Congressional Testimony: Dr. Catherine Keske to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

“There’s some work that needs to be done…”

From Lawless America:

Congressional Testimony: Dr. Catherine Keske to Bill Windsor of Lawless America.

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, send an email to: Nobodies@att.net  

 

Interview: Frank Kerley with Bill Windsor of Lawless America

“I have just begun to fight.”

From LawlessAmerica.com:

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, send an email to: Nobodies@att.net  

“Now we know there is no real law.”

 

From LawlessAmerica.com:

Congressional Testimony: Susan Carlson to Bill Windsor of Lawless America

Lawless America…The Movie is all about exposing the fact that we now live in Lawless America. We no longer have laws that are enforced because judges do whatever they want to do. America has also become lawless because government officials are dishonest and/or corrupt.

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials will be exposed, and we will confront a number of the crooks.

If anyone has ever questioned the story of a person who has expressed the view that they were a victim of the government or of judges, this movie will prove that the odds are that the corruption report was true. In fact, there are probably tens of millions of victims in the United States who never realized what happened to them.

One feature length documentary movie is being produced. It will be shown in theaters, on Netflix, Blockbuster, and other such video places, and the movie will be presented at the Sundance Film Festival and other film festivals.

In addition, videos will be produced for each state and for each type of corruption. Everyone interviewed for the film recorded a three-minute segment that will be done as testimony before Congress as well as a 30-60 minute on-camera interview with Bill Windsor, founder of LawlessAmerica.com and the Revolutionary Party. The legislators in each state are receiving the testimony from those in their state, and the members of the U.S. House and Senate will receive all of the testimony nationwide.

Over 750 people were scheduled to be interviewed for the movie.

For more information, see:

The Lawless America website: www.LawlessAmerica.com

Lawless America YouTube Channel: www.YouTube.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/lawlessamerica

Lawless America The Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2337260/

To reach Bill Windsor, send an email to: Nobodies@att.net  

A Primer: All About Waste and the Wizard of Oz

by Julia Fletcher

Did you read what that quote says? Who would include such a vulgar quote as the introduction to a “custody primer”? 

In a mandatory video for Guardian ad Litem and Attorney for Minor Child training and certification in Connecticut, the woman playing the Guardian ignores the mother’s concerns about “child porn” on the father’s computer. The Guardian  expresses concern for a thirteen-year-old girl’s “sexting”, but doesn’t do anything to help protect any of the children who are involved. 

Other required materials for the training and certification include the document below. The state of Connecticut’s Office of Child Protection that handles the training and certification doesn’t offer any explanation of what the document is. No reason is offered for its inclusion in the required materials. 

It’s an essay called, What Matters in Custody? A Primer. Here’s an excerpt:

So, if one were to watch the required video and read that bit of required reading, upon receiving one’s certification as a Guardian ad Litem in Connecticut, one should NOT contact the FBI as soon as possible to report crimes against children such as “sexting” and/or “child porn” on a computer. Interesting. 

Apparently, someone in Connecticut’s Office of Child Protection decided that parents, under the threat of “sanctions”, will wait to report child endangerment and abuse to the authorities. At what point was that decided in Connecticut and who decided it? Who decided to make the training video noted above, instructing Connecticut’s Guardians ad Litem to totally ignore disclosures of crimes against children?  

Clearly, Connecticut legislators must not be aware of these new rules. Perhaps no one has had the time or the courage to tell the legislators about the criminal quackery that has infiltrated Connecticut’s family courts. 

Maybe it would help if someone would write a post called “Whistle Blower Week”. It could include information about people like Retired Judge DeAnn SalcidoEmily Gallup and John Peragine.   Maybe then a few good people in Connecticut will step forward and say something. When a few courageous people speak up, many more usually follow.

I’m still looking forward to the results of the FBI investigation there. Maybe the FBI needs the information found in this post. I should probably tag it with words that will grab their attention: “bombs”,  “terrorists”, “Martha Stewart” (As referenced on page 9) 

There. That should do it.

  

Another Way it Happens

by Julia Fletcher

Recent posts  How Does it Happen? and  Looking in a Blind Eye show several ways in which family courts fail our children. The following video clip  from Connecticut’s guardian ad litem training shows yet another way it happens. 

The woman playing the guardian ad litem seems like a trustworthy person with years of experience in the field of child protection. She’s a mother and grandmother of five who wears her heart on her sleeve next to the unexplained  disconnect when it comes to protecting the children she’s supposed to protect.

If  this video is supposed to teach people how to speak with parents in a family court case, maybe the woman playing the guardian ad litem was unprepared or caught off guard by ad lib comments about “child porn”. Why else would a guardian ad litem ignore disclosures of child abuse?  

While we’re asking, here are a few more questions: 

  • Which consultants wrote the sample case for the training and who approved the content? 
  • Do administrators there purposely or inadvertently encourage a lack of respect for established law? 
  • What intolerable consequence could possibly threaten those who do the work it takes to protect children from abuse in family courts?

Here’s the sample case summary:  

Mona and Howard are married and have three children, Justine, 13 years; Kevin, 6 years; and Amy, 18 months.

