March 8, 2014 § Leave a comment
Nebraska high court again rules father’s consent necessary for adoption
For a second time, the Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that a father who was intentionally misled about the birth of his child can stop the baby’s adoption.
In a ruling Friday, the state’s high court said the consent of the father, listed in court documents as Jeremiah J., is required by state law for the child to be put up for adoption. Further, the high court said the child’s mother, identified as Dakota D., failed to prove Jeremiah met any of the exceptions for consent because she did not show he had abandoned her or the child or that he would be an unfit parent.
Jeremiah learned in June 2011 that Dakota, his ex-girlfriend, was pregnant. Five months later, he was contacted by an adoption agency caseworker who told him he had been identified as the baby’s father and that Dakota planned to put the baby, due Feb. 18, 2012, up for adoption, according to court documents. Jeremiah told the caseworker he did not want that, then tried many times to reach Dakota, but she did not return his calls, records say.
The child was born Feb. 9, but Jeremiah was not told of the birth. He contacted Dakota on Feb. 13, but she did not tell him the baby had been born. Jeremiah also repeatedly called the hospital and caseworker to try to learn of the birth, but they refused to tell him, citing privacy policies. The adoption was put on hold after Jeremiah filed his appeal.
Dakota later testified in court that she did not tell Jeremiah of the child’s birth because she did not want him to know about it during the five days he had to object to the adoption.
A Hall County court ruled in the mother’s favor, saying Jeremiah could have hired an attorney sooner, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed that ruling last year, noting the mother’s deception. The lower court then ruled in Jeremiah’s favor, and Dakota appealed, arguing he is not a fit parent because he has an unstable work history, has used drugs and has a criminal record, among other things.
She also argued that Jeremiah neglected the child after she was born, and did not provide financial support for her or the child.
But the state’s high court rejected those arguments Friday, saying Jeremiah’s criminal record consisted of misdemeanor convictions as a teen. The court also noted that Jeremiah has denied any drug use, and that he has a stable job paying more than $12 an hour.
“And in any event, low income or an unstable job history does not alone establish parental unfitness,” Nebraska Supreme Court Justice Michael McCormack wrote for the court.
The high court also rejected arguments that Jeremiah did not provide financial support.
“Dakota clearly does not want to have Jeremiah in the life of the child, and she chose to not provide Jeremiah with a fair opportunity to offer financial support,” McCormack wrote.
Jeremiah’s attorney, Mark Porto of Grand Island, said the next step will be to file a paternity action in an effort to establish custody and visitation issues.
“He’s thrilled that he’ll be able to be a part of his daughter’s life,” Porto said.
An attorney for Dakota did not immediately return a message left Friday.
Weller children file lawsuit against state DSHS look for scrib link great pleading to educate for future ….
March 8, 2014 § Leave a comment
Weller children file lawsuit against state DSHS
Attorney says agency was told of peril many times before acting
Buy this photoSandra and Jeffrey Weller enter Judge Barbara Johnson’s courtroom for sentencing in Clark County Superior Court March 20, 2013. The Wellers were convicted of imprisoning, starving and beating their adopted twins. Sandra received a sentence of 20 years, and Jeffrey received 21 years. (Steven Lane/The Columbian)
Five children who were abused by their parents in Vancouver have filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the state, alleging that the Department of Social and Health Services failed to adequately respond to dozens of complaints about their welfare over an eight-year period.
Jeffrey and Sandra Weller of Vancouver each were sentenced March 20, 2013, to two decades in prison for imprisoning, starving and beating their adopted twins. A Clark County jury found Sandra Weller guilty of nine separate counts related to the twins’ abuse; Jeffrey Weller was found guilty of 13, related to both the twins’ abuse and assaults against the couple’s biological children.
The children’s Seattle attorney, David Moody, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the children Friday in Clark Superior Court.
One of the children’s teachers alone warned the DSHS a dozen times about possible abuse of the children and urged that they be removed from the Weller home, Moody said.
“He has documents he kept,” Moody said Friday. “He has voice-mail messages. There are a number of educators from the local school district who voiced serious warnings to DSHS over a period of years.”
“Those concerns were ignored every time,” he said.
The lawsuit follows a $54 million tort claim the children filed Dec. 18 with the DSHS. Tort claims give public agencies a 60-day notice of a lawsuit and allows them an opportunity to settle a case before litigation.
In this case, the children received no response, Moody said.
John Wiley, a DSHS spokesman, said the agency often does respond to and resolve tort claims prior to litigation.
“However, this case is complex, involving numerous plaintiffs alleging negligence based on activities that occurred over a number of years. As such, it requires more than the statutory 60 days to analyze and investigate the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim,” Wiley said. “It would not be in the taxpayers’ best interest to quickly make a settlement offer on a $54 million claim without a reasonable and diligent investigation into that claim by the state.”
Wiley said the agency has no other comment on the lawsuit at this time.
“We’ll let the court decide the merits of the case,” he said. “We don’t comment on the merits of the case.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the DSHS failed to obtain Sandra Weller’s Child Protective Services history in California, where she adopted the twins with her ex-husband. There were seven referrals about Sandra Weller’s possibly abusing and neglecting the twins and some other foster children who were in her care between 1998 and 2002, the lawsuit states. At one point, the state of California revoked her foster care license and took the twins into protective custody, according to the lawsuit.
Some of the complaints that Washington caseworkers allegedly ignored included allegations of threats against one of the twins’ lives and withholding food as punishment, according to the lawsuit.
For example, in April 2004, the DSHS received a complaint that Sandra Weller had told the 8-year-old female twin that, “If I had a knife right now, you would be gone,” according to the lawsuit. A month later, the agency received another complaint that the twins were “so stressed they are literally pulling their hair out,” the lawsuit states.
In September 2004, there was a complaint that the Wellers locked food cabinets in the house and locked the children in their room, which had an alarm on the door, the lawsuit says.
DSHS social workers visited the Weller home in October 2004. On Nov. 1, 2004, the social worker concluded that the allegations of negligent treatment or maltreatment were “unfounded,” according to the lawsuit.
The DSHS finally removed the children from the Weller home Oct. 7, 2011, after one of the twins left a note about their abuse at her therapist’s office.
“Please, help,” the twin wrote. “Behind the laundry room door is a big wooden stick covered in blood. They use it on me and (my brother) … If you leave without us, we’ll all ran (sic) away.”
The twins were substantially underweight and malnourished when they were taken into state custody, according to testimony at the Wellers’ trial.
They also testified at trial that Jeffrey Weller, often at the instruction of Sandra, regularly beat them with a 42-inch-long piece of scrap lumber. Police investigators found it stained with blood.
Moody, the children’s attorney, specializes in civil litigation against the DSHS related to the abuse of children or vulnerable adults. He said he won the largest jury verdict award against the DSHS — $17.8 million — in February 2000 in a vulnerable adult abuse case in Pierce County in which he demonstrated that the DSHS was negligent by inadequately investigating abuse allegations.
March 8, 2014 § Leave a comment
Copyright, Child Custody and Cocaine in the County Courts
June 11, 2013 § Leave a comment
Copyright, Child Custody and Cocaine in the County Courts
Once upon a time there was The Steele Law Firm LLC, IL SOS records show it was formed by a 2006 University of Minnesota Law school graduate, John Lawrence Steele Jr. Esq. Billed as a family law firm in 2008 -2011, the Chicago, IL practice, the Steele Law Firm LLC was fighting custody battles and purported pornography pirates. Yes, budding family law attorney, John Steele was devoted to saving children and the tranny porn industry! He started filing suits against 1000′s of John Does, dubbed himself the “pirate slayer” and set out to make cool millions! Despite John Steele having a fine ring to it for a porn name, perhaps the Steele Law Firm wasn’t catchy enough for copyright trolling; seems Steele decided to try on some other names: Media Copyright Group, Steele Hansmeier, Prenda, Anti-Piracy Law Group and the Chicago Family Law Group LLC. Maybe it still wasn’t quite the right fit because in a rather complex web of “stories”, Steele claims to have retired, sold his family law firm to Peter R. Olson of the Peter Olson Law Firm and blogger extraordinaire Solo in Chicago.
Craigslist, where the finest lawyers come to but and sell law firms!
Now, according to a Solo in Chicago blog post by Glenview, IL native and Domestic Relations attorney, Peter R. Olson Esq. – in October 2008 he was checking out Craigslist, looking for God knows what; and he found a law firm for sale. By golly, it just happened to belong to his buddy, John the Pirate Slayer Steele! Despite the fact that Peter Olson had his own law firm and his Des Plaines condo was being foreclosed on and he was being sued by multiple creditors the purchase of a family law firm associated with pornography must have struck him as a solid investment.
No offense to Craigslist! Craigslist is great! Everyone knows that you can get some wonderful and affordable items on Craigslist: intimate encounters, a dorm fridge, slightly used slipcovers, re-homed lawn gnome, law firms – you know, really important stuff! A quick look at the Cook County docket shows that Mr. Steele seems to have dropped all but one or two of his special family clients in the summer / fall of 2011. But who needs clients when you’ve got a *found it on Craigslist* law firm to control! There is still no clarity about who actually owns the Steele Law Firm turned Chicago Family Law Group. Court documents show over a year of changing names, attorney, and firms numbers and stories with no end or truth in sight. Surely, NO ONE has ANY suspicion that they are laundering copyright money through that family law firm. No, doubt the Criminal Investigations Unit of the IRS won’t have any questions about Steele or Olson’s explanation about THAT firm. <cough*cough> Especially after that deposition about not paying any taxes! Nevis? St. Kitts? Offshore accounts? Trusts? Really? Come on guys who owns the CFLG?
So what happens when lawyers go rogue?
Despite Steele’s claims of retirement and the Prenda was solely owned by attorney, Paul A Duffy, Steele seemed to be popping up all over the country at all sorts of court dates. As Steele showed up in court room after court room, some other things seemed to follow. Yes, it was an outcry from many of extortion, lies, belligerent pleadings, threats in the hallway, improper service, questionable rulings in questionable places, and altered states. Claims of identity theft, forgeries, and out and out lies. It seems everyone affiliated with Steele stands accused of being involved with fraud. In time it seems most of the country caught on to the tricks and were no longer going to be fooled by troll games. On May 6th 2013, the Honorable Otis D Wright II issued an order for sanctions against Steele and some his minions in the form of 81k, a referral to the IRS criminal investigations unit and United States Attorney Office and the state and federal bar associations. Further, Judge Wright used words like “moral turpitude” as he described Steele, his minions and their business model. Still Cook County and St. Claire County seemed to be very willing to indulge the same behaviors that other federal court judges felt to be possibly criminal in nature. Oh the men of Prenda fought hard to sue the internet or anyone that dared to speak out about their experiences with Prenda or Steele and they fought to do it in St. Claire County. Gosh, hate much?
Rut-Ro-Raggy! The Feds want to talk to ya!
But it seems that there is a little problem, the Feds are in St. Clair County. Moreover, it seems that a buddy of Steele, James Fogarty was dealing some coke to some judges, Cook and Christ. Christ died of an overdose of cocaine allegedly provided to him by Fogarty. It looks that the drugs and mess don’t begin or end there or with those three people or that court system.
Bloomberg News and fightcopyrighttrolls.com both touched on the Steele – Forgarty connection or at least what they knew about at the time. But is there more to that story? Read the news of the impact that cocaine had in the St. Clair court cases, is it any different in Will County or Cook County?
There were a lot of questionable rulings and the cocaine / dealer connection now explains much of how those rulings came to be in St. Clair Co. but what about the other counties?
Great! We’ve got judges on drugs making rulings for their dealer and Steele is sending dealers to do his dirty work.
How can the average litigant stand a chance of receiving any sort of justice when they are up against attorneys that are allowed to practice despite the overwhelming evidence of their abuse and misuse of the legal process. Seriously, what sort of world do we live in where it’s okay for a lawyer to send a drug dealer to someones home to “serve them” legal papers. Papers which are now really under-fire because a tsunami of evidence has surfaced to show that the “pirate slayer” is really the honeypot pusher. Could it get anymore disgusting?
How can anyone get a shot at justice when the judge is indebted to their dealer; to keep them supplied with cocaine and heroine and to keep their drug problem a secret? It’s an environment where blackmail and extortion flourish and the innocent suffer the worst consequences. St. Clair news has already reported on how rulings were made in favor of the dealer. If you look at Cook County and Will County, is any different? When judges and lawyers get caught up in child porn, trafficking, drugs and dirty money – it’s clear that rulings are made based on vices, not the law.
What about the children in family court? Is this why so many rulings appear to defy both man and God’s law? If it’s not because of a vice, why are so many people crying out with nearly identical stories about their children being sent to live with their abuser? How does the court justify cutting off all contact with the protective parent? Now that the court has embarrassed “Parental Alienation”, how come they always seem to accuse the non-alienating parent of alienation? What is seen frequently is that the alienating parent pretends to be the “friendly parent” and accuses the other parent of PAS. The court then places the child with the REAL PA parent on the grounds that that parent will foster a relationship with the child and the other parent and then the REAL PA parent joins the court in cutting off all contact with the other parent akin to a termination of parental rights. Why isn’t THAT parental alienation? Why are children so frequently turned over to abusers despite the overwhelming evidence? There are cases where the parent is clearly involved in drugs, child pornography, sexual abuse, and other harmful behaviors and the judges punish the parent that offers the court proof. It almost seems like the more evidence the protective parent has, the worse the ruling. The parents with no evidence of abuse and false allegations win. The parents with pictures of the other parent watching child porn on the computer and witnesses of physical abuse lose. Good parents are disposable. Unlike coke and porn, good people and good parents just don’t seem to have much value anymore.
Looking at the fall out in St. Clair, the news lists some rulings that were not made because of the law or the merits of the case, the rulings were made based on vices and personal issues. This has to be eradicated. The very purpose of the legal system is to enforce the law for the betterment of society. When lawyers are allowed to use forged documents, extortion and break the law – justice is denied. Evil prevails. When judges are beholden to their dealers, the law becomes useless. The best pleading or the most skilled lawyer won’t help the case, because it’s decided on a drug deal, not the law. We might as just cancel court and send the judges home, because noting good comes of this situation.
It’s great that the FBI is investigating St. Clair, but they need to come take a look at why Judge Pornlito was allowed to sit on the bench in Will County watching porn on the county computer on the tax payer dollars while making decisions about the futures of children and families. They need to look at why the Cook County Judge(s) in the Lucy Vega case doesn’t want to see the evidence of the father allegedly watching child porn. They need to look at why so many complaints about Due Process and abusive and erratic behavior are posted on the Robing Room about Judge Raul Vega in room 3001 at the Daley Center. They need to look at why Child Representative Jerry S. Goldberg used someone with a history of domestic violence to provide “professional supervision” between alleged abusers and their children. How about the DOJ coming in to take a look at the blatant ADA violations?
It wouldn’t take a big fancy sting. It just takes sitting in a few court rooms for a few days and taking a look at the records. (The complete record)
A check on the ARDC web site shows that John Steele, Peter Olson, and Paul Duffy are still free to practice law today. The judges of Will and Cook County go unchecked.
WHERE ARE THE CHARGES?
We need more Judge Wright’s – to judge right. We need eyes on the court and people to speak out about it and not shut up until the problems are fixed. We need the FBI to look at the similarities in judgments in Will, Cook and St. Clair Co. – maybe that won’t be the only similarity they find. The common threads might be right in front of their eyes. Really, right in front of your eyes.
Thank you for visiting today’s blog posting Willcountyprose @ https://willcountyprose.wordpress.com/
Be sure to come back and read the extra special mid week blog post.
Special thanks to the good guys – doing good work. I like your suit. You do this country proud.
Thanks to the judges and attorneys that are doing a stellar job. Your services are deeply appreciated.
Justice will out!
Read more about Judge Otis D. Wright II and his outstanding command of the law and justice:
Read more about Lucy Vega’s battle to save her son:
Read more about Prenda and his purported porn piracy shakedown:
Read more about the man child rep, Jerry Goldberg used to provide professional supervision between parents and children:
Read more about the rulings St. Clair Co, IL judges made in favor of their drug dealer:
Read more about the suspected collusion between Prenda attorneys and opposing counsel in Cook co and St. Clair co.:
*Be sure to read the “Agreed Orders” linked in the FCT web site. Look familiar?
Read more about what happened to The Steele Law Firm LLC and Chicago Family Law Group LLC:
Read more about how “SJD” (Sophisticated Jane Doe) and Die Troll Die successfully kicked off a movement to fight back against abuse of the legal process:
View the interactive timeline, map and cartoons of the evolution of IMHO fraud:
The timeline has some links to some documents that you might not have expected. Over 360 & growing!
Tagged: Anti-Piracy Law Group, Arcadia Security, CFAA, child custody, child rep, child support, Copyright, Copyright Troll, corruption in family court,dhs, family court, family court corruption, FBI, gal, John Steele, JUDGE POLITO, judges, Judicial Hellhole, Kevin Hoerner, Michael O’Malley, non-custodial parent, obtaining evidence, order of protection, parental Alienating Behavior, Paul Duffy, Paul Hansmeier, PORN JUDGE, PORNLITO, Prenda Law,St.Clair county, Steve Jones, Steve Lightspeed, Title IV-D, vawa, visitation intruption
Leave a Reply
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, 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.
KIDS FOR CASH OR ASYLUM RULES?
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.
Welcome to CROOK COUNTY ILLINOIS? We have plenty (THE APPEARANCE) of non help from IARDC AND THE JIB FORM THE MADIGITES
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
- San Diego Judicial Election 2014: The Research Library from Carpe Dicta
In the coming June 3, 2014 San Diego County judicial elections voters seeking to do their own thinking have choices—but often little information. Judges by nature operate in closeted forums—a courtroom is public, but unlike politicians, the public and media have limited time or inclination to follow and record a judge’s every move. But judges […]The post S […]
- California Coalition for Families and Children Delivers Letters to U.S. Representatives Requesting Assistance in Combating Family Court Fraud and Abuse
January 31, 2014—San Diego, CA—Today California Coalition for Families and Children delivered letters to United States representatives requesting assistance in the investigation and arrest of San Diego Divorce Industry professionals accused of illegally defrauding California Families. The letters delivered to Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Cong […]
- California Coalition Demands Arrest of Family Court Judges; Notifies FBI Special Agent in Charge, Daphne Hearn of Ongoing Family Court Racketeering
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 Ca […]
- Email Contacts for Your United States Representatives
You can support California Coalition for Families and Children’s reform by sending a message to the United States representatives who represent your district and our state. Your voice in support of our reform efforts validates that our concerns are not merely random misbehavior of an errant judge or crooked law firm, but a systemic infestation […]The post E […]
- 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 Amended Racketeering and Civil Rights complaint in federal court, adding City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson, Judge Michael Groch, San Diego Superior Court Counsel Kristine Nesthus, and adding charges for obstruction of justice against a group of Superior Court j […]
- Federal Court in Ciavarella “Kids For Cash” Case Issues Groundbreaking Ruling: State Court Judge’s Acts Not Immune from Civil Conspiracy Causing Constitutional Violations
January 13, 2014–A Federal District Court Judge in Pennsylvania ruled last Friday that “Kids for Cash” Pennsylvania State Juvenile Court Judge Mark Ciavarella’s actions in causing juveniles to be sentenced under a “zero tolerance” policy to further a civil conspiracy are not protected by judicial immunity. United States District Judge A. Richard Caputo on T […]
- DivorceCorp Premier Exhibits Talented Documentary Filmmaking and Social Insight as Moving Entertainment
Major Kudos to Director Joe Sorge and Producers Philip Sternberg and James Scurlock, and the rest of the talented DivorceCorp team for an outstanding premier of DivorceCorp last night. The film tackles an immensely complicated social pestilence, woven by strands of intensely-personal human drama, with what seems like ease. The film poignantly captures the in […]
- Family Court Racketeering Suit Expands to Name San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith for Use of City Prosecutors to Protect Local Divorce Industry Abuse
January 9, 2014—San Diego, CA—Today California Coalition for Families and Children expands their Racketeering lawsuit in federal court to detail San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith’s use of City Attorney’s Office resources to prosecute critics of the divorce industry. The federal complaint details Goldsmith’s and Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson’s mi […]
- Federal District Court Denies San Diego Superior Court Judges’ Request for $10,000 Sanctions Against Parents; Grants Leave to Amend Complaint
December 26, 2013—SAN DIEGO CA—Tuesday United States District Court Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo granted and denied motions in the racketeering lawsuit brought by families against San Diego Superior Court judges and the California Commission on Judicial Performance. The District Court’s ruling denied the Family Court judges’ request to sanction parents for f […]
- Emily Garson, Kristine Nesthus, San Diego Superior Court Counsel Facing Sanctions in Racketeering Case Against San Diego Superior Court Judges
Emily Garson, Kristine Nesthus facing sanctions for Perjury, Obstruction of Justice in Racketeering Lawsuit In CCFC’s Motion to Strike portions of the San Diego Superior Court’s Motion to Dismiss, CCFC identifies criminal activity of San Diego Court Counsel Ms. Kritine P. Nesthus, and Assistant City Attorney Ms. Emily Garson. CCFC requests to strike the decl […]
Last week California Coalition for Families and Children filed its
Amended Racketeering and Civil Rights complaint in federal court, adding City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, Assistant City Attorney Emily Garson, Judge 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
MARILYN BIERER, “BLACK HAT” DOMESTIC DISPUTE INDUSTRY OPERATIVE
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.”
RACKETEERING COUNT 2
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
Against DOYNE, DOYNE, INC., BLANCHET, ABC&K,
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).
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.
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.
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.”
Federal lawsuit adds to allegations of excessive force by family court marshals and the appearance of judges as well
October 28, 2013 § Leave a comment
Federal lawsuit adds to allegations of excessive force by family court marshals
By Martha Neil
Oct 24, 2013, 12:40 pm CDT
A federal lawsuit alleging that Nevada family court marshals threw a man headfirst onto the concrete floor of the Las Vegas courthouse for no good reason is the latest development in an ongoing saga of allegations of excessive force and improper conduct at the court.
A poor-quality video of the February 2012 incident appears to offer some support for the claims made in the suit by plaintiff Peter Peterson, 42, who said he had been put in restraints prior to being thrown to the floor, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
Marshals said in an incident report that Peterson was confrontational and tried to incite bystanders, but a witness complained in a 911 call that the marshals harassed Peterson and slammed him into the floor, the newspaper recounts.
The suit comes in the midst of a federal grand jury investigation of allegations of excessive force and improper conduct by family court marshals, and the FBI has sought records of internal investigations at the court, which is a division of Clark County District Court, the article says. The newspaper relies on unidentified sources for information about the ongoing probe.
Peterson contends in the suit that he was attacked after he complained about security procedures and alleges that a long-standing policy of ignoring and minimizing excessive force incidents have resulted in marshals feeling “empowered to harm citizens, knowing that there will be no punishment after the fact.”
A subsequent Las Vegas Review-Journal article says the FBI is interviewing both current and former court employees about both allegations of excessive force by the marshals and claims of a cover-up when complaints were made.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal has also editorialized about the allegations, saying that changes are needed now to ensure citizen safety in the courts.
Spokeswoman Mary Ann Price said court officials are cooperating with the FBI. “Court administration had advised the FBI of investigative files that upon subpoena would be provided,” she told the newspaper.
Another federal lawsuit was filed earlier this year over alleged groping by a family court marshal, and a judge at the family court is facing a legal ethics case over claimed conduct unrelated to the excessive force allegations.
ABAJournal.com: “Vegas Judge, 5 Others Federally Indicted re Claimed $3M Fraud Scheme”
ABAJournal.com: “Ex-prosecutor won’t be disciplined for relationship with judge”
Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Victim of Family Court groping incident files federal lawsuit”
Las Vegas Review-Journal: “Family Court judge argues disciplinary case against him shouldn’t continue”
Illinois 98 th General assembly – family Law reform bills and helpful links and support suggestions!
July 23, 2013 § Leave a comment
Illinois 98th General Assembly – Family Law Reform Bills (with comments and hyperlinks)
As of July 2, 2013
VICTORIES FOR THE 98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
HB2992 (Josh Harms – R106) – SUPPORT (SITTING ON GOVERNOR’S DESK SINCE JUNE 19, 2013)
The court may consider placing a Right Of First Refusal clause in a parenting order stating that before a parent places the child with a babysitter, the parent must offer the child to the other parent first. We had to negotiate away lots of strengths of the original Bill to keep it alive after we had strong bipartisan support. I blame the Illinois State Bar Association for trying to sabotage this one the evening before Committee.
HR113 (Jil Tracy – R94) SUPPORT (SIGNED)
This resolution named April as “Stop Parental Alienation” Awareness Month just as we did last year. I know it is late; but it is still important for marketing purposes.
STILL REQUIRING WORK (NAGGING LEGISLATORS) TO BE REINTRODUCED
HB3287 (Dan Brady – R105) – SUPPORT (PAST DEADLINE. SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE. WITH DSM-5, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE WORDS “CHILD PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE” AND OVERCOME DCFS’S OBJECTIONS.)
Guardian Ad Litem training to include Parental Alienation. It would be very nice to get the words “parental alienation” in a statute. It would be nice if this would include Child Representatives.
HB1018 (Michael Zalewski – D25) – SUPPORT – (PAST DEADLINE. SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE. THE BIGGEST OBJECTION IS ISBA’S “JUDGES CAN ALREADY DO THIS.” WE HAVE A FEW MOTIONS ASKING FOR IT AND JUDGES DENYING IT. I NEED THOSE DENIALS SO THAT WE CAN SHOW THAT THE ISBA IS FULL OF CRAP – AS USUAL.)
Integrated Family Therapy
Hopefully, a cooperative atmosphere focused on solutions, as opposed to the court, an adversarial atmosphere focused on winning.
HB2330 (La Shawn Ford – D8) – SUPPORT (Numerous amendments. Did not have votes in house. Must find out objections and renew.)
Child support is suspended while in jail. Thanks to HFS, there are a bunch of amendments that seriously weaken the Bill. But I do like that HFS is supposed to assist the non-custodial parent with modifications. Do not expect HFS to ever assist Non-custodial parents. Presently, they are supposed to; and they don’t.
HB1019 (Michael Zalewski – D23) – SUPPORT (Past deadline. Sent back to committee. Must overcome any objections.)
Finally, making knowingly false allegations (during a custody or visitation proceeding) with the intent to influence the court’s decision has remedies: fees and costs; on the second finding, the court may deny visitation/custody. This is compromise and outgrowth on 97th GA Bills: HB4460 (DeLuca – D80), HB4461 (DeLuca – D80), HB3045 (Jakobsson – D103).
HB3076 (Monique Davis – D27) – SUPPORT (Past deadline. Sent back to committee. We need to attack hfs.)
While in jail or unemployed, child support stops. HFS is against this because they believe that unemployed people are really working and hiding tons of money. My comments, Pam Lowry and her thugs at HFS are men and non-custodial parent haters. They will say and do whatever it takes to keep the Title IV-D money rolling in to bank-role their existence.
HB0011 (Mary Flowers – D31) – SUPPORT (Passed house, ran out of time in senate, lots of amendments. We can push this one.)
Unemployed individuals cannot be thrown in jail for non-payment of child support. You say, “a no brainer;” well, a review of court orders show that many judges lack basic math logic. The obligor will still have to get a modification of child support so that arrearages with interest do not go through the roof.
HB0128 (Monique Davis – D27) – SUPPORT (PAST DEADLINE. SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE. HFS HATES THIS ONE. IT WOULD BE VERY NICE TO GET RID OF DRIVER’S LICENSE SUSPENSION. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST ABUSED POWER OF HFS – SUSPENDING LICENSES FOR NON-PAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT. 25,000 PER YEAR. NO REAL HEARING. NO REAL DUE PROCESS.)
Driver’s license suspension – no more.
The Watkins Act placed visitation interference on the same plain as non-payment of child support. Both allow for suspension of driver’s license. Most view suspension of licenses as unnecessarily punitive and counter-productive.
HB1452 (Kelly Burke – D36) – SUPPORT – (PAST DEADLINE. SENT BACK TO COMMITTEE. EXPECT LOTS OF BATTLES ON THIS. PERSONALLY, I THINK WE SHOULD MOUNT A CAMPAIGN ASKING FOR 45% PARENTING TIME. IF BOTH PARENTS ARE “FIT” WHY ARE WE LIMITING ONE TO 35%. AND IF WE START AT 35%, YOU CAN SURE BET THAT WE WILL END UP LOWER AT 25% OR SO.)
This is the new Dissolution of Marriage Act – a MAJOR change
-Minimum of 35% parenting time
-Parenting Plans that allocates decision making – split decision making.
-“Relocation” is 25 miles in or out of state. No more 300 miles in state without permission; but okay to move across the border if close to the border..
-Exchanges “custody” for “parental responsibility,” and “visitation” for “parenting time.”
HB1243 (Kelly Burke – D36) – SUPPORT (Past deadline. Lots of amendments. Sent back to committee.)
The new Parentage Act. MAJOR change. With 43% of all births to unmarried couples, and with all the science for artificial insemination and such, this Bill brings Illinois into the 21st century scientifically and culturally.
-Artificial insemination and other science.
SB1169 (Pat McGuire –D43) – NOT SUPPORT (Passed. Sitting on governor’s desk.)
I do not understand this one. It removes the child support termination date, such as a child’s 18th birthdate, from the child support order. That means that an obligor has to run to court on a child’s 18th birthday: more money for lawyers, and “gifts” for obligee for every day past the 18th birthday.
SB1444 (Mattie Hunter – D3) – SUPPORT (Past deadline. Sent back to committee.)
Agreements must be in writing and signed by both parties. We have seen too many “agreements” where one party claims an agreement and the other says “WTF you talking about.” Now, both sign, or no “agreement.”
SB0048 (Iris Martinez – D20) –SUPPORT (Passed. Sitting on governor’s desk.)
Repeals the Unified Child Support Services Act. Hell if I know what this will mean. I was told that HFS Director, Julie Hamos, requested this Bill, stating that no one uses it. I have my speculations on how this will affect us, but I am admittedly confused, as is many others. I see good and bad for repealing this Act.
HB1041 (Michael Tryon – R66) – SUPPORT (Tabled after 3rd reading)
Right now, if you pay child support through your employer, your employer can charge you $5 per month for processing the paperwork. This Bill does away with that $5 per month processing fee. (But the fee for State Disbursement Unit (to screw up the paperwork) is still in place.)
HB1215 (John Cavaletto – R107) –SUPPORT (Past deadline. Sent back to committee.)
This is interesting. If a parent violates a custody/visitation agreement, the court can fine the parent $50. That money goes into a grandparents’ legal assistance fund. If done right, this Bill may make constitutional muster.
HB1004 (Robert Pritchard – R70) – SUPPORT (Past deadline. Sent back to committee.)
-During divorce, a request can be made for a child’s passport to be held – hinders international kidnapping.
HB2473 (Reboletti – R45) – NOT SUPPORT (Passed. Sitting on governor’s desk.)
This is another one of those Bills that supports the notion of “the Constitution does not apply to family law.” The protections afforded when issuing and executing a body attachment do not apply to child support. Under HB2473, child support is the only exception listed under the Code of Civil Procedure. (Notice how family law is always an “exception” to the rest of the law.) The normal protections are (1) Personal service and opportunity to appear in court; (2) Notice of contempt order; (3) Expiration date of 1 year; (4) Bond of no more than $1000; and (5) Return of the Bond. People had more rights under the communists and the Nazis.
While our friends who are fighting to fix the draconian punishments we see in the child support world (Monique Davis, La Shawn Ford, and Mary Flowers) and argued vigorously against it, they voted for it because of promises that it would not be misused. (We all know that HFS and the ASA will misuse it – non-custodial parents are viewed as scum by these people). Monique Davis did file a Motion To Reconsider Vote. Please call her (217-782-0010) and ask that she push her Motion to Reconsider Vote.