Illinois lawmakers cite ‘horrendous’ challenges ahead for state’s child welfare agency

March 10, 2014 § Leave a comment

Illinois lawmakers cite ‘horrendous’ challenges ahead for state’s child welfare agency

By KERRY LESTER  Associated Press
March 08, 2014 – 1:08 pm EST



SPRINGFIELD, Illinois — Two Democratic lawmakers involved in overseeing the troubled Illinois Department of Children and Family Services say the agency faces “horrendous” challenges in the year ahead as officials deal with yet another search for a new child-welfare chief, anticipated budget cuts and election year politics.

Officials fear that efforts to help the agency could suffer if a replacement is not quickly found for recently resigned Arthur Bishop, the fourth chief to head the agency in less than a year’s time, or if a change in governor after November’s election means yet another leadership shift.

State Sen. Julie Morrison, a Deerfield Democrat who chaired a series of hearings last fall in response to a rash of problems at the agency, says the leadership void puts any future reforms on hold.

“It’s hard to get traction when you don’t have anybody that’s really leading this,” Morrison said. She said she is calling on Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn to “find someone as soon as humanly possible.”

Bishop resigned last month after reports surfaced about previous legal problems. The 61-year-old was accused of stealing more than $9,000 from clients at a Chicago social-services agency who thought Bishop was helping them get their driver’s licenses back after drunken-driving convictions. He later said he was wrongly accused and made the “agonizing” decision to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge to end the strain on his family.

He said he was stepping down to avoid becoming a distraction for Quinn, who is in the midst of a re-election campaign.

The governor’s office says it has launched a nationwide search for a replacement. But Morrison fears the search, and any replacement’s longevity, could be complicated by the election. Four Republicans — state Sens. Bill Brady and Kirk Dillard, Winnetka businessman Bruce Rauner, and state Treasurer Dan Rutherford — are vying in the March 18 primary to be the party’s nominee to unseat Quinn.

Meanwhile, Greg Harris, chairman of the House appropriations committee for human resources, told The Associated Press that he expects DCFS to see a roughly 15 percent dip in funding if the state’s temporary income tax increase expires as planned, beginning next January. The rollback is expected to lead to an overall $1.5 billion drop in annual state revenue.

PHOTO: In this March 4, 2014 photo, Illinois state Sen. Julie Morrison, D-Deerfield, talks with lawmakers on the Senate floor in Springfield, Ill. Morrison, along with state Rep. Greg Harris, say that the recent resignation of Arthur Bishop, the state’s child-welfare chief, compounded by anticipated budget cuts spell out a “horrendous challenge” ahead for the already troubled Department of Children and Family Services. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

In this March 4, 2014 photo, Illinois state Sen. Julie Morrison, D-Deerfield, talks with lawmakers on the Senate floor in Springfield, Ill. Morrison, along with state Rep. Greg Harris, say that the recent resignation of Arthur Bishop, the state’s child-welfare chief, compounded by anticipated budget cuts spell out a “horrendous challenge” ahead for the already troubled Department of Children and Family Services. (AP Photo/Seth Perlman)

Some Democrats are building the case for the hike to be extended while many Republicans are calling for it to expire.

The leadership and funding challenges come at a particularly bad time for DCFS, following reports of a spike in child deaths and a recent state audit that found that the agency was failing to initiate investigations within a timely manner, among other problems.

“There’s a horrendous challenge that looms over the agency, that the new director is going to be faced with,” said Harris, a Chicago Democrat. “Regardless of what reforms we want to have, they’re going to be nearly impossible.”

Quinn spokeswoman Grant Klinzman said Friday that the governor’s office is “committed” to finding strong leadership for the agency. He described acting director Bobbie Gregg, an attorney and social worker, as “well suited to lead the agency” in the interim.

“We are incredibly hopeful that a director will be found that will bring stability to the department and will continue to move our mission forward,” said DCFS spokeswoman Karen Hawkins.

Morrison said that, as the search continues, she plans to continue pushing for reforms, including a piece of legislation that requires the state to name “mandated reporters” of child abuse and neglect, such as daycare workers, to be re-trained every few years.

“This is a good year for us to be planning to put things in place that don’t require funding,” she said. “Getting everyone on the same page.”



Connecticut Task Force hears accounts of victimization by family court?The appearance the rbi is listing other cities.

March 6, 2014 § Leave a comment

Connecticut Task Force hears accounts of victimization by family court

By , Communities Digital News

March 1, 2014

Road to Hartford - Image Dough Kerr for Flickr CC -

Road to Hartford – Image Dough Kerr for Flickr CC –

CONNECTICUT, March 1, 2014 — More than 80 parents testified before the Connecticut legislature on January 9, 2014, providing heart-wrenching details of victimization by the family court.

The hearing, called by Connecticut’s Legislative Task Force on Family Courts was an effort to uncover the truth about the atrocities by the Court.

Some have argued that the actions of the Connecticut family courts resemble human trafficking.

Article 3, paragraph (a) of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons defines Trafficking in Persons as”

“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.”

A small group of judges and mental health professionals in Connecticut appear to have manipulated the fact that fit parents will do almost anything to rescue their children to hold those families hostage. These individuals warped the law so that victimized families could not object or refuse to participate, or risk losing their children forever.

These families are literally dying for custody, but who would believe divorcing parents over the opinions of such highly regarded professionals?

The energy in the legislative hearing room that day was not stuffy, cold or formal. As victimized parents gathered in greater numbers, the room became charged with tension that felt more like a gladatorial arena preparing for a fight between David and Goliath.

