Foundation for Litigant Parity


Whitnum Calls Conviction of Creating a Public Disturbance an example of Justice in the “Unlawful State of Connecticut.”

Greenwich resident Lee Whitnum was found guilty of creating a public disturbance following a one-day trial Tuesday in State Superior Court in Norwalk which Whitnum calls justice in the “Unlawful State of Connecticut.” She will now be required to pay a $90 fine. Whitnum claims the only disturbance was by the Judicial Marshal (herein Marshal V) who violently, unjustifiably threw her up against the wall.

"Video doesn't lie," said Whitnum but it fell on deaf ears as Judge Wenzel still ruled in favor of Marshal V. “The videotape is proof positive the events did not go down the way Marshal V claimed they did. “

Marshal V’s rendition of the events that led up to Whitnum being thrown against a wall from behind and arrested amounted to well over 4 1/5 minutes at the most conservative. At the trial Whitnum presented a video disc from the Judicial Marshal Service that proved that Marshal V was in the library less than 2 minutes before Whitnum was led out with restraints..

“The video proved it did not go down the way Marshal V described,” said Whitnum who blames all of it on two reasons:  1. an abuse of the marshal service by judges, and judicial staff and, 2.  The injustice by judges she has endured which pre-disposed Marshal V to hatred and violence toward her.

At the trial Marshal V testified to the accuracy of his own words in the State Police Report and the Judicial Marshal Report.  Whitnum and a friend, timed the words.    

”We timed how long it would take to cross a 75 foot room, we timed Marshal V’s alleged words. It came to 4 1/5 minutes at the fastest.  But Marshal V was only in the library for less than two minutes. This was presented in open court and Judge Wenzel then viewed the video.  It didn’t matter, Wenzel ruled in Marshal V’s favor and provided no explanation.”

Whitnum’s rendition of events; she saw Marshal V approaching, looking furious, she got up and never stopped her gait toward the door. “Marshal V grabbed me from behind and threw me against the wall.”

Whitnum blames Marshal V’s unnecessary violence on his pre-disposed hatred toward her based on his words in the police report that he is “well acquainted” with her behavior in the courtroom. Whitnum blames Judge Jane Emons for that.  

 “Marshal V stated in his report that he was “well acquainted with me” due to past behavior in the courtroom.  On the witness stand he didn’t know about the Practice Book.  All he knows is that I’m a woman who comes in and fights with the judges.  In his mind I’m a trouble maker.  What he doesn’t understand is the injustice I’ve endured in the courtroom as Judge Jane Emons denied due process, subpoena, conciliation and all access to my then husband.  Emons and her minions, kept me from my infirmed husband, railroaded us into divorce and made sure I got not even a dime in settlement.  The judges made sure that I was denied all contact with him, even after we were divorce, not even a phone call, so that the self-interested would prevail.”

Whitnum also blames the abuse of judicial marshals by judicial staff and judges. At trial the law librarian, testified that six months prior she had in facts sent the marshals to detain Whitnum for “pocket change.”

“Can you imagine," said Whitnum. “I was detained like a criminal by three marshals in the crowded lobby of the Stamford Court house for owing a dime! A dime! This to a library where I go every day.  Is it really worth humiliating someone for a dime you can easily get the next day!  Really?” Whitnum claims it was the same librarian who called Marshal V on the day of the arrest. 

Whitnum was further damaged as 53 media organization widely misreported she had bit or tried to bite a marshal as the reason for the arrest. Marshal V admitted on the witness stand that Whitnum had not bit him. “Seriously, I don’t routinely go around snapping my jaws at people,” said Whitnum. ”How did my arm get so close to his mouth that he was worried that I might bite him? Oh that’s right because he grabbed me, threw me against a wall and pinned me against the wall.”

Whitnum, at the time of all of the above, was a 50+, and a cancer survivor, “There was no reason on that day. None. This was a brutal physical manifestation of the indignities I have suffered every day for five years in the Connecticut Court system.  A free-for-all system where sadistic or politically motivated  judges gang up and target people. They violate the Practice Book or the Constitution daily. The physical pain was nothing compared to the pain of being kept from my only husband, by the judges.”