DAVID IVERSEN OF WTNH CHANNEL 8 CONTINUES TO REPORT ON FAMILY COURT GAL CORRUPTION!

David Iversen of WTNH Channel 8 reports as follows:

"(WTNH) — In October 2014, new rules that regulate Guardian Ad Litems went into effect in Connecticut. 

A Guardian Ad Litem is a court appointed investigator who, in effect, reports to the court what is in the best interest of a child in the midst of a divorce. 

The News8 Investigators asked Senate Minority Leader Len Fasano and Representative Dan Carter about what they see as the legislatures role in the future of oversight within family court."

SEE MORE:

http://wtnh.com/2015/10/02/a-year-later-lawmakers-to-revisit-gal-rules/

THE DOJ'S TOOTHLESS RESPONSE TO CONNECTICUT CITIZENS' COMPLAINTS THAT THE CT JUDICIAL BRANCH VIOLATES THEIR FEDERAL ADA RIGHTS!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

Buzzzz!  Times up!  Today is the last day that the Connecticut Department of Justice had to submit on time the report it has been promising regarding the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with Federal ADA mandates.  They said they'd have the report out to us at the end of August 2015; tomorrow is September 1, 2015, and it looks like they will have missed the deadline!  How did that happen?  It happened because the Washington DOJ and the Connecticut DOJ have one thing in common: a profound unwillingness to enforce the ADA at the Connecticut Judicial Branch despite the fact that so many CT citizens have contacted them to report repeatedly violations of their Federal ADA rights during family court and DCF legal proceedings.  

THE WASHINGTON, D.C. DOJ

Now, I can't speak for what everyone else has gone through, but I can share what went into my ADA complaints which have been so colossally ignored by those whose job it is to respond to them.  My journey began way back in April 2012 when I contacted Equal Access Associates headed by Dr. Karin Huffer and had them draft a Federal ADA complaint on my behalf and that of my two children, both of whom have ocularcutaneous albinism and are visually impaired.  This was then sent out to the Washington, D.C. Department of Justice offices.  I didn't hear anything in the months afterward, so in the Fall 2012 I again sent a copy of this complaint to the Washington Department of Justice by Fax.  Again, I didn't hear anything in the months afterward.  Then, in March 2013, I again sent a copy of my complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested since I had not received a response.  Still, I did not get an answer from the Washington, D.C. Department of Justice, no information regarding whether they had received the complaint or anything about what they intended to do about it.  

Finally, I heard about the fact that there was an option to send my complaint to the Washington, D.C. DOJ offices online by email (I understand this option has since been suspended!).  Thus, on December 18, 2014, I again sent my Complaint to the Washington DOJ, the Disability Rights Section.  This time I was lucky enough to get an automatic response indicating they had finally received my complaint, "The Disability Rights Section has received your email."  it said.  Further, the automatic response continued on as follows:

"We will review the information you have submitted and will notify you of any action this office will take with respect to the issues you have raised.  Please be advised that this office receives a large volume of correspondence from the public.  If you do not hear from us within 3 months, you may contact us to determine the status of our review."  

Ok, so it took four tries to get an answer.  What about folks that are far more fragile?  How do they ever begin with a system like this?

January, February, and March 2015 went by, and still I had no response.  Finally, in June 2015 I contacted the DOJ directly and asked them what the Washington, DOJ intended to do with my complaint.  The people there referred me to a very nice lady named Carmen Romero who said that she would forward my question on to decision makers via email.  Looking for an answer to that email, I followed up with phone calls to Carmen on June 23, 2015, June 29, 2015, July 9, 2015, July 21, 2015, July 22, 2015, and August 3, 2015.  In the end, I never received a response to my inquiry.  

Now I am not asking for anything extraordinary.  Yes, I would like the Washington DOJ to pursue my case seriously and demand a correction of CT Judicial Branch's outrageous behavior.  But at the very least, it would be nice to receive a timely acknowledgment [i.e. not over two years!] that I have sent a complaint, as well as a statement regarding what they are going to do about it, or if nothing is to be done, why not.  In fact, my understanding is that the latter response is mandatory.  Specifically, under Item #6 of the "Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act" published by the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division it states as follows:  Since we receive a high volume of ADA complaints and have limited resources, we cannot investigate or litigate every complaint.  If we cannot investigate your complaint due to lack of resources or for some other reason, we will send you a letter explaining why your complaint will not be investigated."  I am still waiting for the letter, as I am sure many thousands of others are as well.  Keep in mind that Item #7 of this Information Sheet delineates the period of three months as their optimal time frame, not all of eternity.

Here is a department that is especially set up to deal with the needs of persons with disabilities, yet it has the nerve to ignore and play games with the needs of people with disabilities who send them legitimate complaints.  I find that an incredibly traumatizing way to deal with people who deserve so much better because they have already been traumatized enough.  As ADA documents have said, persons with disabilities have historically been disenfranchised and excluded from access to the services, programs, and activities of government.  There is no better example of disenfranchisement and exclusion than the silent treatment, which is what the Washington DOJ greeted me with, as well as all of my fellow advocates who also sent in complaints which were also ignored.

THE CONNECTICUT DOJ

Given that I wasn't receiving any satisfaction from the Washington DOJ, several friends advised me to approach the Connecticut DOJ.  Thus, On December 24, 2012, I sent a letter to Attorney John B. Hughes certified mail, return receipt requested.  In that letter I stated that the "CT Judicial Branch is not complying with the ADA and ADAAA" and I asked him to intervene.  

I also noted that the CT Judicial Branch is acting only according to employment law, Title I, and not according to that of a public agency under Title II as it should.  I mentioned that the CT Judicial Branch has no Designated Responsible Employee under Title II of the ADA, 28 C.R.F. Sec. 35.107(a).  I pointed out that the CT Judicial Branch doesn't have a meaningful grievance procedure as required under Title II of the ADA, 28 C.R.F. Sec. 35.107(b).  I further stated that the CT Judicial Branch has not conducted a self-evaluation as required under Title II of the ADA 28 C.F.R. Part 35 Sec 35.105.  And I also pointed out that while the CT Judicial Branch was accommodating those with visible disabilities it was limiting the access of those with invisible disabilities.  Finally, I documented in detail how I was denied access to my ADA reasonable modifications from March 2009 until December 2012 in violation of Federal ADA law.  I received no response to this letter.  

