S.B. No. 423
S.B. No. 423
relating to the flexible response system for investigations of
child abuse or neglect reports by the Department of Family and
Protective Services.
       SECTION 1.  Section 261.3015, Family Code, is amended to
read as follows:
       Sec. 261.3015.  FLEXIBLE RESPONSE SYSTEM. (a)  In assigning
priorities and prescribing investigative procedures based on the
severity and immediacy of the alleged harm to a child under Section
261.301(d), the department shall establish a flexible response
system to allow the department to make the most effective use of
resources to investigate and respond to reported [by investigating
serious] cases of abuse and neglect.
       (b)  Notwithstanding Section 261.301, the department may, in
accordance with this section and department rules, conduct an
alternative response to a report of abuse or neglect if the report
does not:
             (1)  allege sexual abuse of a child;
             (2)  allege abuse or neglect that caused the death of a
child; or
             (3)  indicate a risk of serious physical injury or
immediate serious harm to a child.
       (c)  The department may administratively close a reported
case of abuse or neglect without completing the investigation or
alternative response and without providing services or making a
referral to another entity for assistance [and by screening out
less serious cases of abuse and neglect] if the department
determines, after contacting a professional or other credible
source, that the child’s safety can be assured without further
investigation, response, services, or assistance.
       (d)  In determining how to classify a reported case of abuse
or neglect under the flexible response system, the child’s safety
is the primary concern [The department may administratively close
the less serious cases without providing services or making a
referral to another entity for assistance.
       [(a-1)     For purposes of Subsection (a), a case is considered
to be a less serious case of abuse or neglect if the circumstances
of the case do not indicate an immediate risk of abuse or neglect
that could result in the death of or serious harm to the child who is
the subject of the case].
       [(b)]  The classification [under the flexible response
system] of a case may be changed as warranted by the circumstances.
       (e)  An alternative response to a report of abuse or neglect
must include:
             (1)  a safety assessment of the child who is the subject
of the report;
             (2)  an assessment of the child’s family; and
             (3)  in collaboration with the child’s family,
identification of any necessary and appropriate service or support
to reduce the risk of future harm to the child.
       (f)  An alternative response to a report of abuse or neglect
may not include a formal determination of whether the alleged abuse
or neglect occurred.
       (g) [(c)]  The department may implement the alternative
[flexible] response in one or more of the department’s
administrative regions before implementing the system statewide
[system by establishing a pilot program in a single department
service region]. The department shall study the results of the
system in the regions where the system has been implemented
[region] in determining the method by which to implement the system
       SECTION 2.  Not later than December 1, 2013, the executive
commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission shall
adopt the rules necessary to implement Section 261.3015, Family
Code, as amended by this Act.
       SECTION 3.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.
______________________________ ______________________________
   President of the Senate Speaker of the House
       I hereby certify that S.B. No. 423 passed the Senate on
April 4, 2013, by the following vote:  Yeas 30, Nays 0.
Secretary of the Senate
       I hereby certify that S.B. No. 423 passed the House on
May 15, 2013, by the following vote:  Yeas 145, Nays 0, two
present not voting.
Chief Clerk of the House




Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

Posted 23 January 2013

The below-referenced chart lists over 75 family court cases in Connecticut where children’s safety and well being has been jeopardized by unethical and even illegal activities of court professionals who routinely target, extort and exploit Connecticut
mothers.  In many of these cases, where mothers reported a father’s violent crimes against her family, the mother eventually lost custody to the wealthier father when he — the real perpetrator — accused her of alienation.  Violent fathers almost always won sole or joint custody of victims, and in some cases these fathers even went on to become mass murderers.  Insurance companies and the State are being defrauded by medical and mental health professionals who are routinely rewarded handsomely for submitting false claims that misdiagnose fit and loving mothers and their children with mental disorders they do not have; they are also providing diagnosis and treatment plans that are considered illegitimate by the AMA and APA.  Meanwhile, the same professionals justify their billing by deliberately recommending to judges the placement of children in the care of violent fathers, even rapists, and by shielding these offenders from criminal prosecution that might otherwise keep children safe.  The effect is that the whole family becomes damaged and in need of treatment, and are subsequently required to obtain ongoing court affiliated medical and legal professional services.

Some of these cases were outlined in the May 2012 Conscious Being Alliance story A Life Sentence.  The summary of cases spans the past 20 years, with older and newer cases, and where many cases

were drawn out over a decade, or more.


Click link here:
CT Cases Spreadsheet (2-28-2013).xlsx




Written by: keith harmon snow

Categories: ,



melissa harris | January 29, 2013 2:57 PM

This has happened to me I would like to be part of this also where do I file complaints against lawyers n family service division I reported to the mediators supervision but nothing . So I want to file above the court .my case was in Hartford ct. Thank u for your time sincerely Melissa Harris 860-977-3941 cell or home 860-206-9208 Donna yanofsky I give full permission to talk to her on my behalf

adrienne mcglone | February 12, 2013 5:31 PM

• Give a gift of your signature as support in the battle to stop the corruption in probate and family courts that harm and destory our children and families. Join the Petition Signature-A-Thon.


Amy Andersen | February 14, 2013 1:39 PM

Exactly this happened to me also!! I lost custody of my daughter to my abusive ex husband for one reason ONLY,, HE IS VERY WEALTHY! I never so much as received a parking ticket. What happened to my daughter and I was COMPLETELY ILLEGAL IN EVERY WAY! I want very much to be part of this, but I do not know where to start or who to contact. Melissa, I would like to speak with you also if you are willing. Maby we can share information because we both are going through the same nightmare! Please call me and let me know what I can do and where I can start.
Amy Andersen (203) 269-6114

Jodi Baker | February 24, 2013 4:33 PM

The same situation happened to me. I am looking to make changes in the CT family court system especially New Haven County.

Kendra | April 26, 2013 7:33 PM

Below is a proposed class action lawsuit we can file at 95 Washington Street. Melissa, do you want to take the lead?

————————————————————-x VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Index No.:

Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson,
Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo;
Atty. Noah Eisenhandler, Jane Does 1-IV and
John Does I-IV.
The Plaintiffs complaining of the Dr. Howard Krieger; Dr. Kenneth Robson; Dr. Sidney Horowitz; Atty. Steven Dembo; Atty. Noah Eisenhandler; Jane Does 1-IV and John Does I-IV (hereinafter “Defendants”), sets forth and alleges upon information and belief as follows:
1. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Plaintiffs are normal, healthy parents who have endured abnormal and unfathomable circumstances in child custody proceedings.
2. That at all times hereinafter mentioned Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional suffering on Plaintiffs and defamed Plaintiffs for the benefit of increasing conflict in child custody disputes for financial gain and/or job security.

3. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and re-alleges the allegations listed in paragraphs “1” through “2” as though more fully alleged herein.
4. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants emotionally abused Plaintiffs via heinous conduct beyond the standards of civilized decency.
5. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants advocated and endorsed the use of domestic abuse and domestic discipline in child custody proceedings.
6. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants aided and abetted fathers in feigning allegations to place plaintiffs under supervised visitation or otherwise reduce their access to children, alleging “mental illness”, “emotional abuse” or “parental alienation”.
7. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs.
8. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants blatantly disregarded the rules, manipulated information, falsified evidence, harassed and bullied Plaintiffs.
9. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants financial, emotional and legal abuse of Plaintiffs was intentional, deliberate and/or reckless.
10. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants used the fruits of their abuse to claim that Plaintiffs were “erratic, unstable and unpredictable”.
11. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants endorsed the wealthier parent as primary parents to keep their revenue steam coming via fathers contesting custody of children against stay at home mothers.
12. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013, Plaintiffs sustained severe emotional damages and loss of custody of their children in monetary amounts in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.

13. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “12” as though more fully set forth herein.
14. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants increased conflict in custody disputes for the benefit of their professional fees, job security and/or revenue stream.
15. That at all relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants were unjustly enriched by receiving professional fees, income or expenses on account of their improper conduct.
16. That prior to April 26, 2013, Defendants Dr. Howard Krieger and Dr. Sidney Horowitz were sanctioned for committing insurance fraud against Aetna Insurance.
17. Plaintiffs seek restitution of attorney fees and expert fees incurred as a result of defendants’ unjust enrichment, which is in excess of all of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.

18. Plaintiff repeats reiterates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “17” as though more fully set forth herein.
19. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants published false statements about Plaintiffs.
20. That at all times relevant times prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants’ false statements lowered the characters of Plaintiffs in the eyes of others.
21. That at all relevant time prior to April 26, 2013 Defendants slandered, abused, ridiculed, harassed, ignored, humiliated, threatened, attacked and/or financially devastated Plaintiffs in an attempt to substantiate their false statements.
22. That Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional harm on Plaintiffs by facing them with an abusive ex-husband, fear of their children being harmed or removed and a bombardment of medico-legal allegations to substantiate their allegations of “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” behaviors.
23. That Plaintiffs’ were damaged by Defendants’ false statements and intentional infliction of emotional suffering in amounts in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts.

24. Plaintiffs repeat reiterate and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs “1” though “23” as though more fully set forth herein.
25. That Plaintiffs have been discriminated against on account of being stay at home mothers prior to the commencement of litigation. Defendants sided with the parent who had the most money to purchase their children.
26. That Plaintiffs sustained damages in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the lower courts on account of this unlawful socio-economic discrimination.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter an award:
(a) Enjoining and permanently restraining Defendants from intentionally inflicting emotional suffering, discriminating against and defaming the characters of Plaintiffs;
(b) Awarding Plaintiffs’ damages in excess of twenty (20) million dollars;
(c) Awarding Plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expert fees involved in pressing this action;
(d) Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

Yours etc



) ss.:
being duly sworn, deposes and says: We are the plaintiffs in the within action; We have read the foregoing complaint and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my knowledge, except as to the matters stated therein to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters we believe them to be true.


Sworn to before me on this
day of April 2013

Notary Public, State of Connecticut


T. Moore | April 27, 2013 10:05 AM

My case is still pending … I’m ready to keep up the battle and win the war … it’s been years and I refuse to just walk away – I’ve been w/one of the above Dr. during “Special Masters” …

kendra | April 27, 2013 11:47 AM

Attorneys with a strategy which involves inflicting emotional and financial pain on mothers to make them “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” should be reported to the Grievance Committee so that they are disbarred for a violation of Rule 8.4 (4) for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The precedence their strategy sets is that a man is encouraged to abuse the mother of his children so that the attorneys can keep their revenue stream going despite the impact this has on mothers and resultantly on their children. Grievance forms can be found here:

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:01 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:02 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:03 PM

Amy – You can add in defendants Judge Pulver and Atty Hilscher. As you reside in Connecticut, the action can be venued in Connecticut. We may have to bring it in Federal District Court and add in the Constitutional arguments.

Colleen Kerwick | June 1, 2013 3:52 PM

Here is a link to my Confessions of a Stepford Wife blog. Feel free to check into my path as I find the silver lining from my journey through the Connecticut Court System. Whatever doesn’t kill us makes us stronger so I’m hoping that this will be a happy story of transformation and growth.

Sara Burns | June 28, 2013 8:00 PM

I have a significant background in Business Communications and PR and would like to contribute my files for case … amazing how many people can abuse the system for years with a documented list of offenses and still be able to misuse the system to their private advances.

Concerned Mother | August 23, 2013 9:41 PM

A person is guilty under 2011 Connecticut Code Title 53 Crimes Chapter 939
Sec. 53-21 (3) if they “permanently transfer the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration”… such person “shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court”. Has anyone asked the DA to issue a warrant for the arrest of some members of the custody business?

Ron | July 19, 2014 11:38 AM

Keith, This is information which is tragically in sync with what I’ve read from other researchers regarding pedophilia rings and subsequent cover-ups occurring WORLDWIDE. Have you read Dave McGowan’s work entitled “Pedophocracy”? It’s not surprising one bit to learn that the courts are involved in the corruption as are politicans—ETC. I am reminded also of the late Ted Gunderson, former FBI agent who became Aware, shall we say–are you aware of his investigations regarding child abuse? What is bad, evil in society is vigorously protected and encouraged by the System.

Fair Use and Legal 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.
Email Address:
Remember Personal Info?

Donate to this Project


Disabled Mother Deprived of Her Children, Discriminatory Hate Crimes in U.S.

Disabled Mother Deprived of Her Children,

Discriminatory Hate Crimes in U.S.



Posted by: Mamasuntwinkle on Youtube.com, April 15, 2010mamasuntwinkle

Uploaded on Apr 15, 2010

Fighting for a Disabled Mother’s Right to See Her Children; After a Mother’s Brain Injury Following Childbirth, Her Family Fights for Her to See Her Triplets. April 14, 2010, ABC news. Growing up, Abbie Dorn always dreamed of becoming a mother. Now, at age 34, she is the mother of three healthy toddlers. Her home is filled with pictures of the children, triplets named Esti, Reuvi and Yossi.

But in the 4 years since her children were born, Dorn has not been able to talk to them. She can’t hold them or watch them play. That’s because Dorn endured severe brain damage following their birth.
Now, while her children run and play in their Los Angeles home, Dorn’s family, more than 2,500 miles away in Myrtle Beach, S.C., is locked in a legal battle with the children’s father to grant Dorn the right to see her children.
The family’s lawsuit, which could make its way to a courtroom by May, could become a landmark in defining what it means to be a parent, especially when that parent is disabled.
After graduating from college in Ohio and becoming a chiropractor in Atlanta, she married Dan Dorn, a devoutly religious man who shared her beliefs in Orthodox Judaism. They settled in Los Angeles near his family, and began to plan a family of their own. But Dorn struggled to conceive. After turning to fertility treatments, she finally received word in the fall of 2005 that she was expecting triplets. “She was so excited to be pregnant, she was beginning to say, ‘I don’t know if I’ll ever get to be a mother,'” Dorn’s mother, Susan Cohen, said.
Happiness turned to heartbreak after Dorn delivered the three children. What happened in the hospital in the hours after the triplets were born is not clear. And the case was eventually settled out of court for more than $7 million. What the family does know is that Dorn began bleeding internally. Her injury was not caught soon enough, and after a series of missteps, Dorn’s brain was deprived of oxygen, leaving her severely brain damaged. Since the day her three children were born, Dorn has required around-the-clock care. She can’t speak or move on her own, and she remains in bed unless one of her caretakers moves her to a chair. Dorn spent nearly a year in hospital and rehabilitation care in California near her children.
On the anniversary of his wife’s injury, Dan called Dorn’s parents. “He said, ‘Well I need to move on,'” said Paul Cohen. Dorn’s husband eventually divorced her in 2007. In court documents, his attorney said he was “faced with the necessity of beginning to rebuild his life.”
Since the divorce, Abbie Dorn has been moved to her parents’ home in Myrtle Beach, where she undergoes a daily regime of therapies and rehab.
Dorn’s now ex-husband has refused to bring the children to see her. They said he refuses to send videos or to allow Dorn to see the children via webcam.
Dan’s attorneys argue that exposing the children to their severely disabled mother would traumatize them. Medical experts hired by his attorneys to review her records said she would never recover.
But Dorn’s parents say Dan Dorn’s experts are looking at old records, and that after years of rehabilitation, it is clear she has brain function, can understand when people talk to her and can read short passages. Having devoted the past five years to her rehabilitation, Susan and Paul Cohen believe their daughter communicates through her eyes. They say when Dorn has one long blink it means “yes.” When she is in pain, she cries out. When she is happy, they say, she can smile. Her eyes follow movements in the room. Her caretakers say several times a day she will say “yeah” or “no” in response to direct questions.
Legal Battle Over Children of a Disabled Parent
ABC News spent a day with Dorn and watched her undergo therapy. When asked if seeing her children was important to her, Dorn replied with a long blink.
“A mother needs to see her children, she gave them life,” Paul Cohen said. “Her blood is in their veins. These children need to know they have a mommy and she needs to know her children are growing.”
The family’s lawyer argues that Dorn has rights that have been ignored. “Abbie has a right, a constitutional, legal right to have her parents, her own representatives, to request visitation on her behalf,” Lisa Helfend, an attorney for Dorn and her parents, said.
Dorn’s mother believes her daughter is still “there,” saying Dorn cries, smirks and even smiles. “I know that Abbie is there … it’s well beyond a mother’s love,” Susan Cohen said.
“If all she can say to them is one or two words and show in her eyes how much she loves them, I think that will mean a great deal to those children,” Susan Cohen said.
ABC News’ requests for an interview with Dan Dorn were declined.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • (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 incorporated 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,


Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation

The ex-husband is an ignorant fool.  Children do better if they are exposed to all kinds of people, including the disabled.  Understanding prevents bigotry and discrimination of people just because they don’t look like us.  He’s not only doing a great wrong to his ex-wife, he is doing an equally great wrong to his children.

She probably could have recovered a lot more if she had her children around her! This is horrible!!

Recovery would be significantly enhanced if she were enabled to see her children on a regular basis

Come on let her see her children she gave them life his really being a jerk …

So sad 😦😦😸

Sadly, the disabled are NOT respected in the United States, regardless if parent or child.

well  then that needs to change now would be a good time.

What comes around goes around. God will make him pay

Tear jerker 😦



NOT FAIR! DAD let those children KNOW THEIR MOTHER!

“You have no right to have a lawyer, you have no right to have your home, all your families possessions fraudulently taking from you and put on the lawn with a free sign. Forced into homelessness, just after major spine surgeries with no immunity. Using a walker You are NOT allowed to speak while a plaintiff.  Evidence will be refused. All motions DENIED. You have no right to protect your child, against the school that excludes her, provokes her to hysteria ,forces her into a dark cement room, not allowed to call home. Your concerns, ideas, inputs  ignored because “you are disabled your disability has a negative affect on your daughter” you have no right to speak, have witnesses, the only right you have is to be emotionally, verbally violated, slandered, discriminated, blamed for your disability, we  lie to you and about you, and include the invented “mental”  disabilities .  Your disabled child used as a pawn, weapon, because you made formal complaints against abuse to your family and for that, the child you love and care for is fraudulently judicially kidnapped. you are locked out of your paid apartment on the way back from your doctor regardless of how much physical pain you are in, how exhausted you are, how hungry you are. We stop you from getting medical attention even though you claimed you lost the use of your legs, and needed to get to your doctor. instead you are detained in your hot car ,humiliated, interrogated, sweat soaking your clothes. we even called your doctor, force you to have a blood test, charge you w a dwi, even though you don’t drink,  we take the car you only drove 6  times, you have no money so your car is impounded, your SSI DI is still going to the “benefits coordinator” That was forced to resign for violating the laws and rules of a paid rep payee. In the letter of resignation she stated “you are incompetent”, yet she was caught defrauding SSI di and paid too. after the embarrassing charge for the DWI, release you , barely able to walk, sick, in unbearable physical, emotional pain. because “you are disabled” Its dark out , nowhere to go, so sick you don’t remember collapsing, then several days later waking in critical condition in a ICU, the doors closed due to the severe community acquired pneumonia you have and the shock. your temp reaches 104.8. a spine doctor comes in and says “you are not a candidate for surgery” then leaves after giving some mediation for the unbearable pain caused by reconstructed spine surgeries, that were unsuccessful. You “missed the court date because you are on a ventilator, so your license  is suspended . Your daughter is in a foster home. As soon as you move closer to her she is moved across the state. You can only see your child under “supervision” because you tried to protect your child and for that you are a “bad parent” you and your child are hated because of the way you look. You are female with obvious physical differences YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS in the State of New Hampshire. The only right you have is to be tortured. A year has passed, still looking for a permanent 2 bedroom home . You just went trough more landlord hell who at the last minute after receiving money changed his mind ,he didn’t want to “clean his chimney”, He didn’t like the idea that you may have a paid helper. In VT. Everything I ever believed of was told is nothing but a LIE!  A American disabled  mom with a American  disabled child TORTURED BY HATE.

No doubt that bastard would have walked if his kids were disabled too! The new generation is much more accepting than the ones that institutionalised and hid our disabled people. He is cruel. Give them the option of loving their mum. No doubt they can, even if he is too shallow.

Wow really what happened to “for better or for worse”? Dads a dick…

what happened to the vows” in sickness and in  heatlh? A child will loves his/her mom no matter what. Dad is so wrong.I hope she gets to see her kids soon.

Don’t EVER keep the truth from a child, regardless of what that truth is. I’ve seen first had what happens when people lie.

awesome parents, not so awesome husband. parents should check out Family Hope Center http://www.familyhopecenter.org/
Show more



bECAUSE IT APPEARS THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINUTE DETAILS THAT CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS DID OR DID NOT MISS ON PURPOSE THAT BEAR A STRIKING RESEMBLANCE TO DETAILS TO/ AT ACTUALLY OCCURRING AND/OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE FALSE ALLEGATIONS AND “COACHING” CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, ALLEGED BY CHILD WHO IS NOW EIGHT YEARS OLD AND DENIED ALL CONTACT WITH LOVING MOTHER FOR THREE YEARS, THOUGH described as “Joni Saloom” did what all non-offending professionals demanded s/he do and believed he/r only child, private property sometimes described for profit by “state” absent (un)timely, sufficient notice, AS DID ALL OTHER PROFESSIONALS AS CONFESSED AND IN “OUTCOMES” BASE, . . . OF THEN (2012) FIVE YEAR OLD LITTLE BOY (MAY 2012) BY  CHERYL HARVICK, LESLY DAMIAN-MURRAY, KAREN COBLENTZ, OTHERS ON THEIR “TEAM” IN BRAZORIA COUNTY CPS FOR CHILD’S “FATHER,” MATTHEW JAMES WORRELL AND FAMILY IN HARRIS COUNTY, TOMBALL, TEXAS AND “PLAY THERAPIST,” KIMBERLY A. ABERNETHY (LICENSED BY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS”/”DFPS,” CPS DIVISION), PEARLAND POLICE OFFICER PAUL ELTON, AND HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE/OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT/COUNTY COMMISSIONER’S COURT’S SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS APPOINTMENT AND (FORMER) SGT. WILLIAM LILLY, IN CONTRAVENTION OF US CONSTITUTIONAL, NATURAL LAW, AND INALIENABLE AND UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND LIBERTIES OF MOTHER  AND CHILD, described as “Joni Saloom,” WHOSE SON HAS BEEN KIDNAPPED AND TRAFFICKED PURSUANT TO, AMONG OTHER CRIMES PERPETRATED PURSUANT TO “COLOR OF AUTHORITY OF LAW” INDIVIDUAL CO-COMPLICITS FALSELY ALLEGE “‘STATE’ OF TEXAS,”  ” GETTING HIT OVER THE HEAD” (peppered with the same old “domestic violence” at falsely alleged to have allegedly said to “tell ‘Daddy’ . . . “chop off head” “coached,” but actually, by complicits, being individuals, and each of them:  cps, police officer, father, and play therapist individuals, and other suborned, “commissioned” individuals, specialists, “experts,” guardian ad litem, amicus attorneys, a multitude of special interest service providers for the various “states,” BAR members, essentially, against sometimes described as “Julian’s Real Mummy,” and  also  in the case of Lori Handrahan, and also for he/r little daughter, he/r only “child,” Lori’s private property not yet, but to be restoreth.


We DO Not, and we shalt not forget  crimes against our children, crimes against real mommies, real beings with real feelings, hearts, memories, and consciousness, natural (wo)man, individual, the vessel on whose waters berthed/birthed little natural man, being living, corporeal body imbued with the live holy Spirit of our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, the “alpha and the omega” “the first and the last,” the “I AM.”

Yet, we are forced still here to endure it, and also in spite of the usual “suspected classes” and hacks(ers) contracted by . . . the usual “suspected classes” and defendants, and each of them, who, being subjected to Higher law and authority will always, naturally, loathe the undeniable pure and real truth that is the faith and the strength, the humble confidence that WINS the marathon.

Of the thousands of mothers who grieve for our children, “Julian’s Real Mummy,” described sometimes as “Joni Saloom” also prays that private property/”children and full and fair compensation available, but not “subjected” to semantic art) be restored also to:

sometimes described as,  ” Linda Marie Sacks (Ormond Beach, Florida;  Volusia County);  Sandra Grazzini-Rucki(Dakota County, Minnesota), Leah  Dannewitz (Carver County, Minnesota), Kimberly Sperling (Dakota County, Minnesota), Caroline Rice (Minnesota), “Emily Court” (Minnesota), Sharon and Bill Burns, the real parents of little Donnelly Keaton Burns who was wrongfully adopted without any cause, but for nothing more than the retaliation, the burning jealousy and pride of vindictive ex-wife  whose mother was a veteran, though retired social worker for corrupt Riverside County DPS for thirty years (Ontario, California; Riverside County; see active civil class complaint in the case of A.A. v. County of Riverside , 5:14-cv-2556, US Central District of California, Riverside division, filed 12/12/”2014″), Amy Charron (Houston, Texas; Harris County), Jennie Morton (Conroe, Athens, Dallas, Texas; Montgomery, Ellis, Dallas Counties, Texas–moves all forced after, but not before bizarre crimes by law enforcement and other ring members made the moves matter of survival for Jennie), apparently had a book published in 2013, Standing Strong, Trisha Schafer (Houston, Texas ; Harris County), reportedly the target of customary Texas style police and law enforcement judicial and worse interference, but way more than the usual, and interestingly lived right down the street from mine and my son’s former home, and also kidnapper’s current husband of his wife’s former husband, father of he/r three still get to live with their real mommy in the same home  with my real, natural son cps and guardian ad litem/court-appointed child’s attorney sinecure top campaign contributor every year as reported in the Texas Tribune and see Public Integrity Unit records,  Donna Everson conspired “stepparent adoption” so solicitously advertised and trending on all family law attorney sites, but supervised (un)”SAFE VICTIM’S ASSISTANCE CENTRE, INC.”/ (free stalking for fathers) unconstitutional rook jobs are not without guilt, lies, and, generally, criminal enterprise racketeering structure (Houston, Texas; Harris County),  Miriam Blank, earned a medical degree which Texas can never truly, or wrongfully and in customary retaliation so familiar to author of this post, take away from he/r like he/r five daughters, God-given gifts (Houston, Texas; Harris County and also Utah “suspected class” facility, on knowledge and belief), Robin Karr (Rockwall, Texas; Tyler, Texas; Dallas and Smith Counties, and also Kentucky State Police), more than sixteen years of “no contact with no reason), Andrea Lebow. another school teacher lost four year old little girl to registered sex offender father in Texas (Amarillo, Texas; Potter County), Michelle Murphy (Newnan, Georgia; Coweta County); Susan Skipp (a usual ideological “suspected class” “state”), Melissa Harris (a usual ideological “suspected class,” politically obsessed, or, perhaps, to give the benefit of the doubt, misguided (?) and i can’t figure out because so good at rehearsing neutral neutering for homogeneous “ambiguity” play, but Stands in truth and righteously battles (Ephesians 6:11, The Holy Bible, all verziones reales) intolerable acts like the Dickens (New Jersey), Brenda Battle Jordan, who i believe ran or said s/he was running for mayor at the time, and read about he/r help (now deceased) agent Gunderson’s and his partner’s research unveiled “The Damon 10,000 Screw,”The Fix is In” game in family court fraud (Detroit, Michigan), Dr. Cherie Safapou, another doctoral degreed mother to little son who begs to come home to his real mommy who the court, in spite of Dr. Safapou’s degree . . .in psychology, mislabeled it by proxy for wrongful, dishonest services profit, but not he/rs and certainly not little “I AM’s” (Marin County, California), mother, but with media coverage, Dr. Ruby Dillon, a dentist and real, natural mommy (Texas; California), Kathy Lee Scholpp (Massachusetts “State” Police; Rhode Island); Susan Farris, an investigative news writer(California), Connie Bedwell (Auburn, California; Placer County), Karen Anderson (Davis, California; Yolo County), as told directly to me by Deborah Connor (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas; Tarrant County), another real mommy who, pursuant to the same scheme in the late 1990’s, had he/r three week only baby girl who she was still feeding in the natural way and her other child ripped away, career as flight attendant also sabotaged by children’s father, bankrupted, rendered homeless but climbed he/r way back where a district attorney somewhere eventually helped he/r get her children back, but not the same (Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas, Tarrant County; Salt Lake City, Utah; Billings, Montana, father lived in Honolulu, Hawaii), Rebecca McLaughlin, a Ph.D. earning mother(Rhode Island), Stacy Lynne, energy sector (Fort Collins, Colorado; Jefferson County), young mother who had the misfortune to get locked out of he/r home only to call the police for help who then called cps to kidnap called “remove” infant, Johneisha Kemper who did receive settlement by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for child “protection” via attorney Shawn McMillan (Los Angeles County, California) who also won jury award of $4.9 million dollars tolled to almost $10 million with lone star lodestar, taxes, and court costs due to stubborn cps refused to settle the case regarding real mommy, Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick (Seal Beach California; County of San Diego), the same story as HERE, recently, the interestingly popular mother, Dr. Ruby Dillon, real mommy, natural mother (Tustin, California, Orange County),   Pamela Gaston (Portland, Oregon; Michigan), Angela/”Mad Angel” (Washington State), Theola Nealy (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), real,  being the natural mommy, who was raped, or, otherwise not “mentally disabled,” and also by he/r social worker, he, the same kidnapping cps father, . . . Nealy’s, mother’s, cps social worker, the judgment free father against whom the actual $1,000,000 judgment  plus rendered lies (Milwaukee, Wisconsin), Tammy Rief (California judge, though Tammy is from Georgia, but in Alabama), and we grieve for the loss of real mommies,’ Sandy Fonzo‘s (deceased) son, “victim” of former Judge Mark Ciavarella’s and Michael Conahan’s, and also others,’ scandalous, landmark case-making “Kids-for-Cash” court (Luzerne, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania), and also Karen Scott,  mother of Nathan Grieco, suicided by  “threat therapy, “jurisprudence,” at age sixteen (North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh; Westmoreland County; see also federal case decided in favor of parent’s rights against over zealous social services workers, Croft v. Westmoreland County Children and Youth Services, 103 F. 3d 1123 (3rd Cir., 1997), and also for the loss of real mommy, recent, 2015 suicide by social services and social workers stole Lacey Drier, mother of three children and step-child (Parma, Michigan), and i also grieve for real mommy who was forced to “suffer” the loss, the tragic social-worker inspired accidental death of little Logan Marr (Kennebac County, Maine).”

