Texas Family Code Chapter 109| Appeals


     

Texas Family Code

Chapter 109

Appeals: Another Exercise in “Programmatic” Futility

Texas Family Code 109, Appeals, statute/code, but not necessarily US Constitutionally compliant law, Chapter 109, is another problematic “programmatic” issue that plagues the “‘state of Texas'” and its families because those of us who have been coerced and forced (initiation) through legal abuse, or otherwise, into the family court fraud /CPS/adoption/foster care scheme–The Texas Family Code (the bible of these racial hygiene and ethnic cleansing courts for Eugenics and imported Nazi and masonic racists and misogynistic criminal psychopaths in charge, and the “responsible” fathers and stepmothers that support them along with the “no fault divorce” family managing State Bar of Texas (“SBOT”))–do not “under stand” that indigent parents are rarely afforded the right and are routinely blocked from all hope of appeal of clearly legal (but unlawful) official custom, policy, and ratification.  

     We also do not under stand that one cannot appeal without an attorney, list of appellate points, and without findings of fact or conclusions of law, and certainly without any record or transcript of proceedings which are also routinely denied (and were to author of this blog, Julian’s Real Mommy, by the perniciously retaliatory, malicious 310th court and sundry personnel, Judge Lisa Millard, associate Judge Conrad Moren, CPS-appointed guardian ad litem, Donna Everson, and official court “recorder,” Benjamin A. Alva).

     This reads as yet another extortion method in the proverbial toolbox of the “CPS Cluster Courts” of East Texas and adoption and foster care R.I.C.O. court con industry.  

That includes you, bribed Judge Lisa A. Millard and associate Judge Conrad Moren of the 310th court in Houston, Texas (Harris County), but only after Cheryl Harvick, Brazoria County CPS supervisor in Pearland first permanently terminated my “possessory conservatorship” rights on May 08, 2012 before I was compelled and conned into your courtroom.  May others be saved by reading your tactics, and also from your judicial prostitution ring which expands the meaning of child/human trafficking from Florida, Georgia, and Texas (quoting Greg Todd, investigator). 

TEXAS FAMILY CODE

TITLE 5. THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND THE SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP

SUBTITLE A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 109. APPEALS

Sec. 109.001.  TEMPORARY ORDERS DURING PENDENCY OF APPEAL.  (a)  Not later than the 30th day after the date an appeal is perfected, on the motion of any party or on the court’s own motion and after notice and hearing, the court may make any order necessary to preserve and protect the safety and welfare of the child during the pendency of the appeal as the court may deem necessary and equitable.  In addition to other matters, an order may:

(1)  appoint temporary conservators for the child and provide for possession of the child;

(2)  require the temporary support of the child by a party;

(3)  restrain a party from molesting or disturbing the peace of the child or another party;

(4)  prohibit a person from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court;

(5)  require payment of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses;  or

(6)  suspend the operation of the order or judgment that is being appealed.

(b)  A court retains jurisdiction to enforce its orders rendered under this section unless the appellate court, on a proper showing, supersedes the court’s order.

(c)  A temporary order rendered under this section is not subject to interlocutory appeal.

(d)  The court may not suspend under Subsection (a)(6) the operation of an order or judgment terminating the parent-child relationship in a suit brought by the state or a political subdivision of the state permitted by law to bring the suit.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 539, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Sec. 109.002.  APPEAL. 

(a)  An appeal from a final order rendered in a suit, when allowed under this section or under other provisions of law, shall be as in civil cases generally under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

An appeal in a suit in which termination of the parent-child relationship is in issue shall be given precedence over other civil cases and shall be accelerated by the appellate courts.

  The procedures for an accelerated appeal under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure apply to an appeal in which the termination of the parent-child relationship is in issue.

(b)  An appeal may be taken by any party to a suit from a final order rendered under this title.

(c)  An appeal from a final order, with or without a supersedeas bond, does not suspend the order unless suspension is ordered by the court rendering the order. 

 The appellate court, on a proper showing, may permit the order to be suspended, unless the order provides for the termination of the parent-child relationship in a suit brought by the state or a political subdivision of the state permitted by law to bring the suit.

(d)  On the motion of the parties or on the court’s own motion, the appellate court in its opinion may identify the parties by fictitious names or by their initials only.

 

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 6.17, eff. Sept. 1, 1999;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 421, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 539, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 75 (H.B. 906), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2011.

 

 Sec. 109.003.  PAYMENT FOR STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

 

(a)  If the party requesting a statement of facts in an appeal of a suit has filed an affidavit stating the party’s inability to pay costs as provided by Rule 20, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the affidavit is approved by the trial court, the trial court may order the county in which the trial was held to pay the costs of preparing the statement of facts.

 

(b)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit an official court reporter to be paid more than once for the preparation of the statement of facts.

 

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.  Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 472, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995;  Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1420, Sec. 5.0025, eff. Sept. 1, 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 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.

 

MORE FAMILY COURT FRAUD: Murphy v. MurphyI


Judge Quillian A. Baldwin.Michelle Murphy Case.Coweta County.GA.Newnan.Free Jack and Thomas

CHIEF JUDGE QUILLAIN A. BALDWIN,  credit to author of MURPHY V. MURPHY; Newnan, GA (Coweta County Superior Court)

IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF GEORGIA Case No. ___________
Nancy Michelle Murphy and Millard Farmer, Petitioners
vs.
John Harold Murphy, Respondent
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia The Court of Appeals Decision is Case No. A14A1137
Millard Farmer Georgia Bar No. 255300
P.O. Box 1728 Atlanta, GA 30301-1728
(404) 688-8116 millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com
Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy and Millard Farmer
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Questions Presented
Question One.
     Whether the Court of Appeals, as did the trial court, without any evidence to support an indirect contempt conviction, could, by shifting the burden of proof and using an illegal standard of proof, affirm the trial court’s adjudication of Nancy Michelle Murphy of civil indirect contempt for violating the trial court’s August 23, 2013 Order directing that, “[e]ach party and the Children shall fully cooperate with the custody evaluator” that the guardian ad litem selected and the Court designated.
 Question Two.
      Whether the Court of Appeals and the trial court could, without violating the protections accorded Millard Farmer by the United States Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection provisions and the corresponding protections of the Georgia Constitution, the laws and Rules of Court of Georgia and the holdings of the appellate courts of Georgia, uphold the criminal indirect contempt conviction of Millard Farmer, adjudicate him in absentia, without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, under the following fatal, legal infirmities with the criminal conviction:
1.      When, in a case with two jointly participating lawyers, the charging document only identified the charged individual, as “defendant’s lawyer” [singular, with no further identity]. 
2.      When the August 23, 2013 Order (R. V11 p. 2192) placed a restriction upon the “parties” discussing matters with the children except for implementing the August 23, 2014 Order or the final decree that was used as the basis of the criminal contempt conviction of Millard Farmer.
     The restriction provided, in its entirety, as follows. Neither party shall discuss any of the issues, allegations or claims in this case with the Children, unless such discussions are necessary to implement the terms of this Order or the terms of the Final Decree.
3.      When the restriction was written in the August 23, 2013 Order by the Prosecutors/Plaintiff’s attorneys and when they charged the alleged illegal conduct relating to this “don’t discuss” restriction in their September 27, 2013 Amended motion for contempt, (R. V14, p. 2781) they stated that the charge was that “Neither party shall discuss.”
     This restriction applies only to the “Parties” and certainly cannot be used as the basis for a criminal conviction for anyone other than a “Party.” Millard Farmer was not a “Party.”
     The “Parties” were identified sixteen (16) times in the August 23, 2013 Order, that clearly identified the parties to be only the parents. In another segment of the Order, where the lawyers were intended to be included, the lawyers were identified as the “Parties’ lawyers.”
     There was no restraint placed upon Millard Farmer by the August 23, 2013 Order drafted and presented with an ex parte, hand delivered letter to Judge Baldwin by a Glover & Davis lawyer in order to have 2 the August 23, 2013 Order executed by Judge Baldwin with information never supported by oath or any other form of admissible evidence. (R. V11, p. 2214)
     The August 23, 2013 Order, sought to be enforced with criminal contempt charges, resulted from the wealth of the Plaintiff and his current wife to engage in habitual, litigious efforts to capture Jack and Thomas from these Children’s mother with unnecessary, expensive to defend, schemes that only these wealthy litigants could afford to successfully litigate with their judge-shopped jurist.
4.      When this criminal contempt action was based upon the August 23, 2013 Order that, in part, held and reaffirmed as follows:
     On July 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint and requested this Court have a temporary hearing to determine whether circumstances exist which support a temporary change in the physical custody of the Children * * *
     Pursuant to the terms of the Final Decree, Defendant was awarded physical custody of the Children. . . . The Final Decree specifies the parties have joint legal custody of the Children but it is silent as to which parent has “final decision making authority” on legal custody issues. * * *
Conclusions of Law
     It would not be in the best interests of the Children for temporary custody to be changed.  
Order
     The physical custody of the Children shall not be changed at this time.
     The parties shall continue to exercise the parenting time with the Children as detailed in the Final Decree. 
5.      When, albeit that Millard Farmer was not legally charged, noticed, or that the August 23, 2013 Order was not applicable to Millard Farmer and that Millard Farmer was convicted in absentia, without any admissible evidence showing that he was engaged in any type of discussion that was not a necessity to implement the terms of the August 23, 2013 Order, or the Final Decree.
6.      When there was no evidence supporting the following finding of fact identifying Millard Farmer.
     Based upon the Court’s review of two affidavits signed by the children and filed by Defendant on September 23, 2013 in support of her Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt, the Court further finds that Defendant and Millard Farmer, one of her lawyers, are discussing the issues, allegations, and claims in this case with the children and that such discussions are not necessary to implement the terms of the August Order.

