New Haven Independent

posted by: Yokel on January 29, 2010  3:18pm

Does Ms. Brooks have a “Proud Hooker Mom” sticker on her car? If she’s a Hooker Mom, she must be Proud…lol Jeez! Can’t we all just get along?

posted by: Paul Garlinghouse on January 29, 2010  4:17pm

Cooler heads should have prevailed when the defendant first attacked another person.  It feels as though this “lady” thought she was above the law and above the rules of civilized behavior.

posted by: Katie Rohner on January 29, 2010  4:33pm

Yokel, the “Proud Hooker Mom” sticker was created a few years ago in order to show support for the school and City when the zoning case was appealed to the State Supreme Court.  Ironically, while some of us may still appreciate its rallying call of support with regards to the gate issue, I can assure you the creator of the sticker does not.

In any case, Stephanie Brooks does not have to affix a bumper sticker to her car to feel some sense of pride or, at least, resolve that when someone commits a criminal act against her person, and in front of her young children, she can seek redress in a court of law.

Those who think that Ms. Brooks should have blithely accepted an apology from or mediation with Ms. Higonnet have not read attorney Diane Polan’s letter to the court.  The facts, as laid out in the letter, are even more appalling than many of us knew and, for that reason, a more careful investigation into the matter and it’s disposition are clearly warranted. 

This particular incident cannot be resolved with the simplistic call to “just get along.” Rather, this unhappy situation is about seeing that justice prevails, no matter the status of the highly-credentialed perpetrator or her “renowned” husband.  I think after experiencing the trauma of seeing their mom assaulted, Ms. Brooks’ children deserve that.

posted by: A. Weldemichael on January 29, 2010  5:26pm

Actually this article and the others by the Independent on this topic are full of factual errors, as are many postings written in response to the articles… and biased in an unfortunate way. I wish that you were better journalists and bothered to do more meaningful fact checking!

HERE ARE SOME FACTS:

First, Ms. Stephanie Brooks swerved across Everit St and parked her car on the wrong side of the street - there are several witnesses. Last time I checked that was reckless and not such a good idea on a street where kids go to school. 
Not to mention there aren’t supposed to be any cars there - at all.

Next, I’ve read some random and irrational slanders with no basis in fact in these comments. So, let’s move on to what you say about Anne Higonnet. Have you ever even seen Anne Higonnet? I know her well. She is a petite, slender, 51 year old who isn’t physically capable of dragging someone out of a car, or manhandling someone practically half her age and much stronger than her (someone who was breaking two laws, incidentally, at the time). In addition to which, Anne Higonnet says she didn’t, and so does the security guard who was right there. The allegation that she did is a) false, and b) laughable.

As for racial dynamics, I am black and Anne has always been 110% wonderful with me. A warm and caring friend, a generous and gracious mentor, a funny and thoughtful professor. Race plays no factor in our relationship, nor does it with her best friend - who is also black. Oh, and many of her family’s best friends too (that goes for kids, sister, brother, nephews, parents, etc).

I guess there goes another one of your postings that turns out to be slanderous and groundless.

posted by: Morris Cove Mom on January 29, 2010  5:32pm

I wouldn’t accept a an apology, handshake, or mediation either. Good for Brooks, standing up for herself legally, when others wouldn’t. Shame on Higgonet et al, acting like her credentials and career choice matter more than her personal responsibility for her own actions.

posted by: Hyperbole on January 29, 2010  5:47pm

People interested in this case should know that the first story in this series presented information taken from the police report as fact, rather than as an allegation.  http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/everit_neighbor_charged_/ This event and the unfortunate reportorial hyperbole elicited a very large number of comments that really show how bitter people on both sides are about not getting what they want.  The really hateful comments?—read them and see which side of this dispute they come from. 

A second example of hyperbole is the letter submitted by Diane Polan to the state’s attorney, which draws a false comparison between a resident of Everit Street and (presumably her client) a resident of Dixwell Avenue.  A casual observer would think that Stephanie Brooks lives on Dixwell?  False.  She lives high on a hill overlooking New Haven on Kohary Drive, a tree-lined street between the Yale Golf Course and the Hopkins School.  Nice split-level homes on that street, many with two-car garages!  A far cry from Dixwell, that is certain.

As a thought experiment for all of us, we can consider what might have happened when Ms. Higonnet saw several individuals engaged in activity that had been described by her alderman, Justin Elicker, as unacceptable (he had promised that the principal or a guard would be posted at the Everit Street gate to prevent things such as this), Ms. Higonnet came up to the last of the several vehicles that had been engaged in this activity and rapped on Ms. Brooks’ drivers-side window to get her to roll down her window, while the car was stopped. Ms. Brooks, concerned about being late in dropping her second child off and knowing she was going to be confronted about doing something that she had been specifically requested by her children’s principal to refrain from, tried to drive away.  Ms. Higonnet, trying to get Ms. Brooks’ attention, shouted at her through the glass of the closed car door and held the car door.  When Ms. Brooks stopped the car, Ms. Higonnet opened the door to speak to her.  The letter from Ms. Polan clearly indicates that Ms. Brooks stopped the car and got out to confront Ms. Higonnet and shouted at her (without a car door between them).  Perhaps Ms. Higonnet put her hand on Ms. Brooks’ shoulder to try to get her to calm down so that she could discuss the school’s requested drop-off policies and not be shouted into silence. 

Gosh, that sure sounds like a knock-down, drag-out battle.  I’m embarrassed for all parties concerned, particularly when presumably adult, educated individuals like Kate Rohner write commentary on this event. 

Kate Rohner doesn’t seem to comprehend that Ms. Higonnet hasn’t been convicted of anything, and that the allegations in the letter are most likely as based in fact as Ms. Polan’s portrayal of her Westville-residing client as living on Dixwell Avenue.  “The facts, as laid out in the letter, are even more appalling than many of us knew…” All hyperbole, Ms. Rohner…all hyperbole.  It sure sounds worse than ever imagined.  Please excuse me while I stop to clutch my pearls.

