Watch your mouth. That was the message from the Connecticut Bar Association’s three top leaders to the organization’s thousands of members, of which I’m one. The June 13 statement was prompted by perpetually aggrieved Donald Trump supporters hurling abuse at prosecutors, jurors and Judge Juan Merchan after the former president’s conviction this month on 34 counts of violating New York law through a 2016 hush money scheme.

The CBA officers, Maggie Castinado, James T. Shearin and Emily A. Gianquinto, condemned but did not name public officials who issued statements calling the trial a sham, hoax, and rigged; abused Judge Merchan as corrupt and unethical; and claimed the jury was partisan and in the bag for guilty verdicts from the start.

The statement excoriated social media posts seeking to breach the confidentiality of the jurors’ identity. What it did not allege is that any Connecticut lawyers were participating in these assaults on the rule of law. Near its conclusion, the trio’s homily got to the point. “It is up to us, as lawyers,” they wrote, “to defend the courts and our judges. As individuals, and as an Association, we cannot let the charged political climate in which we live dismantle the third branch of government. To remain silent renders us complicit in that effort.”

And then U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a lawyer, had to go and spoil it all three days later by unleashing the same type of hyperbole. He called the Supreme Court “brazenly corrupt and brazenly political” on CNN. Murphy added that Justice Clarence Thomas is “just a grift,” while Justice Samuel Alito is an open political partisan.

As of Friday, the civility umpires at the CBA had issued no statement chiding Murphy.

The CBA is familiar with silence at crucial moments. Six years ago, a mob of antisemites targeted the renomination of Judge Jane Emons to the Superior Court. Judge Emons was the target of appalling rhetoric. The CBA released no thunderbolts as the House of Representatives refused to vote on her renomination, forcing her off the bench.

A few years ago, I wrote about Alice Bruno, a Connecticut judge who failed to show up for work for two years while continuing to receive her salary and benefits. Emails showed plenty of people knew that Judge Bruno had been missing in action, but they remained silent. Bruno’s fate was decided in a secret proceeding when she was granted a disability pension that currently pays her more than $5,000 every two weeks. She worked, often erratically, as a Superior Court judge for only four years before she stopped showing up in 2019.

Before becoming a judge, Bruno did an 18-month stint as executive director of the Connecticut Bar Association. It remained silent throughout the Bruno saga, which undermined the public’s confidence in the judiciary.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published a sensational investigation into the appalling saga of a federal bankruptcy judge and his personal relationship with lawyer Elizabeth Freeman, who had been his law partner and clerk in Houston. One of the nation’s biggest law firms, Kirkland & Ellis, brought in Freeman to work with it on cases before her boyfriend, Judge David R. Jones.

An anonymous letter lit the fuse on exposing the shocking conflicts at work in the nation’s busiest bankruptcy court. Michael Van Deelan, a small investor in a firm that filed for bankruptcy in the Houston court, believed he had not been treated fairly in the shakeout of the company. Van Deelan received a copy of the letter and filed it with the court in an attempt to have Jones disqualified from his case. Van Deelan’s motion was denied and the letter was sealed from public view, the Journal reported.

Van Deelan discovered through an internet search that Jones and Freeman owned a house together since 2017. Plenty of lawyers appear to have known that the two were engaged in a romantic relationship. To expose it would have ended a sweet arrangement that was a bonanza for the firms and their bankruptcy clients who brought Freeman in on their cases.

No one said a word. Only Van Deelan, a 74-year-old retired math teacher, brought justice where corruption ruled. It took an Appellate Court judge only a week to find probable cause by Jones for failing to disclose his relationship with Freeman. He resigned.

It requires no courage for bar association leaders to condemn those discreditable officials who donned red ties and made pilgrimages to New York to stand outside the courthouse to mewl and whine that the justice system was targeting the loathsome demagogue, Donald Trump.

To shine a searing light when something goes wrong in the judicial branch of government when no one is paying attention— that’s what protects the integrity of the system.

