PEARLAND TEXAS TEEN MURDERED; ANTI-GAY RUMORS


RE-POSTING, RE-POSTING, RE-POSTING

PEARLAND, TEXAS TEEN,

JOSH WILKERSON,

MURDERED;

ANTI-GAY RUMORS

JOSH WILKERSON, MURDERED IN PEARLAND, TEXAS (BRAZORIA COUNTY)–JUST SOUTH OF HOUSTON

Click on the link below to read, as reported in The Dallas VoicePearland police say there’s no reason to believe murdered teen Joshua Wilkerson was gay, posted November 22, 2010.

http://www.dallasvoice.com/police-teen-murder-victim-gay-suspect-1053303.html

Why Not Take All of Me


Taking the Least of You

Published: April 16, 2006

The Tissue-Industrial Complex

Click on the link below to read the pellucid translation of what is a black and white matter to some, whereas others call it a fertile gray area.  To others still, the article may resonate with a popular film that starred comedy legends actors Steve Martin and Lilly Tomlin (directed by Rob Reiner, 1984, film clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe2JWIvXyN4) and song by the country music artist Willie Nelson titled, “All of Me” (All Of Me” is track #18 on the album The Essential Willie Nelson. It was written by Simons, Seymour / Marks, Gerald, read more at  http://www.metrolyrics.com/all-of-me-lyrics-willie-nelson.html ).  Remember other classics from the 1970’s and 1980’s  like the A-Team (about special Delta forces) and the “Six Million Dollar Man and the Bionic Woman” (starring Lee Majors and Lindsay Wagner)?  Why is it that Hollywood is always light years ahead of the game on the information scene? Have you found yourself with time to ponder what is really going-on?  For the skinny as reported by Rebecca Skloot for the New York Times in the following thought-provoking, if not mind-boggling article, Taking the Least of You: The Tissue-Industrial Complex, April 16, 2006,   Read-on.

Readers’ Opinions

Forum: Bioethics

Who should own the blood and tissue samples you give?

Anna O’Connell couldn’t find Ted. She stood bent at the waist on a frigid afternoon last December, her head and all its fuzzy red hair crammed into an old stand-up freezer that looked like something you get milk from at the corner store: tall, white with a bit of rust and a pull handle. That freezer is the first thing you see when you walk into the Fox Chase CancerCenter laboratory in Philadelphia, where O’Connell has spent decades as a staff scientist. She pushed aside vial after vial. “I know we still have him somewhere,” she yelled, her head still inside the freezer. “We’ve got serum from, like, 450,000 people.”

O’Connell grabbed a ragged cardboard box the size of a paperback book. “This is my treasure box,” she said. “I bet Ted’s in here.” The box held 56 tiny glass vials filled with clear blood serum — some from patients, others from laboratory animals, all taken and kept for hepatitis research. Around each vial, on a thin piece of tape, someone had scribbled information about each sample. “That’s duck,” O’Connell said, raising a vial to eye level. She dropped it and grabbed the next one. “Woodchuck.” She shook her head. “Geez, somebody should organize this.” She lifted vials one at a time, reading labels, dropping them back into the box and muttering, “Duck. . .duck. . .human, not Ted. . .duck. . .woodchuck. . .human, not Ted.. . .”

She looked over her shoulder at me and smiled apologetically. I had traveled many miles to learn about this man, Ted, whose blood was key in the creation of the first-ever hepatitis B vaccine decades earlier. “It’s strange,” O’Connell said, shaking her head. “I used him so much over the years, I usually keep a little bit of him in every freezer.”

Suddenly, she twirled to face me, arm extended, holding one tiny vial, grinning. “Here he is!” she said. “Ted Slavin.”

Though he died 21 years ago, Slavin is worth keeping track of. Not because his cells produced extremely valuable proteins that were important for scientific research. But because Slavin’s relationship to those cells was unique: they weren’t just part of his body; they were his business, his property. Slavin was one of the first people in history to decide that contrary to the way things usually work in science, he would maintain complete control over any blood and tissues removed from his body. He would determine who used them for research, how and, most important to Slavin, who made money from them.

This may not sound like a particularly groundbreaking idea, unless you consider it with a little-known fact: blood samples and other excised human tissues have an afterlife. When you go to the doctor for a routine blood test or mole removal, when you have an appendectomy, tonsillectomy or any other kind of ectomy, the stuff you leave behind doesn’t always get thrown out. Doctors, hospitals and laboratories keep them. Often indefinitely. Some get consent with admission forms that say something like, I give my doctor permission to dispose of my tissues or use them in research. Others don’t.

Today most Americans have their tissue on file somewhere. In 1999 the RAND Corporation published a report (the first and, so far, the last of its kind) with what it called a “conservative estimate” that more than 307 million tissue samples from more than 178 million people were stored in the United States. This number, the report said, was increasing by more than 20 million samples each year. These samples come from routine medical tests, operations, clinical trials and research donations. They sit in lab freezers, on shelves or in industrial vats of liquid nitrogen. They’re stored at military facilities, the F.B.I. and the National Institutes of Health. They’re in biotech companies and most hospitals. Biobanks store everything from appendixes, ovaries and skin to sphincters, testicles and fat. Not to mention blood samples taken from most children born in the United States since the late 60’s, when states started mandating screening newborns for genetic diseases.

Scientists and surgeons use these tissues to develop everything from flu vaccines to penis-enlargement products. They put cells in culture dishes and expose them to radiation, drugs, cosmetics, viruses, household chemicals and biological weapons and then study their responses. They remove DNA to examine it — and therefore the person it came from — gene by gene. Without those tissues, we would have no tests for diseases like hepatitis and H.I.V.; no vaccines for polio, smallpox, measles; none of the new promising drugs forleukemia, breast cancer, colon cancer. And without tissue samples, the developers of those products would be out billions of dollars.

How you should feel about all this isn’t obvious. Scientists aren’t stealing your arm or some vital organ. They’re just using tissue scraps you parted with voluntarily. But still, someone is taking part of you. And people often have a strong sense of ownership when it comes to their bodies. Even tiny scraps of it. Especially when they hear that someone else might be making money off those scraps. Or using them to uncover potentially damaging information about their genes and medical histories.

But a feeling of ownership doesn’t hold up in court. And at this point, the law isn’t clear on whether you have the right to own and control your tissues. When they’re part of your body, they’re clearly yours. Once they’re excised, things get murky.

The scale of tissue research is only getting bigger. “It used to be, some researcher in Florida had 60 samples in his freezer, then another guy in Utah had some in his,” says Kathy Hudson, a molecular biologist who directs the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University. “Now we’re talking about a massive, massive scale.” Within the last year, the National Cancer Institute started gathering what it expects will be millions of tissue samples for mapping cancer genes; the Genographic Project began doing the same to map human migration patterns, as did the N.I.H. to track disease genes.

Many scientists depend on access to tissues without the burden of restrictions that donors might make. (Restrictions like, You can use my tissues for this research, not thatresearch; don’t commercialize them, or do, and give me a cut.) At this point, scientists largely have the access they want. And they hope to keep it that way for fear that restrictions might slow research. But a growing number of activists — ethicists, lawyers, doctors and patients — are arguing cases and pushing for federal regulations that would change the status quo by granting people rights to control their tissues.

These days, their attention is focused on a potentially landmark court case: Washington University is claiming ownership of tissues from 6,000 patients who want their samples removed from the university’s prostate-cancer bank. Hudson, who has conducted focus groups about the public’s feelings on the tissue issue, says she believes that tissue rights have the potential to become a bona fide movement. “I could see a broader mobilization where people start saying, ‘No, you can’t take my tissues,”‘ she told me. “All I can say is, we better deal with the problems now instead of waiting until that happens.”

Anna O’Connell agrees. The day I visited her lab, she rolled a vial of Ted Slavin’s serum in her hand. We sat as she told me she wanted to see this issue settled, but she wanted to make one thing clear: scientists aren’t out to deceive people about their tissues. “We genuinely want to gather as much information as we can to advance research,” she said. “The problem is, in all that excitement, sometimes scientists don’t think about consequences.”

The $3 Billion Man

The tissue rights debate began in 1976, with a man named John Moore. He worked 12-hour days, 7 days a week, as a surveyor on the Alaska pipeline. He thought it was killing him. His gums bled; his belly swelled; bruises covered his body. It turned out that he had hairy-cell leukemia, a rare cancer that filled his spleen with malignant blood cells until it bulged like an overfilled inner tube. Moore found David Golde, a prominent cancer researcher at U.C.L.A., who said that removing his spleen was the only way to go. As Moore told it to the courts and the media, he signed a consent form saying that the hospital could “dispose of any severed tissue or member by cremation.” A normal spleen weighs less than a pound; Moore’s weighed 22. After the surgery, at the age of 31, Moore moved to Seattle, became an oyster salesman, went on with his life. But every few months, he flew to Los Angeles for follow-up exams with Golde.