The “facts” in Ms. Polan’s letter are only allegations, Ms. Rohner, and Ms. Polan deliberately set them out in the most inflammatory way to portray Ms. Higonnet as the villain. That’s the job of a far-from-impartial hired gun lawyer. Duh.

Perhaps the self-righteous anger of those who have castigated Everit Street residents and Ms. Higonnet can be held in check until there’s been an impartial examination of the evidence.  Or perhaps it can’t.

posted by: You Must Be Kidding on January 29, 2010  6:16pm

@A. Weldemichael

I wouldn’t care if Ms. Brooks drove up on the front lawn of one of those Everit street mansions.  It does not give anyone the right to take matters into their own hands.  What happened to her was criminal with no regard for her children and the other children attending Hooker school. If Ms. Higgonet was so concerned she should have taken her license plate and reported her to school security. Lastly, their is no policy prohibiting the use of that street…it is simply a request.  As a tax payer in this town she has the right to drive down any street in this city.  After all, it isn’t a private street.

posted by: urban ed on January 29, 2010  6:26pm

It’s a public street. The “Parents aren’t SUPPOSED to drop their kids off there” argument is a red herring. If Ms. Brooks broke traffic laws in crossing and parking, law enforcement should deal with that. BUT…even if that’s true, it doesn’t justify HigoNAY’s actions. You put your hands on someone like that, it’s straight up assault. Do it in front of their kids and it’s risk of injury. [She] deserves the maximum charges, and the maximum penalties. Maybe that will deter the rest of her elitest neighbors from channeling their frustration at losing their (ill-conceived) case into violence against the good (although imperfect) parents of Hooker School.

posted by: City Hall Watch on January 29, 2010  10:02pm

Katie Rohner:

I took your advice and read the letter and quite frankly, it reinforced my views. Stephanie Brooks not only can’t get her children to school on time, she can’t even bother coming to her own mediation on time, or park legally or respect the agreement with neighbors and then converts this whole sorry saga to a race issue. That’s a hell of lesson to be teaching your children - hide behind the color of your skin, be a victim, stay small, blame others. It’s a good thing she works for the government. She’d never make it in the real world.

I’m also particularly interested to learn how Brooks felt threatened inside a car, weighing several thousand pounds and being confronted by a small middle aged woman. Higonnet clearly crossed her own line, and has tried to make it right as she should. But to claim she or others have suggested she “blithely apologize?” Really? Not hardly. (Thesaurus: brilliantly, cheerfully, colorfully, flamboyantly, flashily, gleefully, glowingly, joyfully, laughingly, lightheartedly, merrily, showily, sparklingly, spiritedly, splendidly, vivaciously, with spirit, with �lan) Polan’s assertion that a more serious charge should be leveled is laughable on its face.

posted by: Laughingstock on January 29, 2010  11:21pm

Unbelievable!
Residents are actually writing in this forum to blame the victim and condone a very disturbing assault on a woman who had the brass to come into their neighborhood,  Looks like the time-tested JIm Crow strategy of intimidation to me.

Even worse, this attack on their mother has undoubtedly frightened two dear little children,  Where is the neighbors’ concern for them?

I believe it would be best for all if from now on school parents ignore the selfish demand that Everit Street be treated as a private road.  If parents routinely use Everit Street as they would any other route, it will at the very least deliver a message to all the Hooker children:  (1) no one did anything wrong by driving on a street of fussy White people and (2)  as children of New Haven, you are important enough to use any thoroughfare in the city.

posted by: Anon on January 29, 2010  11:50pm

My God, I have to weigh in if just to stop this train from gaining any more steam.

I don’t know the truth. I don’t know what happened.

If Ms. Higonnet didn’t open the car door and didn’t touch Ms. Brooks arm, she or her lawyer should say so soon.

No one is considering the possibility that Ms. Brooks might be lying. Maybe there was just an argument and not the rest.

I don’t know if she is or isn’t, but I’ll raise a couple questions about it just to give the other side some steam becuse Ms. Brooks has owned this story so far, and at this rate, she will own it right through to the civil lawsuit settlement she seems to already be planning.

First, you might offer to shake hands after arguing, but after trying to open a door on a moving car? That would be wierd. Is Ms. Higonnet that wierd?

second, Ms. Brooks, through her lawyer, has admitted a racial motive for pressing charges, which could be a motive to lie.

Third, Ms. Brooks is slick as all get out. Do readers think that it is usual practice for alleged victims to be lawyered up before the first hearing? Or lawyered up at all? Do you think the procedures described of a mediation meeting between the two in court and the letter from the lawyer is standard? Heck no.

Brooks is very very slick. 

I can’t understand why Ms. Higonnet’s lawyer did not make a strong statement of denial if Ms. Higonnet has denied the conduct.

I can’t understand why no statements by Ms. Higonnet from the police report have been quoted in the stories - did the officer not write any in the report? Did she not make any statements to the officer?

Finally, I don’t know that I have ever seen a first arrest, for disorderly conduct, where a nolle was not offered, so Ms. Brooks is incredibly angry and vindictive. She wants her treated more severely than anyone else who has faced a first charge like this. I find her attitude strange. She is lusting for the woman to have a conviction.

I have been in her position, and what I wanted was for the person to get a nolle after attending a program. I wouldn’t allow less than that, but I wasn’t lusting after a conviction. I find think Ms Brooks is loaded for bear and I have to ask why.

posted by: Equity on January 30, 2010  6:19am

I am curious as to how Ms. Brooks, who lives in Westville managed to get her child into the “neighborhood” Hooker School. I am sure that many New Haven taxpayers would love to have their children attend such a fine institution. They would certainly be interested in a public airing of Hooker’s admission policy and practices. I would hate to think that favoritism based on economic status was occurring within our public schools.

posted by: urban ed on January 30, 2010  9:32am

Thanx to Paul and crew for blunting some of my sharper rhetoric. That’s not sarcasm. It’s genuine thanks. I was angry last night and should have taken the dogs for a walk before I clicked submit. The edited version of my comment loses nothing, and won’t cultivate a visceral reaction, as the original would have. Thanks, NHI.