Then, On June 10, 2013, I hand delivered an additional letter addressed to Attorney Deidre [sic] M. Daly, acting United States Attorney at the Connecticut DOJ.  In that letter, I mentioned that I had filed a federal complaint on November 16, 2012 against the CT Judicial Branch, et. al. based upon the fact that it discriminated against me and failed to provide me with reasonable accommodations.  I included a copy of the earlier December 24, 2012 letter to Attorney John Hughes so that she could become oriented to my complaint.  I asked Attorney Daly to authorize the Connecticut DOJ to file an Amicus Brief on my behalf.  

In response, on July 9, 2013, Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and her assistant Ndidi N. Moses send me a letter which stated, "I have reviewed your complaint dated June 24, 2013 [incorrect date!  I had sent in two letters--one dated December 24, 2012 and the other dated June 10, 2013] alleging that the state of Connecticut Judicial Branch has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.  You complaint is under review by this office, and we will contact you if we have any questions."

Months went by and she never responded to my complaint  indicating whether she thought it was legitimate or not, and she never responded to my request for an Amicus Brief either with a yes or no.  I still have not heard what the outcome of the so-called "review" of my case was.

Meanwhile, during the same time period that I was complaining to the Connecticut DOJ about the CT Judicial Branch's refusal to comply with Federal ADA and ADAAA law, so was Ms. Susan Skipp of Litchfield and potentially others.  Thus, on January 8, 2014, I received a letter signed by both Attorney Deirdre M. Daly and Attorney John B. Hughes stating as follows:

"...the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division have elected to conduct ADA compliance review of the State of Connecticut Judicial Branch.  This review will examine ADA complaints that the Judicial Branch has received, the responses, and the accommodation process.  It will also examine the training that the judges and support staff receive regarding the ADA.  Included in the review will be inquiries into the family court and divorce court processes.  I must inform you, however, that, consistent with our jurisdiction, the review will focus on the ADA, and not other matters.  This review, which is already underway, is expected to take some time."

In the weeks that followed this January 8, 2014 letter I dropped off documents in relation to my ADA complaint and that of my daughters.  I also hand delivered a copy of the ADA complaint from the Joseph Watley and Karin Haseman case.  I am also aware that many other people dropped off or sent emailed information to Attorney Deirdre Daly and Attorney John Hughes regarding the ADA violations in their cases.  The response?  Silence, silence, and more silence.  During the remainder of the year in 2014, I occasionally sent out an email with additional information in regard to further violations by the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  In addition, I made further inquiries regarding when this investigation would be completed.  Again, I received no answer.  Finally, in November 2014, I hired an attorney so that I could get an answer: Attorney Donna Drumm.

On February 25, 2015, Attorney Drumm sent an email inquiry to Attorney Hughes just reviewing the history and asking for a copy of the report that the Connecticut DOJ had promised in its letter of January 8, 2014.  Now, this is a full year later that Attorney Drumm asked this question.  On March 18, 2015, Attorney John Hughes responded by stating, "The report is still in a draft form and it is not expected to  be finalized for several more months.  When it is competed, you and Ms. Richter will receive a copy."  This is what is outrageous--that for over a year Attorney Hughes refused to respond to my emails asking the very same question, but after I hired an attorney at considerable expense, then he was willing to respond to the attorney.  It is as if, as far as Attorney John Hughes is concerned, I am not even a human being entitled to reasonable courtesy!  This is the person that the government chooses to put in charge of Civil Rights investigations!

In regard to my complaint, and the complaints of so many others, Attorney John Hughes went a step further and said that the Connecticut DOJ did not intend to take any action on them stating, "We are not investigating individual claims of ADA violations or attempting to set aside court orders relating to divorce, alimony, custody, appointment of guardians ad litem and related financial orders."  For those who had been waiting now for over a year for the Connecticut DOJ's investigation to be completed, this was devastating news.  You would have thought that if the DOJ did not intend to address peoples' complaints that the issue was of such significance, they would have clarified that from the beginning.  Instead, the Connecticut DOJ kept everyone dangling for months on end, and then said we don't intend to help you.  

Again, on June 12, 2015, Attorney Donna Drumm wrote to Attorney Hughes and asked, "Can you please give us a projected date of completion?" [for the report on the ADA compliance of the CT Judicial Branch].  She also asked again in regard to what would be done about my specific complaint.

A month later, on July 13, 2015, Attorney John Hughes responded with the following: 

"In response to your email from June 12 in which you enclosed a letter from yourself about previous correspondence related to ADA complaints made by your client, Elizabeth Richter, I wanted to let you know that the current projected completion of a Report is the end of August [emphasis added]. While I understand that Ms. Richter and several others have made individual ADA complaints about the State Judicial Branch, the focus of our review is the overall compliance process by the State and not those individual claims. This office and the Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section of the Department of Justice are empowered to investigate a pattern or practice of ADA violations. That is what the subject of the Report will be."

That is why I started this blog with a buzz, because clearly, the end of August has now passed and we still do not have a finalized report.  Do you think the Connecticut DOJ has ever heard of the Langston Hughes quotation, "Justice delayed is justice denied!"  I do also want to note that Attorney John Hughes states that they are "empowered to investigate a pattern or practice of ADA violations."  Well, yes, an upper level government official may have limited the investigation, however, the mandate of both the Washington DOJ and the Connecticut DOJ is to investigate specific complaints and a look at the case law in the State of Connecticut indicates that is exactly what they have done.  Why these departments chose to deviate from what they do normally in the face of litigants' complaints regarding the CT Judicial Branch is a very good question we should all ask.  It seems as though the DOJ is good at telling everyone else to obey federal ADA law, but when it comes to demanding that their own fellow attorneys and institutions obey the law, it seems they don't want to.  How hypocritical is that?

I will say that on August 15, 2015 the Washington DOJ and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a joint statement entitled "Protecting the Rights of Parents and Prospective Parents with Disabilities" which resoundingly supports the rights of parents with disabilities in accordance with Title II of the ADA and the ADAAA in legal proceedings related to child welfare cases and the court system.  Of course, if this is a statement without any teeth because of the DOJ's refusal to enforce the expressed policies, it is a piece of nonsense.  Still, it is admirable that these policies have been articulated.  The link to this statement is below:

http://www.ada.gov/doj_hhs_ta/child_welfare_ta.html

It could be that this statement is the result of the work of activists throughout Connecticut who have been fighting for the rights of parents with disabilities in family court and in regard to DCF.  I certainly know that this issue has concerned people here in Connecticut as well as activists all over the country.  We may never know.  One thing I do know is that we were promised a report from the Connecticut DOJ in regard to the compliance of the CT Judicial Branch with the ADA and we still haven't gotten it.  