The affidavits (R. V14, pp. 2761, 2768) do not in any manner provide evidence that even if discussions took place the discussions were not due to the professional obligation of the lawyer for Michelle Murphy in order to implement Michelle Murphy’s rights under the August 23, 2013 Order.
     The court only found that defendant’s counsel, Millard Farmer, was found to be in contempt of the provision of the August Order prohibiting “parties” from discussing this case — that would be the professional obligation of an attorney in a case where the client was charged with criminal contempt, as was Michelle Murphy, who was charged with contempt.
     The children had the 4 recorded statement that proved John Harold Murphy swore falsely (R. V14, p.2721) in the contempt charging papers. Millard Farmer was not convicted of anything relating to the final decree.
 7.      When the burden of proof was upon the Prosecutors/Plaintiff in this criminal case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the communications took place and thereafter that the communications were not necessary to implement the terms of the August 23, 2013 Order, and the prosecutors proved neither.
8.      When the prosecutors did not even carry their burden of proving that there were communications about the case or the August 23, 2013 Order.
     And they never presented any information that there was not a necessity to discuss the numerous changes relating to visitation in the August 23, 2013 Order that were necessary to implement that Order.
9.      When the Court, failing to convict Millard Farmer of anything relating to the final decree, which eliminated the issues regarding the final decree, as this would be an acquittal of that criminal charge due the absence of a conviction of that charge.
The criminally charged violation segment of the August 23, 2913 Order follows:
Neither party shall discuss any of the issues, allegations or claims in this case with the children unless such claims are necessary were not to implement the terms of the [August 23, 3013] Order (R. V11, p. 2192)
5      Millard Farmer was criminally convicted of indirect criminal contempt as follows with language not contained in the Order alleged to be violated, supported or noticed in the criminal charging document, unsupported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
     Defendant’s counsel Millard Farmer is hereby found to be in contempt of the provisions of the August Order prohibiting Defendant or her attorneys from discussing this case or the issues raised herein with the Children.
     Mr. Farmer further is found in to be in contempt of this Court because of Defendant’s failure to appear at the duly noticed contempt hearing on October13 Mr. Farmer shall be immediately incarcerated in the Coweta County, Georgia jail for a period of 20 days or until he pays One Thousand Dollars.(“$1,000) to the Court. (R. V17, p. 3628)
     The prosecuting attorneys falsely stated above in the Order that they drafted and Judge Baldwin signed, “…the provisions of the August Order prohibiting Defendant or her attorneys…”
10.      When the Order adjudicating Millard Farmer omits adjudication of the exempting part of the discussing restriction, i.e., unless such claims are necessary to implement the terms of this Order.
     The segments of the criminal charging document that were used as the basis for the criminal conviction of Millard Farmer for indirect contempt of court are as follows.
7.      The Order also provides the following: Neither party shall discuss any of the issues, allegations or claims in this case with the children, unless such claims are necessary to implement the terms of this Order, or 6 the terms of the Final Decree.
8.      Since the entry of the Order, [August 23, 2013] the Children have made several comments to Plaintiff that clearly indicate Defendant and her lawyer have allowed the Children to read the hearing transcript from the August 13 hearing.
     Furthermore, it is evident Defendant and her lawyer have discussed the issues and allegations in this case with the Children since the entry of the Order. (R. V14, p. 2781)
Question Three
     Whether Judge Baldwin was disqualified from adjudicating any of the November 19, 2013 indirect contempt adjudications after January 1, 2013, when the Clerk of Coweta Superior Court, pursuant to the authority of Coweta Judicial Circuit’s long mandated, but only recently enacted, Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan, administratively assigned this case to Superior Court Judge Dennis Blackmon, as confirmed to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals of Georgia by letter (R. V7, p. 1435) that the Coweta Clerk entered into the record of this case, as also confirmed by Judge Blackmon, who, without adjudicating the pending not adjudicated disqualification motions against Judge Baldwin, illegally attempted to transfer the case back to Judge Baldwin (R. V8, p. 1670 and R. V7, p. 1503), as both judges had illegally failed to act upon and comply with the intent of USCR 25.3 and the constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection protections afforded the accused. See, Horn v. Shepherd, 294 Ga. 468, 470 (2014).
     Judge Baldwin is further disqualified, based upon the unadjudicated disqualification motions pending against him at the time that he adjudicated the contempt motions (R.V14, p. 2941) and for his personal bias against Millard Farmer, Larry King, Michelle Murphy and “defendant’s lawyer” (singular, not otherwise identified). (R. V10, pp.1913, 1918, 1927, R. V12, p. 2327; R. V14, pp.2732-2733, 2812, 2898, 2905, 2929; R. V16, pp. 3377, 3379; R.V17, pp. 3652, 3654; Tr. Oct 13, 2013, pp. 17-18, passim)
     The following unadjudicated motions to disqualify Judge Baldwin were pending and not referred to an independent judge for adjudication as mandated by Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 at the time that Larry King identified his plea to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin and was placed in custody for identifying the disqualification motions in the packed courtroom awaiting the calendar call.
  State v. Hargis 294 Ga. 818 doctrine Record Cite June 13, 2012 No USCR 3.1 case management plan confirmed by Clerk of Court (R. V3, p.437)
July 2, 2012
     Order appointing Elizabeth F. Harwell as Guardian ad Litem at the request of Elizabeth Griffis, disq. Co-Sponsor with Glover&Davis (R. V3, 503) August 19,2013 not allowing evidence, on granting GAL illegal authority to modify custody without Ct, approval and for modification of full Court Standing Order to allow Plaintiff to remove children from jurisdiction of Court. (R. V10 p.1914)
August 28, 2013
     Judge Baldwin’s threat to put Michelle Murphy in jail if she doesn’t physically force children to visit their father (R. V11 p.2195)
Sept. 13, 2013 for continuously violation of USCR 25.3 mandate to cease to act upon the merits of the matter” (R. V12 p.2321)
8      Judge Baldwin denied numerous requests for certificates for immediate review.
     The illegal standard that Judge Baldwin maintained for disregarding his disqualification, as stated many time was as follows.
     So the — on the motion to recuse, I’ll just right now tell you, I find that that motion was not timely filed. I have been in this case for over a year.
     One of the things you have to have is showing that — that has to be filed within — I forget what it is — so many days after you find out who the judge is, stating what the causes are.
     I’ve been in this thing for over a year. You have already tried to recuse me one time, and the Court of Appeals did not uphold your efforts to recuse me, and so my finding is, is it was not timely filed, and that you had already been denied a motion to recuse once before.
     And I don’t believe you can continue, as you go through a case, every time you don’t like some order that the judge has given, that you can try to recuse, and recuse, and recuse him. So that’s my ruling on that. Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 39, line 18 – p. 40, line 9
 Question Four
     Whether the trial court, acting as the trier of fact and the law, used an illegal and unconstitutional standard of law in adjudicating the pending Motions to disqualify him, to proceed at both the contempt hearing and in adjudicating each of the contempts. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 5, l. 23 – p. 6, l. 18)
Question Five
     Whether the court erred in holding Michelle Murphy in contempt for not cooperating, within the time provided by the Court, with the expert witness, Nancy McGarrah, the custody evaluator, who presented an illegal condition for Michelle Murphy to perform in order to “cooperate” by requiring that Michelle 9 Murphy execute this psychologist’s contract (R. V17 p.3627), when, even if Michelle Murphy violated any directive of the custody evaluator, it placed an illegal condition upon Michelle Murphy that would have subjected Michelle Murphy to additional expensive litigation for relief from the following, illegal conditions: Michelle Murphy was required to execute a contract that is void against the public policy of the State of Georgia, in that:
(a)     the contract which Michelle Murphy was ordered to sign in order to be released from jail required Michelle Murphy to grant the psychologist expert witness full immunity from liability (R. V17, p. 3785), (see, OCGA § 13-8-2 (a)(1); Unami v. Roshan, 290 Ga. App. 317 (2008); (see also, fraud issues pending before this Court in Hoard v. Beveridge, S15D0360); not just immunity from liability provided by statute that exempts immunity to a custody evaluator resulting from her bad faith;
(b)      the contract required that Michelle Murphy become financially liable for fees that she cannot afford, as it requires that she pay expensive fees to obtain discovery and production, testimony at trial, or be deprived of this expert witnesses’ evidence that could be necessary to her defense of the expert witness psychologist’s findings or for use by her as evidence against the plaintiff;
(c)      the contract provides that the psychologist be paid 18% interest for late payments of fees (R. V16, p. 3461);
(d)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the psychologist would not inform her counsel of the method to be used for the “custody evaluation,” and would not provide other information about the scope 10 of the investigation of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud that would be conducted before rendering an opinion to the Court;
(e)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the expert witness psychologist stated that she would not talk to Michelle Murphy’s counsel or Michelle Murphy;
(f)      Michelle Murphy would have been subjected to a psychologist who was selected by the guardian ad litem, who was exposed by Michelle Murphy’s counsel for converting to her personal use trust funds provided to her in the case, in violation of USCR 24.9 (8)(g) and exposed for engaging in other illegal conduct that was similar to some of the illegal conduct of John Harold Murphy (R. V12, p. 2326); and,
(g)      the Order appointing the expert witness psychologist stated that “[a]t the final hearing in this case, the Court shall decide whether to allocate the costs of this evaluation between the parties” (R. V11, p. 2192) that could subject Michelle Murphy to having no assets to provide for her children, as the modification of custody litigation has been used to divest Michelle Murphy of her assets with costs a hair stylist cannot afford.
Question Six
     Whether the Court erred in failing to grant the motion to dismiss the charges of contempt (Tr. Oct 13, p. 113) as requested by Larry King.
     The charges did not set forth a cause of action against Millard Farmer or Michelle Murphy relating to the charged conduct, as Judge Baldwin did not have personal jurisdiction of the case with the numerous motions to disqualify him pending that he had not 11 adjudicated, or forwarded to another jurist for adjudicating.
     The charges against Millard Farmer were an abuse of the criminal process designed to weaken the legal representation of Michelle Murphy and thereby also create unnecessary legal cost to Michelle Murphy that these lawyers knew their hand selected jurist would never award to Michelle Murphy, as this jurist has actively participated in attempting to drain the personal assets of Michelle Murphy and made threats that he would not provide her attorney fees. (R. V16, pp. 3648, 3652) In re Crane, 253 Ga. 667 (1985)
Question Seven
     Whether the Court erred in adjudicating attorney fees against Michelle Murphy in an attempted criminal contempt case against her and her attorney under OCGA § 19-9-3, without specificity of the basis for the amount, or consideration of the disparity of the financial assets of the parties.
     The award of the attorney fees was as follows. (R. V17, p. 3627) Findings of Fact In addition to the $6,400 Plaintiff previously paid in connection with the custody evaluation, Plaintiff also has incurred substantial and unnecessary attorney’s fees in seeking to compel Defendant’s compliance with the August Order and in bringing Defendant’s contempt to the Court’s attention.
Conclusions of Law
     Defendant Michelle Murphy shall pay the amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff John Murphy within 30 days of the date of this Order.
     This amount is awarded pursuant of OCGA 19-9-3 and is based on, inter alia the attorney’s fees Plaintiff incurred in seeking to compel Defendant’s compliance with the August Order an in bringing Defendant’s contempt to the Court’s attention. 12 (R. V17, p. 3628)
Additional Reasons in Support of Granting the Petition upon the Questions Presented, i.e., Enumerations of Error
     The grant of the Writ is of great concern and importance to the public required to be subjected to examination by expert witnesses who require full immunity from prosecution as a condition of their service, and to lawyers whose reputations are affected by criminal convictions resulting from an abuse of the criminal process by opposing parties and lawyers seeking criminal convictions and financial assets from the opposing counsel and party after selecting a judge, trier of fact, in a court without a mandated case management plan.
     The “custody evaluator” scheme in no more than the “expert witness” scheme once used in medical malpractice case well-funded medical groups obtained legislative and judicial branch protection. is no such protection for the litigant with less financial resources in a domestic relations case. The choice is, as it was for Michelle Murphy, take it or go to jail and lose by that choice.
Introduction
     This Mother, with sole physical custody of two children, initially with the father’s absence from the family and thereafter by the incorporation of an Settlement Agreement into a 2006 Divorce Decree has successfully raised Jack and Thomas since the children were physically abandoned by their father when they were toddlers, Jack Murphy, age 16, and Thomas Murphy, who will be 14 on January 1, 2015, are legally and constitutionally deserving of due 13 process rights that this hair stylist can afford.
     There have been a barrage of financial attacks upon Michelle Murphy and her counsel, as they have sought to obtain a constitutional forum in which the issues relating to Jack and Thomas can be resolved.
     This fair and equitable forum has not included that of the current jurist, who was obtained by counsel for the Plaintiff’s judge shopping.
     Michelle Murphy obtained counsel without any judicial political connection, as her lawyers had earlier successfully assisted her in recovering for a part of the malpractice by her divorce lawyer that prevented a fair distribution of the marriage assets of the Plaintiff, long before he married his current wife, who is an enormously wealthy hedge fund operator. (R. V14, p. 2925)
     The divorce proceeding, under the absence of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan, shifted Michelle Murphy’s case among five (5) judges, with each picking up a fresh file upon their selection, as judge shopping is prevalent in such a system. (R. V14, p. 2927)
     The absence of a Rule 3.1 case management plan is extremely detrimental to the litigant who does not have a lawyer with judicial political associations.
     Attempting to correct this illegal system has been detrimental to Michelle Murphy, as her lawyers’ only strength was to provide Michelle Murphy and her children statutory and constitutional protections that resulted in a liability to this family, as John Harold Murphy engaged the politically connected Glover & Davis law firm at the suggestion of 14 Judge Louis Jack Kirby, another Coweta Judicial Circuit Judge. (RV10, p. 1919)
     Once the judge-shopped judge was in place, the house of cards begins to tumble with the judge’s selection of the guardian ad litem, who selects the custody evaluator experts favorable to the lawyer who so successfully judge shopped.
     The representation of John Harold Murphy, once the case began with a designated appellate panel, expanded his representation from the three Glover & Davis lawyers to the assistance of the must larger, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, law firm with its cadre of corporate lawyers, whose briefs before the Court of Appeals panel frequently cite to Christopher J. McFadden, et al., Georgia Appellate Practice.
     This petition, with only reliance upon the law and constitutional protections, seeks this Court’s protection that has offered the only glimmer of legal respite for unconstitutional and illegal treatment of Michelle Murphy and the disabling of her counsel.
     The underlying modification of custody action was initiated after Michelle Murphy and the Children chose not to succumb to the threat of John Harold Murphy to be subjected to a modification action if the family did not move from Newnan, GA to Chattanooga, TN in order to live near the Lookout Mountain mansion of Renee L. Haugerud, an extremely wealthy hedge fund operator now married to John Harold Murphy and wanted the children. (R. V10, p. 1919)
15      In this case, the Superior Court of Coweta County never implemented a mandated case management plan until after sustained challenges by Michelle Murphy’s counsel (R. V2, p. 310, R. V17, p. 3649) and until this day, Chief Judge Baldwin has not complied with the mandates of Superior Court Rule 25 et seq. (Recusal) and particularly by not complying with Rule 25 (3.l) of presenting his disqualifying motions to another jurist.
     Judge Baldwin will not allow another jurist to review any of the numerous disqualification motions that enumerate his disqualifying conduct within the required five (5) day of the conduct occurring.
     Judge Baldwin’s unconstitutional application of the law, often expressed as expressed to Larry King at the beginning of the day that these contempt matters were adjudicated, is as follows.
Question Presented One (E of E One)
     The Court of Appeals, as did the trial court, without any evidence in support of Michelle Murphy being held in civil contempt, ordered her to pay John Harold Murphy $5,000 in attorney fees under OCGA §19-9-3 “based on inter alia, the attorney’s fees Plaintiff incurred in seeking to compel Defendant’s compliance with the August Order and in bringing Defendant’s contempt to the Court’s attention” (R. V17, p. 3637) without these lawyers bringing supporting testimony, for what amounts to a failed, illegal attempt to have Michelle Murphy held in criminal contempt for visitation issuesthat even the Court would not accept (R. V17, p. 3627).
16       Michelle Murphy was ordered to pay $5,000 to learn of the treatment of her lawyer, Larry King, for offering to call Judge Baldwin’s attention to legal documents and for not making Michelle Murphy come to Court, and to further learn that her other lawyer, at that time, would be criminally convicted, in absentia, and fined for no legal reason and for no practical reason but to diminish the legal representation of Michelle Murphy and the best interest of Jack and Thomas.
     Malicious abuse of the criminal process, an actionable tort, is one of the detrimental results of judge shopping that occurs when the protections of the Uniform Superior Court Rules are not allowed to protect the politically and financially weak in our society.
     During the attempt at the hearing to have Michelle Murphy held in indirect civil contempt, in absentia, Judge Baldwin, on several occasions warned the Glover & Davis lawyer that he had not presented any admissible evidence to support that Michelle Murphy had not complied with the August Order relating to the expert witness, custody evaluator.
     On one occasion, Judge Baldwin warned the Glover & Davis lawyer as follows. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013 p. 56, l. 8)
THE COURT:      You know, let me tell y’all, I want — One of the problems in this case is, is really to get in the information y’all want to get in, we really need the evaluator, and we really need the driver.
     You know, I’ll let him [John Harold Murphy] go so far as trying to tell things, but a lot of this stuff you just can’t get in because it’s hearsay, and 17 I just — you know, I don’t understand why those folks are not here. I understand the evaluator may cost money and may, you know, have other things to do, but, shoot, I think — you know, I think we need to get them here.
     On the other occasion, Judge Baldwin had held Larry King in direct contempt and ordered him held in custody until he paid a $1000 for attempting to notice the Court of a plea to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin.
     The affidavit of Larry King in support of the Response to the Amended Motion for Contempt, which the Court of Appeals used at another segment of its opinion, states as follows (R. V14, p. 2910):
17.      During John Harold Murphy’s testimony, Judge Baldwin stated that he wished to talk to counsel in chambers. The court reporter did not proceed to chambers, or take down the communications that occurred in chambers.
17.1      As counsel walked down the hallway with Judge Baldwin to his chambers, he stated, “I did not want to embarrass anyone out there, but I can’t do anything about the failure to cooperate with the evaluator unless I hear from her.” (meaning the Custody Evaluator).
     The Glover and Davis lawyer did not present the custody evaluator or anyone who fulfilled the burden of proof. Judge Baldwin finally reasoned as follows:
The Court:     Okay. It appears to me that just like the situation in a woman getting up and saying, “He hasn’t paid my child support,” it’s necessary for that guy to be in court and refute what was being said. And, of course, his – the plaintiff’s testimony, I believe is sufficient to 18 show that she’s not cooperating with this deal. Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 110.
Judge Baldwin did not make the legal distinction that it was not failure to cooperate with John Harold Murphy that was at issue. Judge Baldwin issued the following Order, prepared by the Glover & Davis lawyers. (R. V17, p. 3627)
     Defendant Michelle Murphy is hereby found to be in contempt of the custody evaluation provision of this Court’s August Order. Defendant shall be immediately incarcerated in the Coweta County, Georgia jail until she complies with the August Order by signing the document previously submitted to her by Dr. Nancy McGarrah’s office.
     The reasoning of the Court of Appeals for upholding the contempt conviction of Michelle Murphy is equally fallacious as that of Judge Baldwin. The Court of Appeals opined as follows.
     And, in a response to the amended motion for contempt which she filed on October 22, 2013, [that was not due or filed until after the October 3, 2013 hearing] Nancy Michelle Murphy expressly defied the August 23 order and declared herself justified in refusing to sign the documents that were a prerequisite to the custody evaluation.
The trial court was therefore authorized to conclude that she had not signed those documents. See OCGA § 24-8-821 (“Without offering the same in evidence, either party may avail himself or herself of allegations or admissions made in the pleadings of the other.”). Murphy v. Murphy, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 760, 18-19 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2014)
19      Counsel for Michelle Murphy was entitled to offer a defense to the criminal contempt conviction that the Glover & Davis lawyer sought, which Judge Baldwin did not impose, and was entitled to present alternative defenses in a brief, as any litigant is entitled to present in any civil case.
     The information that the Court of Appeals claims supported the infirm, indirect civil contempt adjudication was as follows, in Michelle Murphy’s response to the contempt motion prepared by counsel, beginning at R. V16, p. 3459:
     The Conduct of Judge Baldwin on October 3, 2013 is a Part of the Pattern of Obstruction of Justice in the Case
