Notice that killer dad ROB KING wanted full custody, not joint. Fathers Rights guys have insisted for years that they only want custody "shared" because it's "equal." Not true. Abuser dads want total control--and they want to crush the mother in the process. Killing to them is the Ultimate Solution.
http://wtvr.com/2013/09/19/mother-of-hanover-twins-killed-amid-custody-dispute-begged-court-for-help/
Mother of Hanover twins killed amid custody dispute begged court for help
Posted on: 1:02 am, September 19, 2013, by Web Staff
HANOVER COUNTY, Va. (WTVR) – It was a crime that sent shock waves through Central Virginia.
In the midst of a bitter custody battle, police said a Hanover County mother walked in to find her twin girls murdered in their beds by their father.
Kristi King, the girls’ mother, said she begged the court system for help and hopes her story will force family courts to listen to parents who express fear for their children’s safety.
“I sent my lawyer and the guardian ad litem pictures of them in their casket. I was angry,” said King during an interview with WUSA’s Andrea McCarren.
Rob King bought each of his twin daughters a fish, signed them up for swim lessons and gave them a bath. Hours later, he pumped carbon monoxide into their bedroom and slit their throats.
“I went and knocked on the door and the carbon monoxide detector was going off, said Kristi King. “And at that moment, I knew they were dead…. because they hated noise.”
The couple was in the midst of a bitter divorce and custody battle. King had offered joint custody of the three year olds, but her husband wanted the girls to himself.
In the months leading up to the murders, King said she pleaded with a court-appointed mediator to push for an emergency hearing as her estranged husband’s behavior grew increasingly erratic.
“She said he didn’t qualify because he hadn’t been diagnosed with anything,” King said. “Despite the every ten minute texting, the shoplifting.”
She said she told the mediator that her husband looked at porn, but she said no one would help.
In fact, King said she was told there was no appointment available for a psychiatric evaluation for several months.
King’s case is not unique. In a recent two-year period, the Center for Judicial Excellence tracked news reports that indicated fathers killed their own children in more than 100 cases related to custody and visitation disputes.
“When I show you a text that says, ‘I’m gonna make sure all your children are taken from you,’ you need to listen,” King warned. “My thought was that he would kidnap them. I didn’t think he would kill them.”
Showing posts with label Center for Judicial Excellence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Center for Judicial Excellence. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Dad's murder of 2-year-old girl leads to call for disbarment of dad's lawyer brother (Sacramento, California)
It's about time somebody fought back against these fathers rights bullies. Kudos for the Center for Judicial Excellence. We've reported on killer dad MOURAD "MONI" SAMAAN several times within the past week.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/tragic_death_of_tot_after_hard-fought_custody_case_leads_to_call_for_disbar/
Legal Ethics
Tragic Death of Tot After Hard-Fought Custody Case Leads to Call for Disbarment of Dad’s Lawyer Sib
Posted Aug 17, 2011 5:20 PM CDT
By Martha Neil
Stunned by the recent death of a 2-year-old girl at the center of a hard-fought California custody case, observers wondered what might have been done differently to prevent the tragedy. Although the case is still being investigated, news reports indicate Madeline Layla Samaan-Fay likely died as a result of a murder-suicide by her father, Mourad “Moni” Samaan, 49. Their bodies were found over the weekend.
The deaths, which may have been caused by carbon monoxide poisoning while the two were in a sports utility vehicle, followed an award of custody to the girl's mother, Marcia Ann Fay. She is well-known as a deputy to state Attorney General Kamala Harris, recounts the Capitol Weekly.
Following news of the deaths, Samaan's father and brother reportedly blamed what they called a corrupt court system for the custody award. But it was additional comments made by the brother, who is an attorney, that provided an unusual focus for public outrage. In a television interview with Fox News, lawyer Nabil Samaan, who apparently did not have a role as an attorney in the custody case, implied that his brother had acted appropriately.
“I think he did the right thing. I’m proud of him," Nabil Samaan said, prompting the network's reporter to ask him what he meant. Replied Samaan: “I think justice was done."
Late yesterday, the Center for Judicial Excellence filed a complaint with the State Bar of California asking that it consider lifting Samaan's law license over the comments he made concerning the child's death. They demonstrate both a lack of requisite moral character needed to work as a lawyer and conflict with an ethical obligation to support the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the CJE contends.
