Think Twice Before Spying on Your Spouse in New Jersey|Atty. Theodore Sliwinski


 

Judge Anne Diggs Taylor, Holding Eavesdropping is (U.S.) unconstitutional read story here, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18nsa.html?pagewanted=all, New York Times, Judge Finds Wiretap Acts Violate the Law, Adam Liptak and  Eric Lichtblau, August 18, 2006

 

Think Twice Before Spying

Many people these days use all sorts of methods to spy on ex-lovers and the mothers of their children, . . . even if this little boy who is now eight years old  was abducted and kidnapped under the color of authority of law in Pearland, Texas, Brazoria County CPS, complicit cops for City of Pearland and Harris County in Houston three years ago on May 8th and handed over to the “Responsible,” Recently “Married,” father–one who always threatened to do exactly what they did, and protected by the usual ring and is still being secreted and kept away from his mother.  

Apparently, some psychopaths  of the compulsive lying genre enjoy stalking and employing professional and government stalkers to professionally harass, legally abuse, malign, trying to intimdidate, gang-stalking, cyber-bullying, hacking, spying on phone calls of the mother and he/r friends and family, lying, perjuring, bearing false witness in a court of law which he cannot seem to get enough of, but to a criminal degree, bribing judge and court, on knowledge, belief, strong circumstantial evidence, and eyewitnesses to such,  and generally and actually blocking Julian’s Real Mommy not only  from using  using he/r  education and professional skills, but also from all employment.

 The documentary that captures the essence of  “Protective” Mother, Holly Collins and he/r children’s plight when they were granted political asylum in The Netherlands described this systematic neutralization campaign to maternally and materially bankrupt and render homeless those this social pandemic of child trafficking, and worse, throught the New Mafia family courts of fraud, abuse, harmful deception with malice, and the affiliated dimensions and clusters of personality traits and habits of those who keep little children winning “Teddy” Bears (think rail cars and “transportation”) at the carnival in “joint public-private” business–“No Way Out But One,” the title of Garland Waller’s award-winning film.  

Those of us “protective” mothers, mostly with peculiarly high education and/or career levels, who are left behind to survive the unbelievable pain, torture, distress, generally,  psychological warfare and for profit, 100% non transparent by law, “non-for profit” and state BAR engineered systematic re-victimization, in at least fifty percent, as reported by one source, are routinely, without fail in most every “State” in America,  forced to claw our way out of the depths of Sheol with literally nothing but the clothes on our backs and the singular drive to get to our children with the hope that a police officer might actually have the capacity to comprehend that the father’s “court ‘orders”” are void ab initio, null and void, as if they never existed in such circumstances, without even a “special” appearance due to implicit and explicit fraud upon the court, lack of actual jurisdiction, and absolutely no due process of law, procedural or substantive (not to mention bribery and conspiracy against Federally “protected,” US Constitutionally secure rights),  still worse is the the Stigmata that is our permanent record (and what company does not do a background check for multiple employer insurance schmes or  purposes these days?),  such records being the result of false imprisonment during paternity establishment or divorce or custody or even mediation/arbitration proceedings.

How do these fathers swing these sweet “pre-determined,” “trauma-based” and “evidence based” outcomes?This question, of course,  factors- in n (of court)  the hel p of their often times deluded or intentionally deceived and manipulated wives of convenience with a pack of their own children (by another man in whose home they live and receive thousands a month in child support on top of their lavish lifestyle while us mothers are “assigned,” or,”  “charged,” wrongfully, maliciously with retaliation and fear of exposure, unreasonably, illegally, criminally, and unconstitutionally, with child support . . . to, oftentimes, literal millionaires who will stop at nothing to keep trying to “put ‘Mommy’ in jail” because “Daddy says ‘Mommy’ can’t afford a lawyer.'”

Almost a decade of legal abuse, legal stalking, legal, but unlawful, US unconstitutional kidnapping, secreting an infant and toddler, a $650/hr. plus attorney who gives continuing learning education seminars with the judge, a $20,000 “Damon 10,000 Screw” (quoting former FBI agent, Ted Gunderson)and abusing from afar whilst using one’s mother to frivolously and incessantly phone police and child protective services (with the bold-faced effrontery to leave the threats and a follow-up to the fact on Julian’s Real Mommy’s cell phone, in front of clients and at child’s pre-school with “eye” witnesses with “ears to hear”) will do to a mother, that is, before he/r only son was violently and mercilessly ripped away from he/r in an elaborate and sophisticated cover-up, alternatively, poor legal, but unlawuful (because US Unconstitutional and felonious), ad vice still couldn’t destroy the unconditional love and happiness, the miracle of my only private property sometimes called “child” for “state” reasons, for whom I will always, be glad I met my son’s father, and for whom I actually used to regret not ever having the chance to get to know him or be a part of mine and my son’s life (right up until the day he decided to start showing up for his bought “joint managing, non-primary ‘conservatorship'” to take my five year old to a private play therapist –think Marcia Kleinman’s coaching regarding alleged sexual abuse– Kimberly A. Abernethy in North Houston, Texas.  So in the end, after six long hard years of holding my own and providing for my son in a relatively very high quality of living with a home office (that, of course, was robbed in 2010–they took most everyting out of the beautiful, spacious house I rented . . . which is a few doors down from where my son now lives and breathes, where I am, for no known reason and absent zero findings of fact or conclusions of law, denied the right to go near my son’s home, school (though I am a former educator, my life’s passion since I was three years old teaching the neighbors how to spell on my green easel and chalkboard and my blackboard using old math books my grandmother’s teacher friend who taught Bible school with used to supply me with), and even extracurricular activities (no “access or ‘visitation’).

Julian’s Real Mommy’s son’s father is under the delusion, pursuant to a null and void non-contract deceptively sold or administrated in the “form” deceptively mislabeled, “final order,” that he is the “sole managing ‘conservator,’ now, and Judge Lisa A. Millard and associate Judge Conrad Moren of the 310th Court in Harris County, Texas, that is, after Brazoria County CPS supervisor Cheryl Harvick, retaliating for failing to take my son’s case as serious as it was and because I busted them in their R.I.C.O. con spiracy, delivered on her violent threat that I would “never see [my] son again” for calling the Office of Consumer Affairs on “one of hers [caseworker, Lesley Damian-Murray, spelling as documented].  Then there is Officer Paul Elton of teh Pearland Police Department for City of Pearland (in Brazoria County), Region 6 CPS, who, though he knew there was an open police investigation on the father, yet still denied my good faith effort to allow the father supervised visitation on May 03, 2012, the day after my son and I were informed by his pediatrician that we were going to have to make a report by calling the CPS Statewide Hotline in Austin, Texas because he (my son’s then doctor while I was Julians’ only consistent and “primary” caregiver his entire life) was obligated to do so by law after speaking to my son.

 

We did exactly what each professional at the doctor’s office, CPS hotline, Pearland Police officers (but not the ones who helped Cheryl Harvick kidnap my son in a R.I.C.O. conspiracy against our US Constitutional First, Fourth, Fifth Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights Rights with invidous retaliation and discrimination and malice with unbelievable deception to lure us to the CPS office (or otherwise be arrested for not cooperating with our own reported (non)investigation as the Harris County police report and investigations was immediately shut-down by Brazoria County CPS supervisor, promoted to director, on knowledge and belief) under the carefully planned ruse and direct lie on May 07, 2012 that they “needed [my] ‘help'” to “make an arrest” on Julian’s father, leading me to believe that they had actually investigated.  The ensuing ambush the following day when we arrived at the Pearland CPS office on May 08, 2012, just one day after I eagerly took Julian to pre-registration/”Kindergarten Round-up” in preparation for his first year of “big school” for which we had read and prepared and practiced writing for so many years together.

