How do we say scumbags the appearance of this happens in all courts lets not kid ourselves its call probate stealing?

July 23, 2013 § Leave a comment

Federal Lawsuit Charges California Conservatorship Judge for Conspiring to Cover up Fabricated Evidence against 83 Year Old Woman with Six Million Dollar Estate

According to Americans United Against Fraud, a California based citizens group, the federal complaint filed on April 26, 2013 in U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, charges judge Thomas Cain, along with lawyers Michael Desmerais of Los Gatos, and Lynn Searle of San Francisco, with conspiracy to violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, allegedly to prevent local citizen from aiding a Conservatee who has been trying to get her conservatorship removed due to her allegations that her son, lawyers and court are committing fraud upon her 6-million dollar estate.

  • Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend

Judge Thomas W. Cain

Well, Your Honor, [Mr. Merritt began] you believe I have no standing, but I do have a couple ADA [requests] that I’d like to present to you.’ [Judge Cain replies] ‘You can’t present anything.’

San Jose, CA (PRWEB) May 02, 2013

In Merritt & Pacheco-Starks v. Mckenney et al, CV13-01391-PSG an amended complaint was filed on April 26, 2013, in Northern California Federal Court, adding judge Thomas Cain, attorneys Lynn Searle and Michael Desmerais as defendants with three otherSanta Clara Superior Court judges for intentionally and knowingly violating the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) against Mrs. Merritt and Mrs. Pacheco-Starks, both Santa Clara county citizens.

According to the revised lawsuit, Mrs. Pacheco-Starks sought the help of local businessman and civil rights advocate, David Merritt, to help her terminate the services of court appointed lawyer Michael Desmerais so that she could hire her own lawyer. The lawsuit also alleges that her son, along with his lawyer Lynn Searle have “fabricated” and filed evidence in order to take control of her six-million dollar estate and to prevent her from being with her husband due to the differences in their age and race.

The lawsuit also alleges that Mrs. Pacheco-Starks asked Mr. Merritt to present three requests under the Americans with Disability Act that authorized him to aid her in securing a new lawyer, removing her son from conservatorship and prohibiting her son from interfering with her communications with Mr. Merritt.

Court transcripts taken on April 24, 2013, when Mr. Merritt attempted present the requests’, reflect Judge Cain asking Mr. Merritt why he was there and Mr. Merritt answering: “I was asked by Beatrice Pacheco after some conversations with her to do whatever I could to get her some impartial decision-makers in her case, including the — the — the attorney that is supposed to be representing her. I have made a couple phone calls to his office which have not been turned yet. And, essentially, I’m motivated by seeing a person who is in what I — what is — what — what I — has been represented to me as a dire situation, currently. She was just assaulted on Monday physically.”

The court transcript shows Judge Cain challenging Mr. Merritt’s account and after several more rounds of back and forth Mr. Merritt asserted: “I have elderly parents. They are 84 years old. I grew up with seven sisters. My whole mindset is protect women, protect elderly, respect the elderly.I am seeing someone held prisoner in their home, their phone being disconnected, they are being assaulted.”

The court transcripts further reveal over an hour’s worth of interrogation by judge Cain where statements such as: “You have no standing to participate in these proceedings, let alone represent MS Pacheco.” Refused to accept Mrs. Pacheco-Starks ADA requests’, rejected her attempt to terminate the court appointed lawyer and acquire her own; told Mr. Merritt that he was very close to committing a criminal offense and ultimately ordered “Mr. Merritt, you are ordered to have no contact directly or indirectly with Ms. Beatrice Pacheco. You are not to go within 100 yards of Mrs. Pacheco. And that is good until a hearing ….”

In July 2012 the San Jose Mercury News Paper, after an investigation of Judge Cain’s court, reported a systemic practice where the conservatorship court had been permitting its court appointed lawyers to excessively charge conservatee estates for years. Judge Cain had vowed to correct such. This new case is alleging that the practice is still going on.

Advertisements

Pa should pave the way to get rid of gals and child reps. in our states especially in illinois will county and crook county…

July 23, 2013 § Leave a comment

PA had a GAL/PC program since 2007. Due to many complaints, lawsuits and federal law enforcement actions against the court system and federal indictment of a GAL, the law changed and it states:
 
“Elimination of Parenting Coordination.Rule 1915.11-1.
Only judges may make decisions in child custody cases. Masters and hearing officers may make recommendations to the court. Courts shall not appoint any other individual to make decisions or recommendations or alter a custody order in child custody cases. Any order appointing a parenting coordinator shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective. Local rules and administrative orders authorizing the appointment of parenting coordinators also shall be deemed vacated on the date this rule becomes effective.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 13-848. Filed for public inspection May 10, 2013, 9:00 a.m.]”
 

will county has its door opened yet ? Judges are retiring ?

July 23, 2013 § Leave a comment

The cloak of secrecy will be lifted from family courts: Councils and witnesses will routinely be named in cases where evidence can decide whether homes are broken up

  • New rules will ensure court decisions are under public scrutiny
  • Councils and experts will be named in controversial care and adoption cases
  • Family courts currently hold many hearings in private

By JACK DOYLE

PUBLISHED: 20:14 EST, 22 July 2013 | UPDATED: 20:16 EST, 22 July 2013

Into the light: Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, has welcomed the change to rules to allow more public oversight of family courtsInto the light: Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, has welcomed the change to rules to allow more public oversight of family courts

A breakthrough in the battle against secret justice will see thousands more court judgments made public.

Councils involved in controversial care and adoption cases will routinely be named in court documents, along with expert witnesses whose testimony can decide whether homes are broken up.

The guidance follows a lengthy Daily Mail campaign to end the culture of secrecy in two British courts.

The Family Division makes thousands of rulings a year about whether children are adopted or put in care, and the access arrangements for separated parents – as well as ruling on contested divorces.

In the Court of Protection, life- or-death decisions about patient treatment or care for those unable  to make choices are currently taken without public accountability.

Now new rules, due to come into force later this year, will mean thousands more of their judgments are published and subject to public scrutiny.

The updated guidelines set out that the vast bulk of cases in both courts should result in a published judgment ‘unless there are compelling reasons why it should not’.

In all cases involving expert witnesses and public authorities, these should be named unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ not to.

Results of divorce proceedings are also likely to be published, unless they involve children – but names will not be released.

Launching the new rules, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said they were designed ‘to bring about an immediate and significant change in relation to the publication of judgments’.

He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system.

NO TO SECRET COURTS

‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name.’

Family courts are criticised for holding too many hearings in private and not publishing the results.

This can mean families whose children have been taken away unfairly are unable to tell their stories and get redress using the media.

On some occasions injustices are not exposed until the cases go all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Several secret care cases have been exposed by that court which has criticised the local authorities involved.

‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by the judges in its name.’

One, in 2008, saw a senior judge criticise East Sussex County Council for its ‘wholly unacceptable abuse of power’ by rushing through the adoption of an 18-month-old child and blocking a challenge by the child’s natural father.

Last year the Daily Mail reported how life-changing decisions about the care of children were routinely being made on the basis of flawed evidence.

A study for the Family  Justice Council revealed that a fifth of ‘experts’ brought in to advise  the family courts are completely unqualified but they can still make thousands of pounds a year in fees from local authorities.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: ‘We have been clear that there needs to be more openness in the Family Courts and the Court of Protection. This draft guidance will begin the important public debate we need to have about transparency in these courts.’

Last month the Supreme Court launched a stinging attack on secret justice, saying it is ‘not justice at all’.  Its president, Lord Neuberger, said hearing evidence behind closed doors was ‘against the principle of justice’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2374415/The-cloak-secrecy-lifted-family-courts-Councils-witnesses-routinely-named-cases-evidence-decide-homes-broken-up.html#ixzz2Zss6uIiQ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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.