However, lawyers who regularly defend other lawyers in ethics cases tell the Capitol Weekly that Samaan's comments aren't likely to result in his disbarment, or, it appears, even lesser legal discipline:
While in “incredibly bad taste," Samaan's comments probably would be considered constitutionally protected free speech, said attorney Jerome Fiskin of Fiskin Slater. Although Samaan probably won't be disciplined for making the statements, they're likely to have an adverse affect on his law practice and discourage potential clients from retaining him, Fiskin notes.
Another lawyer points out that Samaan's anguish over his brother's death likely would excuse any rash statements he made immediately afterward.
The Sacramento Bee details the twists and turns in the custody case and a Sacramento Bee opinion piece points out the obvious:
Whatever problems may or may not have existed in this family or the court that handled the custody case, there can be no possible justification for taking the life of an innocent child.
Fay, 46, declined the Bee's requests for comment.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/tragic_death_of_tot_after_hard-fought_custody_case_leads_to_call_for_disbar/
Legal Ethics
Tragic Death of Tot After Hard-Fought Custody Case Leads to Call for Disbarment of Dad’s Lawyer Sib
Posted Aug 17, 2011 5:20 PM CDT
By Martha Neil
Stunned by the recent death of a 2-year-old girl at the center of a hard-fought California custody case, observers wondered what might have been done differently to prevent the tragedy. Although the case is still being investigated, news reports indicate Madeline Layla Samaan-Fay likely died as a result of a murder-suicide by her father, Mourad “Moni” Samaan, 49. Their bodies were found over the weekend.
The deaths, which may have been caused by carbon monoxide poisoning while the two were in a sports utility vehicle, followed an award of custody to the girl's mother, Marcia Ann Fay. She is well-known as a deputy to state Attorney General Kamala Harris, recounts the Capitol Weekly.
Following news of the deaths, Samaan's father and brother reportedly blamed what they called a corrupt court system for the custody award. But it was additional comments made by the brother, who is an attorney, that provided an unusual focus for public outrage. In a television interview with Fox News, lawyer Nabil Samaan, who apparently did not have a role as an attorney in the custody case, implied that his brother had acted appropriately.
“I think he did the right thing. I’m proud of him," Nabil Samaan said, prompting the network's reporter to ask him what he meant. Replied Samaan: “I think justice was done."
Late yesterday, the Center for Judicial Excellence filed a complaint with the State Bar of California asking that it consider lifting Samaan's law license over the comments he made concerning the child's death. They demonstrate both a lack of requisite moral character needed to work as a lawyer and conflict with an ethical obligation to support the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the CJE contends.
However, lawyers who regularly defend other lawyers in ethics cases tell the Capitol Weekly that Samaan's comments aren't likely to result in his disbarment, or, it appears, even lesser legal discipline:
While in “incredibly bad taste," Samaan's comments probably would be considered constitutionally protected free speech, said attorney Jerome Fiskin of Fiskin Slater. Although Samaan probably won't be disciplined for making the statements, they're likely to have an adverse affect on his law practice and discourage potential clients from retaining him, Fiskin notes.
Another lawyer points out that Samaan's anguish over his brother's death likely would excuse any rash statements he made immediately afterward.
The Sacramento Bee details the twists and turns in the custody case and a Sacramento Bee opinion piece points out the obvious:
Whatever problems may or may not have existed in this family or the court that handled the custody case, there can be no possible justification for taking the life of an innocent child.
Fay, 46, declined the Bee's requests for comment.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Mother bringing abuse case to Supreme Court (Daytona Beach, Florida)
If your organization is able to supply an amicus brief in support of this mother, please do. Although I've read about many outrageous miscarriages of justice when it comes to custody/visitation issues, Linda Marie Sacks' case is clearly one of the more outrageous.
Mother bringing case to US Supreme Court/ Constitutional Violations/ Rights of Mothers/Linda Marie Sacks
Human Rights Violations Rampant in the Family Courts of America
Questions Presented are of National Importance to America’s Children
March 3, 2011
Amicus Brief Requests
On May 6, 2011 the Friday before Mother's Day, Linda Marie Sacks will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. After years of legal hearings, this mother's only legal option is to ask our highest court to hear why she is concerned about her daughters' safety and should not be on court-ordered supervised visitation seeing her children for only two hours each month, for the last 4 years.
Family court judges should not end or severely restrict parent-child relationships because a parent fears their child is being abused. In Linda Marie's case, she was not the only adult concerned that her daughter was sexually acting out. The court had written documents from a Sunday School volunteer who overheard the then 8-year-old say she sucks her father's penis and reports of suspected child abuse from a therapist who watched as the girl drew the family picture below depicting her father as an erect penis with legs.