We are waiting.

________________________

As a followup, on September 1, 2015, the CT Law Tribune reported that the CT DOJ is planning on investigating CT hotels for non-compliance with the ADA.  See the link below:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/09/ct-law-tribune-reports-ct-doj-is-making.html

In the last decade, several Connecticut residents, many representing their children's interests as well, have contacted the CT Department of Justice and requested assistance in obtaining their federal ADA rights.  Well over a year and a half ago, the CT DOJ stated it would proceed with a compliance review of the CT Judicial Branch.  When I made an inquiry about when that review would be completed, as I stated, I was reprimanded because Attorney John Hughes stated that his offices were overwhelmed with work and could we possibly ask them to do more.  Yet now we get a news report indicating that after delaying any kind of response to the complaints of family court victims and refusing to address their individual concerns the CT DOJ is now volunteering to take on a new area of concern, i.e. hotels.  This is a slap in the face of all family court victims with disabilities who have been waiting for years for redress. 

PROFESSOR JULIA SIMON-KERR WRITES ABOUT SYSTEMIC LYING IN OUR LEGAL SYSTEM!

"February 10, 2014

 Hartford, CT:

 Julia Simon-Kerr joined the [CT] Law School faculty in of 2012 as an associate professor of law and the Ralph and Doris Hansmann Scholar after spending two years as a Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School. Her scholarship focuses on evidence, particularly on how lying and credibility in the legal system interact with evolving cultural norms.

Professor Simon-Kerr’s work-in-progress, "Systemic Lying," explores a particular form of cooperative lying that occurs throughout the history of our legal system and in many different areas of the law. Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors applying a particular principle that guides their deception across cases. Surprisingly, given the system’s clear prohibition on lying in the courtroom, it becomes an open secret and functions as a controlling mechanism within the legal system.

"Through case studies of several instances where this phenomenon occurs across legal areas and over time," explains Professor Simon-Kerr, "I develop a theory of systemic lying.” Professor Simon-Kerr's theory suggests that systemic lying is a product of severe disjunction between cultural beliefs about justice and legal prescriptions. Rather than allow the law to take its course and deliver what would be perceived as unjust outcomes, participants lie and preserve the facade of a system that delivers results consonant with popular moral intuition. The collective and open nature of systemic lying and the fact that it occurs for a justice-related rationale allows it to escape the usual stigma attached to lying, particularly lying embedded within a system that privileges truth in the courtroom. "Ultimately, systemic lying is a persistent and powerful phenomenon within the system because it achieves a legitimacy that individual lies or covert group deception tend to lack," says Professor Simon-Kerr.

Professor Simon-Kerr also has written on education law, gender and the law, and law and literature, an area of interest she examines in a recent book chapter, published by Oxford University Press, entitled, “Pious Perjury in Scott’s The Heart of Midlothian.”

FOR THE LINK TO THIS INFORMATION, SEE BELOW:

http://www.law.uconn.edu/about/press-room/professor-julia-simon-kerr-explores-theory-systemic-lying

AND FOR ANOTHER ARTICLE ON THIS, SEE BELOW:

According to Megan Spicer of "The Connecticut Law
Tribune"

August 10, 2015

"The oath that Connecticut lawyers take in order to be admitted to the bar is 122 words long. Much of it consists of promising to never do anything dishonest and to inform the court if they see others being dishonest. It ends: "So help you God or upon penalty of perjury."

But those words only go so far, according to a University of Connecticut School of Law professor who says that dishonesty is rampant inside and outside the courtrooms, in jury deliberation rooms and even in the judge's chambers. The phenomenon is known as "systemic lying" and Julie Simon-Kerr recently published a paper on it in the William & Mary Law Review arguing that the practice poses a threat to the legal system.

"Systemic lying isn't benign," said Simon-Kerr, who teaches courses on civil procedure and evidence at UConn. "It threatens the fabric and legitimacy of the legal system to have all these actors conspire in the courtroom." She went on to call it "sinister"..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202734373407/UConn-Professors-Research-Details-Legacy-of-Lying-in-The-Legal-System#ixzz3iXgWEKB5

PAUL E. STERN OF THE WEBSITE STATE INTEGRITY INVESTIGATION GIVES AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT'S CORRUPT POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL PAST!

Connecticut: The story behind the score

By Paul E. Stern

"Connecticut has benefited from some spectacular corruption.

In the past decade, no branch of government has been spared from abuse, exploitation and disgrace.

There was Gov. John G. Rowland, who, in league with a prominent state contractor, turned his administration into a criminal enterprise.

There were legislators who, in the pursuit of power, were willing to be owned by lobbyists.

There was State Treasurer Paul Silvester, who used his office and the state’s treasury to extort millions in kickbacks for himself and his friends.

There were the judges who suppressed public knowledge even of the existence of court cases involving influential and prominent litigants. And there was state Supreme Court Chief Justice William J. Sullivan, who delayed the release of a controversial ruling in order to win appointment for his Republican protégé.

Little wonder that Connecticut has undergone significant reform in recent years, and that, as a result, state government has never been more open to public view and inspection. In the new 

State Integrity Investigation — a joint project of the Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity and Public Radio International — Connecticut now ranks second in it transparency and accountability, earning a solid B grade and numeric score of 86..."

READ MORE:

http://www.stateintegrity.org/connecticut_story_subpage

MORE RESPONSES TO NEWS THAT FAMILY COMMISSION IS DISBANDING, RETREATING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!

Here is my favorite Munro story: 

The psychologists that were big into the "custody study" business realized that it if they actually had to write a custody study, someone might actually read it and realize that there was no scientific, psychological or other basis for anything in the report. 

So Horowitz & Krieger perfected the art of delaying, deferring, demanding "feedback sessions" and other dirty tricks to avoid ever having to issue the report. 