Having said that, I think Laughingstock’s suggestion is a good one…Parents…time to use that public street the same way all other public streets are used. (Just follow all relevant traffic laws, OK?)

posted by: Katie Rohner on January 30, 2010  9:45am

Thank you “hyperbole” for drawing my attention to my use of imprecise language when I wrote the “facts” rather than the “allegations” set forth in Polan’s letter.  I do try to be careful with the accuracy of my words—but that’s not to say that I don’t enjoy my own brand of sarcasm as well.

Thus, while I do understand that they are allegations, the fact (and this is a fact, not an allegation) that I know Diane Polan to be an extremely intelligent, thorough, and skilled attorney who would likely set forth such allegations in a letter to the court only once she knew they could be corroborated by witnesses should not cloud my attempts to post precisely-worded comments—the ones that sadly cause you such great embarrassment.

You are mistaken, however, in concluding that my anger, and that of other Hooker families, is “self-righteous.”  It’s really just plain, old anger.  That anger stems mainly from the idea that a small cadre of private citizens can lay claim to a public street and prevent other citizens from using it—and then brainwash the media and others that there is some kind of official policy condoning this deprivation.  Apparently, it bear repeating that there is no official school policy, court order, or city mandate that Hooker families are prohibited from driving on Everit Street and dropping-off their kids at the back gate. 

How comfy it must be for you to express your embarrassment at people like me who post our opinions under our real names, while you hide under your mask of anonymity.  Under the guise of impartiality you betray your own predisposed opinion of the incident with words like “most inflammatory”, “hired-gun”, “self-righteous”, “bitter” (all directed at the “pro-Hooker” side, if you will.)

Also, your general attempt to reframe the entire incident under the pretext of a “thought experiment” where Ms. Brooks is clearly the reckless, unlawful actor and Ms. Higonnet is only trying to educate her as to the (officially non-existent) drop-off rule (a noble pursuit, to be sure) belies your so-callled impartiality.  You even opine that perhaps Ms. Higonnet put her hand on Ms. Brooks’ shoulder in, shall we also assume, a paternalistic attempt to “calm” her down.  Come to think of it, according to your account, we really should be grateful to Ms. Higonnet, shouldn’t we?

When you write about those of us who are “not getting what we want” are you sure you are not referring to yourself as well?  No need to imperil your pearls any longer, we’ll let the “hired-guns” (there are two of them, by the way) deal with those pesky allegations from now on.

posted by: streever on January 30, 2010  11:21am

Right on, Katie Rohner!

posted by: Concerned Parent on January 30, 2010  11:23am

Why couldn’t Ms. Brooks have rolled down the window and explained she was late today?  Why did Ms. Higonnet feel the need to enforce the rules and open Ms Brooks’ door?  Why couldn’t they get on with their lives, where have the nice people in our world gone?  Both ladies need to work on anger management.  I wish a matter as trivial as this wasn’t clogging our court system.  We don’t care who is black and who is white, why does Ms Brooks?  What would Dr. Martin Luther King or President Obama advise these parties to do?  Probably to see each other as human beings, with children, with identities, with problems, and see beyond their differences.  Why is Ms. Brooks so unreasonable?  It’s not an example I want my children to follow.  Each person should acknowledge they were wrong, and live nice lives.

posted by: This is all just lawsuit prep! on January 30, 2010  11:58am

““My client was not interested in an apology at that moment because the actions of Ms. Higonnet had endangered her own life and the lives of her two minor children,” wrote Polan in her letter.”

Really?  Life endangered?

Upset?  Sure.  Traumatized?  Absolutely.  Life endangered?

Sounds like someone is a wee bit touchy. 

Grown-ups go to arbitration to try to resolve issues and move on.  Immature children push for the biggest possible criminal prosecution, so that they can have that on their side when they go try to sue someone’s pants off in civil court.

I sat on a ridiculous lawsuit this summer, hopefully the jury that winds up hearing the civil “gimme money money money” case that we all know is coming is as sensible as we were. 

What a lesson for this woman’s children - break the rules if you’re running late.  Traffic laws don’t apply you you if you’re late.  Never let anything go.

posted by: Enthusiastic Reader on January 30, 2010  12:27pm

I am really looking forward to the next episode of this soap opera. Will the attorneys fees and award for damages bankrupt Ms Higonnet? Was the cop that arrested her wearing white shoes? Will she need to sell her million dollar mansion? Will Ms Brooks cope with her new found wealth? Will she turn to drink? How much will Yale be on the line for when doting mothers cant drop off there fledgling MBAs on Bradley Street? Another four years of episodes. Wow. What a blockbuster as LOST ends its last season. Cant beat living in East Rock.

posted by: fairhavendoc on January 30, 2010  1:57pm

Wow.  This is such a game.  A man took out a gun and tried to shoot his girlfriend in front of a Fair Haven K-1 school a little over a week ago.  It gets a few comments; most of them joking about this situation.  That, my friends, is a problem.  This is a game.

Please, East Rockers and Hooker parents, get your priorities straight.  Figure out a way to get along and let’s all move on.  Show the children the way adults really are supposed to act.

posted by: LOOKING FORWARD on January 30, 2010  3:18pm

Everit Street resident Anne Higonnet admittedly “lost her temper” before initiating her interaction with Mrs. Brooks & children, but, looking forward, despite selfishly spread misinformation, there is no court order, city mandate or official school policy that prohibits anyone from driving down, dropping off/picking up school children or parking on Everit Street…so, at the very least, no more temper tantrums or complaints from Everit residents about future legal use of said public Everit Street please.

posted by: Esteban on January 30, 2010  4:31pm

Are these people using my tax dollars to litigate this nonsense?

posted by: Anon on January 30, 2010  5:24pm

Streever, Sheesh! And Kate:

Ms. Polin is a good lawyer. BUT, HELL NO, she doesn’t talk to all the witnesses before writing a letter like that. Good god. You don’t know everything about lawyering.

She is a lawyer, acting in her capacity as an advocate. She is being very aggressive here, it is her strategy. It is a very strong strategy.

Let’s talk about New Haven’s touchiest Taboo: Anti-white racism. (Not in response to streever or Kate, but to change the subject)

Race walked into this story from day one. Polin harps on it in her letter, it is part of the motive for her aggressive position. She says so.

