Foundation for Litigant Parity

Former politico Lee Whitnum demands that Hon. Alex V. Hernandez recuse himself and transfer the case against disgraced Judge Jane Emons.

"Judge Alex Hernandez appearance in Jane Emons' case is 'predatory,'" said Lee Whitnum.

In a motion to disqualify, former politico Lee Whitnum is providing a past transcript of Judge Hernandez' cruelty in action, to remind him of his role in the torture of Whitnum in criminal court and how he aided disgraced former judge Jane Emons and her henchman Assistant Chief States Prosecutor John Whalen. Whitnum is asking for Judge Alex Hernandez disqualification in the Whitnum v. Emons case and Whitnum v. State of Connecticut case.

"Judge Alex Hernandez was one two judges who allowed the ongoing violation of my rights in the Norwalk Criminal Court. For Judge Alex Hernandez this week to put in an appearance on the two cases against former judge Jane Emons and Assistant Chief States Prosecutor John Whalen is a move that is clearly motivated by bias and just more of the same – Hernandez enabling and now protecting Emons and Whalen," said Whitnum who adds, "it is utterly outrageous. A judge who enables a criminal act is an accessory."

Whitnum has provided a transcript of the 40th criminal court appearance in Judge Hernandez's court October 20, 2015 as proof of her allegations (Exhibit A at ). Whitnum, in this current motion to disqualify Judge Hernandez is presenting several arguments why Judge Hernandez should voluntarily step down – for violation of ethics, Connecticut General Statutes, or for moral code and cruelty violation.

"Judge Hernandez needs to step down for admitting he had been privy to hearsay, for violating Speedy Trial under: § 54-82m, for refusing to disqualify John Whalen despite being given detailed evidence of the alleged criminal frame, for knowing that the refusal to adjudicate kept me from the man I married - a moral wrong," said Whitnum. "And finally Judge Hernandez needs to be a material witness in the Emons' case for being privy to hearsay."

The first point, Whitnum, states Judge Hernandez needs to be called as a material witness for his admission, on the record, of being privy to depositions that were never entered onto the record. From the October 20, 2015 transcript Exhibit A at - page 8 and 9, Judge Hernandez states:

THE COURT: Please, I'm in the middle of a sentence, Ms. Whitnum-Baker, You should know that in preparation for today's hearing, I reviewed transcripts from the various depositions that you conducted --


THE COURT: -- and, in particular, a deposition -- one of the witnesses -- and I found numerous instances, Ms. Whitnum-Baker, where you took umbrage at the fact that opposing counsel interrupted you. So I think you know what an interruption is Previously I didn't hold you in contempt, although I think I could have, in your numerous interruptions, because quite frankly I thought it was sort of reflexive on your part to interrupt people. But upon reviewing the transcript of the deposition that you conducted of one of your witnesses in the civil matter, it is now my firm opinion that your interruptions are calculated to disrupt the orderly administration of justice. I'll remind you that if you persist in interrupting, I can hold you in contempt. There are 15 people in court today. A number of members of the public, including court staff. So I'll warn you, again, don't interrupt.

MS. WHITNUM-BAKER: Your Honor, I'm terribly sorry I've interrupted.


MS. WHITNUM-BAKER: I'm from New Jersey and everyone in New Jersey interrupts each other…


"I have no idea, then and now, what Judge Hernandez was talking about," said Whitnum who questions why she was being demonized? "In the transcript, I am a desperate woman facing 14 years in jail for crimes I did not commit – a woman desperate to see the man I married, and this judge is demonizing me claiming my interruptions are 'calculated to disrupt' based on some unknown transcripts from another court? What is he talking about? Why did this judge look into depositions in cases to which he is not the presiding judge, cases not even in the Norwalk courthouse? There were never any depositions entered into evidence in the criminal matters. Why is this Judge bringing up civil depositions in a criminal matter? How did he get it? Research? No way."