At first, Moore didn’t think much of the trips. But after a few years of flying from Seattle to L.A. so that Golde could take bone marrow, blood and semen, Moore started thinking, Can’t a doctor in Seattle do this? When Moore asked Golde about doing his follow-ups in Seattle, Golde offered to pay for the plane tickets and put him up in style at the ritzy Beverly Wilshire. Moore didn’t start getting suspicious until one day in 1983 — seven years after his surgery — when a nurse handed him a consent form that said, “I (do, do not) voluntarily grant to the University of California all rights I, or my heirs, may have in any cell line or any other potential product which might be developed from the blood and/or bone marrow obtained from me.” At first, Moore circled “do.”

“It’s, like, you don’t want to rock the boat,” Moore told Discover magazine years later. “You think maybe this guy will cut you off, and you’re going to die or something.” But when the nurse gave him an identical form during his next visit, Moore asked whether Golde was doing something commercial with his tissues. According to Moore, Golde said that U.C.L.A. would never do such a thing. But Moore circled “do not,” just in case. That’s when Golde started calling, saying: You must have accidentally mis-signed the consent form. Come back and sign again. “I didn’t feel comfortable confronting him,” Moore said later, “so I said, ‘Gee, Doctor, I don’t know how I could have made that mistake.”‘ But he didn’t go back and sign.

After Moore got home, another consent form appeared in his mailbox with a sticker that said, “Circle I do.” He didn’t. Then Golde sent a letter urging Moore to sign the form. That’s when Moore sent the form to a lawyer. The lawyer did a quick database search and found that weeks before giving Moore the first consent form, Golde filed for a patent on Moore’s cells (the “Mo” cell line) and several valuable proteins those cells produced.

Golde had not licensed the patent to anyone. But according to the lawsuit Moore eventually filed, Golde had entered into agreements with a biotech company that gave him stocks and financing worth more than $3.5 million to “commercially develop” and “scientifically investigate” the cell line. At that point, the market value of the Mo cell line was predicted to reach $3 billion.

Most cells are worth nothing individually, but Moore’s were special. They produced several valuable proteins used to treat infections and cancer and carried a rare virus that might lead to treatments for H.I.V. Drug companies coveted these things, but Moore couldn’t sell or donate them because that would violate Golde’s patent. Technically, you can’t patent anything naturally occurring — like skin or blood. But once you alter something using human ingenuity, patents are fair game. Moore’s cells wouldn’t have survived outside his body unless Golde turned them into a cell line — self-perpetuating clones of one original cell. Hence the patent.

The way Moore saw it, he had been duped. So in 1984 he sued Golde and U.C.L.A. If he had just sued over accusations of deception, his case wouldn’t have been a landmark. But he took it further. He claimed property rights over those tissues and sued Golde for stealing them. He sued on 13 counts, including conversion (using or controlling someone else’s property without permission). With that, Moore became the first person to legally stake claim over his tissue and sue for profits and damages.

Golde, who died several years ago, denied Moore’s charges. And other scientists panicked. If excised tissues — including blood cells — became patients’ property, researchers taking them without detailed consent and explicit transfer of property rights up front would risk theft charges and more. Lawyers warned that a victory for Moore would “create chaos for researchers” and “[sound] the death knell to the university physician-scientist.” One researcher called it “a threat to the sharing of tissue for research purposes”; others worried that patients would hold out for a large cut and destroy the financial incentive to do research.

Round 1: A Los Angeles court said Moore had no case and dismissed it. Round 2: Moore appealed and won. In 1988, the California Court of Appeal ruled that a patient’s blood and tissues remain his property after being removed from his body. The judges pointed to the Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, a 1978 California statute requiring that research on humans respect “the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies.” They ruled: “A patient must have the ultimate power to control what becomes of his or her tissues. To hold otherwise would open the door to a massive invasion of human privacy and dignity in the name of medical progress.”

Then Golde appealed and won. In 1990, nearly seven years after Moore filed suit, the Supreme Court of California ruled against Moore on 11 counts in what has become the definitive statement on this issue: any ownership you might have in your tissues vanishes when they are removed from your body, with or without consent. When you leave tissues in a doctor’s office or a lab, you abandon them as waste. Anyone can take your garbage and sell it — the same goes for your tissues. Most important, the court said, Moore couldn’t own his cells, because that would conflict with Golde’s patent. Golde had “transformed” those cells into an invention. They were, the ruling said, the product of Golde’s “human ingenuity” and “inventive effort.”

Moore did prevail on two counts (lack of informed consent and breach of fiduciary duty), and the court said that Golde should have disclosed his financial interest in Moore’s tissues. It recognized the lack of regulation concerning consent and ownership and called on legislators to fix the problem. But that didn’t change the court’s decision. The court said that ruling in Moore’s favor might “destroy the economic incentive to conduct important medical research.” It worried that giving patients property rights would “hinder research by restricting access to the necessary raw materials” and create a field where “with every cell sample a researcher purchases a ticket in a litigation lottery.”

Moore appealed to the United States Supreme Court and was turned down. He died in 2001.

The Moore case released a flood of responses. Scientists and ethicists called for new legislation. Congress held tissue-research hearings; its committees uncovered millions of dollars in profits made by the biotechnology industry and concluded that “no single body of law, policy or ethics applies.” In 1995, President Bill Clinton asked his new National Bioethics Advisory Commission to examine the tissue-research controversy and recommend a solution. Four years later, it determined that federal oversight was “inadequate” and “ambiguous.” It recommended specific consent-policy changes but skirted the issue of ownership by simply saying it needed further investigation.

In response to the Moore case and the bioethics commission, some hospitals added lines to their consent forms saying that patients’ tissues might be used in research; others didn’t. Some inserted lines saying that patients waive commercial rights to their cells; others didn’t. But scientists kept using patients’ tissues.

“It’s ironic,” says Lori Andrews, director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology at the Illinois Institute of Technology. “The Moore court’s concern was, If you gave a person property rights in their tissues, it would slow down research because people might withhold access for money.” According to Andrews — and a dissenting California Supreme Court judge — the ruling didn’t prevent commercialization; it just took patients out of the equation and emboldened scientists to commodify tissues in increasing numbers. Andrews argues that this made scientists less likely to share samples and results, which slows research. “The Moore decision backfired,” she says. “It just handed that commercial value to researchers.”
Lori Andrews’s career has focused almost exclusively on genetic rights and tissue issues. She has written 10 books and more than 100 articles and legal briefs; she has advised Congress, the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health and 14 foreign countries. She speaks regularly at conferences and seminars, writes popular articles and will soon publish a mass-market murder mystery called “Sequence,” which is essentially a 288-page collection of what-if situations illustrating the potential benefits of tissue research, and the potential dangers — like losing health insurance when a tissue test uncovers disease genes (which has happened).

Andrews maintains that people should control their tissues to protect themselves from potential harm. The way Andrews sees it, if someone breaks into your house and looks through your personal belongings, your privacy has been violated, which is illegal. That violation can be psychologically harmful, but it also leaves you vulnerable to someone using your information against you. Some 700 new mothers recently found out that doctors took their placentas without consent to test for abnormalities that might help defend against future lawsuits over birth defects. Then there are the members of the Native American Havasupai Tribe who said they felt violated and stigmatized after supplying samples for diabetes research and then having scientists use them to studyschizophrenia and inbreeding without consent.

Andrews argues that the law protects against even the most abstract harm. “Think about it,” she says. “I decide who gets my money after I die. It wouldn’t harm me if I died and you gave all my money to someone else. But there’s something psychologically beneficial to me as a living person to know I can give my money to whoever I want.” No one can say, She shouldn’t be allowed to do that with her money because that might not be most beneficial to society. But replace the word “money” in that sentence with “tissue,” and you’ve got precisely the logic her opponents use in the tissue debate. “Science is not the highest value in society,” Andrews says, pointing instead to things like autonomy and personal freedom. “Research isn’t a matter of conscription.”

Andrews has worked (pro bono) on the biggest tissue cases, including Moore, and the landmark 1989 York v. Jones trial between an infertile couple and their doctor, who refused to transfer their embryo to a new clinic. (That case set the precedent for people having property rights over their sperm, eggs and embryos.) Her next big case involved a family, the Greenbergs, who volunteered tissue samples and donated money to help a researcher find the gene for their children’s rare disorder, Canavan disease. When the researcher found the gene, according to court documents, he patented it without telling them. They sued for fraudulent concealment of the patent, lack of informed consent and unjust enrichment. As in the Moore case, which set the legal precedent for the Greenberg trial, the court found no grounds for a property claim. But it did find grounds for the Greenbergs’ unjust enrichment claim (because they invested “time and significant resources”). They received an undisclosed settlement, and no one involved can discuss it.

When it comes to patients having rights in tissue research, much to the chagrin of people like Andrews, nothing has ever been bigger than John Moore. “I’m really haunted by the Moore case,” she told me recently. “That case could have changed everything.”

The Antibody Business

There is one thing that the John Moore story makes clear: At this point, once someone removes tissue from your body, you have no control over what happens to it and no stake in potential profits. But here is one thing the Moore case didn’t address: Those tissues are still yours when attached to your body. If you know this ahead of time and if your tissues turn out to be valuable, you can control them and play the tissue market as well as any biotech company.