One who takes the time to read and have right to any opinion shall appropriately observe that the majority of all “similarly ‘deprived'” mothers have good educations and many also had good careers until lives destroyed and some even made homeless the direct result of such schemes and juvenile “games.

 Most Important Thank You and Hats Off to any and all Supporters (absent art, extortion, deception)of Real Mommys.  Your work is very important.  Thank you to author of the following article,  keith harmon snow, to Brett Redmayne Titley, who has followed-up on the Ruby Dillon case.  For your invaluable, thorough, and amazingly cogent and well-reasoned, thoughtful research, thank you also to the following individuals who have courageously acted and who Stand committed to doing their jobs the right way, the only way.  to the incredible and thorough research and sometimes costly experiences,  and writings of, among others forced to endure experiences that apparently produce desirable character, strength, and fortitude: Liz Richards of the Liz Library, Robin Sacks guest speaker, a lawyer, on Fox News affiliate in California, Gina Silva, investigative reporter of the same Fox affiliate in California, Kathleen Russell of Center for Judicial Excellence, Garland Waller, documentary filmmaker in Boston, Dr. Joyanna Silberg of the Leadership Council, Barry Goldstein, researcher, author, speaker, expert in family law matters who specializes in this “high conflict” niche, Dr. Judith Reisman, who has passionately shed light where dare not most all others within described sometimes as “Julian’s Real Mommy’s” present knowledge, and thank you also to the lone ranger gentlemen out there in Southern California and their new  colleague, superstar lawyers for families and children and their rights, and equally other non “suspect classes,” Shawn McMillan, Dean Browning-Webb a.k.a. “R.I.C.O. man,” Colbern Stuart, III (officially non-practicing, but nevertheless, like a lion), and right there with “Cole” at California Coalition for Families and Children (“CCFC”), a public benefit corporation, and Michelle’s baby in Minnesota, Family Innocence Project.  “What a long, strange trip it has been,” and we’re still on the ride, though, a few of us sadly far away from the tide, for, as former Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer once spoke, . . .”some things are worth losing for.”  This real mommy adds, for all the right reasons.  For those who still have yet to be sufficiently humbled–educated “lowly wise”–or maybe for those were just not meant to get it, or yet . . . . right with ALMIGHTY GOD  and/or one another putting first orphans, widows, children, and those who cannot provide for themselves, the sick, the hungry, and the meek, the pure as a child at heart, this right way is the REAL definition to practice daily, “in good faith,” “for good cause shown,” “in furtherance of justice,” your u.S constitutional oath as officer of the honorable Federal US district,  “state,” county, civil, probate, and last, but first real “priority” on the calendar, family/dependency/juvenile, and especially ” (‘East Texas’) CPS cluster” courts.

Conscious Being Alliance


Posted on June 28, 2012 8:01 AM
Written by: keith harmon snow
Photography Credits: keith harmon snow
Article URL: http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/06/threats-on-facebook-to-rape-women-supporting-protective-mothers/

Social Media Increasingly Abets Harassment and Censors Truth

28 June 2012

keith harmon snow

After years of harassment and judicial abuse in the state of Maine, protective mother Lori Handrahan and her supporters face threats of rape and other verbal sexual abuse on social networking media.  Welcome to the new world disorder of social networking, where ethics are meaningless and anyone can get away with practically anything – unless it would seriously help make the world a better place, and then it can be flagged, reported or deleted (by invisible and unaccountable administrators) if it threatens someone’s violent or hateful interests or ‘offends’ the abusers.

Like other social networking media, Facebook appears to be unable to discriminate between abusive men and abusive men’s ‘rights’ organizations and those (mostly women) who are under attack by them. Instead of punishing the abusers and traffickers of children, the system appears more and more to sanction them and support trafficking of children, domestic violence and violence against women.  Want to file a serious compliant with Facebook? Good luck!

SIS Handrahan.jpg

Dr. Lori Handrahan

On May 22, 2012 the abusive and litigious Maine attorney Michael Waxman launched a Facebook post that by June 19th had evolved into a discussion where Jeff Pyle, a Colorado man who appears to love Michael Waxman, posted threats promising to rape and sodomize the several women engaged in a hostile exchange with Waxman for the defense of Lori Handrahan.

While Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and most other protective parents’ stories of judicial abuse and destruction remain disbelieved, unheard and unknown, Lori Handrahan’s efforts to Save Mila have resulted in a very high-profile case garnering national attention — thanks to the Internet and the outrage of thousands of people across the country.  Both mothers Lori Handrahan and Sunny Kelley have not seen their children for months.

Hell for Lori Handrahan came in the form of her daughter Mila being raped by her husband, a foreigner who has now apparently gained citizenship under questionable circumstances.  Like most mothers entrapped and abused by the family court system, Lori Handrahan never technically lost custody of her daughter Mila.  “In June 2009 my daughter Mila came home with a shredded vagina and Igor [husband] was substantiated with raping her,” says Lori Handrahan.  “The courts did nothing.  Mila was 2 years old at the time.”

“The state of Maine has trafficked my child Mila,” Lori Handrahan told me, in January 2012, right before the court forced a gag order upon her and shut down her web site.

Dr. Lori Handrahan is a professor at the School of International Service at American University in Washington D.C.  Dr. Handrahan’s credentials are impeccable, with over 20 years of work in international development and human rights all over the world.  She was a guest on CNN and her op-eds about human rights and sex trafficking were often published in the New York Times. “Now that my child’s life is on the line I can’t get any news coverage at all.  Every single media outlet I’ve gotten interested has killed the story at the last minute.”

Lori and Mila’s case also involves corruption within the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including the illegal naturalization of Ukrainian and Russian nationals who have stolen Mila away from her loving mother.

While available to discuss her case in early January, Lori Handrahan was later served with a gag order, intimidated into silence out of fear for her daughter’s life, and possibly her own.  Sometime in late January or early February of this year, the web site created to help them — “Saving Mila” — went dead.








Maine attorney Michael Waxman quite literally gets away with anything he likes in Maine. In the course of her nightmare to recover her child Mila from the alleged abusive father, Igor Malenko, protective mother Lori Handrahan confronted all levels of the system in Maine and was repeatedly stifled by Maine officials.

“I believe that both Michael Waxman and Igor Malenko are both now and have been committing civil contempt of court since May of 2011,” expert investigator Stephen Pickering wrote to Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson on February 1, 2012, after Waxman turned the court into a circus of inappropriate verbal and physical aggression on January 31.  While there was no order restricting Handrahan’s visitation with Mila, Waxman and Malenko had blocked all visitation for some time.

According to investigator Stephen Pickering, Waxman stood up and pointed his finger at the judge and raised his voice to the point that “some would describe this as yelling at the judge. Pickering further concluded that both Waxman and Malenko “committed criminal contempt of court on January 31, 2012, by their willful disregard of the judge’s ordering his courtroom as the judge was affirming his order.”

On February 1, 2012, Waxman sent an email to Judy Potter, Lori Handrahan’s attorney, stating: “And the more I think of it, the less I am convinced that this court has any power over ME in any fashion.”

Judge Jeffrey Moskoitz also behaved inappropriately on January 31, 2012, but Moskowitz has a long history of alleged collusion and corruption with attorney Michael Waxman. At the January 31 kangaroo court, Waxman threatened a lawsuit against District Attorney Stephanie Anderson and he filed the lawsuit in early February.  Five witnesses who were present provided affidavits testifying to what occurred in Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz’s court on January 31, 2012.

“The hearing began with Michael Waxman leading the court into confusion over labeling the massive amounts of documents he introduced, of such proportions that it was clear no one had the time to ever read them,” wrote witness Carrie Rockwell.  “He then harangued his client, Igor Malenko, for over an hour, thrusting at him pictures of Igor’s daughters’ anus and vagina, and reading allowed an email Waxman himself wrote to a woman whom he met on Facebook revealing his thought’s about what could be done to Mila’s vagina with a Coke bottle.  All this was done to prove what ten people in the room knew and could prove with certainty was a lie.”

One witness suggested that attorney Michael Waxman appeared to commit perjury, suborning perjury, falsifying evidence, and a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the court.

Now Waxman has created a new Internet site to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters.  The site, called S.T.E.A.M. — Stopping the Explopitation, Abuse and Murder of our Children — is aligned with an assortment or other organizations, causes and petitions, but is inherently a front for Waxman’s destructive “father’s rights” agenda and self-protection.


The S.T.E.A.M. web site is very sloppy.  As early as December 20111, Waxman revealed in casual web posts that a new web site was under design to replace the Facebook page called FOR THE LOVE OF MILA — another page created as a front to present Waxman’s disinformation.  The new S.T.E.A.M. web site was apparently launched in May 2012.

While Lori Handrahan — white, professional and highly accomplished mother — is offered as the primary column for “Featured Abusers for June 2012” (see below) the other abusers of the month are two African-American couples who allegedly killed their children.  Thus the architects of the site have provided two additional examples of violence against children that both fit the societal stereotype of black people as criminals. Contrary to media representations and Hollywood stereotypes about people of color, there are also high rates of domestic violence, rape and murder in white communities.  However, by placing Lori Handrahan next to these two black couples the hidden message is that Lori Handrahan is a violent criminal.

The two African-American alleged murder couples appear with Lori Handrahan on the HOME page.  This is just window dressing.  The web pages were hastily designed to provide a false sense of depth behind the front designed primarily to harass Lori Handrahan, and there are errors and inconsistencies in the web design beyond the HOME page.

For example, the menu at the top of the HOME page and most other pages has four clickable links: HELP – CONTACT US – CASES – HOME.  Deeper inside the web site are numerous “cases” of child abuse that are accessed by clicking on the CASES link in the HOME page menu.  However, as of 29 June 2012 the links for some cases don’t work at all (for example: “CASES PAGE 3”).  More importantly, several of the CASES links lead to pages where the menu at the top of the new page has only three clickable links: HANDRAHAN – HELP – CONTACT US.  This shows the clear intent of the web site.

Naturally, the HANDRAHAN link takes you straight to an extensive posting of disinformation exclusively about Lori Handrahan and this is the heart of the web site. The HANDRAHAN page offers an extensive post — unlike all other sections of the site — packed detail after detail of lies and half-truths fabricated by attorney Michael Waxman and his supporters.

Several of Lori Handrahan’s women supporters are also mentioned on the HANDRAHAN page, and these are some of the same women threatened with rape on the May 2012 Facebook thread.

ScreeHANDRAHAN PAGE STEAM -06-29 at 10.22.54 PM.jpg

“For the second straight month,” S.T.E.A.M.’s HANDRAHAN slam begins, “Lori Handrahan has been unanimously selected as the Child Abuser of the Month. Why?”

The answer is that the web site was created solely as a platform to harass Lori Handrahan and her supporters, to further confuse the story and cover up the hard truth that Lori’s daughter Mila has allegedly been trafficked with the support of the state of Maine, the Department of Homeland Security and attorney Michael Waxman.

As reported on the Saving Mila Facebook page: Mila is being sexually abused, the abusive father received free lawyer services over several years and the girl is barred from leaving this dangerous situation. Waxman has said many times that his estimated cost for legal services for Mila’s father amounts to around $250,000. To cover up his trafficking of Mila, Waxman has escalated the slander against Lori and his threats to have her committed and jailed.


“How about this cause and other bitches, take care of your own business and shut the FUCK up!” Jeff Pyle posted on the Waxman post on June 19.  A 1982 graduate of Weston High School (MA) who lives in Colorado, Jeff Pyle then sexually berated the women engaged in the discussion (see below) and threatened to “come back there” to find, rape and sodomize them. The post has now been deleted.

PYLE RAPE Handrahan Screen Shot small.jpg

Alerted on June 20 by one of the protective mothers who has been increasingly harassed by Michael Waxman, I responded:
Ladies, it’s not recommended to spend your time communicating with these ugly men.  As you can see, they are mean and nasty and try to compensate for their weakness by threatening women with sexual and other physical violence. Mr. Pyle – look me up, I can offer several solutions to your problems.”

On June 28, I received a notice from Facebook administration notifying me that I am under investigation for my post (now also removed).  There was no way to respond to the pop-up warning message that appeared when I first logged in to Facebook, and disappeared after, and it is impossible to figure out how to communicate with Facebook to challenge the flagging of my post and inform Facebook about their need to investigate Michael Waxman and the Handrahan case.

Online sexism is rampant, but the problem is systemic and institutionalized sexism and support for domestic violence that arises due to online media’s attempts to be socially friendly and compatible to as many users as possible.  While censoring some people and interests, these social media often end up punishing the victims and supporting the abusers.

Major social networking media — Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Google+ and others — have, one way or another, helped to censor Lori and Mila’s story.  The organization Change.org — reputed to be a socially conscious networking entity — still carries a petition created by Michael Waxman the father’s lawyer in Maine, intended to further censor and punish Lori Handrahan.

Facebook makes it impossible to issue a detailed compliant about the hate speech and physical violence threatened by Michael Waxman’s supporter Jeff Pyle.  While the most threatening post by Pyle was removed from the long back-and-forth, the post that I made was also flagged and removed.  Appropriate action by Facebook would include exploring Michael Waxman’s threatening history and behavior toward Lori Handrahan.

It is the same with Change.org.  It seems they will allow a petition by anyone, for anything, no matter that these petition might be created by violent individuals and have violent motives, including harassment.

Media personality Jay Smooth, the host of New York’s longest running hip-hop radio show, WBAI’s Underground Railroad, recently created a video criticizing online sexism and online threats against women.  Smooth was motivated by the recent surge of bullying, abuse and harassment attacks against Anita Sarkeesian whose Feminist Frequency project launched a Kickstarter campaign that came under attack.

“Many abusive men are active online,” comments a chapter organizer for the National Organization for Women (NOW), “and they often jump at the chance to try to intimidate women (especially protective mothers or their supporters) by making vicious and crazy threats, such saying they plan to rape the women, kill them, or otherwise cause them some kind of bodily harm.”

“It’s shocking and very frightening to realize just how many sexist men there are out there — bloggers and vloggers like Anita Sarkeesian often receive hundreds of these types of terrorist threats, almost daily.”


Looking at one of the “human rights” petitions on Change.org that is listed by STEAM as an example of appropriate child abuse groups or movements — We demand changes to child abuse laws and sentencing, we find that the charges called for are suspicious at best and destructive to women at worst.  Most of the petition’s ten points otherwise appear to be reasonable and important suggestions for legislative changes or legislative protocols.  However, note items 6), 9) and 10) on this petition:

6) If a parent has left an abusive partner courts have no right sending a child for anything more then a supervised visit.

Really? What is this petition point actually saying? Courts have no right sending a child back to a protective mother (who has left her abusive partner) for more than a supervised visit? Sounds like the judicial abuse and alleged sexual abuse cases of both Sunny Kelley in Connecticut and Lori Handrahan from Maine, whose children at present are living out a life sentence.

Let’s look at this Change.org “human rights” petition point number 9)

9) In the event a child is claimed to be kidnapped or missing remove the other children in the home immediately place them in foster care.

Really? Does this make sense? Or is it an attempt to criminalize parents — probably the mother will suffer more — for reporting that their child has been kidnapped? Also, there is the question of how removing the other children from the home relates to the typically destructive and often highly profit-driven state foster care systems.  Does this give too much power to the state, an especially scary prospect given the state ‘social services’ and federally funded (Department of Health and Human Services) black holes serving the destructive father’s rights groups in states all over the USA?

The Change.org petition point number 10) is even clearer:

10) If the mother or father are living not wed to someone who is not the childs father or mother and has a known history of violence and the child is harmed or killed the mother should face equal charges for putting her child in danger.

Really? According to everything we have learned about domestic violence and child abuse, it is most often the case that women and children are trapped in abusive relationships and abusive households and fear for their personal safety and their children’s safety on a day-to-day and sometimes minute to minute basis. Women trapped in domestic violence situations by violent fathers are living in constant terror and escape is often considered impossible.  Such facts need to be taken into account and explored during investigations of domestic violence and child abuse/death.

But note that it is “the mother” singled out in this petition point who “should face equal charges” for living not wed to someone who has a known history of violence. This makes no sense, unless it is situated within the aggressive and violent framework of the destructive so-called “father’s rights” movement.

This “human rights” petition is nothing but a movement to give lawyer’s and judges more power to abuse women, especially protective mothers, and their children, by placing them in foster care. (The petition is also written in terrible English.)

Fair Use and Legal 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.







John Hill’s faith the the Lord and his willingness and actions that put His Word into his daily work (and even as a trusted worker for the United States Postal Service) have restored me not less than once over the last couple of interminable years without my son (pursuant to a  kidnapping or “wrongful, unreasonable ‘removal'” perpetrated for profit, prejudice, and retaliation by a band of rogue criminals working under the “color of the authority of law” for “state of Texas” in both Brazoria and Harris Counties, Texas.  John similarly endured, but he never, ever, ever wavered in his faith or his constant witnessing and testifying the Word of the Lord.  He never blamed God, but always insisted on more prayers, harder work, more faith, and fasting with the prayer.  John and his faithful new bride, and I may be misspelling he/r name, so please forgive me, but, Shemitra, testified and Stood by John and supported him in his darkest moments which he never let anyone else feel as dark.   John always wanted to praise and give glory to God and to not detract from that with the petty woes of this “valley of tears” the the Holy Bible in fact DOES promise us as opposed to the “rose garden”  to which so many feel “entitled,” especially in the current times.  I can remember John saying to me in dark hours in my struggle with the same forces working against families, children, and especially unwed mothers and young mothers with young, adoptable children, many of whom have vindictive ex-partners recruited by an all-too-willing profiteering/privateering joint public-private “non-for-profit” “state and local government,” or, “COG” (regional Council of Government), to be glad.  Why did he tell me to be glad?  “Because everything is happening just like it is supposed to and must happen.”  This is proof that His promises are real.  Thank you for your unwavering faith and encouragement, Mr. Hill.  God bless your beautiful family and children.  Your faithfulness and loyalty is of a rare breed indeed that is just not found in many corners of the earth.  I haven’t seen it yet in anyone who has not gone through what we have been refined through.

How did the Lord help John accomplish the Herculean task of enforcing his equal parental rights?  We give thanks that the Lord showed Mr. Hill a way in the form of a loan and an apparently highly effective Harris County, Houston, Texas (and surrounding areas to include North Houston) board-certified family law attorney, Gary Polland.

Now, we rejoice and continue to pray for over one hundred thousand mothers and children and a few fathers who missed the current or the custody-switching scam a la the Texas Office of the Attorner General for the Office of Title IV-D Child Support Enforcement and New Day Services “Responsible Fatherhood” for those with criminal records and “Healthy Marriage Initiative.”   That is certainly not to imply that these institutions are not -preferable or meritorious, but rather than blatant gender discrimination of an invidious animus, and also of the socio-economic and marital “color” are inflicting enormous harm and injury in the glorification and false worship of grants, “trauma-informed, levels based, outcomes” which encourage questionable court appointments and unholy alliances and conflicts of interests among service contractors and providers trusted by public servants who have been “trusted,” irresponsibly, with the highest and most noble of causes–our children.  These fiduciaries have breached their con tract with the parents and children of Texas to the degree they continue to so operate without disclosing fully and fairly and duly compensating the real private property owners gifted by GOD ALMIGHTY.

So happy for you, John!  The children look happier and healthier than anyone could ask for.  And they are even mowing the lawn and performing chores!  All Glory goes to God.  A win for one of us is a win for all of us!  “Today is a day in which the Lord hath made, therefore we shall rejoice and be glad in it (Psalms 117:24, The Holy Bible).”

Further, For a day in Your courts is better than a thousand outside. I would rather stand at the threshold of the house of my God Than dwell in the tents of wickedness. For the LORD God is a sun and shield; The LORD gives grace and glory; No good thing does He withhold from those who walk uprightly.…(Psalms 84:10, The Holy Bible).

Many believe firmly, and this real mommy agrees, that the Word of the Lord alone, and only the Holy Scripture, can and shall save us in the time of Evil.  It is time to do our homework and start memorizing.  This part is literal, in my opinion and based in real life observations.  For there can only be one master of “illusion.”  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, therefore “I AM.”  I believe.

The scourge and details below:

Petitioning Governor Rick Perry and 5 others

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas

john hill the woodlands, TX


I have been fighting for full custody of my children in the 246th court in Houston, TX with Judge York presiding, due to my ex-wife, Dana Rochelle Edwards, allowing our children who are ages 7 and 6 now to be molested since 2009.

My children were out crying about being sexually abused in their mother and maternal grandmother’s home, majority of the weekends that I was able to pick them up they were always complaining about being sexually and physically abused, which as a father I didn’t know what to do or how to handle this, I took them to the hospital and called CPS, but CPS wouldn’t come out, they would wait until the children were back in the custody of my ex-wife and talk to the children or call my ex-wife and ask her did it happen and she would say that the children are lying and making things up or I was making up it because I didn’t want to pay child support, and CPS would close the case and do nothing. So SANE  (sexual assault nurse exam) cases were performed on the children, but not every time they went to the hospital.

Deadre Jones, my ex-wife’s mother, stated to CPS that I was the only person making these accusations about my children being abused, but it is clearly documented that my ex-wife and her knew about the abuse prior to me even knowing, as well as Jones going to the hospital with ex-wife for complaints of abuse. It is also documented in CPS reports that she was also taking my children to the “suspected person” as well.

Jones was in court and every CPS meeting with my ex-wife playing the innocent grandmother role, knowing all that time what was happening behind closed doors at her house as well as my ex-wife house, and didn’t come forward with the truth. Judge York appointed Bobbie Young as amicus attorney in December 2011 to see if she could help my ex-wife and I resolve our issues and do what was best for the children. Young is also a RN.


Young met with me at my home, she spoke to my fiancée, who is currently a RN concerning the sexual abuse, outcries and behavior of my children, Young admitted to her that she knew that the molestation was going on; she had recently visited the home of my ex-wife.

‘My mother, who is a retired school teacher, also spoke with Young concerning the sexual abuse, outcries, and behavior of my children; she admitted again that she was aware of the abuse. Young filed a motion for my ex-wife and I to have a psychological evaluation through Dr. Victoria Sloan, I did not trust Young because as soon as we went to court she was another person and siding with my ex-wife, so we verbally agreed with my prior attorney Bruce Buskirk that I could find my own person to perform the psychological evaluation. And I did, Young brings me back into court  as well as the psychotherapist, Dr, McDaniel, after speaking with him and he told her that nothing was wrong with me psychologically, she told Judge York that he wasn’t qualified to performpsychological evaluation, and it needed it to performed by a licensed psychologist, Judge York approved her request.

In January 2012, Judge York, Young, and Angelina Gooden, my ex-wife’s attorney who is also an amicus for the 246th court, heard medical testimony from Harris County police officer  (Sgt. William Lilly, appointed by Harris County Sheriff, Adrian Garcia, supervisor to Lilly, Ruben Diaz) who read the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam)  nurse report from Memorial Hermann in the Woodlands, Tx, stating that my son told the SANE nurse that “the person at his mother’s home put their penis in his mouth and urinated,” my daughter stated that “the person put their mouth, fingers, toys, and penis into her vagina.”

Judge York stated that he believed that this has been going on, but he didn’t order to remove the children from their mother’s home, he just stated that he wanted to hear more testimony from the medical staff at Memorial Hermann, which Memorial Hermann’s lawyer kept filing quash motions to prevent their staff from coming into court testifying about the statements that my children made concerning sexual abuse happening to them at their mother’s home, which Judge York approved, but he kept contradicting himself saying he wanted every medical personnel that the children made outcries to about  in his court to testify.

My ex-wife continued to violate court orders and Judge York wouldn’t even hold her in contempt, he would just say stop doing that. Young kept bringing me back into court for psychological evaluations which was done by a board certified psychologist that gives insight on the news in Houston, I gave her his information, signed a release form for her to talk to him, but she never contacted him, she kept saying I didn’t get to talk to him prior to Mr. Hill seeing him, which was never in her original order.

I filed a grievance on her because she wouldn’t stop, she is extremely biased, kept telling me she was going to make sure she takes my rights taken away, and kept defending my ex-wife, while saying that the molestation didn’t happen that it was all speculation, I provided Young with the medical documents showing my children describing to medical professionals about the sexual abuse that was happening to them in their mother’s home, Young also had access to CPS reports as well. I even told her that my fiancée and I was threatened by the CPS police that if we file another CPS report then something will happen to us. We filed a complaint with internal affairs against the police officer after contacting the Mayor of Houston, Parker.

In April 2012, I picked my children up and my daughter had burns going up her legs and my son had cigarette burns on his knee, which their mother nor maternal grandmother told me when I picked them on Friday evening, I didn’t find out until Saturday morning when I was putting them on their night clothes because they fell asleep on the way home, which is what they typically do when I do get them and sleep until 11am or 12 pm on Saturday, which my mother or fiancée is watching them while I am at work.

Well, my mom took my children to the hospital just to make sure that the burns on my daughter’s leg was not infected and needed to be treated, my daughter had a old burn on upper thigh which she wouldn’t tell anyone how she got that burn, but the lower leg burn happened because she fell on a barbeque pit top, my son also verbalized to the doctor, that their cousin Reggie (Reginald Moffett), who is a grown man, burned him with cigarettes on his leg and his mom just got mad but left them at his house anyway and went to work.

The doctor asked if there was a history of abuse and my mom and I told her as well as my daughter started showing her vagina, so she sent my daughter via ambulance to Texas Children Hospital  in the Medical Center, I verbalized to the doctor that I didn’t want a SANE case done because the 246th court, Young, and Gooden would try to take my rights away because they said that I was “emotionally abusing my children due to the SANE cases, ” the doctor said that the court can deal with her, and my daughter was going to Texas Children’s Hospital that night.

CPS was called, but they said they couldn’t come out until Sunday, which they never did, they called my ex-wife instead and she said that she wasn’t present but that she fell on a barbeque pit top and didn’t say anything about the older burn on her thigh.

My previous attorney Allecia Pottinger was notified and contacted Young to come to the hospital, Young spoke with the medical staff and I and they also verbalized that I didn’t want the SANE case, but there was suspicion of abuse so a SANE case would be done that night, Young agreed and stayed at the hospital until midnight. Young used the SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) case that she approved of and had my rights taken away, CPS was made managing conservator over my children, Pottinger told me that my children would be placed in a family member’s home until they can figure out what is going on, which I gave them my sister’s information who is also an attorney and her husband is a FBI agent, but that didn’t happen CPS placed the children right back into my ex-wife’s custody immediately after court and Reggie Moffett’s).