Of course, they still got paid for their work but they'd try to make the case settle without having to write anything for which they could be held accountable. The other psychologists started to copy their methods. Then the game became how to bill the greatest number of hours and make life as difficult as possible for the parents to force the family to settle (or just let the crazy people kill each other or the kids) and never have to issue a report. 

However, in some rare cases, they actually had to write a report, which some logical litigant might actually read. 

What to do? 

Answer: get the judge to order that the parents not be permitted to read the report. You make up some reason like the parents might release the report to the public in a manner that would hurt the kids. 

(Remember, in family court fantasyland, the PARENTS are bad for the kids, while the DIVORCE INDUSTRY is good for the kids.) 

Thus, in a Stamford matter, Munro ordered the parents to take the kids to (I think) Horowitz, pay him whatever he asked for, then Munro ordered that the parents not be permitted to read the Custody Evaluation, and then she started issuing orders based on the Custody Evaluation that she had forbade the parents from even reading. At this point, the ultimate goal has been realized: the parents role has been reduced to simply writing checks to the divorce industry. 

True story. This is due process in Connecticut family court. You get to write the check, or you will lose custody of your kids and be incarcerated.

ANOTHER READER RESPONSE TO NEWS THAT THE FAMILY COMMISSION IS DISBANDING, GOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS!

There are lots of Munro stories. My favorite relates to her supposed oversight of Stamford attorney Gary Cohen's "community service." Cohen had been grieved by a former client for extorting $300,000 for himself and another $300,000 for the client's ex wife's lawyer. Miraculously, the grievance panel found that Cohen had engaged in unethical conduct. 

See: http://www.jud.ct.gov/SGC/decisions/060020.pdf. (For a good laugh, note the discussion of Cohen's expert, fellow divorce lawyer Gaetano Ferro, who found Cohen's behavior ethical.) 

This case represents, to my knowledge, the only time any member of the Connecticut divorce bar has been sanctioned for any behavior whatsoever. 

Cohen was then required to perform something like 200 hours of "community service" pursuant to a subsequent settlement with the Statewide Grievance Committee. Munro was assigned to "oversee" Cohen's community service. However, Cohen wasn't up doing the required hours of community service. So Munro then gave Cohen credit for community service performed on his behalf by one of his associates, whom Cohen presumably paid. Thus, Munro unilaterally eliminated the Statewide Grievance Counsel's community service penalty. 

Munro subsequently retired from the bench and is now a partner at Pullman & Comley which just happened to be the law firm that represented Cohen in the grievance matter. 

To summarize: Cohen is actually found to have engaged in unethical conduct, Munro unilaterally commutes his community service sentence, and then Cohen's law firm pays back Munro by making her partner. 

Just another day at the office for corruption in Connecticut's family courts . . . .

BUSINESS INSIDER PUBLISHES ARTICLE WHERE RESPECTED JUDGE SKEWERS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM!

Judge Alex Kozinski, one of America's most prominent jurists, has a new article out that attacks many assumptions about criminal justice in the US.

"Much of the so-called wisdom that has been handed down to us about the workings of the legal system, and the criminal process in particular, has been undermined by experience, legal scholarship and common sense," Kozinski writes in the Georgetown Law Journal. 

In his article, Kozinski calls much of the law "guesswork" and points out 12 widely held but largely false beliefs about criminal prosecution in America.

Read more:  

http://www.businessinsider.com/alex-kozinski-article-in-the-georgetown-law-review-2015-7#ixzz3eptWgbkP

SARAH KNUTSON FORMULATES "DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE" FROM CORRUPT MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL EXPERT WITNESSES!

In the course of human events, it periodically proves necessary for oppressed people to dissolve the political ties that connect them with the majority culture. So entrenched are the dominant viewpoints, that repeated appeals to reason and conscience prove futile, whereas harms and grievances mount exponentially. At some point, it becomes clear that the respect, dignity and worth that is a common birthright as human beings will never be freely given.  -  It must simply declared and taken.

Accordingly, we hold these truths to be self-evident:

1. Everyone is created equal in rights and dignity. We are all, without exception, endowed with reason and conscience. Consistent with the rights of others, we are all entitled to create meaning and pursue happiness in our own way.

2. We live in a world where there can be no experts as to subjective matters affecting another person’s life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. To the contrary, practically the only certainties of the human condition are uncertainty, loss and death. Other claims at certainty are at best 'probabilities'  -  which, by their nature, admit exception in individual cases. We therefore reject any claim by those with political, organizational, institutional or family power to pass judgment on the subjective experience of other human beings  (including the meaning of personal thoughts, feelings or actions) under color of law or majority approval.

3. Such substituted judgments are in direct contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and its spirit. This includes any rules or claimed authority that (1) fail to recognize any and all human beings as endowed with reason and conscience; (2) purport to relieve any person, organization, or community of its obligation to afford everyone, without exception, equal rights and dignity; and (3) privilege some people or groups to treat others as less than full and equal members of the human family.

4. As human beings, we have the right to treat each other first and foremost as members of a human family, and to be treated by others as such. This includes recognizing each other’s shared and equal birthright to all the blessings of liberty, and supporting each other's access to all things necessary for human functioning, growth and development.  This is the right of human beings.  No political, institutional, business, industry or guild interest can legitimately deprive anyone of such rights.   

To this end:

1. We proclaim and reclaim our birthright to respect, dignity, reason, conscience and equal rights on a par with all other members of the human family.

2. We refuse to recognize as valid any exceptions made by any person or entity to these fundamental obligations between human beings.

3. We deem null and void any human law, rule or regulation that violates this fundamental code.

4. We refuse to recognize the legitimacy of human-made rules or hierarchies that seek to substitute their guild, business or group interests for the human regard that is owed by one human being to another. These include the laws, regulations, policies, codes and ethics adopted by legislatures, agencies, corporations, organizations, businesses, institutions, professions – or anyone else who claims the right to make decisions that seek to exempt their members from the fundamental obligations of human beings to regard each other with reason, conscience and in the spirit of human family.

Therefore: In accordance with the intent and spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, and the numerous International Human Rights efforts that have since followed, we hereby liberate ourselves and each other to act in accordance with our human duty and birthright of reason, conscience and equal membership the world family of human beings.

OP-ED LINKS DCF, BILLION DOLLAR LAW FIRM, AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES IN A CONSPIRACY TO EXPAND THE USE OF PSYCHIATRIC MEDICATIONS AMONG CT'S FOSTER CHILDREN!