Technically it is illegal to sell human organs and tissues for transplants or medical treatments. But there is a thriving market: giving tissues away while charging steep fees for collecting and processing is perfectly legal, as is selling tissues for research, education and art. Industry-specific figures don’t exist, but estimates say that one human body can bring in anywhere from $10,000 to nearly $150,000.

That’s nothing compared with DNA — just one gene can be worth billions. Many companies provide tissues and DNA for research. Sometimes they’re small operations — one guy who picks up tissues at hospitals, then portions them out. Other times they’re huge corporations, like Ardais, which pays an undisclosed amount of money to the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard, to the Duke University Medical Center and to many others for exclusive access to tissues collected from their patients’ operations, biopsies and blood draws.

Somehow, Ted Slavin saw this market coming decades ago. And he wanted a piece of the action. Slavin was a hemophiliac, and in the mid 1950’s the only treatment was an infusion of clotting factors from donor blood, which wasn’t screened for diseases. That meant that Slavin was exposed to the hepatitis B virus over and over again. But he didn’t know he had been exposed until the 1970’s, when a blood test found extremely high concentrations of valuable hepatitis B antibodies in his blood. And here is what makes Slavin’s case special: His doctor told him about those antibodies, and Slavin realized they were worth a lot of money.

That hepatitis B test — a multibillion-dollar product — required a steady supply of antibodies like Slavin’s. Pharmaceutical companies wanted antibodies to help create the first hepatitis B vaccine. The market was tremendous. And Slavin needed money: he worked, but he would have attacks, become disabled, lose jobs. So he started contacting laboratories and companies and asking if they wanted to buy his antibodies. They said yes in droves.

Slavin started selling his serum for as much as $10 a milliliter — at up to 500 milliliters per order — to anyone who wanted it. But he didn’t stop there: Slavin wanted money, but more than that, he wanted somebody to cure hepatitis B. He called the National Institutes of Health for a printout of every hepatitis B researcher. On that list, he found Baruch Blumberg, a researcher at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, who had won a Nobel Prize for discovering the hepatitis B antigen and who created the blood test that diagnosed Slavin’s disease. Slavin figured that if anybody was going to cure hepatitis B, it would be Blumberg. So he sat down and wrote a letter: Dear Dr. Blumberg, he said, I’d like you to use my tissues to find a cure for hepatitis B. I’ll give you all the antibodies you could need. And I’ll do it free.

That letter started a long partnership between Slavin, Blumberg, Anna O’Connell and others at Fox Chase. Blumberg’s lab used Slavin’s serum to help uncover the link between hepatitis B and liver cancer and to create the first hepatitis B vaccine, which has saved millions of lives. Meanwhile, as Slavin’s antibody business grew, he had an epiphany: he probably wasn’t the only patient out there with valuable blood. So he recruited other similarly endowed people and started a company. He called it Essential Biologicals, which eventually merged to become part of a massive biological-product corporation.

“I don’t see anything wrong in what Ted did,” O’Connell told me, swiveling in her office chair. “I don’t think you should extort money, but if you’re going to contribute to research, and there’s financial value in what you’re contributing, the option should be there if you want to use it.”

O’Connell has a unique perspective on these issues. She reached up, grabbed the rim of her turtleneck and yanked it down below her collar bone. “I’ve got road work,” she said, pointing to a complex mesh of scars covering her throat. “Thyroid cancer. When I was 28.”

Long before Slavin started selling his antibodies, O’Connell discovered that her cells were loaded with even more gold than his. Scientists were in the midst of developing a thyroid test, and O’Connell’s blood had precisely what they needed for it. “My numbers were way higher than Ted’s,” she told me, wiggling her eyebrows. A doctor took one look at her blood and asked for more. “I said, Sure, be my guest,” she said. Those scientists developed a valuable test; she received no money and didn’t think twice about it. She figures that’s what most people would do.

“Sure,” she said, “there are some greedy people who will try to get anything they can, but most people won’t demand money for their tissues unless they really need it, like Ted did.”

Many, like O’Connell, have simply donated valuable tissues. For others, it’s about control: several patient groups have created their own tissue banks so they can control the use of their tissues. Some object to patenting and require that results from research on their tissues remain publicly available; others do the opposite. One woman became a patent holder on the disease gene discovered in her children’s tissues, which lets her determine what research is done on it and how it is licensed. While most haven’t gone after profits, some have. And experts on both sides of the debate worry that profit-seekers might inhibit progress by insisting on unrealistic financial agreements or demanding money for tissues used in noncommercial and nonprofit research. But as long as patients are reasonable and don’t inhibit science, many researchers seem open to the idea of including them.

“Hey, this is a capitalist society,” says Wayne W. Grody, a U.C.L.A. molecular geneticist who has been at the center of this debate for years. “People like Slavin took advantage of that. You know, the way I see it is, If you think of doing that on the front end, more power to you.”

Question of Consent

The difference between Ted Slavin and John Moore wasn’t that Slavin owned his tissues and Moore didn’t. (No court ruled that Slavin had the right to control his excised tissues; he just did it.) The difference was information. Someone told Slavin that his tissues were special and that scientists might want them. So he was able to control his tissues by establishing his terms before anything left his body. In other words, he was informed, and he gave consent. In the end, the question isn’t whether people have the ability to control their tissues; it is how much science should be obligated (ethically and legally) to put them in the position to do so.

There is a federal law governing consent in human research. The Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, aka the Common Rule, requires that scientists tell people if they are participating in research, that the research is voluntary and that they can withdraw at any time without penalty. Consent forms must explain what the research is, how long it will last, any possible risks, whether participants will be compensated and more.

The Common Rule sounds like precisely what tissue rights advocates are fighting for. But it isn’t. The problem is, it was written to govern research on living, breathing humans, not their disembodied tissues. Its basic framework was adopted in 1981 and not updated to address the consent and ownership issues raised by the Moore case. It only covers federally financed research. Samples are exempt if they are anonymous (though assuring anonymity is difficult), “existing” and “publicly available” (though it doesn’t define either term). In the end, much of tissue research is not governed by the Common Rule.

Supporters of the status quo argue that passing new, tissue-specific legislation is unnecessary. They point to science’s internal oversight mechanisms: academic institutions (and many private companies) have institutional review boards that decide whether consent is needed for tissue research. There are many professional guidelines, like the American Medical Association’s code of ethics (which requires doctors to inform patients if their tissue samples might lead to profits). But guidelines aren’t laws; they are suggestions. And many tissue rights supporters say these internal mechanisms don’t work.

At this point, there is no uniformity, no standard and no guidance for how to proceed when it comes to consent and tissue research. Some institutions — like the Fox Chase Cancer Center — ask permission to keep tissues and let patients specify what research their samples will be used for. But others don’t. The norm is still a sentence or two saying leftover blood and tissue can be used for education and research. When it comes to profits, some consent forms come right out and say, “We may give or sell the specimen and certain medical information about you.” Others skip disclosure or say, “You will receive no reimbursement for donating tissue.” Still others admit confusion: “Your sample will be owned by [the university].. . .It is unknown whether you will be able to gain (participate in) any financial compensation (payment) from any benefits gained from this research.”

Ellen Wright Clayton, a physician and lawyer who is a director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society at Vanderbilt University, says that the next step should be a “very public conversation.” Clayton says: “If someone presented a bill in Congress that said, As of today, when you go to the doctor for health care, your medical records and tissue samples can be used for research and nobody has to ask you — if the issue were stated that bluntly so people could really understand what’s happening and say they’re O.K. with it, that would make me more comfortable with what we’re currently doing. Because what’s happening now is not what people think is going on.”

Lori Andrews wants something more drastic: she recently published an article calling for people to get policy makers’ attention through becoming “conscientious objectors in the DNA draft” by refusing to give tissue samples. “This isn’t about trying to get patients a cut of the financial action,” she says. “It’s about allowing people to express their desires.” Clayton agrees. “It’s weird to say everybody gets money except the people providing the raw material,” she says. “But the fundamental problem here isn’t the money; it’s the notion that the people these tissues come from don’t matter.”

David Korn, senior vice president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, agrees that patients matter. But he also argues that tissue consent is shortsighted. “Sure,” he says, “consent feels nice. Letting people decide what’s going to happen with their tissue seems like the right thing to do. But consent diminishes the value of tissue.” To illustrate this, Korn points to the Spanish flu pandemic. In the 1990’s, scientists used stored tissue samples from a soldier who died in 1918 to recreate the virus’s genome and study why it was so deadly, with hopes of uncovering information about the current avian flu. Asking that soldier’s permission to take tissues for future genetic research would have been impossible, Korn says. “Think back to 1918,” he told me. “It was an inconceivable question!”

For Korn, the consent issue is overshadowed by a public responsibility to science: “I think people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others. Since everybody benefits, everybody can accept the small risks of having their tissue scraps used in research.” But he does say that religious beliefs are grounds for exception. “If somebody says being buried without all their pieces will condemn them to wandering forever because they can’t get salvation, that’s legitimate, and people should respect it,” Korn says. (Though he acknowledges that people can’t raise those objections if they don’t understand their tissues are being used in the first place.)

