Whitnum asks Hon. Povodator to recuse in Emons, Whalen case

Politico Lee Whitnum is seeking justice against Prosecutor John Whalen and disgraced former Judge Jane Emons in three cases all stemming from the alleged June 22, 2013 ring-and-run at Jane Emons house, which Whitnum calls “an absolute lie.” In Federal District Court on November 1, 2018 Judge Kari Dooley voluntarily stepped down from Whitnum v. Woodbridge Police case due to a working relationship with Jane Emons. Whitnum is asking the same respect from all Superior Court judges who have a relationship with Emons or who harmed Whitnum in the past. This week, Whitnum is asking Judge Povodator, to step down. Whitnum is fighting for justice against a Judiciary seemingly committed to protecting the state players.

“I’m asking every judge who had a hand in keeping me from my infirmed husband, or denying me a stated right, to step down from any of my cases," said Whitnum who is referring specifically to Whitnum v. State of Connecticut of case FSTCV165015817. The Motion to Disqualify hearing scheduled for November 19, 2018 by Judge Kenneth Povodator. In the motion to disqualify Whitnum cites Alaskan law 22.20.022 as no such right to disqualify a judge exists in Connecticut.

“Judge Povodator worked with defendant Jane Emons for four years and he has also harmed me in the past,” said Whitnum who dropped the Whitnum v. Atria Management case because Judge Povodator refused to step down, adding, "I was certainly owed something from the Atria Corporation for being kept from my own husband and being unlawfully arrested. I’d like Judge Povodator to please step down from anything having to do with me.”

Whitnum in her Motion to Disqualify refers to the August 17, 2017 transcript in the Whitnum v. Atria Management Company FST-CV13-5014028-S case and points out that Judge Povodator had admitted on the record that he was privy to gossip about Whitnum. In the August 17, 2017 transcript Whitnum asked for the Disqualification of Judge Povodator from the case based on the fact that he was one of several judges who kept Whitnum from her infirmed husband.

“Not only does Judge Povodator admit to the scuttlebutt, he later admits in the transcript that he made his ruling to not Order the Atria director to give a note to my husband based on a faulty belief, a belief clearly gleamed from the scuttlebutt.

Whitnum first asked for Judge Povodator to step down based on his refusal to allow a written note access to husband. In the August 17, 2017 on line page 44 Judge Povodator says “Well, what does -- that has nothing to do with anything --” to which a flabbergasted Whitnum felt no choice but to drop the Whitnum v. Atria Management Company case.

“At the time Judge Povodator knew how long I had been fighting for access to my husband. He stated that it was ‘Nothing to do with anything!’ This was my entire life. Nothing to him, everything to me,” said Whitnum who adds, “What happened to my husband and I was a travesty.”

Because Whitnum could not get Judge Povodator off the Whitnum v. Atria Management case, Whitnum dropped the case. Adding, “I’m not going to trial with a judge who admits to hearing scuttlebutt, refuses to see how his lack of ruling impacted my life and then refuses to step down.”

Whitnum dropped the Whitnum v. Atria Management case making it clear in her withdrawal that it was because Judge Povodator would not step down. The Whitnum v. Atria Management case has since disappeared from the judicial record, to which Whitnum states. “It is all part of the great whitewashing at the behest of the powerful. The appearance in Connecticut of justice, with no real justice happening.”

Whitnum is facing a similar issue here in the Whitnum v. State of Connecticut. She is again asking for Judge Povodator to step down due to their past history and also because he worked with the defendant, Jane Emons for four years.

In Whitnum v. State of Connecticut Whitnum is seeking an investigation to prove criminal wrongdoing. In Whitnum v. State of Connecticut, Whitnum was denied the right to sue the state by the Claims Commission and she testified before the legislature for the ability to sue the state.

“I did everything correctly and in a timely manner, but the State of Connecticut will find any contrived reason to deny its citizens the ability to sue the state,” said Whitnum who testified before the legislature but was still denied. That testimony is viewable at:

But Whitnum is continuing to seek justice in Whitnum v. State of Connecticut against Prosecutor John Whalen and disgraced former judge Jane Emons and she has filed an Application for Investigation under CGS 54-47c to prove alleged criminal frame by Emons and Whalen but Whitnum does not believe Judge Povodator can be non-biased for several reasons including his relationship with Jane Emons, a defendant in this matter.