When NHI ran the first story on this, one of the comments came from someone identifying herself as “a sister” encouraging Ms. Brooks to go hard after Ms. Higonnet. we’re with you, or we’ve got your back—comments to that effect, ‘we’ being your Black sisters.

Racism is racism. That poster’s comment was racist. Forget the convoluted debunked philosophies that use the word “reverse” racism and attach 1000-word justifications.

The ‘get the white lady’ stance some have taken is racial targeting by itself.

Over at Yale Daily News, a poster on their article ridicules Higonnet for having African-American friends in response to apparent friends of Higonnet’s who have been driven by racism shown her to prove that she is not a racist. How dare people initiate this?

I am finding this sick, and guess what, it REDUCES the credibility of those who are propagating it.

Also, I was once personally the victim of anti-white threats of violence in New Haven, so it is triggering all those horrendous memories.

There is nothing, nothing worse than being the victim of a racist attack where you can’t get recourse, can’t raise the issue of it, can’t do anything because it’s taboo, because you get mobbed and shunned for it.

The people doing this, stop it.

posted by: Anon on January 30, 2010  5:39pm

...

Shame on everyone who has decided this thing.

False accusations on minor charges are ten times more common than on major ones, and we all know, since the Innocence Project, how often major ones are wrong.

Shame on everybody grinding on this with their minds made up, and shame on the Hooker disputes too.

posted by: Bob Solomon on January 30, 2010  5:57pm

ANON -your post is a cowardly anonymous attack against someone you probably never met, based on your guesses at what might have happened from the perspective of ehat?  Some alternative dimension.  As for your apparently infintestimal knowledge of the law, I have represented many victims in criminal cases, I have seen many other victims represented in criminal cases.  Sorry, but I think “slick” is code for something else, that you have an agenda, and that you will continue to hide behind your curtain.  It’s particularly bizarre if you thought you were calming the waters, because I find your post to be like throwing gas on a fire.

posted by: Rosa Polan on January 30, 2010  7:02pm

My mother is civil defense Attorney. This is her doing her job. This is not her being a “hired-gun.” ...

posted by: Christine on January 30, 2010  7:54pm

I agree with Bob Solomon; the poster who used the word “slick” repeatedly (to refer to the mother who’s the victim here) is speaking reprehensibly.  Perhaps the NHI could remove that post.

Here’s the Yale Daily News report on this incident.  The comments are interesting and all pretty level-headed.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/city-news/2010/01/26/neighbors-spar-over-school-drop-/

posted by: Bring The Noise on January 30, 2010  8:16pm

Poor, poor Anon. It must be so painful for you to have suffered all these years as a victim of racism. White men have had such a struggle for acceptance. Especially in Connecticut.

To Hyperbole, since when does Justin Elicker have the authority to make staffing or personnel decisions on behalf of the principal of Worthington Hooker or the NHPS?

posted by: CPM on January 30, 2010  8:29pm

Get your facts straight!  There is NO policy about parents dropping off on a PUBLIC STREET!  Stephanie Brooks was NOT going against school policy. I know this because I am a proud Hooker mom. I am happy to hear that she did not agree to mediation. This woman was putting children at risk, & just plain scaring other students walking to school.

posted by: wondering on January 30, 2010  9:00pm

I was wondering what relation Ms. Stephanie Brooks has to Board of Police Commissioner Bishop Theodore Brooks and what if any this relation is playing into to the whole scenario from her child being enrolled in a “neighborhood” school to her wanting to press charges. what hidden politics are being played here???

posted by: Equity on January 31, 2010  6:59am

Quite to the contrary, I found ANON’s post interesting. While many people claim to know the two parties and can vouch for their character, only those who witnessed the incident that day can say for sure what really happened. Obviously someone is lying. The rest of us on the other hand are debating based on what little has been reported in the papers. I believe that is the point of these forums.  It seems to me that both “ladies” are behaving badly, and it appears that while the dispute is about an alleged assault, the failure to mediate stems from the long running animosity between the neighborhood and the school. As long as both entities continue to dig their heels in, this will continue to escalate. As has been said before, time to grow up, treat each-other kindly, and be the role models your children deserve.

posted by: jayj on January 31, 2010  8:53am

what a great role model for compassion and understanding - I am sure that you hold your head up high

posted by: Kumbaya on January 31, 2010  10:00am

1) I guess it bears saying again (as others have) that there is no binding rule requiring Hooker parents not to drop off by car on Everit. However, the Whitney gate works well with smooth traffic slow, drops your children right at the door, and avoiding Everit it is—at worst—a minor inconvenience.  Using the Everit gate to prove a point seems to simply drag ourselves down to their level—and any parent knows that a cry “But he started it” is a poor excuse for any conduct.

2) Bob: (and other actual lawyers, as opposed to people with opinions about the law), while there is something very unpleasant about some of the comments here, I must admit I was perplexed by some of the statements in Polin’s letter, which certainly struck me as hyperbolic—in particular “the actions of Ms. Higonnet had endangered her own life and the lives of her two minor children”. 

This may be true in some academic sense (e.g. in the sense that stepping on board an aeroplane carries a minute but nonetheless real and quantifiable risk of dying in a plane crash), but it does not seem to fit the facts here. Or is this some sort of lawyerly hyperbolae which is simply discounted down to some more reasonable set of claims when read by professionals??

posted by: anon on January 31, 2010  10:04am

Well Bob, I think that some of the racially charged responses to the allegations against Ms. Higonnet, along with Diane Polin’s letter raises the question.

What is Ms. Higonnet’s crime? Allegedly grabbing someone or being white, or both?

I see that NHI has censored yet again, not based on its guidelines, yet again, and this time, it appears, you are responding to the uncensored parts. Does NHI send them to you?

Plus the Hooker debate seems to be hanging over this incident too.

It’s safe to assume that you Kate and I, the “cowardly” Anon, are not witnesses to this incident.

If she grabbed her, I think she should be held accountable. That you are so sure she did is incredibly strange.

Ms. Brooks seems to have the entire Yale law school behind her ... the entire pro Hooker School crowd, and I am the one with an agenda?

