Accused Deaf Rapist’s Mom Interprets at His Hearing
I took a double take when I read this article reporting the rape trial hearing of a deaf person who has been accused of raping his younger deaf classmate. The accused rapist’s mom was interpreting that rape trial.
“They developed a friendship, which developed into a relationship that was fully consensual,” Faugno said following Monday’s brief court hearing, in which Lazarus’ mother served as a sign language interpreter
NorthJersey.com: providing local news, sports & classifieds for Northern New Jersey!
How can any hearing person honestly think this interpreting arrangement would be suitable? Can they ever think a mother can maintain her neutrality while interpreting in the court setting where her son is being tried for a rape??
How is the alleged rape victim going to feel when she accuses the interpreter’s son of rape while looking at her face? Can the mother not flinch? What stops the mother from attempting to use her interpreting skills to sway the jury in favor of her son?
Good Grief. That takes the cake!
This also reflects the very low value of hearing people not only on the needs of Deaf people, but also their dignity and integrity.
Hat tip to Alison Krafton of DeafDC.com DeafDC Blog » Deafness Trumps Rape in New Jersey Newspaper
P.S. I made some correction, when I realized it was a hearing, not a trial, thanks to an alert commenter. When will I learn never to blog early in the morning?
However, the enormity of the interpreter impropriety still stands. A big no no
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
I took a double take when I read this article reporting the rape trial hearing of a deaf person who has been accused of raping his younger deaf classmate. The accused rapist’s mom was interpreting that rape trial.
“They developed a friendship, which developed into a relationship that was fully consensual,” Faugno said following Monday’s brief court hearing, in which Lazarus’ mother served as a sign language interpreter
NorthJersey.com: providing local news, sports & classifieds for Northern New Jersey!
How can any hearing person honestly think this interpreting arrangement would be suitable? Can they ever think a mother can maintain her neutrality while interpreting in the court setting where her son is being tried for a rape??
How is the alleged rape victim going to feel when she accuses the interpreter’s son of rape while looking at her face? Can the mother not flinch? What stops the mother from attempting to use her interpreting skills to sway the jury in favor of her son?
Good Grief. That takes the cake!
This also reflects the very low value of hearing people not only on the needs of Deaf people, but also their dignity and integrity.
Hat tip to Alison Krafton of DeafDC.com DeafDC Blog » Deafness Trumps Rape in New Jersey Newspaper
P.S. I made some correction, when I realized it was a hearing, not a trial, thanks to an alert commenter. When will I learn never to blog early in the morning?
However, the enormity of the interpreter impropriety still stands. A big no no
email contact: mishkazena@aol.com
February 18th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Removed by the request of Phil Moos
February 18th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Ridiculous! I can’t even believe that people of this “education” level can’t see that a member of the family is inappropriate. Oh wait.. scratch that.. I can believe it. I’ve been living with that my whole life.
Gonna post on my business blog, thanks for the info!
February 18th, 2008 at 10:45 am
It goes backward on Kobe Bryant’s saga.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
The defense lawyer needs his head examined and possibly also disbarred for incompetence. The fact that the defendant’s mother is interpreting can be grounds for a mistrial or later dismissal of the case even if the court finds in his favor. The justice system we have cannot work properly in such conditions.
If the case were to be dismissed on grounds that the sex was consensual, the interpreter situation could cause problems later on when people get accused of incompetence.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:00 am
It is terrible and very bad. I cannot understand why the justice system has allowed that! It is an horrible miscarriage!
As Regional Director of the Canadian Hearing Society Regionl office, I would never allow that. My staff and freelance interpreters are highly trained and understand code of ethics that is set by national level of AVLIC (Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada).
For that case, it is totally wrong. No questions asked!
Deafchip
February 18th, 2008 at 11:20 am
To Dianrez’s comment: “The defense lawyer needs his head examined and possibly also disbarred for incompetence.”
My friend, when it comes to Deaf people, hearing people can be incompetent. People are incompetent everywhere in every type of circumstance, in the judical system, in the workplace, in the educational system (mainstream), and any place where a Deaf person can be found, in midst of a perplexed society.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:24 am
This begs the question:
How much longer will we continue to test our luck with lousy deaf leadership from the old deaf guards?