Justice for Children, a national organization that advocates for children when “official avenues” have failed to protect them, wrote a letter to the investigating agencies outlining concerns that the allegations of sexual child abuse were not properly investigated.
In the U.S. Supreme Court, few petitions are granted certiorari but the chances increase when multiple Amicus Briefs are filed with the petition. If your organization can help with gathering Amicus Briefs for this case that would be greatly appreciated. The questions to be presented are:
1. If a parent makes a good faith allegation of abuse, with documented evidence,
in an effort to protect her children, should that parent be deprived of physical
custody of her children, or have their contact supervised, indefinitely without a
case plan, or reunification plan provided by the trial court?
2. Does a state court violate the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when it
deprives a parent of physical custody, and limits that parents contact to Supervised
Visitation with her children, for taking the reasonable action based upon a belief,
supported by facts that her children need protection from abuse?
3. Does a state court’s custody decision that deprives a parent of access to her
children indefinitely, unless supervised, without a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, which effectively terminates a party’s parental rights,
violate the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments?
It is difficult to get a case to this point in our legal system. All other avenues must be exhausted which requires years of hearings and a substantial financial burden. This is a chance to tell our highest court that parents should not be punished for trying to protect their children.
Below is a legal summary of the case concerning the constitutional issues being appealed.
1) A finding that the mother's due process rights were violated and the custody was reversed
In May 2007, Mother, Linda Marie Sacks, appealed the decision of Judge Shawn L. Briese. The Fifth District Court of Appeals on 8/08 (Case 5D07-1682) in Daytona Beach, Florida issued a written opinion and REVERSED AND REMANDED the decision of custody of R.S. and S.S, back to the lower court. In the opinion it noted that Mothers due process rights were violated, and the hearing to determine custody should never have taken place, and when it did it violated Mothers constitutional rights. 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
2) The Fifth District denied a request to prohibit Judge Briese from again being the presiding judge
Immediately after the 8/ 08 REVERSAL AND REMAND in 1st appeal, a Writ of Prohibition,(Case 5D08-3668) was filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The writ requested that Judge Shawn L. Briese be prohibited from being allowed to be the presiding judge on this case any further. The writ showed documented evidence of judicial misconduct, violations of judicial canon #3, violations of Fl Ad Code 2.330 and ex parte communications by the judge and the 2 attorneys of record for the former Husband. On 11/13/08 it was denied, without a written opinion or citation……just DENIED and thus it sent this Mother right back to Judge Shawn L. Briese for the retrial., the same Judge who violated her due process rights, as he refused to be disqualified, and he demanded to have her case back on his docket.
3) Judge Briese again violated the mother's due process rights
In the Retrial of Custody in April 2009, Father's two attorney firms did not present a case but simply rested when their turn to present arrived. Judge Briese issued his oral ruling in June 2009 and gave Father, Sole physical custody and continued to place Mother on Supervised visitation because she did a TV interview with Chan 9 News in Albany New York, at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, and didn’t buy greeting card for the father while on Supervised visitation...so refused to allow Mother any contact with her children UNLESS supervised at the local visitation center. Judge Briese, once again, ignored, suppressed and dismissed documented evidence of abuse to the minor children by the father…..and kept Mother on Supervised Visitation.
Mother filed a pro se appeal and in her Amended Brief of Appellant p.48 it says:
“Due process requires that the ruling from the trial court support its conclusions by clear and convincing evidence. Trial court “abuses its discretion” with respect to a child custody determination only when a reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Would any reasonable person agree with the trial court’s ruling that the primary custody of the minor children R.S. and S.S. should be with the father and the mother should only have supervised visitation? The court is bound to by law to apply the test that if no reasonable person could differ as to the appropriateness of the trial court’s ruling then the ruling must not stand. As a reminder, this court already found the mother’s due process rights were violated when her children were taken away in April of 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). When the trial court gave the oral ruling on June 26, 2009 regarding the “Retrial of Custody of Children” it disregarded documented abuse. It is clear that this was a blatant disregard of abuse and evidence was suppressed, dismissed and ignored. This strongly suggests bias, discrimination in making the decision regarding the custody of R.S. and S.S.”
4) Constitutional Issues were also raised
Amended Brief of Appellant p. 4 states:
“The fundamental constitutional equal right of a loving, caring Mother is to be able to raise and nurture their children. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. In Bevil v. Carson 966 So. 2nd 1007, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), in reviewing a custody determination the appellate court considers whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the factual finding by the trial court and whether its in the best interests of the children. Id.