Whitnum says she believes Judge Hernandez quite simply opened the 5-inch file on his desk – a smear file that followed Whitnum, to every courthouse.

"Hernandez states, "transcripts from the various depositions that you conducted." Wow," says Whitnum, "That means more than one. Someone worked hard to put together a smear file. And, the tales grow taller down the line."

Whitnum questions how Judge Hernandez would know if a transcript in a circulated file could be a lie. "Instead of asking me, the woman standing in front of him, he believed the hearsay and I believe he ruled because of it. He must step down," said Whitnum.

Whitnum believes Judge Hernandez' hearsay admittance is proof positive that he was the recipient of the 5-inch file that seemed to follow Whitnum to every courthouse and four judges let it slip on the record, of being the recipient of hearsay. .

"One judge, at first meeting, actually pointed to the file and said 'I know all about you.' Well what do they know? Internet lies posted by the Hearst Media the dominant media voice to which I blame: Neil Vigdor, Ken Borsuk and Thomas Mellana their editor. Or perhaps also a bunch of depositions taken out of context, possibly even falsified by someone," said Whitnum who blames herself for not being more forceful to the Hearst Media to clean up the lies on the Internet.

"For the record, I never stalked anyone – which is the gravamen of this case – there are so many lies on the Internet that are just repeated over-and-over. In the case of Judge Hernandez and the court system, I believe someone compiled the most disparaging character assassination about me, to make sure that all the judges got an earful before I walked into the courthouse," said Whitnum.

Although she can't prove it, Whitnum, has always believed that it was allegedly Judge Jane Emons, who is allegedly a master behind the scenes manipulator. For more details please see:

As further proof of widespread hearsay, Whitnum claims she was told by Lisa Stevens, public defender, in Stamford, 'I've got to get you out of Stamford, the judges have already decided they are not going to give you anything.' An admittance that shocked Whitnum at the time.

"Stevens did move the case to Norwalk but that was where I encountered Judges Wenzel and Judge Hernandez," said Whitnum who is asking that the case against Emons be transferred to New London or Danbury and to a judge who has not violated Whitnum's rights in the past.

Referring back to the October 29, 2015 transcript, Whitnum states, "Judge Hernandez, sir, you sited information not presented in any of the pleadings. This admission on the record is proof of hearsay, and is reason alone for you to please step down and transfer this case," said Whitnum. "Please step down".

Two weeks ago Whitnum asked Judge Povodator to step down in the two cases specifically in Whitnum v. State of Connecticut of Connecticut case FSTCV1650158, based on his denying Whitnum's access, in 2013, to Whitnum's husband, now deceased, and for his admittance on the record that he had relied on hearsay on a ruling that violated Whitnum's rights..

"Judge Povodator did step down but Judge Hernández stepped in, but he also admitted to hearsay on the record (Exhibit A at ) And his role in enabling Whalen makes his appearance worse than Povodator's," said Whitnum who believes that Hernandez appearance on the two cases is for one reason only: "to throw the case in favor of Emons and Whalen. All I'm asking for is a non-biased judge who has not violated my rights in the past. That is all."

Whitnum says the transcript exhibit demonstrates Judge Hernandez' loyalty to Whalen who was, at his own admittance, there to prosecute at the behest of Jane Emons his 'buddy of 35 years' "since we were both prosecutors." Emons had accused Whitnum of ringing her bell and running on June 22, 2013. A charge Whitnum has always claimed is an absolute lie and a criminal frame. The plaintiff is seeking justice for that alleged criminal frame in the two civil matters in Superior court.

"It seems to me that our court system is nothing more than a vehicle to give paychecks to the most powerful and a playground for the predatory," said Whitnum. "For his role, Judge Hernandez must please step down."