February 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I read that in DC blog last night. I’m stunned about having a mom interpreting in the court. It’s most biased and unethical.
Dianarez, it’s not only a defense lawyer….it should be at the whole court’s fault because it is the court’s responsibility to ensure that each deaf person has a certified interpreter. Mostly likely it is the judge, I’m sure.
I’d like to know if that case is still on going or over? If it is still on going, we need NAD to take a look into that. That trial should be declared a mistrial ASAP.
Misha
February 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Oh, I forgot to add one more thing….
If the trial is over, the defense lawyer can file an appeal on the grounds of unethical conduct on getting a wrong kind of interpreter.
Misha
February 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Very unethical and conflict of intrest. Should get another interpreters who has no role or intimacy relationship with CLIENT. BIG mistake!
I rather tie my shoe, not my mother.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The prosecutor should have stopped the court and tell the judge to get a real interpreter in accordance with the ADA law. Apparently this prosecutor allowed the court be resumed. This prosecutor must be very dumb for not knowing about ADA law.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Very interesting article and hard to believe that this happening and why it is happening.
However, it is not as serious as one would think. It is in the pre-trial stage where the Judge formally charge him with second degree assault and endangering the welfare of the child. The defendant has the options of pleading innocent or guilty in which in this case he pleaded not guilty. There are no jurors to sway nor is the victim in the room during the pre-trial.
Now once the trial start and the defendant mother is still interpreting, then we have a very serious problem. However I doubt it very much this will happen. We do not know if the defendant wanted his mother to interpret the pre-trial setting in which only the Judge, DA, the defendant lawyer, the defendant himself and the inpreter(mother) were in that room when all of this happened.
So before we jump the gun, let wait and see how the interpreting arrangement are handled during the trial which is the most important part in all of this.
Thanks
February 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I mentioned this interpreter arrangement in the January 2 issue of xxxxx:
+++++
NEW JERSEY TEEN CHARGED WITH RAPING CLASSMATE
A pretrial hearing was held December 17 in Paterson, N.J. for Ian Lazarus, 19, a deaf Paterson resident charged nearly a year ago with raping a fellow student in a class for the deaf at Mountain Lakes High School. Lazarus, who maintained his innocence, was indicted in September with second-degree sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child, said The Record, after the alleged victim, also deaf, filed charges with police in February saying Lazarus forced sex on her in September 2006. “She alleges that he ignored her protests, that she told him ‘no,’” said prosecutor Joseph Del Russo, “but he continued on and had intercourse with her.” The girl was 15 at the time and Lazarus was 18. Defense attorney Paul Faugno described the relationship as “fully consensual” after the court hearing, which featured Lazarus’ mother serving as sign language interpreter.
+++++
I am glad to see that this improper interpreting arrangement is finally becoming more widely recognized and criticized.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I think the trial will be appealled to higher level of court. Perhaps the court will order lower court to re try the case all over again.
What about the advocacy or the agency in that state? Was the court warned about that? If not, why not?
All I have to say is “it is a MESS”
Deafchip
February 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Yes, that may be correct, Deafchipmunk. It could happen if the trial is over or ongoing. We’ll see if the advocacy or NAD get wind of this issue that either of them could step in.
Misha
February 18th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
One important point you guys are missing, this is a hearing not a trial. The Mother is interpreting at a court hearing not the actual trial. Although I agree she should NOT be interpreting at the hearing either.
However a hearing is a meeting to decide if a case is legit and if it can be taken to court. Most likely the lawyer knows this will never go to court and thats why it was agreed to allow the mother to interpret but thats still not acceptable.
But please lets not blow this out of proportion its not a trial.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I have a feeling that she is not a certified interpreter at all.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
The worst scenario case is if the defendant is found not guilty, the verdict cannot be appealed.
So, the court process has to be stopped as soon as the prosecutor becomes fully aware and understandable of the ethical issues about interpeting services.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Deafchipmunk,
In U.S. the not guilty verdict cannot be appealed in order to prevent double jeopardy.