If substantial evidence does not support the factual finds then the court abused its discretion, Fuller v. Fuller 13 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). A parent has a constitutionally protected inherent right to a meaningful relationship with his or her children, and must be treated equally under all of the 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. (Exhibit B) There is no reason to excuse the judiciary participating in depriving the parents of the care and custody and time with their children, and sadly, in this case mother and R.S. and S.S have only had 68 hours of contact at the Supervised Visitation center.
The record is clear, Linda Sacks is a loving , caring, devoted Mother who was concerned for the safety and well being of her children and tried to protect them, and in doing so was placed on supervised visitation unjustly.”
Constitutional rights of a parent were also in other parts of the briefs as well. Abuse of Discretion issues were also raised, as well as the “best interest of children.”
Abuse of discretion was raised as it is the Standard of Review. The standard of review for the trial courts finding and determination regarding primary parental responsibility is abuse of discretion. The trial court finds regarding the best interests of the child must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Knifley v. Knifley, 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Also stated:
The trial court abused its discretion by not terminating the supervised visitation imposed on Linda Sacks and compounded that error by refusing to allow contact unless it was supervised, and knowing their was no detriment to the children, and no evidence to support the trial courts ruling on custody of Linda sacks, Appellant’s Minor children, R.S. and S.S
The trial court abused its discretion when substantial competent evidence does not support the erroneous findings of the trial court in the final judgment of the retrial of custody of children.
The trial on April 24 and 28, 2009 on the retrial of Custody of children and the evidence presented does not support the oral ruling or written final judgment showing clear bias and prejudice and abuse of trial discretion.
The Court compounded that error in granting primary residential responsibility and sole physical custody to the father and supervised visitation to mother once again.
In the briefs these arguments were supported by the record and case law to support the argument.
A transcript from the Retrial in April 2009, was submitted showing the father admitting on the stand to verbal abusing the mother in front of the children, to an altercation in the kitchen of the family home with R.S. at 8 years old that resulted in this child getting a split lip and blood, to wiping down the vaginas of R.S. and S.S. (school age children), to being in the bathroom again with S.S. as she was naked in the tub, with him having her stand on one leg, with her other leg in the air, after just being told by a licensed psychologist to STAY out of the bathroom, and on the way home from that very office, came in the house with S.S. and did it again…within minutes of arriving home.
All of these admissions collaborated the Dept and Children Child Abuse Hotline Calls the police reports and Mothers Domestic Violence Injunction of Protection. But Judge Briese dismissed all and said in his oral ruling on June 26, 2009, and this is included in the Appeal briefs (Reply Brief of Appellant p. 6 and 7) states:
Judge Briese states: “He testified that nothing, ever inappropriate happened, sexually or physically, and the court finds it to be the case, as it did the first time.(R. Vol. 2. T. p. 189, 1. 18-20)
This is an erroneous finding by the trial court, and in Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2nd 581 (Fla 4th DCA, 1999) the appeals court noted that there were numerous inconsistencies between the Final Judgment and fact as presented in the Final hearing and this was reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
Thank you for taking the time to review this summary. Should you need copies of any documents, simply ask and they will be provided to you quickly. Linda Marie Sacks raised these issues in her court case and the appeal to preserve the issues on appeal to go to the US Supreme Court for the Cert Petition, and has preserved the trial record as she has $17,000 worth of trial transcripts.
For Information on Amicus Briefs
Please contact:
Linda Marie Sacks
386-453-3017
lindamariesacks@aol.com
For Press
Please contact:
Kathleen Russell
Executive Director
Center for Judicial Excellence
495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610
www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org
Mother bringing case to US Supreme Court/ Constitutional Violations/ Rights of Mothers/Linda Marie Sacks
Human Rights Violations Rampant in the Family Courts of America
Questions Presented are of National Importance to America’s Children
March 3, 2011
Amicus Brief Requests
On May 6, 2011 the Friday before Mother's Day, Linda Marie Sacks will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. After years of legal hearings, this mother's only legal option is to ask our highest court to hear why she is concerned about her daughters' safety and should not be on court-ordered supervised visitation seeing her children for only two hours each month, for the last 4 years.