Is this a case of alleged assault or a case of a fancy white professor who ticked off people with agendas? I didn’t hijack this case, the community did. I am only trying to drag it back to reality.

We don’t know Higonnet’s side of the story. For you to refer to any other version or possibility than the one Ms. Brook’s provided some “alternative dimension” frankly is irresponsible, especially coming from a law professor.

As to how common it is for victims to be lawyered up in New Haven GA 23 court, you are dreaming. That’s just a joke. It’s just not true.

As to my naive advocacy for and faith in the presumption of innocence being demonstrative of my “apparent infinitessimal knowledge of the law” well, so be it then—maybe I don’t want to know how dirty it can get.
...

posted by: YES, GATE CAMERA PLEASE on January 31, 2010  10:44am

Shame on ‘Anon’ for more false, inflammatory accusations. The post referred to is not racist and does not encourage “Ms. Brooks to go hard after Ms. Higonnet” or “get the white lady,”—Higonnet’s race wasn’t even published by then. 
After ‘City Hall Watch’ blamed the victim and two other commentors questioned why this out of district family is in the neighborhood, the post suggested that: “EVERYONE across New Haven show solidarity by parking LEGALLY on Everit” which, thankfully, has become a reality as, now, white Everit St. homeowner/Hooker parents are showing support by dropping off at the gate too. If other Everit Street residents just can’t stand living on a public street like the rest of us, please move to a gated, private one. In their own words, “DUH.”

Parents and students have also expressed fear and concern for their physical safety: “With all the craziness these whiny privileged Everit St obstructionists have spewed over the years my instincts have been to escort my children while walking down Everit St.”  ...and a WH student wrote: “After four and a half years in various temporary spaces, hundreds of us school children have lived these years being made to feel unwelcome and inferior and are naturally afraid to walk to our new school. Now we need someone to drive us for protection so please complain to Anne Higonnet about the increase of traffic on Everit and the surrounding Streets.”

I agree that a security camera should monitor the Everit gate to help protect other citizens from possible harm.

posted by: robn on January 31, 2010  11:22am

An earlier comment mentions that before the incident, Ms Brooks swerved across the street and double parked facing the wrong way. Not that it excuses Ms Higgonets behavior but if this is true, Ms Brooks’ dangerous behavior may have set the tone of the incident. Its curious that this wasn’t reported in the first article.

posted by: Bob Solomon on January 31, 2010  11:38am

ANON, whoever you may be -

Nothing in my response adopts any version of the facts.  I objected to your very weird deecision to present “possible” facts.  ...

On the choice for a victim to be represented, you are just wrong.  Connecticut has long provided that victims of crimes have a right to be heard.  They get to meet with victim’s advocates.  Community Mediation offers to mediate certain disputes.  The victim has the right to make choices, and one of those choices is to be represented. In the past year, in domestic violence cases, my students and I have represented dozens of victims, and we frequently communicate with the prosecutor on behalf of our clients.  I have also participated in pretrials, for the simple reason that my clients did not want to appear but wanted to be heard.  That’s the way it is.  You can hang around GA23 all day, and never know which victims are represented and which are not. Diane Polan is a highly competent lawyer who represents her clients with the highest professional standards. Her letter explains why her client wishes to move forward.  None of us knows what she felt, what her children felt, or how traumatic this was.  As for what crime she committed, if (yes, if) she pulled open the door of a moving car with a child inside, that is a serious crime that merits a charge of risk of injury.  Believe me when I say that in representing victims of domestic violence (our caseload was 79 last year), I have seen risk of injury for much less than this. By the way - I understand why you think that calling me a Yale Law Professor is meant to signify something, but I don’t see any of my colleagues on this list and I am sure that my views are not all that popular.

posted by: Anon on January 31, 2010  11:54am

1. On January 15 this post appeared on the orginal arrest story, informing Brooks that her sisters supported her and urging a protest to follow Martin Luther King’s birthday. The poster taunts Higonnet—- “Life too hard honey?”  I have cut and paste it below:

Evidently this isn’t good enough Anne Higonnet, Harvard College B.A, Yale PhD plus nine page Vita. Life too hard honey? It must be horrible to live in a 5,849 square foot million dollar home 11 houses and 958.14 feet away from a gate for public school children.
Dear Sister Brooks, you have our support!
We are afraid for our children’s safety but shall not be moved—there is safety in numbers, EVERYONE across New Haven show solidarity the day after Martin Luther King’s Birthday this Tuesday by parking LEGALLY on Everit.

Under it she links to a you tube video called “eyes on the prize” her link is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZWdDI_fkns

This poster was unequivocal in stating that Higonnet’s alleged crime was a deliberate crime against the black race. Not even Brooks lawyer is claiming that, nor would she—it is baseless.

2. On January 16 a heavily censored entry was posted warning about he next “friskyy” that gets out of line and contains a link to this page:

http://picasaweb.google.com/TAGGRBOYZ/EveritStreetGraffitiProject#5427316833134948898

This is a photograph of Higonnet dressed as a wicked witch in front of a famous drawing of the dawn of school desegregation in the South, showing a young black school girl being escorted to school by government authorities.

THere are several examples of posts like this on NHI and Yale Daily News.

So I want to alert readers that the post by “Gate Camera Please” who called my documentation of it false and inflammatory, appears to be a piece of misinformation.

I think what is happening is very serious and I think NHI should take it seriously. Instead it is censoring posts that raise the question of anti-white racism, while giving free reign to those making the racial attacks, as if that is respectable politics while the questions raised are not. 

It is manipulating the debate, suppressing it, literally.

That Kate had the audacity—she is probably the only witness who has posted who is a non-witness to come so close to saying the allegations are “facts.”

In the original arrest story in the NHI, Higonnet said the incident was blown out of proportion. The guard was quoted saying he called 911 for a verbal altercation.

Let’s wait and see.

It is sickening to see this level of racial mobbing treated as “normal” not controversial, for so few to see how really serious and vicious it is.