It is doable in Canada.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Richard, as usual, you make no sense.
Steve, we will have to agree to disagree. I feel in judicial court system, the policy on interpreters must be unquestionably clear.. no conflict of interest. It’s not fair for the mother, it is not fair for the son, either.
Tom I don’t subscribe to your xxxxxxxx, so I wasn’t aware of that notice.
This hearing was almost two months ago. I have no idea what had transpired since then.
A hearing is still considered a formal part of judicial proceeding. We have no way of knowing the strength of the case and whether a trial will be arranged or not. Nevertheless this doesn’t minimize the serious of the violation the code of ethics had occurred. The point is that the mother shouldn’t be involved. period. Let’s not quibble over semantics.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Mischa,
Why don’t you remove Ricky Roehm’s baseless and senseless comments from your blog? And, why don’t you block his IP address? It is not hard to do it.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Lolypup,
I agree with you about mother should not inteprreter for her deaf son. Hire ASL interpreter with certificate in court,period. it won’t mess up. if his mother interpreter. she would skip their judge and lawyer’s comments and it also systems are abuse to allow her to interperter.
I wonder why their defense lawyer knew nothing aobut A.D.A law? Seem strange!
That’s Ridiculous!!!
February 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
17. Deaf Surf bum
It does not matter whether or not she is a certified interpreter. The point is she SHOULD NOT interpret in any court or hearing where her child is a defendant, period. It is one of the highest unethical acts that the interpreter commits.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Lolypup: Right on!!
Mishkazena: That fine but you are adding information that are actually not true at this point. You mention the juror may be sway by this interpreting arrangement. There was no juror presented at the pre-trial.
You also mentioned how the victim is going to feel when she accused the defendant of rape while looking at the defendant mother(interpreter). The victim was not htere so that did not happened!!
All I am saying is you are getting everyone so riled up over something that has not happen yet or probably will not happen. It was the pre-trial stage which is a very informal part of the whole judicial process. The real game begin when the trial actually start and the jurors are selected etc etc. Let wait see what happen. Secondly it will required more than one interpreter for this trial. So once another interpreter realized who he/she working with, right there and then he/she will certainly protest the interpreting arrangement. That why I strongly feel everything will work out the way it should work out and both the defendant and the victiom will witness a fair trial.
Bottom line you are jumping the gun much too soon and getting everyone all excited and angry over something that may not happen!!!
February 18th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
On the contrary, from what I’ve been observing and hearing the last few years, violations in code of ethics and interpreter policies happens too frequently in the judicial system. Lawyers and legal advocates complained of these violations often. Even the CODA at the top of the comment section alluded to it.
The mother shouldn’t be used as an interpreter, even for a hearing. A hearing is actually not an informal part of the court. It is very formal and actually determines if the case has enough merits to go to a trial or not. It is interesting to see some people actually pooh-poohing this act because it was only a hearing. Neither the mother interpreting for her son as a defendant or the son watching the mother as his interpreter should be subjected to it at all. Our concerns are still valid, thank you.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Hey Deaf Pundit!
Where are you, girl?!?!
What are your thoughts about this incredible entry?
February 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
First of all, in my earlier comments, I did mentioned that this interpreting arrangement was wrong. However, you added information (juror being sway & victim having to faced the accuser mother). Both of these are not true and it did not happened! That was my main point in responding to your article.
Let wait and see what happen at the end. Ok? Nothing wrong with having positive faith in the interpreting system as I feel everything will work out for the best at the end and it will ultimately become a fair trial where communication access by all parties will be met along with being ethical as well.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Hey, White Ghost – I’m getting over the flu… so that’s why I haven’t been around much lately.
I think the whole thing is appalling. The mother should not be interpreting at all for her son due to a massive conflict of interest. The son could be saying one thing during the hearing, and the mother could be ‘cleaning’ it up. The mother isn’t interested in justice. She’s interested in what’s best for her son.