According to Howard, a lack of sexual intimacy with his wife led him to have an affair with Olive – the babysitter who is “half  his age”. He allows his 13-year-old daughter to use her cell phone to send sexually explicit text messages and provocative photos of herself to her friends. In this video, he appears to admit having “child porn” on his computer.  

Mona is anxious and depressed. Her psychiatrist ruled out all other possible reasons for her symptoms and diagnosed her as having postpartum depression. He prescribed  medication which caused suicidal thoughts and excessive drowsiness. At some point, she fell asleep on the couch while her 18-month-old daughter sat on the floor chewing on a pill bottle – prompting someone to recommend supervised visitation for her when she is with her children …

How Does it Happen?

by Julia Fletcher

A few mothers, each with an armful of clear evidence of crimes and corruption in Connecticut family courts, visited the Bridgeport, Connecticut office of the FBI yesterday.

One FBI agent told one of the mothers that what she was saying didn’t make sense to him. He said he’s sure that family court judges don’t take abused children from protective mothers to give full custody of the abused children to the fathers who abused them. The FBI agents then turned away the mothers and their evidence.

At least  FOX News is investigating the family court crisis. Let’s hope FOX News will knock on the FBI office doors in Bridgeport, Connecticut to ask why that office turned away those mothers and their evidence.

While we wait for someone to investigate why that FBI office won’t investigate, maybe other FBI agents – except for the FBI in Michigan – will want to watch this video about one family court case. It’s a fine example of what happens.

Now we need the FBI to figure out how it happens in family courts all over the country. 

“First and Foremost, a Patronage Mill”

Video clip from Lawless America: The Movie

Anne Grant, M.A., M.Div., won two Emmy Awards as a television writer and producer in the 1970s before becoming a United Methodist minister. In the 1980s and 1990s, she was executive director of the Women’s Center of Rhode Island, the state’s largest shelter for battered women and their children. There she documented practices at Rhode Island’s Family Court and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families that endanger victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. She wrote the column, “Overcoming Abuse,” for the Providence Journal (1990–1996) and formed the Parenting Project at Mathewson Street United Methodist Church to assist children and protective parents. She produces several blogs, including Rhode Island’s Little Hostages and Writing Truth to Power. She is now writing screenplays and nonfiction based on her research into custody cases that illustrate the trauma of adversarial litigation. (Mo Therese Hannah, PhD and Barry Goldstein, JD). 

Mo Therese Hannah, PhD and Barry Goldstein, JD, eds. Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues Kingston, New Jersey: Civic Research Institute, 2010.

“Social Networking” or Conflicts of Interest?

by Julia Fletcher

A few weeks ago, I wondered why someone in Connecticut would send a link to Dr. Horowitz’s list of  “Facebook friends” to me. Dr. Horowitz looks like a very nice man. Why does it matter who he publicly lists as “Facebook friends”?

Here’s why it matters: 

Dr. Horowitz is “Facebook friends” with several attorneys and custody evaluators in Connecticut – like Bonnie Robson, who is a family law attorney.  Attorney Bonnie Robson and Dr. Horowitz  are business partners, working together in a business called, “The Collaborative Divorce Team of Connecticut” 

This is from their website:

Divorce Should Not Be a Battle!

The traditional divorce process is an adversarial system, often resulting in expensive, drawn out battles over property settlements, custody, alimony and myriad other issues. The chance of a couple emerging from this process amicably is remote at best, and the effect on children is often dramatic.

We all know that divorce should not be a battle. So why is it?

Cases involving child abuse, spousal abuse and domestic violence clearly don’t belong in an adversarial family court system. Why are they there?

It would be okay if  Dr. Horowitz and Attorney Robson were working together in a business venture to mediate divorce cases in which all parties agree to their involvement. However, when “Facebook friends” work “collaboratively” with each other without the agreement of all parties in a case, in an adversarial court setting, that’s not “collaboration”. It‘s “collusion”.

Attorney Robson’s husband, Dr. Kenneth Robson was the custody evaluator in this case . Dr. Horowitz is the “parenting coach” in that same case.   

Does Dr. Horowitz’s list of Facebook friends show harmless “social networking” or does it sound an alarm to litigants, taxpayers  and legislators that conflicts of interest are running Connecticut family courts?

Norm Pattis, an attorney in Connecticut wrote  in his blog :

… There is a vast infrastructure of experts, therapists, counselors, social workers, court staff and lawyers in the state, all of whom know one another, and all of whom march beneath the banner of “best interests of the child.” When conflict arises in a divorce about what is best for the kids, there are programs, protocols and resources to throw at the warring parties …

He continues:

… What I see in the cases in which I get involved is a regime that simply promotes and extends the conflict by other, and expensive means…

Attorney Pattis calls the family court system in Connecticut a “regime”. Others call it a “cottage industry”. Maybe Dr. Horowitz is joking when he lists “Angry Birds” as his other Activities and Interests on his Facebook profile page. If that was his intent, someone should probably remind him that ruined lives aren’t funny.

So, what could be better than “a vast infrastructure of experts, therapists, counselors, social workers, court staff and lawyers” with “programs, protocol and resources to throw at the warring parties”?

Here’s what Attorney Pattis thinks: 

… Juries bring community values and common sense to a courtroom.  Why don’t we trust them with decisions in divorce and custody? I worry that the community of experts, judges and lawyers become inbred when they deal with one another month by month in these heartbreaking cases. Therapists really don’t know best.