According to an Op-Ed by Robert Fiddaman in 2011, 

"For some time now, Sheila Matthews has been suspicious about her home state of Connecticut's treatment of its most vulnerable children. As a mother of two children and co-founder of Ablechild, her instincts led her to scrutinize the dubious relationships among Connecticut's Department of Children and Family Services [DCF], the pharmaceutical industry, and a billion dollar law firm that has defended the likes of Pfizer Inc and Merck & Co., among others.

Sheila's investigation has led her on a journey that links a non-profit children's advocacy group, with assets over $15 million [2009], with nationally-renowned mass tort and class action defense law firms, to the Connecticut DCF - an $865 million bureaucracy, as described by the Connecticut Mirror..."

For more on this interesting subject, please click on the link below*:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Billion-Dollar-Drug-Compan-by-ROBERT-FIDDAMAN-110310-185.html

*I am not familiar with the subject matter of this article and so I cannot guarantee its accuracy, however I do think it is important to be informed and if more substantive information comes forward to support these allegations, I will certainly share it with you all.

RERUN ON THE EXPLANATION OF HOW CT MEDIA HAS BETRAYED THE CITIZENS OF CONNECTICUT!

So what is going on with The Hartford Courant?  How could it be so wrong in regard to the Connecticut Judicial Branch?  Why is it wrong in its assessment of Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, wrong on incompetent and arrogant Family Court judges, and soft on Connecticut Family Court injustice and corruption?  How come the media has essentially carried out a news blackout when it comes to the fraud and wrongdoing going on within the legal system in Connecticut.  Why has the media simply refused to meet its obligations to the citizens of Connecticut?

There is actually a good answer to those questions. 

As I understand it, the media is supposed to be "the fourth estate" which acts as a watchdog to ensure the proper conduct of the government and our judicial system.  In the word of one expert, "Access to information from the media is essential to the health of democracy for at least two reasons. First, it ensures that citizens make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out of ignorance or misinformation. Second, information serves a "checking function" by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.  In the United States, the media is often called the fourth branch of government (or "fourth estate"). That's because it monitors the political process in order to ensure that political players don't abuse the democratic process." 

So why isn't The Hartford Courant, let alone other Connecticut media, playing this critical watchdog role in regard to the Connecticut Judicial Branch?  Why is our Connecticut media pretty much giving the Judicial Branch a free pass to carry out whatever nonsense it cares to? 

The answer is that Judges, Attorneys, and Employees of the Connecticut Judicial Branch have systematically cultivated friendships with highly placed media executives and journalists.  These friendships have developed to the point where the media in Connecticut has come to believe that it has a greater obligation to defend the Connecticut Judicial Branch from all potential challengers rather than investigate and critique it on behalf of the citizens of the State of Connecticut which it has a fundamental obligation to serve.

I know that at this point you are probably curious to know how this media shift in perspective from outsider to insider took place. 

What happened is that in 2007, Judge Chase T. Rogers established the Judicial-Media Committee to discuss media access to Connecticut Judicial Branch legal proceedings and records.  The founding documents for this Committee state the following, "The goals of the Judicial-Media Committee are to foster and improve better understanding and relationships between the Judicial Branch and the media, both print and electronic, and to discuss and recommend resolutions of problems confronted by the media and the public in gaining access to court proceedings and documents." 

If you think this sounds like the basis for a judicial branch-media mutual admiration society, I would suspect you are correct. 

The bottom line is, if the media has the legal right to access to legal proceedings and documents, that would be something their lawyers would need to attend to.  But instead, what actually happened is that the Connecticut Judicial Branch arranged for ongoing friendly meetings over a period of seven years sometimes at the offices of one of the media moguls and sometimes at the Judicial Branch.  Clearly, these meetings were fundamentally unnecessary and intended solely for the purpose of skewing the opinions of media leadership in the direction of the Connecticut Judicial Branch. 

Some of the big media names involved in this Committee are as follows:  G. Claude Albert, Managing Editor, The Hartford Courant (retired); Tom Appleby, General Manager and News Director, News 12 Connecticut; Karen Florin, Staff Writer, The Day of New London; Eric Parker, Morning News Anchor, Reporter, WFSB, Channel 3; Chris Powell, Managing Editor, Journal Inquirer;  Thomas Scheffey, Connecticut Law Tribune, editorial board;  Nancy Schoeffler, Editor, Metro Desk, The Hartford Courant; Paul Giguere, President & CEO, Connecticut Network; Michael St. Peter, News Director, WVIT-TV Channel 30;  Kirk Varner, Vice President & News Director, WTNH-TV Channel 8;  Dave Ward, Assignment Editor, WFSB-TV, Channel 3; John Long, Photographer, retired from The Hartford Courant; Ken Margolfo, Assignment Manager, WTIC-TV Fox 61; Melissa Bailey, Managing Editor of the New Haven Independent. 

As you can see, this is an extraordinary lineup of media industry leaders and stars many of whom for a period of seven years conducted regular meetings with judges, attorneys, and judicial branch employees and essentially cemented relationships that could not help but be wide ranging and influential. 

This represents unprecedented access to opinion makers and information gatekeepers solely gathered for the benefit of the Connecticut Judicial Branch.  Those of us who are working for the reform of the Connecticut Judicial Branch had nothing like such access whatsoever and, as a result, have not been able to get the media to cover our stories and work with us for fundamental reforms that the legal system desperately needs. 

In  essence, what this amounts to is that the Connecticut Judicial Branch used its superior power and influence and its control over information sources that the media desperately wanted access to in order to win over the media and shut down any criticism the media might raise of its fraudulent and criminal activities. 

It is a strategy that is both brilliant and, at the same time, fundamentally in opposition to our nation's democratic principles. 

The result is that The Hartford Courant as well as other media outlets in the State of Connecticut have reneged on their professional responsibility to speak up about the many abuses of Connecticut Family Court.   Even worse, the media in Connecticut has  colluded in a conspiracy to deny the wrongdoing and act as apologists for the criminal actions of Family Court judges, attorneys, and mental health professionals. 

This explains their weak, half hearted, response to the ongoing corruption of the CT Judicial Branch, and most particularly to the corruption going on in Family Court. 

"COUNTERPUNCH" ARTICLE ON WHY THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS CORRUPT!