 

-Parent-Child relationships

-Genetic testing

-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.)

 

Passports

 

-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.

 

Tell us about your Judge ? Good i hope but we all need a good fantasies ?

July 19, 2013 § Leave a comment

 

How about just lets keep this to a min. words of 1000 i know it is to easy to do!!!!!1

Sarasota Crooked Lawyers their every where the appearance there could be Judges as well?

July 19, 2013 § Leave a comment

What will you give up?

1 comment to What will you give up?

  • I have fought and walked the walk since 1987, I continued to educate myself with the knowledge of the laws to try and stay a step ahead. I have fought in the battle field of the courtrooms, With the families that needed help and ask for nothing in return. I have tried to ” Make a Difference ” with my boots on the ground and in return I have been intimidated and retaliated against.
    My children and grand-children have suffered the consequences for my actions to fight for the rights of families.
    The courts have proven to be bias and cases are predetermined before trial, that being ,If the families even have the will to go as far as trial. Most families are beat down and threatened into case plans to keep their children in the system as long as possible ..
    Once a family is out of DCF and into the hands of the sub-contractors, That is where the Cash for Kids comes into play. DCF is not funded by SS Title IV , the Sub-contractor IS. The longer the children are in care, the longer the money flows. No matter what the case plan is, They will drag it out and the courts will allow them to do so.
    As for the court venue, The meaning of that hearing is to be HEARD, However, That is not the case, The court will shut you down, refuse to listen to you, refuse to listen to the children. Parents are judged prior to ever being heard, children’s best interest is ignored and especially when there is proof that a case has been compromised by any agency.
    The court will go above and beyond ethics and morals to discredit any one who can prove corruption, perjury, falsification of documents and violations of policies, procedures, mandates, and most of all the Fl Statues Chapter 39.

    As I write this on the 7th day of June,2013, Here in Lee County Florida, I hereby swear that without giving details of the case that I have been evoked, I will state that predetermination, bias and cover ups are in fact occurring here and that I have documented proof that is to be turned over to the Florida Attorney General’s Office of the Inspector General, who has full knowledge of these documents and has been waiting to speak to me.
    The States intent is to discredit me prior to my meeting with him, in hopes that it will minimize the effects of this production.

    In closing, as a court watcher, What I have witnessed is wrong, Families and children have NO Voice in the venue to be heard !
    Families are judged by past history of no relevance !
    Families are accused, threatened, and destroyed !
    No accountability is ever held to anyone who has lied, falsified documents or has committed perjury under sworn oath .

lawyers loosing out on to much greed spending cut?

June 13, 2013 § Leave a comment

Legal aid cuts ”overwhelm” family courts

11 June 2013

There has been a massive increase in the number of couples holding child custody cases in family courts after legal aid for such action has been cut, it has been claimed. Since this April, around 200,000 people a year no longer qualify for state aid in divorce and child contact cases.
The government has insisted that legal aid should be restricted in its application and claimed that taxpayers’ money was being spent on cases that people should pay for themselves. However, a spin-off of this policy has been greater use of the family court system which is said to be at risk of collapsing under the pressure.
Last month there was a 27 per cent increase in the number of child custody cases, which have virtually doubled in two years – although this is obviously not connected to the current cuts.
Christina Blacklaws of the Law Society council told the BBC: “The whole system is really creaking at seams and could collapse in on itself. This points to some quite difficult times in the future. It could mean that there would not be proper access to justice for those facing family breakdown because they would have to wait so long.”
Cambridge lawyer Adam Moghadas, a spokesperson for the Resolution association of family lawyers, was quoted in Cambridge News as saying that cutting family legal aid was an attack on childhood and the family.
“We’re talking about the health and wellbeing of families at a time when teenagers are supposed to be running amok and with the riots less than two years ago,” he said. “It’s hypocrisy at a time when you’re lambasting absent fathers and you’re making it harder for them to access justice and have contact with their children.”

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with PORN JUDGE at Will County Pro-se.