Inbred. That’s another way to describe it.

It looks like Dr. Horowitz lists friends as his “Facebook friends”. It looks like he lists his family members as his “Facebook friends”. He also lists what looks like part of that “vast infrastructure of experts, therapists, counselors, social workers, court staff and lawyers”  Attorney Pattis wrote about. 

Who allowed this to happen in the Connecticut family court system and where’s the FBI?

Editor’s note: With all due respect for the privacy of Dr. Horowitz’s public list of Facebook friends, we hesitate to post the screenshot of his public page here. We have done so because the authorities in Connecticut have purposely or inadvertently allowed this open collusion. We hope this post will encourage Connecticut taxpayers to demand an investigation. 

“I am petitioning for the following changes…”

From Change.org:

Mother’s Day wish to bring my child home…

Dear Attorney General Eric Schneidermann:

It is Mother’s Day of 2012 and nearly one year ago, my daughter was taken from me as a result of an “arbitrary and capricious” decision made by the Family Court judge. This “temporary” order gives my daughter’s father full custody and limited access to me–her mother (which means barely 20 hours every other week, no overnights)

Despite much effort to avoid court intervention for my divorce, I placed trust in the system to be fair in judging what would be in her best interest of our child. Three years later, my petition for full-custody has evolved into a “kangeroo court” focused on anything but the “best interest of my child”.

As I’m sure you know, the state’s Family Court system needs serious reform.

Countless responsible and loving parents lose their children dictated by corrupt activities in our courts. Parents are powerless because of the immunity granted to all judges, law guardian, and expert witnesses.

It is time that we stop from allowing these individuals to operate by their own rules. This is an abuse of power, similar to police brutality. And these actions are parallel to sick acts of children bullying of other children.

On that note, I am petitioning for the following changes:

* Enforcement of a child’s constitutional right to their own attorney through parents’ consent.

* Clear guidelines and standards on what qualifies and DOES NOT qualify as quasi-immunity in child custody trials for judges, law guardians and expert witnesses. Disciplinary action taken for defined unethical behavior.

* Forensic evaluators, specifically child psychiatrists or psychologists must provide reports and testimony that is objective and evidence-based. Mandate that these paid professionals are Board Certified in Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology to insure they understand the clear difference between forensic and clinical evaluations.

* Gross negligence would be subject to possible civil tort litigation and/or prosecution.
In cases medical experts who act with gross negligence, their actions can qualify as medical malpractice despite absence of patient-physician relationship.

• Priority through an immediate trial must be placed for temporary decisions that orders significant change in child’s custody.

• Enforce open forum to public in courtroom and/or cameras present, specifically as it relates to interviews with appointed law guardians and forensic evaluators. Privacy of child also would be strictly mandated.

Children are also guaranteed constitutional rights and the laws need to protect them. How can a legal system in our state and country have the liberty of allowing such injustice that is destroying our children? I speak for so many parents who have completely lost faith and trust in our judicial system.

Mr. Attorney General, please help to make this change in New York and be an example for other states to follow. I trust and pray you will make this happen.

Respectfully,

Anonymous (until my child comes home!)
New York County- Manhattan

[Your name]

“Looking in a Blind Eye”

by Julia Fletcher

Driving through a parking lot yesterday, moving forward slowly, I happened to turn my head to the left for some reason. It could have been the bumper sticker that caught my eye. Big and bold. Navy blue and white. It said “We Are Penn State”. 

I don’t think I’ve seen that bumper sticker before. Maybe I have seen it and didn’t notice – having looked at it “in a blind eye” before yesterday. 

Most of us have noticed something for the first time that’s been there all along. Maybe that’s what happened.

Almost everyone knows about Penn State University and their football team and maybe everyone except me has seen that bumper sticker before and they already know what it means. I didn’t.

When I saw that bumper sticker, I didn’t think about cheerleaders at football games. I thought of all the “We are” solidarity slogans we’ve seen in the news lately…

     “We are Trayvon Martin”

                                                                                                                                              “We are Troy Davis”

                                                          “We are Bidder 70”

“We are Penn State”

“Wow.” I thought. “Bumper stickers to show solidarity with the children abused at Penn State.”

I certainly didn’t expect that. The Penn State scandal broke, and now, here’s this public awareness of the importance of speaking up about child abuse with Penn State leading the way!

Everything’s going to be okay… those working in family courts will catch this wave of solidarity and protect our children from now on.  It’s just a matter of time …

So inspired and so clueless. I drove home and sat at my desk to write this post, so optimistic and so ready to call it:

 “We are Penn State!”

Looking online for the bumper sticker, I learned what “We Are Penn State” actually means. It’s been one of the school’s mottos since 1948.

“Success with Honor” is another. 

It’s interesting to note that the phrase “We Are Penn State” actually did start in the spirit of solidarity. It was a show of support for the entire football team at that school and it happened over 60 years ago. The first and now famous sentence spoken was, “We’re Penn State. There’ll be no meetings.” and  “We Are Penn State soon became the football team’s cheer and catchphrase.

I would have thought that the majority of Connecticut state legislators would have shown the same kind of solidarity last month during a Judiciary Committee hearing when two advocates, a psychologist and a physician offered testimony to express their concern and support for a little boy in Connecticut.