“Ok so the Claims Commission used a contrived reason to deny me the ability to sue the state for damages, fine I’d still like the investigation to prove criminal wrong-doing by Emons and Whalen, can I please get a judge to appoint the 3-judge panel to look at the evidence and issue a ruling on whether I was criminally framed?” asks Whitnum adding, “In my opinion, the Application for Investigation under CGS 54-47c is the closest thing we have in this state to a grand jury.”

Whitnum is referring to the fact the Connecticut Grand jury was eliminated in 1984.

Whitnum does not believe Judge Povodator, based on her past experience with him, can be non-biased in this matter and does not believe he will appoint the three-judge panel to investigate. Whitnum partially doesn’t fault Judge Povodator for it, “If I worked for four years with someone, I myself would probably find it difficult to make a ruling against them. Judge Povodator worked with Emons for four years and I’m asking him to step down based on his relationship with defendant Emons and the disservice he has done to me in the past. I need some justice here,” said Whitnum.

In the Motion to Disqualify and other court documents Whitnum claims that Judge Povodator was one of several judges who, directly or indirectly, enabled the self-interested, Whitnum’s former husband’s adult children. Whitnum claims her husband’s $5 million portfolio was fraudulently conveyed during the marriage into a trust controlled by his children without the couple’s consent. Whitnum was next denied all contact with her infirmed husband, and railroad into divorce without even a private conversation.

Whitnum blames all of her woes in family court and criminal court on one person: Jane Emons who is the defendant in the case. Whitnum alleges in court documents, Emons violated her right to court-ordered conciliation with her own husband, due process production of financials and other rights. And that Emons then allegedly falsely claimed Whitnum rang her bell and ran on the morning of June 22, 2013 - a charge Whitnum calls an "absolute lie" Whitnum could prove her innocence, with phone records – obtained via federal subpoena, but none of the criminal court judges would hear a motion to dismiss.

“God was with me; on the night of June 22, 2013 I was two hours away in New York City. Any other night and I’d have no alibi and I’d be in prison now – which is damn frightening,” said Whitnum who is seeking justice against Whalen and Emons in Superior Court.

“I believe Emons set out to destroy my life for personal or political reasons, because as a candidate I spoke out against the US funding of Israel,” said Whitnum. “I believe I can prove Emons and Whalen framed me; CGS 54-47c claims I have the right to seek justice, I need a judge who will act and I don’t believe Judge Povodator will do so,” said Whitnum. “The law exists only if there are judges willing to enforce it.”

Apparently Emons destroyed more lives than just Whitnum’s. In June 2018, for the first time 275 years, a judge was not rubber-stamped in by the Legislature. Due to overwhelming complaints by parents kept from children, people aggrieved, members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, and lawyers, the Legislature in June 2018 refused to vote to reconfirm Judge Jane Emons. One group of parents had actually funded a billboard on Route 91 against Emons reconfirmation.

“It took a tremendous amount of effort by many, many aggrieved people to get Emons out of power, it shouldn’t be so hard.” said Whitnum. “There exists no systems to get rid of bad judges; to wait 8 years is too long. A judge can do a lot of damage in that time.” Whitnum has accused Emons of destroying her life.

Whitnum has two cases in Superior Court cases in Stamford that go directly to the ring-and-run allegation. One case Whitnum v. Emons, FST CV-15-5014842-S

is directly against Emons personally for the alleged criminal frame. Whitnum v. State of Connecticut FSTCV165015817 is against the State, Emons, and Whalen.

Whitnum was made to appear for 41 criminal court appearances over 3 ½ years and Whitnum, in the two lawsuits, claims that John Whalen not only 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 public at: https://www.leewhitnum.com/pro...

“It took 3 ½ years to work through the criminal court system because the two presiding criminal court judges Judge Wenzel and Judge Hernandez both refused to hear any of four motions to dismiss on the merits,” said Whitnum who accused both judges of allowing Whalen to use the court system to torture. “It was torture, they kept me from my husband, and from my teaching job for four years as I was not allowed to work with pending charges. I lived for years believing I was going to jail for crimes I did not commit, could prove I did not commit but no judge would hear my motions to dismiss,” said Whitnum.

Whitnum who was facing 14 years in jail took an accelerated rehabilitation plea deal in December of 2016 for fear of being railroaded into jail in the same way she was railroaded into divorce. Whitnum asks, “How many other people in this state have taken a plea because they cannot get a motion to dismiss, with evidence, heard?”