And like MZ said, a hearing is very important, and even during hearings, the victim and her family could be there. It’s an injustice, and I’m shocked the local deaf community is just sitting by and allowing this to happen.
I’m also quite disturbed by the newspaper article… people should write letters to the editor and set the record straight – just because you’re deaf doesn’t mean you should be given more leeway in crimes like this.
Deaf people know what rape is, and for people to use our deafness as an excuse will help contribute to the discrimination already committed against us. Our entire fight for equality is based on ending society merely viewing us as ‘that poor deaf person’… For that family and defense attorney to turn around and USE deafness as an excuse is just outrageous.
That’s what I think.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I would not want my mother to interpret for me. If my mother interprets for me, how can she give me the emotional support at the hearing if she has to interpret for me?
I know most courts can’t afford the high-priced interpreters….the interpreters would charge over $50 an hour which sounds unreasonable! I do not get paid $50 an hour. I bet the bailiff or court reporter do not get paid $50 an hour. So the courts would use any qualified interpreters. The ADA says qualified not certified interpreters.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Hope you are feeling better, DP.
Interesting perspective, DP.
You know, ethnical vs. supportable
When I read this entry, it made me thinking of your Mom to involve the court system.
Many courts have some hard times getting the qualified interpreters to meet the criteria system.
I would amaze that this Mom who signs, does not know the law terminology.
In my strong opinion, interpreters should train and acknowledge on the laws and medical terminologies.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
talk talk talk talk talk talk talk….
so… what’s your next plan of action?
February 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Mishka, you might want to subscribe as one of many ways to keep up with the news and this & that.
Ziggy, the $50 doesn’t all go to the interpreter. Much of it goes to the referral agency for overhead and staffing. There is also travel time & expense to consider.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Mishka,
Naturally you wont understand what I meant. Maybe this will help.
Court access for deaf people rides heavily on the deaf state association’s leadership. Here in California for example, Richard Ray’s leadership as the California association of the deaf president has produced positive results and made the courtroom accessible to deaf people. Thats because his job as one the City of Los Angeles ADA coordinators gives him the good leadership skills that makes the courtrooms accessible to deaf people.
Other deaf state associations may have similar leadership and I’m sorry to say that New Jersey isn’t one of them at this time.
One of the best remedies for situations like this is for the deaf community to elect people who have the skills make their states deaf friendly into their state associations. Unfortunately I’ve been seeing deaf associations elect people who are no better than just “social kings” that have no clue as to how to make their states more deaf friendly.
I hope I made better sense of what I’m trying to deliver in my messages here.
Richard
February 18th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
The courts can afford to pay the interpreters. Price isn’t an issue for them. And while my mother was very involved with the lawsuit, she NEVER interpreted. She was too personally invested, and she knew it. She would not have been able to stay in her role.
I believe RID has a legal interpreting certification – but not for medical. We definitely need more RID legal interpreters, that’s for sure.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I agree, DP.
I find the court system on the rapist’s case is pretty insolvent.
I would have amazed that the judge approved to let the rapist’s Mom to enter and assist her son’s needs in the court room.
I thought the judge was bluntly ignorant.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Uh oh It is a Conflict of Interest and…. it is absurd! Several national legal certified interpreters should be hired. It should be set up somehow. $$$! Look at CL’s case (in NC the murder case — hasn’t been resolved for nearly 5 years now- Yet, no closure for Tallie’s family) and many other cases.
What’s wrong with this America we live in?
February 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Richard Roehm, Thanks for elaborating more on your initial comments.
I did not realize that the sign language / oral interpreter service has to depend on the state association of the deaf for advocacy?? It does not make sense. IMO, it should be the agency that ensures that a certified interpreter with a legal background be provided for the client in a court room or legal setting?? In general, a deaf client has to fully understand the consequences if he prefers an interpreter of his choice that is not approved by the state agency. Lastly, we don’t have the whole story as to why the accused has his mother do the interpreting.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The state association of the Deaf isn’t responsible for the compliance to ADA by the court system. This is a cop out, blaming deaf people when it is the judicial system’s accountability.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Would the courts have a list of legal interpreters?