In the end, that’s how a man I never wanted as an enemy in the first place finally delivered on his ominous and “terroristic” threat  that he and his “family” would “ruin” me if I didn’t show up to terminate the pregnancy with our only child where he had, without my knowledge and without consent, paid for the “termination” over the public Internet. The receipt in which Julian’s Real Mommy’s name is misspelled in three places can be found on this blog under, “How Harris and Brazoria County Protected a Mother and a Child.” I had no idea . . . three years, yet time  has stood still for me.  I wonder what my little Julian Jacob Worrell of Genealogy Saloom is thinking and doing on this beautiful, sunny Sunday.  Is he playing soccer?  attending church ? playing the Nintendo Wii?, watching television?  reading?  swimming?  Does he ever think of his Real Mommy?

It is my hope that at least one readers who has read this far and is in a similar situation or knows someone who is going through this peculiarly unreported, yet all too common paralyzing pain and torture as a direct result of the same terroristic  tactics, that you will find useful  the following  information and delight in the quick, but enlightening and highly useful general knowledge/academic research and/or entertainment which follows by Attorney Theodore “Sliwinski” of New Jersey (citing “Fair Use” and Legal Disclaimer, 17 U.S.C., section 107).

Think Twice Before Spying

on Your Spouse in New Jersey

Learn more about New Jersey’s wiretapping laws and how they may apply to those who spy on their spouses in New Jersey.

by , Attorney

Practice Areas: Divorce

East Brunswick, New Jersey

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/new_jersey/spying_on_your_spouse

Hidden cameras, listening devices, or GPS tracking systems allow you to monitor your spouse’s activities. Specific software can even record your spouse’s computer use and online presence.

But most people aren’t aware that using spying equipment on your spouse could be illegal. These folks may find themselves in a thorny legal mess unless they know the federal and local (New Jersey) laws that apply to spying.

Congress enacted the Federal Wiretap Act in 1968 to protect wire and oral communications from being intercepted. A lot has changed since 1968. New Jersey quickly followed suit and enacted an identical law called the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.  Today, communications aren’t just wire or oral; they’re transmitted by all manner of devices – electronic, digital, and video. Both Congress and state legislatures have been trying to keep up with the fact pace of new technology.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which updated Federal protections to match the dramatic changes in technology and to protect the privacy and security of communications transmitted by new forms of technology (e.g., emails). 

Although the laws are virtually identical, the penalties may be different. If you’re accused of violating either of these acts, you should definitely contact a local attorney for help.

Common law invasion of privacy

Spying on your spouse by, for example, hacking into email accounts or monitoring computer usage could also constitute an invasion of your spouse’s right to privacy. New Jersey recognizes each person’s right to privacy, and if it’s invaded, injured spouses may bring a civil lawsuit against a spying spouse, just as they could if someone other than a spouse, say a neighbor, invaded their privacy.

A civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy carries with it various potential damages, including monetary fines. In addition, any information gathered as a result of the invasion of privacy is generally inadmissible in a divorce proceeding (or any other court action).

For example, if you hacked into your spouse’s email account to get copies of lurid emails you believe prove your spouse is an unfit parent, and a court finds that the hacking was an invasion of privacy, a judge will probably decide that the emails can’t be used as evidence in the custody case.

Invasion of of privacy laws are somewhat complex. If you have questions about them, you should contact a local attorney for advice.

Can I intercept my spouse’s emails?

There are hundreds of spyware programs and gadgets that enable a person to retrieve emails. These days, viewing a spouse’s stored emails or online messages is the most common way to discover an affair.

There is no easy answer to the question of whether it’s legal to do this kind of spying. If the computer is located in the marital home, then (in most cases) the interception of emails will not constitute a violation of wiretapping laws. However, if the emails were password protected, or they were stored on your spouse’s work computer, trying to retrieve them could be a violation.

In one New Jersey case, a wife tried to use emails between her husband and his girlfriend as evidence in a custody dispute between the parents. The husband asked the court to reject the emails based on his right to privacy.

In this case, the emails were stored in an AOL folder located right on on family computer hard drive, and the wife didn’t have to use a password or even access her husband’s email account to get them. Moreover, the computer was kept in the family room.

Because they were easily accessible, the court found the husband didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy to the emails, and they were admissible. The court also held that although the New Jersey Wire Tap act applies to “unauthorized access” of electronic communications of spouses, there was no violation of that provision either.

For the full text of this important court decision, see White v. White, 344 N.J. Super. 211 (Ch. Div. 2001).

 

If I do get information from my spouse’s computer, can I use it?

 

If you learn things about your spouse’s actions by hacking into a computer, you may find the information useful on a personal level if it confirms your suspicions about adultery or other wrongdoing. However, as stated above, any evidence that’s obtained by wiretapping or hacking can’t always be used as leverage in a divorce case—it may backfire in the form of a civil lawsuit or other retaliation, and it may not be admissible in court.

 

Can I use video surveillance to spy on my spouse in our home?

Video surveillance conducted in the marital home is generally permissible and not considered an invasion of privacy. However, in the outside world, an argument can be made that video surveillance is an invasion of privacy; the key issue is where the surveillance occurs.

The New Jersey Wiretap Act prohibits spouses from illegally recording the communications of the other spouse. However, there appears to be an exception to this general rule; it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication So, it may be ok to record a conversation, but only if the person that’s doing the recording is a party to the conversation. (See N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4 (d).) There is no exception for recording conversations between your spouse and someone else. Recording those conversations is a violation of wiretap laws.

     Can I intercept my spouse’s cell phone calls?

New Jersey’s wiretap statute defines a wire communication to include “any electronic storage of such communication, and the radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit.” Thus, under New Jersey law, cell phone communications are treated the same as landline (phone) communications.

      Resources

For the full text of the New Jersey decision on the use of GPS to spy on your spouse, see Villanova v. Innovative Investigations, Inc., 420 N.J.Super. 353 (App. Div. 2011).

For the complete text of the New Jersey Wiretap Act, see N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq.

For the complete text of the Federal Wiretap Act, see 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq.

     Texas statutes:

 

ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE (Wiretapping, Interception of Electronic Communication, Surveillance, Private Investigators, and the Attorney/Client Privilege)

WARREN COLE KRISTI WIDNER

Piro and Lilly, L.L.P.

1400 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77056-3008

warcole@piro-lilly.com

(713) 966-4444

State Bar of Texas

29TH ANNUAL ADVANCED FAMILY LAW COURSE

August 18-21, 2003

San Antonio

CHAPTER 54,

Section 123

INTERCEPTION OF

COMMUNICATION §§ 123.001.

Definitions In this chapter:

(1)      “Communication” means speech uttered by a person or information including speech that is transmitted in whole or in part with the aid of a wire or cable.

(2)      “Interception” means the aural acquisition of the contents of a communication through the use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device that is made without the consent of a party to the communication, but does not include the ordinary use of:

(A)      a telephone or telegraph instrument or facility or telephone and telegraph equipment;

(B)      a hearing aid designed to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal;

(C)      a radio, television, or other wireless receiver; or

(D)      a cable system that relays a public wireless broadcast from a common antenna to a receiver.

          §§ 123.002. Cause of Action

     (a)       A party to a communication may sue a person who:

(1)         intercepts, attempts to intercept, or employs or obtains another to intercept or attempt to intercept the communication;

(2)      uses or divulges information that he knows or reasonably should know was obtained by interception of the communication; or

(3)      as a landlord, building operator, or communication common carrier, either personally or through an agent or employee, aids or knowingly permits interception or attempted interception of the communication.

(b)      This section does not apply to a party to a communication if an interception or attempted interception of the communication is authorized by Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516. §§ 123.003.

          Defense

     (a)      A switchboard operator or an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication may intercept, disclose, or use a communication in the normal course of employment if engaged in an activity that is necessary to service or for the protection of the carrier’s rights or property.

          A communication common carrier may not use service observation or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

     (b)      It is a defense to an action under Section 123.002 that an interception, disclosure, or use of a communication is permitted by this section.

     (c)       A defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence a defense raised under this section.

