We need to remember that there is no Judicial immunity.
“The wording of Title 42 USC 1983 is as follows:
“EVERY PERSON WHO, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory. subjects, or causes to be subjected, ANY CITIZEN of the United States or other persona TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, privileges or immunities SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION and laws, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, equity, or any other proper proceeding for redress.
Everyone will note the the Statute does NOT say; “Every person EXCEPT JUDGES AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.” The Statute says “every person”. A judge is a person. Every employee of government is “a person.”
Therefore a judge can be held liable.
I personally think, anyone that knows better and chooses to deprive someone of their rights absolutely should be held accountable. One issue is retaliation against the ones that stand up for justice. I'm experiencing this now. My 13 yr old disabled son is in a juvenile denention center without due process I firmly believe because I stood up for my 7 yr old daughter when a MALE CPS predator went to her school and during an interview he exposed her chest then proceeded to take photographs. He was fired after I filed a complaint but now they are making an example of me
Reader Comment: I think this is beyond misogyny. I think part of the silver bullets in Connecticut are gender profiling women in family law cases. It started with the welfare reform act. Fatherhood initiative. A superficial look would make you think this is a wonderful legitimate program. The entire state is running off the memorandum of understanding for fatherhood. This goes beyond incarcerated fathers. Originally it started with the gatekeeper theory. Has moved beyond to gold diggers, malicious mommy syndrome Munchausen mother liars and some how mentally impaired. Who would not be emotional over the welfare of children. Especially your own. This is beyond O'Neil's court room. They are applying labels to women to gain leverage in family court cases. They tried to label Jennifer Dulos as a borderline personality. Again, another diagnosis associated with women. I understand your position about alienation. It's being used as a weapon in family court. They are using the emotional complexity of DV against women in Connecticut. I got locked out of a family relations hearing. When I called the family relations office I was told we were asked not to attend because of "emotional state of the parents". Shouldn't these family relations officers be competent in dealing with the emotional complexity of the family court cases? It's called " family relations". I see a pattern of profiling women especially in the last several years. Crazy, liars, just looking for child support , and the courts are blatantly ignoring children. The entire situation is tragic. Karen Riordan could find a male psychiatrist and they would find some reason to pick them apart. Thanks for continuing to report, even if we disagree about " parental alienation". There are absolutely no guidelines and ethics involved in these cases. It's a blanket term applied to just about every family court custody case where custody is contested. A lot of it goes back to the welfare reform act and responsible fatherhood.
I'm not sure about Parental Alienation one way or the other. I keep an open mind and look at the evidence and the best arguments.
But this CT Judge outlandish, and I don't think there is any defense for his bias. Moreover, twisting the definition of coercive control domestic violence is not only legally and morally wrong, but it's dangerous. Will it take dead women and children for this maniac O'Neill to realize the effect he is having on innocent victims?
We need to remember that there is no Judicial immunity.
“The wording of Title 42 USC 1983 is as follows:
“EVERY PERSON WHO, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory. subjects, or causes to be subjected, ANY CITIZEN of the United States or other persona TO THE DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, privileges or immunities SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION and laws, SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, equity, or any other proper proceeding for redress.
Everyone will note the the Statute does NOT say; “Every person EXCEPT JUDGES AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.” The Statute says “every person”. A judge is a person. Every employee of government is “a person.”
Therefore a judge can be held liable.
I personally think, anyone that knows better and chooses to deprive someone of their rights absolutely should be held accountable. One issue is retaliation against the ones that stand up for justice. I'm experiencing this now. My 13 yr old disabled son is in a juvenile denention center without due process I firmly believe because I stood up for my 7 yr old daughter when a MALE CPS predator went to her school and during an interview he exposed her chest then proceeded to take photographs. He was fired after I filed a complaint but now they are making an example of me
Reader Comment: I think this is beyond misogyny. I think part of the silver bullets in Connecticut are gender profiling women in family law cases. It started with the welfare reform act. Fatherhood initiative. A superficial look would make you think this is a wonderful legitimate program. The entire state is running off the memorandum of understanding for fatherhood. This goes beyond incarcerated fathers. Originally it started with the gatekeeper theory. Has moved beyond to gold diggers, malicious mommy syndrome Munchausen mother liars and some how mentally impaired. Who would not be emotional over the welfare of children. Especially your own. This is beyond O'Neil's court room. They are applying labels to women to gain leverage in family court cases. They tried to label Jennifer Dulos as a borderline personality. Again, another diagnosis associated with women. I understand your position about alienation. It's being used as a weapon in family court. They are using the emotional complexity of DV against women in Connecticut. I got locked out of a family relations hearing. When I called the family relations office I was told we were asked not to attend because of "emotional state of the parents". Shouldn't these family relations officers be competent in dealing with the emotional complexity of the family court cases? It's called " family relations". I see a pattern of profiling women especially in the last several years. Crazy, liars, just looking for child support , and the courts are blatantly ignoring children. The entire situation is tragic. Karen Riordan could find a male psychiatrist and they would find some reason to pick them apart. Thanks for continuing to report, even if we disagree about " parental alienation". There are absolutely no guidelines and ethics involved in these cases. It's a blanket term applied to just about every family court custody case where custody is contested. A lot of it goes back to the welfare reform act and responsible fatherhood.
I'm not sure about Parental Alienation one way or the other. I keep an open mind and look at the evidence and the best arguments.
But this CT Judge outlandish, and I don't think there is any defense for his bias. Moreover, twisting the definition of coercive control domestic violence is not only legally and morally wrong, but it's dangerous. Will it take dead women and children for this maniac O'Neill to realize the effect he is having on innocent victims?
Reader Comment: How are corrupt judges allowed to keep jobs???He is a a disease on.the public and a disgrace to the legal community.