Courts may have lots of money but they can easily run out of money.
February 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I would hope that it does have a list of legal interpreters, but most courts are woefully ignorant of ADA. Even here in MD, right next to DC, my lawyers had to argue before the federal court provided interpreters.
The last time I heard, a shortage of money isn’t a good reason not to hire interpreters. Now to think of it, we don’t even know if the mother was being reimbursed for her interpreting work : /
February 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Mishka Zena<
Request comments made by Richard Roehm in reference to me as Phil Moos, Past President of NJAD be removed. I have nothing to do with this case, nor turning anything backwards.
Furthermore, may I suggest you start blocking Richard Roehm comments. It should not be difficult.
Philip N. Moos
February 18th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Since Richard Roehm started the comments, it is not the role of NJAD, it is the role of the NJ Administrative Office of the Courts to ensure local courts follow procedures with regards to interpreters.
You can find information at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/interpreters/index.htm
It appeared the local court could not find an interpreter or the Judge did not know. Someone in that court system should have raised the red flag. But if you know the court system, often times the Judge is the boss, having a final saying and no matter what you have done to bring the issue to his/her attention, he/she can ignore it.
This is something Richard Roehm is not aware of and is not educated in this area.
Philip N. Moos
February 18th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
D’oh! It’s only a hearing???? All right, obviously I misread that in DC blog last night which was pretty late and this blog in early in the morning. D’oh, I should have waited for the coffee to kick in. OH well….
I don’t know about other states however here in state of Connecticut, all the courts have one listing for deaf legal interpreters. ONLY ONE! It is Commission of Deaf & Hearing Impaired. It has Interpreting, Department. It has legal interpreters. It has a phone number for that legal interpreters. However we don’t know how many legal interpreters that Commission has employed so far. Most of time, the courts all over the state (CT) usually get the requests to get an interpreter and would say, “Yes, I’ll get you an interpreter for that court date.” Then a week before the court date, we usually called the court to follow up on getting an interpreter after contacting CDHI to see if the court had requested for one which CDHI said no. They would say, “Uh…you need one? You have to call to ask for one, not me.” That is very frustrating. If the lawyers (both defense and prosecutors) request for an interpreter, the court clerk rarely calls for one until some deaf shows up at the court, Hell got loose! The courts here in CT always delay the dates until they find one. That is the most ridiculous.
But on other hand for medical interpreters for the hospitals and Emergency rooms, that is much easier because that is other advocacy’s department to handle that. If the hospitals or emergency rooms don’t call for an interpreter or ignore the deafs’ requests for an interpreter, FSW (Family Service of Woodfield in CT) would find out and impose $25,000 fine on them for not complying to get an interpreter to be provided.
Gee, why can’t CDHI take that FSW’s cue on imposing that fine on the courts?!?
Misha
February 18th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The state deaf association is usually seen as the top pillar in the deaf community since they usually go by a hierarchical system.
What the top pillar does, others follow like social service agencies and so forth pretty much like a lighthouse guiding lost ships to the right pathways.
Richard
February 18th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Back to the topic. The best remedy so far is this particular form;
Title II complaint form
http://www.ada.gov/t2cmpfrm.htm
Getting the DOJ involved is one approach to solving the courtroom interpreter situation. They’d be slow but its one viable approach.
Richard
February 18th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I don’t like ‘his comments” — he is pretty rude to the Deaf Community.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
As a former paralegal, I’ve seen judges and lawyers act really ignorant in the issue of ADA, deaf people, interpreters and all things related. I’ve seen family members used in divorce cases, it’s ridiculous. Those lawyers couldn’t understand the personal emotions that are attached.
I understand this is a hearing, but isn’t both parties present? If optional and the plaintiff is in the courtroom, how awful to rely on communication from the defendant’s mother.
I think we’ve all come to the conclusion that using the mother is wrong.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I would not want the court to pick a interpreter for me! It has to be the one I feel most comfortable with in terms of sign language style. I am sure a lot of people feel the same about that. Some prefer ASL while others are comfortable with PSE or any other sign system. Therefore, it is why it is important for the state agency to coordinate requests knowing the client’s communication preferences. It is hard for the court or hospital to keep updating the list of interpreters. If the agency has a problem, then the state association comes in to do the task of lobbying to get a policy set up.