            §§ 123.004.       Damages

      A person who establishes a cause of action under this chapter is entitled to:

(1)       an injunction prohibiting a further interception, attempted interception, or divulgence or use of information obtained by an interception;

(2)      statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence;

(3)     all actual damages in excess of $10,000;

(4)      punitive damages in an amount determined by the court or jury; and

(5)      reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

TEXAS PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16

. CRIMINAL INSTRUMENTS, INTERCEPTION OF WIRE OR ORAL COMMUNICATION, AND INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICE §§ 16.01. Unlawful Use of Criminal Instrument

(a)      A person commits an offense if:

(1)      he possesses a criminal instrument with intent to use it in the commission of an offense; or

(2)      with knowledge of its character and with intent to use or aid or permit another to use in the commission of an offense, he manufactures, adapts, sells, installs, or sets up a criminal instrument . (b) For the purpose of this section, “criminalinstrument” means anything, the possession, manufacture, or sale of which is not otherwise an offense, that is specially designed, made, or adapted for use in the commission of an offense. (c) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is one category lower than the offense intended. An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a state jail felony.

     Illegally Obtained Evidence

     Chapter 5414 §§ 16.02.

  Unlawful Interception, Use, or Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic    Communications Text of section

 effective until Sept. 1, 2005

     (a)      In this section, “computer trespasser,””covert entry,” “communication common carrier,” “contents,” “electronic communication, “electronic, mechanical, or other device,“immediate life-threatening situation,” “intercept,” “investigative or law enforcement officer,” “member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations,”oral communication,”protected computer,” [“electronic communication,”] “readily accessible to the general public,” and “wire communication” have the meanings given those terms in Article 18.20, Code of Criminal Procedure.

     (b)      A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)      intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(2)      intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to another person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person knows or has reason to know the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(3)      intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communic ation if the person knows or is reckless about whether the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

(4)      knowingly or intentionally effects a covert entry for the purpose of intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications without court order or authorization; or

(5)      intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when the device:

     (A)      is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other connection used in wire communications; or

(B)       transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of communications by radio. (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that:

(1)       an operator of a switchboard or an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication intercepts a communication or discloses or uses an intercepted communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of the communication, unless the interception results from the communication common carrier’s use of service observing or random monitoring for purposes other than mechanical or service quality control checks;

(2)     an officer, employee, or agent of a communication common carrier provides information, facilities, or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement offic er who is authorized as provided by this section [article] to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication;

(3)      a person acting under color of law intercepts:

(A)      a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception;

(B)      a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is acting under the authority of Article 18.20,Code of Criminal Procedure; or

(C)       a wire or electronic communication made by a computer trespasser and transmitted to, through, or from a protected computer, if:

           (i)       the interception did not acquire a communication other than one transmitted to or from the computer trespasser;

           (ii)      the owner of the protected computer consented to the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer; and

            (iii)       actor was lawfully engaged in an ongoing criminal investigation and the actor had reasonable suspicion to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications likely to be obtained would be material to the investigation;

(4)      a person not acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if:

(A) the person is a party to the communication; or

(B) [if] one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful [any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of this state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious] act;

(5) a person acting under color of law intercepts a wire, oral, or electronic communication if:

(A) oral or written consent for the interception is given by a magistrate before the interception;

(B)      an immediate life-threatening situation exists;

(C)      the person is a member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to:

           (i)      respond to and deal with lifethreatening situations; or

          (ii)      install electronic, mechanical, or other devices; and

(D)      the interception ceases immediately on termination of the life-threatening situation;

(6)      an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission intercepts a communication transmitted by radio or discloses or uses an intercepted communication in the normal course of employment and in the discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Federal Communications Commission in the enforcement of Chapter 5, Title 47, United States Code;

(7)      a person intercepts or obtains access to an electronic communication that was made through an electronic communication system that is configured to permit the communication to be readily accessible to the general public;

(8) a person intercepts radio communication, other than a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between a cordless telephone handset and a base unit, that is transmitted:

(A)       by a station for the use of the general public;

(B)      to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

(C)      by a governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system that is readily accessible to the general public, unless the radio communication is transmitted by a law enforcement representative to or from a mobile data terminal;

(D)     by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

(E)      by a marine or aeronautical communications system;

(9)      a person intercepts a wire or electronic c ommunication the transmission of which causes harmful interference to a lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of the interference;

(10)      a user of the same frequency intercepts a radio communication made through a system that uses frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of the system, if the communication is not scrambled or encrypted; or

(11)      a provider of electronic communications service records the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect the provider, another provider furnishing service towards the completion of the communication, or a user of that service from fraudulent, unlawful, or abusive use of the service.

     (d)      A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)      intentionally manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells an electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the device is designed primarily for nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications and that the device or a component of the device has been or will be used for an unlawful purpose; or

(2)      places in a newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication an advertisement of an electronic, mechanical, or other device:

(A)      knowing or having reason to know that the device is designed primarily for nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications;

(B)      promoting the use of the device for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications; or

(C)      knowing or having reason to know that the advertisement will promote the use of the device for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications.

     (e)      It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (d) that the manufacture, assembly, possession, or sale of an electronic, mechanical, or other device that is designed primarily for the purpose of nonconsensual interception of wire, electronic, or oral communication is by:

(1)      a communication common carrier or a provider of wire or electronic communications service or an officer, agent, or employee of or a person under contract with a communication common carrier or provider acting in the normal course of the provider’s or communication carrier’s business;

(2)      an officer, agent, or employee of a person under contract with, bidding on contracts with, or doing business with the United States or this state acting in the normal course cof the activities of the United States or this state;

(3)      a member of the Department of Public Safety who is specifically trained to install wire, oral, or electronic communications intercept equipment; or

(4)      a member of a local law enforcement agency that has an established unit specifically designated to respond to and deal with life threatening situations. 

     (f)      An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, unless the offense is committed under Subsection (d) or (g), in which event the offense is a state jail felony.

     (g)      A person commits an offense if, knowing that a government attorney or an investigative or law enforcement officer has been authorized or has applied for authorization to intercept wire, electronic, or oral communications, the person obstructs, impedes, prevents, gives notice to another of, or attempts to give notice to another of the interception.

     (h)      This section expires September 1, 2005, and shall not be in force on and after that date. Added by Acts 1981, 67th Leg., p. 738, ch. 275, §§ 2, eff. Aug. 31, 1981. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4878, ch. 864, §§§§ 1 to 3, eff. June 19, 1983; Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1166, §§ 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 790, §§ 16, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, §§ 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, §§ 9, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1270, §§ 11, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. Sections 16.02(a) and (c) Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg.,eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

           §§ 16.03.      Unlawful Use of Pen Register or Trap and Trace Device

     (a)      A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device to record or decode electronic or other impulses for the purpose of identifying telephone numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on a telephone line.

     (b)      In this section, “authorized peace officer,“communications common carrier,” “pen register,” and “trap and trace device” have the meanings assigned by Article 18.21, Code of Criminal Procedure.

     (c)      It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor is:

     (1)      an officer, employee, or agent of a communications common carrier and the actor installs or uses a device or equipment to record  a number dialed from or to a telephone instrument in the normal course of business of the carrier for purposes of:

(A)      protecting property or services provided by the carrier; or

(B)      assisting another who the actor reasonably believes to be a peace officer authorized to install or use a pen register or trap and trace device under Article 18.21, Code of Criminal Procedure;

(2)     an officer, employee, or agent of a lawful enterprise and the actor installs or uses a device or equipment while engaged in an activity that:

(A)      is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of property of or services provided by the enterprise; and

(B)      is not made for the purpose of gathering information for a law enforcement agency or private investigative agency, other than information related to the theft of communication or information services provided by the enterprise; or

(3)      a person authorized to install or use a pen register or trap and trace device under Article 18.21, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(d)      An offense under this section is a state jail felony.

     §§ 16.04.

Unlawful Access to Stored Communications

(a)      In this section, “electronic communication,” “electronic storage,” “user,” and “wire communication” have the meanings assigned to those terms in Article 18.21, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(b)      A person commits an offense if the person obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while the communication is in electronic storage by:

(1)      intentionally obtaining access without authorization to a facility through which a wire or electronic communications service is provided; or

(2)      intentionally exceeding an authorization for access to a facility through which a wire or electronic communications service is provided.

(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under Subsection (b)  is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d)      If committed to obtain a benefit or to harm another, an offense is a state jail felony.

