PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label JUDICIAL ABUSE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JUDICIAL ABUSE. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

FAMILY COURT VICTIMS NOT SORRY ABOUT THE DOWNFALL OF JUDGE JANE B. EMONS!


As Michael Skakel exits the CT Judicial System after years of persecution, it is interesting to see family court victims succeed in their efforts after similarly fighting years of persecution.  When it comes to Michael Skakel, the press is beginning to understand that there might have been a miscarriage of justice.  Unfortunately, when it comes to family court victims the media still lacks any insight.  

Thursday, May 3, 2018

TO LEGISLATORS: JUDGE JANE B. EMONS DISREGARDS THE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE, BULLIES PARENTS, AND IS UNWORTHY OF REAPPOINTMENT!


A Concerned Citizen speaks up against Judge Jane B. Emons 
Dear Legislators, 
In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the following summaries and attached cases.
Friends and families are concerned about Judge Emons who has displayed unprofessional conduct, especially to minorities who represent themselves in front of her. We are hopeful that you will protect the public interest and VOTE NO on Judge Emons.
In an effort to assist you in making an informed decision, I have summarized 3 of the cases for your convenience and also attached the cases themselves. Even the appellate court has hinted at some underlying problems that exist with Judge Emons, including comments from the appellate court in the Jordan M. v Darric M (2016) case  attached:

-“The record in this case is confusing at best and certain portions of the file appear to have been entered under incorrect docket numbers. “[Appellate Court] -   [Appellate Court] -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- “The court's reasoning for granting the application for the restraining order is not clear, . . . There was no evidence that there was violent or physically threatening conduct on the night of August 21, 2015, and there was no evidence that the defendant presented a threat of physical pain or injury to Jordan. “The plain language of § 46b–15 clearly requires a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury before a court can grant a domestic violence restraining order.” [Appellate Court]  -  Jordan M. v Darric M case

- The Appellate Court noted they were unable to review a claim due to Emons’ failure to provide adequate “findings of facts.”  This seems to be a recurrent theme with other cases in which Emons was overturned where she fails to make adequate findings of facts as she is required to do -  perhaps to further insulate her decisions from being overturned on appeal.  The Appellate Court stated:

“Due to a lack of an adequate record, we are unable to review this claim.” [Appellate Court]

In another  line of appellate cases, there is a disturbing trend by Judge Emons to violate the well known "American Rule" where all litigants pay for their own representation. However, Judge Emons has decided to make it onerous for litigants to bring their cases up for appeal by ordering them to pay the opposing side's attorney fees as was done in the Rinfret (appellate court reversing Emons' order to pay $90,000 in attorney fees) and the Lederle case (reversing  Emons' order to pay $30,000 in attorney fees) which are attached.  By doing so, Judge Emons is less likely to see these cases go to appeal and have her decisions overturned.  


In Clark v. Clark, Judge Emons ordered - without motion of either parent - that the parents have their children evaluated at their expense and then, after she reviewed the resulting report, ordered that the report NOT be released to the parents and then made further orders in connection with the children based on the report which she had ordered not be provided to the parents. She did this when in a post-judgment proceeding when one parent had already been awarded custody of the children. How can Emons's acts be constitutional?
In another matter (Sargent v Sargent), when a parent sought to remove the GAL, Judge Emons appointed a lawyer, AT THE PARENT'S EXPENSE and with no legal precedent or authority to do so, to defend the GAL (who has complete immunity) against the allegations of misconduct. This attorney for the GAL then charged $850/hr to defend the GAL. Judge Emons has threatened to remove legal custody of children from a parent as a "judicial sanction" when the parent challenged the conduct of the GAL .

I have also included transcript excerpts that demonstrate the following:
-          Judge Emons' disregard for Rules of Evidence
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for how hearsay evidence is to be considered
-          Judge Emons' steering testimony – perhaps wrongly to achieve the outcome she desires
-          Judge Emons' disrespect for other lawyers and litigants

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this very important matter whereas she impacts the lives of  many families and friends and her reappointment should not be taken lightly.  Another 8 years of Judge Emons is almost another decade of her continued abuse. The public is owed a duty of respect and well considered decisions in accord with the rule of law.

CONNECTICUT VOTERS CONTINUE TO CALL INTO QUESTION JUDGE JANE B. EMONS FITNESS FOR RENOMINATION!