The ten member panel sat divided in half on a stage. Some task force members seemed adversarial to the prospect of meaningful systemic reform, perhaps due to their own conflicting financial stake in maintaining the status quo.

Several mental health and legal professionals affiliated with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) seated on the top tier, while a Judicial Branch manager and a female State representative sat between two task force members affiliated with the National Parents Organization, a father’s rights group formerly known as Fathers and Families. A few legislators sat in the fringes, listening with their jaws on the ground as the horrors unfolded.

Parents nervously paced the hallways, clutching and memorizing statements many had to wait 15 hours to give. Although the parents came from all different walks of life, they all had the same story about how they had been fleeced by officers of the courts and falsely discredited.

Although the majority of attendees were men and fathers, there was a consensus that this was not about gender as much as about making sure the legislative branch of government understood how the judicial branch had failed them.

Parents explained how they lost everything in the scams, and put their billing records on the legislative record to prove it. Many privately admitted that after going through the courts, they no longer believed in God, but today they had placed their faith in the legislature and the press to renew it.

Perhaps the AFCC professionals who had ruled the courts for decades with their cronies expected that that they would dominate the legislative hearing, but this was not their property and so there was no pretense of respect or formality when attempts to abscond were made. At times, parents and members of the panel exploded with anger at each other for dragging things out, hurling accusations of fraud and corruption at each other. Afterwards, they retreated to their corners to lick their wounds, get a drink of water, and rest until the imaginary bell would ring, letting them know it was time to get back in the ring.

During the 14 hour hearing, drama was at a premium. Grown men and women cried with sadness and frustration as they spoke of the loss of their children and their life’s work. The halls were littered with devastated parents and professionals who sobbed after telling their stories, comforting one another over the loss of a murdered child or a childhood home. Childless mothers said lives no longer had meaning and they would kill themselves but for the fear of leaving their children alone in the hell the courts had taken them to.

At one point, an industry professional normally kept tucked safely away from such tragedies at a nonprofit legal clinic asked, “Is it really this bad?”

“Yes,” I said. ”It’s actually far worse when you think of all the fearful litigants who are not here.”

It was literally do or die time for these families. It had become clear that the consequences of not speaking out were more catastrophic than any potential retribution a litigating parent might experience in return for their testimony. With the sale of the BrooklynBridge pending before the task force, these parents had no time to waste. On that day, they placed their faith on our Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine with the hope that legislators would impose justice reforms that the judicial branch had refused to consider while Connecticut families were destroyed in their courtrooms.

The consensus was that Connecticut’s family courts have evolved into an unregulated multi-billion dollar industry that represents a real threat to public safety.


When you go to a court hearing, there is one judge who controls all communication in the room to ensure only one person is speaking at a time. This can be torture for a parent who is not on the stand and filled with anxiety while listening to corrupt professionals testimony in ways that might result in harm to their families. Yet judges can fine, arrest, and jail you for speaking out of turn in court, a scenario unlikely to play out in the legislature.

For a year, I reviewed hundreds of cases and watched in horror while Connecticut family court judges allowed bogus testimony intended to make violent offenders, even pedophiles look like model parents, while fit parents without criminal records who tried to rescue their kids from dangerous situations were made to appear mentally ill.

Covering the story of court corruption for over a year, I had listened to numerous accounts of children who had been raped and brutalized under the careful watch of the family court industry. I had held my breath in court hearings while judges whose questionable financials I had reviewed called themselves impartial fact finders, then allowed outrageous miscarriages of justice to occur. These findings terrified me so much that I wrote the first two articles of the exposé under a pseudonym to protect my own identity from the predators I exposed. But I quickly found support from professionals and parents shunned by local media who said release of this type of information was long overdue.

This type of brazen misuse of mental healthcare assessments and ex parte hearings were the main vehicles used  by predatory family court industry professionals to justify custody switches placing children in the care of violent offenders (like Joshua Komisarjevsky), then opening up the floodgates to years of profitable extortion based litigation services. It didn’t seem to matter if the parents wanted or needed the services or whether they could even afford them because the parents couldn’t object or take their business elsewhere. The families were never the intended beneficiaries, the professionals billing them were.

In these types of cases, the fit parent always vowed they would never stop fighting for their child, but in the end they would always be bankrupted out of their parenting rights by court ordered therapists and evaluators who didn’t take their insurance, visitation supervisors who knew their services wouldn’t be needed if they wrote reports favorable to children, and GAL’s who had barely met the kids they represented and billed parents they barely knew hundreds of thousands of dollars for services no one could verify. If parents didn’t pay up or complained, the professionals often testified in court in ways that made them look unfit and their kids were taken away. The parents themselves had nothing to show for their money except a path of devastation and a child whose life still hung helplessly in the balance.

Often I’d seen cases where judges acted more like collection agencies for unethical and greedy GAL’s engaged in outrageous misconduct who filed outrageous billing statements and motions to place liens on the parent’s homes, wages, pensions, even the kid’s college funds. Many times, parents I had spoken to were thrown in jail for nonpayment at the be haste of a GAL or judge who argued it was in the children’s best interests. As if the kids needed these bogus professionals more than they needed survival necessities like access to their parents, a home, or a few bags of groceries.