I was ordered to do another psychological evaluation as well as “psychiatric evaluation,” which they had no valid explanation for another evaluation, which would have been my 3rd and 4th evaluation in less than 6 months.

Young and Gooden were allowed to use my cancer medical records, which was obtained illegally through my ex-wife, she was never given any permission to obtain my medical records, while I was going through cancer in 2006, I was diagnosed with mild depression, I lost my home, I didn’t have insurance, my ex-wife couldn’t keep a job, and lack of family support, they were able to use that to say that I had an undiagnosed “mental disorder,” which was unbelievable. My ex-wife NEVER did her psychological evaluation that Young ordered for Dr. Sloan and Judge York approved, Gooden and Young verbalized that she had walked out of her evaluation and didn’t complete it.

So, then I was on supervised visitation for taking my children to the hospital for them out crying about being sexually abused, this is ridiculous. ‘

So, during that time I obtained CPS reports, my ex-wife’s story about the abuse kept changing with every CPS case worker, she knew about it, she didn’t know it, the children were lying, and I was molesting my children. My children actually out cried to CPS case workers about the abuse happening in their mother’s home and maternal grandmother’s home, CPS still didn’t do anything. CPS talked to the SANE nurse, she said there is “absolutely no way a child could make up a story as detailed as this.”

Young and Gooden would consistently bring me in and out court to take away rights of seeing my children, once Judge York approved of what they were doing; they walked out of court laughing. I was on supervised visitation through CPS at their office my ex-wife was still taking my daughter to the doctor for concerns of abuse, trying place the blame on me, my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while I was on supervised visitation.

In August 2012, my ex-wife, her two (2) cousins ( Margaret Moffett and Niosha Sampson), and her aunt (Sheryl Thomas Gainous )went to CPS making a report that they had walked into the room my son was performing play sex on his cousins (which are their children), now all of these children are less than 10, they asked them what they were doing, then they asked my children who taught them that, my children supposedly said that I taught them that, I would touch their private parts while they were taking a bath, they asked my children how did it feel when I touched them, my children supposedly said at first it felt tingly but then we liked it because we thought it was game, and we would have sex with each other in front of our dad and we would like it, Dana became shocked to hear this and blamed herself for the abuse, saying she could have asked more questions, I mean these are professional people, no one found it bizarre that all these people would come in on the same day while I was on supervised visitation, and make up a crazy story as this, I was questioned through CPS about this outrageous accusation and Young, Gooden, CPS, my ex-wife, and her family walked out of court laughing. Judge York didn’t do anything about this, he did order for us to see the same psychologist for anotherevaluation,” which we did, the psychologist said that I was angry and just needed to work with CPS and the court to get my children on the other hand she said that my ex-wife said she had an 11th grade education but she more than likely had the education of a 7th grader, she had psychological issues and needed to see a doctor to properly diagnose her as well as see a psychiatrist to placed on medication, and she needed repeated psychological evaluation for the next 2 years to see where she is at, Young never brought this into court, matter of fact Young and Gooden wouldn’t even release the information to my prior attorney Hilary Unger for months, discoveries kept being filed, but only portions of the discoveries were being followed.

Dana and my son during a therapy session with Powell-Williams, it is documented what really happened with the “play sex”. Per Powell-Williams, it is documented that my son stated that he was being bullied by his older cousin into playing sex.

Dana never stated the story her cousins and aunt made up about the whole “play sex” situation when she became shocked  while she was in therapy with my son. This was not brought to the attention of  the court, that Dana went in with her cousins and aunt to make those false accusations against me, which CPS was aware because they had Powell-Williams documentation. After showing HCSO and the DA documentation, they stated that they couldn’t charge them with making false CPS reports because CPS should have filed charges against them once they received documentation that Dana’s story had changed about the “play sex” three weeks later.

Dana also openly admits to CPS that she has to sleep in our daughter’s room at night to make sure our son doesn’t come in and bother her at night. Now, what kind of mother portrays her own son of doing this to his sister instead of taking accountability for her own actions, which something should have clicked in someone’s head to see that she is definitely hiding something. The suspects have never been properly investigated because they call Dana prior to coming to her home and she denies the suspects saying that is the name of my altered ego, which is ridiculous. 

(or, in Author of this blog’s  son’s case–what kind of a father alleges the same about himself to a five year old little boy?)-America, we have a problem!  Wake-up Houston!

Judge York ordered Dr. Felecia Powell-Williams, who is a psychotherapist that the children were seeing but not on the approved family plan through CPS that he signed off on to see me with my children so that I can get off of the supervised visitation because CPS wanted off the case after I sent them medical documentation showing my daughter was diagnosed with vaginitis while under their care and my ex-wife was still taking them to doctor for concerns of abuse while I was on supervised visitation, CPS also blocked me from getting the medical records so I had to file a complaint against ABC pediatric clinic with OCR, which is how I was able to obtain part of my children’s medical records and continue to see the bias and unfairness in this entire case.

Powell-Williams wouldn’t follow the court order, came into court because Young and Gooden filed a motion they wanted to increase my child support because my ex-wife doesn’t like to work and wanted to keep me on supervised visitation and give my ex-wife full custody and Young wanted to prevent me from testifying to anything she has said to me.

Because a few weeks earlier she admitted again to Hilary Unger, my previous attorney and myself that she was aware of the molestation going on in the mother’s home, but she couldn’t prove it through the SANE cases and she would get me off of supervised visitation, but she was consistently defending and covering my ex-wife at the same time.

Powell-Williams said that I was “delusional” because I called her and told her that she was basically doing like everyone else in the case covering for my ex-wife and she is just like CPS, and Judge York ordered her to see me with my children and if she wasn’t aware of the order than she needs to contact CPS to get the order so she can do it, then she says under oath she cannot make a decision concerning my psychological state after only seeing me 2 times for less than 30 minutes. Powell-Williams was also provided with all my children and my psychological evaluation, CPS notes, and medical records, so she can be fully aware of everything concerning this case.

Judge Hays, the associate judge in York’s 246th court in Harris County in Houston, ordered me to continue to be on supervised visitation and go to mediation and denied Young’s motion, the bias just continued and they were unable to provide me with a valid explanation for continuing to be on supervised visitation.

Powell-Williams was upset because I wasn’t going to personally pay her. I informed her I did not hire her and that therapy sessions that she is providing for my children is between CPS and herself, and she needs to contact them for payment arrangements.

Mellonie Baldwin, Achor Counseling, was the counselor that CPS ordered for my ex-wife and I to go to for individual and parental counseling. I had been going there for several weeks and Baldwin comes into my session and asks me for my ex-wife’s contact information because according to her my ex-wife had not come to any counseling sessions.

I informed her that she needs to contact CPS to get her contact information. I was told that I was finished with my counseling sessions and my ex-wife has not attended any sessions and they can’t make her come to the sessions.

So, my counselor signed off on my counseling sessionsThree (3)  months later Baldwin calls me the night before court and tells me that I have 6 more sessions, I told her no I do not my counselor signed off and said that I was done, I was already seeing a Christian psychologist for counseling prior to coming to Achor Counseling and I was presently seeing her. Achor Counseling was supposed to call her and make sure that they were not interfering with her therapy sessions with me, which they failed to do.

She became irate on the phone and I told her she needs to talk to my counselor, Mr. Smith and he signed- off on me, and she nor CPS can change the order at the last minute to accomodate whatever it is that they are trying to do, and I was not going to do any more sessions at Achor Counseling and that is  the end of that.

I also informed her that I had recorded my counseling sessions because I did not trust Achor Counseling because they were connected with CPS.

Baldwin hangs up the phone in my face, but calls back later saying that she found the missing sheet of paper, and she will call CPS to clear up this matter immediately.

February 2013, after CPS pulls off the case, I receive all of their files, in there is Achor Counseling records, my ex-wife had been seeing Baldwin the entire time that I was going there, and she e-mailed CPS and told them I was “rude to her and she didn’t want to see me anymore for counseling and that she is going to write on my final evaluation that I need to stop “lying on my ex-wife.”

They had all of the medical records and CPS records, so everything that I was saying about my ex-wife lying and covering- up the molestation of our children was in black and white. I was seeing Mr. Smith so I don’t know why she would even write anything on my final evaluation, which continued to show how people were openly and willing to cover up the molestation of my children.

Hilary set up a mediation meeting, even she said that mediation wouldn’t work, I told her I didn’t want to go to mediation that my ex-wife would continue to violate court orders and nothing would be done to her.

The mediation was basically in favor of my ex-wife on everything, I was going to be”subjected” to another psychological evaluation and continue to be supervised visitation through SAFE which  I would have to pay for, I told her I didn’t want to sign it, I called my fiancée and talk to her about it, Hilary gets on the phone and tells her the same thing she tells me, that even if I go to trial and the jury finds favor in me, Judge York stills has the last say, he is pro-women and he would never give me custody of my children, he would look at the SANE cases and base his decision solely on that, he would increase my child support to $1,800 dollars, so I need to go ahead and sign because he will order it anyway and I should be like every other man in Texas take my standard visitation and go on with my life, so I kept going back and forth not wanting to sign it and she kept saying I have no choice its only for a few weeks, I am still unable to see my children til this day as well as my ex-wife continues to violate the phone order, they cannot find a psychologist or counselor who even wants to touch this case, because after I send them paperwork proving what I am saying is true and the bias and the injustice that I have been going through in this court, they don’t want to touch it.

My sister who is an attorney contacted Hilary asking her why did she make me sign that mediation order, Hilary tried to say that I wanted to, but my sister said I talked to him right before he went into your office for the mediation meeting, he talked my mom, and his fiancée as well, he verbalized that this was waste of time and he didn’t want to sign it and needed to go back to work, she started saying I am the worst client she ever had because I don’t know how to control my emotions, which this court is unfair, biased, and continues to do everything that is wrong during this case, so I have every right to be upset this court is playing with my children’s lives as well as mine.

Houston attorney Hilary Unger was aware that court-appointed amicus attorney Bobbie Young was retaliating; she even called the ethics board with the State Bar of Texas on her and said that if she sides with my ex-wife during the trial then she would file on her, but we never went to trial because of this mediation.

And, of course. Judge York denies the appeal, said that this case makes him nauseous, he says he doesn’t make decisions its on the amicus, laughs and looks at me and say, “Mr. Hill sorry I couldn’t help you.”

But my children reside in a home where there was attempted murder on my ex-wife, by her family member, who shot into their home while she had the children.

CPS supervisors came to court and said that they are aware of the court violations but unaware that my ex-wife was taking my children to the doctor while in their custody, but I have e-mails showing that they knew about it, they even sent the e-mails to Hilary, but they were allowed to continue to lie in court.

There are also police reports showing that  my ex-wife tried to pull the children out of the car while I was driving off and chased me on the interstate and the police would be called out every time I would go to pick them up, but none of this matters to the 246th, Judge York believes children should be with their mother, no matter what.

I have hired 4 attorneys and spent almost $80,000 dollars (that was in 2013), lost memories of my children growing- up, and lost my home, I am worse off now than when I started this fight. After my attorneys talk with Young and Gooden, they pull off the case every time, they say this case is crazy.

Judge York ordered phone conversations while I was on supervised visitation on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:30 pm, she violated the order over 40 times, Judge Jim York never did anything, my ex-wife, Dana,  continues to violate the court orders, I am still unable to talk to talk to my children on several Thursdays and haven’t seen them since July 2013.

I no longer can see my children through SAFE because they don’t want to be involved after sent them information pertaining to this case, ask them for documentation for every time my ex-wife violated the SAFE, and a receipt of payments to SAFE

SAFE manager got upset and said that I didn’t pay for the person supervising the visits one time out of the several times I did feed her. Judge York will never make CPS, Dana or Young and Gooden accountable for lying in court, because they have went beyond measures to keep the molestation of my children and my ex-wife knowing about it out of court.

Attorney Hilary Unger then pulled out of my case as soon as we get out of court and after my appeal was denied, and tells me find another attorney to appeal Judge York’s decision as well as the mediation, I contacted over 20 attorneys and all of them say wait until Judge York is off the bench in November 2013, but what about my children’s safety, does that not matter, what about the fact she continues to violate orders and her lawyers (Gooden and Young) cover her. \

They also told me that I didn’t have a chance because I was going up against two amicus attorneys (court-appointed) in Judge York’s court (246th, Harris County, TX) and he will rule for whatever they want every time, which is not right and highly biased.

My ex-wife was found guilty of assaulting me and took a plea deal, which shows she is a pathological liar and is unable to control her actions. She lied under oath several times about things pertaining to this case and it can be proven.

I had to see a Christian psychologist for several months to help me deal with anger issues concerning this case, she was NEVER pulled into court to combat all the people that Gooden and Young brought in.

She helped me to deal with this issue as God would have me to and that’s by continuing to pray and stand on His word, even though it is hard at times. I know that the God I serve is a God of justice and evil shall never prevail against good.

Nobody besides myself and the police officer who read the SANE nurse’s report was ever able to testify concerning the children’s outcries and witnessed inappropriate behavior and conversation with other children.

Attorney Hilary Unger, one of my attorneys, brought up the red bumps near my daughter’s vagina that she showed my mother and the case worker during a supervised visitation, the case worker comes in court and says that it looks like mosquito bites, it was January 2013, the weather was cold, so in order for my daughter to have mosquito bites near her vagina she would have to be in a bathing suit, standing near water, and her mother is watching her getting attacked by mosquitoes and why doesn’t my son have it as well, but that was allowed to go on in the 246th court.


I went to the DA for Harris County in order for them to pick-up of assault case against my ex-wife instead of keeping it in the JP courts, which video-taped at my children’s school and the principal was an eye witness.

I wanted Harris County DA to pick up the case because Elijah Gooden was my ex-wife’s attorney and used what was happening in family court against me and the JP DA was going to give her a slap on the wrist.

She previously pleaded not guilty to the assault and said that I hit her, and once the video was seen it showed that she assaulted me.

Prior JP DA was going to give her serious charges, but Gooden said that he wanted to reschedule because he wanted to bring a witness of the assault which was her cousin, Niosha, who has a criminal record of stealing and using Dana’s ID.

They had previously re-scheduled the assault case over 5 times prior to that.  I showed the Harris County DA evidence of my ex-wife allowing our two children to be molested since 2009, and the cops seem not to be investigating the situation thoroughly, she looked at the evidence and shook her head.

She stated I have a lot of evidence against my ex-wife, but Harris County seems to not be able to find the perpetrators. She didn’t say anything else about picking- up the case and trying to find the perpetrators.

I really need to help to overturn Judge York’s decision and every action of my previous of attorneys, Gooden, and Young. The 246th court, CPS, the attorneys, and Harris County Police Department, had a lot of evidence, and chose to cover it up as well making threatening phone calls to my fiancée and myself.

How many children lives will be allowed to be ruined because of the actions and decisions of these people, how many parents who are trying to protect their children, will be humiliated and persecuted because they are for what’s right.

When will the laws change and there be equality for both parents, just because you gave birth to a child does not make you a mother. I am for being with right the parent whether it is mother or father.

My children have a false pretense of what the law is about, they told me “dad we told them what happened and now we can’t come home, and this will never end, family laws in Texas” what does a parent do when you can’t protect your children because of the s and Texas doesn’t have any laws holding people accountable for covering sexual and physical abuse to a child/children.

I am thankful for what i have sown into my children, and that is they continue to trust and believe in God and they continue to pray and ask God to let them come home, which helps build my faith that God will put the right people in place to make sure that no one else has to go through what my family and I have been through.

I am just asking for people to take a stand for what is right and lets make a change, instill in our children morals and values, and protect our future generation from bias of the justice department.

Thank you for taking time to read my letter, I pray that this petition gets to the Supreme Court of Texas and the family law will be changed for the safety of children.






SANE (sexual assault nurse exam) cases:


MH – 1/8/2011- John

MH- 1/21/2012- John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010- Dana



MH – 1/8/2011 -John

MH – 6/19/2011-John

MH – 8/14/2011 – John

TCH- 10/19/2009 – Dana

MH – 9/2010 – Dana

TCH- 4/29/2012- I refused because I knew Young would retaliate the doctor at St. Luke’s in the Woodlands said that the courts can take of the fact that she ordered a SANE case with her


I have posted my story on the internet and multiple parents have contacted me because they are going through the same thing involving some of the same people that was involved in my case. I have completed my counseling session, and still these people find a way for me not be able to see my children.



God Bless,


John Hill


Letter to

Governor Rick Perry


Supreme Court of Texas

and 3 others

United States Department of Justice

Representative Al Green

Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

Change the laws regarding family law and for a judge, lawyers, CPS, and police officers that assist with covering up sexual abuse and injury to a child in the state of Texas


  1. 11 months ago
  2. 500 supporters
  3. 2 years ago
  4. john hill started this petition

Petition Closed

505 supporters

495 needed to reach 1,000

United States Department of Justice: Change the laws regarding family law and for…

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • (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 incorporated 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,

Family Court Extortion – Sunny Kelley Story

Family Court Injustice

There are perhaps hundreds of parents like Sunny who have been bankrupted through the CT courts, essentially extorted out of a relationship with their children. Recently, journalist Keith Harmon Snow posted on his website a story listing over 70 cases involving mothers who were never found to be dangerous or unfit, but none the less lost custody after their children reported they were physically or sexually assaulted by their fathers. Mothers who continued to seek legal protection or medical treatment for the children’s injuries were ordered to pay supervised visitation centers to see their children. “

 Bethany, Connecticut: True story of how Sunny Kelley lost custody of her son, Max, after reporting physical and sexual abuse (with documentation, medical evidence and statements from Max to validate her claims). Family Court awarded sole custody to the abuser, and placed Sunny in supervised visitation. Sunny was bankrupted by the high cost of family court proceedings, and…

View original post 148 more words


Image result for pics of child safety


Mr. Edward/”Ted” Taupier posed an interesting and telling question to the local supervised “visitation” center or pogrom of another name in Connecticut.  What is your level of insurance coverage for pedophiles or alleged pedophiles or abusers by another name?  The answer yielded Mr. Taupier home supervised “visits” with his own private property sometimes mistaken deceptively by the “state” as “children” or “wards” “disabled” due to age as opposed to the court-“ordered” public pay-per-view access awarded by the local court system and d/b/a judge___________.  Author of Dedicated to the Real Mommies and Daddies of the Real America and our Children who Want to Come Home tells America to ask the critical question of whether or not US Constitutionally impermissible to “order” and charge individual property-owners sometimes called “parents” by a profiteering “state” and “non-for-profit” joint public-private installations (un)”SAFE” (free stalking) centers and counties to pay to see one’s own private property. . . an extension of he/r own physical, corporeal vessel, genetics, intelligence, creativity, mannerisms, affectations, emotions . . . in a glorified jail for families.  Not asking and answering this critical question makes the downward slope on which America has been pushed even more slippery.  In history, we have seen this before.  Many did not make it.

Granted, the director of the local “visitation” center refused to answer the question by hanging up on Mr. Taupier and trying to refer him to another program listed in the telephone book.  Undeniably, however, Mr. Taupier’s orders in Taupier v. Taupier clearly “stated” that he and his property were to attend that specific program_____________.

The Connecticut “SAFE” “visitation” and “access” funded, and “state” and locally by county or borough/district/area/township/city/town social reform movement to overthrow and infiltrate all American systems of government, values, education, belief systems, religion, and culture in fact did not have the state insurance to stake and sustain or to foster a healthy “community partnership” in Ted’s private property or “children” in spite of its colorful “collaborative” policy and procedure “Memorandum of Understanding” which is common among most if not all supervised “visitation” pogroms around the US.  Just pick up your local phonebook and find the “state” insurance government office relevant to your current situation and inquire as to competent levels of risky pedophile/social worker “suspected” class insurance. Then, make the call to the “SAFE” prison to which you and your property have been US unconstitutionally “ordered” for state/local/county/judicial discretion tributary joint public-private profit that benefited everyone except you and your property and in fact depreciated its value, tremendously.  Remember to wish everyone a have a nice day with a smile in your voice because you are expected to be happy and grateful for their terrorism.

Without fail, pogram or “program” supervisors, directors, managers, and executive directors will tell their “clients” and “victims” that they have nothing to do with the court or the decisions of the court, but do threaten jail or police when questioned about the rate of referrals or clientele called-in by local BAR members and judges or domestic relations and offices of child support enforcement offices termed “friend of the court” (though, according to former Michigan member Carol Rhodes), “enemy of the family.”  This statistic especially relates to the unprofessional conduct of Cherie Menzies, Marinelle Timmons, and Tamisha Laster of “SAFE” Victim’s Assistance, Centre, Inc. in Harris County, Texas in City of Houston with regard to the little boy they sold out, Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom, artfully in some locations discounted “J.J.W.” or “J.W.” where no jurisdiction lies, nor could have and without, among other things, any imaginable con cept of due process or equal protections of US Constitutional and natural, unalienable, and inalienable laws of two American US “citizens,” sovereign and elect in nature, spirit, and essence, living and corporeal, imbued with the spirit our divine Creator ALMIGHTY GOD, Joni Saloom and he/r natural real private property deceptively kidnapped in collusion with other rogue criminals of whom they had been noticed under color of law for “state of Texas” on May 08, 2012 in City of Pearland, Brazoria County just outside of Houston (Harris County). It has been three years since Saloom and he/r only private property described as “Julian,” who is now eight years old, have had any meaningful communication as the parentally alienating, maternally depriving father, family and his wife continue to act as if they need supervised “visitation,” among other things, especially where false allegations of sexual abuse against himself he made or paid “play therapist” (licensed by CPS, who also runs “SAFE” visitation to keep an eye on their . . . “survivors” of the RICO family court con in Harris County in Houston, Texas) to otherwise manufacture, along with a couple other profitable lies.

In conclusion, “GET SMART,” and ask your local “SAFE” Victim’s Assistance Centre, Inc., as did Mr. Edward/”Ted” Taupier, “How is your level of pedophile protection insurance coverage TODAY.”

Fair Use and Disclaimer


  • (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 incorporated 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,


#MoJ We demand an Immediate Emergency Protection Order for the #WhistleblowerKids



I find that, beyond clear and convincing evidence, the FBI’s most wanted posters with big red X’s splattered as if in blood across the faces of loving mothers who did everything they could to protect the only “possession” that mattered to them, private property sometimes called “child” for deceptive and unnoticed “state” purposes, and worse, with the words “Captured” and dates and locations violently confessing their own sins who marketed this scheme and NCMEC/Silver Care/Amber Alerts–I am told by one in family court that these are nothing more than a way for the govt. to keep track of certain. . . contraband to leverage where someone didn’t get paid, by the way, that no men grace the same posters yet, without a doubt, based on individual observation and experience, threaten to and do actually parentally kidnap their little hostages and flee the country and “state” without every being reported, though the mother was most likely falsely imprisoned and the reports rejected as a “false allegation” from a certain stereotype, pernicious and damning–you know the one–the “hysterical,” “borderline,” “schizophrenic,” or “bi-polar” fit parent who obeyed the law and the court orders to begin with, all to he/r virtue, and downfall.

Battered Mothers - A Human Rights Issue



Remember little Jean Paul Lacombe Diaz? You may not, because there is not a lot of Congressmen or other government officials running around screaming to get this child back. Like they so willing do for fathers. Refresh your memory:

Eight months later, Jean Paul is still missing, thanks to Judge Sol Casseb III and his father-loving/mother-hating rulings.

Another dear mother now is facing the wrath of Judge Casseb today. Here are the details:

1. Judge Sol Casseb III, 288 District…

View original post 890 more words


California Coalition Expands Family Court Attack to Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Briefing Filed Today

by ccfceditor

March 6, 2015–San Diego, CA and St. Paul, MN–California Coalition for Families and Children, PBC today announces strategic legal partnership with  attorney Michelle MacDonald, MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, www.FamilyCourt.com, www.Facebook.com\FamilyCourt to strengthen the family law reform movement within federal courts in the Eighth Circuit and Minnesota family courts.  In a brief filed today with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Ms. MacDonald—co-founder of Family Innocence, a nonprofit dedicated to keeping families out of court: resolving conflicts and injustices peacefully  (www.FamilyInnocence.com)—advances groundbreaking arguments with assistance of California Coalition.

“We’re honored to stand with Ms. MacDonald and FamilyCourt.com to engage the beast of Family Courts, and look forward to collaborating further in advancing the Grazzini-Rucki case through the federal courts” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.


The Grazzini-Rucki brief expands on the approach taken by California Coalition in its ongoing appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Excerpts from the brief prepared jointly by MacDonald Law Firm, LLC, Michelle MacDonald, California Coalition, and Colbern Stuart:



If aura there be, it is hardly protected by exonerating from
liability such lawless conduct as took place here
Nineteenth and twentieth century American judges have overstepped constitutional restriction to usurp powers reserved to the legislature and written for themselves an immunity far greater even than that of an English judge, or even a King, at common law.[2]  No court has ever denied that absolute immunity inflicts a “monstrous” injustice on wronged litigants, and taxes the credibility and integrity of judicial institutions.  Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (2nd Cir. 1949); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 521 (1978).  It has been justified as a necessary evil to protect the “ardor” of judges and prosecutors.  Id.  While one might reasonably have concluded that our efforts to assure “justice is done”[3] would have been better-directed toward inculcating ardor through discipline and integrity than by “expanding” immunity, the issue is moot.
Unlike the 1871 era of federal procedure in which a judge could be forced to stand trial on mere “ascription” of culpable intent to an accused act,[4] the reasonable concern is today resolved at the pleading stage.  Modernly, like all litigants a judge is protected by procedural barriers provided in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) and Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) which protect against a mere “ascription” of malice.  These are bolstered by the plausibility test provided in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 thereafter.  The purposes of immunity—to protect efficient process—is today accomplished at the pleading stage.
A Judge’s invocation of the doctrine of judicial immunity to preserve judicial efficiency has effectively denied citizens remedy—a fundamentalright—for judicial injury.
Fundamental  rights such as of familial association are destroyed by the nod of a head. In error, Pierson and Sparkman have deprived scores of Americans remedy for criminalwrongdoingPierson and Sparkman’s despotism must end today.


The Outrages Committed Against the Grazzini-Rucki Family and Their Attorney

Ms. MacDonald represents Ms. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her children, who have been devastated by Minnesota family courts.  The lawsuit describes the outrages committed by Minnesota Family Court Judge David Knutson against the Grazzini-Rucki family and their attorney Ms. MacDonald.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s encounters with family courts began in 2011 when she sought and obtained a divorce, seeking orders of protection for her and her children.  Over the ensuing years, successive abusive rulings by the Minnesota Family Court rendered Grazzini-Rucki and her family homeless and bankrupt.

Judge Knutson’s illegal rulings included kicking the entire family out of their own home and separating the children from both parents, with no contact orders.  Last September, after a “listening session” conducted by Judge Knutson involving the Grazzini-Rucki children, two of Grazzini-Rucki’s children became so distressed that they fled from the homes into which they had been placed.  Teenagers Gianna and Samantha Rucki  have been missing since April 19, 2013. www.Missingkids.com.   In what can only be described as a bizarre absurdity, Judge Knutson insisted on conducting a “child custody “ trial after the children went missing.