 Written by a Concerned Citizen
Dear Legislators, 

In considering how to cast your vote on the re-nomination of Judge Jane B. Emons, I ask that you bring your attention to the attached case, Jeffrey Emons, Jane Emons, and Lesley Emons v. RBS Citizens Bank (NNH-12-6030462-S). 

In that case, Judge Emons and her immediate family members brought a lawsuit in a Connecticut court against the bank, RBS, because RBS apparently required Judge Emons and her husband to pay an extra 1.75 points over what RBS initially offered in order for them to secure a mortgage for their daughter. In addition, in that lawsuit Judge Emons and her family also brought a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress, because, apparently, Judge Emons and the other Plaintiffs had “to spend dozens of hours on the telephone.” 

In my opinion, the above case drives home many of the concerns already brought to the legislature by a growing number of litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, including the following: 

1. Judge Emons lacks the demeanor, temperament, and resiliency required of a family court judge. 

To prevail in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, a Plaintiff must show that they suffered emotional distress severe enough that it might result in illness or bodily harm. See the case of Olson v. Bristol-Burlington Health Dist., 87 Conn. App. 1, 5, 863 A.2d 748, 752 (2005). 

Here, we must take Judge Emons at her own word, in that having to pay extra points at a real estate closing and spending hours on the phone caused her severe emotional distress, to the point that illness or bodily harm could result to her. If that is the case, Judge Emons cannot seriously contend to have the temperament or demeanor required of a family court judge, who must often make difficult decisions concerning the wellbeing and custody of minor children, all the while operating in the heated environment of divorce proceedings. 

Yet clearly, the many members of the public who have spoken at length reveal that Judge Emons regularly displays those same type of hypersensitive reactions in her own courtroom, whether it be by snapping at and demeaning litigants, issuing orders that are spiteful and/or vindictive, ignoring the law, or simply continuing matters perpetually so that families and children of this State are denied meaningful access to the courts. The claims Judge Emons makes in her lawsuit simply affirm what so many have also stated to this legislature in phone calls, in writing, and by personal testimony: she is not the right person for this job. 

2. Judge Emons lacks the empathy and understanding required of a family court judge. 

In conjunction with temperament issues, we must also consider what this lawsuit says about Judge Emon’s worldview, and her ability to understand or value the position of family court litigants. 

While Judge Emons lives in a world where it is acceptable to be outraged and aggrieved because you are required to pay an extra 1.75 points on a mortgage, family court litigants live in world where everything, from their homes, their financial security, to their very children, could be lost at the hands of an out of touch judge. Sadly, this again echoes what has already been stated by many citizens who have come forward to express their opinions against Judge Emon’s re-nomination. 

Ironically and tragically in this State, family court litigants are expected to tolerate gross procedural violations, abusive treatment, and complete disregard for families and children, all with little to no complaint, lest they be labeled as “disgruntled parents.” 

Yet, in her own (very) different world, Judge Emons expects white glove treatment for her and her children, and is willing to bring a lawsuit when those expectations are not met. That may certainly be her right, but it is also the right of litigants and children in this State to expect much more, and a family court judge who is this tone deaf is simply out of touch with the needs of those in her courtroom. 
At this point, the record is clear:

  •  multiple Federal lawsuits, all articulating egregious violations of constitutional rights, in particular due process, naming Judge Emons:

1:  2011 -3:11-cv-01841-SRU, Roque v. Iannotti et al.

2:  2013 - 3:13-cv-00016-JBA, Nowacki v. Emons et al.

3:  2013 - 3:13-cv-00863-JBA, Sargent v. Emons et al.

4: 2014 - 3:14-cv-01869-JAM,Hansen-Hodgkinson v. Emons et al.

5:  2015 - 3:15-cv-00959-SRU, Whitnum v. Emons et al.

6:  2017 - 3:17-cv-00127-VLB, Manchanda v. Emons et al.;
  • approximately 30 grievance complaints;  
  • a groundswell of Connecticut residents, litigants, non-litigants, attorneys, and concerned citizens, from all walks of life who have spoken out, sometimes at great personal risk, to prevent this re-nomination. 

Connecticut can, and must, do better. Please vote NO on the re-nomination of Judge Jane Emons.

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

CT VICTIMS OF FAKE ACCUSATIONS OF THE QUACK, UNSCIENTIFIC THEORY OF PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME AND ITS VARIANTS!



Let us today remember the victims of the fake diagnosis PAS or PA or "alienation" or however father's rights people choose to designate it. 