It could be that the legislators didn’t show their concern or support for the boy because the hearing was mostly about an attorney – rather than the boy the attorney was supposed to protect.

Those who testified about Attorney Maureen Murphy’s alleged misconduct in the boy’s case, stated their opposition to Ms. Murphy’s promotion to the position of Superior Court judge. They told state legislators about her mishandling of clear and convincing evidence of horrific, unspeakable child abuse.

Just a few weeks before the hearing, Ms. Murphy had been the boy’s Guardian ad litem.

Perhaps the Connecticut legislators thought they had only two choices – to vote for or against Ms. Murphy – and maybe they didn’t have enough time to take a closer look at what happened in that case involving the boy. 

Could it be that some purposely “looked in a blind eye” at the evidence? 

Many of them are lawyers and all are politicians. Were a few of them worried about Ms. Murphy becoming a Superior Court judge and eventually sitting in judgement of them or in judgement of their clients one day?

The testimony was as clear and as convincing as it could be.

Connecticut State Senator Doyle wondered out loud during the hearing about how it could be possible that so many individuals involved in the case didn’t do anything about it. He said, “If Attorney — if Attorney Murphy was the only party in this case and the only person of authority, to me, that would — I could understand it more. But you’re telling me everyone looked in a blind eye. To me, that’s hard to believe.”

It is hard to believe. 

What happened at Penn State is hard to believe too.

Year after year, hundreds of thousands of fans filled that stadium. The football games were televised. The coaches and staff  lived their lives in the public eye. So many coming and going, in and out of the locker rooms. Surely someone must have seen something over the course of so many years. 

Those who saw what happened “looked in a blind eye” there too.   

Is it too hard for us to believe that some adults abuse children in unspeakable ways?

Is it too hard to believe that those in positions of authority in our homes,  in our schools and in our family courts are unwilling or unable to protect children from abuse? Are we ashamed to talk about it or is our shame more important than protecting a child?

Are we afraid or is our fear more important than protecting a child?

Will it inconvenience her in some way?

                               

Will it take too much time for him to investigate?

                                     

 Will their social standing be affected? 
                         Will others think less of them? 
 

    What happens when we dare to speak up first?

Was Ms. Murphy afraid she would be held accountable for not protecting the boy? According to the testimony presented that day, she tried to convince everyone that the abuse did not occur.

Why would she tell others to ignore the signs and symptoms?

And what about a child’s teacher? A child’s teacher would speak up if something’s not quite right. Right?

What should teachers do when a child’s grades drop 33%?

What should teachers do about a child who is “significantly depressed, anxious… traumatized… punching himself in the face… and talking in school about his father playing “tickle the weenie” with him.” ?

 Did Senator Doyle think, if the boy displayed clear signs of child abuse at his school, those in authority at the school would take care of it? Did Senator Doyle consider that maybe the school’s principle worried that an abuse case would harm the school’s reputation  in some way?

Maybe it would disrupt the teachers’ schedules.

Would it invite a lawsuit against the school for not reporting the abuse sooner? 

Did the Ms. Murphy, as Guardian ad litem, convince the teachers to “look in a blind eye” so she would avoid liability as the one who was ultimately responsible for protecting the boy?

In any event, at this point in time, whatever reasons there were for whatever happened in that case don’t matter more than protecting that young boy from harm right now. 

The following is an actual email exchange between the mother and her son’s two teachers. All names in the emails have been redacted.  The mother saw signs that her child’s father was abusing him. She reported the abuse to professionals who reported the abuse to the family court judge.

Subject: meeting today————————

From: (Mother)Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:59 AM To: teacher@aol.com, teacher2

Hello (Teacher) and (2nd Teacher),

I have an emergency that came up this morning and I have to handle it A.S.A.P.

Can we reschedule the PT meeting for one day after school?

Thanks so much,

(Mother)

———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 6:56 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.com, (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com

Hi (Mother),

I have a half an hour available on Thursday at 3:45. Hopefully that will work while you are picking up (Child).

Let me know.

Peace –

Teacher

———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AMTo: “(Teacher)@aol.com” <(Teacher)>Cc: “(2nd Teacher)@gmail.com” <(2nd Teacher)>

Hi (Teacher),,

It’s not a good thing for (Child) to have his already limited time with his mother any further reduced, so let’s find a time when we can meet without doing so. I can make myself available almost anytime outside of my time with him.

Thanks,

(Mother)

———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:34 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.com, (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com

Hi (Mother)-

Just wanted to confirm that we are scheduled for a brief meeting on Thursday at 3:45 in addition to you emailing me your questions and concerns, etc. I do have another conference at 4:15 on Thursday. I will be happy to read your email, respond and place it in (Child)’s file.

Let me know. Thanks.

(Teacher)

———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 1:03 AMTo: (Teacher)@aol.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

Hi (Teacher),

I’m curious why you’re confirming a meeting that I was clear I won’t be able to make.

I certainly understand your constraint of having to get the material from parent conferences turned in by Friday. I also understand that you only have to offer me 30 minutes of time. I think, however, that we’d all agree that (Child)’s situation is far from typical, and that the typical amount of time spent in discussion will not validly cover the issues in anything but a cursory and unrealistic manner. I’d like to avoid the further spread of confusion and misinformation in (Child)’s situation.