John Barth, Jr. in "Counterpunch" states as follows:

"We all would like to believe that, as when we were children in a family, there is in our society a final authority to whom we can turn in case we are seriously wronged. We are not predisposed to believe the accusers of the judicial process any more than the detractors of Santa Claus. Perhaps critics are merely sore losers or angry convicts, and perhaps judicial misconduct would be exposed by appeals courts or the mass media, and corrected. Why guess our way without the facts? Such pre-dispositions held by many otherwise educated adults allow pervasive institutional corruption of the judicial branch to remain hidden.

Judicial corruption is invisible to citizens, because lawyers are trained and motivated to deny and cannot safely speak of it, because mass media corporations agree with judicial prejudice and live in fear of judicial whims, because non-lawyers cannot obtain the facts without prohibitive cost and effort, and because the infantile myth of judicial salvation has broad appeal and is propagated as an opiate by the mass media. Judicial corruption is discovered by those of its victims willing to do years of tedious research, and only they will speak of it..."

For more on this interesting topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/12/10/why-judicial-corruption-is-invisible/

ANNIE DOOKHAN CASES IN MASSACHUSETTS CAN BE REOPENED!

According to Jess Bidgood of The New York Times:

"A ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court on Monday is expected to help untangle parts of the sentencing mess left by the mishandling of drug samples by a state chemist that might have tainted tens of thousands of criminal cases.

In the unanimous decision, justices ruled that defendants whose convictions were based on evidence tainted by the chemist, Annie Dookhan, can seek new trials without facing added charges or a more severe sentence.

“It clears a path for people to challenge — when I say people, I say thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people — to challenge their convictions without fear that prosecutors will respond by seeking to revive harsher charges or harsher sentences that were relinquished in a plea bargain,” said Matthew Segal, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts..."

For more information on this topic, please click on the link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/us/annie-dookhan-defendants-mass-supreme-court.html?_r=0

GAL KERRY TARPEY REMOVED FROM THE CASE: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART IX!

I remember when I first had to deal with a GAL in my case.  She came on board around August 2006.  I swear this lady was 300 pounds or so.  I recall our first meeting in my home--she conducted all our meetings in our home--and I remember that after she left, I collapsed on my couch in despair because I was well aware that she was totally against me.  How did I know?  I have no idea--I just knew.  That's how sensitive I am as a person.  

It would have been hard to prove at the time, however, because many of the nasty things she did were not done out in public.  For instance, in November 2006, this GAL wrote a detailed report that completely trashed me to the custody evaluator, but she didn't give me a copy of it.  In fact, no one officially received a copy of it except the evaluator, but I'll bet it got passed around to people anyway.  I only had a chance to take a look at it several years later through a motion for discovery in another case.  By then, of course, the entire custody matter had been settled and there was nothing I could do about it.  

The bottom line, however, is that the measure of a GAL, if not a custody evaluator, is how effectively they have been able to resolve the conflicts in a case.  If there is extensive pre-trial conflict, and then post judgment conflict in which the parties continue to fight over custody despite the involvement of the GAL and/or custody evaluator, this means that these professionals have failed to do their jobs and should be removed from their positions.  

Thus, it seems fitting that on March 21, 2014, approximately three months after the fake Amber Alert debacle, Judge Adelman ordered GAL Attorney Kerry Tarpey off the case.  

I am assuming this was not only in response to the fake Amber Alert nonsense, but also to a motion Colleen Kerwick filed on November 25, 2013 "Motion For Removal of Guardian Ad Litem".  

In this motion, Ms. Kerwick accused GAL Kerry Tarpey of demonstrating bias against her.  For instance, she states that on multiple occasions Attorney Kerry Tarpey spent considerable time consulting with the father in Court conference rooms.  In contrast, allegedly Attorney Tarpey refused to meet with the mother for any formal sit down meetings.  

Further, Kerwick's motion alleged that Attorney Kerry Tarpey neglected her duty to the minor child, failing to take into consideration that mother was the primary parent up until the time of the filing for divorce.  Most damaging among these allegations is the statement that Attorney Tarpey wrote letters on behalf of the father instructing doctors and other professionals that the mother no longer had any decision making authority and then did not inform the mother she had done so.  

Attorney Kerry Tarpey also is alleged to have steadily disregarded the manner in which the father neglected their child's medical needs.  

I am by no means in a position to verify the truth of these allegations in detail, but I do have a copy of all the bills that Attorney Kerry Tarpey generated from July 31, 2012 when she came into the case until December 27, 2013.  I obtained them from a motion Attorney Tarpey filed a week after the fake Amber Alert incident in which she requested a hearing in order to make sure her bill would be paid.  

I was rather struck by the timing there.  Did she want to ensure that she would rewarded for her collusion in that matter?  

From what I can see, these bills indicate that Attorney Kerry Tarpey spoke to the various attorneys representing Kenneth Savino--Attorney Steven Dembo, Attorney Campbell Barrett, and Attorney Jon Kuckuka--up to 34 times.  In contrast, Attorney Tarpey only spoke to Colleen Kerwick's attorney 7 times, and that only during a single month period immediately before dissolution.  

Also, Attorney Tarpey didn't once speak to Attorney Anne Dranginis, who was Colleen's primary attorney during the months prior to judgment.  

I find it quite striking that Attorney Kerry Tarpey would be consistently in touch with father's attorney, and barely, if ever, speak to the mother's attorney.  That tells a story of bias in and off itself.  

In addition, Kerry Tarpey only did a single home visit to Ms. Colleen Kerwick's house for an hour and fifteen minutes, and I don't see that she made any visits to Kenneth Savino's house.  

Furthermore, and what is even more telling, in total, during her entire involvement in the case, Kerry Tarpey only met once with her child client for 30 minutes on January 8, 2013.  In other words, overall Kerry Tarpey charged "more than $40,000 to represent the best interests and wishes of" the child and yet only $150.00 of that was actually spent on meeting with the child.  

How can you possibly provide opinions on the best interests of a child when you barely even met with him or her?  

As I stated earlier, in an order dated March 21, 2014, Judge Adelman allowed GAL Tarpey to withdraw from the case, which I believe was a good decision based upon these facts. There is absolutely no justification for medical neglect of a child, and denying a good and fit mother who has largely been the primary parent joint decision making makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.    

Finally, there were several other orders issued on March 21, 2014.  One that I consider peculiar to say the least is Item #2 which commands Dr. Barbara Berkowitz to prepare a psychological evaluation "based on the limited information she currently has given the defendant's refusal to participate."  

Simply put, if any psychologist actually obeyed such an order he or she would be in complete violation of their professional ethics--you can't properly evaluate a person with incomplete data.  

I also find it absurd that any judge would interject himself into a separate area of professional expertise in which he does not have training and attempt to direct what this other professional will or will not do.  

Further, when will the Court, not only in Colleen Kerwick's case, but with so many other litigants, stop attempting to smear and slander good and fit parents by calling into question their mental health in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and as Amended in 2008.  

But if we must hear from a mental health professionals regarding Colleen Kerwick because the judge insists, let us hear from Dr. Stephen M. Humphrey, a well respected professional who has done extensive work for DCF in Connecticut and who did a thorough evaluation of Colleen Kerwick. In a letter dated April 11, 2014 written to Colleen Kerwick, he states as follows:  

"With regard to your question about parenting capacity, I have not observed you engaged in any acts--or exhibit any pattern of thought or behavior--that would suggest to me that you could not function entirely capably as a parent to your son.  Further, I have viewed numerous photographs and videos of the two of you together that suggest you have had a rich, loving, and positive relationship with each other.  I am concerned that a prolonged separation from your son may have adverse psychological consequences for him especially because at his age he is likely to be confused as to why such a separation has occurred or is continuing."  

Report of Neuropsychologist Dr. Rimma Danov dated November 6, 2012 regarding Ms. Colleen Kerwick:

"Her responses to an objective psychological measure revealed that she is [a] warm, compassionate, outgoing, ambitious, active, self-confident, and  sensitive individual.

Her responses suggest that she is a person who accepts personal responsibility and is ready to make changes if necessary to better herself and her relationships with others."

And finally, "She does not present with any symptoms of personality disorders or psychiatric disorders."

Kenneth Savino, from what I understand, has spent over $600,000 in order to eliminate Colleen Kerwick out of the life of their child.  I think folks don't need to look any further than this number to know that this case is all about  father's superior access to money, power, and influence, and nothing else.

Over a thousand people agreed who signed the petition to return the child to the mother.  See below:

https://www.change.org/p/stop-family-courts-taking-fundamental-rights-and-stop-the-laws-designed-to-protect-women-being-used-against-women

As a followup on the case, Ms. Colleen Kerwick posted the following later in 2014:

"After trying my own custody case in Family Court from October 20-29, 2014 against my exes teams of attorneys, shared parenting and joint physical custody was again ordered on November 5, 2014."

Still, no good mother like Colleen Kerwick should be put through this kind of family court injustice. 

CT LAW TRIBUNE REPORTS ATTORNEY SENTENCED TO A YEAR IN PRISON IN CONNECTION TO MORTGAGE SCAM!

According to the CT Law Tribune,

"A West Hartford lawyer who took part in a $3.5 million mortgage fraud scheme has been sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison, followed by five years of supervised release, according to federal prosecutors.

Gabriel R. "Gabe" Serrano, 47, was sentenced May 8 by U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson. He had previously pleaded guilty last August to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud, a charge that carries a maximum prison term of 30 years, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, a charge that carries a sentence of up to 10 years. His law license has been suspended since late 2013..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202726103410/Attorney-Sentenced-to-Year-in-Prison-in-Mortgage-Scam#ixzz3a2KgXROa

BUDLONG & BARRETT USE FAKE AMBER ALERT TO DENY MOTHER ACCESS TO HER CHILD: THE COLLEEN KERWICK STORY, PART VII

On December 20, 2013, Colleen Kerwick started the day with joint custody of her child and ended the day stripped of all her parental rights.  How could this happen?  Through a campaign of legal abuse and harassment which, for advocates such as myself is only too predictable.  

As I've mentioned, Colleen Kerwick had signed the Marital Agreement from hell on March 25, 2013 which gave both parents a shared access plan, minimal financial support for Colleen Kerwick and her child, plus decision making in the hands of her ex-husband, Kenneth Savino.  

Still not satisfied with obtaining his freedom at such a minimal cost, after the divorce, Mr. Savino repeatedly attempted to have Colleen Kerwick arrested.  Thus, even though both parties do not live in West Hartford, the West Hartford police were frequently sent to the mother's house in Avon to ask questions regarding the child's care while in the mother's custody. To Kenneth Savino's chagrin, nothing came of these visits. 

Then, in August 2013, after spending the summer months harassing Colleen Kerwick with police, Kenneth Savino filed a motion for sole custody, a reduction in parenting time for the mother, and also requested that Colleen undergo another psychological evaluation.  

This was when the ink was barely even dry on the Marital Agreement!  

It is also this writer's understanding that Kenneth Savino spoke to neighbors, medical care providers and school personnel telling them that Colleen Kerwick had lost many of her custodial rights because of mental illness.  This kind of slander is extremely degrading and humiliating.  

Again, Colleen Kerwick has been evaluated several times and she has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, although I would surmise that the kind of intensive legal abuse she has endured must be very traumatic.  

It was within the context of this kind of ongoing harassment and bullying that the Christmas Holidays arose for the year 2013.  There had been much discussion on what would happen during this upcoming Christmas Holiday.  Colleen Kerwick had wanted to spend December 20-21 with the child, but Kenneth Savino insisted that he had plans to take the child to Arizona on that Friday, December 20, 2015.  The Gal, Kerry Tarpey, shared her view that the child should go with the Father on Friday, and recommended that Colleen Kerwick celebrate Christmas later on after the holiday.

Thus, on December 20, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Colleen Kerwick went to the drop off location--Starbucks in Avon--to transfer her child into the care of her ex-husband, Kenneth Savino.  

However, he never showed up.  

Why?  

Because at that very time, Mr. Savino supported by his attorney, Attorney Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett, was down at Hartford Superior Court filing a motion entitled "Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion Regarding the Minor Child's Scheduled Vacation to Arizona With the Plaintiff Father."  In it, the father, Kenneth Savino, told the Court that Colleen Kerwick was "refusing to comply with the parenting plan" which granted him access to the child as of December 20, 2013.  

Of course, you'd think if he really wanted the child, he would have showed up at Starbucks that day to take him!  But, as I say, he didn't.