It’s sickening too to see questions about it censored so baselessly.

posted by: New Havener on January 31, 2010  1:15pm

I would just like to say that I have known Anne Higgonet my entire life. Her son is one of my best friends and i know that, without a doubt, Anne would not physically attack anyone. The school asks for Hooker parents to drop their kids off on the Whitney Avenue side of the Hooker school. Ms. Brooks should know that being a Hooker parent and should abide by the rules. Maybe she should tell the truth too. Many people have already discredited her story of Anne pulling her out of the car or actually touching her at all.

And on the topic of her being racist, that is completely untrue. She is the least racist person I know. She is a very kind woman and just because someone gets into a dispute with an African American person does not classify them as a racist.

posted by: Anon on January 31, 2010  1:36pm

Bob, I stood up for the presumption of innocence and the possibility the allegations were false.

Kate ... asserted the allegations as fact, then backpeddled and said well, since Polan is involved they must be. I find that incredible.

Also, knowing as I do the dynamics of the process, if the allegations are false, the actual facts could be that there was an argument only. That’s what Higonnet and the guard’s quote suggested, though they are being very quiet.

You seem to be confusing me with other posters who have speculated whole sets of facts.

As to the notion that my knowledge might be from “hanging around” New Haven GA, that’s the wrong impression.

I know that most of what is worked out happens behind closed doors

Domestic violence cases were different, were more scrupulous about having the victim advocates in the courtroom, and you should know that if you don’t. That was a reform that followed the torrington case.

Victim rights are codified. Alleged victims have the right to engage in the process in just the way that Brooks has. That doesn’t mean its common. It’s not.

I am sure you have represented victims as you say.

Alleged victims are consulted, are supposed to be, as to how they want the prosecution to proceed.

They have the right to do what Brooks did, by hiring a lawyer to zealously represent her interests, but most don’t.

I stand by what I said. For misdemeanor crimes especially, but just about all of them, it is decidedly uncommon for alleged victims to be represented.

In domestic violence cases, it is most common for the victim advocate to consult the victim, and not have lawyer.

Further to be meeting with the alleged perpetrator at court at the first hearing is almost unheard of.

It is very uncommon. You should know that if you don’t and I think you do. 

The fact is, lots of misdemeanor charges are bogus and the victims never even show up. Why there is such interest in suppressing that observation is beyond me.

Yale clinics have almost no program for criminal practice in the trial level courts in New Haven, or in Connecticut as a whole.

Who are you kidding taking Yale’s thin criminal practice in New Haven’s GA, and the predominence of victims advocates in domestic violence cases as qualifying you to make statements about what is common practice in New Haven GA for criminal cases?

Having a lawyer as a victim is legal, is a right and may be a darn good idea. It is exceedingly uncommon and in a case like this I think it is indeed pretty darn slick.

To be a lawyer who knows the presumption of innocence is what it is and accuse someone who stands by it of some flowery form of delusion to me is the same thing as saying Higonnet is guilty.

posted by: john wysolmerski on January 31, 2010  1:47pm

I find this whole incident really sad, both for those directly involved, but also for what the discussion on this page reveals about our community.  I have nothing to add about the altercation or the gate issue, which has been thoroughly discussed already.  But, I just have to shake my head over the general level of vindictiveness of the comments here.  You know, I have often wondered why New Haven never seems to live up to its potential.  And too often it seems the answer is that we are intent on tearing ourselves to pieces over the silliest things.  Sorry for being preachy here, but it is not ultimately helpful to infuse every decision we face or incident that happens with class and/or racial strife.  One of the great things about New Haven is that a lot of committed and passionate folks live here.  But..we should save our righteous indignation for the big problems and try to keep it out of little things. Sounds like the only person that showed a little leadership and tried to diffuse an otherwise minor confrontation was the responding policeman.  Too bad he/she did not prevail.

posted by: JB on January 31, 2010  2:20pm

I agree.  The person who showed the most sense was the police officer.

Someone is clearly not telling the truth and I don’t understand why I should automatically believe it’s Ms. Higonet?

posted by: Anon on January 31, 2010  2:24pm

I think the NHI should stop censoring out the parts of my comments…

[Editor’s note: I’ve attempted to contact you about why parts of comments are removed, but you don’t list a real email address.]

posted by: terrapin on January 31, 2010  7:17pm

Gee, what a surprise that a member of the Yale community would expect to get a pass on being held respionsible for their actions. Good for you, Ms. Brooks!

posted by: roomwithaview on January 31, 2010  11:26pm

From my vantage point, this incident looks like the inevitable blow-up that was coming over the gate concern. The feverish emotions over this gate were bound to spill over as it seems to have become the symbol of the lingering resentment of some Everit folk towards the school. I hope Ms. Brooks’ allegations will be more fully investigated.  If what she alleges did occur than it’s no wonder she is unwilling to accept mediation and more serious charges may be in order. One cannot help but feel that if the roles were reversed and a black woman was badgering, possibly endangering, a white woman and her children in this way, the legal system would have thrown the book at the “attacker”. That said, I hope that this will be the height of the “fever”, that the Everit St. “resistance fighters” will see how demeaning and damaging this has been for Ms. Higonnet and move forward from here as good neighbors. Good neighbors may not always agree, but they know how to address their differences in a civil, appropriate way.

posted by: cas on February 1, 2010  8:22am

Looks like this Brooks woman is making a mountain out of a mole hill. ... So they had a minor beef over Brooks parking where she is admittedly is not supposed to park.  big deal - get over it, stop tying up the court system over it and trying to shake money out of the old lady. ...

posted by: anon 2.0 on February 1, 2010  8:56am

Well, after watching this discussion for a while I want to applaud johnwysolmerski for his thoughtful comments.

Part of the problem with our politics on a big scale is the media glee in gotcha moments—and they realize they when they post the stories we (and I include myself here of course) eat them up avidly. WHether its John Edwards love baby, Michael Jackson whatever—we are the problem. We click on the stroy, we read it—-like slowing to watch an accident on I-95.

Local journalism like NHI has every right and cause to cover these stories, but then, what newspapers discover, is that continuing the story and allowing comments below increases their web hits and readership. 