February 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
M,
Here in CT, we can request some interpreters of our preferences that wouldn’t be a problem however if that certain interpreters couldn’t make it, alternative choice of an interpreter is better than nothing.
Misha
February 18th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Elizabeth,
How can the court prove that his mother is being impartial? And who is doing the interpreting for the victim?
February 18th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Be it a hearing or a trial, it is unethical. Period. I cannot agree more when Dianrez said above that the judge’s “head should be examined”. Hopefully, the ABA will bar the judge to save the NAD’s sweat. If not, the NAD’s lawyers must jump in!
It is good to see Deaf Pundit (Jeannette) here. (Hi PD, Glad you feel better. Do not overexert yourself.)
February 18th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Phil,
You got something out there. But the news article is showing us it’s not working so we have to try something different.
Richard
February 18th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
talk talk talk talk talk talk talk….
i guess its more fun to gossip about this than to write letters to NAD, or whatever it is that causes changes.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Kevin, the court has no assurance. And that is a good question about the plaintiff.. I won’t be surprised if that woman was interpreting for her, too, but who knows?
dog food,
I brought this to the attention of Deaf Community. I’ve done more than my share already.
Now that you are aware of this, why don’t you do something?
February 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Hey, I’ve tried many times to get us to do something. I’m done for now. I need a break… you go rally them, dog food.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Have to declare mistrail …The lawyers of the rapist’s case need to learn about the ADA. I guess the court is sooo greedy. Sad.
February 18th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
from http://www.ada.gov/policeinfo.htm
http://www.ada.gov/lawenfcomm.htm
“…Do not use family members or children as interpreters. They may lack the vocabulary or the impartiality needed to interpret effectively…”
this also apply to court.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Richard,
I would not do what you would do. We already have a system in place and there is no need for someone like you to walk in and make waves. Besides, you live in California and you have been in more trouble with the law than most of us.
The news article dis not tell the whole story. I am one who would not jump the gun until I have the whole and complete story.
We have good people in New Jersey and I advise you and everyone to cool off. Let the right person or persons take care of it. If we are not happy with the result, we will bring this matter to the appropriate agency, who ever that may be.
There is no need for us to make a fool of ourselves.
Philip N. Moos
February 18th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Good point ‘beth, thank you for doing your patriotic duty of informing us of this trial.
What are your suggestions to the rest of us *if* we wanted to do something to their trail?
February 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
According to Philip Moos, his people will check into this.
Philip, nobody is making fool out of ourselves yet. It happened almost two months ago and nobody noticed it until Alison picked on it and I followed up on it.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Cool, thank you for the clarification.
February 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Phil,
I never been in trouble with the law. You need to stop believing my ex-wife. [deleted due to slanderous claims]
As for the case this blog is discussing, we wont be having news like that happening in California because we have a stronger deterrent to these types of ignorance were seeing in the New Jersey legal system.
I’d say it’s high time to fix the system in New Jersey. And if you dislike my suggestions on how to fix it, that’s too bad.
Richard
February 19th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Mishka said:
“I brought this to the attention of Deaf Community.”
“It happened almost two months ago and nobody noticed it ….”
Once again, as per comment #13, I wrote about this in the January 2 issue of xxxxxxx. “Nobody noticed it?” Please stop lying, Mishka.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Tom, you were out of line for calling me lying. Again that doesn’t surprise me as you haven’t been truthful when you accused Tayler of some wrongdoing when you choose not to share the full story.
I said I do NOT subscribe to your xxxxxxxx. I see no public awareness and nobody were discussing it. Allison reporting it at DeafDC.com was the first time I’ve heard of it, so did others. As far as I am concerned, nobody really paid any attention to your tiny abstract
Richard, you slandered your ex wife. I will delete your comment as your wife isn’t here to defend herself.
February 19th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Well, Tom… I wasn’t even aware of this story till MishkaZena brought this up.