This is often designated "the mental illness that HAS NO NAME" because judges who know that it is illegal to seize children from fit mothers based upon this quack diagnosis simply state on the record that the mother has a mental illness but they don't know what it is.  We know, however, exactly what they mean.  We know that such judges are committing fraud against mothers, many of whom are victims of abuse, or their children are victims of abuse. 

These mothers who were falsely accused have often lost all access to their children, were bankrupted, or had their reputations publically slandered and attacked.  In many cases the children were placed in the hands of their abusers.

See below for names of the CT victims of this travesty:

Susan Skipp, Falsely accused
Angela Hickman, Falsely accused
Kathi Sorrentino, Falsely accused
Maureen Strathearn, Falsely accused
Sandra MacVicar, Falsely accused
Sunny Kelley, Falsely accused
Mia Farrow, Falsely accused
Karyn Gil, Falsely accused
Leslie Cox, Falsely accused
Carol Krukiel, Falsely accused
Marlene Dybek, Falsely accused
Jane Doe 1, Falsely accused
Jane Doe 2, Falsely accused
Jane Doe 3, Falsely accused
and many more!

Monday, April 16, 2018

NY TIMES ARTICLE IN 2006 CITES THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS IN CT FAMILY COURT THAT WE HAVE IN 2018!

By Avi Salzman, September 11, 2005

"The mother from North Haven sat in the back of Judge Patricia L. Harleston's wood-paneled courtroom at the New Haven County Courthouse and cried quietly. She was unemployed, she owed more than $2,000 in child support and she had no idea how she was going to defend herself. She said she couldn't afford a lawyer, so she was representing herself at the child support hearing. Meanwhile, the lawyer for the father of her children sat across the room.

"I don't know what my rights are," said the mother, who asked that her name not be used because of the sensitive nature of the hearing. "When someone else has an attorney, they know all the ins and outs and I don't."

Same players, same victims, except in 2005 only 50% of litigants were self represented.  In 2018, 89% of litigants are self represented.  Note the reference to how the majority of self represented litigants are women! 

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

JONATHAN P. WIEGAND, DEAD AT 31.

It is with sadness that I have to report the death of Jonathan P. Wiegand who died suddenly on Friday August 11, 2017.  See link:  

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/middletownpress/obituary.aspx?pid=186388780


During the 1990s, as a child of 4, Jonathan was in the center of an extremely controversial custody case in which his mother, Linda Wiegand, accused the stepfather, Thomas Wilkinson, of sexually abusing his stepson, Jonathan, and their younger son, Ben (3).  At one point, Ms. Wiegand fled to Las Vegas and two years later was discovered and charged with custodial interference.  

Jonathan P. Wiegand
This case set the stage for future custody switching schemes in which protective mothers in the State of Connecticut have lost custody, and indeed, all access to their children who are then transferred into the sole custody of the fathers who abused them.  The players in her case subsequently went on to become involved in other cases where good parents lost custody of their children.  This includes Judge Herbert Barall, Dr. Kenneth Robson, Attorney Louis Kiefer, and Dr. James C. Black.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

CALIFORNIA MOM ROISIN CASSIDY: VICTIM OF AN ATTORNEY DISCOVERY SCAM!

Many of us have come to believe that our own attorney was working for the other side. However, when we confronted our attorneys about our suspicions or brought the issue up before the Court, we have been scoffed at and mocked.  

In the letter below, you will see how one litigant, Roisin Cassidy, actually caught out two of her attorneys working in coordination together and with the opposing attorney so that she would lose custody through a scheme that revolved around court rules in regard to discovery.  What the attorneys did was collude with each other in a post judgment custody switching scheme to allow the abusive father discovery, while Ms. Cassidy was prohibited from doing so.

Monday, November 28, 2016

FAMILY COURT POLICIES BAR MOTHERS FROM PROTECTING THEIR CHILDREN!

There are two things that happened to me recently which set off an important chain of thought.  The first is that I was contacted by a person I'd met in the course of writing my blog.  She told me that when her children are at their father's home he is often drunk and violent towards them.  Unfortunately, there is nothing she can do because, in her divorce, she was designated the bad parent and had to go through multiple hoops to retain custody.  

The testimony of the children, the documentary evidence of the father's abuse didn't matter.  What mattered was that the court had decided to favor the abuser who was again the father, and the mother was left in a position where she could do little to protect her children.  

