said Whitnum. “They acquiesced to Whalen, and Whalen acquiesced to Jane Emons.”

At the time of the prosecution for alleged crime, Whitnum’s true phone record, obtained via federal subpoena, should have exonerated her but no judge in criminal court would hear it – they followed the lead of Prosecutor Whalen.

“We cannot live like this. I was charged with a crime I did not commit, could prove I did not commit, and yet no judge would listen to one of six Motions to Dismiss with evidence. Whitnum in her case claims that refusing to hear the motion on the merit is the burying of evidence. The burying of the evidence is a Brady violation and the gravamen of Whitnum’s Amended Complaint in the case against Kevin Kane and his office.

Whitnum was 53 at the time, a teacher, a Harvard graduate and first-time offender. “I did not ring Jane Emons' bell and run” Whitnum has adamently stated for years to deaf ears.

In the meantime, Emons has a track record of abusing the protective order statutes. During the 2-16-2018 reconfirmation hearing three other people, other than Whitnum, reported that Emons had issued protective orders against them unlawfully : Nina Sarli, Noel Rodriquez and Derrick Myers. All three protective orders were overturned by the Appellate Court.


Whitnum next filed in Federal Court against John Whalen, Whitnum v. Emons (3:15-cv-0959, #6 on the docket). Federal Judge Underhill refused to honor injunction to make Whalen bring to trial or drop the charges.

“Underhill ignored my injunction request to reel in Whalen,” said Whitnum. “What the hell is the point of having a Sixth Amendment right to fair and speedy trial if you can’t get a federal judge to enforce it against a named party?” said Whitnum worn down by 41 criminal court appearances finally agreed to took an Accelerated Rehabilitation plea deal for first time offenders.


“A plea deal! A plea deal for crimes that were not crimes or I did not commit and yet no judge would listen. They are still not listening.


Whitnum testified before the Connecticut Claims Commission which Whitnum describes as a useless appeasement organization like so many in Connecticut - all part of the appearance of justice. They throw out every case and Whitnum's case was no different:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8FNGB45_7A

​BACK STORY

Jane Emons was the first judge in history who was forced to step down as the Legislature refused to reconfirm her based on the overwhelming complains by citizens.

Whitnum, a former political candidate, a member of the Peace Community and publicly NOT pro-Israel, claims the ring and run was a lie politically motivated. It began within a divorce courtroom. 

“My husband disappeared.  Emons quashed court-ordered conciliation to further keep me from him. I was unlawfully denied due process of the proof of my husband’ $5 million portfolio which was fraudulently conveyed into a trust controlled by his adult children. In denying discovery the judges took away the only bargaining chip I had to negotiate with my husband's adult kids to get my husband home.  I was kept from my infirmed husband and railroaded into divorce, awarded not even a dime. I was kept from the man I married for 4 ½ years until his death - I was not allowed even one private conversation (four judges denied Motion for Telephone Conversation). I was then allegedly criminally framed by Jane Emons who then had me arrested for allegedly ringing her bell and running. A crime I did not commit.


I have suffered in every possible way. Smeared with lies, let go from my job because you can't work in the New York Public Schools with pending criminal charges. Whalen was told and prolonged litigation.   My career has never bounced back. My sweet husband whose only crime was that he married a political woman.  He was a man and not an animal, he had a right to skip a generation and leave his wealthy to his grandkids, he had a right to self determination and a younger wife, he had a right - we both did, to be left alone.  He was warehoused until his death without the comfort of his wife.  The judges allowed the self-interested to prevail. What happened to us was a travesty. Jane Emons caused all of it.

  

To Ned Lamont, “Ned we were in eight debates when we were both candidates for Governor. You have the ball in your court for a short time, please fight for judicial reform.