The appearance of abuse in Family Courts System Expensive, Inefficient And Abusive to children ,,,,

March 10, 2014 § 1 Comment

Opinion: Family Court System Expensive, Inefficient And Abusive

PETER T. SZYMONIK03/06/2014

Text Size


On Feb. 26, there was a historic vote at the state Capitol in which family court Judge Leslie Olear was only narrowly reappointed by the legislature. This vote came after public protests which gained media attention and after legislators were called into action to address the serious problems in our state’s family courts. After this vote, some members of the legal community understandably rushed to defend Judge Olear, claiming that the votes against her were politically motivated and only in response to complaints being expressed by a “small number of family court critics.” This is simply not the case.

This vote came after scores of parents, adult children of divorce, grandparents, attorneys and business executives testified until the early morning hours in front of a task force in January, after more than 630 parents signed a petition demanding legislative reforms of the family court’s broken guardian ad litem (GAL) system, and after legislators were inundated with thousands of complaints about our family courts from parents, as consumers of the family court system’s services.

In an op-ed piece submitted to the Law Tribune, Kimberly Knox, president of the Connecticut Bar Association, fell back on well-worn industry rhetoric trying to blame the actual victims in this scenario — the thousands of parents and families who have been financially devastated and unfairly denied access to their children solely due the problems in our family courts. The vote on Feb. 26 was not about a judge and what was in her best interests. The vote was about parents, children, families, citizens and taxpayers and what is in our best interests. The protests and the vote reflected how expensive, ineffective, abusive and damaging our family courts have become.

Unfortunately, Olear did not come before the legislature with a stellar record. In 2011, the state Supreme Court overturned a custody case ruling made by Olear where Chief Justice Chase Rogers expressed strong constitutional concerns. The opinions of the family law attorneys who testified in favor of Olear have a vested interest in doing so. The question should be asked how many parents and adult children of divorce testified – those impacted by the judge’s rulings. It is quite unfortunate that these voices and opinions are seldom solicited or heard.

What legislators heard (and responded to) were complaints about children being arbitrarily separated from their parents and parents forced to pay for supervised visitations to see them. Parents being jailed for not being able to pay outlandish GAL fees. Parents being jailed for not being able to pay outlandish GAL feesThis same scenario has become the operational norm in our family courts, not one only associated with a small number of “high-conflict cases.”

The majority of the family courts’ time is consumed by the growing number of 3,400 or so custody cases it hears. It is the underlying politics and misguided policies of the family court itself which created this crisis – and one which is harming parents, children and families.

The vote signaled that citizens are no longer tolerating the status quo and expecting far better of our legislature and judiciary. It reflects a historic shift in attitudes and approaches towards family law happening not just here in Connecticut, but nationally and internationally as well. Connecticut is characteristically late to the game.

Many states have already enacted sweeping changes in their family laws and made shared parenting a standard. Maine reformed its GAL system last summer, following states such as Maryland, which eliminated GAL immunity. The chief justice of New York State and a task force in Delaware both proposed opening their family courts in order to “eliminate the atmosphere of corruption.” The chief justice of Canada called the country’s family courts “beyond the point of simple repair” and a Royal Commission is examining ways to replace their system with “something else.”

Connecticut’s family courts are in a state of operational dysfunction solely due to a self-inflicted legal monstrosity it created and of epic proportions. We have the largest Practice Book in the country, as our judiciary has essentially been allowed to write self-serving legislation.

None of the people in the fast growing family court reform movement deny that custody cases can be difficult. This is not the issue. The issue is that in this state, we have allowed a very small group of family law attorneys and GALs to directly and adversely impact family court operations in a manner designed to personally enrich them at the expense of parents and families. This has created a situation where 85 percent of the cases before the court involve a pro se party, as no one can afford the agenda being promoted by these individuals. To be clear, this group does not represent mainstream legal thought in this state and many attorneys are increasingly speaking out about this.

Our state’s GALs are almost exclusively family law attorneys who enjoy complete immunity and been granted quasi-judicial authority – this is not common elsewhere in the country. Our GALs are not held to any standard of performance or excellence and they are not licensed or monitored. They are allowed to bill with impunity with the expected results. GALs in this state legally trump a parent’s right to be a parent as soon as they are assigned to case. These individuals are allowed to make life-altering decisions directly impacting children and families as judges routinely outsource their judicial authority to them – for the entire life of a case and child. This is misguided, unethical and simply wrong.

Too many of our judges operate with the misguided belief that parents are to blame and inherently flawed, invalid, and incapable of parenting solely because they have dared to approach the Court for help or have a dispute with the other parent. Instead of making effective rulings, even simple cases are allowed to drag on for months and years as children and families suffer and parents are literally bankrupted in process. Concerns for their clients expressed to the family court by well-meaning attorneys and professionals, fall of deaf ears as these people are shut out of the system.

Along with many others, I attended and watched the recent hearings of a task force assigned to study the costs of custody cases. Ms. Knox did not. This task force failed its legislative mandate as it was chaired by two “full-time GALs” who blocked every effort by other task force members to collect and analyze meaningful financial cost and operational metrics data related to custody cases. This may explain why many legislators have little faith in what the task force ultimately recommended.

In summary, the legal industry and judiciary need to recognize that the world has changed. As with many other movements, social media has brought together thousands of parents, progressive lawyers, former judges, concerned mental health professionals, business executives and legislators on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, uniting us in a common cause. A cause which cuts across all political lines, all social and economic classes, all genders and race classifications.

We have three branches of government because when one of these branches goes astray and operates in a manner which violates the Constitution and ignores basic civil and due process rights, the other two must step in to take correction action. Having no other recourse, citizens have properly turned to the legislature and the legislature is responding – which mirrors what has happened in many other states.

Parents who have suffered for years due to the problems in our family courts are the actual experts and our voices must be heard – not just those of the legal industry. This is the very best way to run a government and court system – for the people, of the people, and by the people.

Peter T. Szymonik is a portfolio manager at UnitedHealthcare, where he works as a liaison between business technology executives and the legal and compliance teams. He is a former member of the executive board at Cummings & Lockwood and has served as the state chair of the Council of Litigation Management. He is also the father of two young sons and has been working with state legislators on family court reform for many years.

Advertisements

The appearance They Harvested her for the federal dollars ,This is common in all states to defraud the title A-F funds from (SSI).

March 5, 2014 § Leave a comment

Massachusetts DCF Running for Cover Under Legal and Media Pressure

Mar. 4, 2014 1:31pm

Liberty Counsel® is an international nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics. With offices in Florida, California, Virginia and Washington, D.C., and an outreach in Israel, Liberty Counsel has hundreds of affiliate attorneys. Liberty Counsel is dedicated to the preservation of authentic freedom and the first principles upon which such freedom is based.
Liberty Counsel Action represents a rich heritage of more than three decades, dating back to the 1979 founding of The Moral Majority by Dr. Jerry Falwell. In 1986, Dr. Falwell launched The Liberty Alliance to expand the outreach and continue the impact of The Moral Majority. In 2004, The Liberty Alliance was renamed to Liberty Alliance Action, and in 2010 Liberty Alliance Action was renamed Liberty Counsel Action joining in partnership with Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization founded by Mat and Anita Staver in 1989. Liberty Counsel Action is a grassroots, issue advocacy organization.