Theoretically, this is good for a community to have a discussion and air views etc. But whether its the interwebs or health care town halls, there is no mistaking that our public discourse is regrettably at a low tone.

Now, this is all completely apart from the actual events and the subsequent legal story that is playing out—but who knows? Maybe the comments and media coverage DOES influence that as well.  Right?  The tone here may make the actual events play out worse.  And makes it harder for folks to come to a mediation with dignity and privacy.  If they feel they are playing to an audience or have a constituency.

Because for reasons that we can all speculate about—this unfortunate interaction has come to take on symbolic value for people on all sides of the Hookergate debacle.

For me, the high volume and contentious comments speak to something johnw refers to—the great disparity between the promise of New Haven and what it actually delivers, i.e. quality of life, sense of community etc etc. And the resulting frustration!

However we think about deciding to place Hooker where it is, having this shoved down people’s throats has resulted in a set of feelings about the way things work here.

Example: We live in the neighborhood. Merely a few blocks away. On a really nice street. Smack dab in the middle of RENA area.  Our kids could not go to Hooker grade school or middle school because we were not “in district.”  And every day we would watch folks driving from 4 miles away taking their kids to school there.  Our house taxes are equal to two to three times the average price per student per year in the NH school district. Is this fair?

So, yes, it remains very frustrating to read these discussions about a parent from across town deciding not to send her child to her local school, and not supporting her local school, and choosing to send her child to school in our neighborhood, then arriving late, swerving across the street and double parking and then trying to avoid a neighbor tapping her window to speak about the situation.  I don’t think she was acting like a good neighbor.  And neither was Higgonet from what we all assume to be the case, but may not be.

Just sayin.

posted by: Ha! on February 1, 2010  9:39am

Pretty clear, I think:

Cha-CHING!

posted by: Hood Rebel on February 1, 2010  10:06am

Anon, you really need to take a good look at the person in the mirror. Your posts are so very sad and proving that the bottom line for you are your materialistic values. Good luck with that.

posted by: streever on February 1, 2010  10:10am

Anon:
“Sheesh”?

Katie said, to Hyperbole:
“That anger stems mainly from the idea that a small cadre of private citizens can lay claim to a public street and prevent other citizens from using it”
“How comfy it must be for you to express your embarrassment at people like me who post our opinions under our real names, while you hide under your mask of anonymity.”
“your general attempt to reframe the entire incident under the pretext of a “thought experiment””

This is what I’m saying “right on” to. I don’t know why you feel the need to “sheesh” me. Don’t sheesh me, man.

I’m a strong advocate of the publics right to use public spaces. I don’t see that as sheesh worthy. I’m also a big advocate of not saying something on here anonymously if you can’t say it to the person’s face.

posted by: City Hall Watch on February 1, 2010  10:28am

Streever:

You assume people with whom you disagree, post things on here, they wouldn’t or don’t say in public or to somebody’s face. That’s an incorrect assumption.

posted by: Mister Jones on February 1, 2010  12:05pm

Cookie Polan is a good lawyer advocating for her client as she is supposed to, but can’t everyone else take a deep breath and calm down?  Sounds like there’s plenty of bad behavior to go around, but the defendant here at least tried to apologize and the victim has not only refused the apology but refused mediation.  Sounds like she wants her pound of flesh.  What about a little forgiveness?

This sounds like a perfect case for Community Mediation.  But instead we have “The Great Everit Street Gate Debate…”

posted by: Anon on February 1, 2010  12:51pm

Why I posted, and why I argued hard:

I posted because I was reading threads where lawyers and others had weighed in, to condemn Higonnet and it was gaining steam and snowballing in the direction of crucifying this her on charges that may not even be true, not just for the alleged acts, but her race and, it seemed, left-over Hooker School bitterness too.

If you look at my first post, it was really the first to try to hit the breaks really hard on that out of control mobbing.

If I have to take some heat and ridicule for that, so be it.

I stand by it, and will say again, that lawyers and others got on this board and vouched for the ‘facts’ in one way or another, without being witnesses to the incident and in the case of the lawyers, at the very least, they did it KNOWING that public pressure can influence New Haven GA outcomes. It was beyond shameful. It truly did sicken me.

posted by: Anon on February 1, 2010  12:57pm

PS And if anyone happened to download this page before NHI went in and removed the last part of Rose Polan’s post, plese, send it up to the state lawyer grievance committee and Higonnet’s lawyer. It may not amount to a censure, but it would remain on file.

I am glad I don’t live on Evirett Street, that’s for sure.

posted by: Sunshine's mom on February 1, 2010  2:00pm

WHAT DOES HAVING A BUMPER STICKER HAVE TO DO WITH THE OUTRIGHT DISRESPECT FROM THIS LADY???WOW I AM A HOOKER PARENT AND THIS IS ONLY HALF OF THE BS THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO ENDURE FROM PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY OWN THIS STREET,WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PARK IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL BUT WE DO IT!!!I’M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO IVE SEEN DO THIS I TOTALLY AGREE W/ MS. BROOKS SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED THERE WAS A RISK OF INJURY TO A MINOR ETC. HAD SHE OPENED MY DOOR PLEASE BELIEVE ME THAT SHE WOULD HAVE NEEDED AN EMT AND I WOULD’VE PROBABLY BEEN ON UNION AVE. MS. BROOKS DON’T BACK DOWN FIGHT YOUR FIGHT,I’M WITH YOU!!!!! AND AS FOR THE PROFESSOR .... YOU NOR YOUR NEIGHBORS OWN THAT STREET!!!! WHICH IS WHY I GUESS THEY WOULDN’T LET CONSTRUCTION BUILD THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ON WHITNEY AND EXIT ONTO EVERIT??BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU??GROW UP FOR GOD’S SAKE AND LEAVE THESES KIDS AND PARENTS ALONE!!!!!!!

posted by: A. Zervos on February 1, 2010  4:50pm

I know Professor Higonnet personally, and I can say that this entire incident has been blown way out of proportion—if you met her, it would be very clear, very quickly that she could not be the menace that the unpleasantly litigious Ms. Brooks makes her out to be. Instead she is a wonderfully caring person who appears to have gotten a little carried away enforcing what she appears to have seen as a compact between the neighborhood and the school. She apologized, and that should have been the end of it.