Whitnum. says the first clue to widespread gossip about her in the Stamford Courthouse came from Lisa Steven, public defender, in 2013. “Lisa Stevens told me that she needed to get me out of the Stamford Courthouse because the judges had already decided ‘they are not going to give you anything.’

“I remember replying. ‘What do the judges do, sit around the lunch room and decide ahead of time who is to prevail and who isn’t.”

“Hearsay is a big problem, lies on the internet are a big problem especially by supposed reliable sources,” said Whitnum. “Think of how much damage a powerful person hell-bent to ruin your life can do if they have the ear of judges who have unchecked power.”

Whitnum claims that in the six years of legal hell, four judges made reference in one way or another of being privy to hearsay or a circulated file about Whitnum: Judge Arnold, Judge Hernandez, Judge Stodolink and Judge Povodator.

“They let it slip in court, information not presented in any of the pleadings,” said Whitnum. “The gossip seemly rampant. I have transcripts.”

Whitnum believes someone has worked very hard behind the scenes to make sure the judges got an earful on Whitnum long before Whitnum walked into the court house. Whitnum alleges it might have been Emons but has no proof.

“During Emons Reconfirmation hearing several people implied that they felt Emons worked behind the scenes to harm them,” said Whitnum. “I believe she did that to me.”

Whitnum believes the judges have done Jane Emons bidding in the past and that Judge Povodator will do Emons’ bidding now. Whitnum sites the August 21, 2017 transcript and Judge Povodator’s admittance on the record:

“Judge Povodator specifically stated on the record that he has received an earful long before I walked into the courtroom. Stating on the record on page 32 of the August 17, 2017 transcript in the Whitnum v. Atria Management case:

“My Recollection, I recall the motion because I recall thinking to myself how polite you were because people had told me that I should have low expectations. I remember being impressed –...”

And then later Judge Povodator acknowledged the hearsay again in another part of the transcript stating:

“-- I remember that someone had said something and I don't -- that you had been disruptive in other proceedings, and therefore, I was -- wouldn’t have been surprised if it happened. But I do remember thinking to myself, whoever had said something about that, I didn’t see the slightest bit of it; you were very polite, very well be- --“

Whitnum was shocked by Povodator’s admittance. “Low expectations” and “disruptive” - oh my God, I have been extraordinary well-behaved considering what was done to me by judges in the State of Connecticut,” said Whitnum.

Whitnum lists the denial of rights and the amount she has suffered. “They took my right to conciliation with my husband, four judges denied due process and in doing so took way the only bargaining chip I had to negotiate with my husband's powerful children to get him home, I was denied Motion for Telephone Conversation with my infirmed husband by four judges –even criminals get a phone call but not this married couple, next I was unlawfully charged with crimes and facing 14 years in jail for crimes that were either not crimes, or crimes orchestrated by the statewide prosecutor’s office, I was railroaded into divorce and award not even a dime despite being married to a man worth $5 million. I’ve been extraordinarily well-behaved considering what I have been through.” Adds Whitnum, “can I please have some justice now. It has been six long years.”

Whitnum says that she wishes she could go back in time to the first day she felt the bite of injustice on July 16, 2012 when Judge Jane Emons, with a political heckler in the courtroom, denied Whitnum’s Motion for Conciliation which had already neen granted by the clerk Robert Vallacis.

“Emons quashed my court-ordered right to conciliation on July 16, 2012, I should have immediately hired a Blackwater team to rescue my infirmed husband and whisked him up to Canada. Instead I relied on the court system because I foolishly believed in justice. What a mistake. My advice to anyone reading this: until Connecticut evolves to Alaska’s level do not think for one minute you will get justice in a Connecticut court.

Despite, Whitnum is hoping to be proven wrong – she is still seeking justice via an Application for Investigation under CGS 54-47c Whitnum v. State of Connecticut and she is asking Judge Povodator to step down.

Whitnum a former political candidate has posted 20 bills on her website leewhitnum.com to clean up the Connecticut judiciary claiming, “this state has no checks and balances to guard against judicial denial of stated rights and so the judges violate the Practice Book and rules of ethics all of the time. We need to evolve to Alaska’s level.”

Whitnum cited Alaskan law 22.20.022, because there exists no such provision in the State of Connecticut for the Peremptory Disqualification of a Judge and the Alaskan Recall provision in the Alaskan Constitution to recall a judge. “If we had these two rights my troubles never would have happened as I would have had the ability to disqualify Emons after the July 16, 2016 hearing and, the fear of recall would make all the judges do it by the book.”

###