   Commentary by Mat Staver, the Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, Chairman of Liberty Counsel Action, Chairman of Liberty Action PAC, Chairman of The Salt & Light Council, Vice President and Chief Counsel for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, and serves on a number of other boards. Mat also serves as Dean and Professor of Law for Liberty University School of Law. Mat is a nationally recognized constitutional attorney and appellate advocate. He has argued cases before the United States Supreme Court and submitted numerous briefs to the High Court. Mat is a Trustee for the Supreme Court Historical Society. 

The story of 15-year-old Justina Pelletier captured the hearts of many Americans as the horrible story of the young girl’s plight over the past 13 months was brought to light by the media.

Following the advice Dr. Mark Korson, Justina’s treating physician at Tufts Medical Center, Lou and Linda Pelletier took their daughter to the ER at Boston Children’s Hospital. But there, a new doctor, seven months out of medical school, disagreed with her treating physicians and changed Justina’s diagnosis to a mental rather than a physical condition.

When the parents refused to sign a new treatment plan that would preclude them from seeking a second opinion, the hospital called in the Massachusetts Department of Children & Families (DCF) and prevented the parents from discharging their daughter and taking her back to Tufts Medical Center. For the past 13 months DCF has taken custody of Justina, making her a ward of the state and, thus, eligible for research by the Boston teaching hospital.

HC Custody Battle 1.jpeg

DCF also obtained a gag order preventing the parents from speaking to the media. Watching their daughter’s health decline and with no progress on the case, Lou spoke to the media. DCF then sought to hold the father in contempt of court. That is when Liberty Counsel came to the aid of Justina and her family.

Within four days after Liberty Counsel joined the case, DCF  began to backpedal. Yesterdaythe court approved an agreement to (1) drop the contempt charges against Lou Pelletier for speaking to the media, (2) dissolve the gag order, and (3) transfer Justina’s medical care to Tufts Medical Center where Dr. Korson, a specialist, had been treating her for mitochondrial disease.

But DCF is still holding Justina as a ward of the state. This is the same DCF that has lost 134 children in the agency’s custody. The children of 134 parents are missing, and DCF has no idea where they are located.

As more of the details of this case come to light, people are becoming increasingly outraged. It is unfathomable that this barbaric overreach by a state agency is taking place in America – and in the city that launched the fight for American liberty, of all places.

Justina Pelletier with her parents, Linda and Lou.  Justina has been in the custody of the state of Massachusetts since last year. (Image source: Facebook)

Justina Pelletier with her parents, Linda and Lou. Justina has been in the custody of the state of Massachusetts since last year. (Image source: Facebook)

 

As a Massachusetts ward of the state, Justina has been refused access to education. She is denied visitation by clergy, with no allowance for religious observances, including Easter and Christmas.

Her sisters have rarely been able to see her, and her 92-year-old grandparents have not seen her for 13 months. Justina’s parents were only allowed weekly visits for one hour – and that under extreme supervision, including a Massachusetts State Trooper. DCF prevented the parents from even having a cell phone to photograph their daughter.

Under Massachusetts law, prison inmates get up to five visits per week, medical care, and education rights. DCF has granted Justina one visit per week, little medical care, and no education, even though she is just 15 years of age.

Justina Pelletier has been treated far worse than an incarcerated felon by the state of Massachusetts!

Plus, unknown to many people, Boston Children’s Hospital is a chartered teaching hospital and is allowed to conduct medical research and experimentation on children who are declared wards of the state. According to Boston’s Children Hospital’s “Clinical and Investigation Policy and Procedure Manual“: “Children who are wards of the state may be included in research that presents minimal risk… or greater than minimal risk with a prospect of direct benefit.”

Justina Pelletier is at the heart of a fierce legal battle between her parents, Boston Children's Hospital, and the Mass. Dept. of Children and Families. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)

Justina Pelletier is at the heart of a fierce legal battle between her parents, Boston Children’s Hospital, and the Mass. Dept. of Children and Families. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)

 

Justina’s abuse as a DCF ward is unfathomable. No 15-year-old should be forced to live under such conditions!

In January 2013, before she was admitted to the Emergency Room at Boston’s Children Hospital, Justina was involved in ice-skating competitions and was in a private school under an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that was sensitive to her learning disability.

As a ward, Justina’s deficient medical care has left her extremely weak and confined to a wheelchair. Being refused education, she is now two years behind her classmates.

After learning of the Pelletier’s plight and performing our own background investigation of the case, I flew to Boston to represent the family in court against the contempt charges directed at Lou Pelletier for allegedly breaking a court-ordered gag order.

The media scrutiny and legal proceedings have caused DCF to reconsider their course of action and begin to back away from the abusively hard-core stance it has taken on this matter. But make no mistake, DCF must be held accountable!

More than a dozen Massachusetts state legislators blasted the Department of Children and Families for “breaking up” the Pelletier family and decried the ill-advised imprisonment of Justina Pelletier. They are now calling for the House Committee on Post Audit and Oversight to launch a full-scale investigation into DCF’s handling of the case.

The idea of a medical facility removing a child from a loving family – a family in which there is no history or evidence of abuse of any kind – is a chilling thought.

This poor girl and her family have been through hell. DCF should be held accountable for this flagrant violation of its authority and abuse of government power.

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

Ongoing Family Court Racketeering and the Demands Arrest of Family Court Judges;

February 16, 2014 § Leave a comment

California Coalition Demands Arrest of Family Court Judges; Notifies FBI Special Agent in Charge, Daphne Hearn of Ongoing Family Court Racketeering

JANUARY 30, 2014 BY  8 COMMENTS

P1 CCFC Letter to Daphne Hearn

California Coalition Demands Arrest of Family Court Judges by F.B.I. Special Agent In Charge Daphne Hearn, United States Attorney Laura Duffy

January 30, 2014–SAN DIEGO, CA–Today California Coalition for Families and Children calls for an investigation and arrest of San Diego Divorce Industry leaders.  The Coalition delivered their demand letter to Ms. Daphne Hearn, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Ms. Laura Duffy, United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, detailing the San Diego Family Court racketeering allegations, and providing thousands of pages of evidence.   The letter identifies numerous violations of federal criminal law including 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 241, and 371 (civil rights crimes and fraud against the United States government) as well as racketeering charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 for mail and wire fraud, honest services fraud, extortion, bribery, and obstruction of justice by divorce lawyers, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Family Courts.