The second situation is that a close friend of one of my children committed suicide.  This friend was in his or her early 20s, just graduated from College practically.  I don't want to provide identifying details regarding who this person is just for reasons of privacy and respect. However, what I did want to say is that doctors suspect that the reason why this person committed suicide had to do with sports related injuries which led to serious depression. I then asked my child if she had sustained similar type injuries and she said "yes", in fact she had.  

Her response completely shocked me because it never occurred to me that she'd gone through this without my knowing.  Apparently, because my child didn't want to trouble me with information about a situation she knew I couldn't protect her from given the ongoing indifference of family court, she decided not to tell me. The concussions my child was newly reporting to me were over and above the other injuries I knew about, i.e. two broken shoulders, two broken noses, and irreversible nerve damage.  

Some of these injuries occurred because my ex husband failed to provide my child with the kind of proper equipment that is essential when you play the kind of sports my child played.  I only found this out when other parents pulled me aside during games to ask me what was going on and why didn't my child have the proper gear.  Unfortunately, unlike my ex, who is highly sports oriented, I was unfamiliar with what was necessary. Thankfully, once these concerned parents had clued me in, I was able to stay on top of the problem.  But not before the damage had been done.

Another reason these injuries occurred is simply because my child was a very slight and fragile young person who should not have been engaged in these kinds of activities because he simply didn't have the necessary bulk to participate safely.  

However, when I brought these issues up with my own attorney and with the guardian ad litem in my case, they made light of my concerns and laughed them off.  The guardian ad litem sneered and made comments that led me to believe that he thought I was bringing up my safety concerns regarding my child's sports activities simply as a means to get an edge in the custody battle.  My own attorney went on about how team sports would toughen my kid up and prepare her properly for the cruel world she'd face in the years to come.

Even though I repeatedly brought to the attention of my attorney and the GAL medical reports indicating that my child was sustaining more injuries than was healthy at his age, they both dismissed and mocked my concerns.  What gets me even now is that it wasn't the opposing attorney who amused himself at my expense and that of my child, it was my own attorney. This tells you how difficult it can be for protective mothers.  

As mothers, we are well aware that our children are being injured in ways that will affect them for their entire lives and yet the family court system and its associated attorneys make light of the situation and act like mothers who express their worry must have Munchausen's by Proxy, or something similar.  

In fact, as a consequence of the fact that I expressed such concern regarding my child's well being related to her sports activities, the GAL and the attorneys in my case insisted upon including an additional provision in our parenting agreement specifically giving my ex husband sole authority when it came to signing my child up for sports. This gave my ex permanent free rein to expose my child to potentially life threatening conditions within the sports arena.  

I have already spoken about this problem in a previous blog on this website which I entitled "The Kids Are Not All Right." What I am writing about now is just a reaffirmation of the ongoing existence of this problem.  

I am also saying that little did I know that the problem was much more severe than I had earlier thought.  

As mothers, when we hand our children over to their fathers for parenting time, we simply have to trust that father's behavior will be responsible.  What can you do about what you don't know about because you aren't there? In my situation, my child was sustaining even more severe injuries than I knew about in his father's care.  As I said earlier, it is only now that my child feels free enough to tell me about the concussions and the nerve damage he endured. Those injuries are for life.  

The loss of a friend through suicide is also an injury for life.  This is a friend my child grew up with from Kindergarten.

That friend who died was also a child of divorce.  I can only hope that my child will not end up the same way, but there is no guarantee.  

Bottom line, however, is we have a family court system that is thoroughly irresponsible about the way in which they are handling the physical and psychological health of our children. In its rush to whitewash the behavior of fathers merely because they are fathers, particularly the abusive ones, they have put at risk thousands of children, placing them in situations that are completely unacceptable, and then demonizing their mothers who try to protect them.  

I continue to be appalled by the fact that the media doesn't report on this situation, that our representatives haven't addressed this issue about which they were well informed in 2014, and that our CT Judicial Branch continues to stonewall any attempt to hold them to account regarding how it treats vulnerable children.  This situation is and remains a disgrace.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

DID ATTORNEY ROSA REBIMBAS IGNORE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WHICH SHOULD HAVE KEPT HER OUT OF THE STVAN CASE? PART IV: STVAN v. STVAN!