Kevin Rennie can be reached at kfrennie@yahoo.com

When it comes to the cost of utilities, Mainers can’t catch a break.

This week, the Maine Public Utilities Commission announced new rate hikes to subsidize Gov. Janet Mills’ green energy transition. The new rates will have consumers paying an extra $15.50 a month to keep the lights on. With many Mainers already stocking up on winter heating oil – which remains priced at $3.00 to $4.90 per gallon – and interest rates reaching the highest levels in a decade, the rate hikes could not have come at a worse time for Maine ratepayers.

Maine’s climate action plan, “Maine Won’t Wait,” earmarks billions of dollars for clean transportation, clean energy, climate resilience and other schemes like developing “climate-friendly building materials.” This most recent rate increase will go directly to pay the $179.3 million owed to solar developers – a 47% increase from the previous year.

Though companies like Central Maine Power blame their increasing rates on market volatility, the primary factor of these high rates is the governor’s requirement that utilities purchase power from solar projects at a fixed rate. The MPUC blamed a previous price hike in 2022 on fossil fuel market volatility, despite the government’s price fixes being in their second year under a Democratic majority. Even more telling, energy developers, manufacturers, renewable energy companies and the Maine Renewable Energy Association all opposed the latest rate hike, pointing out to regulators that the latest rate increase would be unfair to ratepayers.

To reach Gov. Mills’ goals of carbon neutrality by 2045, energy companies need to target the 91% of greenhouse gas emissions that come from energy consumption in Maine. That means Mainers will pay more for basic household functions like staying cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Similar climate schemes to attract more clean-energy jobs to the state by developing offshore wind power alongside inefficient solar power – despite opposition from the state’s well-known lobster industry – show that ratepayers will be the ones hurt the most from these policies. It’s telling that the only parties in support of this week’s rate hike are government agencies like the Office of the Public Advocate and Efficiency Maine Trust, the latter of which exists to “lower the cost and environmental impacts of energy in Maine.”

Instead of subsidizing solar power and burying ratepayers under crushing costs, Maine needs cheap, reliable sources of energy. The United States’ emissions peaked at 6,000 million metric tons of CO2 almost 20 years ago. Residential and commercial emissions are lower than those from electric power, transportation and industrial sectors.

Yet Maine, which is ranked in the bottom 10 states in the U.S. in terms of population and population density, is placing the financial costs of the state’s climate plans on its own residents’ utility bills. Maine’s contribution to national U.S. emissions is minuscule at best. Expecting Mainers to believe that by having the state achieve carbon neutrality, damaging storms will end and the planet will be saved is just not true.

Maine could become carbon-neutral tomorrow and still it would have no impact on worldwide climate change. Sticking Maine ratepayers with a higher bill to achieve a climate goal will not prevent more damaging storms from hitting Maine. Further increasing the cost of living will only drive younger Mainers from the state in search of more affordable places to live with better job opportunities.

When the clean-energy companies oppose rate hikes that will go to paying their own costs, it’s a sign that this rate hike is misguided. If basic utilities continue to significantly add to the cost of living, ratepayers will begin to look for cheaper places to live, to the detriment of Maine and its clean energy development.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Next »

Initial filings for unemployment benefits in Massachusetts rose last week compared with the week prior, the U.S. Department of Labor said Thursday.

New jobless claims, a proxy for layoffs, increased to 5,183 in the week ending June 15, up from 4,870 the week before, the Labor Department said.

U.S. unemployment claims dropped to 238,000 last week, down 5,000 claims from 243,000 the week prior on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Delaware saw the largest percentage increase in weekly claims, with claims jumping by 131.2%. Virgin Islands, meanwhile, saw the largest percentage drop in new claims, with claims dropping by 54.7%.

The USA TODAY Network is publishing localized versions of this story on its news sites across the country, generated with data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s weekly unemployment insurance claims report.