     There was a motion to disqualify Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell (V3 p. 549) that Judge Baldwin denied in a one sentence Order. (V12 p. 2318)
    Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the guardian ad litem, who is presently still serving, after being caught converting funds, has obtained counsel who has moved to prevent her deposition and inspection of subpoenaed documents, in part, relating to her conversion of trust funds to her personal use.
     This conduct by counsel for the guardian ad litem prevents further documentation of Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell’s conversion of trust funds and her other illegal conduct that motivates her retaliation against Michelle Murphy and her counsel.
      The conduct of the guardian ad litem is relevant, as she alone selected a “custody evaluator” to continue the economic assault upon the meager income of Michelle Murphy.
     The contract that the “custody evaluator” requires Michelle Murphy to execute is void as against public policy when the party is ordered by a 20 Court to obtain the services of the “custody evaluator,” as the contract requires Michelle Murphy to waive not just the OCGA § 19-9-3 (a)(7) statutory immunity provided to the “custody evaluator,” but, additionally, to release the “custody evaluator” from all liability (Contract p. 9 XVII IMMUNITY; V15 p. 3318).
     The “custody evaluator” has communicated that she will not begin the evaluation until all the parties sign the contract, (V15, p. 3322) which requires Michelle Murphy to be responsible for a large amount of money subject to 18% interest for past due payments, which depletion of funds from this family would affect the best interests of the children.
     Michelle Murphy is a hair stylist against whom John Murphy and his now spouse, a hedge fund operator, have engaged over six lawyers to economically bully Michelle Murphy into surrendering the children to John Murphy for the sole reason that they can provide the children better economic benefits than Michelle Murphy.
     The Glover & Davis lawyers illegally and unconstitutionally prepared documents to have Michelle held in criminal contempt and civil contempt, without a subpoena or rule nisi to obtain either her presence or the presence of the designated custody evaluator, Nancy McGarrah, that they failed to support with any evidence.
     The trial court illegally required Michelle Murphy to pay attorney fees based upon OCGA §19-9-3 for what was no more than the failure of these prosecuting lawyers to properly notice and prepare their case, if they had one and were not just waiting for a judge-shopped gratuity (R. V17, p. 3627).
     In keeping with the Court of Appeals’ conduct of attempting to supply evidence from the response to the motion, the 21 affidavit of Larry King is again relevant on the absence of notice issue and on the issue of the bias of Judge Baldwin. Larry King swore as a part of the Response as follows. (R. V14, p. 2907)
14.      In response to the calendar call I was prepared to make my announcement in the following order
14.1      I wanted to provide Judge Baldwin of the dates of the pending disqualification motions that were awaiting a ruling by him and that Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 required Judge Baldwin to cease acting on the matter until he ruled upon the disqualification motions.
     The following documents relating to the disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. are pending and awaiting a ruling by Judge Baldwin or an independent judge assigned to hear the motions.
     These disqualification motions are summarily identified as follows.
July 2, 2012
     Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Monday,
August 19, 2013
     Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr., Constitutional Challenges to Uniform Superior Court Rule 25 et seq. and for Other Uses as Allowed by Law August 28, 2013:
Amendment to Monday, August 19, 2013
Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.,
Initiated with this Judge’s “I’ll Put You in Jail” Threats that Motivated John Murphy to Sic the Deputy Sheriff of Coweta County on the Mother of the Children whom She Raised Since John Murphy Abandoned the Family.
Friday, September 13, 2013
 Addendum to Wednesday, August 28, 2013 22
Amendment to the Monday, August 19, 2013
 Consolidated Motions for Disqualification of Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr.
14.2      After informing Judge Baldwin of the pending disqualification motions, I wanted to advise the Court that the required personal service and a Rule Nisi, had not been given and that the matter was not before the Court.
14.3      I wanted to advise the Court that it had no jurisdiction, as the Amended Motion for Contempt attempted to add what could be one of two parties, identified as the “lawyer” for Nancy Michelle Murphy.
     The adding of one of possible two new parties to the motion for contempt was a violation of the rights of the newly added party but was additionally prejudicial to Nancy Michelle Murphy, as such conduct is detrimental to Michelle Murphy to have Judge Baldwin allowing the Glover & Davis lawyers attacking her lawyer.
14.4      I wanted to advise the Court that the August 23, 2013 Order was on appeal and that any contempt of that Order was superseded by the appeal.
14.5      Additionally, I wanted to advise the Court that the September 27, 2013 motion was not noticed nor ripe for hearing on October 3, 2013.
15.      At some point during my monotone announcement of the above statements of what I felt to be an initial consideration, Judge Baldwin stated something like, “I hold you in contempt. I am tired of all this stuff you all are doing. I order you incarcerated until you pay $1000.00 attorney fees as a purge.”
     It was in this judicial environment that Larry King attempted to defend Michelle 23 Murphy, Millard Farmer, himself and “defendant’s lawyer.” (R. V14, p. 2942)
     The conviction of Michelle Murphy should not stand, as the trier of fact expressed his bias to her counsel for presenting constitutional and statutory defenses. “All parties before the court have the right to an impartial judicial officer.” Stephens v. Stephens, 249 Ga. 700, 702 (292 SE2d 689) (1982).
     The issue of judicial disqualification can rise to a constitutional level since “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (75 SC 623, 99 LE 942) (1955). See also Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (129 SC 2252, 173 LE2d 1208) (2009).
     Judicial integrity is “a state interest of the highest order” because the power and prerogative of a court to resolve disputes rests upon the respect accorded by citizens to a court’s judgments which, in turn, depends upon the issuing court’s absolute probity. Id. at 889.
     “If the public lacks confidence in the impartiality of judges, or worse, refuses to comply with judicial decisions voluntarily, the notion that ‘we are a government of laws’ would necessarily collapse.” Dmitry Bam, Making Appearances Matter: Recusal and the Appearance of Bias, 2011 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 943, 968.
       It is vital to the functioning of the courts that the public believe in the absolute integrity and impartiality of its judges [see Smith v. Guest Pond Club, 277 Ga. 143, 146 (586 SE2d 623) (2003)], and judicial recusal serves as a linchpin for the underlying proposition that a court should be fair and impartial. 2011 B.Y.U. L. Rev., supra, at 949. n 1
24      The commitments of Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 291 Ga. 114 (2012) are of no moment to Michelle Murphy, Millard Farmer and her children if she is retroactively shielded from the protections until the expiration of the illegal conduct of a judge and a person to whom the judge has illegally delegated his authority.
     The law books, Uniform Superior Court Rules and Constitutional protections toppled like a house of cards once Judge Baldwin was judge-shopped and initially made no pretense of fairness, by, over strong objection, signing without reading the appointment of the guardian ad litem who had co-sponsored with the Glover & Davis lawyer the night before, a judicial fundraiser attended by Judge Baldwin. (R. V14, p. 2722)
     The Order illegally delegated authority to the guardian ad litem to temporarily change custody of the children without approval of the Court, which Elizabeth Harwell attempted to use. (R. V16, p, 3371; R. V10, p. 2012)
Question Presented Two (E of E Two)
     The August 23, 2013 Order, criminally adjudicating Millard Farmer, and the charging document were each prepared by Taylor Drake of Glover & Davis PA and signed with express consent for Taylor Drake by Michael Warner.
     The August 23, 2013 Order and the charging document were also approved as to form by Elizabeth “Lisa” F. Harwell, the guardian ad litem.
     The Glover & Davis lawyers and the Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP lawyers for John Harold Murphy sought upholding of the criminal conviction of Millard Farmer in the Court of Appeals.
25      It is relevant to understand that each of the documents that used the criminal process to financially and otherwise diminish the ability of Michelle Murphy were initiated, prepared and attempted to be enforced by the lawyers attempting to deprive Jack and Thomas of their lives with their mother while enriching themselves with an enormous amount of attorney fees and depleting the financial resources of Michelle Murphy.
     There is no way to gently state that, with the assistance of Judge Baldwin, these lawyers and the guardian ad litem, who is a lawyer, have been compensated to maliciously abuse the criminal process by having Millard Farmer criminally convicted and immediately incarcerated until he pays $1,000, or expends many times over that to be relieved of the criminal conviction that the Court of Appeals has upheld, at their insistence.
     The Order was apparently hastily drafted on Friday, August 23, 2013 by an inexperienced drafter, if it was intended to pass muster for a criminal conviction.
     The Order was drafted to accommodate the social schedule of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud as a priority to Thomas’s football jamboree that he had planned to attend if the visitation, alternating weekend schedule, had not been changed with the August 23, 2013 Order. (R. V14, p. 2770)
     Within five (5) days of obtaining the August 23, 2014 Order, the lawyers for John Harold Murphy filed a contempt action against Michelle Murphy based in part upon a false swearing by John Harold Murphy, evidence of which one of the children had 26 recorded after the child was informed that John Harold Murphy was no longer going to allow accommodation of the children’s local obligations and visitation as they desired. (R. V14, p. 2765)
     Anyone with teenaged children realizes that children that age do not hang around the house and visit with their parents, nor do they wish to sit in an expensive hotel room at some resort; instead, the children, as their mother well knew, wished to be with own social group around their school friends, as compensation for accomplishing their school work and behaving during the week.
     It is an unrealistic person and judge who yelled at Michelle Murphy as follows about the children not wishing to visit with John Harold Murphy, who made no attempt to participate with the children’s activities, but instead sent a chauffeur to pick up the children on their visitation weekends. Tr. Aug. 13, 2013, p. 259, lines 1 –15
[The Court] . . . I’m going to say that they have got to both go to visitations when they go.
     I am ordering you to make them go.I don’t care whether they jump up and down, scream and holler, lock themselves in their room. Whatever they do, you have got to make them go. Do you understand that?
MS. MURPHY:     Yes.
THE COURT:      And that’s going to be in the order. And I don’t -want you to — I don’t know how to say it any plainer than this, now. And this same thing is going to go for Mr. Murphy. If you don’t do what I tell you to do– and I’m telling you to see that they go; I’m not giving them the option and I’m telling them they’ve got to go. But if you don’t do that, I’ll put you in jail.And I’m not kidding with you.
      Okay?
27      Attempting to treat the children as commodities resulted in exposure of judicial misconduct that even illegal contempt Orders cannot suppress. On the day that Judge Baldwin adjudicated his contempt convictions from the bench, Larry King, one of the lawyers for Michelle Murphy who has now retired and is no longer in the case, was greeted by Judge Baldwin with a boisterous, “You are in contempt” as Larry King, in a crowded courtroom, attempted to announce his presence and to explain his plea to the personal jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 7)
     Larry King was immediately taken into custody by the Deputy Sheriff and required to pay $1,000 in cash, as Judge Baldwin would not accept his check before he was loosened from the Deputy Sheriff. (R. V14, p. 2942)
     Later that morning, Judge Baldwin informed Larry King that he had been mad when he held him in contempt and would refund his money. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 19)
     At the end of the day, Judge Baldwin again summarily announced that he was finding Larry King in contempt for not having Michelle Murphy present in Court and again took his $1,000. (Tr. Oct 3, 2013, p. 112)
The Court of Appeals resolved the contempt of the lawyers’ “failure” to have Michelle Murphy present by overturning the conviction of both Larry King and Millard Farmer after an expensive appellate process that still left the contempt convictions of Millard Farmer and Michelle Murphy and required Michelle Murphy to pay John Harold Murphy’s attorney fees illegally based upon OCGA §19-9-3 for 28 the Glover & Davis lawyers’ illegal attempt to present evidence on alleged contempts.
     The point in describing the criminal action of Judge Baldwin against Larry King is to identify the depth of the vindictive hostility of Judge Baldwin to both of the lawyers representing Michelle Murphy.
     The prosecutors of the criminal contempt actions knew that they only need ask and Judge Baldwin would allow them to prepare and obtain the retaliatory criminal conviction against Millard Farmer, who Judge Baldwin accurately knew, brought the disqualification motions and other actions against him, in order to obtain a judge that on appellate review could obtain Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson-Cook Co., 310 Ga App. 878 (2011) approval.
     Counsel opposing Michelle Murphy were not naïve in expecting that the Glover & Davis lawyers could obtain the criminal conviction from Judge Baldwin that would please their paymasters.
     They knew that with Judge Baldwin, they could draft a criminal conviction Order on which they stood a good chance of obtaining treatment accorded them in Mayor & Aldermen of Savannah v. Batson Cook Co., 310 Ga App. 878 (2011) with the Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP name on the appellate brief. The lawyers who initialized and attempted to enforce the criminal contempt action against Millard Farmer have adequate legal training in interpreting contracts, and even without criminal prosecuting experience understand the meaning of the charges that they used to obtain a criminal conviction.
29      The term “Defendant’s lawyer” (singular, without further identity) in a case involving two lawyers, both of whom were known personally by the prosecuting individuals, with neither lawyer served a rule nisi or subpoena, that was used to obtain the conviction of Millard Farmer, fails muster for a charging document and procedure seeking the option of obtaining a criminal conviction of either lawyer in the case.
     These lawyers knew that “party” as they used the word in the August 23, 2013 Order did not mean Millard Farmer or Larry King.
     The supporting argument and authority for Questions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is contained in the question presented or in other argument, or authority, as we have reached that thirty (30) page red light. Request for Relief Nancy Michelle Murphy requests that the petition be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
/Millard Farmer Millard Farmer
Georgia Bar No. 255300
P.O. Box 1728
Atlanta, GA 30301-1728
(404) 688-8116
millardfarmer@millardfarmer.com
Counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy and Millard Farmer
30 SECOND DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MCFADDEN and BOGGS, JJ.
NOTICE:
     Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.
November 17, 2014
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia
A14A1137. MURPHY v. MURPHY.
MCFADDEN, Judge.
     Although this is our third opinion in this custody modification action, we are still not presented with a final order on the petition to modify. Instead we are presented with a series of rulings holding appellant Nancy Michelle Murphy and her attorneys, Millard Farmer and Larry King, in contempt of court. Farmer has been held in contempt of an earlier order that prohibited the parties from discussing the case with their children.
     As Farmer signed a brief to which he exhibited affidavits of the children echoing their mother’s anger at John Murphy, there is sufficient evidence to support that ruling; and we find that Farmer received sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard before he was held in contempt.
    Nancy Michelle Murphy has been held in contempt of another provision of that order which Appendix 1, Page 1 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals required her to cooperate with a custody evaluator.
     Any insufficiency of the evidence presented on that charge at the contempt hearing was supplied by her own brief in opposition to the motion for contempt. In that brief she announced that she deemed herself to be entitled to defy the provision directing her to cooperate with the evaluator. And again we find sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard.
    Finally Farmer and King have been held in contempt for failure to have Nancy Michelle Murphy present at the contempt hearing. But as she was not under subpoena and had not been ordered to appear in person, she was entitled to appear through counsel; so that ruling must be reversed. We therefore affirm the trial court’s contempt order in part and reverse it in part.
1. Prior appeals.
     Nancy Michelle Murphy and John Murphy were divorced in 2006. They have two children, born in November 1998 and January 2001.
     In April 2012, John Murphy filed this action, seeking to modify the child custody provisions of the divorce decree. Nancy Michelle Murphy has repeatedly moved to recuse the trial court judge.
Murphy v. Murphy, 322 Ga. App. 829 (747 SE2d 21) (2013), her first appeal in this case, was a direct appeal from an interlocutory order denying one of her motions to 2 Appendix 1, Page 2 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals recuse.
     We dismissed on the basis the order was not appealable as a collateral order and was not appealable under the version of OC
GA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) adopted in 2013, which authorizes direct appeals from “judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such child custody judgment or orders.”
     Our Supreme Court granted Nancy Michelle Murphy’s petition for certiorari to address whether we erred when we concluded that the 2013 amendment of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) applied retroactively.
     In Murphy v. Murphy, 295 Ga. 376 (761 SE2d 53) (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment did not apply retroactively but nonetheless affirmed the dismissal of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s appeal on the ground that, “even under the prior version of OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11), there was no right of direct appeal from the recusal order at issue.” Id. at 379.
In the meantime, on August 23, 2013, the trial court entered an order that, among other things, denied John Murphy’s motion to temporarily change physical custody of the children, directed the parties not to discuss the case with the children, ordered a custody evaluation, and directed the parties to cooperate with the custody evaluator. In Nancy Michelle Murphy’s second appeal to our court, Murphy v. Murphy, __ Ga. App. __ (759 SE2d 909) (2014), we affirmed that order.
     We imposed a frivolous appeal penalty against Nancy Michelle Murphy’s counsel, finding that the appeal was frivolous and dilatory and rife with violations of Court of Appeals Rule 10, which forbids oral or written personal remarks that are discourteous or disparaging to any judge, opposing counsel, or any court.
2. Facts underlying the present appeal.
     Six days after the August 23, 2013 order was entered, John Murphy filed a motion seeking to hold Nancy Michelle Murphy in contempt for violating its visitation provisions.
     In response Nancy Michelle Murphy filed affidavits from the children, testifying that the motion for contempt had been read to them in the presence of their mother, that their mother had not interfered with their father’s visitation as alleged in the motion for contempt, and that they were extremely angry at their father for not telling the truth to the court.
     John Murphy then amended his motion for contempt. He alleged that Nancy Michelle Murphy and “her lawyer” were in contempt of the order’s provision prohibiting the parties from discussing the case with the children.
     He also alleged that Nancy Michelle Murphy was violating the requirement of the August 23 order that she cooperate with the custody evaluator in that she had refused to complete the paperwork the custody evaluator required before beginning the evaluation.
     The trial court conducted a hearing on the contempt motion on October 3, 2013. Nancy Michelle Murphy and Farmer did not appear, but King did appear on behalf of Nancy Michelle Murphy.
     After hearing testimony from John Murphy and the driver hired to transport the children from Nancy Michelle Murphy’s residence to John Murphy’s residence, the trial court found Nancy Michelle Murphy, Farmer, and King to be in contempt.
     The trial court found Farmer to be in contempt for discussing the case with the children in violation of the August 23 order.
     It found Nancy Michelle Murphy to be in contempt for wilfully refusing to cooperate with the custody evaluator in violation of the August 23 order.
     And it found King and Farmer to be in contempt because of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing. Nancy Michelle Murphy, Farmer, and King filed an application for discretionary appeal of the contempt order. We granted the application, and this latest appeal followed.
     We first address John Murphy’s motion to dismiss the appeal, then turn to the deficiencies in the appellants’ brief, and finally, address the merits of the challenges to the contempt order.
3.      Motion to dismiss the appeal. 5 Appendix 1, Page 5 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals
     Because this is an appeal from a contempt order, the appellants were not required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedure. OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (2); Massey v. Massey, 294 Ga. 163, 164-165 (2) (751 SE2d 330) (2013) (citations omitted); see also OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) (11) (making “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody or holding or declining to hold persons in contempt of such child custody judgment or orders” immediately appealable); OCGA § 5-6-37 (“Unless otherwise provided by law, an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by filing with the clerk of the court wherein the case was determined a notice of appeal.”).
     Because they filed an application for discretionary appeal, we have jurisdiction regardless of whether or not they were entitled to follow the direct appeal procedure. OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). So we do not decide if they were so entitled, and we deny John Murphy’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
4. Deficiencies in the appellants’ brief.
     As a threshold matter, we address the deficiencies in the appellants’ brief. The Appellate Practice Act, at OCGA § 5-6-40, provides that enumerations of error are to be concise and “shall set out separately each error relied upon.”  “It is desirable that each enumeration be explicit, precise, intelligible, unambiguous,  unmistakable, and unequivocal.” MacDonald v. MacDonald, 156 Ga. App. 565, 569 (1) (d) (275 SE2d 142) (1980) (physical precedent).
     Our rules direct that, “[t]he sequence of arguments in the briefs shall follow the order of the enumeration of errors, and shall be numbered accordingly.” Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (1).
 
     As to each enumeration of error, an appellant is to specify how the error was preserved and to state concisely the applicable standard of review. Court of Appeals Rule 25 (a). Briefs and enumerations of errors that do not conform to those requirements hinder our ability to determine the basis and substance of an appellant’s appeal. Williams v. State, 318 Ga. App. 744, 744-745 (734 SE2d 745) (2012).
     Appellants’ brief does not conform to those requirements.
     Their brief and enumerations of error is rambling and difficult to follow; several enumerations contain multiple allegations of error.
     These deficiencies are illustrated by enumeration of error four, which is set out in the margin.
1 1      “Whether the court erred in holding Michelle Murphy in contempt for not cooperating, within the time provided by the Court, with the custody evaluator, who presented an illegal condition for Michelle Murphy to perform in order to “cooperate” by requiring that Michelle Murphy execute the psychologist’s contract. (V17 p.3627)
     The contempt adjudication was not supported with proof beyond a reasonable doubt of Michelle Murphy’s violation of the Order.
     If proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Michelle Murphy violated any directive of the custody evaluator, the directive placed an illegal condition upon Michelle Murphy that is being appealed.
     In order to accomplish what Judge Baldwin ordered, Michelle Murphy would have had to be As to some of the issues that appellants attempt to raise, these deficiencies constitute abandonment.
     Appellants do not address each enumeration of error in the argument section of their brief, and their arguments in that section do not follow the order of the enumeration of errors.
     And many of the alleged errors referenced in the enumeration of errors, are not supported with arguments, citations to the record, or citations of authority.
Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) provides, “Any enumeration of error which is not supported in the brief by citation of authority or argument may subjected to the following, illegal conditions: Michelle Murphy would have been required to execute a contract that is void against the public policy of the State of Georgia, in that:
(a)      the contract that requires Michelle Murphy to grant the psychologist full immunity from liability, not just the immunity from liability provided by statute that exempts immunity to the psychologist resulting from her bad faith;
(b)      the contract requires that Michelle Murphy become financially liable for fees that she cannot afford, as it requires that she pay expensive fees to obtain discovery and production, testimony at trial, or be deprived of this evidence that could be necessary to her defense of the psychologist’s findings or for use by her as evidence against the plaintiff;
c)      the contract provides that the psychologist be paid 18% interest for late payments of fees;
 (d)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the psychologist would not inform her counsel of the method to be used for the “custody evaluation,” and would not provide other information about the scope of the investigation of John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud that would be conducted before rendering an opinion to the Court;
(e)      unless Michelle Murphy executed the contract, the psychologist stated that she would not talk to counsel for Michelle Murphy or Michelle Murphy; and,
(f) Michelle Murphy would have been subjected to a psychologist who was selected by the guardian ad litem, who was exposed by counsel for Michelle Murphy for converting to her personal use trust funds provided to her in the case, in violation of USCR 24.9 (8)(g).”
      Appendix 1, Page 8 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals be deemed abandoned.” See also Court of Appeals Rule 25 (c) (2) (i) (“Each enumerated error shall be supported in the brief by specific reference to the record or transcript. In the absence of such reference, the Court will not search for or consider such enumeration.”).
     In spite of these deficiencies, we will review the claims of error that we are authorized to reach to the extent that we can ascertain the appellants’ arguments, Williams, 318 Ga. App. at 744-745, and to the extent they have not abandoned them.
 5.      Claim that trial judge is disqualified.
     The appellants argue that the Honorable A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. was disqualified from adjudicating the contempt motion for two reasons:
     because another judge’s transfer of the case to Judge Baldwin was illegal,
     and because unadjudicated disqualification motions were pending against Judge Baldwin at the time that he decided the contempt motion.
However, the appellants have cited no authority for the 
     Finally as noted above, our previous opinion rebuked appellants for repeated violations of Court of Appeals Rule 10 which provides, “Personal remarks, whether oral or written, which are discourteous or disparaging to any judge, opposing counsel, or any court, are strictly forbidden.” Murphy v. Murphy, __ Ga. App. __, __ (4) (759 SE2d 909) (2014).
     Their present brief is only somewhat better. It includes, for example, repeated unsupported and irrelevant assertions that a particular witness has substance abuse problems.
     We again rebuke appellants. This lack of professionalism does less than nothing to advance their cause. 9 Appendix 1, Page 9 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals proposition that the transfer of the case to Judge Baldwin was illegal.
On the contrary, Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.3 authorizes “an assigned judge [to] transfer an assigned action to another judge with the latter’s consent in which event the latter becomes the assigned judge.” And there are no unadjudicated disqualification motions.
     Judge Baldwin orally denied all such motions before hearing the contempt motion. See Uniform Superior Court Rule 25.1 (“In no event shall the motion [for disqualification] be allowed to delay the trial or proceeding.”).
     The appellants argue that Judge Baldwin was deprived of jurisdiction to consider the contempt motion because the August 23 order was currently on appeal and subject to supersedeas.
     Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (e), however, when a party appeals an order granting nonmonetary relief in a child custody case, the order stands until reversed or modified by the reviewing court unless the trial court states otherwise in its judgment or order.
     The trial court did not state otherwise in the August 23 order, so that order stood and remained enforceable through contempt proceedings notwithstanding the pending appeal. See Walker v. Walker, 239 Ga. 175, 176 (236 SE2d 263) (1977) (custody award that is not subject to supersedeas is enforceable through contempt; decided before July 1, 2011 effective date of OCGA § 5-6-34 (e)).
6.      Contempt citations. 10 Appendix 1, Page 10 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals
     Having addressed these preliminary matters, we now turn to the trial court’s order finding Farmer to be in contempt for discussing the case with the children in violation of the August 23 order, finding Nancy Michelle Murphy to be in contempt for wilfully refusing to cooperate with the custody evaluator in violation of the August 23 order, and finding both attorneys to be in contempt because of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing.
(a) Violation of the prohibition of discussing this case with the children.
     The trial court held attorney Farmer in contempt after finding that he was “discussing the issues, allegations, and claims in this case with the children and that such discussions are not necessary to implement the terms of the August Order.”
     The appellants argue that this judgment of contempt must be reversed because Farmer did not receive adequate notice and because the evidence does not support it.
(i) Notice.
     The appellants argue that the trial court erred in finding that they had sufficient notice of the contempt allegations against them and the hearing on the contempt. We conclude that the notice was reasonable.
     Whether or not a party is entitled to notice of the charges of contempt and a hearing on those charges depends on the type of contempt he is charged with.
     “Acts 11 Appendix 1, Page 11 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals of contempt are either direct, meaning they are committed within the sensory perception of the judge, or they are indirect, meaning they occur outside the sensory perception of the judge.” In re Shook, 254 Ga. App. 706, 707 (563 SE2d 435) (2002) (citation and punctuation omitted).
     When a party is charged with committing direct contempt, no advanced notice is required and due process is satisfied “by simply giving [the party charged] an opportunity to speak on her own behalf.” Johnson v. State, 258 Ga. App. 33, 36 (2) (b) (572 SE2d 669) (2002) (citation omitted).
     When a party is charged with committing indirect contempt, the party is “entitled, among other things, to reasonable notice of the charges, to counsel of his own choosing, and to the opportunity to call witnesses.” Ramirez v. State, 279 Ga. 13, 16 (3) (608 SE2d 645) (2005).
     Farmer was charged with indirect contempt and therefore was entitled to reasonable notice of the allegations against him. “[T]he notice must be reasonably calculated to inform persons of the charges against them and their opportunity for a hearing at a specific time and place to present their objections.” Hedquist v. Hedquist, 275 Ga. 188, 189 (563 SE2d 854) (2002) (citation omitted). The notice here met those requirements.
 12      Appendix 1, Page 12 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals Appellants were adequately informed of the charges.
     The amended motion for contempt sufficiently specified the allegedly contumacious conduct.
     It sought to hold counsel in contempt for discussing the issues in the case with the parties’ children.
     The appellants argue that referring to “Defendant’s lawyer” instead of “Millard Farmer” rendered the motion insufficient.
     They cite no supporting authority for that argument, and we reject it.
     Appellants were adequately notified of their opportunity to be heard at a specific time and place.
     On September 12, 2014, counsel for John Murphy served upon counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy a “Notice of Hearing” that specified the date, time, and location of a hearing before the trial court “in order for [the trial court] to consider the relief requested in Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt filed in the above captioned matter on August 29, 2013.”
     Counsel served that “Notice of Hearing” by United States mail and by email. Additionally the trial court issued a calendar to counsel for the parties, confirming that a hearing was scheduled for October 3, 2013.
     The appellants do not deny receiving the notice of hearing or the calendar. Counsel for John Murphy served the amended motion for contempt upon counsel for Nancy Michelle Murphy on September 27, 2013, six days before the scheduled hearing. Under these facts, we find that the trial court did not err in concluding that the
13       Appendix 1, Page 13 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals appellants received reasonable, sufficient notice. See Gibson v. Gibson, 234 Ga. 528, 529-530 (3) (216 SE2d 824) (1975) (notice less than five days before hearing, which appellant did not dispute receiving, was reasonable). Compare Hedquist, 275 Ga. at 190 (notice of hearing that did not specify that trial court would hear the contempt motions at pretrial conference was inadequate).
(ii) Sufficiency of the evidence.
     Farmer argues that the contempt must be reversed because the evidence does not support the finding of contempt. Our standard of review is dictated by the nature of the contempt, whether criminal or civil. In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. 841, 842 (567 SE2d 87) (2002).
     The trial court sentenced Farmer to “be incarcerated in the Coweta County, Georgia jail for a period of 20 days or until he pa[id] One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) to the Court.” Because he was sentenced to imprisonment for a specified, unconditional period, Farmer’s contempt was criminal. See In the Interest of J. D., 316 Ga. App. 19, 21 (1) (728 SE2d 698) (2012) (“If the contemnor is imprisoned for a specified unconditional period . . . the purpose is punishment and thus the contempt is criminal.”) (citation, footnote, and punctuation omitted).
“On appeal of a criminal contempt conviction the appropriate standard of appellate review is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 14 Appendix 1, Page 14 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. at 842 (citation and punctuation omitted).
     After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we conclude that the trial court could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
     Farmer signed the brief to which the affidavits reflecting the children’s knowledge of the case were attached. Also attached to that brief is an affidavit of Farmer himself, notarized on the same day by the notary who notarized the children’s affidavits.
     To the extent Farmer argues that he cannot be held in contempt for violating a provision directed at the parties rather than himself, his argument is unavailing.
     The violation of a court’s order by one who was not a party to the proceedings can be punished as a contempt if the contemnor had actual notice of the order and is in privity with, aided and abetted, or acted in concert with the named party in acts constituting a violation of the order. The Bootery v. Cumberland Creek Props., 271 Ga. 271, 272 (2) (517 SE2d 68) (1999). It is undisputed that Farmer had actual notice of the order and acted as Nancy Michelle Murphy’s representative when obtaining the affidavits from the children.
(b)      Failure to cooperate with the custody evaluator. 15 Appendix 1, Page 15 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals The trial court held Nancy Michelle Murphy in contempt after finding that she had not cooperated with the custody evaluator. The appellants argue that this judgment of contempt must be reversed because Nancy Michelle Murphy did not receive adequate notice and because the evidence does not support it.
(i) Notice.
     Nancy Michelle Murphy was entitled to reasonable notice related to the allegations of indirect contempt for violating the August 23, 2013 court order.
     For the reasons discussed in Division 6 (a) (1), supra, we conclude that she received such notice.
(ii) Sufficiency of the evidence.
The trial court sentenced Nancy Michelle Murphy to incarceration “until she compli[ed] with the August Order by signing the documents previously submitted to her by [the custody evaluator’s] office.”
     This was a civil contempt. See In the Interest of J. D., 316 Ga. App. at 21-22 (1) (“If the contemnor is imprisoned only until he performs a specified act, the purpose is remedial and hence the contempt is civil.”) (citations omitted).
     In civil contempt appeals, if there is any evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that its order had been violated, we are without 16 Appendix 1, Page 16 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals power to disturb the judgment absent an abuse of discretion.” In re Waitz, 255 Ga. App. at 842 (citation omitted).
     We hold that some evidence supported the conclusion that Nancy Michelle Murphy violated the August 23 order by refusing to cooperate with the custody evaluator. The August 23 order set an October 15, 2013 deadline for completion of the custody evaluation. John Murphy testified that he had done everything the custody evaluator required in order to begin the evaluation, yet the evaluation had not proceeded.
     It is not disputed that as of November 19, 2013, the date of the trial court’s contempt order, that evaluation had not occurred.
     And, in a response to the amended motion for contempt which she filed on October 22, 2013, Nancy Michelle Murphy expressly defied the August 23 order and declared herself justified in refusing to sign the documents that were a prerequisite to the custody evaluation.
     The trial court was therefore authorized to conclude that she had not signed those documents. See OCGA § 24-8-821 (“Without offering the same in evidence, either party may avail himself or herself of allegations or admissions made in the pleadings of the other.”).
     This is sufficient evidence to authorize the trial court to conclude that Nancy Michelle Murphy violated the August 23 order by refusing to cooperate with the 17 Appendix 1, Page 17 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals custody evaluator. See Edwards v. Edwards, 254 Ga. App. 849, 854 (563 SE2d 888) (2002) (a person who simply ignores a court order that she believes is erroneous “does so at [her] own peril and must assume the risk of being held in contempt”) (citation and punctuation omitted).
(c)      Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the hearing. We agree with the appellants that the trial court erred in holding Farmer and King in contempt because of Nancy Michelle Murphy’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing.
      Absent a properly served subpoena or court order requiring a party to appear in person, a party may choose not to be present at the trial of the case and to be represented solely by counsel.
     This rule accords with the long-established principle that there is full power on the part of the counsel to represent the client, and it is just the same as if the client were there in person. In re Estate of Coutermarsh, 325 Ga. App. 288, 290 (1) (752 SE2d 448) (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted). See also Masonry Standards v. UPS Truck Leasing, 257 Ga. 743, 743-744 (363 SE2d 553) (1988) (trial court erred in sanctioning defendant for failing to appear in person at trial).
     John Murphy has pointed to nothing that required Nancy Michelle Murphy to appear in person at the 18 Appendix 1, Page 18 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals contempt hearing.
     And because Nancy Michelle Murphy was not required to appear in person, Farmer and King could not be held in contempt for her failure to appear. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Doyle, P. J., and Boggs, J., concur. 19 Appendix 1, Pagge 19 of 19 Opinion of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk’s Office, Atlanta, December 04, 2014.
I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
, Clerk.

 Court of Appeals of Georgia.

MURPHY v. MURPHY.

No. A13A0206.

Decided: July 12, 2013

     Nancy Michelle Murphy appeals an interlocutory order denying her motion to recuse the trial court judge in this change-of-custody case. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

     Nancy Murphy and John Murphy were divorced in 2006. In 2012, John Murphy filed this action, seeking to modify the child custody provisions of the parties’ divorce decree.

      The case was assigned to Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Nancy Murphy moved to disqualify Judge Baldwin. Judge Baldwin denied the motion, and Nancy Murphy filed a notice of appeal. The case remains pending below.
     “This [c]ourt has a duty to inquire into its jurisdiction to entertain each appeal.” (Citation omitted.) Hammonds v. Parks, 319 Ga.App. 792, 793(2), 735 S.E.2d 801 (2012). Under the version of OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11) in effect when Nancy Murphy filed her notice of appeal, a party could file a direct appeal from “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases including, but not limited to, awarding or refusing to change child custody․” See generally Collins v. Davis, 318 Ga.App. 265, 268–269 & n. 17(1), 733 S.E.2d 798 (2012) (holding that clear and unambiguous language of former OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11) authorized direct appeal of any order in proceeding in which child’s legal custody, physical custody or visitation was an issue, and noting that it was for legislature to narrow scope of this right of direct appeal).
     Such orders were no longer subject to the interlocutory appeal procedures of OCGA § 5–6–34(b) or the discretionary appeal procedures of OCGA § 5–6–35(a)(2). See Taylor v. Curl, 298 Ga.App. 45, 679 S.E.2d 80 (2009).
    Effective May 6, 2013, however, the legislature amended OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11) to provide that a party can file a direct appeal from “[a]ll judgments or orders in child custody cases awarding, refusing to change, or modifying child custody․” SB 204 §§ 1, 2 (2013).
     The uncodified preamble to the amendment states that its purpose is “to limit the scope of judgments or orders in child custody cases which are subject to direct appeal.”
     And although laws that affect substantive rights apply prospectively only, procedural laws, which prescribe the methods of enforcement of rights, duties, and obligations, apply retroactively. Nathans v. Diamond, 282 Ga. 804, 808–809(2), 654 S.E.2d 121 (2007). “[W]here a statute governs only procedure of the courts ․ it is to be given retroactive effect absent an expressed contrary intention.” Polito v. Holland, 258 Ga. 54, 55(2), 365 S.E.2d 273 (1988).
     Nancy Murphy filed her notice of appeal from the order denying her motion to recuse. That order does not award, refuse to change, or modify child custody.
     Consequently, the order is not appealable under OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(11), we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed. See Stevens v. State, 292 Ga. 218, 734 S.E.2d 743 (2012) (dismissing direct appeals from trial court’s denial of the defendants’ motions to dismiss the indictment due to an alleged constitutional speedy trial violation because eight days before, the Supreme Court had determined that such orders were no longer directly appealable but had to follow the interlocutory application procedures).
     To the extent that Nancy Murphy argues that we have jurisdiction over her appeal because orders denying motions to recuse are directly appealable under the collateral order doctrine, we disagree.
     The Georgia Supreme Court has held that a party who wants to appeal a pretrial ruling on a recusal motion has the option to seek an interlocutory appeal or to appeal directly after an adverse final judgment See White v. Lumpkin, 272 Ga. 398, 529 S.E.2d 879 (2000); Chandler v. Davis, 269 Ga. 727, 728, 504 S.E.2d 440 (1998).
     We, too, have held that the appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to recuse “requires compliance with the interlocutory appeal provisions of OCGA § 5–6–34(b).” (Citation omitted.) Ellis v. Stanford, 256 Ga.App. 294, 295(2), 568 S.E.2d 157 (2002). See also Rolleston v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 213 Ga.App. 552, 553, 445 S.E.2d 345 (1994); In re Booker, 186 Ga.App. 614, 367 S.E.2d 850 (1988).
     In fact, the interlocutory appeal provision of OCGA § 5–6–34(b) explicitly provides that:
     Where the trial judge in rendering an order, decision, or judgment, not otherwise subject to direct appeal, including but not limited to the denial of a defendant’s motion to recuse in a criminal case, certifies within ten days of entry thereof that the order, decision, or judgment is of such importance to the case that immediate review should be had, the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals may thereupon, in their respective discretions, permit an appeal to be taken from the order, decision, or judgment if application is made thereto within ten days after such certificate is granted.(Emphasis supplied.)
     Nonetheless, in Braddy v. State, 316 Ga.App. 292, 729 S.E.2d 461 (2012), without acknowledging the prior cases or the language of OCGA § 5–6–34(b), we held that an order denying a motion to recuse met the requirements for application of the collateral order doctrine because the ruling concern[ed] a matter wholly unrelated to the basic issues to be decided in the [underlying] case.
     Whether the trial judge could properly preside over the case would be unresolved if review had to await final judgment.
     Finally, the order resolve[d] the matter completely and nothing remain[ed] in the underlying case to affect it.Id. at 293(1), 729 S.E.2d 461.
     This holding misapplied the collateral order doctrine and directly conflicted with OCGA § 5–6–34(b)‘s explicit inclusion of “the denial of a defendant’s motion to recuse in a criminal case” in the category of orders needing a certificate of immediate review, thereby rendering the provision meaningless.
     In Scroggins v. Edmondson, 250 Ga. 430, 431–432(1)(c), 297 S.E.2d 469 (1982), our Supreme Court adopted the test from Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), for determining whether an order falls within the collateral order doctrine.
      Under that test, the collateral order doctrine applies if the order
(1)      completely and conclusively decides the issue on appeal such that nothing in the underlying action can affect it;
(2)      resolves an issue that is substantially separate from the basic issues in the complaint; and
(3)      might result in the loss of an important right if review had to await final judgment, making the order effectively unreviewable on appeal. See Scroggins, 250 Ga. at 432(1), 297 S.E.2d 469(c).
     Braddy misapplied the “effectively unreviewable” prong of the test.In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 101 S.Ct. 669, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981), the United States Supreme Court stressed the stringency of the “effectively unreviewable” prong of the Cohen test:
     “To be appealable as a final collateral order, the challenged order must constitute a complete, formal, and, in the trial court, final rejection, of a claimed right where denial of immediate review would render impossible any review whatsoever.” (Emphasis supplied; citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 376.
     In Braddy, we held that this prong was satisfied because “[w]hether the trial judge could properly preside over the case would be unresolved if review had to await final judgment.” Braddy, 316 Ga.App. at 293(1), 729 S.E.2d 461.
     But orders denying motions to recuse may be reviewed and relief afforded after the entry of final judgment. In Johnson v. State, 278 Ga. 344, 349(3), 602 S.E.2d 623 (2004), for example, the Supreme Court reversed a defendant’s convictions for felony murder and related crimes because the trial court should have granted her motion to recuse. In Gillis v. City of Waycross, 247 Ga.App. 119, 122, 543 S.E.2d 423 (2000), an appeal of a final judgment entered after a three-day trial, we remanded the case so that a different judge could consider the plaintiffs’ motion to recuse.
      Because review after entry of final judgment of orders denying motions to recuse can protect parties’ interests adequately, such orders are not appealable as collateral orders.
     And to hold otherwise ignores the explicit language of OCGA § 5–6–34(b). We therefore overrule Braddy, 316 Ga.App. at 292, 729 S.E.2d 461.
     Other courts that have considered the issue generally have held that the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule does not encompass an order denying a motion to recuse because the parties’ interests can be protected adequately in an appeal from a final judgment. See, e.g., In re Martinez–Catala, 129 F.3d 213, 217(II) (1st Cir.1997); In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litigation, 614 F.2d 958, 960–961(I) (5th Cir.1980); State of Florida v. Countrywide Truck Ins. Agency, 270 Neb. 454, 703 N.W.2d 905 (Neb.2005); State v. Forte, 150 Vt. 654, 553 A.2d 564, 565 (Vt.1988); Kreig v. Krieg, 743 A.2d 509, 511 & n. 4 (Pa.Super.1999).
     In other words, because recusal questions are fully reviewable on appeal from a final judgment, the collateral order doctrine does not apply.
Appeal dismissed.
McFADDEN, Judge.PHIPPS, C.J., ANDREWS, P.J., BARNES, P.J., ELLINGTON, P.J., DOYLE, P.J., MILLER, DILLARD, BOGGS, RAY, BRANCH and McMILLIAN, JJ., concur.

– See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1638666.html#sthash.3tJZiiOs.dpuf

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TROUP COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

Nancy Michelle Murphy,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Civil Action No. 15-CV0109

     Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc., Defendants [Only two Defendants remaining after Fulton Superior Court transfer] The Summary Judgment should be Denied and the Demand for a Jury Trial by twelve persons should be Granted Nancy Michelle Murphy’s Response to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5 Theories of Recovery and Statement of Material Facts of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc.

     This case involves Nan Freeman, who is an official court reporter engaging in illegal conduct. Nancy Michelle Murphy (or “Michelle Murphy”) responds here to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5, purported Theory of Recovery and purported Statement of Material Facts of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc. (or, “Nan Freeman,” collectively or individually).

       A substantial portion of Nan Freeman’s Uniform Superior Court Rule 6.5 purported Statement of Material Facts reflects the vindictiveness of those opposing Michelle Murphy for exposing the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin and those, such as Nan Freeman, who attempted to conceal the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin.

     This is to state that Nan Freeman is assisted by persons attempting to support the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin, who have either benefited from the conduct of Judge Baldwin, or who seek to obtain future benefit derived from supporting Judge Baldwin and/or financial benefits derived from John Harold Murphy and Renee L. Haugerud.

     The information contained in the March 14, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Nan Freeman in Murphy v. Murphy, in the Superior Court of Coweta County, Civil Action No. 12V-413 (or, “Murphy v. Murphy”) is incorporated and made a part of this introduction, as Attachment 7.

      Nan Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment attempts to demean Michelle Murphy and to use the tactics of John Harold Murphy and Judge Baldwin in an attempt to defend Nan Freeman’s illegal conduct and the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin in not adhering to the Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 mandated case management plan.

     Nan Freeman’s Motion for Summary Judgment identifies, as much as anything, the bias of Nan Freeman and that the illegal conduct of Nan Freeman was not that of an innocent court reporter who made a few errors, but that of a person engaging in a pattern of illegal conduct allowing her to obtain illegal compensation and job security by protecting the conduct of Judge Baldwin,  whose judicial authority should have been vacated by the regulatory authorities.

     The e-mails copied and exchanged among those working in Judge Baldwin’s office and Nan Freeman using either the nickname, “Nanny” or “Nan” do not depict Nan Freeman as an independent, unbiased official court report covering matters relating to Judge Baldwin.

     These exchanges, produced in discovery after the deposition of Nan Freeman, are attached to the Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon as “Exhibit D,” and are incorporated here.

     When Judge Baldwin eventually recused himself after twenty or more attempts by Michelle Murphy to disqualify him by all legal means, Judge Baldwin obtained a position for Nan Freeman, as an official court reporter with the newly appointed Coweta Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge W. Travis Sakrison, the son-in-law of Congressman Lynn Westmoreland.

     The recusal Orders of the judges in the Coweta Judicial Circuit in Murphy v. Murphy and the replacement judge are included as Attachment 8.

     No separate response is required to the Theory of Recovery of Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc. (or, “Nan Freeman”, collectively or individually )

     The response of Michelle Murphy to Nan Freeman’s purported Statement of Rule 6.5 Facts Memorandum of Law is incorporated in the Introduction to the Response to Nan Freeman’s Theory of Recovery.

      Just as a heads up — counsel for Nan Freeman filed her motion for summary judgment before Michelle Murphy’s First Amended Complaint was filed and therefore Nan Freeman’s issues in her current motion for summary have become stale and mostly legally immaterial before the allotted time for Michelle Murphy to respond.

     An official court reporter, as was and is Nan Freeman, cannot legally design a template, as she did around 1996, and use it in each of her official court reporting’s contractual fulfilments until she is caught producing illegal transcripts with that template in 2014 and then creditably urge the defense of “mistake” — the law burdens Nan Freeman, as a condition of qualifying and being compensated, as an official court reporter, both to learn and to comply with the legally permissible fees and the legal requirements for the preparation of transcripts pursuant to the Fee Schedule mandated by the Judicial Council of Georgia and OCGA § 15-14- 5.

     Returning compensation which was illegally taken does not absolve one of the consequences of violating the law. Nan Freeman held a position of trust that required both her competence and integrity that she breached to the detriment of Michelle Murphy, that consumed Michelle Murphy’s financial resources and created an enhanced level of prejudice against Michelle Murphy’s effort to obtain custody of J. M. and T. M., her children.

     It is relevant to understand that Judge Baldwin was the exclusive trier of fact in Murphy v. Murphy.

     Michelle Murphy could not obtain a jury trial in that case The fees and the conditions upon which an official court reporter in the State of Georgia can obtain compensation is mandated by the Judicial Council of Georgia.

     Nan Freeman was required by law to charge only the Judicial Council of Georgia authorized fees to persons who wished, or were required, to purchase transcripts from her in her capacity as an official court reporter for the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

     The fees follow that were allowable for Nan Freeman to charge for legally prepared transcripts in the Superior Court of Coweta County case of Murphy v Murphy.

     Nan Freeman did not comply with the certificate requirements, which were legally imposed upon her by the OCGA § 15-14-5, Duty to transcribe statute — Nan Freeman used an abbreviated, incomplete version of the required certificate. OCGA § 15-14-5. Duty to transcribe; certificate.

     It shall be the duty of each court reporter to transcribe the evidence and other proceedings of which he has taken notes as provided by law whenever requested so to do by counsel for any party to such case and upon being paid the legal fees for such transcripts.

     The reporter, upon delivering the transcript to such counsel, shall affix thereto a certificate signed by him reciting that the transcript is true, complete, and correct.

     Subject only to the right of the trial judge to change or require the correction of the transcript, the transcript so certified shall  be presumed to be true, complete, and correct. emphasis supplied

     Nan Freeman, as a part and parcel of her habitual violations of the laws of Georgia, did not provide Michelle Murphy’s transcripts with an OCGA § 5-14-5 required certificate containing the certification that the transcript is “true, complete and correct” as required by OCGA § 5-14-5 — — The transcripts provided and paid for by Michelle Murphy were not true, complete or correct. Nan Freeman has never provided to Michelle Murphy, or other litigants, the required certificate that is an indication of the pattern of her illegal conduct.

     The habitual violations of the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements and the authorized fees is relevant to identify that Nan Freeman did not just make a onetime error, but instead engaged in a pattern of illegal conduct, including overcharging and not including the required certificate.

     Nan Freeman was therefore not entitled to any compensation, as she prepared no transcript meeting the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements. If she had complied, the following fees, with which she also did not comply, govern.

     Nan Freeman, by using a template that consistently produced a transcript that did not comply with OCGA § 15-14-5, and using a template that consistently allowed her to collect more compensation than she was permitted to receive under the law, engaged in illegal conduct and actionable fraud, negligent misrepresentation of facts, theft by taking, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion.

     The laws of Georgia do not deprive Michelle Murphy from obtaining damages from an official court reporter who engaged in the illegal conduct in which Nan Freeman engaged.

Procedural Background

Michelle Murphy, through counsel, first, informally and very politely, sought the audio recording of the May 27, 2014 proceedings from Nan Freeman, the official court reporter in Murphy v. Murphy— counsel approached Nan Freeman while she was still sitting at her court reporting station.

     The audio recordings were initially sought by counsel to provide to regulatory authorities to report the Code of Judicial Conduct violations by Judge Baldwin that had just occurred.

     The report of the conduct of Judge Baldwin was appropriate, as his violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct were prevalent on several earlier occasions, but none were as monstrous as Judge Baldwin’s mental blowout on May 27, 2014.

    The audio was relevant to obtaining the removal of Judge Baldwin from Murphy v. Murphy.

     Nan Freeman initially refused the literal begging of counsel to purchase the audio recording for Michelle Murphy’s use — counsel then, to no avail, sought the audio recording with a Georgia Open Records Act request to Troup County, Coweta County and Nan Freeman.

     The Open Records Act request is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 to the Deposition of Nan Freeman, and is Attachment 6 to this response. Counsel sought assistance from the Board of Court Reporting, with first an informal request for help, followed by a formal complaint.

     Counsel for Michelle Murphy was refused assistance in obtaining the audio recordings for Michelle Murphy until after an action was filed against the Board of Court Reporting, Nan Freeman and Freeman Reporting, Inc., that, with other efforts and concessions, resulted in Michelle Murphy obtaining the audio recordings.

     It was a review of the audio recording that supported the illegal conduct of Nan Freeman.

     Nan Freeman, over an extended period of time, thought to have begun on, or before, 1996, engaged in illegal court reporting that counsel for Michelle Murphy discovered and documented at the initial cost of in excess of $10,000.

     The Answer of Nan Freeman to the original complaint against her by Michelle Murphy is included as Attachment 1.

      That Answer, as well as the complete record of the original case, are now in the records of the Superior Court of Troup County and are relied upon in support of this response. The litigious nature of Nan Freeman in not fulfilling her contract with Michelle Murphy, by engaging in false, demeaning depictions of Michelle Murphy, in this Motion for Summary Judgment and elsewhere, qualifies Nan Freeman’s breach of contract for an award of attorney fees and punitive damages.

     A video recording and official copy of the transcript and video deposition of Nan Freeman are in the record of the Superior Court of Troup County.

      Nan Freeman’s attorney attached a copy of that transcript, without Exhibits, of Nan Freeman’s deposition to Nan Freeman’s motion for summary judgment.

     It is relevant to distinguish between the stringent requirements for an official court reporter to receive compensation, from the requirements of a court reporter, who, for example, reports at depositions.

     In order to obtain the audio recordings of the May 27, 2014 hearing and to have transcribed omitted portions of the transcripts that were thought available with the audio recordings, the Georgia Open Records Act requests were filed by counsel for Michelle Murphy. See Attachment 6 hereto, and Exhibit 6 to the deposition of Nan Freeman includes the Georgia Open Records Act requests to the Counties of Troup and Coweta, and to Nan Freeman.

      After the Board of Court Reporting members were dismissed as defendants from the Superior Court of Fulton County portion of this case, Nan Freeman, on her motion, was successful in having the case transferred to the Superior Court of Troup County.

     The original complaint, upon which the motion for summary judgment relies, was amended before the response Michelle Murphy to this motion for summary judgment was due.

     The Complaint against Nan Freeman contains issues that are embedded within each of the causes of action that affects the damages that should be awarded against Nan Freeman.

     The embedded issues in each cause of action are

(1)      the proportion of the tortious conduct by Nan Freeman that can be attributed to her violation of protections provided to litigants by the Code of Judicial Conduct, OCGA §15-14-5, the Uniform Superior Court Rules, the Constitutional provisions of the United States and the State of Georgia equivalent, First Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process protections, statutes, decisional law, Georgia Code of Professional Conduct, the Court Reporter Code of Professional Ethics (or, collectively, or separately, “LAW*”).

     Nan Freeman’s intentional participation in the illegal conduct of Judge Baldwin in order to deprive Michelle Murphy and her children of their protections under the LAW* by Nan Freeman’s reckless and wanton disregard of consequences, evinced an intention to inflict injury upon Michelle Murphy —

(2)      the proportion of Nan Freeman’s tortious conduct that is attributed to her intent to obtain illegal financial and employment benefits for herself —

(3)      the proportion of Nan Freeman’s tortious wrongdoing that is attributed to her fraud and negligent misrepresentation; and —

(4)      the damages caused to Michelle Murphy as the result of Nan Freeman’s illegal and unethical conduct that included Nan Freeman’s participation in attempting to secret and otherwise participate in the illegal conduct and other violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct by Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. Response to the Individual Statement of Purported Facts relied upon by Nan Freeman in support of her motion for summary judgment. [The purported statement of fact by Nan Freeman is first quoted in an italicized font, then the response follows.]

     Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 12 of 28 1.

     Since 2012, Ms. Freeman has served as the court reporter for Chief Judge A. Quillian Baldwin, Jr. of the Coweta County Superior Court. Dep. of Nan Freeman at 8:19-9:12. A copy of the transcript of Ms. Freeman’ s Deposition is attached to the Affidavit of Kenneth Lamar Gordon (“Gordon Affidavit”) as Exhibit A. Response to No. 1

     Nan Freeman has been an official court reporter in the Coweta Judicial Circuit since approximately 1999, and a court reporter since approximately 1996 (Freeman Dep. p. 8).

     During that time, she has been the official court reporter first for Judge Keeble, then Judge Baldwin, and, now, the newly appointed Judge W. Travis Sakrison. At all times excepting August 13, 2013, when another reporter, Alice Moore, was assigned to the case for that one hearing, Nan Freeman was the official court reporter during the Murphy v. Murphy case.

     The official transcript of the deposition of Nan Freeman is filed in the Superior Court of Troup County.

     Counsel for Nan Freeman did not attach the exhibits to the deposition of Nan Freeman, which are relevant to the testimony contained in the transcript.

     The exhibits are attached to the official transcript filed with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Troup County. 2.

     From April 2012 until February 2015, (other than a brief period of time in which the case had been transferred to another judge) Judge Baldwin presided over child custody litigation between Plaintiff and her ex-husband, John Murphy (the “Child Custody Litigation”) See Murphy v. Murphy, No. 2012-cv-413 (Ga. Super. Ct., Coweta Cnty. filed Apr. 11, 2012). Response to No. 2

     After Michelle Murphy filed extensive challenges to the absence of a Uniform Superior Court Rule 3.1 case management plan with disqualification motions and otherwise in the Superior Court of Coweta County, a Rule 3.1 mandated case Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 13 of 28 management plan was implemented by the Coweta Judicial Circuit.

     Under that plan, Judge Dennis Blackmon was assigned the Murphy v. Murphy case, as confirmed by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Coweta County. Judge Baldwin, through a process that did not comply with the LAW*, obtained the case from Judge Blackmon.

     There were continuous pleas to the jurisdiction of Judge Baldwin presiding after Judge Blackmon’s Rule 3.1 case management plan assignment. The Murphy v. Murphy case was a modification of custody, or in the Alternative, Parenting Time of John Harold Murphy that also involved a modification of child support.

     John Harold Murphy initiated the litigation that resulted in Counterclaims against John Harold Murphy and a Third Party Complaint against Renee L. Haugerud, his spouse, who is a hedge fund operator. At that time, the case in the Superior Court of Coweta County was styled as follows.

     John Harold Murphy, Plaintiff vs. Civil Action No. 12V-413 Nancy Michelle Murphy, Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff vs. A Jury Trial is Requested on the Child Support Issues, the Counterclaim and the Third Party Complaint Renee Haugerud, Third Party Defendant The hedge fund operator, third party defendant was dismissed by Judge Baldwin without allowing a hearing.

     Judge Baldwin refused counsel for Michelle Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 14 of 28 Murphy the right to depose Renee L. Haugerud or to call her as a witness at any time, despite numerous requests. 3.

     On April 1, 2014, Judge Baldwin issued an Order in the Child Custody Litigation (a) requiring Plaintiff to submit to a psychological examination pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-35;

(b)      setting a compliance hearing for May 27, 2014; and

(c)      warning Plaintiff that the issue of temporary custody of the children would be considered at the compliance hearing, if necessary.

     A copy of the April 1, 2014 Order in the Child Custody Litigation is attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit B. Response to No. 3

     On April 1, 2014, Judge Baldwin filed an Order in Murphy v Murphy, that is incorporated as Attachment 2.

     The Attachment is the representation of the designation of the content of the Order, as Michelle Murphy is opposed to the characterization of the litigation and the characterization of the Order contained in the No. 3 statement of purported fact of Nan Freeman.

4.      On May 27, 2014, Judge Baldwin conducted the compliance hearing in the Child Custody Litigation.

     Following Plaintiff’s admission on the stand that she had failed to comply with the Rule 35 psychological examination, Judge Baldwin awarded temporary custody of the children to Plaintiff’s ex-husband, John Murphy. Response to No. 4 Judge Baldwin, on May 27, 2014 did not conduct a hearing that provided Michelle Murphy her Due Process rights, as Judge Baldwin presided at a proceeding that violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, as evidenced by his recusal. Attachment 8, p. 1 is incorporated here.

     On May 27, 2014, Judge Baldwin commenced what was scheduled to be a hearing in the case of Murphy v. Murphy.

     Judge Baldwin would not allow any of Michelle Murphy’s witnesses to testify and would not even allow direct examination of Michelle Murphy by her counsel, while Judge Baldwin, in attempting to examine Michelle Murphy, violated the Code of Judicial Conduct as well as the protections that the law provided to Michelle Murphy.

     Judge Baldwin abruptly refused to allow Michelle Murphy even to explain her answers to questions that he posed, or questions posed by opposing counsel. Judge Baldwin apparently predetermined that he was going to use his judicial authority to abuse Michelle Murphy. Judge Baldwin, by illegal and unethical conduct, attempted to and did prevent Michelle Murphy from presenting her justifiable defense.

     Judge Baldwin would not allow Michelle Murphy, through her testimony, or through her witnesses’ testimony, to present her defenses.

     The characterization of the litigation and the purpose of the proceeding is inaccurate, and is accurately explained in the Affidavit of Michelle Murphy, Attachment 3.

     Nan Freeman’s illegal conduct deprived Michelle Murphy of a verbatim transcription or even a complete and accurate audio version of the May 27, 2014 proceeding, explained in the First Amended Complaint against Nan Freeman as follows.

     Nan Freeman, intentionally or through negligence engaged in a deceptive physical appearance at the May 27, 2014 proceeding that Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 16 of 28 gave Michelle Murphy and her counsel the appearance that she was fulfilling her legal obligations in the courtroom, as an official court reporter under contract to Michelle Murphy, including being located at her reporting station with her equipment, that was a scheme or an artifice to defraud Michelle Murphy and thereby her counsel and the appellate courts and all other courts.

       On May 27, 2014, Nan Freeman failed to take down, audio record, accurately and completely transcribe Judge Baldwin’s Order and assurance to Michelle Murphy, her children and her counsel that the children would be allowed to testify at the May 27, 2014 proceeding, and, thereby, deceptively engaged in actionable fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, creating damages sought in the First Amended Complaint against Nan Freeman by Michelle Murphy. See, Affidavit of Millard Farmer attached to this Response.

     At the time of the May 27, 2014 proceeding, Nan Freeman was a person known to Michelle Murphy and her counsel as the official court reporter who was assigned to the case as the official reporter whom Michelle Murphy, through her counsel, contracted to report and transcribe the proceeding on May 27, 2014.

     Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, requested that Michelle Murphy make payment to her for work which Nan Freeman deceptively failed to perform while appearing to perform as required by the Board of Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 17 of 28 Court Reporting Rules and Regulations.

     Nan Freeman charged, and Michelle Murphy paid for pages of the transcript that did not meet the legal requirements of being page eligible to be included in the fee charged and collected by Nan Freeman.

     In addition to not recording and transcribing the first part of the proceedings, while deceptively appearing to be recording the court proceedings, Nan Freeman, as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation, provided Michelle Murphy, opposing counsel and the Court a certificate stating that the transcript of the May 27, 2014 proceedings provided to the parties, which Nan Freeman was compensated to produce, was a “true” record of the proceedings. (Freeman Dep., Exhibit 5)

     Not only was the certificate not legal, but Nan Freeman had illegally charged for ineligible pages and omitted portions of the proceedings.

     Nan Freeman, who personally transcribed the transcript from a recording that she produced, (Freeman Dep. p. 7) as a part of her fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct, in addition to omitting the beginning of the proceeding, omitted the four pages of Judge Baldwin’s massive temper tantrum at the end of the proceeding that no human in attendance could forget.

     Nan Freeman engaged in fraud and/or alternatively, negligent misrepresentation conduct by attempting to have Judge Baldwin use his authority as the presiding Judge to influence counsel for Michelle Murphy not to bring an action against Nan Freeman that ultimately provided counsel for Michelle Murphy the information to learn of a substantial portion of the fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation conduct of Nan Freeman, much of which was verified during the deposition of Nan Freeman, where she continued to conceal her fraud and/or alternatively negligent misrepresentation, by first making false statements and frequently feigning that she did not remember.

5.       After issuing this ruling, Judge Baldwin stated ”that’s the end of this hearing today” and left the bench. Compl., Attach. 7, at 41. Response to No. 5 Purported Statement 5 is deceptive, as it attempts to imply the end of the proceeding. Instead, Judge Baldwin stood up, but did not leave the bench, and immediately was engaged by counsel and responded with his monstrous temper tantrum, contained in the omitted pages of the “true record” transcript involving the “Blame Yourself,” “Blame Yourself,” Blame Yourself,” of Judge Baldwin that is included in the Addendum, accompanied with the “indicating” comment and the statement of Larry King to Judge Baldwin that is also included in the Addendum to the May 27, 2014 transcript of Nan Freeman. (Attachment 4)

     Even if Judge Baldwin accosted counsel, as he had during the monstrous temper tantrum, after a hearing, and Nan Freeman had the recorded audio of that conduct, she was equally required to transcribe the conduct of Judge Baldwin in order that the relevance of the conduct could be weighed by the regulatory authorities and an appellate court.

     Purported Statement 5 of Nan Freeman mischaracterizes the type of deceptive conduct in which Nan Freeman engaged when she took money that did not belongto her for preparation of numerous transcripts. See, OCGA §15-14-5; Court Reporters’ Fee Schedule of the Judicial Council of Georgia. It also raises the issue of what conduct and testimony was omitted from the transcripts of other litigants for whom she was contracted to provide transcripts.

6.      Despite Judge Baldwin having ended the hearing, one of Plaintiff’s attorneys in the Child Custody Litigation continued to argue, prompting Judge Baldwin to return to the courtroom and direct Ms. Freeman to “[s]top taking down.” Compl., Attach. 8, at 4.

      Response to No. 6 Purported Statement 6 continues to mischaracterize the litigation and the conduct of counsel for Michelle Murphy, and the location of Judge Baldwin in the courtroom.

     At a point in time, at the end of the proceeding’s omitted pages of the certified as “true” transcript, Judge Baldwin, while remaining in the courtroom, did direct Nan Freeman to stop taking down the statements of counsel to Judge Baldwin.

      This occurred at the very end, after the omissions of Nan Freeman that she, after being caught, included in the Addendum. Attachment 4, p. 4. 

     On June 5, 2014, Judge Baldwin entered an Order in the Child Custody Litigation regarding his award of temporary custody of the children to Plaintiff’s ex-husband. A copy of the June 5, 2014 Order in the Child Custody Litigation is attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit C. Response to No. 7 The June 5, 2014 Order in Murphy v. Murphy is attached to the Gordon Affidavit as Exhibit C.

     There are problems with the veracity of the content of Orders of Judge Baldwin. It is the opinion of counsel that the false statements contained in the Orders of Judge Baldwin are most predictably derived from persons other than Judge Baldwin. Counsel for Michelle Murphy observed that Michael Williams Warner, a young Glover & Davis lawyer, made a false swearing to the Magistrate Court of Coweta County that other Glover & Davis counsel acquiesced in Michael William Warner’s using.

     This case against Nan Freeman does not include the illegal conduct of persons other than Nan Freeman, although the illegal conduct of persons other than Nan Freeman is identified, as Nan Freeman attempts to demean Michelle Murphy and her counsel.

     Having observed the legal ability of Judge Baldwin during this litigation, counsel for Michelle Murphy has the opinion that Judge Baldwin did not write the June 5, 2014 Order, but that a person undisclosed to counsel for Michelle Murphy, either presented the Order to Judge Baldwin’s law clerk, or to Judge Baldwin for Judge Baldwin’s signature.

     The June 5, 2014 Order contains false statements not supported by evidence that comports with Due Process requirements, or obtained while Judge Baldwin was conducting a proceeding within the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

     Nan Freeman, upon their request, earlier provided the Glover & Davis lawyers a copy of the last portion of her transcript, which she certified as “true” and which she filed with the Court that did not include the Addendum. It was that early provided portion of the transcript that was used for the drafter of the June 5, 2014 Order signed by Judge Baldwin, most likely, again, without him reading the Order before he signed it.

      The Addendum was not produced by Nan Freeman until June 11, 2014. See Attachment

9.      Judge Baldwin has signed Orders prepared by the Glover & Davis lawyers in the Murphy v. Murphy case without reading them on at least two other occasions during that litigation. This comports with Judge Baldwin’s signing without invoices presented by Nan Freeman to authorize payment by the Counties for her services as official court reporters, without checking to see that she is in compliance with the law. (Freeman Dep. pp. 34-35)

8.      At the request of Plaintiff’s attorneys in the Child Custody Litigation, Ms. Freeman prepared and filed an “Addendum” to the transcript of the May 27, 2014 hearing.

     The “Addendum” included the additional statements made by Plaintiff’s counsel after Judge Baldwin had terminated the hearing. Compl., Attach. 8. Response to No. 8 Nan Freeman, initially in her purported statement mischaracterizes the litigation issues in Murphy v. Murphy, most likely as counsel for Nan Freeman and those opposing Michelle Murphy wish to continue concealing the fact that Nan Freeman assisted Judge Baldwin in attempting to conceal his misconduct.

      The statements by Larry King and Millard Farmer toward the end of the proceeding that are included in the Addendum were made before Judge Baldwin terminated the hearing. Judge Baldwin did not terminate the hearing until the end of the Addendum.

     A copy of the May 27, 2014 Addendum, as provided to us by Nan Freeman, is included as Attachment 4.

9.      On June 10, 2014, one of Plaintiff’s lawyers in the Child Custody Litigation sent an Open Records Request to Ms. Freeman seeking, inter alia, the audio recording of the May 27 hearing. Compl., Attach.

5.       Response to No. 9 Again, Nan Freeman, initially in her purported statement mischaracterizes the litigation issues in Murphy v. Murphy. Attachment 6 and Exhibit 6 to the deposition of Nan Freeman contain the Georgia Open Records Act request sent to the Counties of Troup and Coweta and to Nan Freeman. The audio recordings were sought.

10.      On June 26, 2014, Ms. Freeman and Judge Baldwin forwarded CDs of the audio recording of the May 27 hearing to Plaintiff’s counsel. Gordon Aff., Exhibit D, at 16. Response to No. 10 The events relating to obtaining the audio disk forwarded on June 26, 2014 occurred as follows. On June 18, 2014 Nan Freeman communicated that she would file a copy of the audio recording in the Clerk of Court’s file. Exhibit D, p. 18 to Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon.

       On June 19, 2014 Judge Baldwin sent a letter to Millard Farmer; the copy of this letter which Nan Freeman provided to counsel contains on the right side of the page a note in the handwriting of Nan Freeman as follows, “This email is not altogether accurate, but it of course is what he sent to MF.” Exhibit D, p. 25 to Affidavit of Kenneth Gordon.

     On June 24, 2014, The Board of Court Reporting dismissed the Complaint that was filed for Michelle Murphy against Nan Freeman. Attachment 5 On June 25, 2014, after the dismissal of the Complaint by the Board of Court Reporting, Michelle Murphy filed the civil action against Nan Freeman, et. al. that included as defendants members of the Board of Court Reporting in the Superior Court of Fulton County.

     On June 26, 2014, the CD containing the audio recording of the May 27, 2015 proceeding was forwarded to counsel for Michelle Murphy.

11.       In March 2014, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the Board of Court Reporting challenging Ms. Freeman’s refusal to provide an audio recording of an earlier hearing. Plaintiff alleges that she later amended her grievance to include allegations that Ms. Freeman overcharged for certain transcripts due to the number of spaces per line in the transcripts. The Board of Court Reporting has not issued a decision on Plaintiff’s complaint. Compl. 1.3.1, 1.4.9. Response to No. 11 The Board of Court Reporting had issued a decision on June 24, 2014, as described above in Response to

10.       Attachment 5. Response to Nan Freeman’s Purported Statement of Material Facts for Summary Judgment Page 24 of 28 12.

     Before Plaintiff raised the “spaces per line” issue, Ms. Freeman was not aware of any error in the number of spaces per line in her transcripts. Ms. Freeman testified that, when she initially set up the word processing program for her court reporting software, she “remember[ed] counting spaces, “but that “at some point,” the spaces per line in her transcript “inadvertently [ ] changed from 63 to 61,”possibly a result of changes in the different versions of Microsoft Word. Freeman Dep. (Gordon Aff. Exhibit A) at 31:2-8. Response to No. 12 Nan Freeman does not create a defense by maintaining that she did not know the law — in fact as an official court reporter, Nan Freeman concedes both her liability and her absence of understanding of her computer program.

13.      As soon as Ms. Freeman learned of the “spaces per line” issue, she immediately corrected her transcript program and recalculated the cost of Plaintiff’s transcripts to determine if the error had resulted in any overcharges. Ms. Freeman determined that, over the entirety of the Child Custody Litigation, the spaces per line issue had resulted in only $45 of overcharges to Plaintiff.

      Freeman Dep. at 28:21-29:24, 31:4-9, 33:5-9, 86:24-87:7. Response to No. 13 An official court reporter, as Nan Freeman, cannot personally design a template, as she did around 1996, and use it in each of her official court reporter’s contractual fulfilments until she is caught in 2014 and then legally urge the defense of mistake — the law burdens Nan Freeman, as a condition of qualifying and being compensated, as an official court reporter, to both learn and comply  with the legally permissible fees and the legal requirements for the preparation of transcripts that qualify for the fees legally obtainable as an official court reporter.

     Nan Freeman stated at her deposition that she produced her transcripts and did not have an assistant do her transcriptions. (Freeman Dep. p.6) Returning compensation illegally taken does not absolve one of the consequence of violating the law.

14.      Shortly after Ms. Freeman’s deposition, Mrs. Freeman’ s attorney, Ken Gordon, tendered Plaintiff a check for $50 to cover any overcharge.

     Gordon Aff.ii7, Exhibit E. Response to No. 14 Nan Freeman’s check in the amount of $50 to cover any overcharge did not cover the liabilities of Nan Freeman.

     For further response, the response to purported Statement 13 is incorporated and included here.

     The fees and the conditions upon which an official court reporter in the State of Georgia can obtain compensation is mandated by the Judicial Council of Georgia.

     Nan Freeman was required by law to charge only the Judicial Counsel of Georgia authorized fees to persons whom wished, or were required to purchase transcripts from her in her capacity as an official court reporter for the Coweta Judicial.

     The fees follow that were allowable for Nan Freeman to charge for legally prepared transcripts in the Superior Court of Coweta County case of John Harold Murphy v. Michelle Murphy, and related Counterclaim, Third Party action Civil Action No. 12V-413 (or, “Murphy v Murphy.”)

     Nan Freeman did not comply with the certificate requirements legally imposed upon her by the OCGA § 15-14-5, Duty to transcribe statute — Nan Freeman used an abbreviated, incomplete version of the required certificate.

OCGA § 15-14-5.

     Duty to transcribe; certificate. It shall be the duty of each court reporter to transcribe the evidence and other proceedings of which he has taken notes as provided by law whenever requested so to do by counsel for any party to such case and upon being paid the legal fees for such transcripts. The reporter, upon delivering the transcript to such counsel, shall affix thereto a certificate signed by him reciting that the transcript is true, complete, and correct.

     Subject only to the right of the trial judge to change or require the correction of the transcript, the transcript so certified shall be presumed to be true, complete, and correct. [emphasis supplied]

     Nan Freeman, as a part and parcel of her habitual violations of the laws of Georgia, did not provide Michelle Murphy’s transcripts with an OCGA § 5-14-5 required certificate containing the certification that the transcript is “true, complete and correct. . ” as required by OCGA § 5-14-5 — — The transcripts provided and paid for by Michelle Murphy was not true or complete or correct.

     Nan Freeman has never provided to Michelle Murphy, or other litigants, the required certificate that is an indication of the pattern of her illegal conduct.

     The habitual violations of the OCGA § 15-14-5 requirements and the authorized fees is relevant to identify that Nan Freeman did not just make an one time error,

Read the rest of this document at

http://freejackandthomas.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/b50410-Resp-to-Freemans-Rule-6.5-Statement-Material-Facts-w-Atts.pdf

 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 IS A FEDERAL OFFENSE America, the real, real one,   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.

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


UPDATE: HANNAH NUSZEN(“H.N.,”)  

Transported to Solacium

New Haven Residential Treatment Center in

Utah . . .

to be Silenced, at Best

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

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

     ATTORNEYS FOR GABRIELLE NUSZEN

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

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

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

Plaintiffs,

vs.

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

Defendants.

Case No. _________________________

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY,

FALSE IMPRISONMENT;

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

INVASION OF PRIVACY;

NEGLIGENCE; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;

STRICT LIABILITY OF CARRIER;

CHILD ABUSE;

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

HABEAS CORPUS

JURY DEMANDED

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

NATURE OF THE CASE

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

PARTIES

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

JURISDICTION

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

VENUE

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

FACTS

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

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

See Exhibit A:

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

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

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: PERSONAL INJURY

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

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: FALSE IMPRISONMENT

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

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

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

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

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

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INVASION OF PRIVACY

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

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

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE

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

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

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

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

50.      Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereafter stated.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

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

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: STRICT LIABILITY OF CARRIER

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

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CHILD ABUSE

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

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

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

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

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

Legal Disclaimer and Fair Use Notice

(PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN


RE-POSTED/RE-BLOGGED AS DEPICTED BELOW,

A RECORD OF U.S. FAMILY COURTS SACRIFICING MOTHERS & CHILDREN

Family Courts Behind an Epidemic of Pedophilia & Judicial Abuse

Posted 23 January 2013

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

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

were drawn out over a decade, or more.

CT COURT CASES HISTORIES & SUMMARIES:

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

PHOTO:
MAX LIBERTI.  (See: LIBERTI V. LIBERTI summary.)

 

MAx-Liberti-Photo.jpg

Written by: keith harmon snow

Categories: ,

 

16 Comments

melissa harris | January 29, 2013 2:57 PM

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

adrienne mcglone | February 12, 2013 5:31 PM

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

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ma-help-get-child-home
http://www.alexissneedshelp.blogspot.com/

Amy Andersen | February 14, 2013 1:39 PM

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

Jodi Baker | February 24, 2013 4:33 PM

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

Kendra | April 26, 2013 7:33 PM

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
COUNTY OF HARTFORD
————————————————————-x VERIFIED COMPLAINT
JANE DOE 1- XXX
Plaintiff, Index No.:
-against-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours etc

________________________________

VERIFICATION

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

__________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sworn to before me on this
day of April 2013

Notary Public, State of Connecticut

___________________

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

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

kendra | April 27, 2013 11:47 AM

Attorneys with a strategy which involves inflicting emotional and financial pain on mothers to make them “erratic, unstable and unpredictable” should be reported to the Grievance Committee so that they are disbarred for a violation of Rule 8.4 (4) for conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The precedence their strategy sets is that a man is encouraged to abuse the mother of his children so that the attorneys can keep their revenue stream going despite the impact this has on mothers and resultantly on their children. Grievance forms can be found here:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/webforms/forms/gc006.pdf

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:01 PM

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

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:02 PM

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

Kendra | April 27, 2013 12:03 PM

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

Colleen Kerwick | June 1, 2013 3:52 PM

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

Sara Burns | June 28, 2013 8:00 PM

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

Concerned Mother | August 23, 2013 9:41 PM

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

Ron | July 19, 2014 11:38 AM

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

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

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

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

Donate to this Project

Search

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


Disabled Mother Deprived of Her Children,

Discriminatory Hate Crimes in U.S.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6lCpBwDt1o&feature=player_detailpage

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

Uploaded on Apr 15, 2010

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

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

Fair Use and Legal Disclaimer (PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED):

  • 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 incorporated Bill of Rights made applicable to the states via ratification and application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal, US Constitution and incorporated Bill of Rights, under the freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to speech.
  • (3) All content in this post is also protected pursuant to the Federal statute 17 U.S.C., section 107 (“Fair Use”) as this content is solely intended for general knowledge, academic research, and/or entertainment purposes.
  • (4)  If anyone should desire, require, or demand a retraction or modification in part or in full, you must contact the author of this blog for fair notice to correct, pursuant to reasonable and lawfully obtained evidence supported by all legal and factual bases for your desire, demand,

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/brain-injur…

Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation
http://www.terrisfight.org/

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

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

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

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

So sad 😦😦😸

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

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

What comes around goes around. God will make him pay

Tear jerker 😦

DAN IS A EFFING BASTARD!! SOME HUSBAND!! HE COULD NOT EVEN STAY FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. MEN, IF YOU DO THIS EVIL TO THE WOMAN YOU MARRY AND SHE GETS SICK LIKE THAT, YOU WILL GO TO HELL AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL HATE YOU IN THE END JUST AS THE CHILDREN WILL HATE DAN. AND THEY WILL. I AM GLAD THEY TELEVISED THIS BECAUSE THE KIDS WILL SEE THIS IN TIME> THEY SHOULD KEEP THIS ON DVD SO THAT THE KIDS WILL GET THIS IN A LIVING WILL THROUGH HER ATTORNEY. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO THIS FAMILY AND LET THEM KNOW. I AM REALLY ANGRY ABOUT THIS ANSD EVERY ONE OF YOU SHOULD BE ALSO!!!!!!!!!!!DAN IS A BASTARD AND HE LIED WHEN HE TOOK HIS VOWS. THIS MOTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO VISIT WITH HER CHILDREN WHEN HER PARENTS OR REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENT. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO DEVISE A COMPREHENSIVE LIVING WILL FOR EACH CHILD TO BE GIVEN WHEN THEY TURN OF AGE TO SHOW THEM THAT THEIR MOMMY ALMOST DIED FOR THEM! UGH!! THIS PISSES ME OFF, DAN IS EVIL!!!

HOW CAN WE HELP THIS WOMAN!!!!!!! SOMEBODY?????

NOT FAIR! DAD let those children KNOW THEIR MOTHER!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.