I look forward to meeting whenever we are able to do so.

Thanks,

(Mother)

———-From: <teacher>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM To: mother@gmail.com Cc: teacher2@gmail.com, schooloffice@yahoo.com</teacher>

Hi (Mother),

Surely, I agree that (Child) situation is not typical, however I can show you his school work, and relay my observations about him during school session in about 30 minutes. My job and dedication to your son is his behavior and performance in school. While I am sure you are under pressure with all that has happened, I must stay unbiased regarding all other information outside of school. If there is something you feel is a particular situation that you see and may effect your son during school hours, always, please email me and let me know. Particular attention will be given to him that day, as all the teachers have done in the past. I am sorry to not spend this sharing time today with you, to show you how great he is doing and excelling in all areas. Your son is lucky to have you in his life.

Teacher

———-From: Mother <mother>Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:42 AM To: teacher@aol.com Cc: teacher2@gmail.com, schooloffice@yahoo.com</teacher>

Hi (Child’s teacher),

Thanks for working with me to make sure we can come together to find solutions to address (child’s) needs.

I will confess that I am confused about your goals for this meeting. In this email thread you tell me, “My job and dedication to (your son) is his behavior and performance in school.” However the questionnaire I have been working on for the purposes of this meeting asks many detailed questions about his home life, such as, “What area of your family life would you like to improve?”, “Describe your relationship with your child,” and “Tell us about your dreams for you child’s future.” Perhaps the most striking question that is truly relevant to you, and may need 30 minutes of discussion in itself is: “Does your child have any behavior or social difficulties?” I hope you can see how two pages of questions like this would lead me to believe that you are interested in discussing (my son’s) life outside of school at least somewhat.

Regarding the last question, part of the necessary colloquy needs to address how you make observations like “…to show you how great he is doing and excelling in all areas,” and yet have scored him as significantly depressed, anxious, and traumatized on the instruments you have filled out. I have witnessed him self-harming in the classroom, having been corrected by you or (another teacher) in several instances, and yet that is never articulated as a concern in his reports, or relayed to the authorities even when they ask you. Are you concerned that the bulk of his report card scoring has dropped to mainly 2s instead of 1s he was getting during his first year? I don’t perceive what must work out to at a minimum a 33% drop in grades – particularly the social areas – as “excelling in all areas”.

It is this, what seems to be a major disconnect in your reporting your observations, that I feel needs to be explored in more detail. I had hoped to do so face to face, but as it doesn’t seem workable for this week I’ll relay my concerns here.

I understand that being in this situation is very untenable for you and for everyone at the school. No one likes dealing with anything this chaotic. I didn’t bring any of you into this situation, and my asking for honest and clear communication regarding my child is not the problem – it is the only way to come to a solution that helps him.

Thank you for your time,

(Mother)

———-From: <(Teacher)>Date: Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:01 PMTo: (Mother).@gmail.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

(Mother)-

The form you have been asked to share is a standard form, given to all NESM families. We were trying to grant you the same opportunity. Please feel free to disregard the form all together. After a lengthy discussion with (2nd Teacher), we do not see (Child)’s social behavior in the classroom as difficult. I have conveyed this information to several lawyers, therapists, and doctors that have called. Each year comes a higher level of expectation, both in academics and classroom behavior. While we may have observed anxiety, we have not expressed witnessing significant depression or signs of being traumatized. (Child) continues to show improvement in self correcting his own behavior, sometimes with reminders, regarding hurriedly walking and a loud voice in the classroom. I will continue to communicate in an honest and clear manner – keeping (Child)’s well being in mind.

(2nd Teacher)

———-From: (Mother)  <(Mother).>Date: Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 10:14 AMTo: (Teacher)@aol.comCc: (2nd Teacher)@gmail.com, nesmoffice@yahoo.com

Dear (2nd Teacher),

Thank you so much for “trying to grant me the same opportunity” as every other parent of a child in your school has. I’m not sure why it warrants a distinction that you’re “trying to grant me the same opportunity” that every other parent has, but I appreciate it nonetheless. I’m unclear what gave you the impression that I might like to ignore a form that I specifically have been asking for some consideration to go over with you in more detail to assess accurately (Child)’s circumstances.

As you well know, I have been under court-ordered supervision for the last eleven months, and my child is not allowed to spend nights in my home, for no other reason than I reported clear signs of physical and sexual abuse. I find it absolutely hypocritical of you to send (Child) home with a form asking many detailed questions like “Briefly tell us a little about your child’s history, focusing on significant events that have shaped your child’s character/personality,” and then tell me that it is a “standard form” and that you don’t want to entertain discussion that my child is not living a “standard” life.

It is a matter of record that you have scored (Child) on the instruments provided to you by the psychologists with elevated levels in anxiety, depression, and trauma. It is also a matter of record that (Child) has talked in school about his father playing “tickle the weenie” with him. It is not a matter of opinion, and it’s veracity is not open for discussion. What is in need of explanation, however, is your glossing over of (Child)’s falling grades with, “Each year comes a higher level of expectation,” and your strange denial of witnessing behavior in him which is a matter of record that you not only witnessed but corrected.