On September 25, 2015, during an "ex parte hearing" in the Stvan v. Stvan case, the Court transferred temporary full custody to Thomas Stvan. At the same time, the Court also appointed Attorney Rosa Rebimbas as the Attorney For the Minor child or AMC.  Just to note, for your information, by ex parte I mean that Ms. Paige Stvan was not present at the hearing to defend herself from the accusations again her, and in fact, she wasn't even informed that the hearing was taking place.  By law, 14 days after the ex parte hearing, Ms. Paige Taylor should have been allowed to have an evidentiary hearing where she could defend herself.  But as I have stated, she never had one, which is illegal.

Of course, the immediate question here is, why does a 12 year old need an AMC?  An AMC   primarily participates in a legal matter involving a minor child to ensure the client is accorded her legal rights.  It is a very limited role and is usually reserved for older teenagers around 15,16 years old who are almost independent. No 12 year old is mature enough to make life changing decisions and direct the actions of an attorney at such a young age.  In contrast, a GAL's role is more geared towards conducting investigations and working with the family, which would seem more appropriate where one party had made unfounded accusations. 

What I would suspect is that the reason the Court assigned an AMC is that Thomas Stvan exaggerated the situation to make it appear as though Ms. Paige Stvan's condition was so severe that she wouldn't be in the picture for months to come, and that there would be no need for an investigation and a report in preparation for the 14 day follow up hearing to see if the change of custody was truly necessary.

Another reason a jaded person like me would speculate that the Court diverted from its ordinary manner of doing business and appointed an AMC for the child at this juncture is that all conversations, all correspondence related to representing a child become secret and confidential if you are acting as an AMC. Because documentation created or received while acting as an AMC is not discoverable, this means that acting in that role allows any legal professional considerable leeway to hide any wrongdoing.  

So who is this Attorney Rosa Rebimbas who is supposed to be acting on behalf of the child in this case as AMC? Attorney Rosa Rebimbas is a State Representative in the CT General Assembly.  This is the same Attorney Rebimbas who not long ago saw fit to verbally abuse and attack a fellow member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Minnie Gonzales, who has been so courageous in calling attention to the abuses and corruption of family court.  

Of course, those of us who fought for the Task Force that investigated the misdeeds of family court, those of us who had the courage to step forward, despite fears of retaliation, to speak out and provide testimony about our sufferings as a consequence of the wrongdoing of the CT Judicial Branch, have viewed Rep. Minnie Gonzales as our standard bearer.  Rep. Minnie Gonzales is the warrior who spoke out courageously on our behalf, who had compassion for our hurt and pain, and for the loss of beloved children and homes and college tuition accounts, who understood how it felt for us to be thrown out onto the streets, jailed and deprived of precious family bonds with our children as a consequence of the denial of our constitutional and human rights within the CT Family Court system.  

Attorney Rosa Rebimbas is the State Representative who took it upon herself to insult our standard bearer, Rep. Minnie Gonzales, and call into question her integrity and her devotion to the people of the State of Connecticut and also to the victims of family court.  This is the woman who appears in the middle of this case--Stvan v. Stvan--to orchestrate, what I believe to be, one of the worse cases of child stealing from a protective mother--Ms. Paige Stvan--that I have seen in years, and I've seen and written about some of the worst.   

Let me just say at the outset that it appears to me that appointing Attorney Rosa Rebimbas in a custody case before a family court judge represents a conflict of interest for her.  This is why I question whether it was appropriate for her to be in this case at all.  The reason why is because, at the same time she is appearing before Judge Gerald Adelman, she is also an active member of the CT General Assembly's Judiciary Committee.  It is her job to vote to reconfirm Judge Adelman to the bench when he comes up for reappointment.  So she is supposed to be appearing before Judge Adelman in a subordinate role, while at the same time she is also in the position of monitoring him and holding him to account for complaints that citizens make against him.  

Why is this even legal?  

There is also another conflict of interest.  At the start of this case during the ex parte hearing on September 25, 2015, Attorney Rosa Rebimbas was appointed to act as the Attorney For the Minor Child (AMC) in the Stvan v. Stvan case.  Again, we can call into question how come a child of 12 would ever in a million years have an AMC represent her, but be that as it may.  Later, in November 2015, Attorney Rebimbas switched roles and became the GAL for the minor child and handed the job of AMC to another attorney, Bradford Barney.  

I just personally find this switcheroo of roles very inappropriate.  