(e)      It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that the conduct was authorized by:

(1)      the provider of the wire or electronic communications service;

(2)      the user of the wire or electronic communications service;

(3)      the addressee or intended recipient of the wire or electronic communication; or

(4)       Article 18.21, Code of Criminal Procedure.

                §§ 16.05.      Illegal Divulgence of Public Communications

     (a)      In this section, “electronic communication,” “electronic communications service,” and “electronic communications system” have the meanings given those terms in Article 18.20, Code of Criminal Procedure.

     (b)      A person who provides electronic communications service to the public commits an offense if the person knowingly divulges the contents of a communication to another who is not the intended recipient of the communication.

     (c)      It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that the actor divulged the contents of the communication:

(1)       as authorized by federal or state law;

(2)      to a person employed, authorized, or whose facilities are used to forward the communication to the communication’s destination; or

(3)      to a law enforcement agency if the contents reasonably appear to pertain to the commission of a crime.

     (d)      Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under Subsection (b) that involves a scrambled or encrypted radio communication is a state jail felony.

     (e)      If committed for a tortious or illegal purpose or to gain a benefit, an offense under Subsection (b) that involves a radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted:

(1)      is a Class A misdemeanor if the communication is not a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication; or is a Class C misdemeanor if the communication is a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication.

     (f)      Repealed by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1051, §§ 13, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. §§ 16.06.

     Unlawful Installation of Tracking Device

     (a)      In this section:

(1)      “Electronic or mechanical tracking device” means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object. (2) “Motor vehicle” has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code.

     (b)      A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person.

     (c)      An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

     (d)       It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the person:

(1)      obtained the effective consent of the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle before the electronic or mechanical tracking device was installed;

(2)      was a peace officer who installed the device in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency;

(3)      assisted another whom the person reasonably believed to be a peace officer authorized to install the device    in the course of a criminal investigation or pursuant to an order of a court to gather information for a law enforcement agency; or

(4)       was a private investigator licensed under Chapter 1702, Occupations Code, who installed the device:

(A)         with written consent:

           (i)            to install the device given by the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle; and

           (ii)            to enter private residential property, if that entry was necess ary to install the device, given by the    owner or lessee of the property; or

(B)      pursuant to an order of or other authorization from a court to gather information.

          SELECTED EXCERPTS – TITLE 18 U.S.C

            Sec. 2510. – Definitions

           As used in this chapter –

(1)      ”wire communication’‘ means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce;

(2)      ”oral communication” means any oral communic ation uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication;

(3)      ”State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;

(4)      ”intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

(5)      ”electronic, mechanical, or other device’‘ means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication other than –

     (a)      any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof,

           (i)       furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by  the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by such subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of its business; or

           (ii)      being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties;

     (b)      a hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal;

(6)      ”person” means any employee, or agent of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation;

(7)      ”Investigative or law enforcement officer” means any officer of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses;

(8)      ”contents,” when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication;

(9)       ”Judge of competent jurisdiction” means –

      (a)       a judge of a United States district court or a United States court of appeals; and

     (b)      a judge of any court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State who is authorized by a statute of that State to enter orders authorizing interceptions of wire, oral, or electronic communications;

(10)      ”communication common carrier” shall have the same meaning which is given the term ”common carrier” by section 153(h) [2] of title 47 of the United States Code;

(11)      ”aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed;

(12)       ‘ ‘electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include –

(A)      any wire or oral communication;

(B)      any communication made through a tone-only paging device;

(C)      any communication from a tracking device (as defined in section 3117 of this title); or

(D)      electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;

(13)      ”user” means any person or entity who –

(A)        uses an electronic communication service; and

(B)       is duly authorized by the provider of such service to engage in such use;

(14)      ”electronic communications system” means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications;

(15)      ”electronic communication service” means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;

(16)      ”readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not –

(A)      scrambled or encrypted;

(B)      transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication;

(C)      carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(D)      transmitted over a communication system provided by a common carrier, unless the communication is a tone only paging system communication; or

(E)      transmitted on frequencies allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio

(17)       ”electronic storage” means –

(A)      any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof; and

(B)      any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication;

(18)      ”aural transfer” means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception;

(19)      ”foreign intelligence information,” for purposes of section 2517(6) of this title, means –

(A)      information, whether or not concerning a United States person, that relates to the ability of the United States to protect against –

          (i)       actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;

          (ii)       sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or

          (iii)      clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an   agent of a foreign power; or

(B)       information, whether or not concerning a United States person, with respect to a foreign power or foreign territory that relates to –

           (i)      the national defense or the security of the United States; or

          (ii)      the conduct of the foreign affairs of the United States;

(20)      ”protected computer” has the meaning set forth in section 1030; and

(21)      ”computer trespasser” –

     (A)      means a person who accesses a protected computer without authorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer; and (B) does not include a person known by the owner or operator of the protected computer to have an existing contractual relationship with the owner or operator of the protected computer for access to all or part of the protected computer.

          Sec. 2511.

          Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

(1)      Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who –

      (a)      intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when –

           (i)       such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or

            (ii)       such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or

           (iii)       such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

           (iv)       such use or endeavor to use

(A)       takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or

(B)      obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or

(v)      such person acts in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States;

(c)      intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was  obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection;

       (d)       intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

      (e)(i)     intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, intercepted by means authorized by sections 2511(2)(a)(ii), 2511(2)(b)-(c), 2511(2)(e), 2516, and 2518 of this chapter,

           (ii)      knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such a communication in connection with a criminal investigation,  

           (iii)       having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation, and

           (iv)       with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation, shall be punished as provided in subsection

(4)       or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5).  

 (2) (a)(i)      It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

             (ii)      Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with –

(A)      a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or

(B)      a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required, setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required.

      No provider of wire or electronic communication service, officer, employee, or agent thereof, or landlord, custodian, or other specified person shall disclose the existence of any interception or surveillance or the device used to accomplish the interception or surveillance with respect to which the person has been furnished a court order or certification under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process and then only after prior notification to the Attorney General or to the principal prosecuting attorney of a State or any political subdivision of a State, as may be appropriate.

     Any such disclosure, shall render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section 2520. No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order or certification under this chapter.

      (b)       It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of chapter 5 of title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire or electronic communication, or oral communication transmitted by radio, or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained.

          (c)      It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.

     (d)      It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the(U.S.) Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

     (e)      Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act.

     (f)      Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

     (g)       It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person –

                 (i)      to intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

                 (ii)      to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted –

          (I)      by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress;

          (II)      by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public;

          (III)      by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or

         (IV)      by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

                    (iii) to engage in any conduct which –

       (I)       is prohibited by section 633 of the Communications Act of 1934; or

      (II)      is excepted from the application of section 705(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 by section 705(b) of that Act;

            (iv)       to intercept any wire or electronic c ommunication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference; or

           (v)      for other users of the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted.

           (h)      It shall not be unlawful under this chapter –

           (i)       to use a pen register or a trap and trace device (as those terms are defined for the purposes of chapter 206 (relating to pen registers and trap and trace devices) of this title); or

           (ii)      for a provider of electronic communication s ervice to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.

          (i)      It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept the wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser transmitted to, through, or from the protected computer, if –

(I)      the owner or operator of the protected computer authorizes the interception of the computer trespasser’s communications on the protected computer;

(II)      the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation;

(III)      the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of the computer trespasser’s communications will be relevant to the investigation; and

(IV)      such interception does not acquire communications other than those transmitted to or from the computer trespasser.

(3)(a)     Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication (other than one to such person or entity, or an agent thereof) while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient.

     (b)      A person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication –

            (i)      as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a) or 2517 of this title;

           (ii)        with the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;

           (iii)      to a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or

           (iv)      which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

(4)(a)     Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection or in subsection (5), whoever violates subsection (1) of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

     (b)      If the offense is a first offense under paragraph (a) of this subsection and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under paragraph (a) is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication, then –

           (i)       if the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in subsection (5), the offender shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and

           (ii)       if the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone      communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land     mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, the offender shall be fined under this title.