Even more outrageous, after Ms. MacDonald advised Judge Knutson that the trial was improper, Judge Knutson caused Ms. MacDonald to be placed  in handcuffs shackled to a belt around her waist, sat in a wheel chair, and forced to finish trial to finish the “custody” trial without eyeglasses, pen, paper, or files.  While Ms. MacDonald was being arrested, courtroom bailiffs told Ms. Grazzini-Rucki that MacDonald would be retained in custody and would not be returning to the courtroom.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki therefore left the courthouse.  When MacDonald was returned to the courtroom in shackles, Grazzini-Rucki had already left—yet Judge Knutson insisted on completing the trial without Ms. Grazzini-Rucki.  The events were captures on security video.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson sought, and the district court granted, dismissal of all claims as barred by absolute judicial immunity, finding every act accused in the Amended Complaint to be a judicial act within Judge Knutson’s jurisdiction.  Order at 21.  The many non-judicial acts of which Judge Knutson was accused in the Amended Complaint—but not analyzed in the district court’s sweeping immunity holding—include:
  • Searching and seizing person and property of Grazzini-Rucki and her children without probable cause or a warrant, including that she abandon her children;
  • Circumventing the Minnesota Court Information system regarding various Dakota County matters involving the litigants;
  • Causing state court administrators to assign “all future hearings” in various matters involving Grazzini-Rucki to Judge Knutson;
  • Illegally usurping jurisdiction over several existing matters involving Grazzini-Rucki, including the State of Minnesota against David Rucki, and third parties, and making rulings in those matters without notice to Grazzini-Rucki;
  • Illegally ordering Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s children into “therapy”;
  • Illegally intercepting and sealing a recorded transcript Ms. Grazzini-Rucki was entitled to receive and view;
  • Ordering both parents to have no contact with their own children whatsoever;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to refrain from participation in her own family’s association activities;
  • Ordering Grazzini-Rucki to be separated from her children and have no contact with them at their schools, or through third parties;
  • Conducting a “listening” psychotherapy session between Judge Knutson, Dr. Gilbertson, and the Grazzini-Rucki’s children at which Judge Knutson was alleged to have coerced, intimidated, and threatened the Grazzini-Rucki children, contributing the children’s decision to run away from their home just days later;
  • Insisting that Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel try Grazzini-Rucki’s case while in handcuffs shackled to a waist belt, unable to rise from a wheelchair, without Grazzini-Rucki present, without Ms. MacDonald’s files, and without glasses, pen, or papers, seized by courtroom deputies;
  • Retaliating against Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel by the foregoing after Grazzini-Rucki’s counsel informed Judge Knutson that this action was pending against him, and ignoring the glaring conflict of interest.
Though this brief focuses primarily on the administrative assignment and “listening” therapy session, Appellant does not waive her assertion that none of the above functions, and those listed in the Amended Complaint warrant immunity.  The district court’s analysis of these many claims was skeletal yet sweeping, finding Judge Knutson immune for “actions taken in his capacity as a state court judge”, relying primarily on Stump v. Sparkman and Pierson v. Ray.  Order p. 32.  In response to Appellee Knutson’s Brief, and analyzed below, this broad “judicial capacity” scope and sweeping “analysis” was error.



Judges Bear the Burden of Proof on Immunity

Grazzini-Rucki asserted many of the challenges to judicial immunity as did California Coalition in its briefing before the Ninth Circuit.  California Coalition was pleased to join Grazzin-Rucki family in asserting those challenges in the Eight Circuit.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson Bears the Burden of Proving Immunity
Judge Knutson repeatedly asserts that Grazzini-Rucki “failed to raise” immunity issues in the district court.  See, e.g., Knutson Brf. p. 31, 34.  This is an improper attempt to shift onto plaintiff-appellant the burden of proving the affirmative defense of immunity, which rests solely with the party asserting it.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c)(1);  Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 498 (1991) (“An official seeking such immunity, however, must at the outset show that a “counterpart to the privilege he asserts” was recognized at common law in 1871, for “[w]here we have found that a tradition of absolute immunity did not exist as of 1871, we have refused to grant such immunity under § 1983.”).
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that an official claiming an affirmative defense of immunity bears the burden to prove that 1871 common law immunized the function of each act accused in the complaint.  See, e.g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 339-340 (1986) (“Our initial inquiry is whether an official claiming immunity under § 1983 can point to a common-law counterpart to the privilege he asserts.”); The Court “has for that reason been quite sparing in recognizing absolute immunity for state actors.”  Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269 (1993).
 The “function” analysis considers only historical fact.  Malley at 342 (“We emphasize that our role is to interpret the intent of Congress in enacting § 1983, not to make a freewheeling policy choice, and that we are guided in interpreting Congress’ intent by the common-law tradition.”); Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 920 (1984) (“Section 1983 immunities are ‘predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and the interests behind it.’”).
Courts investigating the intent of the 1871 42nd Congress have examined accounts of 1871 social and legal systems from Nineteenth Century case law, legal treatises, and the congressional record.  The Supreme Court undertook this historical analysis most recently in Rehberg v. Paulk,, 132 S.Ct. 1497 (2012), examining nineteenth century cases to determine that the function accused—testimony of a grand jury witness—enjoyed immunity at common law.  Id. at 1503-07.[5]
An officer’s failure to prove up a common law analog is dispositive of the issue regardless of countervailing policy considerations. Rehberg at 1502-03 (“We do not simply make our own judgment about the need for immunity. We have made it clear that it is not our role ‘to make a freewheeling policy choice,’ and that we do not have a license to create immunities based solely on our view of sound policy.”).  Granting an immunity absent this historical analysis is error.  Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 249-50 (1974) (“These cases, in their present posture, present no occasion for a definitive exploration of the scope of immunity available to state executive officials.”). 
Neither the District Court Nor Judge Knutson Have Analyzed Historical Foundations for an Immunity of Accused Function
Judge Knutson proffered, and the district court undertook, no historical analysis of whether any of the two dozen functions accused in the Amended Complaint were functions that enjoyed judicial immunity at common law in 1871.  The district court’s sweeping Order proclaimed that Judge Knutson’s “case management, his signing of orders, the substance of his orders, and the trial proceeding” were all taken in a “judicial capacity.”  Order p 33.  The district court reached this conclusion finding only that (1) “Judge Knutson has not interacted with Plaintiff outside of his courtroom or his judicial chambers” and (2) “the underlying family law case was within [his] jurisdictional authority.  Order p. 33.  On these purported findings, the district court found Judge Knutson acted in a “judicial capacity” and was thus immune.  Id.
Analyzed below, this broad-brush “judicial capacity” scope and summary analysis fails to “affirmatively state” the defense, which was exclusively Judge Knutson’s burden.  Fed.R. Civ.P. 8(c); Rehberg, supra.
The District Court Extended Immunity Based On Factors Not Relevant to Judicial Immunity
The district judge applied a “judicial capacity” scope of immunity that was far broader than that provided in controlling Supreme Court authority.  Immunity does not depend on the act or actor, but on the nature of the accused act.  Sparkman at 362.  Immunity may exist only if the accused act is both (1) “judicial in nature” and (2) within statutory subject matter jurisdiction.  Id.  The first “Judicial in nature” factor in turn depends on (a) “the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge,” and (b) “the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.”  Id.  Not all official or authorized acts of a judge are “judicial acts”—judges also perform administrative, ministerial, or other types of acts that are not entitled to judicial immunity.  See, e.g., Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229 (1988) (firing court employees could be performed by administrator and thus not “judicial”).
The test to distinguish between “judicial” and other types of acts is to analyze whether the act can only be performed by a judge.  See Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 340 (1879) (selection of jurors could be performed by administrator, thus not “judicial”); Forrester, supra; Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435 (1993) (court reporters “part of judicial function” yet not absolutely immune).  Absolute immunity is justified because judicial acts—and only judicial acts—are subject to standardized, scrutinized proceedings, restrained by principles of law, and are subject to appellate review.  Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 516 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 564 n. 4 (1967).  Because judicial acts are subject to such safeguards, the Supreme Court has justified relieving the actors from liability for civil money damages.  Id.


Administrative Behaviors of a Judge in Assigning Cases Are Not Immune

Judge Knutson also asserted that his administrative or ministerial behaviors in Family Court case assignments was an immune “judicial act” simply because he was a judge.  Grazzini-Rucki and California Coalition analyzed abundant law demonstrating that even though an administrative act is authorized or performed by a judge, the administrative act is not converted into a judicial act.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson’s Administrative Behavior in Assigning Himself to Certain Cases is Not Immune

The district court’s high-level “analysis” that Judge Knutson’s “case management” and “trial proceedings” extended immunity far beyond Sparkman’s scope of immunity to include behaviors which are clearly not judicial acts.  As one example, Judge Knutson’s “case management” behaviors in assigning all Grazzini-Rucki cases, including all future cases with third parties, and those with the State of Minnesota,  to himself is clearly an administrative act because it cannot be reviewed on appeal, is not subject to law, is conducted in private before parties are even aware of a judge, and may be performed by administrators as well as judges.
     The cases cited by Judge Knutson support Appellant’s conclusion.  Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230, 231 (10th Cir. 1986)[6] relied on Rheuark v. Shaw, 628 F.2d 297, 305 (5th Cir. 1980) (extending absolute immunity for “jurisdictional authority to appoint and supervise court reporters.”).  In both cases the “jurisdictional authority” was a statutory grant of administrative authority—not jurisdiction.[7]  Parent v. New York, 786 F. Supp. 2d 516, 532 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) also drew authority from Matinez’s (moot) holding.  “The assignment of cases and issuance of consolidation orders are judicial functions normally performed by, and statutorily reserved to, Judge Lippman. See [statute] giving Chief Judge and Chief Administrator the authority to assign judges to judicial terms and parts. . . .”  Parent at 532 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
Parent’s holding is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s judicial act jurisprudence.  The fact that the “Chief Administrator” function happened to be performed by a judge does not convert the “administrator” function to a judicial one—nothing in the New York statute prohibits a non-judge from undertaking the role of “chief administrator”, meaning that, like juror selection, it is an act that may be performed by a non-judge, and thus not a judicial act.  See Ex Parte Virginia, supra.  A “Chief Administrator’s” assignment process is ministerial—the only “function” is to follow the assignment procedure.  Failure to abide the ministerial process is not an appealable event.  A judge or administrator is not applying law to facts.  The process is not highly scrutinized.  As such, Parent reached its holding on analysis inconstant with controlling Supreme Court authority, and is error.
Similarly, in Zahl v. Kosovsky, No. 08 CIV. 8308 LTS THK, 2011 WL 779784 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011) the district court considered a claim for immunity of a judge who allegedly “manipulated the assignment system to take control of Plaintiff’s case . . . .”   According to the district court in Zahl, the plaintiff “cite[ed] no relevant authority in support of his conclusory assertions that such actions vitiated Justice Diamond’s jurisdiction to handle his case, and the Court has found none.”  Id. at *9.  The Zahl plaintiff apparently failed to identify any of the abundant relevant authorities including Ex Parte Virginia, Forrester, and Antoine, supra, which provide means to distinguish non-appealable acts of administrators from appealable acts only judges may perform.  Moreover, like the district court and Judge Knutson, the Zahl court improperly placed the burden of proving immunity on the Plaintiff rather than the official.  Malley at 339.
Zahl also erroneously relied on language in Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) instructing courts to construe subject matter jurisdiction (the second element of Sparkman’s two-element immunity test) broadly.  Zahl at *9. Sparkman’s instruction does not apply to the first “judicial act” element.  Sparkman at 362.  As above, the Supreme Court has been “quite sparing” in extending immunity under the judicial act element of the test.  Buckley at 269.  Zahl also focused analysis on failure to recuse when faced with motion identifying conflict of interest.  Id.  Ruling on a motion is an act which only a judge “normally” performs, and thus falls within Sparkman’s “judicial act” scope.
Bracci v. Becker, No. 1:11-CV-1473 MAD/RFT, 2013 WL 123810, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2013) aff’d, 568 F. App’x 13 (2d Cir. 2014) is derived from Martinez, Parent, and Zahl and is error for the same reasons.  Further, in Bracci the plaintiff’s accused Judge Mulvey’s (a “chief administrative judge”) failure to remove Judge Becker (the trial judge) form the case, making Bracci more of a recusal case.  Like Zahl, recusal requires ruling on a motion—a judicial act.
In both cases the courts found what they (incorrectly) identified as “jurisdiction” based on statutes authorizing judges—as well as non-judge administrators—to assign cases.  Statutory empowerment goes to Sparkman’s second “within the jurisdiction” element of the immunity test—but is insufficient to satisfy the first, “judicial act” element.  Sparkman, supra.[8]  Judge Knutson repeats the error.  Knutson Brf. at 29-30 (citations to Billingsley and Duty).
Judge Knutson’s reliance on Hardy v. Nw. Mem’l Hosp., No. 93 C 1348, 1993 WL 85750, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 1993) is misplaced.  Hardy erroneously analyzed judicial acts under the test for prosecutorial immunity.  Hardy cited Imbler v. Pachtman, applying the “intimately related with the judicial phase of the criminal process” standard.  Id. at *2.  Hardy failed to cite or analyze under judicial immunity precedents including Sparkman, Pierson, Bradley, or Randall.  Judges do not perform prosecutorial function, and thus the immunity of a judge is lost if she performs such functions.   Lopez v. Vanderwater, 620 F.2d 1229, 1236 (7th Cir. 1980) (finding judge performing functions of a prosecutor not entitled to either judicial or prosecutorial immunity).
Finally, none of the authority relied on by Judge Knutson analyzed the critical test—whether the function of assigning cases was a judicial act at 1871 common law.  Absent such analysis, the authority is error.  Rehberg, supra.


A Judge Working with a Psychologist in Child Custody Proceedings Is Not Performing a “Judicial Act” and is Thus Not Immune

Judge Knutson followed the modern trend of Family Court judges to wander far afield from traditional judicial functions—in his case performing what he called a “listening session” to “further” the children’s psychotherapy.  It was because of Judge Knutson’s harsh commands at the “listening session” that the Grazzini-Rucki children ran away.  California Coalition assisted Ms. MacDonald in formulating arguments that disproved Judge Knutson’s claim to immunity for working with a psychologist in the custody setting.  From the brief:

Judge Knutson’s “Listening” Psychotherapy Session with the Grazzini-Rucki Children is Not a Judicial Act

 Judge Knutson concedes he conducted a “listening session” with the five Grazzini-Rucki children “for the sole purpose” of facilitating psychotherapy of the children —complying with a “request from a court-appointed therapist for a structured family meeting.”[9]  During this psychotherapy session Judge Knutson harshly reprimanded and the children.  Days later two of them ran away from their home and have not been seen since.[10]
Following Rehberg, the district court should have analyzed whether the function of psychotherapy performed at the “listening session” was an immune function at 1871 common law.  Rehberg at 1503. The district court’s failure conduct this historical inquiry is error sufficient to reverse.  Scheuer at 249-50 (1974).
If the district court had conducted appropriate inquiry, it would find no tradition for psychotherapy function at 1871 common law.  Given that psychotherapy is a function developed in the twentieth century, and is only legally performed by licensed psychologists,[11] it would seem unlikely that Judge Knutson could identify an 1871 common law immunity for his psychotherapy behavior.
Other courts considering the question have found no immunity for psychologists (Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 222 F.3d 570, 577 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no “firmly rooted tradition” of immunity for functions performed by private psychiatrists employed by prison)).  See also Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060 (1994) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (“The courts that have accorded absolute immunity to social workers appear to have overlooked the necessary historical inquiry; none has seriously considered whether social workers enjoyed absolute immunity for their official duties in 1871. If they did not, absolute immunity is unavailable to social workers under § 1983.  This all assumes, of course, that “social workers” (at least as we now understand the term) even existed in 1871. If that assumption is false, the argument for granting absolute immunity becomes (at least) more difficult to maintain.”).
Further, the history of psychologists in the divorce industry demonstrates such functions are late twentieth century innovations.  “Family Courts” are a creation of the 1970s after the 1966 California Report on the Governor’s Commission on the Family.  L. Friedman, Rights of Passage: Divorce Law in Historical Perspective 63 Or. L. Rev. 649, 667 (1984).  The function of “psychologist-as-judge” custody evaluator was unknown to a divorce courtroom until the mid-1990s “as the supply of psychologists continued to increase and stricter third-party payer regimens were imposed for mental health treatment (Gould, 2006). [C]ustody evaluation services generally are neither highly regulated nor institutionalized, but rather may be characterized as a cottage industry (Schepard, 2005).” Robert F. Kelly, Sarah H. Ramsey, Child Custody Evaluations: The Need for Systems-Level Outcome Assessments, 47 Fam. Ct. Rev. 286, 291 (2009).
Finally, it is unlikely that the district court could have identified any function of a family court—including “listening sessions,” “therapy”, “reconciliation,” custody evaluations, or otherwise—existed at 1871 common law because in 1871 no civil judicial tribunal possessed jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, or child custody.  “It is elementary that in the early history of jurisprudence in England the common law courts exercised no jurisdiction over divorce cases, jurisdiction in such matters resting entirely with the ecclesiastical courts of the realm.” Peterson v. Peterson, 24 Haw. 239, 246 (1918).  See also Robert H. Mnookin, Child-Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy, 39 Law and Contemp. Prob. 226, 234 (1975).


 Modern Family Court Jurisdiction Is Inferior; If It Has Immunity It is Extremely Narrow

 Knutson’s Brief speciously asserts that general jurisdiction includes jurisdiction over “family law matters.” [12]Family court jurisdiction is incontrovertibly inferior because it is specific.  Minn. Stat. 518.  Many courts recognize family courts as inferior tribunals.  Family Court “in a dissolution proceeding is a court of limited jurisdiction.”  King v. State Educ. Dep’t, 182 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.1999); People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, 108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (Family Court not a “court of competent jurisdiction” for Rooker-Feldman analysis).
Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523 (1868) describes the limited scope of immunity for “inferior courts”: Judges exercising limited jurisdiction were immune for acts within the limited jurisdiction, and could be liable for civil damages for acts in excess of their jurisdiction, and for acts done “maliciously or corruptly.”  Randall at 531. [13]  While Judge Knuston bears the burden of demonstrating modern family court functions enjoyed any immunity at 1871 common law, in no case will he achieve an immunity scope greater than an 1871 inferior court; for judicial acts within their jurisdiction not done “maliciously or corruptly.”  Id.
Judge Knutson’s Assertion of Broad Immunity Lacks Authority
Judge Knutson asserts: “Acts and orders related to overseeing a family law case, including orders requiring therapy and efforts to facilitate it, are acts inherently judicial in nature.”  Knutson Brf. p. 35.  His authority does not support this proposition.
Judge Knutson cites Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1437, 1448 (8th Cir. 1987), abrogated by Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991).  Myers was the first case in this Circuit to consider the 1976 decision of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976).  Imbler was the seminal Supreme Court case extending prosecutorial immunity under Section 1983 to acts of “the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State.”  Id. at 431 n. 33.  The Court recognized that its general description was broad, and could potentially encompass administrative acts as well as prosecutorial acts, yet declined to provide a more precise definition:  “At some point, and with respect to some decisions, the prosecutor no doubt functions as an administrator rather than as an officer of the court. Drawing a proper line between these functions may present difficult questions, but this case does not require us to anticipate them.”  Id.
Myers picked up where Imbler left off, analyzing several acts by Scott County Prosecuting Attorney R. Kathleen Morris which fell within Imbler’s broad range of potentially-immune acts.  Meyers at 1449.  Myers extended a generous scope of immunity to every function of Ms. Morris that plaintiffs accused, including “her role in the initiation of criminal proceedings against them and her handling of evidentiary material.”  Id.  These several functions included investigation, advising police, interviewing children, and advocacy for the state during the criminal proceeding.  Id. at 1446-1452.
Meyers’ limited immunity incorrectly, drawing a line between pre-charging and post-charging phases.  Today post-charging investigative, administrative, administrative, and enforcement functions are not immune.  See, e.g, Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).  Myers correctly limited prosecutorial immunity to criminal proceedings.  Meyers at 1452.  Myers also recognized that absolute immunity would not extend to enforcement or investigative functions in “approv[ing] or direct[ing] the removal of children from their homes upon the arrest of one or both parents.”  Id. at n. 11.[14]
Judge Knutson claim Myers immunizes “family law judges to work with experts to determine the care provided to children in custody and applying judicial immunity to that work.”  Knutson Brf. at 35.  This is incorrect.  Myers involved a criminal prosecution, not “family law judges.”  Myers at 1452 .  Myers did not involve Minnesota laws regarding “best interests,” nor a judge or psychologist determining “best interests”—but criminal prosecution.  Moreover, Myers expressly recognized that investigative functions such as the “listening session” in which Dr. Gilbertson and Judge Knutson “the session was held for the sole purpose of facilitating therapy…” are not prosecutorial. [15] Myers did not extend immunity to psychotherapy.
Judge Knutson finally claims—citing no authority—that “sealing the transcript of the session” was a judicial act.  The record indicates the opposite—that Judge Knutson was not undertaking the listening session pursuant to any order.  Having no relationship to any judicial act, the transcript—and its sealing—cannot be converted into one.


 The District Court’s “Judicial Capacity” Scope Relied on Elements Not Relevant To Judicial Immunity

The district judge’s sweeping analysis of the dozens of acts accused focused on a single fact that Judge Knutsen interacted with Grazinni-Rucki inside of his courtroom.  Order at 33.  Judge Knutson repeats the error.  Knutson Brf. p. 31.
The location of an accused act is not relevant to Sparkman’s two-factor test, which focusses on function regardless of location.  For example, Sparkman favorably cited Gregory v. Thompson, 500 F.2d 59 (9th Cir. 1974), which held that physically evicting a litigant from a courtroom is not an act “of a judicial nature.”  Sparkman at 370, fn. 10.  Justice White also cited a Sixth Circuit decision, Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (6th Cir. 1970), holding that a county judge who had a plaintiff “forcibly removed” from a “fiscal court” and jailed was not immune.  Id.  See also Harper v. Merckle, 638 F.2d 848, 857 (5th Cir. 1981) (child support enforcement proceeding inside of courtroom and chambers not immune); Mireless v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 13 (1991) (physical assault outside of courtroom held immune).  Location of the act was one of the four-factor “debris” elements from McAlester v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1972) which Justice White “cast aside” in distilling Sparkman’s “cogent two-part test.”  Harper at 857.[16]


 The District Court’s Reliance on Pierson v. Ray and Stump v. Sparkman Was Error

 Section 1983 Does Not Require Proof of Malicious or Corrupt Intent
The district court cited the seminal judicial immunity case, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), in connection with its holding that Judge Knutson is immune even if he acted “maliciously or corruptly.”  Order at 33.  Appellant did not—and need not—assert that Judge Knutson acted “maliciously or corruptly.”  Appellant asserts merely that he acted to deprive of constitutional rights.   Section 1983 does not require an allegation of specific intent, including malice or corruption, but only general intent to perform the act causing the deprivation of a constitutional right.  Monell at 685; Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 232 (1970).  Malice and corruption were relevant in defeating common law immunities for common law torts.  Section 1983 was enacted to supplement common law tort liability—it turns on a “strict liability” standard, requiring no proof of intent.  IdSee also n. 22, infra (comment of Representative David A. Clark).
Pierson and Sparkman Erroneously Extended Common Law Immunity to Civil Rights Liability
 Pierson and Sparkman stand in error for exceeding the judicial power vested in United States courts under Article III of the United States Constitution.  In deciding Pierson and Sparkman, the Supreme Court construed Section 1983 to find an immunity which is not present on—and entirely inconsistent with—the face of the strict liability statute.   Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665-94 (1978)  Yet Section 1983 is not a subject for statutory interpretation; clearer language has likely never emerged from Congress.  Id.; see also Monroe at 185-191.
Instead of examining the unambiguous statute, Chief Justice Warren in Pierson instructs us to examine congressional intent, which Chief Justice Warren claims does not indicate an intent to abrogate the common law immunities of a judge.  “The legislative record gives no clear indication that Congress meant to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities . . . .  The immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established [as the speech and debate privilege], and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine.”  Pierson at 554-555 (1967).
The “presumption” is as worthy as any speculation.  It overlooks the most obvious evidence of congressional intent—the unambiguous language of the statute itself.  Moreover, actual analysis of the congressional record, and history of judicial immunity reveals Chief Justice Warren’s presumption is simply wrong.
Pierson Incorrectly Analyzed Legislative Privilege Rather Than Judicial Immunity
In Pierson Chief Justice Warren “presumed” that “the immunity of judges” was “equally well established” as the legislative privilege.  Remarkably, in presuming, he failed to conduct analysis of the common law of judicial immunity—citing only to Bradley’s (post-Civil Rights Act) holding and Scott v. Stansfield, 3 Law Reports, Exchequer, 220.[17]   Pierson at 554.  Despite having on hand the meticulous historical analysis of nineteenth century common law and the 42nd Congress’ legislative intent provided by Justice Douglas in 1961’s Monroe v. Pape decision, Chief Justice Warren’s 1967 opinion ignored it.
Dissenting, Justice Douglas—the author of Monroe—did draw from his prior historical analysis of common law and the congressional record to the Civil Rights Act, reaching a forceful conclusion: “The Court’s ruling is not justified by the admitted need for a vigorous and independent judiciary, is not commanded by the common-law doctrine of judicial immunity, and does not follow inexorably from our prior decisions.”  Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 559 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting).  Similar rich analyses and enlivened opinions are evident in Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665-94 (1978); Pulliam at 529-544; Sparkman at 368 (Stewart, J., Powell, J., dissenting), Dykes v. Hoseman, 776 F.2d 942, 954 (11th Cir.  1985) (Hatchett, J, dissenting) (“[T]he en banc court holds that judicial immunity is complete, unqualified, and without exception . . .  As the majority concedes, no precedent, Supreme Court or otherwise, requires such a broad definition and application of the judicial immunity doctrine.  [N]o policy considerations justify such a result. . . .  Judges . . . will be able to deal willy nilly with the rights of citizens without having to account for willful unconstitutional actions.”).
Instead of analyzing judicial immunity, Justice Warren adopted analysis of legislative privilege from Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (1951).  In Tenney Justice Frankfurter considered whether a California legislative committee conducting a contempt proceeding against a man circulating a flyer protesting the committee was immune from an action under Section 1983.  Id. at 377.   The question was whether a common law “speech or debate” privilege protecting lawmaking activity could be extended to a lawmaker’s behavior in conducting the contempt hearing.  Id.
Justice Frankfurter traced the history of English common law preserving legislative speech or debate privilege as derivative of liberty—an extension of the voters’ freedom of speech and conscience.  Id. at 372-73.  Protection of “speech or debate” was necessary to prohibit the English King and his aristocracy from persecuting members of Parliament making laws unfavorable to the then-ruling class.  Justice Frankfurter aligned the English speech liberty with the federal “speech or debate” analog in the United States Constitution at Article I, Sec. 6, cl. 1.[18] Like Chief Justice Warren, Justice Frankfurter presumed—analyzing no legislative history—that the 42nd Congress would not have intended to limit any state’s legislative activity in enacting the 1871 Civil Rights Act because Congress was itself a “staunch advocate of legislative freedom.”  Id. at 376 (emphasis added).
Tenney justified extending the speech or debate liberty to the committee hearing function because legislators are directly-elected and immediately accountable to voters.  Id. at 378.  Tenney also held the narrow immunity was lost if “there was a usurpation of functions exclusively vested in the Judiciary or the Executive.”  Id.
Judicial Immunity is the Opposite of Legislative Privilege—Judges Are Sovereigns Possessing Not “Rights” but Delegated Authority
 Judicial authority and legislative freedom are night and day.  Judges exercise jurisdiction as sovereigns—not liberties from sovereigns.  While judges have all the rights of any citizen qua a citizen, a judge qua judge possesses no rights.  “First and Fourteenth Amendments restrain “only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States.”  United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 621 (2000).  “[T]he censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 282-83 (1964). There is no need for a judge to express opinions, experiences, or desires of her own or those she represents to create law—he/she is given law.  [19]Other than necessary for faithful adjudication, a judge’s “freedom of conscience” is irrelevant to judicial function—relevant “conscience” is given in the form of law that has matured through free debate elsewhere. County Judges do not function as a body, and (should) have no one to “debate.”  The United States and State of Minnesota constitutions do not extend a speech or debate privilege to the judiciary because courts are not empowered to speak or debate.  The function of a judge is to adjudicate—apply the given law to properly-admitted facts.  Judges are not representatives of voters, but independent of electoral will, passion, and accountability. There is no need to protect a judge’s “speech” other than to preserve the judge’s ability to pronounce adjudication—merely a “substantial state interest”[20] that must yield to Minnesota’s “fundamental law”—citizen rights such as remedy,[21] due process, equal protection, speech, and association.  See Theide v. Town of Scandia Valley, 217 Minn. 218, 226-27, 14 NW 2d 400, 406 (1944) (forcibly removing woman and children from their home in sub-zero weather by the town sheriff and forced to return to their “legal settlement” in another town for the purpose of obtaining poor relief violated “fundamental law”[22] despite consistency with state law.).  Minnesota courts may not construe statutes contrary to citizen rights under the “fundamental law.”  See T. Flemming, J. Norby, The Minnesota Bill of Rights: Wrapt in the Old Miasmal Mist, 7 Hamline L.Rev. 194 (1984).
 The long history of preservation of legislative speech and debate—a fundamental liberty—is entirely absent from the history of judicial immunity.  See Monell at 665-94; Pierson (Douglas, J. dissenting); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 243 (1974) (“Indeed, as the Court also indicated in Monroe v. Pape, supra, the legislative history indicates that there is no absolute immunity”); Pulliam at 540 (1984) (“every Member of Congress who spoke to the issue assumed that judges would be liable under § 1983”).  There being no “judicial speech” liberty in 1871, there is no reason to “presume” that the 1871 Congress would have seen need to expressly abrogate a tradition that has never existed.
Far from tradition, the “hoary doctrine of judicial immunity”[23] is expropriation.  Tenney’s “presumption” was a modest stretch of liberty over the border with sovereignty to protect the functions of elected representatives of the people.  Pierson’s adoption of Tenney’s stretch to protect sovereigns of the people was a full-force embezzlement of liberty.  Deployed today to exonerate sovereign county judges in their oppression of those in whom liberty is vested by the fundamental law, Pierson’s manufacture of judicial immunity is—in perspective—nothing short of a third American revolution.
Congress Expressly Intended to Abrogate Judicial Immunity
            Nor can Chief Justice Warren’s “presumption” withstand the incontrovertible record—The 1871 Congress repeatedly expressed intent that the Civil Rights Act would abrogate judicial immunity.  Congress adopted the language of Section 1983 from its criminal analog—the 1866 Civil Rights Act, today codified at 18 U.S.C. § 242.  Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961).[24]  Section 1983 was introduced by Ohio Representative Shellabarger, who explained his bill on the House floor by referencing Section 2 of the 1866 Act: “that section provides a criminal proceeding in identically the same case as this one provides a civil remedy for . . . ”[25]  The Acts thus “must be construed as in pari materia”—any construction of the 1871 Act must admit congressional intent in enacting the 1866 Act.  Picking v. Pennsylvania R.R., 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1945).
On that record it is incontrovertible that the 42nd Congress affirmatively rejected common law judicial immunity.
I answer it is better to invade the judicial power of the States than permit it to invade, strike down, and destroy the civil rights of citizens. A judicial power perverted to such uses should be speedily invaded.
 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1837 (1866) (remarks of Representative Lawrence).  The 1866 Act was vetoed by President Johnson because it abrogated common law judicial immunity.[26]  In the fight to defeat the veto, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull expressed revulsion at the entire concept of judicial immunity: “It is the very doctrine out of which the rebellion was hatched.”[27]
            Section 1 of the 1871 Act (now Section 1983) passed rapidly through Congress because debate wasn’t necessary—Congress recognized Section 1 as merely “adding” a civil remedy to the 1866 Act.  Debate instead focused on section 2 of the bill (modernly Section 1985) because of concerns over federalism and regulation of private behavior.  Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 99 (1971).
            The recorded debate demonstrates unequivocally that Congress intended to abrogate common law judicial immunity:
[T]he decisions of the county judges, who are made little kings, with almost despotic powers to carry out the demands of the legislature which elected them-powers which, almost without exception, have been exercised against Republicans without regard to law or justice, make up a catalogue of wrongs, outrageous violations, and evasions of the spirit of the new constitution, unscrupulous malignity and partisan hate never paralleled in the history of parties in this country or any other.
 Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. 186 (1871) (remarks of Representative Platt).
What is to be the case of a judge? . . . Is that State judge to be taken from his bench? Is he to be liable in an action?  … It is the language of the bill: for there is no limitation whatsoever on the terms that are employed, and they are as comprehensive as can be used.
Id. (remarks of Senator Thurman).
“[T]he judge of a State court, though acting under oath of office, is made liable to a suit in the Federal Court and subject to damages for his decision against a suitor, however honest and conscientious that decision may be . . .”
Id. (remarks of Representative Lewis).  Representative Arthur recognized the law would be a drastic reversal of common law immunity:
Hitherto, in all the history of this country and of England, no judge or court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts …. Willfulness and corruption in error alone created a liability . . . .  Under the provisions of this section every judge in the State court. . . will enter upon and pursue the call of official duty with the sword of Damocles suspended over him . . .”
Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. (1871) 365-366.[28]
Courts considering parallel questions have deferred to this vivid record.  See, e.g., Picking v. Pennsylvania R.R., 151 F.2d 240 (3rd Cir. 1945) (“But the privilege as we have stated was a rule of the common law. Congress possessed the power to wipe it out. We think that the conclusion is irresistible that Congress by enacting the Civil Rights Act sub judice intended to abrogate the privilege to the extent indicated by that act and in fact did so . . . .  The statute must be deemed to include members of the state judiciary acting in official capacity.”); Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665 (1978); Owen v. City of Independence, Mo., 445 U.S. 622, 643 (1980) (“Nowhere in the debates, however, is there a suggestion that the common law excused a city from liability on account of the good faith of its authorized agents, much less an indication of a congressional intent to incorporate such an immunity into the Civil Rights Act”); Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 543 (1984).
Far from an intent to incorporate common law judicial immunity, Congress in passing both Acts specifically intended to eliminate it as the source of the monumental evil of state-sponsored oppression jeopardizing our nation’s existence by precipitating civil warfare.[29]


“The devastation caused by Minnesota Family Courts may be even more abominable than what we have  seen in California, Florida, Connecticut, and throughout the nation” says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.  “Ms. Grazzin-Rucki’s family was so severely abused by Minnesota Family Courts that the children simply couldn’t withstand the turmoil.  Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s and her children’s tragedy shows how atrociously incompetent and downright criminal American Family Courts have become despite handling delicate family matters, and why Family Court must immediately cease its disastrous experiment with family well-being” says Stuart.

California Coalition is passing along Ms. Grazzini-Rucki’s and Ms. MacDonald’s request to assist in locating the Grazzini-Rucki children–if you have any information about their whereabouts, please visit www.Missingkids.com to learn how to help.

With briefing on these critical family court immunity issues now ongoing in the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, Family Courts are facing more pressure than they’ve ever before experienced.  WeightierMatter will be posting regular updates of both cases.



[1] Sparkman at 368 (Stewart, J. dissenting).

[2]  “[T]o no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”  Magna Carta (1215); “[W]here there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law, whenever that right is invaded.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (quoting William M. Blackstone, 3 Commentaries *23).

[3] Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1365 (2011)

[4] “Few persons sufficiently irritated to institute an action against a judge for his judicial acts would hesitate to ascribe any character to the acts which would be essential to the maintenance of the action.” Bradley at 348.

[5] Similar historical analyses are apparent in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 172-85 (1961); Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 703 (1978); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 559-62 (1967) (Douglas, J., dissenting); Hoffman v. Harris, 511 U.S. 1060 (1994) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cert.) (“The courts that have accorded absolute immunity to social workers appear to have overlooked the necessary historical inquiry; none has seriously considered whether social workers enjoyed absolute immunity for their official duties in 1871. If they did not, absolute immunity is unavailable to social workers under § 1983; Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 132 (1997) (Scalia, J., concurring).  See also Jensen v. Lane Cnty., 222 F.3d 570, 577 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no “firmly rooted tradition” of immunity for function of a private psychiatrist employed by prison).

[6] Martinez is abrogated law “mooted” by abandonment of the appeal.  Martinez v. Winner, 800 F.2d 230, 231 (10th Cir. 1986).

[7]  Rheuark relied on Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, 1263-64 (5th Cir.) opinion modified on denial of reh’g, 583 F.2d 779 (5th Cir. 1978), overruled by Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976 (5th Cir. 1979) (“Under Texas [statutory] law trial judges select their court reporters, who thereafter serve during the pleasure of the judge.”  Sparks affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision denying immunity to co-conspirators.  Dissenters in the Sparks en banc decision relied heavily on Slavin.  The Supreme Court’s affirmation in Sparks abrogates Slavin.

[8] A simple example is that the Chief Justice of the United States is authorized by law to serve as the Chancellor of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.  20 U.S.C. § 76cc. Such authorization does not convert such service to a judicial act.  See, e.g., Lynch v. Johnson, 420 F.2d 818 (1970) (“A judge does not cease to be a judge when he undertakes to chair a PTA meeting, but, of course, he does not bring judicial immunity to that forum, either.”)  Id. at 820 (cited favorably in Sparkman at 370 n. 10).

[9] Opening Brief of Appellant’s, APP 124

[10] APP COA -291

[11] Minn. Stat 148.88, Psychology Practice Act. Also see Minn. Admin. Rules 7200

[12] Knutson’s Brief page 21

[13] This distinction was recognized in Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978), fn. 7.  See also Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. 523, 535-36 (1868) (“In reference to judges of limited and inferior authority, it has been held that they are protected only when they act within their jurisdiction.”); Yates v. Lansing, 5 Johnson 282, 291 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1810) 1810 WL 1044, aff’d, 1811 WL 1445 (1811) (“[T]he judges of the king’s superior courts of general jurisdiction were not liable to answer personally for their errors in judgment. . . .  [W]ith respect to the inferior courts, it was only while they act within their jurisdiction.”); Phelps v. Sill, 1 Day 315, 327 (1804).  See also 1871 comments of Representative Arthur, infra, describing common law immunity: “Hitherto, in all the history of this country and of England, no judge or court has been held liable, civilly or criminally, for judicial acts …. Willfulness and corruption in error alone created a liability . . . .  “

[14] Specific to family issues, the Meyers plaintiffs accused “us[ing] the interviews [of children] to coerce perjured statements from young and vulnerable witnesses” in a criminal investigation and “initiat[ing] neglect proceedings in the family court on behalf of the Scott County Human Services Department [and] sign[ing] and approv[ing] the neglect petitions.”  Id. at 1450.  Because these functions are “functionally comparable to prosecutor’s initiation of the judicial process,” this Court extended absolute immunity.  Id. at 1452.

[15] Appellants’ Brf, APP 125

[16] All of the Fifth, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuit authority derived from McAlester’s four-part test is error after Sparkman.  See, e.g., Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 946 (11th Cir.  1985); Adams v. McIlhany, 764 F.2d 294 (5th Cir. 1985); Holloway v. Walker, 765 F.2d 517, 522 (5th Cir. 1985); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir. 1986), and dozens of authority-in-error relying thereon.

[17] Analyzed in Bradley at n. 16.  “[A] judge of a county court was sued for slander, and he put in a plea that the words complained of were spoken by him in his capacity as such judge, while sitting in his court, and trying a cause in which the plaintiff was defendant.”

[18] That privilege is narrow: “The Senators and Representatives . . . shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”  The privilege is against arrest—not civil liability—does not extend to felonies or treason, or “breach of the peace”— a misdemeanor.  Arrest outside of “Session” is permitted, and members maybe “questioned” for activity other than “speech or debate.”  Tenney at 377 (citing Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880) (false imprisonment not privileged); Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917).  Even so limited Jefferson was fearful of the power it gave legislators.  Tenney at 375.  Hamilton was not so fearful of “the least dangerous branch”—because it exercised no similar liberty. The Federalist No. 78 (A. Hamilton) (1788).

[19] See Separation of powers Minn. Const. Art 3, sec 1.

[20] Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1074 (1991).

[21] Minnesota Constitution, Article 1. sec. 8 provides:

Redress of injuries or wrongs.

Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.

[22] “The entire social and political structure of America rests upon the cornerstone that all men have certain rights which are inherent and inalienable.  Among these are the right to be protected in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the right to acquire, possess and enjoy property; and the right to establish a home and family relations—all under equal and impartial laws which govern the whole community and each member thereof… The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens exist notwithstanding there is no specific enumeration thereof in State Constitutions.”  Theide at 226-27, 14 NW 2d at 406.

[23] See Note, Liability of Judicial Officers Under Section 1983, 79 YALE L.J. 322, 337 (1969) (“Yale Note”).

[24] See also Yale Note at 327-328.

[25] Cong. Globe, 42nd Cong., 1st Sess. 60 (App.) (1871); Yale Note at 327.

[26] Yale Note at 327.

[27] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 1758 (1866) (remarks of Senator Trumbull); Yale Note at 328.

[28] See also Yale Note at 328 and references to additional consistent comments in n. 38.  “On three occasions during the debates, legislators explicitly stated that judges would be liable under the [1871] Act.  No one denied the statements.”  “In sum, the question of congressional intent seems relatively clear: there was no universal acceptance of the broad English immunity rule in 1871, and the only legislative history available supports the proposition that Congress intended Section 1983 to cover judges.”  Yale Note at 328. Yale Note’s 1969 author left open the door that “the legislative history does not preclude entirely the Court’s construction of the statute if the policy reasons for judicial immunity are sufficiently persuasive.”  That “policy reasons” door was closed eleven years later in Malley.

[29] Congress’ intent to hold judges accountable is recorded as recently as 1979 by the 96th Congress:

[Section 1983] is an essential element of an extraordinary series of congressional enactments that transformed the relationship between the Federal Government and its constituent parts.  [T]he very purpose of the 1983 was to interpose the Federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s Federal rights—to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of State law, whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.

Statement of Representative David A. Clarke, Chairperson, Committee on Judiciary, Government of the District of Columbia on the  Act of Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284, PL 170 LH, 1st Sess. (Dec. 29, 1979) (emphasis added).







Angel’s Story, for Little Angel Buddy (Video)

Angel’s Story, for Little Angel Buddy


Cleburne, Texas


Photo Source: Courtesy of Family and WFAA


Testimony to the Texas Sunset Commission for Department of Family and Protective Services for the “state of Texas”

Click on the link below or otherwise cut and pastor manually enter into your browser to watch and to hear how Texas “protected” little angel Buddy Cook when they lied–omitted and misrepresented to cause injury and harm to a little boy–about his medical history prior to his passing one morning for  which they wrongfully and deliberately charged Buddy’s loving adoptive mother, Angel Cook and he/r husband, David.  This lead to a year of He___ ___ (double hockey stick) for Angel, David, and their seven healthy children, minus little angel, Buddy, but a lifetime more.  Pictures of Buddy readily available on the public Internet show a beautiful, lovable, adorable little boy who was much adored.  To Buddy’s  mommies, so sorry for your loss, and the world’s.

The world must know that hundreds of thousands of mothers and children, and not just adoptive families, are intentionally and recklessly made to endure and survive the same hostility and destructive retribution from terrorist cell called child protective services, social services, or, just commonly “CPS.”  We survive with you, Angel, without our children from our own bodies–real, private property.


Unlike Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors which monitors DPSS, the local version of child protective and social services, Texas does not compensate or “settle” with its intended grant and funding, state “victims.”  But remember that you are not a victim, but rather a survivor as “victims” legally get “protected,” even when it hurts, is completely unnecessary, and sometimes kills innocent children and families.



Click on the link to read more details about Angel and Buddy Cook and their family in Texas at:



Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • (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 incorporated 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 for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently, and lawfully.

Prohibition From Identifying Children

Parents Rights Blog

Prohibition From Identifying Children

Increase Transparency In The Family Courts

The Court of Appeal has decided that the prohibition from identifying children which section 97 of the Children Act 1989provides only applies whilst the proceedings relating to the child in question are in progress. Once the proceedings have concluded, the protection given by the Act comes to an end, the entitlement to anonymity thereafter being dependent upon an exercise in balancing the Convention rights of those involved.

Although statistics are published about cases that pass through the courts, these in their nature cannot answer claims that abuses of the system are not identified and that there are effectively no quality controls.


SIR JAMES MUNBY : Hearing date : 27 June 2013 On an Application by : local authority (Staffordshire County Council)

This case raises…

View original post 842 more words

US SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, HOUSTON DIVISION HAS Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Try Constitutional Parental Civil Rights Case, Unpublished|US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Joni Faith Saloom v. Cheryl Harvick (sued in individual and official capacity, program supervisor, Brazoria County CPS), Paul Elton (sued in individual and official capacity, police officer, City of Pearland, Brazoria County), William Lilly (sued in individual and official capacity, police officers, Harris County Sheriff’s Office/Harris County/Harris County Office of Risk Management), Lesly Damian-Murray (sued in individual and official capacity, caseworker, Brazoria County CPS), Karen Coblentz (sued in individual and official capacity, program director, Brazoria County CPS), City of Pearland (sued in official capacity, a municipality), Brazoria County CPS, division of Department of Family and Protective Services/DFPS (sued in official capacity, county defendant)in this Monell Claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C., sections 1983, 1985(3) for violation, deprivation, and conspiracy against Federal (US) Constitutional rights of Joni Faith Saloom, being natural (wo)man, individually and also on behalf of Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy SaloomJ.J.W.,” being little  natural  man born of “Joni Faith Saloom’s” natural vessel, born on he/r waters, he/r property, living and corporeal body imbued with the Spirit of the Creator, ALMIGHTY GOD, both natural, American US “citizens,” beings “sovereign” and “elect” in nature, spirit, and essence



Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(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 incorporated 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 for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Halt the Adoption Drive – Forced Adoption Exposed Jan 2015 (VIDEO, 6 MIN.)

This is the exact same model in the U.S.A. right now. The court affiliates in Connecticut, for example as reported to me by another individual, just sent out memo informing that they would be “removing” sixty percent (60%) more children this year (2015).

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • (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 incorporated 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 for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Julian Just Found These on Accident|Missing You, Love Your Real Mommy

Dear Julian,

I just found these searching for your name on the Internet.  I haven’t seen any video of you before.  I sat paralyzed in the middle of the night, unable to sleep thinking of you, and unable to cry, yet fascinated and gripped at the same time with the most bittersweet, haunting shivers that reminded me of being in labor with you and getting the uncontrollable shivers, your little soul about to be born through me, your real mummy.  Words cannot express how much I miss you every second of every day. I call, but nobody will answer the only phone number I have and the only one I always had when you were with “DaddyTX.”  They have always purposefully refused to answer the phone ever since you were a baby when I generously let them have all the time they wanted with you, and encouraged it, even after the kidnappings at least once a year since you were twelve days old.  We did nothing to deserve this.  This is not our fault, as you once asked.  I am watching over you right here where I will remain until the Lord, the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost, makes me leave, but I hope that is not for a very long time, my little angel.

It’s Almost Christmas, Already, How do I Get You Presents?  You Will be Eight Years Old Next Month, Halfwaythrough Second Grade, and I’ve Been Forced to Miss it All, Got Your Latest Report Card and Interim Report Card from Ms. Hengel’s Class, Though; Come Home to Mommy, You Can Always Come Home, My Little Jewel!  I Think and Dream of Nothing Else.  Sitting Still and Waiting for the Lord–The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…until You Come Home and We Both Wake Up From this Foggy Nightmare…Haunted by Your Smile and Your Little Laugh, the Giggle that I Could Bottle Right Up, and then There are the Sunflowers and Sunflower Fields and Patches I Sometimes See and Think of You and Smile and Close My Eyes to Hold Onto the Memories  I Can’t Believe Anyone Would Do This, But They Did…A lot of Them, I Want You Raised Around Loving People, the Kind Who Love Unconditionally, No Matter What, Like the Love Mommy and Jesus Have for You… You Deserve That, Every Child Does, So Why Are they Keeping that From You if They Had Any Good in Them, I Wonder to Myself, Puzzling…It Doesn’t Make Any Sense…Something Feels Very Wrong, But So Strange I Can’t Put My Finger On It…Empty Souls?  Pod People?  What Feels So Strange About this Set-up?  So Surreal, Beyond Surreal.  How Has it Been Over Two and One Half Years, Julian, and Yet I am Still Fighting The Only Way I Know How for You…Deadline, Gotta Write…Good Things Are Coming This Year 2015!  I Can’t Believe They Stole Primary School From Us, and They Don’t Even Appreciate it Like I Do, They Couldn’t Possibly.  We are Not Alone, Pumpkin.  The Mommies are Making a Come Back This Year.  This is the Year of the Protective Parents and Their Little Children




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbofyaapNEw&feature=player_detailpage(DaddyTX MVI 0207)






Julian singing I’ve Been Working on the Railroad with Half Mohawk at Daddy’s



Julian at Discovery Green Fountain with Daddy








Danielle La Verite on the Richie Allen Show

 Danielle La Verite on the Richie Allen Show

Says Danielle, “I want people to see that they should be laughing in the faces of these people [social workers who steal children].”


Source:  The Richie Allen ShowDanielle La Verite – The System Is Stealing Kids From Loving Parents, Uploaded to Youtube.com by Richie Allen on November 21, 2014

September 26, 2014

Mom Says NO to School System Intimidation


chalkboard noHeather Callaghan, Contributor
Waking Times

And Common Purpose, and the threat of Social Services…

This British mum smacks down the punishing culture of the public school system . She gives a chilling account of what happened when her son was given confusing commands, humiliated in front of class, brought to tears and trauma and how it was covered up with a false accusation towards him from the system. She didn’t just take to YouTube, however – she confronted them. Their response? See.

Most chilling – are the eerie similarities between the British school system and North American – coincidence? [*Language Warning*]

She also explores “the Bullying phenomenon” – where is it coming from ? Where do children spend most of their time? It’s hard to miss the irony here when discussing an intimidation scenario on the part of school faculty.

And, lastly, she alludes to Common Purpose. Officially, it poses as a charity for “leadership development” education and networking, but people in the UK (including teachers) have noticed a menacing and secretive force trickling into all facets of society that wreak of Common Purpose, since 1985. Danielle La Verite, in the video above, is detecting the language of Common Purpose in the school system. Its founder was allegedly inspired by similar, American leadership development groups (bootcamps), which I might add also make their way into the school and religious systems here.

Fair Use Notice and Legal Disclaimer:

(1) This post is made in good faith.

(2) This post is expressly and solely intended for the purpose(s) of generalized knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment value.  Author of this post is not aware of any copyright information, thus, logically, anyone wishing to use any of the information posted herein for commercial or profitable use must research and contact to procure permission to use from the copyright owners themselves.

(3) This post is protected by the First Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and Bill of Rights via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment with regard to freedom of speech, expression, and to freely associate.

(4) Standard Youtube license applies.

(5)  If any individual requires or desires modification or retraction, contact the Author of this post and blog, Julian’s Real Mummy by clicking on profile, and she shall be happy to honor all lawful and reasonable good faith requests or requirements in a manner most expedient.

(6) The content on this blog is also protected pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 107, to the best of Author’s current knowledge.

Many thanks to all the contributors and producers of the information shared!  Keep fighting the “Good Fight” and researching!  Cheers!


June 17, 2008

PA- Smithfield man sues county CYS

6-17-2008 Pennsylvania:

A Smithfield man has sued Fayette County Children and Youth Services on Monday, claiming that the agency had no right to remove his children – ages 5, 6 and 8 – from him in 2006.

A caseworker took the children from the 29-year-old man’s home during an investigation into his relationship with a 16-year-old girl who sometimes baby-sat the children.

The man, referred to as John Doe in the suit, and the 16-year-old, identified only as K.K., both told a CYS caseworker that they waited until she was 16 to have a physical relationship, according to the suit, filed in federal court in Pittsburgh. The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16.

Also filed was a request for a temporary restraining order that would return Doe’s children to him.

The suit, filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania attorney Sara Rose, indicated the man never was accused of abusing his own children, and asks a judge to order their immediate return.

“My kids are my whole life and I just want them back,” Doe is quoted as saying in an ACLU-issued press release about the suit.

Rose said that CYS “abused its power to place children in state custody by removing these children from their father, even though the children never have been abused and are in no danger of abuse.

“As a result, Doe has had no contact with his children for almost a year, and has not lived with his children for almost two years. That is time with his children that he will never get back,” Rose said.

The children have lived with Doe’s parents since September 2006, and Doe has had no communication with them since August 2007.

“Even parents convicted of abusing their children often are allowed more contact with their children than plaintiff,” Rose contended in the suit.

According to the filing, Doe got involved with K.K. in 2006, after she turned 16.

K.K. also acted as a baby sitter for the Doe children, according to the complaint, and Doe and K.K. have known one another “for a number of years through family connections.”

The suit indicated that Doe and K.K. “deliberately waited” until K.K. turned 16 to initiate a sexual relationship because they called the Crime Victims Center of Fayette County to inquire about the age of consent in Pennsylvania.

K.K.’s mother found out about the relationship and called police in September 2006, Rose indicated.

“The police declined to press charges against plaintiff because engaging in a consensual sexual relationship with a 16-year-old is not a crime under Pennsylvania law,” Rose wrote.

The legal standards that police and CYS apply to cases differ.

K.K.’s mother also contacted CYS, the suit alleged, and a caseworker initiated an investigation. During that investigation, they both admitted to having a sexual relationship after K.K. turned 16, according to the complaint.

In November 2006, a letter from CYS informed Doe that the agency had determined there was “substantial evidence” that he sexually abused K.K. Doe appealed in January 2007, the suit indicated. The state Department of Public Welfare heard the appeal in November 2007, and has not yet rendered a decision.

The suit indicated a caseworker called Doe on Sept. 22, 2006, and asked if there was anywhere his three children could stay during a 60-day CYS investigation into the investigations into the allegations that he abused K.K.

If there was nowhere for the children to stay, the caseworker told Doe that they would have to go into foster care, the suit alleged.

Doe sent the children to stay with his parents, according to the suit. He was allowed supervised visits by CYS, the suit indicated, and visited with them daily until Aug. 1, 2007.

That day, another caseworker came to Doe’s parents’ home with two state troopers and said she believed he was having unsupervised visits with his children.

That caseworker threatened to remove the Doe children unless plaintiff’s mother signed a plan that forbade Doe’s parents from allowing the children to have any contact with the plaintiff, the suit alleged.

Neither caseworker told Doe or his mother what their rights were, Rose alleged.

On Aug. 2, 2007, a third caseworker told Doe’s mother that he could not talk to his children unless he completed a sex-offender treatment program.

Doe indicated in the suit that he attended one sex-offender class, but stopped after learning that one of the requirements was admitting that he was a perpetrator of sexual abuse.

“Plaintiff refuses to state that he is a perpetrator of sexual abuse, as he disputes defendants’ claim that his relationship with K.K. constituted sexual abuse under the law and contests defendants’ contention that he is a perpetrator as that term is defined in the Child Protective Services Act,” the suit stated.

The suit indicated that CYS closed the case and indicated that it is the agency’s policy that because Doe is believed to be a sexual abuser that he cannot have any contact with his children.

Doe, according to the suit, is the children’s’ legal guardian since June 2005, when he and their mother separated. Their mother has been a psychiatric patient at Torrance State Hospital in Torrance since February 2008.

U.S. District Judge Donetta W. Ambrose has been assigned the case. ..News Source.. by Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard


Source:  Re-Posted/Re-Blogged from Attorney Greg B. Enos’ blog, Divorce Reality, http://www.divorcereality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Franklin-billed-for-lawyer-work-after-she-became-a-judge.pdf (See also The Mongoose at http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs152/1109660142763/archive/1111480413874.html

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(1) This post is made in good faith and for the purpose of the public good and trust in the furtherance of liberty and justice for all denied and deprived.

(2) If any individual should require or wish retraction or modification in part or in full for good cause, contact the author of this post and blog for reasonable and lawful, efficient, equitable relief.

(3) Copyright information, if any, is unknown to Author of this blog, but the information contained herein is expressly not intended for commercial or profitable financial gain.  Rather, it is posted solely for general knowledge, academic research and statistics, and/or for entertainment value pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Section 107.


Ella Wheeler Wilcox (from Poems of Purpose, 1916)

“To sin by silence, when we should protest,
Makes cowards out of men. The human race
Has climbed on protest. Had no voice been raised
Against injustice, ignorance and lust,
The Inquisition yet would serve the law,
And guillotines decide our least disputes.
The few who dare, must speak and speak again
To right the wrongs of many”…..

“Together, attorneys can improve our family courts!”

In this Issue
Count One: Submitting CPS Pay Vouchers That Simply Cannot Be True

Count Two: Billing for CPS Work After She Became Judge

Count Three: Accepting a Campaign Contribution From a Party to a Case She Was The Amicus Attorney On

Count Four: Billing for Non-Lawyer Tasks Such as “Post Office Runs”

Count Five: Falsely Asking to be “Re-Elected”

Enos Schools County Auditor and Harangues County Judge Emmett

Alicia Franklin Became a Judge on June 13, 2014, the Date of her Secret Swearing In Ceremony
Judicial Candidate Forum and Seminar
The bi-partisan group, Family Lawyers for Good Judges, is sponsoring a debate between all of the candidates for family courts in contested elections in Harris County on September 12, 2014. Here is the information on this event:
Date and Time: Friday, September 12, 2014 – 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Location: South Texas College of Law, Joe Green Auditorium, 4th Floor, 1303 San Jacinto St., Houston TX 77002

Cost: $150.00; 25% discount for Associate Members; Full Members are free of charge, Box lunch included

CLE: 4.0 hours, 1.0 hour ethics included

Click here to download the registration form for this event.

Click here to download the membership form to join this group. Click here for the group’s by-laws.

The folks putting on this event want to make it clear – Greg Enos has absolutely nothing to do with their organization or this candidate forum.

Count Four: Billing for Non-Lawyer Tasks Such as “Post Office Runs”

Alicia Franklin billed the county for one hour of work on May 6, 2014 in Cause No. 2014-02035J for “prepare letter to client, prepare to mail and post office run.” In Cause No. 2008-02442J, Franklin billed a quarter of an hour twice for “post office run” on April 10 and May 19, 2014. Attorneys simply do not bill their clients for running to the post office and Harris County tax payers should not be charged for such work either.

On May 1, 2014, Franklin billed the county in Cause No. 2013-41503 a quarter of an hour to e-file a document. She did the same thing on May 7, 2014 in Cause No. 2013-39931 when she charged a quarter of an hour for “e-filed affidavit.”  Again, this is something clerical staff do in most law offices and I have never heard of lawyers billing clients for that sort of work.

Franklin also billed the county frequently for merely printing documents, something attorneys or their clerical staff do simply by pushing a button. I have never heard of attorneys charging clients to print documents. In Cause No. 2011-04867-J, on May 5, 2014, for example, Franklin billed the county for 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to print a CPS report on what must be a really slow printer and then Franklin, on the same day, billed the county one hour to review the same report. It would be a very rare CPS report that was more than 6 – 8 pages long and an average reader can read such reports in ten minutes or less. Attorneys should not bill the county to just print documents.

Click here to see these examples of Franklin billing for non-lawyer work.

Tax payers should not pay attorneys to print documents, e-file pleadings, lick envelopes or drive to the post office to put envelopes in the mail box. These amazing time entries are proof that the CPS lawyers submitting invoices have no shame and no fear of their bills being reviewed. It is definite proof that the judges do not even read the time entries being submitted before they approve them for payment.
Count Five: Falsely Asking to be “Re-Elected”

Someone actually reads this little newsletter. Sherri Cothrun complained that Alicia Franklin was improperly using the phrase,”Re-Elect Alicia Franklin” on her website, but the naive Chronicle editor thought Cothrun was just being picky and “hyper technical.” Franklin apparently saw no need to change her web site after their Monday meeting with the Houston Chronicle editorial board.

However, after my newsletter that pointed this “re-elect versus keep” problem out was published last Thursday, Franklin quickly changed her website.

Franklin’s problem is that it was simply not true and it was unethical for her to ask to be “re-elected” if she has never been elected in the first place. I checked with the Commission on Judicial Conduct and confirmed that an appointed judge cannot use the phrase “re-elect” (they also cannot falsely claim to be a Rhodes Scholar or to have flown on the space shuttle either). The Code of Judicial Conduct applies to JUDGE Franklin just as it does to all judicial candidates. Canon 5,(1)(ii), says,”a judge or judicial candidate shall not knowingly or recklessly misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact concerning the candidate…”

Anyone with political experience would have known that an appointed judge cannot ask voters to “re-elect” her, so this was not a mistake. Franklin’s team has plenty of political experience. However, the common thread you should see running through all of the articles in this newsletter is this: a smart person is making the sleazy choice and expecting to not get caught or called out on it.

A judge telling the truth to voters and knowing the rules and following them does not just involve a “hyper-technical” application of some rule. A judge in family court has to apply “hyper-technical” rules of law to parents and parties and sometimes punish people who do not follow the rules.

The arrogance of the attitude that “the Republicans are going to sweep this election so no one is going to care what we do” is wrong and disgusting. That was almost verbatim what I was told when I first broke the news to the Franklin camp of the distressing stories in this newsletter.

I have yet to hear anything like “Oh my gosh, if we screwed up we will get to the bottom of it, and apologize and make it right.” When I called out Judge Meca Walker for accepting $20,000 in improper campaign contributions last Fall, she immediately recognized the error, apologized and returned the money. That is what a person who cares about right and wrong does.

Enos Schools County Auditor and Harangues County Judge Emmett

Lawyers are stealing tax payer dollars and the system in place at Harris County allows it. Here are the problems:

1. A paper based system from the 1950’s is still in use. Lawyers fill out the pay vouchers by hand, the judges sign the vouchers and then they go to the County Auditor, who pays the amounts approved by the judges, no questions asked.

2. A judge, who may approve dozens of pay vouchers a week, cannot see what an attorney is billing in other cases in that same court or in other courts.

3. No one until me ever took a mass of vouchers from one single attorney and extracted the fees charged on all cases for a particular day to see what the attorney is billing the county for on that day. This is how Alicia Franklin got busted billing 23.5 hours in one day. If I can “audit” vouchers, why can’t the County Auditor?

4. The real problem is that no one has any incentive to closely monitor the CPS pay system. The judges are picking their pals for the appointments and therefore obviously want them to make money. The attorneys do not want their vouchers audited either. They have figured out that they can make a lot of money by submitting almost any hours they can make up and no one is ever going to care or catch them.

The simple solution is to go to an all electronic reporting system, like the State makes candidates use for reporting campaign contributions. Candidates must enter their information into a database program that automatically uploads the data to the State database that we can all search. Click here to see just how searchable the Texas Ethics Commission campaign finance database is.

The county should make ALL billing and pay information for appointed attorneys viewable on line by everyone, including judges and reporters. Our family and juvenile judges should demand that all court appointments and all fees for appointed attorneys be reported. Simple transparency will eliminate a lot of the abuses.

It would also help if our County Auditor actually audited some attorney vouchers on a random basis to keep everyone honest. However, the County Auditor is hired, fired and managed by the district judges of Harris County. How gung ho will the auditor be to audit the CPS invoices her bosses have already approved?

Lastly, we need to replace every single judge involved in this dirty CPS court appointment business, which is about three judges in the family courts and at least two of the three juvenile courts.

The children and tax payers of Harris County deserve better!
Alicia Franklin Became a Judge on June 13, 2014, the Date of Her Secret Swearing In
Alicia Franklin was appointed Judge of the 311th District Court by Governor Perry on June 13, 2014. That same day, Franklin had her friend and mentor, Judge Lisa Millard, swear her in as judge in a private ceremony. I soon heard that Franklin had been sworn in but no one would tell me the details. I asked Franklin’s fiance, Doug York, and he would not tell me, so I really became interested. I e-mailed Judge David Farr and District Clerk Chris Daniel and even Doug York and Alicia Franklin, but Farr and Daniel did not know and it took a while for me to learn the truth from Franklin and her fiance. At the time, I could not fathom why the exact date Franklin took office was a secret. Now that I see Franklin was billing the county for CPS lawyer work she did from June 13 – June 17, I think I understand.

Doug York e-mailed me on June 18 and said, in part:

However, since not knowing is driving you crazy the Doug York in me now wants to keep you guessing and apparently very frustrated…..

But alas, here’s a clue…..on the day she got the call from the Gov it would make sense to get sworn in by another family court judge she’s friends with now wouldn’t it…..but of course I’m not divulging anything as I am merely the small minion, a cog in the proverbial wheel….

On June 24, Franklin herself e-mailed me:

From: Alicia K. Franklin
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:29 PM
To: Greg Enos
Subject: Responding to your email of June 17
Hi Greg,
It has been amazing sitting as Judge of the 311th. Things are moving along and we are moving in the right direction. I look forward to seeing you in the 311th.
I wanted to follow up with you regarding the swearing in and upcoming investiture however I was waiting for confirmation that the ceremonial court was available at the date and time certain.
I was sworn in the day of my appointment by the Governor, June 13th, by Judge Lisa Millard. There will be a public ceremony that will take place in the ceremonial courtroom on the 17th floor of the civil courthouse on Friday, August 15, 2014 at noon with a catered reception to follow in the courtroom adjacent the ceremonial courtroom on the 17th floor.
. . . .

I obtained a copy of the oath of office Franklin signed on June 13, 2014 from the Secretary of State:
There can be no doubt, Franklin became a judge on June 13.

Attorney Greg Enos has been through his own divorce and child custody battle (he won) and understands what his clients are going through. Enos graduated from the University of Texas Law School and was a very successful personal injury attorney in Texas City before he decided his true calling was to help families in divorce and child custody cases. Greg Enos is active in politics and in Clear Lake area charities. He has served as President of the Bay Area Bar Association and President of the Board of Interfaith Caring Ministries.
Attorney Greg Enos

SOURCE: The Mongoose , Attorney Greg B. Enos; see also Divorce Reality Blog

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • (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 incorporated 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 for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Comments Tori Kelly song “Lullabye” Rendition







Top Lawyers in USA…

Top Lawyers in USA…

…Currently Known In at Least One Case or More to Have Demonstrated Rare Ability, Competence, Knowledge, Experience, and Real Integrity,  and to Have Acted in the RealBest Interests” of His or Her Client(s) as a Matter of “Best Practice,” When Construed in Light Most Favorable to Said Clients:

1.   Michelle MacDonald, Minnesota Family Law Attorney Experienced  in  Higher Matters Appealed to the US Supreme Court (See Grazzini-Rucki Petition to US Supreme Court)–Give em’ He _ _ (double     hockey stick), Michelle,..!; a Real Defender; Family Innocence Project Founder, Recently nominated for Minnesota Supreme Court (was a shoe-in until she took one for the proverbial team “fighting the ‘Good’ Fight” with us wrongfully and unconstitutionally, among other things, deprived mothers–property owners being natural women–and children, rather, little natural male or female property which is not a mere “creature of the state” (quoting Pierce v. Society of Sisters, I believe, without double-checking and just rattled off the top of my head)).

2.  Shawn McMillan, San Diego Attorney who Defended Deanna Fogarty-Hardwick and her two daughters in a Juvenile Dependency Case that Yielded $ 9.6 Million Dollar Exemplary Jury Award (interest and attorney’s fees with lodestar included in awarded amount);

3. Gregory A. Hession, Massachusetts attorney experienced in a wide range of litigation from family or juvenile court defense to complex  Federal R.I.C.O. causes of action (go to http://www.massoutrage.com/ma for more information regarding certain matters of “protection“);

4.  Colbern/Cole Stuart of California Coalition for Families and Children (“Croix’s Dad”), a fatherhas demonstrated Spartan-like passion, persistence, expertise, and subject matter knowledge regarding families, children, and in promoting, at least, the appearance of justice, fairness, equality vital to the public trust.  Mr. Stuart and his most dedicated team are currently carving out a path less traveled with regard to a Federal R.I.C.O. cause of action against the San Diego Bar Association and the entire Southern California Domestic Dispute Industry (See Weightier Matters.com for more on this noble matter; also, See Matthew 23:13-23:23, The Holy Bible, real versions)…even though I do think he, for rational reasons of being victimized by legal abuse, misses the mark on the direction of “social-economic policy” disguised as federally funded misogyny or the appearance of such to promote profitable conflict between man and his originally intended companion that has clearly resulted in the destruction of  the real America, families, morals, and religious values and beliefs, or gender-neutral race to the barred courthouse door in high-conflict cases in which the first parent, usually the sociopath and narcissist with the deeper pockets, to file a false, perjured, sworn, malicious affidavit with zero facts, evidence, or notice to the unfortunate good parent who would not run to the government for “help” or “protection” if they possessed sufficient knowledge of consequences,… or otherwise a cruel, Nazi-Socialist/Communist, special agency- rooted  and malevolent experiment with motherless homes intended as its next conflict of convenience, as the fatherless home experiment has apparently already been tested with recorded results.

  5.  Arch Cunningham of the Cantil-Sakauye class-action brief against the California vexatious litigant statute(s), filed on behalf of parents wronged

6.  Joy Berchand, esq., LLC, defense attorney in Arizona and Wisconsin, defended Theola Nealy in Nealy v. Peter Nelson in Wisconsin in a civil rights case against social worker who impregnated Nealy, tried to force her to have an abortion, she refused, and then he “removed” her baby and had her rights terminated, conspiracy and deprivation of rights under the color of law (42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985(2), and 1986–The Civil Rights Act of 1964, re-codified from The Civil Rights Act of 1871). Update on Nealy case: Federal Jury just awarded Neely $1,050,000.00 (she was asking for $15 million as the Federal courts cannot decide “state” custody issues, so the only place Nealy can see her beautiful daugher is on Facebook from pictures posted by Mr. Rapist social worker who lives with his wife, Donna and also fathers a child allegedly between the two of them).  Nelsen took the baby by claiming that Neely was “mentally ill” evidence of his facial and substantive guilt beyond a preponderance of evidence, and capitalized on a state-issued, social worker interpreted and scored psychological exam.  If she was mentally ill and not able to handle her own affairs in the eyes of the “state,” then why wasn’t Nelsen prosecuted for sexual assault of an incapacitated or disabled person, as there is a Wisconsin statute for that as well?

7. Dean Browning Webb/a.k.a. “RICO MAN,” former co-counsel for Plaintiffs California Coalition for Families and Children, Inc. v. San Diego County Bar Association and Lexevia, PC, Law Offices of Dean Browning Webb, 515 E. 39th Street, Vancouver, Washington 9863-2240, ricoman1968@aol.com 6; (503) 629-2176

8.  Colleen Kerwick, Esq., Connecticut lawyer

9.  Mark Ankorn, recently filed class action lawsuit with Shawn McMillan against Riverside County, CA DPSS

10.  One might try Ty Clevenger in Texas, although he may be moving.  He secured a $300,000 judgment for a mother in Oklahoma who sat in jail for fourteen months after he/r small child made allegations of sexual abuse against the father and they tried to say she abused it for taking for a sexual assault exam, similar to author of this post.  And of course CPS and the courts tried to make he/r appear “crazy.”

11.   Irwin Ironstone,  Lawyer, Florida (U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals), Highly Experienced and Knowledgeable!  See his Writ of Cert. on SCOTUS (from US First Circuit Court of Appeals, I believe).

12.  Stephen Daner, “Streefighter of the Year Award 2014 Finalist” in Southern California

13.  Bill Scheidler,  lawyer in Washington “State,” recently  gave it a good run for Legislative District 26 and I believe is fighting for families and children by filing a R.I.C.O. suit against the WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON (SEE CORRUPT WA.COM FOR DETAILS).

14.  Greg Roberts, NYC lawyer, President of Family Civil Liberties Union (“FCLU”), responsive, a rare gem of a quality, especially in these days

Worst Family Law Practicing Attorneys or Lawyers in the U.S.A.

(Metric Based on Degree of Harm to Mothers and Children, Based on Firsthand, Actual, Legal Knowledge and Witness and Testimony, Circumstantial and Demonstrative Evidence as Opposed to Multiple Party Hearsay as Practiced Below, Among Many Other Crimes as state law is Federal law!)

…Demonstrated to Have Not Acted in the Constitutionally Protected Best Interests of the little male or female property and property-owning natural woman from whose body corporeal said property sprung on her waters through her “vessel,”  “imbued with the divine spirit”…”Almighty,” sovereign and elect from whom all Original Jurisdiction Being Real Founding Father Flows Naturally  (This post is made in good faith with exemplary deterrence as a guiding positive law contribution to all relevant key stakeholders and community partners for sustainability as a natural family the bonds of which no man may properly loose or bind by their very divine and sovereign spiritual nature….

1.  Julia Lovorn, Houston, Texas, plays real dirty…in court and out of court and encourages parental and paternal grandparent kidnapping of infant and then calling police on mother fresh out of an emergency C-section, the birth of which and pregnancy, was abandoned completely by father and said paternal baby-snatching, vexatious single grandmother who cps handed child over to in 2012 after they called cps and police on mother for  5 1/2 years…in spite of their $100,000 trial attorneys in 2007 paternity suit

2.  Ricardo/”Rick” Ramos of Law Offices of Ramos & Fritzsch, Houston, Texas, staff member of his actually heard calling client’s adversary, a mother of five daughters, a “bit_ _” to mother’s attorney in front of mother in typical discrediting guilty fashion and a quite uncouth twang’ rather cacophonous for a jury’s liking I would imagine (this, a high priced firm with Ramos being a former juvenile or family court associate judge in the 308th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas who literally didn’t know how to write or execute a well-written state court appellate brief….in Houston….in Texas (the worst of the worst, of the worst); plays super “dirty” …in court, will defend anyone and take whatever abominable and horrific measures to child’s extreme peril and harm now being litigated in a federal action which included kidnapping, transporting across “state” lines into Utah and secreting and sequestering a straight A, honor roll student who volunteered and worked with sick children and rode horses in her spare time in condition of involuntary servitude, never telling mom where daughter was in residential treatment center known for abusing children and in fact prosecuting mother for allegedly making a “false” missing child report which the D.A. followed through with on zero evidence and actually coerced a family law stipulation as a condition of dismissal in criminal court in Harris County (See Judge Harmon’s role in that); Author is eyewitness to (Hon.) Judge Jim York in the 246th Court of Harris County, Texas playing court theater with Ramos in a bizarre sort of ballet that cannot be less than ethical and, in retaliation for mother’s state appeal of judge’s decision, threatening, indirectly, to take the house that he took credit for granting to her in a divorce in the first place or that she should otherwise sell it and hire a lawyer;

3.   John Nichols, Sr., Houston, Texas, These Nichols boys play the dirtiest for $650/hr. and appear to be miracle workers who have never lost a case or met a judge who didn’t worship them, especially Judge Lisa A. Millard, elected continuously and without any competition possibly from copious $20,000 flat fee bribes or ransom fees that may or may not be disguised as judicial campaign donations, the two speak and moderate continuing learning education seminars together such as “Keeping it In, and Keeping it Out,” referring to keeping evidence out-of-the-record, but then again, one is not permitted to even have a quote on a transcript if one is not represented by a high priced lawyer in Millard’s court of Pharisees, scribes, unholy unions, and hypocrites, appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry as Adjutant General–Commander-in-Chief of Texas Forces in “Domestic” Emergencies; advertises that he employs CPS supervisors on his staff or “team” at his Law Offices with twelve years experience, also uses dirty private investigators; brags about ability to “acquire” the other side’s attorneys

4.  Bo Nichols, Jr., Houston, Texas, “Leadership” for Burta Rhodes Rayburn (American) Inn of Family Court with Conrad Moren, Associate Judge (appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry, conferring executive ‘immunity’ under Coast Guard powers) of the 310th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas in Houston)), wins every case for his male/father clients, but, based on former female client’s firsthand account, even his exorbitant and equal, non gender-biased fees got them nowhere in court; John Nichols’ son; not to be trusted

5.  Donna Everson, sinecure, court-appointed guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem for children in termination of parental rights cases instituted by cps and fathers who have recently gotten married to solicit stepparent adoption (within earshot of the mother…in open court…with no shame); never interviewed mother and in fact blocked all access to her; wouldn’t allow Judge Lisa Millard to let fit mother never alleged unfit who was previously the only consistent caretaker of healthy, happy, highly intelligent and well-groomed child property and who was a former educator, her life’s passion…but then the social worker who retaliated entered a “substantiated” claim for emotional abuse and neglectful parenting against mother for refusing to cover-up child’s allegations of sexual abuse against father as may have been a conspiracy with father’s private “play therapist,” Kimberly A. Abernethy of Houston, Texas (who is licensed by Department of Family and Protective Services for state of Texas), accused mother of “hearing voices” in her “head” upon being civilly confronted by said real property owner to little male whom she deprived of birthday gifts from his mother that she was orally ordered upon mother’s motion to deliver to child his first year away from mother (for no reason) to walk her only little male property to his first day of kindergarten, ordered over a year of no contact whatsoever with mother with no reason cited or written report, ever, even upon request, refused to let child age 6 testify as was his declared in writing (Children’s Bill of Rights) right to speak to judge in developmentally appropriate manner; a pernicious and evil beast or HARPY fit for HE_ _ (double hockey stick), had three court-appointed attorneys for mother refuse to represent mother, citing conflict of interest but not communicating the why of the deferral to either judge causing them to record for all to see in Judge’s notes forever afterward that mother “difficult,” etc….;

6.  (Ms.) Ronnie Harrison, Harrison Law Offices, Houston, Texas, another sinecure top campaign contributor to Judge Lisa Millard (like Everson, consistently over past five plus years, in top 3 contributors out of a long list), Kids for Cash cps advocate for indigent parent property-owning pre-determined “loser” in any given child property contest initiated by a “Responsible” Father, her paralegal accused mother of making false allegation of child sexual abuse against father, actually reprimanding her for it, childless, claimed to not know who the ACLU was or what they did when mother mentioned them, fake files motions that she never filed..without orders, font on anything she types larger than kindergartner handwriting, actually yelled at mother that she had “paying customers” whose cases she had to work on,  told mother it would “be easier to get your kid back if you were a drug addict;” best friends with dual-role court-appointed GAL/AAL for child/cps, Donna Everson, Harrison former municipal court judge or associate judge

7.  Bruce Allen Buskirk, Houston, Texas, helped father er steal child in bad faith, a legal kidnapper who, like Rothenberg, completely emasculated a mother who would soon be forced to defend her property but was not noticed, conspired with cps when he knew mother had dutifully taken child for sexual assault exam at Children’s Hospital as per police officers command, as per CPS statewide intake hotline supervisor suggested making police report, and where child’s doctor wouldn’t even see child but rather demanded mother hang up and call cps hotline because he was going to have to based on child’s allegations when mother called to make and appointment to go in just to be on the safe side for a check based upon child’s bizarre allegations against father and “The Visitor”; condescending, not a trial attorney, appears to have been best buddies with mobile man on demand, the preferred and only provider of on demand, in-court substance abuse testing, although Buskirk was terrified of letting his client take an on demand alcohol test, appears to be very afraid of competition absent cheating via ex-parte, unnoticed ex-parte hearings and falsely sworn affidavits by a vexatious litigant client; won’t take female clients, most likely Father’s Rights Manifesto hired ace-in-the-hole, custody-switching scammer, a huckster with a  real Southern drawl

8.  Lawrence/”Larry” Rothenberg, Houston, Texas–rotten to the core is right, three times mailed documents to unrepresented mother…at his client’s address instead of mothers on each envelope, each time on the front, stapled green certified return to the back of each envelope with mother’s address and information filled out, never noticed her for a hearing or trial, subverting due process of law, never submitted final “orders” for approval to mother, thus, no contract on file and no duty to perform on already null and void court “orders;” despicable tactics resorted to, does not appear to be anywhere close to his $450/hr. plus retainer asking fee; made his client had the bribe to the judge himself, falsified income or misrepresented on father’s part, lost it in court when mother invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to answer his cross-examination questions as to each one of them, citing Idaho v. Estrada each time as inherently a quasi-criminal case–infuriated him, noticeably; testified for his client repeatedly, allowed his client to perjure himself as to each and every question from mother upon her cross-examination of his client “father” and his wife who didn’t know mother, but judge began asking her questions on record to testify about mother (that would be Judge Lisa Millard, 310th, Harris County in Houston, protecting alleged pedophiles and taking bribes from wealthy male customers with high priced “Texas Superlawyers” and seminar speaking colleagues and lobbyist Child Advocates, Inc. for twenty years

9.  Stephen Newhouse, Houston, Texas, former (2007) court-appointed  (by Associate Judge Conrad Moren) amicus attorney for child, now associate judge in the 313th Juvenile Court in Harris County, Texas; plays dirty; possibly played role in “Dirty Assault” Set-up during contentious paternity litigation to establish it; very bad faith; easy to bribe, on knowledge, belief, circumstantial evidence, and hearsay of former family law attorney in said case who probably participate with him when mother couldn’t afford their bills or extortion when they were “acquired” by the other side being John Nichols, Sr. ( who solicits high net-worth divorce cases through termination of parental rights, stepparent adoption, and how to hide assets and income as “bonus”);

10.  Lynn Kamin of Jenkins & Kamin in Houston, Texas–pro wealthy male misogynist, follows-the-money trail in contravention of true, constitutional best interests of child property and their mothers, alleged pedophile protecting firm, at least, as to their Attorney Kuriger in the Nikki Marie Jones v. Corcoran case (also had Judge Lisa Millard involvement in issuing crooked 1996 orders granting sole managing conservatorship to alleged pedophile father who hadn’t seen his daughter in over three years…but then he got married–same outcome as my case, very similar…in 2012)

We need to put more names on this list.  Please submit your comments, opinions based on facts, experiences, and/or personal and special knowledge and your nominations for the Top US Lawyers-best, most trustworthy lawyers and/or legal teams in the US (not limited to ten, by the way), and the reasons that you feel or believe them to be worthy of such designation.

Additionally, please also submit nominations for those who you or someone you know allege in good faith, based on actual, firsthand knowledge and/or testimony, facts, evidence, or knowledge and belief is/are the Top Worst US Attorney(s), Lawyer(s), or Advocate(s) who currently practice.  Please give specific reasons that you perceive or believe them to be worthy of such title.


(1)  This blog’s author does not possess a degree to practice law, nor is author a board-certified, specialized, licensed or otherwise “advocate,”  attorney, lawyer, or legal practitioner with any experience in anyone else’s legal or lawful matters, and thus, could not possibly be in any position to give “legal” advice or lend “legal” expertise of any kind.  Likewise, author of this blog does not purport to be qualified in anyone else’s case, nor does she misrepresent herself.

(2) The information contained in this post is intended only for educational and general knowledge or for entertainment purposes.

(3) This author does, however, herein exercised her well-established as a matter of fact and law Federal right to Privacy, “inalienable” rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and her  First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom to freely associate, and, to peaceable assembly in this forum (See 5 U.S.C., generally, The Privacy Act of 1974);(Declaration of Independence, July 04, 1776); (First Amendment right as incorporated and implied via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights to the Federal US Constitution).

(4) This information is posted in good faith.

One might also go to http://www.distinctioninthefamilycourts.org to rate every official, court employee, and/or court-appointed specialist and law enforcement officer that had a “key” stake in the outcome of the invasion and/or destruction of his/her private life and family, and ultimately, permanent record, ability to support oneself and one’s family, finances, reputation and “standing” .  See the current Report Card for all 50 “states” at Distinction in the Family Courts’ website or on this blog (See Menu).


November 25, 2014

Home / Connecticut Family Court’s / Corrupt Courts Strip Divorcees of Constitutional Rights
Corrupt Courts Strip Divorcees of Constitutional Rights
Corruption in family court

Corrupt Courts Strip Divorcees of Constitutional Rights


 Up until two years ago, Ted Taupier didn’t spend much time thinking about the meaning of his first, second, eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights, but as he’s watched all those rights disappear along with his parental rights, Taupier tells RebelPundit he’s had a first hand look at the cruelty of an unchecked and unaccountable court system.

Taupier said his problems started when months after he and his wife, Tanya Taupier, decided to file for divorce in September 2012, and she hired a criminal defense attorney Chris Morano in early 2013, even though Taupier’s ex-wife wasn’t involved in any criminal matters at the time.

Morano gained a reputation about a decade earlier by successfully prosecuting Michael Skakel for the 1976 murder of Martha Moxley. That prosecution has since been overturned.

Morano didn’t respond to a phone call for comment at his office.

Taupier was arrested on a voyeurism charge on May 22, 2013. The arrest occurred, Taupier told RebelPundit, after Morano reached out to Barbara Hoffman, the Prosecuting Attorney in Middletown, Connecticut.

“I have the evidence; I’ve seen the evidence; this guy needs to be arrested.” Morano said to Hoffman.

But Hoffman never saw any physical evidence prior to making the arrest, and the charge is based entirely on a video Taupier made with the consent of his wife giving her a massage, when he considered becoming a professional masseuse.

More than a year later, the charges are left open though prosecutors haven’t followed through and no trial date has yet been scheduled, despite Taupier’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The damage to Taupier’s reputation had already been done as his arrest was covered throughout the media in Connecticut. Taupier had never even had a speeding or parking ticket prior to the arrest.

“It’s a defamation campaign,” Ted Taupier said to RebelPundit, of the arrest and subsequent media attention. He said that he lost out on a number of job opportunities after prospective employers found his arrest on-line.

Hoffman didn’t respond to an email for comment.

Taupier said it was the first in a series of actions in which Connecticut’s law enforcement was used as a weapon by his wife in their divorce.

Taupier said his constitutional rights were also violated when his wife’s attorney suggested that, because he took his kids to a bill signing at the state capitol he wasn’t acting in his children’s best interest in a contempt of court motion filed on August 22, 2014 by Tanya Taupier’s divorce attorney, Geraldine Ficarro.