As plaintiff, in the two lawsuits, Whitnum claims that Prosecutor Whalen allegedly altered her phone records on report #2013-0213 in order to allegedly collude with his long-term friend Emons on the criminal frame. Whitnum has made the evidence that she was criminally framed public on her website at:

Whitnum claims her troubles began on July 16, 2012 and Whitnum's first day in a Connecticut Court ever – in divorce court presided by Jane Emons the sole defendant in this case. In the divorce court: the seventh week after the disappearance of Whitnum's infirmed husband, Judge Jane Emons on July 16, 2012, unethically quashed court-ordered conciliation with Whitnum and her infirmed husband.

"My husband was being kept from me by his adult children. My right under CGS §46b-53 to have access to my infirmed husband was unethically quashed by Emons," said Whitnum.

At the time Whitnum, was being denied access to her own husband by his adult children. Whitnum claimed in court documents that her husband's adult children had fraudulently conveyed his $5 million portfolio into a trust controlled by them, without the consent of Whitnum, or her husband; this was during the marriage.

"On July 16, 2013 the day Emons denied court ordered conciliation I was being denied, under threat of arrest, all access to my husband. I'd been denied phone contact, mail contact, subpoena contact and private face-to-face by self-interested people," said Whitnum who claims it was seven weeks at that point. "If my husband wanted a divorce from me, I had a right to hear it from him."

Thirteen months later – still being denied all contact by five judges, and after trying every legal angle, Whitnum distraught, called Jane Emons on the telephone on May 15, 2013 to beg Emons for access. Emons immediately hung up. Whitnum was charged with breach of peace and paid the $85. That is where Whitnum's troubles began in criminal court.

"I didn't know at the time that Emons has a history of keeping loved one's apart. I've always admitted I made the phone call to her. I was inconsolable that night – it was the very night I rightfully realized that I would never see my husband again. I called every Emons in the book until I found her. I introduced myself right away and she immediately hung up. That was it. The next day I apologized, but what right did she have to violate of our right under 46(b)-53? The choice to see each other should have been ours," said Whitnum who paid the $85 misdemeanor breach of peace charge.

"When there is a shred of truth, people with an agenda will allegedly try to capitalize on it," said Whitnum referring to the fact that one month later Jane Emons claimed Whitnum rang her bell and ran in the early morning hours of June 22, 2013. Whitnum has always maintained it was a lie and allegedly a retaliatory criminal frame.

"Jane Emons was apparently furious that I wasn't charged with more charges and that she could not get a protective order for a phone call. Jane Emons, on June 22, 2013 claimed I rang her bell and ran in the early morning of June 22, 2013 and demanded my arrest by name. It is an absolute lie. I was in New York City and my phone records proved it," said Whitnum who filed in federal court to obtain subpoena for her Sprint records.

Despite the fact that even though Emons told the Woodbridge Police in the police report, that she did not see anyone, Whitnum eventually found herself facing 14 years in jail for charge-after-charge levied due to what she calls the bogus ring and run.

"I never rang Jane Emons bell at any time - ever. It is a lie," said Whitnum. The Woodbridge Police Department concluded their investigation on 9-17-2013, and determined that Whitnum did NOT ring Emons' bell on June 22, 2013 stating in their report (Exhibit C at

"Based on the lack of further details or other pertinent information it is recommended that active investigation of this incident be suspended at this time and that this investigation be considered Administratively Closed."

Despite the fact that the Woodbridge Police for lack of details, administratively closed the case the Statewide Prosecutor's Office appeared in the form of John Whalen. Assistant Chief States Prosecutor who levied charge-after-charge.

"Here I was a teacher and first-time offender, one police agency says I did not ring Emons' bell and run and so a secondary police agency steps in to further prosecute me? What kind of lawless state do we live in? This was a hanging jury in search of a crime allegedly at the behest of a wealthy, powerful woman," said Whitnum who found herself facing 14 years in jail for 9 crimes that were either not crimes, or orchestrated by John Whalen of the Statewide Prosecutor's office. "They allegedly couldn't find a crime and so they allegedly orchestrated one."