She shouldn't be playing two separate positions for the minor child, bottom line, of course, because it is confusing for the child, but most specifically because it blurs boundaries in regard to her responsibilities.  Of course, I am aware that in Connecticut Family Court it is a standard for an attorney to act as both Attorney for the Minor Child and Guardian ad Litem at the same time, but to me that's just one more example of the complete insanity of Family Court in Connecticut.  So now this little girl has been told she had one kind of relationship with Attorney Rosa Rebimbas, and now the page is turned and the relationship must transform to something completely different.  That's tough enough to do with an adult, but doing that to a child is outrageous!

As an aside, at this point it is worth noting that over half of the people elected to the CT State Legislature are all attorneys.  So it is like this private mafia of attorneys all together in this group, dominating the legislature, who I believe, engage actively in supporting and covering up for their comrades in the legal profession, even to the point where it is colluding with activities within the Family Court system which are causing harm and damage to Connecticut's citizens.  

If these conflicts of interest make you uncomfortable, you can imagine how uncomfortable they made Ms. Paige Stvan.  As a consequence, at the hearing on choosing a GAL for her little girl in November 2015, Ms. Paige Stvan strongly objected to the appointment of Attorney Rosa Rebimbas as GAL.   Not only did she object personally in Court, she also submitted two lengthy and detailed motions to the Court asking to have Attorney Rebimbas totally removed from the case, one on December 6, 2015 and another on December 8, 2015.  In doing so, Ms. Stvan had a strong legal position. Under CT Public Act 14-3, the Court must provide to the parties in a case a list of fifteen approved people to serve as the GAL.  The parties then have a right to agree on a person from that list of 15.  

Unfortunately, and this is where a huge loophole appears, if the parties disagree, then the Court is allowed to choose a person from that list of his own accord.  In the Stvan case, without even allowing the parties to confer regarding who would be the GAL, and without even providing them with the list of 15 potential candidates, Judge Gerald Adelman simply appointed Attorney Rosa Rebimbas over Ms. Paige Stvan's objections. Somehow, when it put CT Public Act 14-3 into place, I don't think that the State legislature intended the Court to ride rough shod over the wishes of the parties in a case as it did with Ms. Stvan, particularly when there were solid grounds to simply remove Ms. Rebimbas from the case entirely, i.e. her lack of neutrality and fairness towards Ms. Paige Stvan. 

As Guardian Ad Litem, it was Attorney Rosa Rebimbas' responsibility to carry out a full investigation into what was going on with Thomas Stvan, Paige Stvan, and the minor child.  As a result, If you review the record of the case, Ms. Paige Stvan brought to Court and made available to Attorney Rosa Rebimbas and the Court numerous mental health professionals and private citizens who supported her as an individual and as a mother.  There was Ms. Ashley Adamson, LCSW, Dr. Eric D. Jackson, Ph.D., Ms. Danielle Sileo, LMFT, Pamela Lape, M.S.W., Dr. Lawrence Lorfice, M.D., Dr. Linda Gunsberg, Ph.D., and Ms. Linda J. Gottlieb, LMFT, LCSW-R.  as well as friends who provided letters and affidavits to the Court.

However, even though some of these professionals personally travelled all the way to Court, some from out of state, and spent the entire day waiting to provide their testimony, Attorney Rosa Rebimbas, from what I understand, prevented the Court from hearing about or listening directly to their testimony.  Not only that, she simply ignored the recommendations that these professionals made.  

In an email dated March 6, 2016, one of these professionals, Dr. Linda Gunsberg provided a written overview of a conversation she'd had directly with Attorney Rosa Rebimbas in which she recommended that an independent forensic family expert evaluate the Stvan family to determine what was going on.  Dr. Gunsberg also recommended a mental status examination of both parents, psychological testing of both parents and an assessment of the child.  In specific, Dr. Gunsberg stated that "the forensic expert must be trained in the assessment of children, parental alienation, domestic violence, and the interrelationship between domestic violence and parental alienation."  

Despite these recommendations from a trained mental health professional indicating the most effective way of resolving the case in the best interests of the child, Attorney Rosa Rebimbas simply ignored them all and didn't follow through.  

Overall, obstruction and non cooperation were Attorney Rebimbas' way of interacting with Ms. Paige Stvan across the Board in violation of her professional obligation as a GAL to remain independent and objective and to show respect for persons.  