“Two days after a long admonishment on the records by Judge Bozutto, the Defendant used the children as props for a photo opportunity regarding a legislator to advance her legislative efforts regarding Guardians ad Litem.”

This particular motion was telegraphed by statements made by the family court Judge Elizabeth Bozzuto on June 18, 2014.

“It was brought to my attention by the supervisor that there was some communication to the Family Relation’s officer who’s doing this that injected some of the politics that’s been going on outside this courthouse into this case; I can’t allow that.

“I can’t allow Taupier vs Taupier to be politicized. I can’t allow that.”

Ted Taupier said all this refers to a bill signing for Connecticut Senate Bill 494, which “makes changes to Connecticut’s family court system related to guardians ad litem (GALs) appointed by courts for minor children,” according to Gonzalez’s website.

Gonzalez, a Democratic State Senator, has become an advocate for family court reform in Connecticut and her pressure led to the creation of the Connecticut Task Force for Child Custody and Welfare which delivered a scathing report in February 2014 finding top to bottom corruption in Connecticut’s family court system and the Guardian ad Litem system in particular.

A Hartford Courant article on the matter quoted Gonzalez.

”The problem is so bad and the corruption is so bad that elected officials tend not to maybe believe it,” Gonzalez said, adding that she (does) not think guardians ad litem even belong in the family courts.

Taupier said he has become close to Gonzalez and even testified at the task force hearings and took his kids to the bill signing for this reason.

The judge ordered a hearing on the motion, which Ted Taupier said is inherent approval of its merits, even though taking your children to a bill signing would fall under basic constitutional principles of free speech and association.

Judge Bazzuto, Tanya Taupier, or her divorce attorney didn’t respond to emails for comment for this story.

Taupier said his first amendment rights were further violated when he was arrested for making terroristic threats against Judge Bazzuto on August 22, 2014.

The arrest stemmed from an email he sent to a group of aggrieved parents on August 29, 2014 in which he detailed all the things he felt the judge had done wrong in his case along with an homage to Charlton Heston’s screed in favor of the 2nd amendment.

“They can steal my kids from my cold dead bleeding cordite filled fists…as my 60 round mag falls to the floor and I’m dying as I change out of my 30 round mag.”

One of the recipients of the email, Jennifer Verraneault, forwarded the email to Linda Allard of the Greater Hartford Legal Aid Society. Allard called the head of Judicial Marshalls, Brian Clemens.

Emails to Allard and Verranneault were left unreturned.

This triggered an investigation and on August 29, 2014, the Connecticut State Police arrested Ted Taupier and charged him with threatening in the first degree and harassment in the second degree.

Taupier was given a cash bond of $35,000, meaning he needed to come up with 100% in order to bail himself out.

With family providing him with bail money, Taupier left prison the next morning.

The arraignment, which was originally set for September 12, 2014, was pushed up to September 2, 2014 only after Taupier posted bond.

At that arraignment, the judge added another $40,000 to the bond, and Taupier was taken back into custody until his family came up with the rest and he was released the next morning.

The State of Connecticut would generally ask for $75,000 for defendants accused of violent crimes or sexual assaults meaning an argument could be made that his excessive bail violated Taupier’s eighth amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment which includes excessive bail.

Taupier was also fitted for an ankle monitoring bracelet and given house arrest, which continues to this day. Judging him a risk to society, the judge also ordered the removal of all of Taupier’s firearms, and the effective violation of his second amendment rights.

All of this was done even though prosecutors appear to know the charge against Taupier is dubious.

“”He (Taupier) didn’t really threaten her (the judge)” Brenda Hans, the prosecutor in charge, said in the Middleburg, Connecticut Court House, to a colleague on November 5, 2014. “He had guns at home.”

The conversation was relayed to RebelPundit by a citizen who was in the courthouse but asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. Hans didn’t respond to an email for comment.

At around the same time, Tanya Taupier employed the Cromwell Connecticut Police Department to forcibly remove Taupier’s kids from school in the middle of their first day.

According to Ted Taupier, his son had been bullied at the school he attended the previous year and as a result he enrolled both his kids in an elementary school near his home.

But a court order bound both parents to enroll the kids in the school his son had been bullied in. Ted Taupier told RebelPundit that he’d cleared the move with his ex-wife, but the accuracy of that statement is a part

When his ex-wife found out, her lawyer called for an ex-parte emergency hearing and arguing that her kids were in immediate danger in their new school got Judge Buzzuto to sign an emergency order which allowed the police to come and forcibly take them out of school.

Ted Taupier filmed the exchange and placed it on You Tube.

Alisha Mathers is Ted Taupier’s divorce attorney and has been since shortly after these events.

“Ted (Taupier) was wrong.” Mathers told RebelPundit of the manner in which he enrolled his kids in school but added. “It (the emergency order to remove his kids) is ridiculous.”

Mathers told RebelPundit that in general ex parte motions are frowned up in most courts because the violate the basic right of an accused facing their accuser, and they are used only in emergency situations where someone’s life or physical safety is in danger.

Having someone’s children not go to the school they want should not be a reason for allowing an ex-parte motion, Mathers added.

An ex-parte motion or hearing is a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties and is supposed to be limited by the fifth and fourteenth amendments which provide due process of the law.

“They (his ex-wife’s legal team) should have filed a contempt of court order.” Mathers added. “And they would have won (on the contempt of court order).”

Worse than that, the first dubious ex-parte motion led to a second ex-parte hearing where Judge Buzutto limited Ted Taupier’s parental rights stating, “He flagrantly violates court orders.”

He allowed Ted Taupier to see his kids in a pre-approved state run facility at his expense, however this effectively means Taupier can’t see his kids because he’s currently under house arrest and not allowed to leave his house.

Taupier said he hasn’t seen his children since the day in the parking lot when police forcibly removed them from school.

Taupier’s legal troubles weren’t over. On September 8, 2014, Geographical Area 09 issued a criminal protective order against Ted Taupier based on the original voyeurism charge, though the criminal case has stalled and voyeurism is not one of the offenses under Connecticut domestic violence laws which would trigger a protective order.

On October 24, 2014, the State of Connecticut said as much in a brief filed in Judicial District of Middleburg.

“(I)t’s evident that despite the fact that Tanya Taupier is the victim of the voyeurism case, those crimes don’t meet the definition of ‘family violence’ or ‘family violence’ crimes. Additionally, she’s not a victim in the threatening case involving Judge Bozzuto and all of the provisions outlining protective orders pertain to the victim, his or her ‘family or household member’.”

Though the brief has been filed, the protective order hasn’t been lifted as of the publication of this article. Taupier said he wasn’t even allowed to vote on November 4, 2014, because he wasn’t allowed out of his house.

Though his ex-wife claimed that both their kids were being “psychologically harmed” by attending the school chosen by Taupier according to an email from the children’s current therapist, the children are in crisis at the school chosen by the mother.

“When they first returned, there were concerns about the new crises, the separation from you and acting out by (Taupier’s son) at school — some aggressive talk which is extremely unusual for him.     As I’ve told you before, neither of them like to directly talk about the family conflicts (that is too intense for them).  Currently this is seriously symptomatic but that does not mean they are not impacted by the actions and conflicts,” said Nancy Eisworth, their current therapist, in an email to Taupier on October 10, 2014.

Taupier tells RebelPundit that in the last two years he’s met hundreds of folks, both male and female, also victims of corrupt family court proceedings, and he believes there is a silent epidemic of parents having their parental rights all across America by cruel and corrupt family courts.



Corruptct comments – Ted Taupier is another victim of the corrupt family courts in Connecticut. We have met with Ted Taupier, a well spoken educated man who loves his children. He shared with us the details regarding his arrested on a voyeurism charge, it is far from what it is claimed to be and who is the “victim” in this said charge. It is disturbing to see how far some will go during a divorce, with little to no regard of the effects it will have on the child/children.

Connecticut family courts as well as family courts nation wide are all about money. Attorney’s that practice in family law and what some will suggest you do, again no regard for the child or children. Caught in what seems to be the never ending web within corrupt family courts, where money is the concern.

How much longer will these illegal act’s in family court continue? Family court cases in Connecticut go on for years, as they continue to find way’s to rob you of everything. Money is not enough, as the innocent children in these cases will be left with life long scars and how they are made to “choose” a parent to side with. No child should ever have to choose, or be told that one parent is bad, brainwashing children to benefit a parents in family court.

Greed seems to be more important in these courts for “family”, money is the main attraction. There is great concern about what continues to occur within them, even more when it is well known and nothing is done about it. Family court corruption in Connecticut occurs daily and has been going on for years. Many children end up in the care of the wrong parent, money talks in family court, but where is the voice for the innocent children? As long as money continues to run through the courts and the attorney’s that know all to well of how to continue to drag out cases and generate money for others.



From the “Presenter” Below who helped the local and state government actor individuals (and private individuals not yet defendants or parties of record), family law attorner and “Adjutant General of Texas” (appointed by Gov. Rick Perry), John Nichols, Sr., father to “Bo” Nichols, Jr.:


Have we upped the ante, yet and raised the flat $20,000 entry due and owing to Judge Lisa A.Millard and Conrad Moren complicit with Houston Attorney Lawrence Rothenberg and family law Attorney Bruce Allen Buskirk and GAL/AAL Donna Everson?

How long was Cheryl Harvick on your payroll that you advertise as having CPS supervisors of twelve years on your staff in your Internet ads, Nichols?





The fact that Censors are taking down posts of their own legislation off of this blog weighs heavily probative against their alleged “immunity” not available for criminal acts.  Again, I am happy to re-post.  Save a copy before they all disappear.

This bill was vetoed by Governor Rick Perry after much advocacy and public pressure.  Conveniently, however, that is for the state treasury, the bill was attached to another more palatable issue that passed by unanimous vote.  Senate Bill 1440, however, was announced, and passed, by the majority of the only person in the room at the time vote was taken, …by the speaker who announced it.

Here is a brief bio of the man who introduced this bill, (D) Kirk Watson: http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/members/dist14/dist14.htm


http://www.nccprblog.org/2009/06/texas-tries-to-legalize-flds-type-raids.html (explanation of the bill from National Coalition for Child Protection Reform blog)

$225,000 Paid to San Diego Mother Permanently Deprived of her Baby by Cops and CPS (VIDEO)

$225,000 Paid to San Diego Mother Permanently Deprived of her Baby by Cops and CPS (VIDEO)

Joneisha Kemper’s Story:


Johnneisha Kemper was 16 years old when she said she called police for help but instead of helping, they took her newborn daughter. NBC 7’s Danya Bacchus has this exclusive report. (Published Saturday, Oct 11, 2014)

(Published Saturday, Oct 11, 2014)

The City of San Diego will pay $225,000 to settle a civil suit filed by a teen mom who lost parental rights to her daughter just days after the child’s birth.

Johnneisha Kemper says San Diego Police officers took her baby away in 2008, just days after she gave birth at the age of 16, claiming she was unfit to raise the newborn.

Now, the city of San Diego has approved a settlement in the civil rights lawsuit filed alleging the SDPD took the child without threat or warrant.

“The system did fail her in every way that she could have been failed,” her attorney Shawn McMillan told NBC 7.

Kemper sat down and spoke exclusively to NBC 7 about the case, saying the money can’t replace what she’s lost.

“I want my daughter. It’s like somebody I never knew,” Kemper said.

Kemper had her daughter, Nyhanna,with her while visiting her mother in San Diego in 2008. She had just been released from the hospital, when Kemper said she had a dispute with her mother.

Her mother locked her out of the house, with her baby still inside.

Kemper said she called San Diego Police hoping they would help intervene but instead they took her child.

And from there the legal battle began.

Attorney Shawn McMillan helped Kemper file a civil rights lawsuit against San Diego County, the social workers involved, City of San Diego and the Police officers who initially took the baby.

“The system did fail her in every way that she could have been failed,”Attorney, Shawn McMillan

The lawsuit said police officers took the baby even though there was no immediate threat to the child.

“The first thing they have to ask themselves is before they act at all, is, is this child in immediate danger of suffering severe bodily injury or death at the hands of the parent,” McMillan said.

A foster child herself, Kemper was living in the Los Angeles area at the time.

At 16, she had no driver’s license but said she tried her best to get to San Diego to do what the court required.

“Within that six months I had to go to counseling, go to parenting classes, and take drug tests. I had regulatory visits every Tuesday,” she recalled.

Kemper’s daughter is now 6 years old and living with adoptive parents.

Eventually, the court terminated her parental rights and Nyhanna was adopted.

“After they did that, that was the end. I lost everything,” Kemper said.

“I can’t do anything to get her back. I just have to sit and accept the fact that oh, I have a daughter but she’s just somewhere out there,” she said.

McMillan said they pushed for a policy change and training for officers in how they remove children but the City refused and even offered more money instead agreeing to change.

As for Kemper’s hope to get her daughter back, McMillan said there’s little chance.

Shawn McMillan, Kemper’s attorney, said there was nothing he could do to return custody to Kemper.

“It’s just a really sad situation. There’s nothing we can really do for a parent in her situation to get her child back. It’s over,” he said.

Kemper said she hope her case will keep this from happening again to another mother.

NBC 7 reached out to the City Attorney’s Office about the case but they had no comment.

Lea’s Story| Banken v. Banken; Carver County, Minnesota (VIDEO)

Lea’s Story

Banken v. Banken

Carver County, Minnesota





Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

(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 incorporated 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 for  a full or partial retraction in a timely manner so that Author of this blog may respond expediently and lawfully.

Court Reform Advocates Address Judicial Council of California- Public Comment Period

Court Reform Advocates Address Judicial Council of California- Public Comment Period, 10/27/14



Watch the Ethereal, Charming, and Sweet...SMART… Colleen Kerwick, Esq. Roast Panel of Connecticut Guardian Ad Litem



Petitioning The Irish Government
This petition was delivered to:
The Irish Government


I am an attorney and activist from Ireland who was personally retaliated against by a GAL in the Connecticut Family Court System.

I asked for a divorce from my ex husband in 2011. I waived alimony and agreed to joint physical custody to end the conflict for our son in 2013. My ex proceeded to create conflict before obtaining custody by falsely claiming that an “amber alert” was being processed in an ex parte motion to game the system http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/search/label/ANNE%20STEVENSON
On the return date of the motion, I was retaliated against by the Guardian ad Litem on account of my advocacy for others for more oversight for vendor malfeasance.  Despite acknowledging that there was no amber alert or history of contempt of any access orders or parental deficits, she recommended that the order of custody removal be sustained. The judge (Olear) who signed the order since had her judicial reappointment challenged by 67 state representatives.

Here is the newspaper article and my testimony which the Guardian ad Litem retaliated over:





On August 22 2014 my ex had me arrested on a third class misdemeanor. I moved to dismiss the arrest in Criminal Court, which motion was granted.

After trying my own custody case in Family Court from October 20-29, 2014 against my exes teams of attorneys, shared parenting and joint physical custody was again ordered on November 5, 2014.


 Letter to

The Irish Government
Please help Attorney Colleen Kerwick from Kilkenny City who was personally retaliated against for her work for oversight for vendor malfeasance in the Connecticut GAL system.
Recent updates

Petition Update


Nov 7, 2014 — shared parenting and joint custody.Read more
Petition Update


Nov 7, 2014 — Thank you all for your tremendous support on my journey through the Connecticut Family Courts.The Hon. Judge Barbara Quinn in Family Court ordered shared… Read more
Petition Update


Oct 31, 2014 — While my emotions got the better of me at times, the Trial went well (thanks to the nursery school principle, pediatrician, police, nanny, family therapist, exes former best friend, supervisor who all came forward to testify). My Domestic Violence expert Barry Goldstein was precluded on an… Read more
Petition Update


Oct 19, 2014 — My trial starts at the Regional Family Trial Docket before the Hon. Judge Barbara Quinn on Monday October 20, 2014 and will continue until October 25, 2014. Please pray that Judge Quinn understands Abuse by Proxy of the Courts…Read more
1,000 supporters
Sep 7, 2014
750 supporters
Aug 23, 2014
Petition Update


Aug 22, 2014 — Thank you so very much for your support for truth and justice.Read more.
Petition Update


Petition Update


Aug 6, 2014 — 1n 1998, the first Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study was released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This study, led by Dr. Vincent Felitti and Dr. Robert Anda, is the largest study of its kind ever conducted to examine the health and social effects of adverse… Read more
Petition Update


Jul 22, 2014 — My ex Ken Savino continues to refuse to allow me to see my son, as he promised that he would make sure I “never see [my] son again if [I] leave [Ken]”. I need the media watchdog to spread light on how abusers can abuse by proxy of the courts to punish parents in the worst… Read more
500 supporters
Jul 22, 2014
Petition Update


Read more
CT-N: CT-N Video Stream
CT-N: CT-N Video Stream
Home | Press Room | Network Vision |FAQ |Privacy Policy |Download Policy Submit Your Event for Coverage by CT-N (Checklist) |Capitol Report | Awards |Contact Us
Petition Update


Petition Update
April 1 State Senator John A. Kissel
April 1 State Senator John A. Kissel
Uploaded by April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation on 2014-04-06.
Petition Update
02 13 Pedro Garcia III
02 13 Pedro Garcia III
Uploaded by April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation on 2014-03-18.
Petition Update


11 22 Wilma Oscar
11 22 Wilma Oscar
Uploaded by April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation on 2014-03-18.
Petition Update


March 31 Marisa Ringel
March 31 Marisa Ringel
Uploaded by April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation on 2014-04-02.
Petition Update
12 08 Susan Skipp
12 08 Susan Skipp
Uploaded by April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation on 2014-03-18.
Petition Update


Deborah Pease How many more families out there
Deborah Pease How many more families out there
More heartbreaking testimony about the corrupt, inept and callous family court system. Honorable Marsha Slough, this is happening in your courthouse as well. Commissioner Deborah Daniel is using her courtroom to…
Petition Update


Petition Update


10 14 Mark Sargent
10 14 Mark Sargent
Uploaded by April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation on 2014-03-18.
Petition Update


03 07 Michael Nowacki
03 07 Michael Nowacki


Uploaded by April25.org: A Case for Parental Alienation on 2014-03-18.
Petition Update


Parents push legislators to pass bill publishing public defender invoices
Parents push legislators to pass bill publishing public defender invoices
CONNECTICUT, April 8, 2014 – Massachusetts attorney Maureen Martowska was reviewing charges related to her son Matthew Martowska’s custody case when she noticed something irregular. She realized that…
Petition Update


Mar 27, 2014 — My Direct Appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court was accepted as a matter of public interest, a criminal investigation was opened into the Guardian ad Litem (#14-5799) and I have a hearing on March 31, 2014 to put my son in safe third party care pending trial commencing April 14… Read more
250 supporters
Mar 25, 2014
Petition Update


Jan 29, 2014 — Over 2000 parents have contacted the Legislative Office Building claiming their children were purchased through a corrupt family court system. There are allegations of anti-trust issues, judicial involvement in profit sharing ventures, kids for cash scandals and retaliation against parents… Read more
110 supporters
Jan 27, 2014
Petition Update


100 supporters
Jan 27, 2014
Petition Update


Oct 6, 2013 — Thank you for for your support, your informative comments and in-mails on why you support this petition. In just a few hours of starting this, 20 people have come forward to stop the laws designed to protect women being used against women. I am encouraged by the strength of those of… Read more
10 supporters
Oct 5, 2013
Petition started on Oct 5, 2013

…Based on a Petition I just saw on Change.org, the panel was responsive to Kerwick’s firm and austere opportunity for the individual guardian ad litem CONSORTIUM, which was characteristically hostile, defensive, appearing mentally ill while they shouted at the exceedingly sweet, civil, and professional Collen Kerwick, to clear their names and avoid charges or sundry allegations related to double and triple billing and utter failure, among other things, by cooperating through voluntarily disclosing their billing so that her international task force’s preliminary audit would allow for the guardian ad litem’s defense through full disclosure.

 But wait!   The denouement to this debacle of a hearing  for the ad litem entailed Attorney Kerwick informing that her organization would most likely be moving their unified, collective group that went out of its way to state on the record that they took large offense to the term vendor as they all made decisions together, and not individually, toward the Swedish or otherwise similar Scandinavian family court model of justice when the “flattening” of the current broken system was even more “imminent.”

Ms. Colleen Kerwick, Esq. was undaunted.  I loved watching the Guardian Ad Litem/Attorney Ad Litem for our real property–“children”– squirm and fume where they have so mercilessly, masochistically, and insanely tortured and ripped apart with impunity (and cash only) so many of our families for so long, and apparently bankrupting and putting a large percentage of parents in the Connecticut area (and elsewhere) in unrecoverable debt while still charging and destroying like the bulls in a china shop they resemble in form.

It looks like that petition is closed on change.org for Ms. Colleen Kerwick, Esq. with the information that it had done some good or indicated effectiveness, though it did not say how.  I shall be following-up. Can you believe they still aren’t ashamed to show their crimes while being so accused?

A big round of hearty approbation, cheers, and applause to the courageous and ever-so-refreshing Ms. Colleen Kerwick, Esq., and good luck to the same domestic situation.  Warm wishes~

Real Mommy Susan Skipp Fights Back in Corrupt Connecticut with Petition for Certification to Supreme Court|

Susan Skipp Petition For Certification To Supreme Court

Click on the link to watch Susan’s brief story on Youtube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UubX2O-gFnI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1z9_zRnf38&feature=player_detailpage (Susan Skipp Testifying at GAL Hearings),

Source: Task Force to Study Legal Disputes Involving the Care and Custody of Minor Children January 9th Public Hearing, Uploaded to Youtube.com on 12/08/2014 by “April25.org:  A Case for Parental Alienation”

Source: CORRUPT CT Bringing Corruption to a Whole New Level, http://www.corruptct.com/help-us-fight-corruption-in-ct/


S.C.________; A.C. 36231                   :           STATE  OF  CONNECTICUT

:           SUPREME COURT

SHAWN TITTLE                                      :


SUSAN SKIPP-TITTLE                          :            June 25,2014


The Appellant, Susan Skipp-Tittle, pursuant to C.P.B. § 84-1, hereby respectfully seeks certification of this case for review by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
(1) Questions Presented For Review:

  1. Did the appellate court err when it concluded the court had no jurisdiction on the lower court’s ruling that Guardian Ad Litem fees are in the nature of child support?

  2. Did the court err when stating a memorandum of decision made without a proper motion cannot be appealed?

  3. Did the appellate court err when it allowed a party not joined in suit to file motions?

  4. Did the appellate court err when it allowed a forced contract placed upon a citizen?

  5. Does the Appellate courts finding that its motion to remove the GAL issue from the appeal meet Curcio prong as cited in the appellate Court’s sua sponte motion?

(2) Basis for Certification

(a) The trial court entering orders to remove itself from jurisdiction of GAL fees in the nature of child support creates a question of great public importance.

(b) The actions of the self appointed GAL, in spite of the defendant mother’s well documented objections. Also, defendant’s counsel drafted an in lieu of appearance form for his client’s signature, not realizing she would have to defend herself the following day, without proper notice, without adequate documents: no billing, time sheets, no contract, no retainer agreement with between GAL and defendant, all well preserved in the trial record.


(c) Brigham filing her own appearance creates additional elements of great public concern, and goes to the heart of the jurisdictional issue. The lower court allowed a party not joined in suit to file motions, cross-examine witnesses, sanction for fees, move to incarcerate the appellant. In fact Brigham violated a federal stay 9 times. If this decision stands, the powers of both GAL and family court judges are unlimited by the laws of subject matter jurisdiction, raising more serious concerns about the integrity of our entire family court system.

(d) The appellate court has decided a question of substance in a manner that conflicts with Supreme Court decisions. Specifically, the A.C. has concluded that it had no jurisdiction in the case because there was not final judgment on a motion of contempt. The motion of contempt was filed by Brigham, a party not joined in suit, therefore not a valid motion.

(e) No statutory authority exists which allows a GAL to file motions, nor did this particular GAL (Atty. Mary Brigham) have a valid court appointment post judgment. “GALs cannot file motions.” Damato v. Damato, FBT-FA-11-4038215-S, #345.00, Motion for Contempt filed by GAL dated May 9, 2014.  Ordered May 28, 2014, (Adelman, J). “The duties of the GAL are provided in case law In re Tayquon H., 76 Conn. App. 693, “it is not the province of the guardian ad litem to file briefs with the court.” Id. 707.

(f) The decision under review contradicts contract law and does not afford the appellant the opportunity to redress wrongs by the lower courts.


(g) The appellate court has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such a departure by the trial court, specifically by upholding orders which the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervision.

(h) By failing to articulate the legal and factual bases for the conclusion that the trial court had jurisdiction to order GAL fees for a time period no GAL was appointed, extorted a state retirement plan, a federal crime, to pay Brigham or face incarceration, the appellate court deprived the appellant of her right to meaningfully challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court, a challenge which can legally be brought in any court at any time, and without which the judgment of the trial court is legally void.

(i) The Appellate Court’s Order is appealable under Curcio’s “Separate and Distinct Proceeding” prong, in contrast to Brigham’s statement and the Court’s question. Under the first Curcio prong, an immediate appeal may be taken from an order that “terminates a separate and distinct proceeding.” Curcio, 191 Conn. at 31. This standard “requires that the order being appealed from be severable” from the rest of the action, so that the appeal and the rest of the underlying action can “proceed independent[ly]” of one another. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Ace Am. Reins. Co., 279 Conn. 220, 225-26 (2006); see State v. Parker, 194 Conn. 650, 654 (1984) (“The ‘separate and distinct’ requirement of Curcio demands that proceeding which spawned the appeal be independent of the main action.”). “If the interlocutory ruling is merely a step along the road to final judgment then it does not satisfy the first prong of Curcio.” Hartford Accident & Indem., 279 Conn. at 226.


(j) The appeal is not able to move forward as the GAL a long-standing issue in the case at bar. The issue cannot be severed from the appeal. Again the GAL filed the motion of contempt. No motion is outstanding in the lower court.

3. Summary of the Case:

Shawn Tittle and Susan Skipp-Tittle were divorced in the J.D. of Waterbury in 2011, where they entered a stipulated agreement whereby their two minor children would reside primarily with their mother and have regular visitation with their father. The agreement included a comprehensive parenting plan as well as financial agreements. Although temporary orders entered between the divorce and the date of the contested custody trial in August 2012, the trial court, Munro, J., made it clear the March 2010 stipulated agreement was the order sought to be modified. The court had no jurisdiction to force a contract and a GAL on the parties. Plaintiff Shawn Tittle moved over an hour from the children’s home.

The trial court did not find that there had been any substantial change in circumstances between the March 2010 agreement and the trial in August 2012. The court did not find that the original orders were not in the interest of the children at the time the orders entered, and she did not find that the agreement had been secured by fraud, accident or mistake. Notwithstanding, she entered orders giving sole custody of the children to their father and limiting the mother to supervised visitation, contingent upon the mother’s compliance with various court orders, of which are unlawful, lacked personal jurisdiction, and/or abridged Constitutional Rights of the appellant and the parties children.

In ordering the GAL fees in the nature of child support, without such motion before the court and the GAL having no legal standing outside of a forced contract, the trial court


did not claim to have identified any substantial change in circumstances, nor claim in the alternative that the trial court orders were not in the interest of the children at the time they entered. The trial court claimed to acquire jurisdiction by virtue of finding that the original orders were not in the interest of the children almost as soon as they entered. This jurisdictional argument is not supported by any case law in our state and constitutes a broad expansion of jurisdiction over family matters, requiring nothing beyond a mere assertion that something is not right. It is should be noted that there were no allegations of unfitness, abuse or neglect in this child custody matter. Further, the plaintiff at no point made an argument to proving a change would be in the best interests of the children. Adamsen v. Adamsen, 151 Conn. 172, 178, 195 A.2d 418 (1963)Pfeiffer v. Pfeiffer, 99 Conn. 154, 157, 121 A. 174 (1923). The burden of proving a change to be in the best interest of the child rests on the party seeking the change. Stephenson, supra, 1070; 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Habeas Corpus, § 152 (1968). No change of circumstances was found in Munro’s Oct 16, 2012 memorandum of decision. No affidavit of fees was filed; at no time did the trial court answer the repeated question by the defendant, “What standing does Mary Brigham have to be GAL for the children?” Brigham ultimately enlisted them to be involved with a therapist under investigation by the CT Department of Health for malpractice, insurance fraud, neglect of the parties children, caused them a denial of their rights to familial association and removed a fit loving mother from their lives absent even allegation of her to abuse or neglect the parties children or of any parental unfitness, contrary to an extensive record for the plaintiff. Said therapist is also under investigation by the State’s Attorney. Brigham served as an undisclosed witness in a hearing that resulted in the children denied their siblings – over whom the court has not personal jurisdiction.