"I had already paid my $85 debt to society for calling Emons on the phone months prior when John Whalen appeared on the case. All of the 9 charges were either based on my trying to see my own then husband which I could argue were all unlawfully levied as my husband had never been told I was trying to see him and according to the law it should have been his choice "exclusive possession" under General Statutes §53a-108- §53a-119. The remaining charges were based on the bogus ring and run."

Whalen was there for almost 3 years dragging Whitnum into criminal court as six of the nine charges she faced were all based on the bogus ring and run. And two judges, Judge Wenzel and Judge Hernandez, by not hearing one of six motions to dismiss the charges, allowed Whalen to use the court system to torture.

"I believe Judge Hernandez also aided and abetted the unlawful by dismissing the Motion to Disqualify Whalen without allowing presentation on the merits," said Whitnum who adds, "Judge Hernandez literally allowed the man who allegedly orchestrated the crime, being able to prosecute me for it. That is insane."

Whitnum who is now seeking justice against Whalen and Emons is flabbergasted that the very judge who enabled the wrongdoers is allowed to sit in judgment of their actions.

"That is insane – Judge Alex Hernandez enabled them," said Whitnum who adds, "Judge Hernandez putting himself on both cases last week is a very predatory and premeditated action. Trust me, there is no justice happening here. Hernandez is on these cases for one reason only: to help Emons and Whalen and to hurt me. Please step down sir, for my husband who died alone without the comfort of his wife - please step down."

In both civil court cases Whitnum, has been seeking justice for the alleged criminal frame herein called the ring-and-run. Whitnum v. Emons FST-CV-15-5014842-S is directly against Emons personally for the alleged criminal ring and run.

The second case is Whitnum v. State of Connecticut FSTCV165015817 and is strictly an investigation of criminal wrong-doing under stature CGS §54-47c which is a 3-judge panel to determine if there is criminal wrong doing; as Whitnum, has been denied by the Claims Commission the ability to sue the state but she is still seeking an investigation of whether and Emons and Whalen broke the law. The testimony is viewable:

"Of course, the Claims Commission in this unlawful state is not going to give permission to sue the state," said Whitnum, "Fine can I have a three judge panel to determine whether Whalen and Emons committed a crime? We have the statute but it is only as good as the judges who are willing to enforce it."

Whitnum is six years and counting embroiled in a legal nightmare with several cases all stemming from the violation of her rights. Whitnum claims the only way to get past all of this is to get some justice, an event that cannot happen with Judge Hernandez at the helm.

"If I don't get justice, for the remainder of my life I will be Emons' victim, like so many others," said Whitnum.

In her motion to disqualify Judge Alex Hernandez, filed on December 10, 2018 but has mysteriously yet to be scheduled with the court, Whitnum, in the motion, cites Alaskan law 22.20.022 as no such right to mandatory disqualify of a judge exists in Connecticut. Whitnum has provided the necessary affidavit (Exhibit B at

"There currently exists no way in Connecticut to force an allegedly biased judge to step down. The Connecticut Practice Book has yet to evolve; I have no legal way to get Judge Alex Hernandez to step down. If this were Alaska I could demand his disqualification, provide an affidavit, and get it, no questions asked," said Whitnum.

"The State of Connecticut has failed to evolve. If the people of Connecticut had the right to disqualify a judge and the right of Judicial Recall and I could have gotten Emons off my back,."

Whitnum says that she was not the only person harmed by the unethical state players, "my husband was harmed also. If I'd had an ethical judge I could have lived quietly enjoying the last four years of my husband's life watching old movies, gardening, dining, etc.. Instead Emons allegedly set out to destroy my life and she has.

Whitnum in her motion is asking transfer of the cases to New London or Danbury, to a courthouse where Jane Emons and/or her husband have not worked and to a judge who has not harmed Whitnum in the past adding, "I have to believe there is one non-biased judge in the state."


Whitnum's phone records obtained via federal subpoena in case 3:15-CV-0959, proved Whitnum was in New York City the night of the ring-and-run.

"Because three judges in criminal court (Judge Arnold, Judge Wenzel and Judge Hernandez), refused to sign subpoena to get my own Sprint phone records, I filed federally as I knew that a judge does not have to sign a subpoena, the clerk signs them."

Whitnum got her subpoena and compiled her proof to no avail. "All the proof in the world – if a judge refuses to hear it, you are never going to prevail,"

The proof didn't matter as Judge Hernandez in the criminal court would not view evidence nor hear even one of more than six motions on the merits. Whitnum has made the proof of the criminal frame viewable on her website:

Referring back to the transcript Exhibit A at, Whitnum states, "It was crazy, I had Officer Dos Santos, of the Darien Police, as one of two witnesses present to hear a motion to dismiss and Judge Hernandez would still not hear a motion to dismiss nor view the proof of my innocence despite the fact that there were several motions to dismiss filed," said Whitnum. "How are innocent people supposed to get out from unlawful charges if you can't have a motion to dismiss heard? Oh that is right that would defeat the purpose of Whalen allegedly using the court system to torture."

The other motions to dismiss, and specifically the one discussed in the annexed transcript, were to the other charges all of which Whitnum claims were unlawfully levied to keep Whitnum from her infirmed husband.

"In the annexed transcript (Exhibit A at on that day I had witnesses there to argue the Motion to Dismiss. I repeated on that day what I had been saying for 2 ½ years. that dropping the trespassing charge was necessary to gain access to the man I married. And yet Judge Hernandez would not hear a motion to dismiss on the merits – more than six filed, in 2 1/2 years and 41 criminal court appearances. My husband was still alive then, perhaps I could have seen him before his death if I'd had a decent judge. That is just cruelty. Judge Alex V. Hernandez must step down and transfer this case to a non-biased judge."

In the attached transcript (Exhibit A at, Whitnum literally begs Judge Hernandez for a hearing on the merits, but he will not budge – instead deferring to John Whalen. Whitnum finally got some of the charges "nolled" by filing a federal case against John Whalen to subpoena her true phone records and for violation of her Sixth Amendment right. That case was 3:14-CV-0959.

"That is why in the transcript Whalen is anxious to nolle several of the criminal charges, that is because I had filed an interlocutory appeal and a federal lawsuit against him for the Sixth Amendment violation and I was writing and putting pressure on his boss Chief State's Prosecutor Kevin Kane, and I had filed a press release" said Whitnum who believes if she hadn't been proactive, she would have been railroaded into jail in the same way she was railroaded into divorce without a private conversation with her own husband.

"Judge Hernandez should have allowed all the Motions to Dismiss to be heard on the merits. One of those motions was to disqualify John Whalen based on his obvious role in the alleged criminal frame. Of course it was denied by Judge Hernandez."

Whitnum claimed all along to Judge Hernandez and Judge Wenzel and the press, that there are discrepancies on Whalen' report # 2013-0213 that differed from Whitnum true phone records. The proof is viewable at:

"Please read the proof that I could not get any judge to read. My true Sprint phone record differs from Whalen's report #2013-0213. This was NOT by accident – as this was allegedly a criminal frame. When told, Judge Hernandez should not immediately moved my cases to the regular in-house Norwalk prosecutor. I should have had a hearing on the merits for my Motion to Disqualify Whalen."

The proof is viewable and Whitnum would like the press and the public to take five minutes to study the Statewide Prosecution Report # 2013-0213 and to compare it to her true phone record. Mainly changing INBOUND to OUTBOUND to make Officer Coffey's argument that the call was routed and to place Whitnum in Emons' region.