Eventually, Ms. Paige Stvan directed several discovery requests towards Attorney Rebimbas.  However, instead of responding promptly, as was appropriate, the latter chose to ignore the requests, even though she received a court order on March 17, 2016 from Judge Gerald Adelman to comply.  I would suspect Representative Rosa Rebimbas felt that she didn't have to be too concerned about a Judge's order, seeing that she was such an important person. And she was right.  What is particularly egregious is that, in her incomplete response to discovery, Attorney Rebimbas took the opportunity to slander Ms. Paige Stvan's character further and draw negative inferences in regard to the presence or absence of her ADA advocates which had no basis in the truth.  As I have stated, ADA advocates didn't remain in the case because the Court disrespected their work.

It is true you can take advantage of self represented parties like Ms. Paige Stvan because they are vulnerable and often don't know the rules.  The only question I'm left with here is what happened to Rosa Rebimbas' oath as an attorney "that you will do nothing dishonest, and will not knowingly allow anything dishonest to be done in court"?  What about her obligation to uphold the law?  Did these conflicts of interest I have detailed here compromise Attorney Rosa Rebimbas ability to act ethically in this case?  We will never know.  What we do know is that, as a direct result of her actions, Ms. Paige Stvan has had to endure the worst kind of pain and injustice that a mother can be subjected to.  

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

A READER RESPONSE TO THE NEWS THAT THE FAMILY COMMISSION IS DISBANDING!

In late 2008, early 2009, Munro was given permission to invite certain non-judicial members of the bar to serve on her "Committee". Later, she changed the name to "Commission", I believe she changed the name on her own, and by no official process. She sent invitations to attorneys before she was given permission to do so, I believe. 

One of the attorneys was invited to join at the very time he managed to extract himself from a highly contentious Stamford case over which Munro had presided, and at exactly the same time she left Stamford for Middletown, after assigning that same contentious case to Middletown where she was heading... This attorney had admitted to a certain jurist that he had been aware of his client's fraud upon the court for nearly a year and requested to be relieved of the case. Before he abandoned his client, he had Munro order the family's pensions liquidated to address, pre-judgment, insane fees that were never before the court and were later found unreasonable, just after he had her invade minor children's trust funds to pay for bogus forensic psychological evaluations with Sidney Horowitz. 

Some of the first items on the Commission's agenda were emergency ex-parte motions for custody, GAL training and fees, and invasions of minor children's "custodial accounts" for payment of forensic psychological testing. These issues were urgent, because Munro had made some crazy rulings and needed some quick rule changes before she was personally sued. (Trust funds are not "custodial accounts" - they are independent legal entities that are specifically protected by state statutes) .

Munro and the attorney who proposed the rule change that would allow the court to order minor children to pay for their family's bogus psychological evaluations and did so under false pretext, for they failed to disclose to the Commission the fact that the case had been before Munro and Munro had ordered minor children's trust funds improperly invaded while she denied the mother a support hearing even after learning the mother and children had no heat or phone service and had been heating the home with an oven, that the mother and children had received zero dollars in child support in 2 years because that special attorney had made sure the mother never had her hearings by scheduling with Munro "emergency status conferences" (15 in 8 months!) during which she granted for him motion that were not even drafted, before canceling that mother's scheduled hearing and ordering the pensions liquidated without a financial hearing for inflated legal fees that later were found to be "unreasonable" but were until that point the cause for the attorney to bankrupt the family by placing a lis pendens on their home and failing to remove it upon court order…

Because all the orders were made "without prejudice and to be addressed at trial" the mother was unable to remedy the situation until trial, which was cancelled by Munro 7 times and ultimately never occurred due to the litigant's being stripped of their net worth. The mother could therefore not appeal.

Friday, July 17, 2015

MEDIA AND THE COURTS: BONNIE RUSSELL'S BLOG EXPOSES JUDGE BARRY PINKUS' PAST HISTORY!

According to journalist Bonnie Russell of "Media and the Courts":
"A few weeks ago, Family court litigant, Adrianne Oyola, received a temporary restraining order to prevent Tony Moreno, the father of Adrianne’s seven month old son, Aaden Moreno, from hurting Aaden.  The order was signed from a still as yet to be identified, family court judge.
But when Adrianne returned to court with a request to make the temporary restraining order permanent, Judge Barry Pinkus refused her request; and Adrianne’s temporary restraining order, expired.
“Expired” turned out to be the operative term.
Judge Barry C. Pinkus - killerjudges.com
Judge Barry Pinkus – killer judge
Barely a month after Judge Pinkus’s ruling, Tony Moreno threw seven month old Aaden off the Arrigoni Bridge, into the Connecticut River.
Aaden promptly drowned..."














READ MORE: