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.





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.”

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

February 16, 2014 § Leave a comment

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


P1 CCFC Letter to Daphne Hearn

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appearance we will give these scumbags more money that families don’t have ?

January 30, 2014 § Leave a comment


Task force considers whether guardians ad litem are helpful in custody disputes, given the costs

By Stephanie Francis Ward

Jan 29, 2014, 03:49 pm CST

A Connecticut task force on custody disputes is considering whether appointing guardians ad litem to represent children is in families’ best interests, considering the costs involved.

Peter Szymonik, a single father, told the task force that he paid two guardians ad litem more than $20,000 in his divorce, the Hartford Courant reports. He supports tracking payments to guardians ad litem

Comprised of politicians, lawyers with child custody experience as well as attorneys who serve as guardians ad litem, the task force is also studying whether state judges comply with a statute that requires they consider children’s best interest in custody cases.

“We’re here to look for solutions and see if we can improve the system that everybody is complaining about,” said state Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, who is also a task force member.

Another issue being considered is whether Connecticut should adopt a presumption that shared custody is in a child’s best interest. While some testified that children need two parents, others expressed concern about shared custody in relationships with domestic violence histories.

Recommendations from the task force are slated to go the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee by Feb. 1.



January 20, 2014 § Leave a comment


January 17, 2014 By 
  • 77
  • 315
  • 3


A colleague of mine, Anne Stevenson, recently testified before the Connecticut legislature on behalf of good parents and ethical court employees who feared retribution if they spoke up themselves against the corruption, fraud and shady deals in Connecticut’s family court system.


The content of her testimony is critically important, and not widely understood, so I agreed to post it here to provide folks with a better understanding of how the “divorce industry” in Connecticut is ruining families financially, and subjecting children to dangerous custody arrangements.


Her proposed changes for reform, set forth below, were provided to the Connecticut legislature but are applicable to other states as well because the problems in Connecticut are systemic in American family courts.




(1) Court appointments for mental health services should be made with due preference given to providers who accept the parent’s insurance. Parents are too often ordered to obtain mental health services from providers who do not accept their insurance. This forces parents to pay out of pocket, leaving many literally bankrupt.


Some of the cases involve insurance fraud and the deliberate misdiagnosis of parents as having mental illnesses when they are perfectly healthy, and prescribing medicine and treatments the patient does not need.


(2) GALs and court personnel should have to submit statements of financial interest, just like the ones judge’s must fill out every year. These statements should be provided to the litigants prior to a GAL’s appointment or assignment to a case, and published on the Judicial Branch’s website (alongside the Judge’s statements of financial interest). This way, parents and professionals alike can avert conflicts of interest before they have a chance to affect the integrity of a case.


(3) Courts should track the number of assignments each family court industry professional (GAL, expert, visitation supervisors, etc.) receives, and make that information available to the public on the Judicial Branch’s website. GAL caseloads are not accurately reported or tracked according to the attorney’s vendor number, as required by law.  Moreover, appointments of GALs and other professionals are not trackable in the current system. All vendors appointed and assigned to cases need to be assigned vendor numbers and tracked the same way attorneys are tracked, and the information must be made available to the public.


(4) Task Force panels should be created to collect data about the problem of industry professionals misusing the system, and appropriate cases should be referred to appropriate professional oversight authorities. Many parents testified in Connecticut that they were victims of fraud. They had their life savings, their children, their personal safety, their employment destroyed due to unethical professionals assigned to their case who created problems they could then profitably “solve” in what sounded like false billing scams and extortion.  Parents also testified that despite having filed formal complaints against the various professionals to oversight boards, their complaints were thrown out without any meaningful investigation.  The names of court-appointed “favorites” came up over and over again. A task force in every state should be created to obtain statistics on how many complaints are filed against court “favorites” and whether oversight authorities like professional mental health licensing boards, Judicial Review Commissions and Board of Bar Overseers are effectively responding to the complaints.


(5) The Judicial Branch should get out of the GAL training business. Many GALs are “certified” using the Judicial Branch’s FREE AFCC training program.  States should not be spending tax dollars training private attorneys and psychologists to be “certified” as GALs who are then effectively “supervised” by the Judicial Branch. In Connecticut, such certification practices have led to harmful results in part because there is no “decertification” process to prevent substandard actions that hurt families.  While judges have authority to sanction GALs, no GAL has ever been sanctioned for misconduct in Connecticut despite countless reports of misconduct and poor decision-making


Training and oversight of GALs (and supervised visitation professionals) should be removed from the authority of the Judicial Branch.


(6) GALs and Supervised Visitation professionals need formal training with accreditation from public health and education agencies.  GALs and supervised visitation professionals oversee vulnerable families, many of which include victims of violent crimes. In Connecticut, you cannot represent children as an attorney unless you complete 20+ years of formal education, plus various exams and accreditation reviews. In fact, you cannot run a daycare center without passing various exams and receiving accreditation from agencies such as the Department of Public Health, which then provides oversight and continuing education, etc.


But when victims of violent crimes and abuse come to family court, there are no standards whatsoever to ensure that the professionals making decisions about children are similarly experienced and capable of acting in children’s best interests.


Dangerous criminals are allowed to serve as visitation supervisors and even GALs and judges have authority to appoint them to positions where their actions and decisions threaten the well-being of children.


There is no accreditation, no security for children and no place to file a complaint when parents get ripped off or the untrained professional provides false or misleading statements to the court, or provides inadequate services.


(7) Courts need to track how often offenders obtain custody when an allegation of violent crime is raised or when a restraining order is in place. There is much dispute about the frequency with which abusers win custody of their victims, but one thing is certain: Courts often place the parental and property rights of offenders seeking control and ownership of victims over the rights of children to be safe.  Decisions often rest on the recommendations of family court industry professionals who earn a lot of money off the endless [sometime inconclusive] assessments and billable hours they purport to spend in the name of “advocacy,” “investigation” and mental health services.


One man in Connecticut was labeled a “jealous ex” by family services when he requested information concerning his children’s whereabouts and the identity of individuals who were caring for them. His ex-wife’s new boyfriend was subsequently arrested for brutally murdering his son.,%20Pedro.pdf


Other testimony included a mom who read from police reports which explaining how her ex was arrested for various violent crimes, with multiple weapons, and that police had to taser him to subdue him because he was so rageful.  She showed pictures her ex had taken of her young daughters naked in suggestive poses with naked grown men, which he allegedly posted on a website. Although the man submitted written testimony admitting he had done this, the GAL did not refer the case for prosecution after concluding that the photos were “art.” The GAL then blamed the victims for reporting the matter, and fought to help the offender get custody and overnight visits with his daughters.


Another woman described how when she sought treatment for injuries her son allegedly sustained at his father’s hands during a brutal rape (confirmed later by medical professionals), the judge gave the father sole custody and revoked the mother’s rights even though there was no finding that the other was unfit or that she had abused or neglected her child. After paying out over $1 million in legal expenses, the mom was left without sufficient funds to purchase her parenting time and has not seen her child [who remains with the alleged perpetrator] in nearly 2 years.,%20Sunny.pdf


(8) CSSD should no longer accept grants requiring it to incentivize decision-makers to remove children from a fit parent’s home and place children with identified predators.  Many parents testified about court decisions that arbitrarily revoked their custody rights, only to have the family court industry professionals then effectively “sell” them back their parenting time back in what one man called a “pay per view” racket, where good parents could only visit with their children if they paid for therapy, assessments, court dates, and supervised visitation programs prescribed by the courts.


(9) CSSD should no longer accept grants requiring it to arbitrarily discriminate against parents on the basis of gender or marital status.


Testimony in Connecticut revealed many problematic CSSD programs funded by HHS Access and Visitation, VAWA, and Responsible Fatherhood grants. If you look at the grant applications and MOA for the Fatherhood program, for example, you can see that state officials sign agreements with several other State agencies, INCLUDING THE DEPT OF CORRECTIONS AND DEPT OF PAROLE, to help dangerous offenders obtain custody. In a section of the grant reports from Connecticut labeled “Problem Solving Court,” CSSD is clearly working overtime to help drug addicts, violent offenders, and violent parents with serious mental illnesses get custody of victimized children.


Testimony also detailed the way that assessments and recommendations made by CSSD about parenting plans were often defective, and placed children in profitably dangerous homes without due consideration for their well-being. The stated purpose of these grants is to help good fathers, but the funding incentives create dangerous conditions for kids because the grant money is intended to provide even incarcerated prisoners with “technical assistance” so they can obtain visitation rights, avoid criminal penalties and seek “reunification” therapy with children they are not fit to be around.


The infamous Connecticut murderer Joshua Komisarjevsky was a beneficiary of misguided funding incentives when he obtained sole custody of his daughter despite the fact that he was a drug addict on parole and wore a GPS bracelet to the custody hearing.  His parole records detail the ways the Dept. of Corrections was encouraging him to sue for custody and helping him obtain resources to assist him with his case. The Hartford Courant reported that Komisarjevsky’s case was approved by Family Services as an appropriate candidate for “Conflict Resolution” in family court, (thus allowing the flow of grant monies) as if the guy was no different than a bickering parent.  A few weeks after obtaining custody of his daughter, he murdered the Petit family after raping 11-year-old Michaela.


Another distraught parent testified the judge in his case repeatedly refused to enforce orders to facilitate his parenting time.  The GAL withheld his son’s education records from him, and the court was initially ineffective at protecting his parental rights to see his son’s file.  When he finally received a copy of the records, he learned that an accused prolific pedophile priest naed Richard McGann was on the list of adults approved to pick up his son from school—but he, the father, was not. The man hasn’t seen his son in years.,%20Ron.pdf


A national non-profit that advocates for priest abuse victims, SNAP, discovered McGann’s whereabouts and reported to DPH that the guy was living at a day care center and that the archdiocese had suspended McGann from the priesthood and paid out “a substantial amount” in connection with allegations McGann repeatedly raped and exploited children during his tenure as a priest.


While the Fatherhood grant agreement requires DPH to work on behalf of  “fit” fathers, the system appears to be working more effectively on behalf of predators like McGann, which makes sense given that the grant money can only be justified if offenders and noncustodial parents are able to increase their time with children.


(10) Courts should not be contracting with the AFCC, and State workers who are running it should be fired. State Judicial Branch employees should not be using their offices and taxpayer money to run a private trade association that promotes the family court industry and the “collaborative efforts” of the AFCC professionals who do business in their courtrooms.  Based on the number of complaints about GALs alone, the GAL trainings should not be allowed to use an AFCC curriculum, and the judicial branch should not be allowed to contract with AFCC to set up family court services.


Testimony included shocking stories about judges collaborating with certain attorneys and psychologists and effectively operating a private trade association for family court professionals from their state offices, and funding it with the money allocated by the government to family courts which are supposed to HELP families, not FUND an industry.  The documents filed with the Sec. of State in Connecticut showed that Judicial Branch employees were listed as directors and officers of entities benefitting form the disbursement of these grant monies.


Brave parents in Connecticut testified about their concerns regarding the apparent “collusion” between AFCC leaders and family court professionals.  Many testified that AFCC leaders and members do not disclose their conflict of interest to the families whose cases they influence, and because the AFCC leaders are State employees promoting the private industry complained of, this creates a disincentive to discipline any AFCC members or to even acknowledge there is a problem. They do not tell litigants, for example, that they are in business together.  Who could possibly hope to have a judge hold AFCC accountable for a conflict of interest when the courts directly benefit from the conflict?


In addition to testimony about the AFCC’s involvement with GALs, many people testified that Family Services’ screening intake assessments were defective because they failed to accurately discern between fit loving parents and violent offenders who are not.


Important testimony on that point can be found here:,%20Peter.pdf


The list of AFCC affiliates can be found here:


You can read up on AFCC’s history in the Connecticut courts below. Please note that the old newsletters show that in many cases, CSSD administrators who served as AFCC officers were raising money for the AFCC from the public and family court industry professionals with instructions to mail that funding directly to their Judicial Branch offices during times when the corporation was not registered to do business in Connecticut. These administrators oversee HHS Access and Visitation programs, VAWA, and Responsible Fatherhood programs and their funding.


You can also read about how CSSD came to hire the AFCC:  The attached newsletters show that:


(a)  In 2001, CSSD director Robert Tompkins received an award from AFCC for his outstanding member contributions.


(b)  In 2002, Grant sat on the AFCC’s Board of Directors.


In 2002, CSSD awarded the AFCC a [taxpayer funded] contract to overhaul the family court’s case intake protocols and address the court’s federal Access and Visitation program and growing number of “high conflict” cases.


The Family Civil Intake Assessment Project in the Connecticut family courts reports were apparently peddled as “independent research,” a collaboration between disinterested professionals and the researchers from AFCC. The reports can be found here:


You can read up on how CSSD family court personnel allowed their names and time to be used by the AFCC to promote AFCC “task force” activities here:


(11) Complaints about family courts should be referred to the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services, for investigation.  Testimony in Connecticut included reports of widespread complaints from parents that they were being victimized by fraud and false billing scams, and that they were wrongfully losing custody because they were falsely discredited.  Nearly all these parents (who did not know each other and were from all walks of life and geographic areas) had good reputations and voiced the same complaints about the misconduct in their family court cases, but were all treated as liars and unfit parents.  By contrast, the State Auditor found that CSSD has misappropriated millions of dollars in family court-related matters, yet no one was discredited and the misappropriation activities were never referred to law enforcement for prosecution.


In the absence of meaningful oversight by the states, federal oversight agencies such as the DHHS and the DOJ must step in and investigate.

The appearance they all fit this bill. Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?

January 6, 2014 § Leave a comment

Would you want a Guardian ad litem with this kind of training?

Posted on January 1, 2014

This is a look at two businesses. One financial the other legal. Both deal with sensitive information, rules and regulations. Both have training programs to give the tools needed to stay within accepted standards and compliance. Both are radically different.

With these two examples ask yourself who is better trained to handle difficult situations?

1. Training consists of 8 weeks of in class study during which the process, rules and regulations are learned. There is some applied training where the students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. Students are tested at certain points. This allows for the trainers to verify at least a minimal understanding to perform the job. There are also group discussions which at times involve people who have experience. These veterans able to give real life experience as to what the new trainees can expect. There is some role playing between seasoned professionals and the new trainees.

After 8 weeks of in class training the new trainees are able to put what has been learned to practical use. While in a real environment there are seasoned people available to answer questions. There is also several weeks of quality control to make sure the new trainees are doing the work properly and to correct any issues right away. This type of mentoring and internship tapers off over time depending on how quickly the new trainee learns.

Throughout this training there is constant feedback to the new trainees. In the working environment that feedback is even more important as a mistake made could cost the company financially. Handling other people’s money can become highly charged especially when something is perceived as going wrong. There are layers upon layers of company as well as legal rules and regulations involved to make sure those handling financial transactions are within compliance. Support from seasoned employees assures and reinforces the understanding that is needed to help customers while staying within compliance.

2. Training consists of 16 hours of in class study during which theory is learned. There may be some applied training where students are able to study situations as a means to gain experience. There is no testing during the 16 hours of training nor at the end.

After 16 hours of training there is no feedback to the new trainee. There is no mentoring or internship for the new trainee. Experience is gained at the expense of the consumer. There is no means of testing whether the new trainee is within compliance or whether or not there is a basic understanding of the rules that govern the way he/ she is to operate.

While dealing with a person’s finances is a world apart from dealing with the complexities of a divorcing family there are similarities. Both can become highly charged when something is perceived as going wrong. Both can have a huge impact on the individual(s) involved both currently and into the future. It is the training though that defines how well one does the job in question.

With the training examples given we see the training one receives for handling people’s money and for handling people’s lives. We see that with one – the process given to train people is extremely careful in its approach. That there are tools and systems to give support so that errors may be caught before they become major issues and hurt a person or family. There are safeguards in place to help the trainee to continue to refine what has been learned and gain experience and to do so not at the expense of the consumer. With the other we see a training process that has been developed to handle people – children and families – who are in crisis and need help. The actions of these trainees have the very real possibility of scaring the people they are supposed to help. There are no tools to help the trainees at any time. Experience comes at the expense of the families and children.  There are no safeguards in place to prevent this damage from happening. There are no systems to catch errors before they become issues.

The first is an example of a training process that is used by businesses. The second is used by the Judicial Branch in training Guardians ad litem. Would you rather  have a Guardian ad litem who has gone through a training process that has clearly defined goals, offers some means to measure understanding and offers support through mentoring and internship programs? Or would you rather have someone who has gone through the current training process of sitting in a room and warming a seat for several hours?

The answer is obvious. The Judicial Branch has a training process for Guardians ad litem that in a business environment would fail to meet the needs of consumers. Under the current model the Judicial Branch would be overwhelmed with problems and it would either go out of business because of competition from businesses that have better training programs or it would change to meet the needs of those it is supposed to serve.  But…. The Judicial Branch is not a business but a monopoly that is accountable to no one. It also has lost sight who it is supposed to serve – being more concerned with how the stakeholders will react than consumers. As a result sub-standard training is allowed and even encouraged. Where those that come up with the training (the stakeholders) curriculum do so based on their own experience. To say (or post on ones “Professional Trainings” page) that one has experience in developing training does not mean one has the necessary tools or experience to do so. Currently there is no cohesiveness in the goal of Guardian ad litem training.

The training for Guardians ad litem should be removed from the control of the Judicial Branch and the stakeholders that are enmeshed in deciding what is acceptable training. Training should be done by professionals who know and understand the goals that are to be achieved and have experience in developing curriculum.

Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform on Facebook or email us at

The appearance of a true liar scumbag 30 year veteran

January 5, 2014 § Leave a comment


The appearance of stealing moneys from other parents only to try to look good has its marets of doing this for so long .

The appearance that the DOJ has been watching for some time now is funny ,The list from over 20 plus year of gals and now to include child reps not following the statues which has more than an appearance of  statuory fraud in many case that have been pulled and looked at ….

Smile we have seen plenty of what you do in many court rooms to have turned over enough  to let the legislature know what fraud on what level that has more than state involvement of federal dollars….

People's Resource Center food drive donation Dec. 2013.JPG.jpg

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with custody child rep child reps. child support child support services unit Copyright Copyright Troll Corrupt Courts corruption in family court disclosure family court family court corruption gal gals Joh at Will County Pro-se.