And I agree with others that it is against the code of ethics for the mother to interpret for her son in court – whether it be pre-hearing or whatnot.
It’s common sense and I’m shocked that even the Judge himself lacked one…
*shaking head*
February 19th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Tom, not every deaf subscribe to xxxxxx. And you don’t own the news.
February 19th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
[...] Mishka Zena Endless Pondering « Accused Deaf Rapist’s Mom Interpretes at His Hearing [...]
February 19th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Tom Willard:
I knew absoultely nothing about the victim
in question until I read Mishka Zena’s blog
(vide supra). She referred the source to
Allison’s blog in DeafDC.
Please do not assume that a reader
reads each and every blog entry
day in and day out.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Post Scriptum:
Mr. Willard:
I was taken aback when you falsely
accused Mishka Zena of lying. It
is inconceivable that you used
such a strong word like “lying.”
You remind me of someone who
wrote a nasty comment beyond
any human being’s imagination.
You are not a gentleman!
You owe an open comment of
apology to Mishka Zena.
Merci beaucoup!
February 20th, 2008 at 12:02 am
The interpreters who wish to interpret in the courtroom must be trained to learn about the legal stuffs. There are not many legal certified interpreters all over the US. How sad! So far I know a very few here in Massachusetts. By the way — Pretty please be nice to MZ (and everyone here) – She is a strong advocator of our Deaf Community. We need to be heard!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am
try not to overprotect the xxxxx. He is a xxxxx period for having intercourse with a 15 year old girl. PUT that bag of scum in jail no matter what. Please do not free him due to mistrial via no interpreter provided
[MZ: at the mother's request, I xxxxx the offending words. Remember this.. we can use the word alleged or accused along with the rapist, but we cannot use the word rapist. This person hasn't been convinced yet by the courts. By the way, it is not considered a rape if one has consensual sex with a minor, if the age difference is not more than four years.]
February 21st, 2008 at 11:49 am
One thing I hate about the deaf community is the lack of appeciation and acknowledgement of those who try to serve the community.
For Mishka to say “I brought this to the attention of Deaf Community” and “It happened almost two months ago and nobody noticed it …” is patently untrue.
I have nothing to apologize for.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:50 am
And please note that she made those two comments AFTER I set the record straight. She ignored what I said and continued to claim credit.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Tom, How many times do I have to say this before it gets through your head:
I do NOT subscribe to your weekly newsletter. Other readers also stated that they don’t read your weekly newsletter.
You do not own the news. I gave credit to DeafDC.Com where I first saw the news.
Your lack of professionalism, whinings, and insult don’t reflect well on you. Your childish attitude made me decided not to subscribe to your weekly newsletter. I already have google alerts, anyway.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
As for your buddy Tailor Myers, it’s really quite simple. After I gave him free publicity in Deafweekly for several of his business ventures, I asked him to post my blog entry about my mother’s death and he replied with a one-word email saying, “No.” That’s all, just “No.”
That told me all I need to know about this guy. Despite the backpedaling he tried to do after the fact (which is probably what you’re referring to here), his first response is what I remember.
Tell me, Mishka, if I clobbered you in the head and then apologized, would the apology make things all better? I doubt it. You would remember the clobber above all else.
And what the hell good was his “apology” when it was accompanied by banning me from DeafRead??!!
I must say that Tailor Myers had a lot to do with destroying my good spirit toward the deaf community, and judging from the many negative things I’ve read about him throughout the Web, I’m not the only one who feels that way.
PS .. Sounds like you are trying to put down xxxxx to justify your own failure to read it.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
You were untruthful in your complaints against Tayler due to your consistent failure to reveal the whole story. And you know there is more to this story than what you described above. As a reporter and editor, you should know how important full disclosure is.
Me putting down your weekly newsletter? I have no feelings about your newsletter. I xxxx the name of your business only after you slandered me. You were mooching me, using my blog to promote your business several times, at no cost, which I had no problem. However, with that slander, surely you don’t expect me to let you continue to publicize your business here, do you?
I am done with this subject. Don’t push your business in my blog again.