When the parents ran out of money, the Public Defender’s office and family court industry nonprofits funded by the taxpayers would pick up the tab. At one point last spring, I’d tried to obtain some of the payment records from the Public Defender under the State’s open records laws. When the agency refused, a hearing was held before the State’s Freedom of Information Commission in Hartford. The Attorney General’s office represented the Public Defender’s Office and I was alone and pro se. The Attorney General must have thought this was important because he called the Public Defender’s top 5 administrators (all attorneys) to take time off from their work defending the litigation embroiled poor to serve as witnesses. I’m sure some of these victimized childless parents would have appreciated the same type of zealous advocacy when it came to all the failed opportunities the state has had to rescue their kids, but chose not to.



DHHS the appearance of more than foul play with dealing in children matters.

March 2, 2014 § Leave a comment


AUGUSTA (WGME) — State Health and Human Services managers are in hot water. They’re accused of failing to aggressively respond to reports of possible child abuse at day care centers. Today, the state’s Government Oversight Committee voted unanimously to investigate the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Child Care Licensing Division”.

Last month, CBS 13 investigative reporter Jon Chrisos looked into complaints of abuse and neglect at the sunshine childcare and preschool in Lyman. The daycare has since closed. Now, two DHHS child care inspectors have come forward, accusing the child care division of sitting on abuse and neglect reports for months, even years, before taking any action.

We spoke to State Senator Emily Cain, (D) Orono and co-chair of the Government Oversight Committee, about the allegations. Senator Cain says “We want all families to feel their children are safe when they’re at child care providers across the state of Maine. And we’ll make recommendations to the department about ways they can improve the outcomes and make sure we’re keeping children safe.”

DHHS Child Care Licensing Division Director Kenneth Albert says the department will add eight or nine inspectors to ease the caseload. He says that will lead to more effective monitoring of the state’s 2,000 daycares.

Dad’s right to Equal parenting

February 26, 2014 § Leave a comment

Dad’s right to Equal parenting

Center for separated father lookng for resource




a must Read


i don’t know how this could help you but check it anyway



If you would like to join a march or planning one yourself  here is a national suport group that want to hear from you


If you are in for some good work , read these research the y will enlight you in the truth behind all this madness , it totaly define the exact data it is definatly a must read if you are serious about this battle.

Here is the first list of links needed to help yourself , read all of them carefully , then with the help of your lawyer you can decide wich way to aproche your cases ,again be wise and realise that we see what we want to see , and that normaly we are motivated by emotion , so be aware that you might become kinda legal Hypochondriac  if i can say , (not realy the proper terminalogy  but you know what i mean , tell me if it help.

I do not have to many link for you to get some help , i mean ,personaly i tryed my darn best to find moral support and i haven’t  found much aside what would cost me a fortune , well to me $100 dollar an hour is a fortune, but i know that i will find some as i progress and i promiss to pass them up to you , in the mean time you can contact me thru e-mail if i can help i will be there for you , i respond as fast as i can . sometime just being able to reach out can help. and those who know of help available out there , free is allways good , please e-mail me so i can offer them to men out there , thanks


first and formost

Here are a couple of centre that are there to help, use  them ,dont abuse them ,be wise  and respectfull they might not be able to fix all probleme but they will try i know some of us fear or distruss those agency but they are there to try to help, and for every of those agencies, if you feel you are not treated fairly, a wach dog agencyis in place  to protect your right .

Your local CAS ( children’s aid society)

CCAS ( christian childrens aid society )

there are the CFRS (catholic family resourse centers)

Your local Ymca yea they do help!

You don’t need just to call them to make complaint , you can ask them for resourse for men in your local communauty if not keep searching and again i will try to help.

For all your legal forms , just get here and voila , ask the help of a lawyer , if you can’t afford one, ( i wonder who can these days) just present yourself at the court and theyre are people there ready to help you fill them , and they even have them printed there ready for you , they also have legal advise from lawyer for 1/2 at the time , so make sure you have your pad with all your “legal” question. please avoid taking your emotional matter , stick to the l e g a l , and make the best of your 1/2 hour , it goes fast , again since you are at court , people are not there to sympatise with you , nothing personal , its the first gear of the system , so leave your feeling and moral concern at the door.stick to your notes.


for the most inspiring website , its a pay site , but its worth looking it up , look at the action done so far you will be uplifted


This is for the Fathers Involvement Reasearch Aliance a great place to se what is hapening in the feald as far as research are concern , its great to see that there is concern .a very good reading

BOYZ TO MEN: The Male Development Service


a wicked data base of history and current event in the feald of fathers right , they been here for a while so its a very good source , i recomend it , when you are ready and you have reach the end of the line , its great to be aware that there is hope for some of us , but please do not go hardline , all is good in the right dosage ok !


this is an american website , can be realy usefull , alltho  the laws are from different contry , they resemble greatly , and by the way the research done apply here too.


“Robert Gardner”, Remember this name and read his research , (especialy those people  in the law business 🙂 I put a lot of his material . but first  Important: this is not a tool to bash the mother of your children ,  these research are amazing to understand some behavior , don’t go screaming around that is what you are experiencing , some men truly are being put thru hell , and if its not your case back off, the reason the systeme is unbalance today  is cause some  women are screaming abuse at every turn now and the one that are truly being abuse are paying the price for those who abuse the systeme , the same crap applies to the CAS and CCAS agencies , instead of concentrat there complete effort on helping the real case of abuse they are spending half there time trying to figure out who is lying to get the system on there side , so make sure you read  but that you don’t find a weapon to go after the mother , but a tool to help your children, again i am not here to help you being idiots at the expence of other men fighting for the real right to be father to theyr children.


Another series of research results realy helpfull  prety much all the big name and there work are mention in this great link




taken from sandra lee thanks so much

well some wiked link that deserves its own paragraph.

More Links:
(Fathers Canada 4 Justice)
(The Federal Child Support Guidelines)
(Fathers rights groups and support on CANLAW)
(False Allegations)
(Abuse Excuse)
(Child, Family and Community Service Act, BC)
(e-Laws, a database of Ontario’s statutes and regulations, both consolidated and source law)
(Sign our petition: You CAN help put integrity back into Ontario Social Services)
(Father for life)
(The Children’s Aid Society-Parents Rights and freedom in the new world order)
(Legislative Assembly of Ontario)
(Bills and lawmaking)
(FACT-Fathers are capable too)
(Canadian Fathers)
(Fathers rights)
(Divorced or Separated Dads)
(Fathers and dads for equal custody rights)
(Fathers for Fathers rights)
(Dads Canada-legal counseling and fathers’ support group)
(Help stop PAS-Rick’s story)
(Parental Alienation Awareness Organization)
(Fathers-4-Justice Canada)
(The Family Therapy Center For New York & Georgia)
(DAD’s America)
(National Parents’ Rights Association)
(FACT-Fathers Are Capable Too)
(MESA-Men’s Educational Support Association)
(DadLaw-Protecting the rights of men and Fathers)
(Victoria Men’s Centre)
(Fathers Battling Injustice)
(Canadian Children’s Rights Council)
(EQUAL PARENTING for Separated Families)
(Overview and Assessment of Approaches to Access Enforcement)
(Equitable Child Maintenance & Access Society)
(Kids ‘n’ Dad services families in the Waterloo Region)
(SPARC-the Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center)
(United States Dept of Health & Human Services-Promoting Responsible Fatherhood)
(US Dept of Health & Human Services Admin For Children & Families-NCCIC- National Childcare Info Centre-Father Involvement in the Lives of their Children)
(FIRA-Father Involvement Research Alliance)
(FNF-Families Need Fathers-Keeping Children and Parents in Contact since 1974)
(NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS-Measuring Father Involvement in Young Children’s Lives)
(The Men’s Centre-Fathers rights)
(National Society For Children and Family Contact)
(Ottawa Fathers-Fathers Supporting Fathers)
(Children’s Aid Society Corruption)
(Dads in Distress-A dedicated support group of men in Australia whose immediate concern is to stem the present trend of male suicide due to the trauma of divorce or separation)
(FRED-Fathers rights for equality in divorce)
(Children’s Justice)
(CRC Kids-Children’s rights council)
(Talking with Kids About Tough Issues)
(Equal custodial rights for Dads)
(CPF-The Fatherhood Coalition)
(Dads Divorce-Divorce and Child Custody Modification Information For Dads / Fathers in Kansas City, MO)
(Dad talk-Dedicated to the most important people in the world)
(The men’s tribune links)
(Fathers-4-Justice Canada)
(Our kids have rights too — and their most important right is: To be with your Mom & Dad “A Kid’s Right to BOTH Parents”)
(Canadian Children’s Rights Council: A Travesty Punished)
(Enforcement of Parenting Time Schedules)

More links to come!
If you have one you’d like to contribute, please feel free to post it and we’ll put it up:)

WHY does dhs need 704,390,250 rounds of ammunition ? For ncp or the children ?

February 20, 2014 § Leave a comment

DHS Contracted to Purchase 704 Million Rounds of Ammo Over Next 4 Years: 2,500 Rounds Per Officer

February 19, 2014 – 3:54 PM

Subscribe to Ali Meyer RSS


bullets(AP Photo)

( — The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is contracted to purchase 704,390,250 rounds of ammunition over the next four years, which is equal to a total of about 2,500 rounds per DHS agent per year, according to a January 2014 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled Ammunition Purchases Have Declined Since 2009.

“If DHS were to purchase all 704 million rounds over the next four years, and if they were used by 70,000 DHS agents and officers, it would be roughly 2,500 rounds per agent per year,” David Maurer, author of the GAO report, told

“That would be higher than what we saw in past years at DHS and higher than the average annual number of rounds per agent or officer at the Department of Justice (DOJ),” he said.

“The 704,390,250 number of rounds is like a ceiling or credit limit which DHS wouldn’t have to fully execute,” said Maurer.  “It’s there to use over the next four years until fiscal year 2018, if DHS needed to purchase those rounds.”

In Appendix III of the GAO report, “Department of Homeland Security Ammunition Contracts, as of October 1, 2013,” it states that “the 29 existing DHS ammunition contracts extend over the next 4 fiscal years and have a remaining contract limit of approximately 704 million rounds (for various ammunition types) if every option for purchasing ammunition were exercised into fiscal year 2018.”

DHS Contracted To Purchase 704 Million Rounds of Ammo Over Next 4 Years: 2,500 Rounds Per OfficerImmigration and Customs Enforcement agents in training. (DHS)

The appendix puts the contract ceiling cost at $285,356,645 for the 704,390,250 rounds of ammo.

As of October 2013, the DHS had a total amount of 159 million ammunition rounds on hand in inventory (see p. 22 in report), which when divided by the estimated number of DHS officers of 70,000, comes to about 2,271 rounds per agent.

To put these numbers in perspective, the report provides data on how many rounds were actually bought and how many rounds would typically be needed during training.

“We analyzed DHS data on ammunition purchases and the size of the firearm-carrying workforce for fiscal years 2008 through 2013 and found the average number of rounds of ammunition purchased per year per firearm-carrying agent or officer by component for this time period ranged between approximately 1,000 and 2,000 rounds,” said the report.

“This variation exists because each component independently decides, based on its operational needs, how much ammunition to allocate to its firearm-carrying personnel for training and qualification each year,” said the report. “For example, FPS provides each officer 250 rounds per quarter per handgun for firearm qualification, while ICE provides 100 rounds per quarter per handgun for firearm qualification.”

In fiscal year 2013, 900 rounds were bought per agent or officer at DHS and 1,200 rounds were bought per agent or officer at DOJ.

DHS Contracted To Purchase 704 Million Rounds of Ammo Over Next 4 Years: 2,500 Rounds Per OfficerDepartment of Homeland Security logo. (DHS)

“According to CBP [U.S. Customs and Border Protection] data, new Border Patrol agents each use approximately 3,300 rounds during training and qualification, compared with experienced officers who might use about 600 rounds,” reads the report. “DHS components provided data on the amount of ammunition typically used by a new law enforcement hire, which ranged from 2,000 to 5,000 rounds.”

“At both DHS and DOJ, federal law enforcement agents and officers are authorized to carry firearms, and are required to train in their use and pass certain firearms qualification standards,” reads the report.  “Firearms proficiency is a key component of an officer’s ability to successfully fulfill the component’s mission and protect life and public safety.”

The report continues, “To help ensure the firearms proficiency of their firearm-carrying workforce, these agencies purchase a variety of types of ammunition for training, qualifications, and operational purposes.”

– See more at:


February 17, 2014 § Leave a comment

Divorce Industry “Honest Services Fraud”: Kickbacks, Referrals, Bribery, and Extortion. California Coalition’s Expanded Racketeering Complaint Details the Crimes


Last week California Coalition for Families and Children filed its

P1 89 - CCFC FAC v 7 FINAL signed

Amended Racketeering and Civil Rights complaint in federal court, adding City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Assistant City Attorney Emily GarsonJudge Michael Groch, San Diego Superior Court Counsel Kristine Nesthus, and adding charges for obstruction of justice against a group of Superior Court judges led by the San Diego County Bar Association and its insurer, Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, in thwarting California Coalitions’ Complaint in this action.  It alleges numerous felonies under state and federal law, including extortion, bribery, fraud, false arrest, and civil rights crimes under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 241, 371—which are federal felonies by themselves.

The complaint also expanded on the details of the “honest services fraud” schemes operated by divorce lawyers.  These schemes, which involve illegal kickback and behind the scenes dealing between attorneys, service providers, psychologists, and judges, are illegal under the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. § 1346.

“Many people think that fraud is a one-on-one transaction, such as when a consumer purchases counterfeit goods.  But under federal law, fraud is defined much more broadly, to include any transaction in which the seller is somehow benefited from providing dishonest services.”  Says Colbern Stuart, President of California Coalition.

Honest Services Fraud under Federal Law

“Honest Services Fraud” includes transactions in which a seller is receiving a behind-the-scene “kickback”, or compensation of any kind for a referral that wrongfully influences the referrer.

If Company A sells you goods or services, then refers you to company B, you expect that referral to be unbiased—in essence Company A is representing to you that they’re recommending company B solely because Company B is a good company.  However, if Company B is paying Company A for the referral, or offering something else of value–a “kickback”—as happens very often today—Company A must disclose that relationship to you as the buyer.  If they don’t, they’ve committed fraud, and if you’re harmed by Company B, company A may be liable to you.

“These referral networks are vast and well-entrenched in the divorce industry.” Says Stuart.  Because the industry is a ‘closed society’, competition by outsiders is artificially limited by referrals from lawyers to preferred accountants, to psychologists, to mediators.  ”The network is as vast as the divorce litigant’s bank account.”  “Litigants usually don’t realize the services they’re being sold are entirely unnecessary or outright fraudulent until it’s too late.  They come to a divorce lawyer angry at a spouse, greedy, or frightened—whatever blinding emotion at hand.”  Says Stuart.  For such litigants, the divorce lawyer remedy may be more deadly than the disease.  “Divorce lawyers know litigants are vulnerable, but rather than save them, they walk them into the trap.  It’s outrageous and its plainly fraud, but it happens every day.” Says Stuart.

California Coalition’s First Amended Complaint sets forth the Domestic Dispute Industry Honest Services Fraud in its Racketeering Counts.  “You may recognize this pattern of referrals and “you scratch my back” cooperation—sometimes even between the adverse attorneys working to disadvantage their clients.  If you do, you may have a racketeering claim against your attorney, your ex-spouse’s attorney, and maybe even your ex.” Says Stuart.  “We suggest that divorce litigants check to see if these types of scenarios are happening to them-is your divorce lawyer telling you things like “that’s how it’s done” in divorce court, or “there’s nothing you can do?”  Is he or she telling you the Constitution doesn’t apply?” Is she suggesting you go to a paid service provider for something you can get in court for free?  If so, you’re in danger of being defrauded, and once you’re in it, there’s no easy way out.” Says Stuart.

“Black Hat” Operatives in the Domestic Dispute Industry Criminal Enterprise

On the other end many divorce lawyers promote themselves as ‘black hat’ operatives—those who can use the dysfunction to your advantage.  “These are the bad guys we’re in process of exterminating.” Says Stuart.  Hiring an attorney to sue for revenge or out

Bierer Big


of any emotion including fear is extremely dangerous.  ”Backfire is common and always harmful, even deadly.  Sadly, attorneys simply won’t stop you from hurting yourself, and you won’t know that you’re doing so until it’s too late.”  Say Stuart.  “We’re going to balance that equation out. As we move forward anyone, who has signed up a client to use illegal tactics that fall into our gun-sights, that lawyer just signed his own death warrant.” Says Stuart.