“The crimes we’ve uncovered are very serious, and include violations of equal protection of the laws against parents and children by predatory divorce lawyers and their co-conspirators in the City Attorney’s Office and Family Court.”  Says Colbern Stuart, President of the California Coalition.  ”We’ve been in contact with Ms. Hearn and Ms. Duffy previously on similar matters.  This demand package contains evidence and allegations which they had previously indicated was missing.”  California Coalition is calling for an investigation and arrest of the accused defendants.

In August, 2013 California Coalition filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming dozens of divorce lawyers and the San Diego County Bar Association for racketeering crimes defrauding and extorting parents, then attacking parents who protested the abuse.  Their First Amended Complaint was filed in January, 2014, and expanded those allegations to include San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson, Family Court Judge Michael Groch, and San Diego Superior Court Counsel Kristine Nesthus for obstruction of justice, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.

The Coalition’s amended complaint also added the San Diego County Bar Association’s insurer, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies,  which handled the Coalition’s claim for damages after the bar association shut down a protest by parents in 2010.  ”We found that Chubb was using its leverage as the insurer of many of the defendants to undermine our claim for damages against the SDCBA for obstruction of justice.  As an insurer, they have no authority to act as a criminal prosecutor or investigator.  But once we presented our claim to the SDCBA, Chubb took an extremely aggressive posture, threatening parents with criminal prosecution for trespassing and stalking judges by holding the protest in front of the County Bar Association building” says Stuart.  ”Wealthy, connected insurers are menacing enough by themselves.  Now we see how terrifying they can be when they team up with cops, judges, and prosecutors to protect their own insureds running a criminal fraud ring devouring families and children.  It’s an outrageous abuse of power and wealth, and it’s going to stop.”  says Stuart.

A hearing for California Coalition’s racketeering complaint is scheduled before Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on February 26, 2014 in United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

In one high-profile case, Bishop served as the caseworker in a bitter custody dispute involving Baby T,

January 26, 2014 § Leave a comment

 

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

BURKE’S MANIPULATED LEGAL SYSTEM TO OBTAIN AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILD
FROM MOTHER WHO WAS INITIALLY USING DRUGS BUT EDWARD BURKE exhausted a lot of political influence making sure judges unlawfully framed an innocent man for impregnating a woman Police officer who was impregnated by her natural biological father in an incestuous manner noted through out this blog who was a Police officer. 

Patrick Murphy, whose office is the lawyer for Baby T, sent a letter to DCFS Director Jess McDonald on Thursday that accused the agency and Appellate Judge Anne Burke, Baby T’s foster mother, of obstructing visitation.

Some of the same players under Alderman Edward Burke’s control and authority was Department of Children & Family Services attorney Jess McDonald and Donald P. Jonker who manufactured charges against myself claiming that my daughter was attacked using martial arts as a form of discipline.

The key Appellate Judges who was responsible for obstructing any success in the courts were Thomas E. Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall.

By David Kidwell, Tribune reporter | January 24, 2011
The two Appellate Court judges responsible for tossing Rahm Emanuel from the ballot in February’s mayoral race both won their jobs after being anointed by a Chicago political power broker who openly supports an Emanuel opponent. Whether or not their opinions are colored by politics, the case has recharged the debate among critics who decry a process of selecting judges that relies more heavily on political clout than merit. Longtime Appellate Court Judges Thomas E. Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall — who on Monday ruled that Emanuel’s stay in Washington precludes him from running for mayor this year — were both judicial candidates slated for election by the Cook County Democratic Party judicial slating committee chaired by Ald. Edward Burke, 14th.
NEWS
July 14, 1999
After initial test reports indicated that Tina Olison, the mother involved in a child custody dispute with a prominent Cook County political couple, had tested positive for opiates, more extensive drug testing was negative. “This is just what we expected,” said Anita Rivkin-Carothers, Olison’s attorney, after receiving the results of more sophisticated tests from a Pennsylvania lab that found no narcotics. After the initial “quick strip” test results were said to be positive, Olison and her attorneys contended that the test, conducted at the Family Guidance Center in Chicago, was faulty.
NEWS
October 27, 1998
A witness testified Monday that Tina Olison showed she could be a capable parent when she successfully confronted her drug and alcohol addiction in March 1996 and complied with requests made by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. For the past three weeks, Olison has been battling Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke and her husband, Ald. Edward Burke (14th), in Cook County Juvenile Court to regain custody of her young son, who is known as Baby T. On Monday, Samella Abdullah, a clinical social worker from Chicago, testified that she reviewed several documents and visited with Olison one morning to form the basis of her opinion.
NEWS
October 31, 1998
Circuit Judge Judith Brawka set Monday for closing arguments in the parental-fitness case of recovering cocaine addict Tina Olison. Brawka, who was brought from Kane County to hear the case in Cook County Circuit Court, also said she expects to deliver her ruling on Wednesday. At stake is the future of the 2 1/2-year-old boy who almost since birth has been in the foster care of Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke. The Burkes have pressed their interest in adopting the child, known as Baby T. In a final day of testimony, state’s attorneys prosecutors on Friday recalled two witnesses to rebut earlier testimony.
NEWS
December 15, 1998
The private agency charged with overseeing the reunification of Tina Olison with her child, who has been in the foster care of Ald. Edward Burke and Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke, has withdrawn from the case. Officials at Hephzibah Children’s Association, an Oak Park-based child-welfare agency, said the agency withdrew from the case effective Friday because “we felt very threatened by the (critical) comments” that Olison, the natural mother of the child known as Baby T, made to Hephzibah workers.
NEWS
April 18, 2002
The mother of Baby T will not be allowed unsupervised visits with the boy, a judge ruled before closing the case in Cook County Juvenile Court, some six years after the child was removed from his mother’s custody because he was born with cocaine in his system. For most of his life, Baby T has been under the legal guardianship of one of Cook County’s most powerful political couples, Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and his wife, Illinois Appellate Judge Anne Burke. Twice a month, his mother, Tina Olison, is allowed supervised visits with the boy, but her latest motion to make those visits unsupervised was rejected Tuesday by Kane County Associate Judge Judith Brawka.
NEWS
By Bonnie Miller Rubin, Tribune Staff Writer | March 5, 1999
Attorneys for Tina Olison on Thursday attempted to establish a pattern of arrogance and uncooperation on the part of foster parents Anne and Edward Burke, saying the Burkes baptized Olison’s son without the state’s permission and refused contact with her. “I called (Anne Burke) three to four days straight. She never returned my phone calls,” Olison said under questioning by her lawyer, Anita Rivkin-Carothers. She said after she pressed the issue, her Department of Children and Family Services social worker told her “that Anne Burke didn’t want any more phone contact . . . that she didn’t want to have anything to do with me.”
NEWS
April 8, 1999
The 3-year-old boy known as Baby T moved one step closer to being permanently reunited with his birth family Wednesday when state officials decided not to appeal a Circuit Court decision to return custody to his natural mother. Neither the state’s attorney’s office nor the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services will further pursue the case, which pitted Tina Olison, a 37-year-old former drug user, against Chicago Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Appellate Judge Anne Burke.
NEWS
December 22, 1999
A judge in Cook County Juvenile Court denied Tuesday a motion by attorneys for Tina Olison asking her to reconsider her earlier order that leaves the 3-year-old boy known as Baby T in the care of his foster parents, Chicago Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and state Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke, according to attorneys involved in the case. The decision by Associate Judge Judith Brawka, who was brought in from Kane County to hear the politically charged case, leaves unchanged her ruling in October that said Olison, a recovering drug addict and the boy’s biological mother, had not made enough progress to regain custody of the child, who has been in the Burkes’ care since he was 8 days old.
NEWS
October 23, 1998
As testimony in the Tina Olison case winds up its third week, a psychologist testified that she believed that Olison possessed the capacity to parent her two young sons. Maisha Hamilton-Bennett, the defense’s first witness, spent most of the day testifying to Olison’s mental fitness and that any previous obstacles to parenting were tied to her substance-abuse problem “and once that was addressed, she certainly is capable.” Olison entered a chemical dependency program in March 1996–one month after the birth of her son, known as Baby T. Olison has been drug-free ever since, according to court testimony, but attorneys for the state and the Department of Children and Family Services assert that she still poses a risk to her children and have moved to terminate her parental rights.
NEWS
October 1, 1999
Tina Olison, the mother of Baby T, denied Thursday that she refused to cooperate with white social workers assigned to her custody case. In her second day on the stand during the permanency hearing, Olison, who is black, reiterated that she was concerned about white social workers’ and therapists’ ability to be sensitive to African-American culture. She was steadfast in her claim, however, that she never refused to work with white therapists and social workers. But Arthur Bishop, Baby T’s caseworker from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, testified Thursday that “(Olison)
NEWS
June 25, 1998
Attorneys for the biological mother of “Baby T” will be permitted to take a deposition from the child’s foster parents, Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and Illinois Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke, a judge ruled Wednesday. At a hearing at the Cook County Juvenile Court, Judge Judith Brawka of Kane County also said that attorneys for Tina Olison, Baby T’s biological mother, can ask D. Jean Ortega-Piron questions about “specific facts.” Ortega-Piron is a Department of Children and Family Services guardianship administrator and former colleague of Anne Burke’s.
NEWS
September 14, 1999
After early accounts that Tina Olison was uncooperative with therapists, mental health professionals testified Monday that she was showing progress but still has much work to do before she could adequately parent her two children. John Stokes, a social worker, outlined the dilemma regarding the 3-year-old known as Baby T, who has been in the foster care of Ald. Edward Burke (14th), and his wife, Illinois Appellate Judge Anne Burke, since shortly after his birth. His 8-year-old brother, known as Baby B, is in the care of his maternal grandmother.
NEWS
April 12, 2000
Baby T’s mother will be allowed supervised visits with the boy until a judge can hold a hearing on motions filed by the boy’s guardians challenging her right to unsupervised visits. Judge Judith Brawka on Tuesday ruled that Tina Olison, mother of the 4-year-old boy, will be allowed a two-hour visit every other week, supervised by a representative from the Child Study Center and an observer chosen by Olison. Baby T’s 9-year-old brother, known as Baby B, will be allowed to accompany his mother.
NEWS
By Lisa B. Song, Tribune Staff Writer | November 17, 2000
The story of Baby T, the child who was born cocaine-positive and who now is the center of a bitter, four-year custody battle involving one of Chicago’s most politically prominent couples, approaches another climax this afternoon. Court officials said closing arguments were set at Cook County Juvenile Center, where lawyers for Chicago Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and his wife, Illinois Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke, were to contest a March ruling by Kane County Circuit Court Judge Judith Brawka, allowing the boy’s mother, Tina Olison, unsupervised visits with her son. As the Burkes’ challenge has progressed, Olison and her other child, a 9-year old son, have been allowed supervised visits twice a month with Baby T, who was removed from her custody in 1996.
NEWS
By Melita Marie Garza, Tribune Staff Writer | October 24, 1998
The specter of Council Wars was raised Friday in the case of Tina Olison, who is battling the politically powerful Burke family to regain custody of the young boy known as Baby T. Don Jonker, an attorney for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, which wants to terminate Olison’s parental rights, noted that former Mayor Harold Washington had appointed one of Olison’s expert witnesses, Maisha Hamilton-Bennett, as Chicago’s deputy…
NEWS
By Bonnie Miller Rubin and Robert Becker, Tribune Staff Writers | November 20, 1998
Two weeks after a judge ordered that Tina Olison start moving toward the goal of reunification with her 2 1/2-year-old son, the Cook County public guardian has charged that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and the foster parents are out to “sabotage” the process. Patrick Murphy, whose office is the lawyer for Baby T, sent a letter to DCFS Director Jess McDonald on Thursday that accused the agency and Appellate Judge Anne Burke, Baby T’s foster mother, of obstructing visitation.
NEWS
September 14, 1999
After early accounts that Tina Olison was uncooperative with therapists, mental health professionals testified Monday that she was showing progress but still has much work to do before she could adequately parent her two children. John Stokes, a social worker, outlined the dilemma regarding the 3-year-old known as Baby T, who has been in the foster care of Ald. Edward Burke (14th), and his wife, Illinois Appellate Judge Anne Burke, since shortly after his birth. His 8-year-old brother, known as Baby B, is in the care of his maternal grandmother.
NEWS
April 12, 2000
Baby T’s mother will be allowed supervised visits with the boy until a judge can hold a hearing on motions filed by the boy’s guardians challenging her right to unsupervised visits. Judge Judith Brawka on Tuesday ruled that Tina Olison, mother of the 4-year-old boy, will be allowed a two-hour visit every other week, supervised by a representative from the Child Study Center and an observer chosen by Olison. Baby T’s 9-year-old brother, known as Baby B, will be allowed to accompany his mother.
NEWS
By Lisa B. Song, Tribune Staff Writer | November 17, 2000
The story of Baby T, the child who was born cocaine-positive and who now is the center of a bitter, four-year custody battle involving one of Chicago’s most politically prominent couples, approaches another climax this afternoon. Court officials said closing arguments were set at Cook County Juvenile Center, where lawyers for Chicago Ald. Edward Burke (14th) and his wife, Illinois Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke, were to contest a March ruling by Kane County Circuit Court Judge Judith Brawka, allowing the boy’s mother, Tina Olison, unsupervised visits with her son. As the Burkes’ challenge has progressed, Olison and her other child, a 9-year old son, have been allowed supervised visits twice a month with Baby T, who was removed from her custody in 1996.
NEWS
By Melita Marie Garza, Tribune Staff Writer | October 24, 1998
The specter of Council Wars was raised Friday in the case of Tina Olison, who is battling the politically powerful Burke family to regain custody of the young boy known as Baby T. Don Jonker, an attorney for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, which wants to terminate Olison’s parental rights, noted that former Mayor Harold Washington had appointed one of Olison’s expert witnesses, Maisha Hamilton-Bennett, as Chicago’s deputy…
NEWS
By Bonnie Miller Rubin and Robert Becker, Tribune Staff Writers | November 20, 1998
Two weeks after a judge ordered that Tina Olison start moving toward the goal of reunification with her 2 1/2-year-old son, the Cook County public guardian has charged that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services and the foster parents are out to “sabotage” the process. Patrick Murphy, whose office is the lawyer for Baby T, sent a letter to DCFS Director Jess McDonald on Thursday that accused the agency and Appellate Judge Anne Burke, Baby T’s foster mother, of obstructing visitation.
NEWS
By Bonnie Miller Rubin, Tribune Staff Writer | February 27, 1999
An expert witness for Tina Olison testified Friday that Baby T seemed compliant while he was visiting his biological mother but that his foster parents, Ald. Edward Burke and Appellate Court Judge Anne Burke, have “great difficulty” parenting him. “He eats when he wants, he gets up when he wants,” said Samella Abdullah, a Chicago social worker. “There is no structure or consistency in the Burke home.” Abdullah said that Olison had a rapport with the toddler that his foster mother did not have, based on her observations on two occasions–at the Burkes’ home and at Juvenile Court, where he played with his birth mother and 7-year-old brother.

Even later it just takes some help to move forward

January 22, 2014 § Leave a comment

Ex-student calls teacher over alleged sex abuse, posts talk on YouTube

By Holly YanCheri Mossburg and Janet DiGiacomo, CNN
updated 5:57 PM EST, Tue January 21, 2014
Watch this video

Woman confronts alleged abusive teacher

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Teacher resigned after being interviewed, Alhambra schools chief says
  • The woman, now 28, says the teacher abused her between ages 12 and 18
  • “I regret it,” the teacher states, according to the YouTube video
  • Police are investigating, but the statute of limitations may be an issue

(CNN) — A woman who says a female teacher from middle school sexually abused her for years decided to confront the teacher — and post video of the exchange on YouTube.

Within hours, the educator resigned from her job at another school in California. Police launched an investigation. And the former student, who once felt powerless, now says she feels vindicated knowing the ex-teacher is no longer working with children.

The video

The former student, who calls herself “Jamie,” said the abuse started when she was 12 years old.

Woman records confrontation with alleged sexual abuser

“I am 28 years old and have been waiting years to get up enough courage to report a teacher for sexually abusing me for years,” Jamie’s caption on her YouTube video states.

“When I finally got up enough courage to report her, I found out that the statute of limitations was up and she will never have to pay for the things that she did to me.”

So she decided to expose the teacher on the Internet.

“I decided I’m going to call her to get some answers from her,” Jamie said to a camera in her home.

After the woman identified as the teacher picked up the phone, Jamie asked, “So what happens when a student comes in and says that they’re having (a) sexual relationship with a teacher?”

“I would involve law enforcement,” the woman said.

“So how is that any different from what you did” years ago, Jamie said.

“It’s not,” the woman replied.

“Do you realize that you brainwashed me, and you manipulated me, and that what you did was wrong?” Jamie asked.

“Yes. And I regret it,” the woman responded.

“You should be so ashamed and so disgusted with yourself,” Jamie said, raising her voice.

“I am. I am,” the woman said.

30 day sentence for teacher who raped his 14-year-old student

Shortly after Jamie posted the video on YouTube, she sent the link to her former teacher. The educator resigned within hours, said Jamie’s attorney, David Ring.

The teacher has not responded to CNN’s phone and e-mail requests for comment.

Police have launched an investigation into the case, but the statute of limitations may be an issue, Riverside police Lt. Guy Toussaint said. It all depends on what the investigation reveals and what crimes may have occurred.

At the Alhambra Unified School District, where Jamie said the teacher most recently worked, administrators received an electronic message Friday with a YouTube link incriminating the educator, said Superintendent Laura Tellez-Gagliano.

Administrators called police immediately.

The woman, identified by the school district as an Alhambra High School administrator, was interviewed the same day, and she “tendered her resignation” at the end of the interview, Tellez-Gagliano said in a statement.

No students from the Alhambra district have been identified as victims so far, and the “Alhambra Police department will be handing this matter over to the jurisdiction of the appropriate police department,” the district said.

“This alleged action took place in another school district, without any report prior to her employment to the Alhambra Unified School District,” the superintendent said.

The Alhambra Police Department said it notified Riverside police because the reported abuse allegedly took place in Riverside.

“At this time in the investigation, there have been no identified crimes involving the suspect that have occurred in Alhambra,” APD said in a statement.

Former sixth-grade teacher admits sex with boy

Why now?

Now that she’s a mother, Jamie said she wanted to make sure the teacher couldn’t work with children again.

“The reason why I wanted to do this was to expose her for what she really was and to protect other kids, because she shouldn’t be around anyone’s kids,” Jamie told reporters Monday. “It took a lot for me to come forward, but I kept thinking about my own kids, and how I wouldn’t want anything to happen to them.”

Jamie said the abuse took place ‘off and on” between the ages of 12 and 18. She said she didn’t come forward as a teenager because the teacher had brainwashed her.

Ex-L.A. teacher sentenced to 25 years in lewdness case

“She told me that my family didn’t love me. She told me that nobody cared about me and that she was the only one that loved me and the only one that was there for me,” Jamie said. “She made me believe that she was my only friend, and that I could trust her.”

Jamie said she didn’t want a physical relationship — but that the teacher threatened her multiple times.

“She said that she would kill herself if I ever left. And I believed that,” Jamie said.

Now, more than a decade after middle school, Jamie said she feels greater control in her life.

“In the beginning, I thought there was nothing that I could do. But after the outcome, obviously, there is something I can do.”

Ex-PTA president accused of making child porn at elementary school

CNN’s Michael Martinez, Cheri Mossburg, Dave Alsup and Artemis Moshtaghian contributed to this report.

Rockford man accused of molesting children was DCFS employee

October 10, 2013 § Leave a comment

Rockford man accused of molesting children was DCFS employee

Photos

(photo) NESTOR ESTRADA 2013
WINNEBAGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT

Nestor D. Estrada

By Corina Curry
Posted Oct 07, 2013 @ 07:52 PM
Last update Oct 07, 2013 @ 10:03 PM
ROCKFORD —

The former Rockford School District substitute teacher who was accused last week of molesting two students also worked for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services for nearly 18 years.

Karen Hawkins, DCFS deputy director for communications, confirmed today that Nestor D. Estrada, 47, of Rockford, was a DCFS employee from July 1990 to April 2008.

The charges against Estrada, two counts of criminal sexual child abuse, stem from alleged incidents that took place between Sept. 1 and Dec. 11, 2012, at Riverdahl Elementary School.

Hawkins would not say what Estrada did for the agency or the manner in which he left the agency’s employment.

While Estrada’s criminal charges stem from allegations involving two children – a boy and a girl, now ages 5 and 6 – Hawkins said the DCFS investigation involved three Rockford School District students.

“On Dec. 13 last year, DCFS received a report of alleged abuse of three Rockford School District students by school staff,” Hawkins said. “DCFS completed the investigation in April 2013 with a finding that abuse was indicated involving all three victims.”

The Illinois State Board of Education was notified, Hawkins said. Services were offered to the victims and their families and Estrada’s name was placed on the DCFS state central registry of known offenders.

The registry is used for background checks, Hawkins said.

Estrada was on a long-term substitute teacher assignment at Riverdahl Elementary School in the fall of 2012. He was a bilingual special-education substitute teacher, assigned to the two students from the criminal complaint as part of their individualized education programs.

During a news conference last week, Winnebago County State’s Attorney Joe Bruscato said Estrada was a substitute teacher in the 1990s, as well. According to Rockford School District officials, he was a girls and boys soccer coach at Auburn High School from 1991 to 1998.

Parents of the two children named in the criminal complaint reported the abuse to Riverdahl School Dec. 12, school officials said. The district put Estrada on unpaid administrative leave. He was fired March 6.

All Rockford substitute teachers go through a state-mandated background check before they are allowed in the classroom. Some use the DCFS central registry, Hawkins said.

Estrada is due to appear in court Oct. 24.

According to the criminal complaint, Estrada inappropriately touched both victims. If found guilty, he faces a punishment that ranges from probation to three to seven years in prison.

The investigation into Estrada and his interaction with students is ongoing. Anyone with any information about this case or about Estrada should contact Rockford police, 815-987-5824.

Read more: http://www.rrstar.com/updates/x1843603702/Accused-child-molester-was-DCFS-employee#ixzz2hHYAlKjf

letter to chief judge evans?

September 17, 2013 § Leave a comment

Attorney, Judicial And Prosecutorial Misconduct Experienced By Yongping Zhou In Illinois

The System Is Known To Trample On People…and sometimes people trample back.

Note:  Due to Yongping’s English language difficulty, caught.net has had to edit Mr. Zhou’s submission for grammar.

Mr. Yongping Zhou has done the following:

  • He defeated the INS pro se with his friend’s help in February 2003.
  • He defeated attorney Scott Pollock and INS both in his appeal case in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago) in April 2003. The case number is: No. 02-3064.

Mr. Zhou asserts the following regarding his case: My case was a civil case in Cook County Circuit Court (“CCCC”), I counter-claimed to sue my previous lawyer, Attorney Scott Pollock, for legal malpractice. Atty. Pollack caused me to be illegally detained by the Federal government by failing to file a Habeas Corpus (“HC”). Note that Atty Pollack had written several letters to me stating he would file HC. He also promised the same to my two friends when they paid him $2,000 to hire him.

Note: that original case was filed with United States Court of Appeals For the 7th Circuit in Chicago with case No. 02-3064. In March 2003, Mr. Zhou discovered collusion between his Attorney Scott Pollock and the U.S. Attorney General. Together they had filed a Joint Motion For Voluntary Dismissal without Mr. Zhou’s knowledge and agreement. Mr. Zhou caught this unethical conduct by court internet records and filed an Emergency Motion to inform the judge.The 3 judge panel ordered attorney Scott Pollock to withdraw, and granted Mr. Zhou’s pro se victory in his appeal.

Read Mr. Zhou’s Counter Claim [PDF]

In this civil case which started in 2003, Atty. Scott Pollock hired Attorney Stephen Tyma to assist his law firm, Scott Pollock Associates.

The initial judge in the case, Judge Healy of CCCC courtroom 1501, was a good and honest Judge. He denied Atty. Stephen Tyma’s challenge to my lawsuit against Atty. Pollock. Attorney Stephen Tyma had motioned to dismiss my lawsuit of legal malpractice against Atty. Scott Pollock. The motion was denied and my case was allowed to go forward.

Later, in 2005, the case came into the hands of Judge Francis Dolan. Judge Francis Dolan was very unfair and hostile toward me openly in court on many occasions. (Judge Francis Dolan always arranged my case as the last one, so that there was no other people inside courtroom 1503 when my case was being heard). Caught.net Note: Many judges have a policy of hearing pro se cases in empty courtrooms.

I had no idea why Judge Francis Dolan was so unfair to me until I got the evidence in September 2006 about 3 weeks before the trial. This evidence showed he (Judge Francis Dolan) had improper ex-parte communications with opposing council’s Attorney Stephen Tyma. This was a violation of the Judicial Conduct Rules of Illinois.

The evidence consisted of two emails from Stephen Tyma to me. On August 30, 2006, Stephen Tyma sent me two emails attached by Judge Francis Dolan’s two different versions of an order for the next day’s [August 31, 2006] court hearing.

These were made between Judge Francis Dolan and Stephen Tyma on August 30, 2006 when there was no court hearing and when I was absent. In my absence, Judge Francis Dolan and opposing council Atty. Stephen Tyma worked outside the courtroom together to make up his 5-page draft order to favor Atty. Stephen Tyma. In these orders Judge Francis Dolan ruled to dismiss my legal malpractice lawsuit against Atty. Stephen Tyma’s client Atty. Scott Pollock. These two rulings only differed on the findings part but were in agreement on the dismissal of my case.

I was unaware of Atty. Stephen Tyma’s emails on August 30, 2006 before I went to the August 31, 2006’s hearing in the early morning. I discovered the collusion between Judge Francis Dolan and Atty. Stephen Tyma at the beginning of the hearing of 08-31-2006.

At the very beginning of the hearing on August 31, 2006, trial Judge Francis Dolan gave me his 5-page order to review, which was dated as August 31, 2006. He said to me he would sign the order immediately if I had no argument.

When I reviewed it quickly, I found it was drafted by Stephen Tyma (Page 5), it said he (Dolan) rules to dismiss my lawsuit. I was shocked. I immediately pointed out to the trial Judge Francis Dolan that the whole 5 page draft order had never been argued previously and he (Judge Francis Dolan) had never ruled or had a full and fair hearing on the 4 points made on pages 1-4. I immediately asserted it was improper for both the judge and opposing council to be acting in this manner.

(It is routine in CCCC courts that after a Judge rules in a case, one of the parties drafts the order. Then the Judge and both parties review it to check whether it accurately reflects what the Judge’s ruling was. It is then signed. However, in my case, on August 31, 2006, the 5-page draft order and the issues contained in it had never been argued in any open hearing.

Atty. Stephen Tyma claimed that drafting in advance was to save another pre-trial conference since the time was too tight before the trial date of 09-18-2006. I rebutted that it was misconduct for the Judge and opposing council to work together on an order ex-parte and to do so without full and fair hearings on the merits and arguments of the case.

Judge Francis Dolan did not sign the order or dismiss the case. On the contrary, on August 31, 2005, the judge ruled to add Atty. Scott Pollock as the top agent of Scott Pollock Associate PC.  The misconduct just mentioned was in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule Judicial Conducts 63(A)(4) and 63(C)(1)(b).

Caught.net Note: A critic might say, “This wasn’t misconduct because the judge did not sign the order or dismiss the case. But the court was trying to manipulate and intimidate a pro se litigant. It is very easy to be overwhelmed when representing yourself and, in plain English, they were trying to pull the wool over Mr. Zhou’s eyes and intimidate him into going along with it. THIS IS MISCONDUCT, and so was any ex-parte communications between the Judge and opposing council.

Other misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan in my case include things like illegally confiscating 1.5 feet height documents, returned back to me by a civil rights group, allowing Atty. Scott Pollock to be absent from hearings despite subpoenas and not allowing my two witnesses to testify in the trial even though I listed them in my Intake Form For Trial from the beginning. All of this is detailed in the letter to Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans below.

I filed my Motion To Disqualify Judge Francis Dolan in September 2006 just before the trial. Judge Francis Dolan refused to hear it in open court and threatened to throw me into jail if I insisted it be heard in front of bailiff and court staff.

Judge Evans wrote me twice to ask a lower chief Judge Wright Jr. to take over the proceedings, but Judge Wright Jr. never took any action. (Judge Francis Dolan belongs to the municipal division which lower chief Judge Wright Jr. presides over.)

Best Regards,
Yongping Zhou

Caught.net Note: We are unaware of the rules of Illinois courts but in Rhode Island writing a letter to any judge’s superior WILL NOT and, according to the Rhode Island system, CAN NOT result in any corrective or disciplinary action. ALL judicial discipline in Rhode Island is handled exclusively by the Rhode Island Supreme Court Council of Judicial Tenure And Discipline. If your state is set up the same, do not waste any time writing to superior judges – file a complaint with the disciplinary councils immediately or there is a good chance your letter will be ignored or valuable time will be wasted.

Letter To Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans

October 18, 2007
Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans
50 W. Washington St. Room 2600 Chicago IL 60603
Regarding:
(A) serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan committed in the case 03 M1-159148; and
(B) Judge Wright’s refusal to take proper action against Judge Francis Dolan’s misconduct
Dear Chief Judge Evans:

I ask you to take remedial, corrective action regarding the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of Courtroom 1503 of Cook County based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3). The chief Judge Wright Jr. refused to take initial actions regarding Judge Francis Dolan’s serious bad faith misconduct, even after you had transferred my Complaint letters to chief Judge Wright Jr.

In my Complaint, there are two important issues raised:
(1) Serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of courtroom 1503 when he presided in the case of 03 M1-159148;
(2) Judge Wright Jr. violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B – Judge Wright’s refusal to take any necessary action upon the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan for almost 15 months.

1. I have filed more than 6 Complaints to the chief Judge Wright Jr. to complain about the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan of courtroom 1503 in the case of 03 M1-159148 since September 06, 2006. I also faxed many letters to chief Judge Wright Jr. during the last 15 months to ask him to take the necessary actions upon Judge Francis Dolan’s serious bad faith misconduct based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3); but Judge Wright Jr. refused to take the initial action until today. I had served these copies of my Complaints to your office of Room 2600 at Richard Daley Center before. You replied to me twice by asking Judge Wright Jr. to take the initial action upon Judge Francis Dolan. I serve to you copies of my previous Complaints once again. In these Complaints, I clarified the facts of serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan with relevant evidence. Here I emphasis some critical points once again in order to assist your investigation:

(I)
On August 30, 2006, Judge Francis Dolan had ex parte communications with Attorney Stephen Tyma, who is the Attorney of counter-defendant Atty. Scott Pollock Associate PC in this case. The purpose of the ex-parte communication was to make up a draft order to favor counter-defendant when there was no full and fair hearing on the issues.

On August 30, 2006, there was NO hearing in this case. At that day August 30, 2006, I was traveling from my Michigan home to Chicago for next day’s pre-trial conference; thus, I could not check email. As a result I did not find that on August 30, 2006 the Attorney Stephen Tyma sent to me two different versions of Judge Francis Dolan’s 5-page order by two emails, and both versions of the order were dated as August 31, 2006

On August 31, 2006, there was a pre-trial conference in this case. At the beginning of that hearing, Judge Francis Dolan gave me the drafted order. I immediately pointed out to the trial Judge Francis Dolan that the whole 5 pages draft order had never been argued previously and he (Judge Francis Dolan) had never made these findings before and he had NEVER ruled on the 4 points mentioned. On the 5th page was the following:
“NOW THEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
1. Defendant Yong-Ping Zhou is not entitled to have the Court instruct the jury at trial of this cause on any theory of liability which involves Mr. Pollock individually. All proposed instructions which Mr. Zhou had tendered to the Court and which assert individual liability against Mr. Pollock will not be used at trial.
2. Defendant Yongping Zhou’s Second Amended Counterclaim is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, and Defendant is denied leave to amend his Second Amended Counterclaim.
3. Defendant Yongping Zhou is only entitled to assert legal malpractice at trial as an affirmative defense to Plaintiff’s claims to recover fee from him.
4 Count II of Defendant Yongping Zhou’s Second Amended Counterclaim will be deemed an appropriate denial of the allegations permitted by Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 133(c).”

I objected to Judge Francis Dolan stating all these 4 points on the 5th page of his 5-page draft order of August 31, 2006 had never had any full and fair hearing nor had they been ruled on at any hearing by him (Judge Francis Dolan). How could he (Judge Francis Dolan) plan to sign this order without any argument or full and fair hearing?

Attorney Stephen Tyma immediately interrupted me and claimed that the arguments from Page 1 to Page 4 of Judge Francis Dolan’s 5-page draft order of August 31, 2006 are what he (Atty. Stephen Tyma) plans to argue today (August 31, 2006). Tyma asserted that because the trial date is coming within 15 days, he (Stephen Tyma) drafted from Page 1 to Page 4 in advance of what he planned to argue today. Then Attorney Stephen Tyma said that in his previous motions he had made false claims that a law firm could not be sued for legal malpractice, only lawyers could be. He admitted the false statement and withdrew it admitting that law firms could be sued for legal malpractice. I objected to the Judge and opposing council trying to railroad the proceedings against me calling it collusion and dirty.

For my service issues of my initial Counterclaim and my 1st Amended Counterclaim in 2003, Attorney Stephen Tyma never challenged these service issues in 2003 when Judge Healy ruled to dismiss without prejudice on my first two Counter claims.

However, after three years in 2006, Judge Francis Dolan found some problems of my services of my two Counter claims and ruled in his 5-page draft order to favor Attorney Stephen Tyma because of these service issues, after these motions had been dismissed by Judge Healy 3 years ago in 2003, but Attorney Stephen Tyma himself had satisfied for my services of my two Counter claims and Stephen Tyma NEVER challenged the issues of my service in 2003.

These service issues of my Counter claims had gone forever in 2003 when Judge Healy dismissed my two Counter claims without prejudice. But Judge Francis Dolan planned to use these forever-gone service issues to favor Attorney Stephen Tyma in the hearing of August 31, 2006, which was already drafted by Attorney Stephen Tyma in advance on August 30, 2006 for two different versions —– it just indicated that there was some inappropriate and dirty relationships between he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma, it also indicated that he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma had made ex parte contacted on August 30, 2006 to draft two different versions for Judge’s next day’s 5-page order.

Judge Francis Dolan’s misconduct with Attorney Stephen Tyma were, absolutely in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(4) of Judicial Conduct Rules; the 5-page order also indicated that Judge Francis Dolan was acting as the lawyer in the behalf of Counter-defendant in this case in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63(C)(1)(b). He (Francis Dolan) worked as the lawyer for counter-defendant and Stephen Tyma. Clearly they acted in collusion.

Although Judge Francis Dolan hesitated and did not sign it after I caught his misconduct, it did not change the fact that he (Francis Dolan) and Attorney Stephen Tyma had ex parte communications when I was absent.

(II)
Judge Francis Dolan forbid my two critical witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify in the trial, and repeatedly threatened to put me into jail if I brought these witnesses to the trial.

On May 12, 2005, I listed Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan in my Intake Form when my case was transferred from Judge Healy’s courtroom 1501 to Judge Francis Dolan’s courtroom 1503 at the first time hearing in front of Judge Francis Dolan

These two witnesses hired Attorney Scott Pollock on August 1, 2002 when I was illegally detained and paid huge money [$2000] to Atty. Scott Pollock. It was my legal right to call these witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify in the trial. Caught.net Note: As anyone that knows the courts today will tell you, the evidence and witnesses being allowed has become a whimsical crap shoot having little to nothing to do with the realities or facts of the case. Then the higher courts give the trial justice “broad discretion” during the appeals.

But prior to the trial, Judge Francis Dolan suddenly barred these witnesses Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan and barred me from calling these two witnesses to testify during the trial. In his order, Judge Francis Dolan claimed his ridiculous reason “evidences speaks for itself”, but scratched it out after he had signed the order and insisted on barring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan.

Judge Francis Dolan even threatened me that if I bring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan in the trial to testify, he (Judge Francis Dolan) will throw me into jail. It is outrageous bias and violation of due process and civil rights. Obviously, Judge Francis Dolan was trying to prejudice my case

In the trial of this case in September 2006, as soon as I testified that Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan told me why they hired Atty. Scott Pollock on August 1, 2002, the Judge barred me to testify for what Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan said to me; I asked for close bench to ask Judge Francis Dolan again to let me bring Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan to testify, Judge Francis Dolan threatened to throw me into jail if I do it.

During the trial, Judge Francis Dolan repeatedly censured me in front of jurors when I raised the issue how my two friends Ms. Stultz and Ms. Yan hired Attorney Pollock on August 1, 2003 and it was rational that calling these two witnesses in. Later Judge Francis Dolan called both parties in the hallway, threatened me that I was close to jail just one step, if I mentioned these two witnesses’ names once again, He (Judge Francis Dolan) put me into jail before the trial ended. And Judge Francis Dolan also forbid sending my evidences to jury room to deliberate after I had used these evidences to argue in the trial. The trial was unfair. After the trial was finished, in the hallway, jurors asked me where my witnesses. Then I could tell the truth how Judge Francis Dolan forbid them but it was too late for jurors to hear the truth.

Judge Francis Dolan had illegally possessed the large amount of documents [about 1.5 feet height] since 2005 and refused to release them to me before the trial. These included many privileged communications between me and the lawyers of Midwest Human Rights Organization in Chicago. The lawyers of Midwest Human Rights Organization told Judge Francis Dolan in the pre-trial conference that they decided to turn these 1.5 feet-height pile of documents to me as my property. Judge Francis Dolan had no legal right to possess these documents and his doing so intentionally prejudiced my case and made it impossible for me to use this evidence during the trial in 2006. During the trial, Judge Francis Dolan brought these 1.5 feet-height documents for short time, and critical documents were missing.

(2) Judge Francis Dolan illegally made ex parte communications with Attorney Stephen Tyma of the counter-defendant in this case prior to the pretrial conference. He allowed Attorney Scott Pollock to be excused from attending the pre-trial conference after the subpoena was served upon Attorney Scott Pollock.

(3) Judge Francis Dolan repeatedly threatened my freedom when I tried to subpoena the relevant witnesses for the discovery issues and he barred these witnesses to testify after they had showed up in the courtroom to testify for the discovery issue.

Accumulated all this shows Judge Francis Dolan’s bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, abuse of judicial discretion, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty; see STEVEN DELGADO v. BERT RICE, WARDEN, 67 F. Supp. 2d 1148; 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15380; see Guenther and Guenther v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 939 F.2d 758; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893; see United States v. Lorenzo A. MARTINEZ, 40 M.J. 82, 1994 CMA LEXIS 54; see United States v. Lorenzo A. MARTINEZ, 40 M.J. 82, 1994 CMA LEXIS 54; Guenther and Guenther v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 939 F.2d 758; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 15893.

Dear chief Judge Evans, after you twice transferred my Complaints to chief Judge Kenneth Wright Jr., he (Judge Wright Jr.,) violated Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3) and refused to take any necessary action upon Judge Francis Dolan’s serious bad faith misconduct. In my Complaints and my personal letters to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. during the last 15 months, I asked him to obtain Judge Francis Dolan’s yellow pad, in which Judge Francis Dolan wrote all notes for the case 03 M1-159148 about what he ruled. This yellow pad was Judge Francis Dolan’s hand-writing notes about my case 03 M1-159148 and was the critical evidence for all Judge Francis Dolan’s misconduct. But Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. refused to tell me whether he obtained the yellow pad from Judge Francis Dolan, and refused to tell me what was his investigation for all Judge Francis Dolan’s bad faith misconduct, refused to tell me what were Judge Francis Dolan’s replies to him when he contacted Judge Francis Dolan with all my Complaints! My last fax to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. was on September 14, 2007, his secretary Stacy confirmed that she transferred it to Judge Kenneth Wright Jr., but the Judge Wright Jr. continued to refuse to take actions against Judge Francis Dolan.

Because of the refusal of Judge Wright Jr. to take the initial discipline actions upon Judge Francis Dolan for outrageous 15 months, it forced me to file this long Complaint letter to you and I ask you to take the initial discipline action upon the serious bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3) and make your reporting to Illinois Judicial Board and serve me a copy of your reporting.

Here I serve my long Complaint letter to you by registered mail, I am asking you to reply me in written for what you investigate both the bad faith misconduct of Judge Francis Dolan and the refusal action of Judge Kenneth Wright Jr. based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 62 B(3). I am asking you to supply me the copy of Judge Francis Dolan’s yellow pad.

I am asking you to arrange a meeting between you and me as soon as possible for all these issues of all Complaints since August 30, 2006, including the new issues of this long Complaint, which I only file to you. Our meeting will be helpful for your investigation.

Truly Yours,
Yongping Zhou

 

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with ABUSE OF DISCRETION at Will County Pro-se.