This early morning ex parte motion was presented to Judge Olear who promptly granted the motion and ordered Colleen to "transfer the minor child to the plaintiff father at 10:00 a.m. at the child's pediatrician's office."  

Marshal Kaz was then given a copy of this order to deliver to Colleen that day; however, he appears to have wandered around Avon all that day without actually delivering it, even though he reported seeing her periodically.  The end result was that Colleen never actually received a copy of it.  

Meanwhile, the father, Kenneth Savino, met Colleen Savino at the doctor's office that day at 10:00a.m. but never bothered to take custody of the child and never informed her of the order.  

Again, the question is: if he was so eager to have custody of the child that day, why didn't he just take the child when he had the opportunity?  And he did have the opportunity more than once.  

I also have a question for Colleen. Knowing that her ex was eager to have the child and that Budlong & Barrett was gunning for her, why didn't Colleen Kerwick simply insist that Kenneth Savino take the child at the doctor's office that morning, which would have been in accordance with their parenting agreement of March 25, 2013?  

Apparently, Colleen Kerwick believed that she had an understanding with Kenneth that changed the terms of the agreement.  Prior to the Thanksgiving Holiday, Kenneth Savino had agreed in writing that he would allow Colleen to celebrate December 20 and 21 with their child since she was not going to be able to be with the child on Christmas Day that year.  Thus, when he didn't take the child at the doctor's office, she just thought he'd changed his mind and was going to go with the agreement. 

Unfortunately, when she brought this argument up later on, it turned out the agreement was not notarized and so the Court did not think it was credible.  On the other hand, if you have an ex who is not hell bent to get you, verbal agreements, casual email agreements, and agreements scribbled on paper work quite fine.  It all depends upon what you want to achieve.  

I will grant you, however, that in the days leading up to the 20th, Kenneth made it clear that he wanted to have the child and he wasn't going to abide by that written agreement.  

But then it turned out that the child contracted pneumonia during that same time period and there was concern about his ability to travel.  In his later motion for sole custody, the father stated he had obtained a letter stating that the child was capable of traveling, however, what he didn't mention in his motion (and, of course, it's what doesn't get mentioned that is so important!) is that the pediatrician recommended that the child travel only as long as father brought an oxygen mask along and gave the child antibiotics.  

Colleen Kerwick could have appeared to be an overanxious mother except when you take into account the history of Kenneth Savino medically neglecting their child.  

In the first place, if a four year old child is sick with a fever and cough, and is recovering from pneumonia, why are you making him travel anywhere at all.  He is sick, for goodness sake!  The airline will take that into account and reschedule your flight without charging you an additional fine.  And you would think that if you are putting your child's well-being first, that is what you would do.  

Clearly, Kenneth Savino felt that his vacation was more important than his child's health.  

This aligns with prior information regarding Kenneth Savino's disinterest in the medical needs of his child.  For example, on April 4, 2012, the police arrested Kenneth Savino because he interfered with health care workers who were trying to give his child medical care for a seizure disorder.  

The arrest report stated, "The officer ascertained, after initiating dialogue with accused [Kenneth Savino], that the child had suffered a series of seizures prior to the notification of EMS.  Upon further attempting to converse with the accused, the officer was met with what he would describe as verbiage laced with an attitude of nonchalance a "holier than thou" demeanor, and arrogance.  The accused told the officer that his presence, and that of the other emergency service providers, was "overkill" and that his child was ok."  

Later, on December 5, 2012, neuropsychologist Dr. Rimma Danov issued a Record Review Report which indicated that during the year 2011-2012 the child "had experienced seizures only during his stays with his father, Mr. Savino."  

Further, despite professional recommendations to place the child in the highly respected birth to three program based upon developmental delays, Kenneth Savino did everything he could to prevent the child from entering the program.  Knowing as I do what a great program the birth to three program is, I can only say that Kenneth Savino's attitude here is nuts!

Granting these circumstances, it was only understandable that mother Colleen Savino was extremely worried about passing the child over to the father and did not insist the father take the child at the doctor's office when he appeared to be disinterested.  

Instead, she went around town doing a few errands,  took the child out to lunch, and ended up at Jefferson Radiology where the child had a lung x-ray per the pediatrician's orders as a prerequisite for going on the airplane--hardly necessary if she didn't intend him to go.  

At the same time that Colleen was carrying out these mundane tasks with the child, Budlong & Barrett dispatched Kenneth Savino, along with one of their attorneys, to the West Hartford Avon police station where they filled out an application for an Amber Alert stating they had no idea where Colleen was and said they suspected she was attempting to flee the country with the child.  

They said this even though there was voluminous back and forth email communication going on between the law firm and Colleen during the entire time--granted that some of that was interrupted when Colleen's phone temporarily lost energy and had to be recharged.   Budding & Barrett alone sent 41 emails to the point where Colleen clearly lost track of them all.  It does get to the point where volume of that kind comes across as simple harassment hardly due a response.

Then, at around 4:00p.m. that day, Attorney Campbell Barrett of Budlong and Barrett filed "Plaintiff's Emergency Motion to Suspend Defendant Mother's Access to Minor Child and to Award Temporary Sole custody to Plaintiff Father."  

In it Kenneth Savino claimed that "plaintiff mother disappeared with the minor child."  Right--to the local Burgerfi!  And further, "The minor child's whereabouts are unknown," even though it was understood she was heading for Jefferson Radiology later in the day.  And further, "the plaintiff father is in the process of speaking to the police about obtaining an Amber Alert."  

Yes, he was in the process, but no police officer in his right mind would have issued one!  

After all, according to the parties' Marital Agreement of April 25, 2015 father had custody of the child's passport, so there was practically no likelihood they could leave the country together without one.  

Still, it was in the face of this extraordinarily absurd claim that an Amber Alert was about to be issued that Judge Olear granted the motion giving sole custody to the father and barring mother from any access to the child.  

In defending their abusive actions, Budlong & Barrett were quick to state (more than once because they think people are deaf) that no Amber Alert was ever issued as if that somehow absolved them.  But the bottom line is they tried to get one issued, and further they implied to the Court that, in fact, one would be issued momentarily when they knew that wasn't true.  

Later that evening police came to Colleen Kerwick's door and took her child from her arms.  It was ten months before she was able to see her child again regularly and the court reinstated the shared parenting plan.

To be continued...