I find the harsh and frankly unjustifiably nasty things posted about Professor Higonnet on this and other boards very saddening—there are real problems with racism in US society, but this incident isn’t a manifestation of this, and shouldn’t be portrayed as such. Instead, I think the entire story reeks of a nasty legal PR campaign by a so-called “victim” that linked to existing New Haven class/race resentments, and is aimed at extracting a large civil settlement.

posted by: worktogether on February 1, 2010  5:13pm

I feel sorry for Brook’s child: I do not know what kind of lesson Brooks thinks her daughter will learn from this “not accepting an olive branch” but it does not seem to me that the behaviors are designed to help people get along. Perhaps, following President Obama’s lead, these two women need to get together for a beer!

posted by: no baloney on February 1, 2010  5:29pm

I wonder what Brooks’daughter thinks about the incident, since she knows that the principal has asked all the parents to use the Whitney Avenue entrance. When the principal asks students to follow school rules, will they? Who is doing the “endangering” long term here????

posted by: Anon on February 1, 2010  6:38pm

Does Paul Garlinghouse still ‘share an office’ with Diane Polan? Another lawyer taking a side.

Unbelievable, his comment was so far up the thread I forgot about it.

Yeah, I almost regretted using the word “slick” when I was criticized for it by one commenter, but now, you know, I stand by it in spades.

This has got to be the worst example of ‘pigs at the legal trough’ as I have ever seen on the NHI board.

posted by: NEW LOW on February 1, 2010  7:25pm

Speaking of “reeking of a nasty PR campaign,” the post submitted at 2 PM today under the pseudonym of “Sunshine’s mom,” supposedly a WHS parent, was a new low. It was NOT posted by a Worthington Hooker School parent, but by someone attempting to smear a group while backing up a previously stated theory of reverse racism.

What was that you were saying about olive branches and working together?

posted by: angelo on February 1, 2010  8:42pm

Uh, anon - Garlinghaus criticized Polan’s client.  You might actually read before you rant, with your “slick in spades.”

posted by: Anon on February 2, 2010  12:43am

Angelo, the opposite. The defendant is not Polan’s client, Brooks is.

the defendant is Higonnet, the arrestee.

posted by: Bob Solomon on February 2, 2010  7:44am

ANON -

All the lawyers got together for coffee in Roswell, NM, then there was a bright light, and that’s the last thing I remember.  BTW - isn’t the point of “pigs at the trough” that the pigs get something out of this?  Please tell me where the trough is.  Over and out - I’ll be at a different trough.

posted by: Anon on February 2, 2010  11:23am

Roswell, well, indeed, it’s worse than I thought!

You tell us the motive. There are lawyers who know better trashing the presumption of innocence in the comment section of this story.

We can’t read minds, we can only read these posts. You want me to speculate rather than depend on you to know your own mind? Or was your mind abducted at a New-Age convention in Roswell?

posted by: anon on February 2, 2010  11:37am

I mean, aside from the pleasure evident in the posts themselves, plopped without a single hint of disaproval for the intense racial smearing Higonnet has received on this board. Even I was racially swiped in one post just for protesting it.

The lawyers were happy to join the mobbing and that is feeding at the trough, for starters.

Roswell has nothing on New Haven - the only thing likely to get fixed over coffee in Roswell are the prices for gasoline at the local service stations.

posted by: abg on February 2, 2010  3:49pm

I’m glad “Hooker Mom” made it into this headline as well. “Proud Hooker Mom” is definitely one of the best bumper stickers ever, right up there with “Bipartisanship: I’ll hug your elephant if you kiss my ass.” Does Ms. Brooks rejecting mediation also rule out Judge Judy? I would love to see Judge Judy saying “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining!” to these two whiny prima donnas and all their whiny prima donna supporters.

posted by: Jim H. on February 2, 2010  10:08pm

Diane Polan cracks me up.

In her letter she mentions “<Brooks> who is an Africa-American.”

Nice. Schweet.  Bring the race card to the table.  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t expect to be treated as an equal, but in times of trouble, use the race card as a way to get what you want.  That’s called having it both ways.

Then people wonder why race relations are strained in this country.  Give me a break.

posted by: Karen T. on February 2, 2010  10:22pm

What the hell is Mrs. Higonnet doing in that neighborhood?  She’s a professor and her husband is a professor.  They probably have a decent income.  Surely, they could afford to live outside New Haven in some nicer neighborhood in the suburbs.

Perhaps after stupid experiences like this, they’ll now consider getting out of the city and away from its weirdos.

I thank God I don’t live in this stink’n city.  The “get whitey” mentality you people have to put up with would be unbearable for me.

posted by: CULPRIT on February 3, 2010  12:00am

PDDs. New Haven’s version of a land grab. You put schools and traffic where million dollar home owners expect seclusion you gotta expect trouble. Okay its turned nasty with race being the issue now. The real problem is the law giving a power hungry Mayor and his City Plan Commission the right to do what they want. Add to that the citys total inability to educate its kids means parent demand for Hooker is off the planet. Whos really to blame. We all know and we all vote for him.

posted by: Mister Jones on February 3, 2010  2:54pm

Where’s Charlie Pillsbury when you need him?

posted by: Anon on February 8, 2010  1:06pm

I’d like Kate Rohner, Bob Solomon and Paul Garlinghouse (all lawyers)to read my comments posted here:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/alderman_charged_with_trespassing/

My handle is the same, “anon.” It is about Alderman Goldson’s arrest.

I want you to know too that I know all three of you know about the veracity of what I outlined in my posts on the Goldson story.

I also want you to know that I personally witnessed a case in New Haven’s GA where the judge said that if the press showed up, she would not dismiss the charges she was planning on dismissing, and it was a Yale clinic case.

The presence or absence of public input can sway a judge either way, depending on the case.

So, you all know better, and if you don’t frankly, how could that be?

Be sarcastic as you like Bob, that’s your usual response to criticism, but I have this issue nailed down tight and if you don’t, I think you should get out of the legal clinic business.