I am not concerned about whether (Child) runs or speaks loudly or any other normal developmental issues that children learn to curb. I’m frankly not even sure why you would introduce such typical things into a discussion where I am referencing the truly frightening instances of things such as (Child)’s punching himself in the face in your office and classroom, and demonstrating a preoccupation with dying. These would be the behaviors that we are discussing, that an accredited educational facility has a mandate to report accurately to the authorities.

This statement from you: “I must stay unbiased regarding all other information outside of school,” is quite true. “Unbiased” means reporting exactly what happens as it happens – not ignoring it, or saying children are “excelling in all areas” when they are punching themselves in the face, their grades are falling, and they are scored, by you, on psychological testing instruments as highly anxious and depressed. The reason for mandatory reporting laws is to ensure that professional educators are observing and documenting signs that a child’s home life might be abusive or neglectful. In the position you seem to be taking, however, ANY acknowledgement of signs of abuse would be “biased” against a parent suspected of inflicting it.

I had hoped that meeting with you about these issues would give us an opportunity to work together on bringing your disparate accounts of my son’s behavior and performance into alignment. I’m saddened that, instead, you have chosen to evade my valid concerns with a combination of defensive maneuvering and disingenuous obsequious. It seems, unfortunately, at this point that to continue this discussion in a meeting would be a waste of time. If you have any further information for me at this time or in the future, please feel free to email or call me at the number in (Child)’s file.

Thank you so much for your time,

(Mother)

“Success With Honor”. That’s a catchy phrase too. I wonder how many people in Connecticut know about that one.

“Barbaric” Courts on Both Sides of the Pond

From The Daily Mail Online:        

                

Scandal of ‘unqualified’ experts who advise our family courts:

Decisions about the care of thousands of children routinely flawed

 

By Katherine Faulkner

Life-changing decisions about the care of thousands of children are routinely being made on flawed evidence from poorly qualified ‘experts’ in the family courts, a damning study reveals.

More than a fifth of these vital reports are being produced by people who are completely unqualified, the Channel 4 News investigation found.

‘Experts’ used in hundreds of family court proceedings are frequently unqualified or unreliable, the study reveals. In some cases, reports on parents or children are being given to courts by doctors who have not even seen the individuals concerned.  Until now, these ‘expert witnesses’ – often psychologists or psychiatrists – have largely escaped scrutiny due to the draconian secrecy surrounding the family courts.

But in a unique study for the Family Justice Council, Professor Jane Ireland – a forensic psychologist who has herself been an expert witness – examined over 100 expert witness reports used in family court cases. Incredibly, she found that 20 per cent had been produced by people who were not qualified at all. A further fifth had been carried out by people who were writing reports in areas entirely beyond their knowledge and qualifications.

In addition, as many as 90 per cent of the reports had been produced by ‘expert’ witnesses who were no longer in current practice at all, but were simply working as ‘professional expert witnesses’. Often, these professional experts – who rake in thousands of pounds in fees from the chaotic family courts system – have not practised for years, leaving them out of touch with developments in their field.

They are often appointed to assess the suitability of a parent or parents to continue to look after their child in care proceedings brought by local councils. They can also be used in access cases following the separation of a child’s parents. Thousands of children have their futures decided in the family courts every year and because of strict rules on what can be reported, often little is revealed about what happens once the court doors are closed.

In the past, parents have bitterly complained that they have not even been allowed to know the names of the paid expert witnesses who testified against them.

That has now changed but Professor Ireland, of the University of Central Lancashire, said 65 of the 100 reports she examined were ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ carried out.

Some reports were found to ‘cite opinion without conducting a formal assessment’ or show a complete lack of understanding of the conditions discussed. One was even found to have ‘completed an assessment on the mother without actually seeing her’.

Professor Ireland said an ‘urgent review’ of expert witnesses in the family courts was needed. ‘I think we were very concerned and perturbed by some of the reports that we read,’ she told Channel 4 News.

‘Some of the most startling results were the sheer number of expert psychologists . . . who are reporting that their entire job is the production of assessment reports for courts.

‘I think the results from the research are enough to suggest that we do need an urgent review across the range of expert witnesses that the courts are employing.’

The Family Justice Council is an independent public body set up in 2004 and funded by the Ministry of Justice. It is charged with monitoring the family justice system and advising the Government and the courts on how the system can be improved.

One mother involved in family court proceedings told how a psychiatrist who had never seen her wrote a 14-page report on her and her family. The day after the psychiatrist signed off his report he was suspended by the General Medical Council for a separate offence. Despite this, his report was still used by the courts.

‘He’s never seen us, never spoken to us,’ she said, ‘and yet he’s ended up writing 14 pages, with recommendations, that he could not possibly have made if he had spoken to any of us or had he read through the court papers.’

She said her custody case dragged on for five years because of the competing testimonies of no fewer than eight expert witnesses.

‘The court system in England is barbaric,’ she said. ‘It does not allow parents to be given a voice, it doesn’t allow their children to be given a voice.

‘But what it does instead is it focuses on employing expert witnesses – at huge expense.’

Nigel Priestley, a family solicitor in Huddersfield, said: ‘If the statistics are that 20 per cent are unqualified, that is not just a mess, that is staggering.’

No “French Whore” in the DSM-IV

by Julia Fletcher

When Rush Limbaugh called a young woman a “slut” and a “prostitute”, those words didn’t sit well.

In fact, as soon as Mr. Limbaugh unleashed those words, advertisers began to pull hundreds of thousands of dollars from his radio show. 

Dr. Kenneth Robson isn’t a radio talk-show host.

He’s a custody evaluator in Connecticut family courts.

Connecticut parents and taxpayers pay Dr. Robson to evaluate mothers, fathers and children in family court cases – usually cases involving some form of child abuse.  The cases Dr. Robson reviews are serious cases. Some are extremely disturbing. Some involve unspeakable abuse. 

In one of those cases involving allegations of unspeakable abuse, the mother noticed and reported what she believed to be signs and symptoms of purposeful, horrific child abuse. Others witnessed those signs and symptoms. Experts in the field of child abuse were called to investigate. The signs and syptoms of abuse were documented.

Dr. Robson investigated and called the young mother “a French whore“. 

Could “French whore” be one of those clinical terms that doesn’t sound clinical?

According the the American Psychatric Association’s website,

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States. It is intended to be applicable in a wide array of contexts and used by clinicians and researchers of many different orientations (e.g., biological, psychodynamic, cognitive, behavioral, interpersonal, family/systems). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) has been designed for use across clinical settings (inpatient, outpatient, partial hospital, consultation-liaison, clinic, private practice, and primary care), with community populations. It can be used by a wide range of health and mental health professionals, including psychiatrists and other physicians, psychologists, social workers, nurses, occupational and rehabilitation therapists, and counselors. It is also a necessary tool for collecting and communicating accurate public health statistics.

I typed the terms “DSM-IV” and “French whore” into the Google search bar and was quite surprised to find that the term “French whore” has indeed been used in a clinical setting.

In the book,  The Physician as Patient: A Clinical Handbook for Mental Health Professionals, Michael Meyers, M.D. and Glen Gabbard, M.D. describe a case in which a 50-year-old primary care practitioner used that same term. In the chapter called, “Personality Disorders, Personality Traits and the Disruptive Physician” they describe the “ego-syntonic personality disorder” which would describe Dr. Robson’s mental state – not the mental state of the mother. 

Could Dr. Robson be mentally ill? 

It would not be the first time a mentally ill health care provider was allowed to run rampant in our family courts. (See Seattle Times Special Report: Twisted Ethics of an Expert Witness)

 If Dr. Robson is not mentally ill, and if  Dr. Robson’s use of the term “French whore” was not an attempt to diagnose the young mother, then he could have been using the term “French whore” to degrade her. To humiliate her. To discredit her.

So, what if a heart surgeon were to refer to a patient as “a French whore”?  Could a congressional representative get away with calling a constituent “a French whore”? 

How about a radio talk show host?

Perhaps the most important question is this:  Which Connecticut legislators will take another look at Dr. Eli Newberger’s testimony in that case in Connecticut and pull the taxpayer dollars from Dr. Robson’s show?

Here’s part of Dr. Newberger’s testimony:

Click on the photo above for full text.

Who Would Win Family Court Super Bowl?

Could your state win a Family Court Super Bowl?

What would it take to win? 

Would the winning team continue year after year, promoting “high conflict” litigation, draining public coffers, ruining lives and taking lives in the process?

Let’s say the attorneys are the coaches.  The judges are the referees. The rules of the game are the law.

The skills required to play the “game” are this: Knowing the rules of law. Knowing the nuances and the dynamics of all kinds of kinds of cases – especially the “high conflict” cases – and doing the right thing at the right time. For the right reasons. Always.

It’s just a matter of time before all family courts begin to play the game the way it’s supposed to be played. 

And… It’s first and ten on the 50-yard line… Alabama family courts have the ball….   

From WLTZ.com:

 

 Local volunteers create binders to spread word on child abuse

 
by Christina Chambers

It’s a binder full of stories about those who have been affected by child abuse.

“What’s happening is 58,000 children a year, throughout the nation, are being court ordered into unsupervised contact with the people that they have identified as abusers,” said project volunteer Amanda Hodge.

Three volunteers who have been victims of domestic violence created a resource binder for all family court judges in the state of Alabama.

“These binders are the first step in trying to reach out to our judges, not place blame, but to say we want to help, we want to fix this problem as a community and a state,” said Hodge.

Alabama is the first state to create a resource binder for judges. Hodge says she’s spoken with survivors across the nation trying to push this project in other states.

“It’s huge for us to have the support of our state legislators, and to be able to get these binders out to people,” Hodge said.

Hodge says the intent is to assist judges in the proper way to handle child abuse cases that come up when the victim wants to leave the abuser.

“I hope that our judges will take the time to read the binders, go out and get further training, and ask questions,” said Hodge.

The judge’s resource binder also has letters of support from Governor Robert Bentley and House Speaker Mike Hubbard.

The volunteer group is sending out the binders at the end of the month to 70 family court judges across the state. Lee County family court Judge Mike Fellows had no comment on the issue. 