      (c)       Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a     satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted –

           (i)      to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public; or

           (ii)      as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, is not an offense under this subsection unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain.

(5)(a) (i) If the communication is – 

(A)      a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of that communication and is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain; or

(B)      a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct in violation of this chapter is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, then the person who engages in such conduct shall be subject to suit by the Federal Government in a court of competent jurisdiction.

                (ii)      In an action under this subsection –

 (A)       if the violation of this chapter is a first offense for the person under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) and such person has not been found liable in a civil action under section 2520 of this title, the Federal Government shall be entitled to appropriate injunctive relief; and

(B)      if the violation of this chapter is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or such person has been found liable in any prior civil action under section 2520, the person shall be subject to a mandatory $500 civil fine.

     (b)      The court may use any means within its authority to enforce an injunction issued under paragraph (ii)(A), and shall impose a civil fine of not less than $500 for each violation of such an injunction.

          Sec. 2512.  –

          Manufacture, distribution, possession, and advertising of wire, oral, or electronic communication      intercepting devices prohibited

(1)      Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who intentionally –

     (a)       sends through the mail, or sends or carries in interstate or foreign commerce, any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications;

     (b)       manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, and that such device or any component thereof has been or will be sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or

     (c)       places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication any advertisement of –

     (i)      any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications; or

          (ii)       any other electronic, mechanical, or other device, where such advertisement promotes the use of such device for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, knowing or having reason to know that such advertisement will be sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(2)       It shall not be unlawful under this section for –

     (a)      a provider of wire or electronic communication service or an officer, agent, or employee of, or a person    under contract with, such a provider, in the normal course of the business of providing that wire or electronic communication service, or

      (b)      an officer, agent, or employee of, or a person under contract with, the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, in the normal course of the activities of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, to send through the mail, send or carry in interstate or foreign commerce, or manufacture, assemble, possess, or sell any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.

(3)      It shall not be unlawful under this section to advertise for sale a device described in subsection (1) of this section if the advertisement is mailed, sent, or carried in interstate or foreign commerce solely to a domestic provider of wire or electronic communication service or to an agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof which is duly authorized to use such device.

Sec. 2513.Confiscation of wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepting devices

     Any electronic, mechanical, or other device used, sent, carried, manufactured, assembled, possessed, sold, or advertised in violation of section 2511 or section 2512 of this chapter may be seized and forfeited to the United States. All provisions of law relating to

     (1)      the seizure, summary and judicial forfeiture, and condemnation of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage for violations of the customs laws contained in title 19 of the United States Code,

      (2)      the disposition of such vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage or the proceeds from the sale       thereof,

     (3)      the remission or mitigation of such forfeiture,

     (4)      the compromise of claims, and

     (5)      the award of compensation to informers in respect of such forfeitures, shall apply to seizures and forfeitures incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, under the provisions of this section, insofar as applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section; except that such duties as are imposed upon the collector of customs or any other person with respect to the seizure and forfeiture of vessels, vehicles, merchandise, and baggage under the provisions of the customs laws contained in title 19 of the United States Code shall be performed with respect to seizure and forfeiture of electronic, mechanical, or other intercepting devices under this section by such officers, agents, or other persons as may be authorized or designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.

Sec. 2515.Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications

     Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.

Sec. 2520. Recovery of civil damages authorized

     (a)      In General.

     Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.

     (b)      Relief.

In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes –

(1)    such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

(2)      damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and

(3)      a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

 

 

 (c)      Computation of Damages.

 

(1)      In an action under this section, if the conduct in violation of this chapter is the private viewing of a private     satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or if the communication is a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of part 74 of the rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted and the conduct is not for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, then the court shall assess damages as follows:

     (A)      If the person who engaged in that conduct has not previously been enjoined under section 2511(5) and   has not been found liable in a prior civil action under this section, the court shall assess the greater of the sum of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, or statutory damages of not less than $50 and not more than $500. 

     (B)      If, on one prior occasion, the person who engaged in that conduct has been enjoined under section   2511(5) or has been found liable in a civil action under this section, the court shall assess the greater of the sum of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff, or statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1000.

(2)      In any other action under this section, the court may assess as damages whichever is the greater of – (A) the    sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation; or

(B)      statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.

     (f)      Administrative Discipline.

      If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or      agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.

     (g)      Improper Disclosure Is Violation.

     Any willful disclosure or use by an investigative or law enforcement office or governmental entity of information      beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation of this chapter for purposes of section 2520

     (a)      SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM THE ELECTRONICS COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY ACT (ECPA) – TITLE 18     U.SC.,  Sec. 2701.

     Unlawful access to stored communications (a) Offense. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever –

     (1)      intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service      is provided; or 

     (2)      intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents      authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be     punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

     (b) Punishment.

     The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is –

(1)     if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain –

(A)      a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and

(B)      a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in any other case.

  (c)      Exceptions.

      Subsection (a) of this section does not apply with respect to conduct authorized –

(1)      by the person or entity providing a wire or electronic communications service;

(2) by a user of that service with respect to a communication of or intended for that user; or

(3) in section 2703, 2704 or 2518 of this title

Sec. 2702. – Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

(a)         Prohibitions.

     Except as provided in subsection (b), (1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and

(2)      a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service –

(A)      on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;

(B)       solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and

(3)      a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

      (b)      Exceptions for disclosure of communications.

           A provider described in subsection

      (a)       may divulge the contents of a communication –

(1)      to an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of such addressee or intended recipient;

(2)       as otherwise authorized in section 2517, 2511(2)(a), or 2703 of this title;

(3)       with the lawful consent of the originator or an addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or the subscriber in the case of remote computing service; (

4)      to a person employed or authorized or whose facilities are used to forward such communication to its destination;

(5)     as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service; or

(6)       to a law enforcement agency –    

   (A)      if the contents –

           (i) were inadvertently obtained by the service provider; and (ii) appear to pertain to the commission of a crime;

 (B)      if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of 1990; or

(C)       if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure of the information without delay.

      (c)      Exceptions for Disclosure of Customer Records. –

     A provider described in subsection (a) may divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2)) – (1) as otherwise authorized in section 2703;

(2)      with the lawful consent of the customer or subscriber;

(3)      as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service;

(4)      to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger     of death or serious  physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information; or

(5)      to any person other than a governmental entity.

          Sec. 2707. – Civil action

      (a)      Cause of Action.

     Except as provided in section 2703(e), any provider of electronic communication service, subscriber, or other person aggrieved by any violation of this chapter in which the conduct constituting the violation is engaged in with a knowing or intentional state of mind may, in a civil action, recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.

       (b)      Relief.

             In a civil action under this section, appropriate relief includes –

(1)       such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

(2)       damages under subsection (c); and

(3)      a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.


(
c)      Damages.      

     The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court.

    (d)      Administrative Discipline.    

       If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, he or she shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.

          Improper Disclosure.

     Any willful disclosure of a ”record”, as that term is defined in section 552a(a) of title 5, United States Code, obtained by an investigative or law enforcement officer, or a governmental entity, pursuant to section 2703 of this title, or from a device installed pursuant to section 3123 or 3125 of this title, that is not a disclosure made in the proper performance of the official functions of the officer or governmental entity making the disclosure, is a violation of this chapter. This provision shall not apply to information previously lawfully disclosed (prior to the commencement of any civil or administrative proceeding under this chapter) to the public by a Federal, State, or local governmental entity or by the plaintiff in a civil action under this chapter.

VI.      SPOLIATION  V.  ILLEGALLY  OBTAINED  EVIDENCE

     While the topic of spoliation of evidence is somewhat beyond the scope of this article, the author feels that a brief understanding of the differences and affects is mandated.

 A.     What is Spoliation?

     It has been defined as the intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usually a document. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7 th Ed., 1999.

     At this time no independent tort exists against someone who commits an act covered by the definition. Trevino   v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 952 (Tex. 1998).

B.      Elements Required to Establish Spoliation.

     The question of whether one is guilty of spoliation and the appropriate action to be taken is a question of law for the judge, not one of fact for the jury. Id. at 954.

1.      Duty to Preserve Evidence.

     The first question which must be answered is whether the alleged spoliator has a duty to preserve the destroyed evidence.

     Such a duty aries only when a party knows or reasonably should know that there is a substantial chance that a claim will be filed and that evidence in its possession or control will be material and relevant to the claim. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, ____S.W.3d____ (Tex. 2003) (2002 WL 32098152).

     If there is a statutory requirement that certain records be maintained and preserved, the answer to this inquiry is clear.

     However, how this would be applied in a family law matter is uncertain .

     Does it arise at the first cry of “I want a divorce”; the filing of the petition; or service of process?

2.      Has There Been a Breach of the Duty?

     The next prong is for the Court to determine whether a breach of the duty has occurred. Trevino holds that the person responsible should be held accountable for negligence, as well as, intentional acts. 969 S.W.2d at 957. In essence the entire burden is placed on the culpable spoliating party since they are in the best position to provide an explanation. Id..

3.      Prejudice to the Innocent Party.

     Even if spoliation is found to have occurred, it doesn’t automatically mean that the nonspoliating party is entitled to a remedy. Id. at 955. The more relevant the destroyed evidence, the more harm to the nonspoliating party. Id. at 958. If the evidence was destroyed intentionally or in bad faith, then the court should find thatthe destroyed evidence was relevant and harmful to the spoliating party’s case. Id.

     If the evidence was negligently destroyed, then the nonspoliating party should offer some proof about what the destroyed evidence would show. Id. The spoilating party is certainly entitled to show that the missing evidence would have been cumulative of other competent evidence that can be used in place of the destroyed evidence. Id.

C.      Remedies to Spoliation.

1.      Rule 215 Sanctions.

     Depending upon when the destruction occurs, the court has wide discretion in remedying the situation. If the relevant evidence is destroyed during the discovery phase of the litigation, the court can impose any sanctions authorized und Tex. R. Civ. P. 215, including death the penalty sanction resulting in a default judgment against the spoliating party or preclusion of the introduction of evidence. Id. at 959.

     These sanctions are to be applied on a case by case basis. Id.

2.      Jury Instruction-Spoliation Presumption.

     The court has its choice of two spoliation instructions.

     The most severe is a rebuttable presumption and is used when the nonspoliating party cannot prove its prima facie case without the destroyed evidence. Id. at 960.

     The jury is instructed that they should presume that the destroyed evidence was unfavorable to the spoliating party and that the spoliating party bears the burden of disproving the presumed fact or issue. Id.

     Depending on the exact wording of the instruction, it could relieve the nonspoliating party of the burden of proving each element of their case. Id.

     The second type of presumption merely instructs the jury that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliating party. It does not relieve the nonspoliating party of proving each element of their case. Id. at 961.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Pitfalls of Illegal Eavesdropping; Criminal, Civil, Ethical…Where Does it End”, Poole, R., Advanced Family Law Course, State Bar of Texas, 1999

Dealing with Illegally Obtained Evidence, Rivers, R., Advanced Family Law Course, State Bar of Texas, 2001

Invasion of Privacy – Illegally Obtained Evidence, Lewis, M., Marriage Dissolution Institute, State Bar of Texas, 1999

Using Private Investigators-Privileges and Problems, Lewis, M., Advanced Family Law Course, State Bar of Texas, 2002

Spoliation of Evidence, Vick, T., Advanced Family Law Course, State Bar of Texas, 2001

 

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

Robin’s Story, and also for Matthew, Laura, and Christopher|Rockwall/Dallas, Texas


Sixteen Years Without Children and Life to Go

Robin Karr’s Story, and also for Laura, Matthew, and brother, Christopher Karr, who will not be silenced, that you shall come home to your Real Mommy who Refuses and Refused Offer of Silence–No Con tract, Judges!

Robin Karr.Rockwall.TX.Judge Cynthia Kent.any relation to federal impeached judge Samuel Kent who my sons paternal aunt was law clerk for.Supervised_Visit_Police_Station.242215910_std

Robin Karr with Baby Laura and Matthew Duckworth near Rockwall, Texas (near Fort Worth/Dallas, Texas)

Robin Carr.Rockwall.Tx.family court fraud and abuse.me-matthew-and-laura-2004-150x150

JUSTICE.WALL OF SHAME.NJCOURTCORRUPTION.DEREK SYPHRETT

 

JUDGE CYNTHIA KENT.SMITH COUNTY TX.TYLER.KIDNAPPER OF ROBIN KARR'S CHILDREN NEAR ROCKWALL TX SIXTEEN YEARS NO CONTACT

 Judge Cynthia (Stevens) Kent, ret., 114th court

Tyler, Texas

(SMITH COUNTY)

 Judge Sue Pirtle,

 NOT PICTURED FOR FEAR OR COWARDICE LEST S/HE, TOO, SHALL BE JUDGED BY GOD ALMIGHTY

Former Judge Sitting by Assignment (Visiting Judge)

State of Texas

January 2000 – Present (15 years 4 months)State of Texas (Region I)

Family, Civil, Criminal

DID WE HAVE THE SAME JUDGE, OR

JUST THE SAME FRAUDULENT FAMILY COURT R.I.C.O.

COURT CON?

 

The haunting melody of the nostalgic voice of the untimely, tragically gone, but not forgotten songstress, Karen Carpenter’s recording of “Yesterday Once More” is the soundtrack for the paralyzing feeling that what all of us mommies  who are still  reading  so strongly knew we were surely “imagining,” but could not be, the rote rehearsal style routine practice and patterned protocol and procedure suborned and commissions pre-packaged, pre-priced, pre-screened, pre-determined outcomes, the levels funding based kidnappings of our sweet little healthy, happy, adoptable children by the family courts in Texas, below:

Judge Cynthia Kent Grants Custody to an Abuser

 

January 5, 2000
Judge Cynthia Kent
c/o Elaine Holmes

RE: Cause No. 1-98-435 (382nd District Court, Rockwall County, Texas)
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF EDWARD NEIL DUCKWORTH AND
ROBIN LEE DUCKWORTH AND THE INTEREST OF MATTHEW NAKAI
DUCKWORTH AND LAURA DANIELLE DUCKWORTH MINOR CHILDREN

Dear Judge Kent,

I am the co-founder of Children And Loving Parents (CALP)-a chartered non-profit organization located near Rockwall Texas. I am writing in an effort, to appeal to your knowledge, your wisdom, your faith, and your conscious. I am writing on behalf of Robin Duckworth, however, I am not writing at her request. This letter serves two purposes:

1) To serve as evidence in the Duckworth file that CALP is very concerned about the integrity of both the judicial system’s actions and the actions of CASA and CPS in Robin’s case, and;

2) to bring to surface a few facts that you may have never known at the time you rendered your verdict.

We believe that the Duckworth case has been filled with trickery, deceit, mockery, and cruelty -none of which are desirable attributes for our legal and judicial systems.

I am sure that you agree. Unfortunately, the one’s who have suffered are the innocent children and their grieving mother.

We attended many of the hearings regarding this case, including the last part of the final hearing that you presided over. I couldn’t help but notice your references to family and the importance of parents in the lives of their children.

Without a doubt, CALP agrees with you- if the parent is a safe and good influence upon the children. Yet, we are perplexed and saddened at the many successful attempts to thwart Robin Duckworth’s good intentions.

Even worse, we are upset that he court system has not recognized these ‘tricks’ used by Ed Duckworth and his attorney to intentionally make Robin’s life miserable.

My question is this. What would you do as a mother to protect your children if you thought they were living in an unstable and unsafe environment?

Even a stubborn, proud, ‘never ask for help’ man would humble himself to ask every available person for help – again and again. You and I probably wouldn’t do this for ourselves, but we would for our children. Isn’t this exactly what Robin has done? Is this so wrong?

At what point did Robin act so inappropriate that she deserved to have her children kept from her. Did she break the law? No. (She was put in jail for crying and not leaving the courtroom when Judge Pirtle and Trish Verde refused to advise her as to when she could have her next visitation. Is this really ‘irrational’ when a mother hasn’t seen or held her children in a very long time?

By the way, why was she arrested for criminal trespass when there were still many other people in the courthouse? Why weren’t the other people that were present arrested for trespassing?)

Does Robin have a history of running away with the children? No. Does she have a history of hurting the children? No. Does she have a history of disobeying the courts? No. (Ed’s attorney stated that Robin had told the Kentucky court that she would not abide by the visitation decree from her first marriage. She may or may not have said that .. but, what did she do? She abided by the visitation decree very well. She even notified, in writing, the Kentucky court within 2 weeks of when she moved to Houston. We are in possession of that letter. Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle did not allow that letter to be submitted into evidence.)

Now let’s compare the history of Ed and Robin. Robin graduated high school and college with honors. Ed barely passed high school. After almost 6 years in college he dropped out with a GP A below 2.0. Who held a job and supported the family?

Robin did. She worked at Dillard’s and excelled as a departmental manager. Ed failed to hold a job, including one stint as a car salesman. When they moved to Kentucky, Robin continued working at another clothing store. Ed attempted a gig as a local police officer, however he quit when faced with being tired for shooting and killing a chained dog.

While living in Kentucky Ed filed for divorce. In his affidavit to the court Ed stated Robin should be named the fit and proper caretaker of the children! He never alleged Robin of being unfit in any way as a mother.

However, wanting to salvage their marriage, Robin replied to the court that she did not believe their marriage to be beyond repair. (Wouldn’t anyone that takes their vows before God in a serious manner do all they could to save the marriage? Robin did – Ed didn’t.) Just think if Robin had given up as easily as Ed had, she would be the managing conservator of Matthew and Laura at this time.

Instead, Ed, his attorney, and the Texas judicial system have raked Robin over the coals and treated her like a criminally insane parent. Robin has always been the reliable provider for the children, yet she has been punished and ridiculed for her faith.

The reason: Supposedly she said something to Ed on a tape that was later played to Melody East, an unlicensed social worker with CASA. Melody East then recommended to Judge Pirtle that Robin have only supervised visitation because she expressed ‘alarming’ religious beliefs and had made ‘alarming’ remarks.

One such remark was, “I hope God takes your lives if you continue to harm the children.” How did this statement start ridiculous allegations that Robin might harm her children?

Personally, I also wish that God would remove all child abusers from the earth. Does this make me a danger to children? No. It doesn’t make Robin a danger to her children either.

Also, Melody East never completed the social study. She never interviewed Robin’s mother or Robin’s other references. Incredulously Melody never spoke to the number one witness Christopher Karr. Christopher is Robin’s son from her first marriage.

Christopher witnessed Earnest Duckworth’s (Ed’s father) verbal, mental and physical abuse first hand. In fact, Christopher had written several letters to friends about the abuse well before Robin moved out of the Duckworth house.

Wouldn’t these letters be undeniable evidence that abuse was taking place? Wouldn’t Christopher’s testimony have been the most important evidence in this case?

Yet, Melody East never spoke to Christopher or Robin’s other witnesses. In addition, Judge Pirtle would not allow Christopher’s letters into evidence.

Even mare appalling- Robin’s witnesses were never allowed to testify. All of her witnesses came to trial on Feb. 26, 1999. Robin had at least 4 witnesses including her mother, one cousin, Christopher, and a close friend from Houston who had known Robin and Ed when they lived there. Robin’s witnesses traveled a combined distance of almost 3000 miles.

Unbelievably, Judge Pirtle made no offer to let Robin’s witnesses testify since they had come such a great distance. Instead, Judge Pirtle allowed Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenburg, to ask questions (stall for time) to Melody East, Tish Verde, and others. Judge Pirtle knew that Robin could not afford to fly her witnesses down a second time.

We believe that Judge Pirtle knowingly and purposefully hindered Robin’s right to a fair trial by not giving her witnesses the opportunity to testify. Judge Pirtle even scheduled the second half of the trial nearly two weeks away, instead of the following Monday, insuring that Robin’s witnesses would not testify.

In addition, sanctions were imposed against Robin and her attorney for filing a supposedly ‘frivolous’ report to CPS and requesting a Protective Order concerning abuse that Robin felt had occurred at the hands of Ed’s father. (Perhaps, Judge Kent, you were not knowledgeable of all the facts when you sanctioned Robin. That is what we hope.)

Doesn’t state law require that a person must report confirmed or suspected abuse to a child?

Mr. Duckworth’s attorney tried to make Robin look like a liar, because she didn’t report the abuse at the time it happened. Instead, he stated that she was now conveniently making it up since there was a battle for the children. How absurd!

The facts show that Robin and Ed were living in the home of Mr. Duckworth at that believe they can protect their children until they can develop an escape plan away from the abuse. Once again, the facts show that Robin moved back to Kentucky shortly after the abuse.

Doesn’t the fact that every time Robin saw her children with substantial bruises (I have pictures.) and reoccurring sickness during each visitation also give cause for concern, suspicion and reporting?

Doesn’t the fact that the two children have been to the doctor and/or hospital 31 times in 10 months give rise to concern and suspicion? Doesn’t the fact that she witnessed abuse while living with Ed’s parents cause concern?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher, Robin’s oldest son, wrote letters concerning the abuse to friends before the court case started (I have copies) give cause for concern and suspicion?

Doesn’t the fact that Christopher also signed an affidavit confirming the abuse give cause for concern and suspicion?

Betty Hable, director of the Ombudsman’s office, has even confirmed that CPS has concerns that the paternal grandfather was physically abusive toward Matthew.

We are very troubled that you fined and penalized Robin for reporting suspected abuse when she was faced with disobeying the law if she didn’t report her suspicions! We are even more upset with the fact that Robin is reprimanded from making any other allegations of suspected or confirmed abuse. I ask, is this justice?

How could this happen? How did Robin get fined for doing what is right? I know we all make mistakes. I’m willing to admit that I do. I hope that you too are willing to admit that you made a mistake in your judgements against Robin. I hope even more that you will do all you can in your judicial authority to correct this wrong and make it right. Robin is not an insane mother making improper allegations. She is a protective, caring, loving mother that wants to see her children in a safe, nurturing environment. Once again I ask. what would you do .. not as a judge – but as a Christian and a mother?

Now Robin faces yet another obstacle – meeting the demands of a visitation decree that is both confusing and extremely burdensome. In your judgement you stated that you believed Robin had a medical problem that required medication. Then, being sure of your evaluation, you based the decree upon Robin seeing a psychiatrist and taking the medicine that they would prescribe her. But what was to happen when Robin’s nationally acclaimed psychiatrist did not find Robin to be in need of medication- but only finds her to be severely depressed due to missing her children (a natural response for a concerned, loving mother)?

In addition, you required Robin to line up a psychiatrist within a month. Finding a psychologist is relatively easy but a psychiatrist can take months! (My wife and I have been searching for a psychiatrist to evaluate our daughter’s ADHD. The shortest waiting list we found was 5 months!)

It took Robin a month to line up her psychiatrist. ‘This automatically made her miss the first date (July 1) you had based her visitation rights upon.

However, since acquiring a psychiatrist she has tried to do everything stated concerning her psychiatric evaluations.

However, Ed’s attorney has written a letter stating that they will seek to have her thrown in jail for not following the order. In addition. Robin has not been able to afford trips to Texas to see her children.

She has another son that she must take care of. His father has not been paying child support, which makes things even more difficult for Robin. With the psychiatrist and expenses she has been forced to rely only upon phone calls to stay in her children’s lives.

But this has been made even more difficult due to the fact that Ed will not answer the phone and has turned off his answering machine – all in an effort to distance Robin’s children from her.

However, through all of this, Robin saved enough money to buy birthday and Christmas gifts and a plane ticket to Dallas during November. Once again, Robin did everything she thought she was supposed to do according to the visitation decree.

She sent letters to Ed and the District Clerk. by Nov. 1, 1999, concerning her psychiatric evaluation(s) so that she could see her children on Nov. 13·14.

She sent all letters certified mail. She took 4 days off work to come to Rockwall to see her children, even though Ed’s attorney, Charles Schuerenberg, threatened to get a bench warrant for her arrest if she came to Rockwall.

Despite all this, she still came to see her babies. If that’s not true love I don’t know what is. Upon arriving in Rockwall, Robin gave my wife and I a notarized statement to act as the competent adults to pick up the children -just as stated in the decree. We felt this would
definitely be better for the children since it would avoid any possible conflicts between Ed and Robin. Upon arriving at Ed’s house, Ed absolutely refused to hand over the children.

Ed then ran back into his house and called the police. When the police arrived Ed fabricated a lie and told the officers that he had spoken to Robin’s psychiatrist the day before and that her psychiatrist was sending a second letter forbidding Robin to see the children! We then asked the officers to ask Ed if he would allow Robin to see the children for a supervised visitation the next day.

The officers told my wife and I that Ed made it clear to them that he would never let Robin see the children again no matter what! The officers then advised us that we needed to keep a good paper trail of what had occurred. We were then told that Robin needed to go to the police station and file “Interference with Child Custody”, which is what she did.

Robin was never allowed to see her babies. Can you believe she has never been allowed to celebrate either of Laura’s birthdays? She has never celebrated Christmas with her either.

How discouraged would this make you feel as a mother? Yet, Robin somehow finds the courage and desire to hang in there. Robin loves and misses her children deeply.
Now Robin’s good intentions are once again being turned against her. Charles Schuerenberg has written Robin to threaten her again. He is using the visitation decree that he wrote, against her.

He stated that he intends to have her thrown in jail. I believe this is revenge for Robin filing “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. What Ed did was wrong and downright mean!

Robin came 1200 miles to see her children, hold them, love them, and give them gifts.
Your honor, please listen to your heart on this matter. Robin is really doing her best. If shemoves here from Kentucky, her older son can’t see his dad. Either way, she gets slammed.

So she does her best. You even stated in your final words of the hearing that the order periods of possession would “be subject to very definitely financial ability.”

This tells me that you were trying to recognize Robin’s peril in paying for psychiatric sessions, making expensive trips to Texas, taking off from work, and juggling all the issues.

We are asking that you reconsider your order. We don’t believe that you ever meant to say Robin could not see her children in November if she didn’t get every psychiatric report completed in July.

It seems to us that you were saying Robin’s visitations were to be based upon her complying with her psychiatrist’s orders then submitting that compliancy letter from the psychiatrist before she attempted visitation.

If your order were interpreted in any other way then Robin’s inability to see a psychiatrist by July 1, 1999 would prohibit her from ever seeing her children again.

I do not believe that you is what you intended. However, Ed’s attorney is trying to have Robin thrown in jail based upon his manipulation of the visitation decree.

Robin had no choice but to file “Interference with Child Custody” against Ed. His actions as dictated by Texas state law are a criminal act, not a civil act.

Therefore, Robin had aresponsibility to file a report even though she did not obtain leave of court to do so. Robin’s report to the Rockwall police was not merely a ‘complaint’ but was a witness’ statement to a felony crime. The police made the choice to ask the D.A. ‘s office to bring charges against Ed.

We hope and pray that you will see things the same and not allow your instinct as a mother, a Christian, and a parent, to be clouded by your judicial experience in today’s corrupt society.

Sincerely,
Derek S.
Co-Founder and V.P.

Read also, http://janiemcqueen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Judgee-Pirtle-Wanted-for-Kidnapping.pdf

1.     Click on the link below to read mother and author, Robin Karr’s provocative case supported by strong evidence against, generally, but not limited to, “‘state’ of Texas,” and also on behalf of all maternally deprived mothers and children, being natural (wo)man and individuals,

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com

2.     Click on the link below to read Kentucky Senator Virgil Moore’s scathing letter against and addressed to, among other public officials, “state” and local Texas and social services and county officials on behalf of parents Doug and Kathie Harliss and their “business or commercial assets,”

http://www.motherswithoutcustodyworld.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Kentuky_State_Senator_Letter_about_Texas_Taking_Children.250130237.pdf\

Mothers Without Custody World

Laura Turns Sweet 16

 

 

Robin Karr.precious Laura found.on facebook

Robin Karr’s Baby Laura, Sixteen Years Later, Found Picture on Facebook.com

Dear Laura, will you ever know how much your real Mommy, Robin Karr, loved, adored, and missed you every second of every minute of every day and painful, agonizing, most likely sleepless nights?  How could you?

Dear Robin, will you ever know what your little girl felt or the pain she felt without you?

How could she?

I I pray and hope with all ;my heart and real mommy of little Julian’s soul that you, Laura have come home to Mommy, whatever age.

From one to another mother whose child bought and sold  just shall surely find them out.

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

LORI HANDRAHAN AND MILA’S CASE IN MAINE


RE-POSTING FROM BLOG BELOW . . .

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.

 May Lori’s, he/r daughter’s, “Julian’s Real Mummy’s,” Julian . . . ” of Genealogy Saloom’s, waking nightmares END.  MAY the nightmares End, for all of s real mommies FORCED TO ENDURE THE ABUSE OF ROGUE TERRORISTS PERMITTED TO OPERATE BY COMPLICIT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AGENTS, AND NOW, POLICE WILL BE CALLED “VENDORS” WITH CPS.  IN CASE THEY HAVEN’T REALIZED IT YET, THE “MENTAL HEALTH” TRICK IS A TRICK OLDER THAN TIME.  NOT BUYING IT!  IT IS CLEAR WHO THE DANGEROUS PSYCHOTICS REALLY ARE IN THESE RELATIONSHIPS AND AFFAIRS.  BUT THEN, WE ALWAYS KNEW THAT AS A SOCIETY, AND WE STILL DO, DIDN’T WE?

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

THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED MOTHERS


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/


THREATS ON FACEBOOK TO RAPE WOMEN DEFENDING ABUSED 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.

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/spurwink-report-of-milas-sex-abuse-report-3

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/milas-picture-of-the-rock-poppa-and-michael-sniff0001?related=1

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-1-11760752?related=4

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-judge-moskowitz-jan-2011-hearing-2-11760751?related=5

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/trevor-letter-about-waxman0001?related=2

http://www.slideshare.net/ChildabuseMaine/transcript-to-disqual-waxman-part-3-11760749?related=3

CHILD TRAFFICKING IN MAINE

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.

STEAM WAXMAN HANDRAHAN .jpg

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.

FACEBOOK RAPE THREATS

“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.”

ENDNOTE:

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.

LAWLESS MODERN AMERICA and MY HORROR DEALING WITH CORRUPTED TEXAS


amyandmarkelcharron

Please, first thing to ask yourself how is it legal or even Constitutional FOR T…EXAS and our corrupted Government to take a innocent mothers child (at 41 yrs old) with no criminal background at all with Native American Rights. My only child was viciously taken so scared at 2 yr old with no investigation right away for only making a evidence based criminal report on my wealthy powerful step dad who… was appointed by Governor Rick Perry! Despite my case was ruled out and dropped it was illegally reopened due to CPS worker Debra Reyna saying the document was not official yet it was and the judge allowed this! The CPS investigator who signed it is DEBRA MAYO who never came to court once to clear up their lies! She also returned no phone calls in over 2 yrs! The 2 CPS workers that illegally set me up to lose…

View original post 7,461 more words

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

“I’ve decided to continue speaking…”


Family Court in America

From theCongressional Testimony of Stacy Lynne to Bill Windsor ofLawless America:

“… This morning I spoke for two hours at a meeting in Jefferson County for the first time since my son was taken nearly a year ago and I have nothing left to lose. They’ve taken everything from me. And I’ve decided to continue speaking as I have done before to help people learn about how to protect their children and their families from the corruption in the United States of America…

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

The movie will expose corruption in every state. The Movie will focus on victims. Corrupt judges and corrupt government officials…

View original post 140 more words

EMERGENCY PROTECTION ORDER FOR “WHISTLE BLOWER” KIDS DEMANDED OF MINISTRY OF JUSTICE


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