"Please view the evidence. I was in Manhattan the night of the ring and run – at Tower 72 which is Amsterdam Avenue. My true phone records say INBOUND – which means the call hit tower 72 and was not rerouted – proof I was in NYC. Secondly, you can't have two calls from the same phone ending at the exact same time and linked to two separate cell towers two hours apart at towers 56 and 72. Notice that two calls on June 22,2013 that end exactly at 00:19:13 - and please notice that one was not to or from my number. Someone planted a bogus call. Please read Emons' report of the ring and run. She demanded a telephony search. What police department does a telephony search for an alleged ring and run? That is insane. And I am saying is this was allegedly a criminal frame by Emons and Whalen – a tag-team effort."

Whitnum claims, "God was with me" in that she made a call at the exact time of the bogus phony call allegedly to frame her. "If this had happened any other night, other than the night before my birthday, I would have been home sleeping without an alibi and I'd be sitting in prison now. That is frightening," said Whitnum.

But despite Whitnum's good luck of making a simultaneous phone call, it didn't matter as Judge Hernandez would not hear a motion to dismiss with evidence in criminal court and Whitnum says he is back with one goal: to make sure Whitnum never prevails.

"There seems no justice," said Whitnum. "The cruelest aspect of Judge Hernandez' allowing Whalen's alleged purposeful lack of adjudication kept me from the man I married until his death. I will forever grieve."

"Whalen was allegedly doing Emons' bidding, Emons allegedly has a history of cruelly keeping kids from parents; loved ones apart, it one of the reasons she was not reconfirmed a judge," said Whitnum who has provided a short analysis of Emons' words and actions in her reconfirmation hearing: .

Next in her motion to dismiss Hernandez, Whitnum sites the violation of Speedy Trial under § 54-82m as it is a stated Connecticut right. After a year of a charge on the docket, Motion for Speedy Trial followed by Motion to dismiss, one month later, and the charge is supposed to be dismissed automatically."

"Apparently not in Judge Wenzel or Judge Hernandez court," said Whitnum. "Judge Wenzel had dismissed with prejudice - a ruling that was unethical. I could not find any statutory rule that says that a judge can deny a Motion for Speedy Trial with prejudice. In the transcript (Exhibit A at I brought it up again and Judge Hernandez refused to address it."

The Motion for Speedy Trial is Connecticut's version of a 6th Amendment. The Founding Fathers created the Sixth Amendment because it is cruel to live year after year hanging in limbo, they felt it was torture. Whitnum agrees. "Judge Hernandez allowed John Whalen to torture me."

Judge Hernandez's lack of acting judiciously also cost Whitnum four years of salary as a teacher and she has never gotten back her career: Whitnum, was forced to take Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR) for time offenders for the remaining charges not nolled by Whalen.

"Innocent people should not have to take a plea deal for charges they can prove were unlawfully levied. Because I could not have a motion to dismiss heard, I was forced to take AR for the bulk of the charges rather than go to trial in Hernandez' court," said Whitnum.

And she also sites that as a final price to pay Whitnum could not work while charges were pending. "Whalen knew that and knew exactly what he was doing. Hernandez enabled him by not adjudicating; I lost four years of salary. And many, many other costs – even put in shackles."


Whitnum claims members of the judiciary kept her from her husband from May 27, 2012 until his death on October 16, 2016 – which was 4 1/2 years after his disappearance. Whitnum fought for years, non-stop, but four judges denied motion for telephone conversation, five judges denied request for production or capias that would have proven the $5 million fraudulent conveyance (Judge Emons, Judge Schofield, Judge Richards, Judge Heller and Judge Munro). Whitnum claims she was railroaded into divorce without a private conversation with her husband, and awarded not even a dime.

"The judges in the divorce, allegedly following presiding judge Jane Emon's lead, by denying the due process of the Wells Fargo transfer documents took away the only bargaining chip I had to negotiate with my husband's adult children to get him home. In criminal court, by not allowing the unlawful trespassing arrest charge to be heard was another way to keep me from my husband."

Lee Whitnum is a former Connecticut politico who ran for US Congress, the US Senate and for Governor. After ten year of political life, Whitnum retired from politics in November 2018 and formed the "Foundation for Litigant Parity" an organization dedicated to bringing the best laws from all the states to every state and to the federal judicial system "because we can't live like this."

"If we had parity of litigant's rights across states and at the federal level - if Connecticut had Alaska's laws, I never would the victim of an alleged predator like Jane Emons and Federal Judge Underhill. I could have disqualified Emons from the get-go the day she violated my right to conciliation under CGS §46(b)-53. There were no laws to protect me, a litigant, from an alleged predator who allegedly ruined my life."

Whitnum is apparently not the only life Emons has destroyed. Jane Emons on June of 2018 was the first judge in Connecticut's 275 year history who was not reconfirmed by the Connecticut Legislature. This was allegedly based on so many complaints against Emons by litigants in her courtroom including parents being kept from children, the violation of General Statues, and other antics such as screaming at litigants.

"I believe, Emons allegedly loves shaking that judicial title to get others to do her bidding - she'll pick up the phone and call anyone, it is amazing how cops who should have known better, blindly did her bidding. There seems to be very few police officers brave enough or bright enough to stand up to her. For every superstar officer like Office Thomas Keily of the Connecticut State Police who told Emons the equivalent of "lady you don't tell us who to arrest and what charges, we make that determination," you get other police agencies, prosecutors and judges like Whalen and Judge Hernandez who blindly did her bidding even when it is contrary to the evidence in front of them."

In Emons' testimony before the legislature on 2-16-2018, Senator John A. Kissel also made it clear he had gotten an earful on Whitnum via a private conversation with Emons' prior to the hearing.

"Senator Kissel actually believed Emons, the press believes Emons, other judges like Hernandez and Whalen believed Emons. How and when do I get justice? How do I get my good name back and my life back? I never rang her bell and ran."

Whitnum believes Emons is posturing to become a judge again. "My biggest fear is that Jane Emons will approach Ned Lamont in two years and get her job back. By that time these two cases against Emons will have conveniently disappeared from the Judicial Website."

Whitnum sites the fact that cases of the powerful, the state and the wealthy, routinely disappeared such as her two cases, Whitnum v. Malloy and Whitnum v Atria – are now gone. Whitnum calls it the great "whitewashing in Connecticut" the pretense of justice with no real justice happening. Whitnum believes Emons is just biding her time and will attempt to again become a judge.

"As a political candidate, I stood on a podium and debated next to Ned Lamont on more than seven occasions – until I was famously dragged off a stage for a contrived reason. My fear is that Emons will approach Ned Lamont, who probably never listened to a word I said about judicial reform. You watch, in two years, Emons will be back in business as a judge."

Whitnum blames Connecticut's media which has refused to report anything disparaging about Emons claimed she was victim of 'an angry mob.'

"Nothing could be further from the truth – Emons was not the victim of her detractors. For the Myers child, kept from his own father for two years, for the Manchanda kids kept from their father for 15 months, for my husband kept from me four years until his death, and so many others aggrieved, Ned and Susan, please, do not let Jane Emons back into power. Emons and her husband are uber rich and very powerful, don't fall for it, Just say 'no'," said Whitnum who appeals to former fellow gubernatorial candidates Ned Lamont and Susan Bysiewicz.

In court documents Whitnum has claimed on July 16, 2012 - her first day in a Connecticut Court - that Jane Emons, in an empty courtroom, allowed a political heckler into the courtroom. Whitnum has always maintained her belief that Jane Emons targeted her and set out to allegedly destroy her life, because as a political candidate, Whitnum was outspoken against the exorbitant U.S. Funding of Israel as counterproductive to the peace process and the well-being of the United States.

"Gee excuse me - I thought as a candidate I had a First Amendment right and an obligation to speak on relevant foreign policy matters."

Whitnum says she would welcome any help from any attorney for justice.


Former Politico Lee Whitnum asks for the Disqualification of Judge Alex Hernandez for Bias in Jane Emons' cases.