Brigham served as a necessary witness to the plaintiff twice: Aug. 1, 2011 and Dec. 19, 2011. On Oct. 8, 2013, with no motion before the court, it ordered GAL fees are in nature of child support. The court has not addressed the lack of legal standing of Brigham. The A.C. allowed her to file motions. This is a serious systemic dysfunction.

Defendant was required to appear before the A.C. to argue its motion under Curcio, later dismissing the challenge of fees. The motion for reconsideration en banc was denied, leaving the appellant without any understanding of how the trial court acquired jurisdiction to allow a third party not joined in suit to file papers or how the lower court allowed an affidavit of fees over a year after it was to have been issued, absent any proof of service. The children suffered great harm in the first instance. The record, as it exists, is the result of the case and not a basis to find jurisdiction to modify a stipulated judgment, force a contract and order payment of such in the nature of child support. At the time of the decision, it was not put in the child support worksheet. It was not included nor provided for.

4. Argument:

A challenge to the jurisdiction of the trial court is question of law and review of the issue is plenary. In re DeLeon J., 290 Conn 371, 375, 963 A.2d 53 (2009), citing Aiadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514, 535, 911 A.2d 712 (2006). If the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to render a judgment, the action.” Jungnelius v. Jungnelius, 133 Conn. App. 250, 35 A.3d 359 (2012). The court does not have jurisdiction to force a contract. However, the appellate court has jurisdiction to redress abuses and errors of the lower court and correct its errors.


An appeal alleging the GAL has no legal standing and that her fees are not in the nature of child support is a challenge to the validity of the order itself. If the court did not have the authority, the order is void. The only proper way to challenge said order is through appeal. The Appellate Court decision stands, then the memorandum of decision issued by the Trial Court becomes valid law; the court did not appoint Brigham post judgment, nor did it agree to her as there was no such stipulation in the agreement of the parties.

In this case, the GAL, who had no legal standing except when the fundamentals of a legal contract are thrown out along with justice: if a forced contract has legal standing, it would defy the very principles of law, Magna Carta on down. A forced contract is of great public concern, rendering a forced contract in which fees are child support flies in the face of a democratic legal system.

Ms. Brigham (self appointed; no post judgment court appointment) acted beyond the scope of a GAL. Filing over 30 motions and 2 modifications is WANTON, RECKLESS AND MALICIOUS. Inappropriate placement of pleadings was designed to intimidate and harass the appellant for almost four years who can no longer afford legal representation. The Court itself took on this hostility, note in decision the judge references and arrest not prosecuted and based on false affidavits by the plaintiff. The defendant and children have a federal complaint against Hon. Cutsumpas for ADA violations among other civil rights violations.

The appellant is a qualified person with a disability. This disability, PTSD was brought on by the lower court defrauding the appellant, most attributable to the many motions filed my Mary Brigham in a pattern of coercion, retaliation and harm: the more the appellant called the actions of the courts and its officers into question, the further harm was


done to her and the children. Appellant has been deprived of her fundamental right to parent her children absent abuse, neglect, unfitness, or a mental health issue to provide for such. Most notably, the lower court abused the children who have been deprived of their loving fit mother for nearly two years by false testimony provided by a Guardian as litem whose conduct and appearance is the very essence.

All of the aforementioned issues were attended to in the parties Dissolution Agreement March 28, 2011 on page 2: Although there were various motions filed by both parties during the four months post judgment, most regarding competing claims of non-compliance, the whole record reflects that neither the plaintiff husband nor defendant wife sought to open judgment entered March 28, 2011.1 The appellant calls to the Court’s attention the Dissolution of Marriage Settlement Agreement. In the event of any conflicting language, said Dissolution Agreement included the following provision, “Said Agreements were accepted by the Court and orders entered in accordance therewith. Said Agreements are attached hereto and made a part hereof . . . . If any provision of the aforesaid Agreements is in conflict with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the provisions of this agreement shall prevail.” (emphasis added) Article I, at pages 2-3. In the dissolution hearing on March 28, 2011 at Waterbury, both the plaintiff and defendant were thoroughly canvassed by the Trial Court as to their understanding of the terms of said agreement, their voluntary consent, and among other things, their representation by counsel in reaching the agreement. The Trial Court accepted the agreement and noted in relevant part, “The Court finds it has jurisdiction.” The agreement of the parties dated March 28, 2011 was reviewed

Defendant notes that numerous post judgment motions were filed by the former guardian ad litem, Atty. Mary Brigham, even though the final judgment terminated her pendente lite appointment and the fact that GALs have no statutory authority to file motions.


by the Court, found to be fair and equitable and is incorporated into the decree by reference.” (Transcript 3/28/2011 at page 31)

“[A] separation agreement that is incorporated into a dissolution judgment is regarded as a contract. Issler v. Issler, 250 Conn. 226, 235, 737 A.2d 383 (1999). Accordingly, our resolution of the plaintiff’s claim is guided by the general principles governing the construction of contracts. ‘A contract must be construed to effectuate the intent of the parties, which is determined from the language used interpreted in the light of the situation of the parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction… [w]here there is definitive contract language, the determination of what the parties intended by their contractual commitments is a question of law.’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.” Dowd v. Dowd, 96 Conn. App. 75 (2006)

As noted, judgment entered March 28, 2011, incorporating terms of the parties’ agreement. Said agreement addressed, inter alia, the care and custody of the two minor children, child support, alimony, as well as various other financial and other terms. The whole record reflects that, while there were various post judgment motions filed in the four months following judgment (e.g. – on or before July 28, 2011), neither party sought to open judgment, nor the terms of the agreement incorporated within. The Trial Court was without authority or jurisdiction to open and modify terms of judgment under these circumstances.

“It may be defined as a contract of the parties acknowledged in open court and ordered to be recorded by a court of competent jurisdiction. . . . The essence of the judgment is that the parties to the litigation have voluntarily entered into an agreement setting their dispute or disputes at rest and that, upon this agreement, the court has entered judgment conforming to the terms of the agreement. . . . ‘It necessarily follows that if the


judgment conforms to the stipulation it cannot be altered or set aside without the consent of all the parties, unless it is shown that the stipulation was obtained by fraud, accident or mistake. . . . For a judgment by consent is just as conclusive as one rendered upon controverted facts.’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gillis v. Gillis, 214 Conn. 336, 339–40, 572 A.2d 323 (1990); see also Afkari-Ahmadi v. Fotovat-Ahmadi, 294 Conn. 384, 389–90, 985 A.2d 319 (2009). ‘Because a stipulation is considered a contract, [o]ur interpretation of a separation agreement that is incorporated into a dissolution decree is guided by the general principles governing the construction of contracts . . . Thus, if there is definitive contract language, the determination of what the parties intended by their . . . commitments is a question of law [over which our review is plenary].’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Afkari-Ahmadi v. Fotovat-Ahmadi, supra, 294 Conn. 390.” Dougan v. Dougan, 301 Conn. 361 (2011)

The Trial Court errors had a cumulative adverse impact on the defendant mother. To render such fees child support, the court would have included them in the child support guidelines worksheet as ordered at the same hearing, would have had a motion before the court and the GAL having legal standing. GAL fees cannot be child support as a GAL is a tool the court uses to make a finding. This is not listed as an expense with the child support magistrate. A GAL does not litigate for a child. A child is able to live at the station his or her parents can provide: a billing in excess of $130,000, without a contract, without any legal standing as this question has been asked throughout the record by the appellant, but not answered, reduces the level of opportunities for the children, with whom the Court’s pertinent issue is the “best interest of the child.” A forced contract in a courtroom is extortion, is abuse of discretion, is abuse of power, is abuse to litigants who trust the Court


to render fair decisions and is indicative of the systemic problems in Connecticut’s family court system. Such unjust enrichment is a bane to due process and fundamental fairness.

WHEREFORE, the appellant respectfully asks this Court to grant this petition for certification and permit the argument to the appellate argument on the questions presented with her appeal concerning the GAL issue as the issue in inextricably interwoven in the appellant’s arguments.


Susan Skipp-Tittle


Pro Se Appellant

P.O. Box 1383

Litchfield, CT 06759

Parties in Appeal:

Self-appointed Guardian Ad Litem

Mary Piscatelli Brigham

39 Sherman Hill Rd

Woodbury CT 06798

Juris number 305462

Rosemary Giuliano                               Honorable Llyod Cutsumpas

Giuliano, Richardson and Sfara         Judical District Courthouse

Woodbury, CT 07698                           Waterbury, CT 06702

Juris numbers



Honorable Robert Resha                       Susan Skipp

Judicial District Courthouse                 Po Box 1383

300 Grand Street                                     Litchfield, CT 06759

Waterbury, CT 06702



The appellant hereby certifies that the foregoing petition for certification complies in all respects with the provisions of C.P.B. § 84-5, 84-6 § 81-2, § 81-3.


Susan Skipp-Tittle

Pro Se Appellant

Po Box 1383

Litchfield CT 06759


    I hereby certify that the foregoing Petition for Certification to the Supreme Court was mailed to all counsel of record and the self-appointed guardian ad litem:

Rosemary Giuliano

Giuliano & Richardson, LLC (#417811)

39 Sherman Hill Road

Woodbury, CT 06798

Tel.: (203) 263-0330

Fax: (203) 263-0160

Email: IVishnoff@giulianorichardson.com


Mary Brigham

39 Sherman Hill Road

Woodbury, CT 06790

Tel.: (203) 263-0112

Fax: (203) 405-6558

Email: mary.brighamlaw@att.net

Hon. Lloyd Cutsumpas

Waterbury Superior Court

300 Grand Street

Waterbury CT 06702

Hon. Robert Resha

Waterbury Superior Court

300 Grand Street

Waterbury CT 06702


Susan Skipp-Tittle



  1. Order from Appellate Court June, 4, 2014
  1. Motion to Set Aside (en banc)
  1. Trial Court Ruling, Cutsumpas, J. October 8, 2013


Foster Mother Arrested for Murder of 3 Year Old Boy

From: “Kathleen” <osoluckyme@gmail.com>
August 29, 2008

Foster Mother Arrested for Murder of 3 Year Old Boy (Aug. 29, 2008)


June 13, 2008

SANTA MARIA [California]- A Santa Maria woman has been charged with murder in the death of her 3-year-old foster son.

Officers arrested 27-year-old Sylvia Dominguez after she called police on Wednesday afternoon to report her son was not breathing. When police got there, they found the boy dead inside the apartment located at 1000 West Stowell. We’re told the child had visible injuries about his body which was cause for concern.

Detectives determined Dominguez killed her foster child inside of the apartment that same day. She was arrested for the murder and booked into the Santa Barbara County Jail. Three other children living inside of the apartment were taken into the protective custody of Child Welfare Services.

The District Attorney’s Office has reviewed the initial investigation and filed one count of murder and one count of willful infliction of injury upon a child proximately causing great bodily injury or death. These charges carry a penalty of 25 years to life in prison.

From: “Kathleen” <osoluckyme@gmail.com>


Child Protective Services (CPS) does not protect children…

Connecticut DCF Watch [Department of Children & Families]

It is sickening how many children are subject to abuse, neglect and even killed at the hands of Child Protective Services. Every parent should read the free handbook (http://www.connecticutdcfwatch.com/Free_Handbook.pdf) from Connecticut DCF Watch


Number of Cases per 100,000 children in the US
These numbers come from The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in Washington. (NCCAN)
Recent numbers have increased significantly for CPS

*Perpetrators of Maltreatment*

Physical Abuse CPS/Foster care 160, biological Parents 59
Sexual Abuse CPS/Foster care 112, biological Parents 13
Neglect CPS/Foster care 410, biological Parents 241
Medical Neglect CPS/Foster care 14 biological Parents 12
Fatalities CPS/Foster care 6.4, biological Parents 1.5

Imagine that, 6.4 children die at the hands of the very agencies that are supposed to protect them and only 1.5 at the hands of parents per 100,000 children.

CPS perpetrates more abuse, neglect, and sexual abuse and kills more children then parents in the United States.

If the citizens of this country hold CPS to the same standards that they hold parents too. No judge should ever put another child in the hands of ANY government agency because CPS nationwide is guilty of more harm and death than any human being combined. CPS nationwide is guilty of more human rights violations and deaths of children then the homes from which they were removed. When are the judges going to wake up and see that they are sending children to their death and a life of abuse when children are removed from safe homes based on the mere opinion of a bunch of social workers?



Emily Joy Lake: Interstate Child Protective Services Fraud and Abuse Case

The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

Emily Joy Lake:
Interstate Child Protective Services Fraud and Abuse CaseBy Susan Detlefsen <motherinterrupted@motherinterrupted.us>
August 20, 2005http://www.motherinterrupted.us/Emily.htmOn Wednesday, August 17, Portland Judge Nan G. Waller (Nan.G.Waller@state.or.us) ordered Emily Lake to be sent to Michigan citing the uniform commercial code (UCC) which proves, does it not, that Emily is an item for income?Someone pointed out UCC refers rather to the uniform child protection act, but I’m not sure of that yet. Anyway, the point is, Emily was ordered sent back to Michigan. However, I just spoke with Roger Weidner who says Judge Waller has not yet signed the order, and that Lynnae Lake stayed down in Salem last night to keep fighting for her daughter through the Oregon Supreme Court.In spite of irrefutable evidence of fraud, collusion and outright lies, Portland Judge Nan Waller, without ever hearing from Emily Lake, ordered her to be turned over to Michigan authorities.Emily’s mother, Lynnae Lake <annewhite2005@hotmail.com>, had a visit with Emily on Monday, and stated, for the record, that her daughter told her she had been asked to withhold information about the CPS strategy from her mother, that she had been offered various gifts for her cooperation. In spite of this, Emily told her mother that she had been crying for her and asked when she could come home to her mother.

Emily told her mother during the Monday visit that her eyes were hurting her, but that DHS refused to take her to the hospital or to see a doctor.

Emily’s so-called attorney Lynn Haxton declined to speak on Emily’s behalf, and since Emily was not there, I asked Judge Waller if I could read a letter from Emily. “I object” was the only thing I heard Paxton say during the hearing. She objected to anyone communicating anything from Emily to the court. Why? Because she is involved in criminal racketeering, fraud and child exploitation.

One of the court watchers present today agreed to be the principal plaintiff in a lawsuit against Ms. Paxton for failure to represent Emily Lake, and for violating her right to safety and to a permanent home, with the mother she has lived with since birth, except for the period when Emily was 4 years old and she had been snatched and put in foster care by Michigan CPS–which is the reason Emily and her mom left Michigan in the first place.

“Dear Susan, My name is MJ (Emily apparently became aware of the underground nature of her existence here in Oregon and made up a name for herself, as her mother had done). I am a child between the age of 7 and 10. CPS is chasing us. We had to leave our home. I heard you are trying to stop CPS. Please help us too by telling people we want to go home. I want this to end. Love, MJ” This was the letter I received from Emily back in February when I started getting to know her and her mom, whom I knew as “Anne”. The letter, as well as some of Emily’s artwork, were left with Judge Waller to go into Emily Lake’s Oregon file.

Lisa Kaufman, Ms. Lake’s court-appointed attorney, did a pretty good job arguing her case, and fighting to have Emily released. She pointed out the community Emily had developed around her since moving to Oregon, as evidenced by the number of Emily’s supporters present in the courtroom. She cited various statutes pointing to the court’s obligation to look at Emily’s current situation and needs, and that the Michigan petition was not valid, since at the time it was served in Oregon, it was outdated.

In spite of all this, and overwhelming evidence, that no one in charge of Emily’s custody here, neither the attorney general (or district attorney) Springer, nor Emily’s caseworker, JD Devros, nor the girl’s own attorney, Lynn Haxton, have done anything to protect this child from abuse by Portland Police or medical neglect, in failing to have Emily seen by a doctor since she has been complaining about the pepper mace sprayed in her eyes.

Lynnae Lake left the Portland Juvenile Courthouse today for the federal building to try to get an injunction on Emily’s extradition back to Michigan.

August 17, 2005

Dear Emily,

I wanted you to know that [my daughter} and I came to try to say goodbye to you tonight. You were a bright light in my life while you were in Portland. I will never forget our trip to Mt. Hood, the Oregon Coast and the hike up to Multnomah Falls, and the evening I did all those different hairdos on you. I think I have photos of that somewhere.

I have your paintings, which are so precious to me. Thank you for leaving them with me.

Emily, if you don’t want me to have photos or paintings by you on my MotherInterrupted Web site, just tell me, and I will take them down. I want to hear that from you though, because many times I have received emails from CPS workers claiming to be “child x” wanting me to take down their Web page, then later I find out that the kid did not even know about the Web site until the state worker coerced them into agreeing to cooperate with scolding me about exposing their story. I am telling you this because you are old enough and smart enough to figure out what CPS is really all about, right?

I put this Web site up to let the world know what CPS is doing to all you kids, but your privacy is very important, so just let me know. I would need to hear directly from you before I take anything down, ok?

So many people are talking about you and your mom. I just got off the phone with Roger Brown, a renowned sociologist who has taken great interest in your case. He has proof that CPS is hurting kids like you by taking them from their parents.

You will be so proud of your mother someday. I wish you could have heard her today, and last Monday, taking on DHS, CPS, the district attorney and even the judge, in her fight to get them to let go of you. Your mother is still working on paperwork, right now. She is down in Salem, filing motions with the Oregon Supreme Court to try to get you back. She reminded me of a mama lion–and a very smart lion–going after a predator.

Alas, CPS is a very powerful institution, and it will take a good hard fight to get them to lay off the kids. My dream is to free the children someday of CPS.

I tried to leave a special teddy bear from Oregon for you to take back to Michigan, and one of your paintings I thought you might want to take with you as a souvenir of your time here in Portland. Of course, your captors would have nothing to do with me and ordered me to leave the building immediately. They don’t like me because I am telling the truth about what they are doing to kids and families.

Emily, I will miss you, little angel. Send me an email sometime.

Your friend forever,
Emily in Oregon, February 2005, with “Sgt Pepper”.

See how “endangered” she was while in the custody of her mother in Oregon?

Emily is an artist. When she came to our house, Emily loved to use my water colors. I eventually gave her some water colors of her own. Here is my favorite painting by Emily.

One of my other favorites is the “pear people” painting, which is hanging across from my own giant pear painting, which I painted myself with a friend a couple years ago.

In February of 2005, Emily Lake and her mother “Anne” moved to Oregon to avoid being destroyed by Michigan CPS. I did not know the full details of their story until they were apprehended last Wednesday, August 10, 2005.

Monday, August 15, 2005: Emily finally gets a visit with her mom. Details of the visit are being kept confidential for now, so as not to compromise Emily and her mother’s case.

Monday, August 15, 2005: Lynae Lake challenges Michigan jurisdiction and makes a record of abuses against her and her daughter in Portland, Oregon

Today, at 1 p.m., after much confusion about whether or not there was going to be a hearing, Judge Nan Waller was put on speaker phone in Multnomah County Juvenile Court. Lynae Lake, aka Anne White, gave the most outstanding courtroom performance I have witnessed to date. I hope to put a full transcript of the hearing on my Web site.

Laying out the fraud behind the Michigan petition to take 9 year old Emily, and the pattern of retaliation against her for being an outspoken advocate for children’s rights in Michigan, Lynae Lake convinced those present that she is a loving, protective mother, and that she and her daughter were brutalized, on groundless charges and a groundless pick-up order for Emily, by Portland Police on August 10, 2005.

“You are violating my right to due process and you’re violating my daughter’s rights. Where is Emily? Why is she not here to speak for herself?”

95 year old Frances Weidner, mother of former prosecutor Roger Weidner, who had to be in Bend today and missed Emily’s hearing, spoke on behalf of Emily. “Where’s my Emily, where’s my princess?” Mrs. Weidner has been asking since Emily was violently kidnapped last Wednesday from the Weidner residence by Portland Police Sgt Charlie Brown. When she got up to the speaker phone, Mrs. Weidner addressed Judge Waller and all of us in the courtroom: “I told Emily, you’re going to be the Rose Festival Princess someday if you stay in Portland”.

When Emily’s mom pointed out that, until last Wednesday, Emily, who has been a resident of Oregon for over 6 months now, was leading a happy healthy life here in Portland and that she has many friends here, those of us there supporting the family spontaneously broke out in applause and cheers for Emily. We were clearly in contempt of court, though Judge Waller did nothing but listen. The court clerk, however, a nasty-tempered bureaucrat, apparently felt it necessary at that point to bring the guards in.

When it became clear that Judge Waller had apparently already made a decision about Emily prior to the hearing, Lynae protested: “this is just a play isn’t it? The script has already been written. This no hearing”. Judge Waller hesitated, then asked to have one of the attorneys look at the pick-up order for Emily. She asked for the expiration date, which stated “June 2005”. So, the only documentation that anyone had justifying anything that had happened to Emily and her mom since August 10, was expired.

Judge Waller set another hearing, for this Wednesday, August 17, at 11:00 a.m. to find out whether or not Michigan can renew their petition (which was based on fraud in the first place, as Lynae has already shown). Only Emily’s testimony can corroborate what the mother is saying.

For anyone reading this, please urge Judge Waller (Nan.G.Waller@state.or.us) to bring Emily into court Wednesday to speak on her own behalf.

When I questioned Emily’s attorney, Haxton, about this, she refused to answer any questions, and quickly stole out of the courtroom.

Dave Nyhoff is making calls to Michigan authorities to urge them not to renew any pick up order on this child

Before leaving the courtroom, Lynae Lake insisted Judge Waller set up a visit for her and her daughter. The visit was to take place this afternoon in Portland. This was a relief as some had been told Emily might have already been sent back to Michigan.

Please attend Emily’s next hearing this Wednesday:

Emily Joy Lake Hearing
August 17, 11 a.m.
Juvenile Court
1401 NE 68th
Portland, Oregon

August 15: Calls from Portland Police Complaint Department

I received several calls today from Officer Hess regarding reports of police brutality against 9 year old Emily Lake. He said so many people have called to complain, that a special investigator has been assigned. Please address your complaints regarding the August 10 brutalization of Emily Joy Lake to:

Judy Taylor, Portland Police, 503-823-0905

If you don’t feel that pepper spraying and threatening with attack dogs is a good way to “protect” children and keep them “safe” as DHS says they are doing when they have the police go take kids like Emily away from the parents who love and protect them naturally, let Ms. Taylor know about it.

Please read synopsis by Nancy Luckhurst, President of Children’s Rights Foundation from Michigan, and personal friend to Emily Lake and her mother:

“Right now I am in such shock and mental anguish over this I am going to have to get my barings a bit. This one is very personal to me. I know the story and it is not pretty and it was all started several years ago by the oldest daughter who wanted to live move in with a boyfriend. She got a case started and the children were put in the care of the father who never had any interest in them. He dumped them on an aunt. The abuses in that home were horrendous. The little one was only 5 at the time. The children in that home were allowed to torture that child. She loved to pretend she was a dog or cat as so many children of that age do. The family allowed the other children to put a dog collar and leash on her and force her to eat dog food out of a dish on the floor. That was only part of it. The mother won the children back. In the process she made worker Dan Rogalny of Midland Co look like the ass he is on the stand as I understand it. He has had it in for her ever since. When she left there was no order in place to pick up the children there was no warrant. CPS in Midland Co had made no contact with this mother what so ever prior to her leaving. I am getting information coming in I am going to be making contact with the people she was living with and make arrangements to get her computer. I know there is tons of information that is needed there to show these turkeys for what they are. Will Gaston has agreed to help with this endeavor. If you do not know who he is get Randy’s survivor Flyer and see his picture. Go on the net and read his story. It was is late wife who wrote the book so many in this advocacy work swear by, Sui Juris. Oh and as a note. I had an occasion to talk with little Emmy. She had met Will. She told me she had just met the “real Santa Claus”. When you see the picture you will understand.”
August 16 Letter from C Myrick of Vermont

Reading of how Emily Lake and her mother were treated is very distressing. It unsettles me to know that there are so many actors out there just “doing their job” for the corrupt who seem to run the show. How is this allowed to happen? There aren’t many actors in our government with any decency, morality and sense of justice–and where are they who “protect and serve”? They have their priorities mixed up, it is US they are to protect and serve, not corruption.

Do the right thing, protect this little girl and her mom. No matter what instigated this event, there is no excuse whatsoever to treat fellow human beings in this manner. Disgusting! Evil. Bring charges against all who played a part in this travesty. Reunite Lynnae and Emily at once.

For the future, we need to unite and agree to never, NEVER, elect members of the bar to legislative or executive branches of government (boycott lawyers from public office); don’t keep reelecting anyone but put new blood in offices, and most important–hold accountable the judiciary, visit http://www.jail4judges.org for further information.

C. Myrick
Vermont JIC


August 14 Message from Will Gaston, A Voice for Children:


Takeback mailing list
HomePage: http://oregongov.us
Larger HomePage: christiancommonlaw-gov.org
Please Contribute to our Web-Log at: http://oregongov.us/TakeBback


August 15: Letter to Portland Mayor Tom Potter from Charles Stewart

Mr Potter;

You seem possibly an honorable man. I do not say this to many public servants in our area. I read about you in the news-paper. You do seem to have a rare functional conscience.

My un-orthodox legal skills might be of assistance in your battles with the un-thinking robots. If his is of interest to you; please contact me. There is getting less middle-ground for the fence-sitters. Those who truly seek the betterment of the common people must learn to work together against those who subvert our fundamental state & national system of constitutional government. Otherwise all will be lost. The enemy is simply to powerful.

This is a copy of a complain I lodged to your Portland police bureau. I believe it is with-in your power to do something about these abuses.


Charles Bruce, Stewart


On behalf of: Emily Joy,Lake; Leanne Lake; Roger Weidner; & the People of the State of Oregon; State-Ex-Rel/Quo-Warranto Felony Kinaping & Assault Criminal-Complaint.

I do not know these officers names. I believe you-all know the case I am speaking of. My complaint is for criminal assault & kidnapping by these officers & all attorney bar-members who conspired to proceeded with lawless force against this mother & child.

From the testimony before me of these honorable people, I believe that these officers acted beyond their constitutionally-lawful authority to abuse this child & her mother.

I used to run the “Multnomah County Common-Law Court”; as Elected “Chief Justice” there-in.

Our court was shut down in large part by lawless cointelpro-style abuses from the rico/babylonian-whore bar-monopoly attorneys & judges & the seeming mk-ultra mind-controlled police-officers robotically enforcing constitutionally-lawless malum-prohibitum based codes & regulations. Your officers physically beat one of our juror/judges, one James Bleakley; & harassed us in many other ways; all under the conspiratorial direction of these private criminally syndicated bar monopoly members.

We were no threat to you. We need good constitutionally-recognizable “Law Enforcement” Officers; if you still have any.

But we were a threat tho that constitutionally-lawless rico lawyers bar monopoly. If the common people can break that monopoly on the administration of justice, those social parasites will have to go out & find honest work. There will be very little use for their statutory-schooled law-school education. Like vampires in the daylight, they will dry up and wither away.

From the testimony of trusted friends, I believe this complaint is well-founded, & i am trying to add extra weight to already registered complaints similar to this. I do this because i know there is much corruption on your offices; & I fear if I & others do not speak, it will get shuffled away & this will just be another abuse similar to Kesandra James Murder by the satanically-lawless criminal syndicate members whom I believe infest & terrorize your ranks.

Also; I live in fear that these abuses can happen to me or anyone. This is Not a Nazi Police-State where Goons with Guns & Badges can lawlessly abuse the rights of common peaceable people.

Roger Weidner or Wilbur Gaston can provide more details. I am assisting all of these people in trying to being Conscionable Justice & Constitutional Law (same thing) to this matter.

We all proceed in the name of & on behalf of the common -people of this state; as is our recognized right under Oregon’s Constitution at Article 1 Section 10 & in ORS 30.510; State-Ex-Rel/Quo-Warranto. A crime against one, is a crime against all. We are an organic body-politic. We fell the pain of our fellow patriotic constitutionalists; in every abuse you hurl against us.

Since you-all terrorized us into shutting down our common-law court; please ask the Multnomah County Court Administrator for a Courtroom where “We the People” can assemble a Jury with Functional Consciences & the brains to follow the fundamental principles und