Wayne W. Grody, the U.C.L.A. molecular geneticist, was once a fierce opponent of consent for tissue research. But after years of debating with people like Andrews and Clayton, he has become more moderate. “I’m pretty convinced that we should go the extra mile to have a good and complex consent process,” he told me. Still, he can’t imagine how it will work. “These tissues enter a pipeline of millions of other samples,” he said. “How are you going to distinguish, well, this patient said we can study colon cancer; the next one said we can do anything we want, but we can’t commercialize it. I mean, do they all have to be color-coded? I can’t imagine.” Regardless, Grody stresses that questions of consent should only apply to the collection of future samples, not the millions already stored. (“What are we going to do?” he says, “Throw them out?”)

If the issue of consent isn’t addressed, Robert F. Weir, founder of the biomedical ethics center at the University of Iowa and an author of “The Stored Tissue Issue,” sees only one outcome: “Patients turn to law as a last resort when they don’t see their participation being acknowledged.” Weir favors fewer lawsuits and more disclosure. “Let’s get these things on the table and come up with legal guidelines we can all live with,” he says. “Because going to court is the only other option.”

The Case That Could Change Everything

William Catalona is undeniably one of the top prostate surgeons in the world. He is surgeon to sheiks, to Stan Musial and Joe Torre, as well as thousands of other men. But he’s also a researcher. Which is why he and his patients ended up in a federal courtroom in St. Louis a year ago, in the first case to bring together all the biggest tissue issues: ownership, consent, control and a patient’s right to withdraw from tissue research.

Catalona started collecting prostate-cancer samples in the late 80’s. Today, the collection — one of the largest in the world — fills more than a dozen industrial freezers. It has resulted in some of the most important prostate-cancer advances (among other things, he used it to show that the P.S.A. test can predict most prostate cancer). The collection is vast: more than 4,000 prostate samples and 250,000 blood samples from 36,000 men. Some of these men came to him through newspaper and radio ads he placed seeking donors. Some came from other doctors. But many were his patients.

Catalona was committed to informing his patients: he provided detailed consent forms explaining the research and its risks, and his consent forms said, “Your participation is voluntary, and you may choose not to participate in this research study or withdraw your consent at any time.” He even sent a quarterly newsletter updating them on the studies. The problem was, Catalona and his patients saw things differently from his employer — Washington University.

Several years ago, Washington University took possession of the samples. The collection could be worth more than $15 million. In letters that surfaced in court, a Washington University official complained that Catalona gave free tissue samples to collaborators at a biotech company and that all the university gained in exchange for its support of Catalona was “the potential for Catalona to get a publication,” which it saw as “unacceptable.” (Catalona isn’t business savvy: he never tried to patent his specific use of the P.S.A. test, which could have made millions.) The university invested millions of dollars in developing that collection, it said: money for freezers, lab technicians, the building where he stored them. Some of that money came from multimillion-dollar federal research grants that Catalona brought into the university; some came from his patients. But the university paid Catalona’s salary and his health, malpractice and liability insurance; his contract said it owned his intellectual property. Therefore, the university argued, it owned those tissue samples.

So Catalona quit. He moved his lab to Northwestern University in Chicago and then sent letters to 10,000 patients, saying, “You have entrusted me with your samples, and I have used them for collaborative research that will help in your future medical care and in the care of others for years to come.” To continue this work, he wrote, “I need your assistance and your permission.” He enclosed a form for them to sign that said: “Please release all of my samples to Dr. Catalona at Northwestern University upon his request. I have entrusted these samples to Dr. Catalona to be used only at his direction and with his express consent for research purposes.” Within weeks, 6,000 patients signed and returned those forms. But Washington University denied their requests. The university, it turned out, had distributed samples to scientists for research that the patients didn’t know about.

“I just wanted to help Dr. Catalona cure prostate cancer,” one of his patients, Tom McGurk, told me when I met with him not long ago. “Now who knows what’s going on with that stuff?” He shook his head. “My DNA’s in those samples — that’s my kid’s and my grandkid’s DNA, too. Who’s looking at that stuff? What are they doing with it?” For another patient, Richard Ward, the implications are concrete. His cancer ranked 8 on a 10-point malignancy scale — if it comes back, his best chance for survival is treatment based on analysis of his tumor sample. He also worries about the genetics of the disease, which is hereditary. “Washington University is saying they own part of our bodies,” he told me. “They’re trying to preserve their financial interest over our lives and our kids’ lives. . .just thinking about that makes me crazy.”

Their consent forms said, “I have donated a tissue and/or blood sample for Doctor William Catalona’s research studies.” They didn’t mention giving them to Washington University. So when Washington University refused to transfer their samples, several patients asked that their tissues be removed from the collection, since their consent forms said they could withdraw from the research any time. The university refused; it read that provision of the consent form to mean that if asked, the university would take a person’s identifying information off the sample but keep using the tissue anonymously.

In August 2003, Washington University sued Catalona to establish ownership of the collection. The suit said Catalona had, among other things, “improperly accessed the university’s patient list” and asserted “an unsupported claim of personal ownership and/or control over” the samples. Catalona countered that neither he nor the university could own the samples, because they belonged to the patients. The judge asked for patient testimony. So Catalona began contacting his patients. And they did more than testify; several petitioned to join the lawsuit as intervenors — parties who, despite not being named in a lawsuit, voluntarily enter a suit to protect their interests.

Catalona cannot talk specifics about the case, but he has plenty to say about the issues involved. “The truth,” he told me, “is that the interests of patients and science often conflict with the interests of the university. And sometimes universities protect their interests to the detriment of the patients.” The only solution, he said, is disclosure: “If you’re honest with patients, and they understand what you’re doing, they’ll let you use their tissues — they want to advance science as much as we do. But they have to understand the deal going in.” The problem is, Catalona’s patients thought they knew the deal going in, but Washington University disagreed. Don Clayton, a university spokesman, said that if patients are able to “reclaim” or “redirect” their blood and tissues, biobanks will become “impossible to manage” and “so burdensome that scientists will be handcuffed.”

For Ellen Wright Clayton, from the Vanderbilt biomedical ethics center, this case comes down to defining the Common Rule in the way its authors intended. She took the stand as an expert witness to argue that though the Common Rule doesn’t specifically say patients can withdraw their tissues from research, that’s only because it was written before tissues were an issue. But given the spirit of the rule — protecting patients from becoming unwilling research participants — what else, she argued, could it mean? Anonymizing tissues and continuing to use them in research against the wishes of the patients, she said, “completely eviscerates the right to withdraw.” It also diminishes their usefulness to research and the patient’s future medical care.

The Catalona case is the first of its kind to make it to trial. (Other disagreements over tissue collections have surfaced, but they were settled.) Catalona’s patients have no intention of settling; they want to set a precedent. Theirs will be the first case to define a patient’s right to withdraw from tissue research (which may or may not give people the right to remove their samples from research at any time). It is also the first to question patients’ property rights in basic stored tissues. Unlike the Moore case, in which the ownership issue was complicated by the fact that Golde “transformed” Moore’s samples, the Catalona case is stark, because Washington University didn’t do anything innovative to those samples. It simply stored them. Which means Catalona is the first to deal with pure raw materials and the question of who owns them.

It has been a year since the Catalona hearing, and the judge still has not ruled. The losing side will probably appeal. The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, but that could take a decade, maybe longer. This means that the world’s biggest prostate-cancer collection will be tied up in a lawsuit instead of advancing science, which infuriates the patients, Catalona and everyone else involved, including Lori Andrews, who advised the patients’ attorney. “Those patients donated tissues to facilitate research on prostate cancer,” she told me, “not to bring it to a halt because of questions about the university’s profits.”
There is one point that comes up again and again in discussions of Slavin and Moore and Catalona: like it or not, we live in a market-driven society, and science is part of that market. For Baruch Blumberg, the researcher who used Ted Slavin’s antibodies in his hepatitis B research, that is a reality that science is still learning to navigate.

During my visits to the Fox Chase Cancer Center to meet with O’Connell and learn about Slavin, I drove around Philadelphia with Blumberg, who is now 80. After decades of hepatitis B research, he needed a break from focusing on so much illness, suffering and death, and so he spent a few years working with NASA, studying the origin of life forms.

In the car one evening, I asked Blumberg what he thought about the debate over tissue ownership. Instead of answering, he told me how the technology for air bags came from medical devices designed by NASA. I asked again, and he pointed out Venus and Mars, which were bright and hovering above us. Finally, after my third try, he turned to me and sighed. “Whether you think the commercialization of medical research is good or bad depends on how into capitalism you are,” he said. On the whole, Blumberg said, commercialization is good — how else would we get the drugs and diagnostic tests we need? Still, he sees a downside. “I think it’s fair to say it’s interfered with science,” he told me, gazing up at the sky. “It’s changed the spirits.” Now there are patents and proprietary information where there was free information flow, he said.

“Researchers have become entrepreneurs,” he went on. “That’s really boomed our economy and created incentives to do research. But it’s also brought problems, like secrecy and arguments over who owns what.” He worries about similar changes in patients. “I had tremendous respect for Ted’s attitude,” Blumberg said, staring out the window. “He needed to make a living, so he took his blood, which had been his great disaster in life, and turned it into his fortune.” But Slavin didn’t get rich off his antibodies. “He donated much of them to science for free,” Blumberg said. “He didn’t have to do that.”

Slavin and Blumberg never used consent forms or ownership transfer agreements; Slavin just held up his arm and gave samples. “We lived in a different ethical and commercial age,” Blumberg said. He imagines patients might be less likely to donate now: “They probably want to maximize their commercial possibilities just like everyone else.” Blumberg is concerned about profits inhibiting science from either side of the scientific equation: researchers or patients.

All that important research he has done over the years — the hepatitis test and vaccine, discovering the link between the virus and cancer — it all depended on free and unlimited access to tissues. Blumberg says he doesn’t think keeping patients in the dark is the way to get that access, and he has a unique point of reference: Ted Slavin. “For somebody like Ted,” he told me, “who really needed that money to survive, it would have been wrong to say scientists could commercialize those antibodies but he couldn’t. You know, if someone was going to make money off his antibodies, why shouldn’t he have a say in that?”

Rebecca Skloot is the author of “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks,” about the history, ethics and ownership of the first human cell line, which will be published by Crown next year.

Editors’ Note

An article on Page 38 of The Times Magazine today about human tissue includes an outdated reference to a lawsuit between Washington University and Dr. William J. Catalona over ownership of samples that he collected while employed there. On Friday, after the magazine had gone to press, the presiding judge ruled that the university “owns all biological materials, including but not limited to blood, tissue and DNA samples” that it stores.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN America, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE HELD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER!
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Ruby and Lexi Dillon Case Update|Federal Lawsuit Filed, Orange County, CA


Ruby and Lexi  Dillon
Mother Ruby and Daughter Lexi Dillon

www.open-public-records.com/court/california-15435091.htm

Ruby Dillon v. Harold LaFlamme, et al

Defendant: Bonnie Breeze, Birute Bruzas-Ranes, John Cate, Howard Chang, Jessica Chlebowski, Grace Coleman, County of Orange, Matthew De Armey, Does, Sheryl Edgar, Kristen Eitner, Rosanne Froeberg, David Glidden, Danise Johnson, Harold LaFlamme, Elizabeth Ramirez Lockmer, Maureen Maganuma, D Alicia Marron-Taylor, Robert Munoz, Patricia Nash, Orange Superior Court, P.A. Nash & Associates, Jennifer Palmquist, Sunday Petrie, Tony Rackauckas, Eva Srikureja, Mahathap Srikureja, Pravit Srikureja, State of California, Carol Stewart, Alan Stokke and C. J. Wilkinson
Plaintiff: Ruby Dillon
Case Number: 2:2015cv01468
Filed: February 27, 2015
Court: California Central District Court
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this

Ruby Dillon v. Harold LaFlamme, et al

Court California Central District Court
Nature of Suit Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Case # 2:15-cv-01468
Filed Feb 27, 2015
Terminated Mar 02, 2015
last updated: Saturday May 16, 2015 12:05 AM PDT
Monday, March 02, 2015
2 NOTICE RE INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER by Clerk of Court due to New Case Number 8:15-cv-00339 DFM. (esa)
Friday, February 27, 2015
1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-15290912 – Fee: $400, filed by PLAINTIFF Ruby Dillon. (Attorney Patricia J Barry added to party Ruby Dillon(pty:pla))(Barry, Patricia)
  Att: 1 Civil Cover Sheet,
  Att: 2 Supplement Attachmt to civ cov sht

www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/7099997/Ruby_Dillon_v_Harold_LaFlamme_et_al

www.dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2015cv01468/611896

http://www.storyleak.com/orange-county-california-places-abused-child-with-sexually-abusive-parent/

ORANGE COUNTY, CA PLACES ABUSED CHILD WITH SEXUALLY ABUSIVE PARENT

Investigation Shows Pattern Of California Neglect Of Child Abuse And State-Mandated Protections

Something is very wrong with the ‘Child Welfare System’ in California. The story of Lexi Dillon graphically represents so much of what will, and has, gone very wrong in the case of sexually abused children.

What follows are two excerpts[1] from an article which illustrate the terrible injustices that one family has been tortured by over the past couple of years. As shocking as these official court-ordered actions appeared to be, the relevant public records in Orange County, California will substantiate every one of them.

Screen Shot 2014-06-21 at 8.42.11 AM

They concern the very unfortunate predicament of a young girl named Lexi Dillon. Her mother, Ruby Dillon, has been working triple time to free her from an abusive father who the State of California has given implausible protection to.  Incredible though it may sound, the sexually abusive father in this case has been treated as though he is the injured party.   Here is the timeline of the stunning response by the Orange County Child Welfare System, as well as by the concerned courts assigned to the legal proceedings.

““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““

In August 2012, based on probable cause of suspected sexual abuse, the City of Tustin Police Department removed Dr. Ruby Dillon’s minor daughter from the home of the father and took her into protective custody out of fear that she may be in danger. CPS ordered the child returned to the father, the alleged abuser.

Thus, not only did CPS choose not to rescue the minor from her dangerous condition; it also created a dangerous condition when, by returning the minor to her abuser, CPS placed the minor at risk of further sexual abuse.

Second, a duty to rescue also arises if there exists a “special relationship” between the defendant and the victim. “Special relationships” arise when one party assumes responsibility for another; like a parent for a minor child, or a doctor for his patient. In law, the “special relationship” most at issue is the one between emergency response personnel and any member of the community that requires their assistance.

In early March 2011, CPS received a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury from the minor’s teacher (a mandated reporter) confirming the minor’s accusations of sexual abuse. CPS failed to interview the teacher.

In January 2012, the father lost his job and the minor tells law enforcement and CPS that the abuse is occurring almost every time she is at her father’s house. CPS insisted the minor should remain with her father.

On November 7, 2012, the Court appointed therapist (as a mandated reporter) contacted the child abuse registry to report a new allegation of sexual abuse by the father. The Tustin PD immediately sent an Officer to the minor’s school to interview her and removed her from her home into protective custody. CPS dismissed the reporting and had the child sent back to the father.

CPS was specifically created to rescue minors from dangerous situation. Their duty is to respond to reports of suspected child abuse and to act accordingly; that is, CPS are mandated by law to assume responsibility for minors at risk of abuse. Thus, a “special relationship” exists between CPS and Dr. Rubin Dillon’s daughter. In the three instances above, CPS failed to interview the minor’s teacher, ignored the minor’s allegations and dismissed reports by the Tustin Police. Therefore, CPS breached its duty to rescue Dr. Rubin Dillon’s minor daughter.

Another exception to the general rule that there is no duty to rescue is that if one takes a step towards rescue, he then has the responsibility to take reasonable care in conducting his act of rescue. All that the law asks is for the rescuer to do what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. In other words, there must be a breach of the duty of care for liability to rise, and if the defendant has acted reasonably, there is no breach and thus no negligence.

On February 25, 2011, Dr. Ruby Dillon took her daughter to the emergency room at Hoag Hospital. Despite medical records documenting “non-accidental” trauma consistent with sexual abuse, workers at CPS failed to (1) interview the ER physician, (2) conduct a forensic exam, (3) contact law enforcement, (4) conduct a CAST interview of the minor child, and (5) conduct an interview of the suspected abuser: her father.

When CPS accepted the medical records from Hoag Hospital they had taken their Postsfirst step towards rescue of the minor. However, CPS did not act like a “reasonable person” when it then failed to interview the ER physician or the father, conduct any exams of its own or contact law enforcement. Thus, CPS breached their duty to rescue.

To summarize, CPS dishonored the law in at least three ways: (1) CPS created a dangerous condition that placed the minor at risk,  (2) CPS violated its “special relationship” with the victim, and (3) CPS failed to take reasonable care in their attempt to rescue of the minor.

Lexi Dillon

LEXI DILLON

 As unbelievable as these facts are, some of these developments have recently occurred under the scrutiny of the alternative new media.  And yet the appointed judge continues to act with complete impunity.  The actions of the court have put a young child directly in harm’s way and yet the State of California has done nothing to short-circuit a process gone completely awry.

 

What follows is another timeline of events which further delineates this state-sponsored crime spree executed against a powerless child citizen.

Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/orange-county-california-places-abused-child-with-sexually-abusive-parent/#ixzz3aURWIpbs

 Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

Author of this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and Especially to My Little Julian, is not a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner, therefore, no information contained herein this post and/or blog could be (mis)construed as “legal advice.”  Anyone who exercises he/r rights, and private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive, possibly malicious or retaliatory, and profiteering/privateering and in the “best interests” . . . of the “state” Texas General and other Funds at one’s own peril, risk, and/ or self-fulfillment.  The choice is yours.

  • CENSORSHIP WILL BE PROSECUTED AS IT IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE IN THE THIS REPUBLIC USA, THE LAWS TO WHICH YOU WILL BE H
    • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.
    • (2) Content in this post is protected by Julian’s Real Mummy’s First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the uS Constitution and  Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, uS Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
    • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
    • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and/or requirement/demand, then contact Author of this blog immediately as fair notice and due diligence requires so that Author shall act lawfully and reasonably with expedience pursuant to any supplemental knowledge.

Fair Notice: This blog , and “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” Computer, Hardware, Software, E-mail, Telephone, etc., have been Hijacked for Quite Some Time Now, and i Finally Got Back In Temporarily to Give You Notice individual, natural (wo)man, sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” has had he/r identity and intellectual information, physical property, and so much more stolen in retaliation for federal lawsuit by co-conspiratorial agents, private and in collusion with public in violation and conspiracy against u.S Constitutional Rights of Natural Born American u.S “citizen,” being “sovereign” and “elect,” an individual–I love you Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom!


i, being natural (wo)man, individual sometimes called or described as “Julian’s Real Mummy/Mommy,” or “Joni Saloom,” sometimes “Joni Faith Saloom,” Seek Order of Protection in Emergency from the Rogue Terrorists who, Since they took over this blog and all my information a long time ago, Is No Longer, and Could Not Be, Responsible for this Blog or its content, nor “CORRUPT TX, ” which was always “CORRUPT CT” IN CHARGE ALSO OF THE OTHER “CORRUPT” SITES. 

Fair Notice: This blog , and “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” Computer, Hardware, Software, E-mail, Telephone, etc., have been Hijacked for Quite Some Time Now, and i Finally Got Back In Temporarily to Give You Notice individual, natural (wo)man, sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” has had he/r identity and intellectual information, physical property, and so much more stolen in retaliation for federal lawsuit by co-conspiratorial agents, private and in collusion with public in violation and conspiracy against u.S Constitutional Rights of Natural Born American u.S “citizen,” being “sovereign” and “elect,” an individual–I love you Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom!

 

Individual called, described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” “Joni Saloom,” “Joni Faith Saloom,” Seeks Preliminary Restraining Order and Temporary and Permanent Injunctions Against  against Co-Conspirators/Terrorist/Hackers/Cyber-Terrorists, Among Others.

Michele’s Story| Massachusetts


Michele Greaves and Family

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

This story is about grave  injustices that endanger  millions of children around the world. There is an epidemic of family court judges deliberately disregarding and covering up physical violence and sexual abuse and granting custody to abusive fathers. Meanwhile good, protective mothers and children are being torn apart, deprived of any meaningful, sometimes any, relationship with each other.

Following is my own story, one of thousands. Despite my abusive “ex”  admitting that he went after the boys to hurt me, the judge disregarded all the evidence of his violence and gave him custody. My children are now not only being abused, but also being lied to, manipulated and turned against me. I have been rendered powerless in a system that appears to be designed to prioritize fathers’ rights over children’s safety. I would never have believed this could happen in the United States in the third millennium.

October 2009 I left my abuser, Stan. My sons (David 9 and Connor 9 at the time) and I moved to our own home in West Springfield, Massachusetts. Stan escalated so much that I frequently needed police assistance. He harassed us and continued to hit the children. Department of Children and Families  became involved January 2009 when the first filing of abuse was filed and substantiated. At the advice of the police, I secured a restraining order in December. It was a temporary order and I went back to court December 30 to have it extended. I told the judge he did everything to me but hit me and he hit my sons. She scared me and my ex glared at me; judge did not extend it.

In retaliation (during restraining order) Stan filed for custody and used the courts to intimidate and control. Lawyers were assigned to my sons who became manipulated by Stan. I filed for divorce June 2010 and the case was transferred to a divorce track. Stan’s abuse continued and he escalated more by August. DCF sent me to probate court to talk with a domestic violence advocate who helped me file for a restraining order. Judge would not give it consideration; it was a waste of her time.

September 13, 2011 we divorced by agreement; I had full physical custody of children and we had shared custody. He held me hostage by demanding a detailed visitation schedule.  November 1 my sons and I went to a domestic violence shelter in the Boston, Massachusetts area 90 miles away from West Springfield. November 3 my friend Helen called me to report that Stan was looking for us: called her reportedly and showed up at her workplace. She secured a prevention of harassment from him (judge has a copy). The same day I called the social worker to inform her that we were out of the area in a safe house in the eastern part of the state; she called Stan the same day and gave him the information.

Stan filed an emergency Habeas Corpus claiming “[I] was distraught since the death of my dad and that my sons were not safe with me.” My dad died October 15 and I was affected very little for I had very little to do with him. Stan gave false information reporting that he showed up at the school November 7 to pick up boys for his visit per court order and that “he did not know we were out of the area.”

Despite Stan’s lies the judge ordered my sons handed over to him (while in the court room) for an extended visit. She vacated our divorce and gave him temporary custody. Her reason: claiming I needed permission of court to move (only needed if move out of state), that only West Springfield could administer Connor’s IEP (by law all school systems must administer an IEP), and that he needed to be near his therapist (that I took him to and Stan did not). My sons and I were shattered. They did not want to live with Stan.

By law the judge is to conduct an evaluation at 90 days when there is a change of custody; judge never did one. Within 3 weeks Stan assaulted Connor and a filing of abuse was filed. Connor filed his own police report. Connor’s attorney withheld the report and Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) refused to look at it.

December 3, 2012 was a divorce trial. I was pro se and did not know what I was doing. Legal Aide would not take the case and did not tell me until 3 weeks before the trial. The legal advocate at the “domestic violence” shelter did not meet with me until a week before the trial. Advantage I had was that I knew what to ask Stan since I know him so well. At the trial, Stan, my “ex” testified to being abusive and neglectful, showing up at the DV shelter so I would lose my housing and more. I testified of assault by Stan to my sons and me. I reminded the court that I have always been primary care giver of boys. Court ordered evaluation states that Stan is abusive and cannot parent for more than a few days at a time and that there should not be a change in custody (boys were in my custody at the time).

Divorce judgment gave Stan full custody of boys, able to claim both boys on taxes. I have to pay child support. Communication is to be primarily by email (only thing I got). Division of pensions did not equally divide assets. Judge’s reason: that I was erratic (going to a DV shelter and judge cited a case where a mother kidnapped her kids and fled to Lebanon). I filed an appeal and it went before the panel October 6, 2014 and they affirmed judge’s decision. October 20 I submitted a letter requesting a hearing.

October 2013 I filed three contempt charges against Stan: withholding information about service providers for boys, not communicating primarily by email but harassing me on the phone instead and for not completing the DRO. He admitted to being guilty to all charges. Judge’s response to the first: you got information eventually, didn’t you? Response to the second: do you have proof? (Never mind he admitted to the contempt.) The third: he was found guilty but he was not given a consequence. The percentage in the divorce judgment did not equally distribute his pension and I reported this. Judge’s response, “You are doing an appeal, include it.”

January 2014 DCF placed David in a residential program that day after Stan assaulted him. Forty-five (45) days later David was placed back with Stan. June Stan filed a CRA against David in juvenile court when there are no grounds for it. David is not a behavior problem. Police Sargeant even states that Stan is a bully who hates anyone who stands up to him. I have raised my sons to be confident. Stan gave DCF temporary custody of David in June when he extended the CRA (out of spite). As long as I don’t have custody Stan wins and I lose. He admitted he went after the boys to hurt me.

Connor is morbidly obese, at risk of being over medicated and at a special school for his intense individualized education plan, or, “IEP” pursuant to the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, revised as ADAA. Both boys have symptoms of “PTSD” and depression. They are over serviced. Judge ignores these facts. She only focuses on Stan’s parental rights and ignores mine and the safety of my sons.

June I filed an emergency modification for custody of my sons due to continued abuse and David being placed in four foster homes and a residential program in the course of five days in June. David was at the residential program for another three (3) months. Modification went before judge July 10th. I had in hand evidence of the abuse and professionals stating that boys cannot thrive in his custody. Judge wouldn’t listen to it. She scheduled a pretrial for October 22. Last week she scheduled another pretrial for February.

While Stan has had custody of David and Connor he has continued to abuse them. They are now afraid to speak up and Stan has alienated me from my sons, doing his best to destroy our relationship. It is baffling to me that DCF, screens out all filings of abuse against Stan, especially when there is evidence. I have become vilified and I do not know why. I have not been found to be abusive.

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer

 (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

     Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.;
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.

THE NEW ALANNA KRAUSE CASE| Nuszen, Gabrielle, v. Nuszen, Jack, et al. in the US Southern District of Texas, Houston Division


UPDATE: HANNAH NUSZEN(“H.N.,”)  

Transported to Solacium

New Haven Residential Treatment Center in

Utah . . .

to be Silenced, at Best

  1. Christina Wanies-Guirgis
    Texas Bar No. 24084772
    9555 W. Sam Houston Pkwy S., Suite 130
    Houston, Texas 77099
    Tel: (832) 582-8331
    Fax: (832) 379-7490
    Christinaw@waniesguirgispllc.com

       Thomas M. Burton via pro hac vice
        Utah Bar No. 00518
       California Bar No. 035856
       P.O. Box 1619
       Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
       Tel: (801) 918-1656
       Thomasburtonlaw@aol.com

     ATTORNEYS FOR GABRIELLE NUSZEN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
______________________________________________________________

GABRIELLE NUSZEN, an individual and Guardian ad Litem for her minor sisters,

H.N., K.N., D.N. and Z.N., Minors,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JACK NUSZEN; SHANNON ORAND NUSZEN; KAREN GOLLAHER; JAY BEVAN; GUARDIANS OF HOPE, a Texas Corporation; NORMA WILLCOCKSON; DOE DEFENDANTS I through X, inclusive; and DOE DEFENDANTS XI through XX, inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No. _________________________

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY,

FALSE IMPRISONMENT;

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

INVASION OF PRIVACY;

NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;

STRICT LIABILITY OF CARRIER;

CHILD ABUSE;

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

HABEAS CORPUS

JURY DEMANDED

     COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, GABRIELLE NUSZEN individually and as Guardian ad Litem for her minor sisters, H.N., K.N., D.N. and Z.N.

NATURE OF THE CASE

     This is a case brought by all five daughters of Defendant, JACK NUSZEN (hereinafter “JACK”), their physically and emotionally abusive biological father, seeking protection from him notwithstanding physical custody that Harris County has negligently bestowed upon him in defiance of medical reports of serious and repetitive physical and emotional abuse that he has visited upon them. JACK has been able to buy immunity from prosecution for child abuse in the family courts of Harris County, and has defied a Harris County custody order with impunity. Harris County agencies charged with protecting the Plaintiffs from JACK suffer from extreme laxity of duty and neglect of care, forcing the Plaintiffs to resort to this Court to protect their freedom and their constitutional rights.

PARTIES

1.      Plaintiff, GABRIELLE NUSZEN, (hereinafter “Gabrielle”), is a citizen of the State of [CONFIDENTIAL].
2.      Plaintiff H.N. has been held captive against her will and without her consent at several Utah licensed residential treatment centers — Aspen Assessment Center in Syracuse, Utah and New Haven Academy in Saratoga Springs, Utah for over a year, and has thus been forced to become a citizen of Utah.
3.      Plaintiffs, K.N., D.N. and Z.N., are minor citizens of the State of Texas, who have endured years of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of the Defendants, particularly JACK and SHANNON (referenced to below).
4.      Defendant, JACK NUSZEN, is the biological father of Gabrielle Nuszen and her minor sisters, H.N, K.N., D.N., and Z.N., and is a citizen of Texas.
5.      Defendant, SHANNON ORAND NUSZEN, is the wife of JACK and step-mother of Gabrielle and her minor sisters, H.N, K.N., D.N., and Z.N., and is a citizen of Texas.
6.         Defendant, KAREN GOLLAHER, is a psychologist appointed by the Harris County District Court and has failed and refused to protect any and all of the Plaintiffs.
7.       Defendant, JAY BEVAN, is a therapist appointed by Harris County and has failed and refused to protect any and all of the Plaintiffs.
8.        Defendant, GUARDIANS OF HOPE, is a Texas corporation that is an escort service that JACK paid to       take H.N. from her school and transport her across State lines from Texas to Utah to leave her stranded against   her will and without her consent.
9.       Defendant, NORMA WILLCOCKSON, is a Texas resident who owns and operates Guardians of Hope.
10.     Doe Defendants I through X are citizens of the State of Texas and employees of Harris County, Texas or   affiliated with it who, at all times material, were acting within the course and scope of their employment, or   authorization, as agents for the other named Defendants.
11.      Doe Defendants XI through XX were government agencies having regulatory powers and responsibilities   over the safety of the Plaintiffs, and the employees of said agencies, who at all times material were acting either within the course and scope of their employment and authorization, or else as individuals, but in either case as agents for the other named Defendants.

JURISDICTION

12.      Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to: (a) 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (b), and (c); and (d) .  The    amount in controversy exceeds the sum of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars.

VENUE

13.      Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (b) and (c).

FACTS

14.      After Miriam Nuszen divorced JACK he thereafter manipulated Harris County into giving him primary custody of all five of his daughters.
15.      In that position JACK promoted, by a frequent and consistent pattern of false representations and suppressions of fact, that Miriam was afflicted with several levels of mental and emotional illness that adversely affected each and all of the Plaintiff children. He many times reported her and the children to The Department of Child and Family Services as part of a strategy to have them removed from their home with her, and to be placed with him for eventual shipment out of state in further retribution for the divorce.
16.      JACK established a pattern and practice of telling Harris County psychologists, counselors, judges, attorneys, police officers, and any and all other officials having anything to do with child care that Miriam was an inept and incompetent mother psychologically unfit to raise his daughters.

          Contrary to fact, Miriam is a brilliant health care industry employee whom each and all of the daughters      dearly love and wish to be with.
17.      Miriam filed a police report, on or about two years ago, alleging that JACK threatened to kill her and their children. However, the Court refused to listen to such evidence and testimony, and failed to take such a report into consideration in rendering the custody order. In fact, JACK has sexually and physically abused Miriam during the course of their marriage, as well as abuse the children on repeated occasions.
18.      JACK, however, is a sociopathic liar and abuser of his children. For this reason, he hired Defendant NORMA WILLCOCKSON, and her escort service to remove H.N. without warning and against her will and consent from her Texas high school where she was a very excellent student of sound character.
19.      JACK sent H.N. to Island View Academy in Syracuse, Utah.

See Exhibit A:

     Humana Provider Demographic Report Rendering Provider Name with Address. Island View’s philosophy is to deprive its participants of all contact with the outside world, to treat them with rudeness and hostility, and to punish them for disobedience by deprivation and physical abuse. Island View has been and continues to be the subject of much litigation and controversy over its mistreatment of the captive children under its supervision and control.

     The tuition costs are enormous for a program run by amateurs who have no concept of proper health care administration or behavior. It has received much notoriety and adverse comment on survivor sites for its maltreatment of adolescents kept captive in its care.
20.      The state of Utah licenses such places as “residential treatment centers,” but there is no transparency, no accountability and minimal regulation, mostly by low level social workers aided by minimum wage enforcers of mindless rules measured by forced behavior of mostly truants thrown together without discrimination about who needs what treatment and why.
21.      There was never any screening or adjudication that H.N. needed any type of behavior modification. H.N. was taken without warning and has been forced to survive at Island View Academy. It is now upon new information and belief that H.N. has been moved to New Haven Academy without anyone accounting for her welfare or condition, either physical or mental.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: PERSONAL INJURY

22.       Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
23.       JACK, as father and custodian of H.N., had a duty to protect her, care for her, and keep her safe. JACK, however, breached his duty:
     a.      By failing to notify H.N. that he was going to send her out of state to Utah to be confined for the indefinite future at Island View Academy.
     b.      By failing to obtain H.N.’s informed consent to be confined at Island View Academy.
     c.      By failing to inform himself that Island View Academy was not a school, but a rigorous and punitive behavior modification technique reformatory, to which H.N. was not accustomed, and by failing to have determined by an independent physician or psychologist that there was any legitimate need to send H.N. to Island View in Utah for such harsh treatment that typically in adolescents causes post-traumatic stress disorder.
   d.      By failing to understand that H.N. would be put in the company of many young women who were truant, addicted to drugs, promiscuous, convicted of criminal behavior, and that they were at Island View not for recreation, education, or counseling, but for severe behavior modification.
     e.      By failing to consider whether H.N’s association with such individuals needing severe obedience training, often by rough handling and rude treatment, and that she would be there as well as the others under the overall assumption that everyone enrolled was truant, defiant, drug addicted, and sexually active, would be an appropriate placement for H.N. who was none of the above, but who would be likely contaminated by those who were.
     f.      By making a placement that would deprive, for an indefinite period, H.N. of any association and communication with her mother and sisters whom she dearly loves.
     g.      By instructing Island View Academy to prohibit H.N’s mother from having any contact with H.N., and not informing H.N. that she had not been abandoned by her mother and sisters, and that their not contacting her was due to their father’s prohibition carried out by the academies.
     h.      By keeping H.N. separate from her sisters with whom she has had no contact whatsoever for over a year.
24.      Miriam Blank, H.N.’s mother, along with her sisters, had a close, warm and loving relationship with H.N. As a proximate result of the described separation, JACK deliberately damaged and harmed H.N., her sisters and their mother.
25.      JACK’s conduct was malicious, wanton and in reckless disregard of H.N.’s health, safety and welfare, by reason of which she and her sisters are entitled to recover punitive damages.
26.      Plaintiffs pray that this Court order JACK to release H.N. from Island View Academy or New Haven Academy or wherever else he is hiding her, and return her to her sister and Guardian ad Litem, Gabrielle, in [CONFIDENTIAL].

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: FALSE IMPRISONMENT

27.      Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
28.      H.N. learned upon arrival at Island View Academy that its operation was designed to imprison her against her will and without her consent, and that she had no recourse by communicating with her mother to free her from the benighted treatment to which she was hopelessly subject. She sought to leave the program, but Island View restrained her from any contact with the outside world, and refused her request to return to her mother.
29.      JACK’s confinement of H.N. at Island View in Utah wrongfully violated the Texas custody order that governed his care and keeping of H.N. He knew that his daughter, H.N., was of an age where she had federal and state constitutional rights to due process and a liberty interest not to be unlawfully confined by any parent, with or without custody, in a punitive, isolated, foreign venue with no recourse or contact with family members or legal assistance to gain release. JACK also knew full well that Island View, in keeping H.N. captive and isolated, would cause H.N. to suffer severe emotional distress due to the punitive treatment she would receive and the absence from her mother and the Plaintiffs that she would suffer.
30.      JACK’s conduct was malicious, wanton and in reckless disregard of H.N.’s health, safety and welfare, by reason of which she is entitled to recover punitive damages against him.
31.      Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

32.      Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
33.      JACK’s sordid history of physically hurting H.N. and locking her away from family, friends, teachers, coaches, and home without warning, and in a brusque, public, humiliating manner, as if she were a person severely mentally ill or highly truant, caused her grievous mental and emotional distress.
34.      JACK’s conduct was outrageous, malicious, wanton and in reckless disregard of H.N.’s health, safety and welfare, by reason of which she is entitled to recover punitive damages.
35.      Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

36.      Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
37.      JACK had a duty to safeguard H.N. from demented hazing, denigration, isolation, confinement, and deprivation at his sole pleasure, and also not to inflict emotional distress on her sisters by depriving each and all of them from having contact with H.N. and she with them.
38.      JACK violated his duty to H.N. and her sisters by keeping them not only apart, but also in secret silence from each other, and their mother.
39.      JACK’s conduct was in reckless disregard of H.N.’s and her sisters’ health, safety and welfare, by reason of which Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages.
40.      Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INVASION OF PRIVACY

41.      Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
42.      By having H.N. suddenly taken in broad daylight from her high school and in front of her peers by an escort service, and put in a Utah punitive behavior modification program totally isolated and silenced from all contact with family and friends, JACK cast H.N. in a false light as having done something so horribly wrong so that she was not fit to be trusted in normal society, including her own family.

43.      JACK’s conduct has caused Plaintiffs great mental and emotional distress.
44.      JACK’s conduct was malicious, wanton and in reckless disregard of H.N. and her sisters’ health, safety                 and welfare, by reason of which the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages.
45.      Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

46.        Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.

47.       JACK had a father’s duty to treat her with dignity, respect, and tenderness. He, however, negligently conceived, supervised, maintained and controlled H.N.’s negligent imprisonment at Island View Academy and New Haven Academy in the particulars set out above.

48.      JACK’s conduct proximately caused personal injury and emotional distress to H.N. for all of 2014, and there is every indication, unless this Court intervenes, that he will continue to keep her away from the Plaintiffs and her mother until her majority two years hence.

49.       JACK’s conduct is in reckless disregard of H.N.’s health, safety and welfare, by reason of which Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages.

50.      Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

51.      Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
52.      By enrolling H.N. at Island View Academy and New Haven Academy in Utah, JACK cavalierly transferred his fiduciary duty as custodian of H.N. to surrogate strangers of no known merit in a foreign state who would, in turn, take H.N. into an unknown isolated, inhospitable and unforgiving area in a captive situation. JACK signed a power of attorney, giving custody of H.N. to Aspen and New Haven, which is evidenced in the contract between JACK and the residential treatment centers.
53.      Island View and New Haven breached their transferred fiduciary duties as surrogates to act in H.N.’s best interest, which proximately caused H.N. to sustain great pain, suffering, bodily injury and feelings of abandonment, and the Plaintiffs to suffer grievous mental and emotional distress over the needless suffering and isolation of their sister.
54.      The conduct of JACK in abandoning his duties under Title 5, Section 151.001(a)(2) and (3) of the Texas Family Code in favor of unknown Utah surrogates of no merit and dubious reputation was malicious, wanton and in reckless disregard of his fiduciary duty to care for H.N.’s health, safety and welfare, by reason of which Plaintiffs are entitled to recover both general and punitive damages against JACK, their father, for splitting them up and sending H.N. away, never to be seen or heard from again, a likely destiny for the remaining younger sisters unless this Court intervenes to prevent such a prospect.
55. Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT LIABILITY OF CARRIER

56. Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
57.      JACK, in hiring NORMA WILLCOCKSON, to transport H.N. from Houston, Texas into Syracuse, Utah had a duty to use utmost care and diligence for H.N’s safe carriage, and was under the obligations to provide everything necessary for that purpose and to exercise to that end a reasonable degree of skill.
58.      For the reasons above stated, NORMA WILLCOCKSON failed to use utmost care
and diligence for the safe carriage of H.N., but followed JACK’s instructions to take H.N., whose mother also had custody, from her to an undisclosed location, and to take her suddenly without warning, and against her will and without her consent, knowing full well that such transport had to do with minors who have constitutional rights not to be kidnapped by one parent from another, both of whom have custodial rights and duties to be with their children, and they with them.
59.      NORMA WILLCOCKSON does this transporting of young people across state lines as a lucrative business without checking to see whether or not the transportation is regulated by interstate compact, and knows that her cargo is going to be confined in lock-down captivity without due process or any way to escape.
60.      The conduct of NORMA WILLCOCKSON was in reckless disregard of H.N.’s, health, safety and welfare, by reason of which both H.N. and her sisters are entitled to recover punitive damages.
61.      Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CHILD ABUSE

62.      Plaintiffs incorporate by this reference the foregoing paragraphs as if stated in full.
63.      JACK, while having the care, custody and control of H.N., isolated her from her mother in an unfamiliar area of the Utah desert at Island View and New Haven academies, and did so in order to:
a.      Subject H.N. to conditions and circumstances likely to produce great bodily and emotional harm;
b.      Cause her to suffer, and negligently allowed to be inflicted upon her unjustifiable physical pain and mental suffering;
c.      Cause or permit her to be injured; and
d.      Cause or permit her to be placed in such a situation that her health would be endangered.
64.      Before H.N. was sent to Utah, JACK physically abused both H.N., Gabrielle, and all of her sisters as their individual affidavits will show. Gabrielle has endured abuse from her father; as noted in a physician’s statement regarding Gabrielle’s injury in 2010, “dad hit…in face…abrasion to inside of bottom lip.[Gabrielle] has bruise to lower back and 2 fingerprint marks to L. [left] side of neck. [Gabrielle] states dad held her under water…”

See Exhibit B: Physician’s Statement Regarding Injury to Gabrielle Nuszen;

see also Exhibit C: Gabrielle Nuszen’s Affidavit, dated September 29, 2013; also see Exhibit D: Physician’s Statement Regarding Injury to Kayla Nuszen.
65.      JACK’s cruel and reckless conduct toward these choice young girls is inexcusable and warrants this Court’s removal of JACK’s custody of and contact with his children hereinafter and forever.
66.      This Court has a duty to order a complete independent psychological assessment of JACK in order to ascertain whether or not he is a sociopath, in addition to having a narcissistic personality disorder or other mental health defects that need treatment, supervision and restraint from contact with his children.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
1.      A Writ of Habeas Corpus producing H.N. before this Court to be examined as to her present circumstances and as to whether or not she has the right to be released from Island View, Aspen, or New Haven in Utah and returned to her sister, Gabrielle, in [CONFIDENTIAL].
2.      Injunctive relief in the form of an Order enjoining further possession of H.N. by any aforesaid venue in Utah, and immediately releasing H.N. and transferring legal and physical custody to her sister, Gabrielle, so that she may provide for H.N.’s education at legitimate schools in the State of [CONFIDENTIAL] or elsewhere, before H.N. falls further behind academically.
3.      General damages according to proof, but in no event lower than $100,000.
4.      Punitive damages according to proof.
5.      Costs of suit.
6.      Such other and further relief that the Court deems just.
Dated: March 12, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Thomas M. Burton
Thomas M. Burton via pro hac vice
Utah Bar No. 00518
California Bar No. 035856
P.O. Box 1619
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
Tel: (801) 918-1656
Thomasburtonlaw@aol.com

/s/ Christina Wanies-Guirgis
Christina Wanies-Guirgis
Texas Bar No. 24084772
9555 W. Sam Houston Pkwy S., Suite 130
Houston, Texas 77099
Tel: (832) 582-8331
Fax: (832) 379-7490
Christinaw@waniesguirgispllc.com\

Legal Disclaimer and Fair Use Notice

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

 Nothing contained in this post or on this blog, Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America, and our Children Who Want to Come Home, and and especially for my little Julian, could be (mis)construed as “legal advice” of any kind as author of this post is expressly NOT a lawyer, attorney, or legal practitioner.

  • CENSORSHIP and censorship shall be challenged strongly as censorship, being in breach of, among so many other unlawful acts and omissions, is a violation of sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment u.S Constitutional right to the free exercise of speech, and also to peaceably assemble herein and also to freely exercise whatever religion, if any, that said natural, American u.S “citizen,” “citizen” meaning fo the purposes of this post. conditionally as i, being natural (wo)man, individual, living and corporeal body,  exclusively reserve the right to revoke or rescind the offer at any and all times, inherently “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence because imbued with the spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD. ;
  • (1)  This post is made in GOOD FAITH and for deterrent purposes against child abusers, alleged child abusers, and those who would maternally alienate fit, loving mothers and children from one another.;
  • (2) Content in this post is protected by “Julian’s Real Mummy’s” First Amendment herein claimed rights as a natural-born American, “sovereign,” “elect” citizen pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the Federa, u.S. Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal,u.S Constitution and its  Bill of Rights, pursuant to the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.;
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.;
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand, and Author will be happy to follow the law and respect your wishes.