“Courts, institutions, and prosecutors have tolerated this illegal behavior for far too long.  RICO empowers victims of fraud to fend for themselves, and offers enhanced damages of three times actual loss, plus costs and attorneys fees.  We put those extraordinarily powerful statutes to work against bad lawyers and evil clients.”  Says Stuart.

“These are crimes. These people belong in prison.  The U.S. Attorney for this District Laura Duffy won’t do her job to enforce the criminal law.  The District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis won’t do her job to enforce the criminal law. In my opinion, they probably belong in prison for tolerating such widespread and outrageous behavior damaging kids and families, but that’s not my business.  They won’t put the industry under, we will.  And with RICO’s injunctive remedies, we can. If we can recover some hardship money for parents and kids who’ve been injured along the way, even better. ”  Says Stuart.

If your attorney is recommending to do things you know are illegal—such as lie under oath, fabricate evidence, or exaggeration, you may be committing racketeering by cooperating.  “We have a client whose lawyer advised ‘if you don’t do it to them, they’ll do it to you.’  That sadly is not uncommon, and the likelihood often begins the cycle that leads to a “messy divorce” and personal destruction.  Nobody on the inside has the spine to stop it.  We do.”  Say Stuart. “We’re establishing precedents that enable clients who’ve been duped by their own attorneys or their spouse’s attorneys to fire back—with thermonuclear weaponry of federal law racketeering mail fraud, extortion, bribery, and honest services fraud charges.  With the precedents established, other litigants can follow our path and use them to combat fraud in other jurisdictions.  We hope the herculean efforts we’re undertaking in San Diego will benefit parents and divorce industry litigants nationwide.”  Says Stuart.

California Coalition’s complaint details how the industry is entrenched, with government lawyers, prosecutors, and judges squarely in the divorce industry’s pocket.  “We don’t expect to see real change industry-wide until heads roll.  But that’s the kind of battle we enjoy most.  We’re blessed to have capable minds, eager hands, and some extremely powerful federal law at our disposal.”

 From California Coalition’s Amended Complaint:

18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), (d)
Honest Services Fraud
18 U.S.C. § 1346
Against All RICO Defendants

1031. This is a Count asserting numerous Claims for relief under RICO section 1962 (c) and (d), based upon predicate crimes actionable under 18 U.S.C. § 1346 for Honest Services Fraud, against defendants as identified per Claim in this Count.

1032. All prior paragraphs are re-alleged and incorporated as if set forth in full.

General Allegations to Racketeering Count 2

1033. Defendants engaged in one or more SAD by and in conjunction with the ENTERPRISES to deprive Plaintiffs of the intangible right of honest services.

1034. On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, support and promote one another in perpetrating each SAD actionable fraud, bribery and/or kickbacks, wherein a quid pro quo (monetary, preferential referral, business referral, and/or some other form of benefit) is provided to or from each RICO defendant, and including such benefits to or from persons unknown to Plaintiffs, to assure that Plaintiffs in their PUBLIC BENEFIT ACTIVITIES would be effectively punished, silenced, discredited, and rendered ineffective as an effectively competing alternative vehicle offering reasonable and realistic forms of professional quality services to counsel and advise individual parents and guardians addressing family law, child custody, and domestic relations issues.

1035. In the case of DOYNE and BLANCHET, these quid-pro-quo exchanges are backed up with use of one or another SAD, such as “that’s just how it is” or extortion such as “if you ever want to see your son again ….” which are enabled by the abuse of process tools of The Pit and DDIJO abstention/enforcement of illegal DVILS ORDERS.  In STUART’S case, additional muscle was provided by SDCBA’S security guards, and ultimately the familial relationships between STUART ASSAULT COORDINATORS and CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS.

1036. The    fraudulent quid-pro-quo ignores ethical PROFESSIONAL DUTIES of loyalty and zealous advocacy among putative opponent lawyers, and judicial officials who disregard their ethical duties enforce law.  In doing so, Defendants effectively re-define their opponents to be their own clients, take those who should be their opponents as collaborators, and pursue the collaborators’ joint interests above their clients’.

1037. DDICE operatives do so by collaborating with opposing counsel and state interests under color of law to extort, defraud, and abuse their own clients, whom they refer to as “Litigants Behaving Badly” in a grotesque and reprehensible criminal enterprise conducted with full knowledge, consent, and contribution from public and private servants alike.

1038. Such conduct constitutes the deprivation of the intangible personal property right to receive ‘honest-services’ for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  §§ 1341, 1343, and 1346.

1039. As an actual and proximate result, Plaintiffs have been damaged or injured in a nature and amount to be proven at trial.

The “Honest Services Fraud Scheme” of Sharon Blanchet, Ashworth Blanchet Christenson & Kalemkiarian, Jeff Fritz of Basie and Fritz, and Dr. Stephen Doyne

The kickback and extortion scheme between Sharon Blanchet, Ashworth Blanchet Christenson & Kalemkiarian, Jeff Fritz of Basie and Fritz, and Dr. Stephen Doyne is described elsewhere in the complaint:

42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, § 26

808.   This is a Count alleging breach of contract, fraud, extortion, bribery and abuse of process centered on the actions of Defendants DOYNE (DOYNE TERRORISM) acting under color of law, and related deprivations of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal. Const. art. I, § 26 against DOYNE, DOYNE, INC., BLANCHET, ABC&K, WOHLFEIL, and SCHALL (DOYNE TERRORISM Defendants).

Common Allegations

809.   On or about April 10, 2008, Defendant WOHFEIL recommended and offered to oversee Defendant DOYNE to “mediate” custody issues in the Stuart Dissolution.

810.   Concurrent with WOHLFEIL’S recommendation, BLANCHET also made representations and warranties regarding DOYNE and DOYNE INC. as set forth in Exhibit 14 and incorporated herein by reference.

811.   Collectively, WOLFEIL and BLANCHET’S recommendations and referral communicated to STUART that DOYNE and DOYNE INC. DOYNE INC. was a trustworthy, competent mediator.

812.   Based upon WOHLFEIL’S recommendation and agreement to oversee, and BLANCHET’S representations and warranties, STUART contacted DOYNE INC.

813.   Between about April, 2008 and September 12, 2008, STUART and DOYNE, INC. conducted oral negotiations, entered agreements, and executed a written contract (STUART- DOYNE CONTRACTS).

814.   During these negotiations and agreements, DOYNE and DOYNE, INC. made representations, promises, and warranties to STUART as follows:

A. That DOYNE was only authorized and would only act to “mediate”, and could not perform a custody evaluation, therapy, “forensic investigation” “analysis” or “evaluation” or act as a witness in court;

B. That DOYNE would not permit ex parte contact, and would take no action or recommendation except as authorized by the court or the parties;

C. That DOYNE would base his reasoning and actions on actual evidence and law;

D. That all parties would be afforded notice and opportunity to be heard before DOYNE took any action or made any recommendations regarding the matter;

E. That DOYNE INC. was an alternative to court and governmental intervention, safer, more private, and less expensive than court, but with the same procedural safeguards;

F. That DOYNE would “quickly” work toward 50/50 custody, that it would only take “a few sessions”, and that his fees and expenses would not exceed the initial $5,000 retainer;

G. That the DOYNE INC. mediation process would be completed in “a month or two”;

H. That DOYNE’s contact with the court would be in the form of a written report which both parties would have an opportunity to review, comment on, contest, supplement, and collaborate over before submission to the court;

I. That DOYNE’S had no authority to take actions or make judgments, but only to work toward cooperative solutions;

J. That DOYNE would not recommend any solution that would harm, burden, or obstruct any party, and that he was “honest, fair, and completely competent” to perform mediation services.

815.   These representations were false when made.

816.   As described more fully in Exhibits 22 and 23, DOYNE INC breached the contracts and representations by committing extortion, abuse of process, and by failing to abide by each of the above referenced promises, his PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, including duties of disclosure, loyalty, honesty, and good faith, as well as breaching one or more provision of the written contract.

817.   Specifically:

A. DOYNE extended the mediation for months, insisting on weekly sessions to address issues he had not been authorized to “mediate”;

B. DOYNE was not only unable to resolve even minor issues successfully, he welcomed and encouraged both parties to bring up new issues unrelated to child custody, effectively attempting to insert himself as an arbiter for all disputes—real or imagined—between the parties; and by otherwise extended the mediation to increase his fees;

C. DOYNE refused to investigate STUART’s Claims and evidence that MS. STUART was abusing their son, Croix Stuart, in violation of his professional duties to report child abuse;

D. DOYNE exceeded his authority in filing false and misleading reports with San Diego County child protective services alleging that Plaintiff had “held his son upside down over a balcony” when DOYNE in fact knew and later admitted, that claim was untrue;

E. That San Diego County Child Protective Services had performed an investigation of DOYNE’s allegations against Plaintiff and found DOYNE’s allegation to be false;

F. Because of DOYNE’s false and misleading letters and report to San Diego Child Protective Services, DOYNE caused the removal of Plaintiff’s son Croix Stuart from Plaintiff’s shared custody and awarded sole custody to Petitioner Ms. Stuart;

G. That DOYNE repeatedly ignored or failed to follow up on Plaintiff’s concerns that Croix Stuart was being abused, manipulated, and alienated by Petitioner Ms. Stuart;

H. That DOYNE was forcing Plaintiff to pay for services of DOYNE which Plaintiff objected to, did not request, and were wasteful and unnecessary; and

I. That DOYNE effectively held Stuart’s son hostage, dangling his custody decisions between the couple, increasing adversarial hostilities, strife, and conflict, in order increase his fees in the case;

J. That DOYNE was in fact unauthorized to perform any work on the matter as he was ineligible, unqualified, and had failed to establish his eligibility by appropriate procedure; and

K. Further breaches of each representation elsewhere identified.

DOYNE, DOYNE, INC. Terrorism

818.   In response to these breaches, in February or March 1, 2009, STUART terminated DOYNE’S services.

819.   In addition to complaining to and firing DOYNE, Plaintiff also filed formal complaints with DOYNE’s landlord, Scripps Memorial Hospital, the State of California Board of Psychology, the FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS in the DUE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE and FFRRESA.  On information and belief DOYNE knew of these complaints.

820.   A true and correct copy letters to and concerning DOYNE relating to these allegations are referenced as Exhibits 22-23.