_____________________________________________

Penn State, Sedgwick County and The Protective Parent Reform Act

 

“… Not only are these children in danger,
but your children,
their neighbors children, and
the child’s friend at school …”

 

St. Louis Misery: A Mother Fights for Return of Abducted Child

From HealthFreedoms.org:

St. Louis Misery – A mother fights for return of abducted child

The Court System of Missouri has had their brutal shackles coldly gripping the lives of Sonja De Vivo and her severed family for over a decade. This is no run-of-the-mill ten year prison sentence; that would be far easier to stomach. It has been a savage court-ordered, daily regiment of emotional and psychological torture. The storm troopers of the 21st Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, have been administering the torture upon Sonja De Vivo for 3,500 some-odd days and counting, without fail, and in true Nazi fashion.

Sonja’s daughter was taken from her ten years ago by the Missouri court. The ruling was given based upon false accusations by Sonja’s ex-husband amid a tumultuous divorce. The court found no “abuse”, however, they refused to return her daughter. Read more about the baffling and sadistic tale of state sponsored abduction in “Child Abduction By The State.” They have blatantly neglected to even glance back on their decision since, despite the fact that she still has custody of two other healthy happy children who long for their little sister. The only abuse being implemented is the torture by the Missouri court system against a defenseless family.

The gavel fell hard in 2001, like a guillotine, severing the bond between a loving mother and her daughter. The piercing sound of that blade slicing down to the chopping block reverberates in Sonja’s ears every day of her life, and the Missouri court room has done everything they can to make sure she cannot forget that piercing sound. To condition and intimidate her into submission to these high crimes of the state. The most recent activities of the 21st Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, are a grim testament to that.

On April 30, 2009, Sonja received a restraining order, further restricting her relationship with her daughter. De Vivo’s daughter made an attempt to contact Sonja. After punishing Sonja’s daughter (now 15) for attempting to reach out to her biological mother, the court ordered foster ‘father’ filed a restraining order against Sonja! The state of Missouri had officially, and wrongfully, terminated all of Sonja’s parental rights six years ago. Sonja and her daughter have been out of contact for this time due the foster parents neglect to establish further allowed visitations. Now that her daughter is desperately trying to contact her, the state of Missouri feels that even more brute force must be brought down upon the already fragile situation.

The request was granted with no questions asked. No word was given to the fact that her daughter was the one trying to contact her natural mother, or that the adoptive parent had punished her for doing so. No proof was needed to validate the perjured allegations “justifying” the request, and, in an effort to not break the precedent already set by the court, Sonja has been denied the ability to present evidence against the accusations in front of a judge. In fact, all of her previous court-appointed attorneys have refused to represent her if she wished to have any evidence-backed response be presented in front of a judge. The appointed Washington University
interns have been defending her under “free” representation. Apparently, representation that caters towards the benefit of the defendant is not included when you get it for free. Apparently, the right to a fair and speedy trial is only a right for those who can afford it.

For the entire duration of De Vivo’s case, none of the proven false allegations made against her have even been addressed in front of the Judge, and submission of any evidence defending her case has been refused. The chips are stacked against her, and every time she has a decent hand to play, the state of Missouri always finds a way to have a better one.

A Guardian Ad Litem was appointed to the case. This appointee is supposed to interview the child, as well as represent her. The Guardian Ad Litem was just another winning card stashed up the long, snide sleeves of the court. No interview was ever conducted with the daughter. The Guardian Ad Litem’s excuse for not interviewing her was based on the hearsay of the adoptive parent, who claimed she was just a liar. It is clear at this point that the state does not want it on record that the adopted child has been trying to reach out to her natural mother.

The 21st Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, has been playing the same game for the past decade, gambling with the lives and futures of a mother and her daughter, and cheating all the while long. Despite all of the savage proceedings of the court, Sonja has not given up, and is continuing to tirelessly fight through the ruthless, unwarranted, emotional torture that she has withstood.

She is to the point, however, where she is unable to keep fighting on her own. Please help her to obtain her own lawyer, one that has not been appointed by the crooked court of the state of Missouri, and help ensure that she stands a fighting chance against this evil that has been wrongfully keeping her from her child. The unjust state court system has inflicted far too much emotional pain upon this mother and daughter for nearly ten years…

Click here to: Sign Sonja’s Petition

Where’s the FBI?

Here is a recording of a protective mother’s meeting with her lawyer and two representatives from DHHS Maine this past August.

In this recording, the mother asks those present to communicate honestly in order to discuss very specific issues about her daughter’s case. 

Mom says the Spurwink Clinic substantiated that her child was abused and that the clinic ruled out “coaching”.

The DHHS supervisor’s response?  He protects himself and defends his actions in this case. He talks about which words he used to decribe “coaching”.

Mom says she’s not talking about which words were used to describe coaching. She says the reports say the abuse was substantiated. 

The DHHS supervisor says mom is difficult to communicate with.

The tape goes on. 

Did a DHHS worker in Maine lie to this mother? Did a worker in the Maine DHHS office say that office had “secret information” about the case and, as a result, decided there was no abuse?

Apparently, there was no “secret information” and it sounds like that DHHS worker was fired.

At 17:00, you can hear discussion of the DHHS’s interpretation of The Spurwink Clinic’s reports.

Two years have past since those reports were written. If the Maine DHHS offce is still looking for a clarification from the Spurwink Clinic, here it is: