Candidate for Governor (D) 2018
Paid for and authorized by Citizens for Lee Whitnum.
The U.S. Supreme Court has Refused to hear Politico Lee Whitnum’s Divorce Appeal, Whitnum blames Connecticut Judges and their Repeated Denial of Stated Rights
2018 October - Candidate for Governor Lee Whitnum’s divorce appeal to the US Supreme Court has been denied. In a letter dated October 10, 2017 in case No. 16-8757, Lee Whitnum’s last attempt to get justice was denied. Whitnum blames Judge Jane Emons, Assistant Chief State’s Prosecutor John Whalen and Federal Judge Underhill for the destruction of her marriage.
“I am crestfallen, “said Whitnum. In the last leg of this appeal a Petition for Rehearing, Whitnum argued that Judge Jane Emons and her tag-team buddy Assistant Chief State’s Prosecutor John Whalen set Whitnum up for incarceration and that Whalen refused to adjudicate more than nine criminal charges against Whitnum dragging Whitnum, first time offender, into criminal court more than 41 times over 3 ½ years. Whitnum also named Federal Judge Underhill in the case for his part for the refusal to rule on an injunction in case 3:15-CV-0959 that would have forced Whalen to dismiss the charges or go immediately to trial. In that federal case Whalen and Emons are named parties.
“Federal Underhill could have forced Whalen to bring to immediate trial or drop the charges but that injunction in case 3:15-cv-0959 remains unruled upon to this day,” said Whitnum. “What is the point of having a federal case and a 6th Amendment Constitutional right if you can’t get a federal judge to enforce it?”
In case 3:15-CV-0959 Whalen and Emons were named parties. On 07/27/2015 Whitnum filed an EMERGENCY MOTION for Injunction but remains unanswered to this day as Federal Judge Underhill clearly refused to rule upon it.
“By not forcing Whalen, a named defendant, to bring me to trial, Federal Judge Underhill allowed Whalen to use the court system to torture me? Can you imagine 41 criminal court appearances? Six motions to dismiss that would not be heard by any of the judges in the Norwalk Courthouse. The judges all deferred to Assistant Chief State’s Prosecutor John Whalen who used the court system to torture me. Even at the federal level, I could not get Judge Underhill to stand up to Whalen and enforce my Constitutional Right. It cost me ever seeing my husband again, four years of employment and was absolute torture.”
Whitnum describes Federal Judge Underhill as the most despicable in this matter. “It is funny, said Whitnum; I don’t hate Judge Jane Emons. I believe I understand her motivation, she is political and she perceives me as not pro-Israel. Whalen's motivation is that he and Emons are long term friends and he is using his power to protect her. I get it. But for Federal Judge Underhill this is personal due to my drawing attention to the massacre of the 500 Greenwich Indians in 1644 by his 11 generation great grandfather. He should have stepped down a long time ago as he cannot be a fair dealer when it comes to me.”
In Court documents Whitnum alleges that Whalen allegedly falsified Statewide Prosecutor’s Report #2013-0203 in order to set her up. Judge Underhill has refused to compel the evidence. "Gee what a surprise," said Whitnum.
At the US Supreme Court Whitnum was asking for the overturn of her divorce. After more than 30 briefs filed at the Connecticut Appellate Court and Supreme Court, Whitnum appealed to the US Supreme Court. She was asking that based on the denial of her rights the overturn of her divorce and widow status based on two main prongs: 1. unlawfulness of the Connecticut Judiciary who violated her rights by repeatedly by denying all contact between Whitnum and her infirmed husband, 2. the Statewide Prosecutor’s Office role, by refusing to adjudicate, in keeping Whitnum and her husband apart so that self-interested people could railroad them into divorce.
Whitnum claims on May 26, 2012 her troubles began when in their Stamford marital residence, Whitnum and her husband James Baker learned that Baker’s $5 million portfolio had been transferred into a trust controlled by his children. The transfer was without the consent of neither Baker nor his wife. Baker distraught appeared to have a nervous breakdown. He then fell in the bathtub.
“My husband’s identity was his portfolio when it was suddenly gone he fell apart,” said Whitnum. “I blame the judges for enabling third parties.”
The couple vowed to fight and Baker returned to his old residence, Atria, Darien (where he has already given notice) to retrieve his art work and Whitnum never saw him again. Family Court Judge Jane Emons denied court ordered conciliation and subpoena to bring Baker in. Five judges denied Request for Production and Capias.
“Being able to prove the fraudulently conveyance was the only bargaining chip I had to negotiate with the powerful children to bring my infirmed husband home. Five judges in their unlawfulness knew exactly what they were doing when they denied due process of the financial. They took away the only bargaining chip I had,” said Whitnum
Whitnum also blamed in the Petition for Rehearing and the role of the Darien Police Department in not enforcing the married couple's right to be left alone.
“It was the perfect storm: a politically motivated judge, Judge Jane Emons, quashed my conciliation and my subpoena on July 16, 2012 which would have enabled me to see my husband. Emons then, I believe, circulated a file about me around the courthouse. The other judges following Emon's lead. I was denied all contact with my husband - even phone and mail contact. Emons claimed I rang-her-bell and ran and had me arrested. Prosecutor Whalen, Emon’s old friend was enlisted. The ring-and-run was a lie, and a testament to how much damage one politically motivated judge can do,” said Whitnum. “Jane Emons set out to destroy my life and she did.”
Whitnum also blames the Darien Police for not knowing the stated law and unlawfully charging Whitnum with trespass when she went to see her own husband. Baker was never informed his wife was there.
“The Darien Police did not know the law or didn’t care,” said Whitnum as the unlawful trespassing charge by not being adjudicated by Whalen enabled the Darien Police and Atria to keep Whitnum from her infirmed husband.
“Federal Judge Underhill could have stopped all of it but he refused to rule, the Long-Term Care Ombudsman’s office refused to intervene, the Family Services group denied me a conciliation meeting, Kevin Kane and two criminal court judges refused to pull Whalen off the case,” said Whitnum. “So many state players dropped the ball. Isn’t there any judge or State employee in Connecticut who does it by the book?”
Whitnum has two other cases against Whalen and Emons in the Superior Court but the judges have refused to hear her Application for Investigation under CGS 54-47c in cases: WHITNUM LISA LEWHITNUM, LISA v. EMONS, JANE FST-CV-15-5014842-S, WHITNUM L.LEE, WHITNUM,L.LEE v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT FST-CV-16-5015817-S.
“Connecticut is lawless land as judges and everyone from the Statewide Prosecutor’s office are free to run amok because there is no enforcement at the highest levels,” said Whitnum. “We need to restore the grand jury in Connecticut and we need to have the ability to fire judges and state employees who violate the rules and procedures of their jobs.”
Whitnum had filed more than 20 briefs at the Appellate and Supreme Court in Connecticut. All were ignored without one word of explanation which then prompted Whitnum to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court were it was again ignored. "Shame on the U.S. Supreme Court," said Whitnum. "Connecticut is as corrupt as it can possibly be, I thought they would be better."
Whitnum's efforts were fruitless and despite trying in every legal avenue she could, her husband James Baker died on October 16, 2016. The last private conversation Whitnum had with him was on June 18, 2012. Whitnum had fought for 4 1/2 years to be able to speak with him in private and was denied. "The powerful people above knew exactly what I was asking and they purposefully tied me up in legal knots," said Whitnum. "They did this for political and personal reasons."