821.   In response to STUART’S objections and reports detailed above, DOYNE INC. retaliated against STUART by committing the following acts against STUART:

A.      Committing perjury in a hearing relating to the STUART’S son, Croix Stuart;

B.      Continuing to file false reports and encourage the (false) investigation of his initial report against STUART;

C.      Continuing to demand STUART pay DOYNE and DONE INC. for services not rendered or fraudulently rendered;

D.      Attempting to intimidate, distress, harm, defraud, extort, and rob Stuart;

E.      Requesting a bribe; and

F.      Participating in the STUART ASSAULT.

DOYNE’S Attempted Bribery and Extortion

822.   In May, 2009, DOYNE telephoned STUART at home requesting that STUART pay DOYNE for services he falsely claimed to have provided.

823.   DOYNE advised STUART that he had sent STUART several invoices which STUART had not paid; STUART had advised DOYNE previously that he would no longer pay DOYNE, INC.’S services or invoices.

824.   DOYNE advised STUART that he “should come current” and that if he did so, DOYNE would “work with you” to “get more time with your son.”

825.   Given DOYNE’S pattern and history of professional incompetence, fraud, breach of contract, deprivation of rights, false CPS report, overbilling, and other CULPABLE conduct as alleged herein, STUART was horrified at what he regarded as predatory behavior and an extortive threat to commit further acts of perjury, abuse of process, and manipulation regarding custody of STUART’s son if STUART did not “come current.”

826.   He was further extremely distressed that DOYNE then maintained a relationship with his Croix Stuart and Lynn Stuart as a therapist, and would inflict further harm or commit further facilitation of Ms. Stuart’s child abuse if STUART did not comply with DOYNE’s demand for a bribe.

827.   STUART refused to pay DOYNE further, but was horrified, traumatized, and severely distressed as a result of DOYNE’S behavior.

828.   Understanding that DOYNE remained as a witness in STUART’S family law matter, and based upon his past history of abuse of process, false testimony, and abuse of process, he could easily retaliate against STUART for any action he took regarding his conduct, STUART was intimidated, terrified, oppressed and under duress, prohibiting him from taking formal action on such conduct, constituting duress, fraud, and undue influence.

829.   STUART was also defrauded by DOYNE and BLANCHET as elsewhere alleged in understanding the nature and extent of the enterprise and conspiratorial relationships between DOYNE, DOYNE, INC. and BLANCHET, CITY ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS, and each STUART ASSAULT COORDINATOR, and their successive duress and undue influence also elsewhere alleged.

830.   As a result of such fraud, duress, undue influence, breach of fiduciary and other PROFESSIONAL DUTIES, STUART has been oppressed, deterred, and unwillingly delayed to initiate this Action until August 20, 2013.

Sharon Blanchet, Ashworth, Blanchet, Kristensen & Kalemkarian, Facing Racketeering Charges, Fraud, ExtortionSHARON BLANCHET-RINGLEADER OF DOYNE, FRITZ, HONEST SERVICES FRAUD

San Diego Divorce Attorneys Conduct the Orchestra

Sadly, the ringleaders of the show are the divorce attorneys—those who have the closest relationship to the clients.  The sad fact is clients in divorce court are often not the sharpest tools in the shed.  Add to that blinding emotion, and you have easy targets for mediocre lawyers to send their kids to Berkley.  ”It’s a reaper’s field for every Aesop’s fable you’ve ever heard.  This is what Sunday School was supposed to prepare you for.  Sadly, most people must not have been listening.”  Say Stuart.

“The solution is easier than most people realize.” Says Stuart. “But for some it’s tough.  It starts with a big dose of humility. We sow the seeds of our own destruction by enabling the deadly sins—avarice, pride, greed, animus—it sounds old fashioned but its even more relevant today.  If you come to divorce court with the intent of getting rich by duping someone, or ruining someone’s life, your evil motives are just as likely to destroy you.”   “Divorce litigants are blind to the costs of the process—they regularly pay thousands of dollars for some “control” victory.  If you’re the aggressor here, you’re the problem, and soon enough your problem will devour you.”  Say Stuart.  ”Once you start with your own fallibility, you can forgive others–including your ex-spouse.  Once you forgive, you clear your head from much of the emotion, and can hopefully make better decisions by avoiding the deadly sins that lead to your demise, and divorce lawyer riches.”

Family Court Judge Dismisses Hundreds of Cases the appearance for dilatory practices to generate more funds Title-IV

January 15, 2014 § Leave a comment

 Hundreds of Cases the appearance for dilatory practices to generate more funds Title-IV and receivership to state then the county corporations.
Family Court Judge Dismisses Hundreds of Cases
Family Court Judge Dismisses Hundreds of Cases

A Harris County Family Court judge dismisses hundreds of cases without notifying attorneys, and critics claim the move has put the custody of children in jeopardy.

Judge Denise Pratt returned our call, but would not go on record.  Instead, Pratt’s attorney Terry Yates claims what his client did was nothing unusual.

“Its a routine that many of the family and civil courts every year, cases that get old or stale are routinely dismissed,” Yates tells KTRH News.

Yates blamed a computer glitch for lawyers not being notified, but says they can simply refile.  He says Judge Pratt is reinstating cases where attorneys were not notified.

That’s not good enough for Houston-area attorney Greg Enos who argues those cases were dismissed on purpose.

“She just dismissed hundreds of cases because she wanted to make her statistics look good at the end of the year,” claims Enos.  “That’s because she has the most backlogged court in Harris County.”

Not only does refiling cost more money, Enos says many of the cases involve the custody of children.

“In some cases, because Judge Pratt thought they were dangerous, she switched custody or limited a parent’s access to a child,” he says.  “When she dismisses a case, those temporary orders go away.”

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with chairwoman of the new DHS advisory panel on children and family issues at Will County Pro-se.