Family court judges should not end or severely restrict parent-child relationships because a parent fears their child is being abused. In Linda Marie's case, she was not the only adult concerned that her daughter was sexually acting out. The court had written documents from a Sunday School volunteer who overheard the then 8-year-old say she sucks her father's penis and reports of suspected child abuse from a therapist who watched as the girl drew the family picture below depicting her father as an erect penis with legs.
Justice for Children, a national organization that advocates for children when “official avenues” have failed to protect them, wrote a letter to the investigating agencies outlining concerns that the allegations of sexual child abuse were not properly investigated.
In the U.S. Supreme Court, few petitions are granted certiorari but the chances increase when multiple Amicus Briefs are filed with the petition. If your organization can help with gathering Amicus Briefs for this case that would be greatly appreciated. The questions to be presented are:
1. If a parent makes a good faith allegation of abuse, with documented evidence,
in an effort to protect her children, should that parent be deprived of physical
custody of her children, or have their contact supervised, indefinitely without a
case plan, or reunification plan provided by the trial court?
2. Does a state court violate the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments when it
deprives a parent of physical custody, and limits that parents contact to Supervised
Visitation with her children, for taking the reasonable action based upon a belief,
supported by facts that her children need protection from abuse?
3. Does a state court’s custody decision that deprives a parent of access to her
children indefinitely, unless supervised, without a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, which effectively terminates a party’s parental rights,
violate the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments?
It is difficult to get a case to this point in our legal system. All other avenues must be exhausted which requires years of hearings and a substantial financial burden. This is a chance to tell our highest court that parents should not be punished for trying to protect their children.
Below is a legal summary of the case concerning the constitutional issues being appealed.
1) A finding that the mother's due process rights were violated and the custody was reversed
In May 2007, Mother, Linda Marie Sacks, appealed the decision of Judge Shawn L. Briese. The Fifth District Court of Appeals on 8/08 (Case 5D07-1682) in Daytona Beach, Florida issued a written opinion and REVERSED AND REMANDED the decision of custody of R.S. and S.S, back to the lower court. In the opinion it noted that Mothers due process rights were violated, and the hearing to determine custody should never have taken place, and when it did it violated Mothers constitutional rights. 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
2) The Fifth District denied a request to prohibit Judge Briese from again being the presiding judge
Immediately after the 8/ 08 REVERSAL AND REMAND in 1st appeal, a Writ of Prohibition,(Case 5D08-3668) was filed in the Fifth District Court of Appeals. The writ requested that Judge Shawn L. Briese be prohibited from being allowed to be the presiding judge on this case any further. The writ showed documented evidence of judicial misconduct, violations of judicial canon #3, violations of Fl Ad Code 2.330 and ex parte communications by the judge and the 2 attorneys of record for the former Husband. On 11/13/08 it was denied, without a written opinion or citation……just DENIED and thus it sent this Mother right back to Judge Shawn L. Briese for the retrial., the same Judge who violated her due process rights, as he refused to be disqualified, and he demanded to have her case back on his docket.
3) Judge Briese again violated the mother's due process rights
In the Retrial of Custody in April 2009, Father's two attorney firms did not present a case but simply rested when their turn to present arrived. Judge Briese issued his oral ruling in June 2009 and gave Father, Sole physical custody and continued to place Mother on Supervised visitation because she did a TV interview with Chan 9 News in Albany New York, at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, and didn’t buy greeting card for the father while on Supervised visitation...so refused to allow Mother any contact with her children UNLESS supervised at the local visitation center. Judge Briese, once again, ignored, suppressed and dismissed documented evidence of abuse to the minor children by the father…..and kept Mother on Supervised Visitation.
Mother filed a pro se appeal and in her Amended Brief of Appellant p.48 it says:
“Due process requires that the ruling from the trial court support its conclusions by clear and convincing evidence. Trial court “abuses its discretion” with respect to a child custody determination only when a reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Would any reasonable person agree with the trial court’s ruling that the primary custody of the minor children R.S. and S.S. should be with the father and the mother should only have supervised visitation? The court is bound to by law to apply the test that if no reasonable person could differ as to the appropriateness of the trial court’s ruling then the ruling must not stand. As a reminder, this court already found the mother’s due process rights were violated when her children were taken away in April of 2007 Sacks v. Sacks 991 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). When the trial court gave the oral ruling on June 26, 2009 regarding the “Retrial of Custody of Children” it disregarded documented abuse. It is clear that this was a blatant disregard of abuse and evidence was suppressed, dismissed and ignored. This strongly suggests bias, discrimination in making the decision regarding the custody of R.S. and S.S.”
4) Constitutional Issues were also raised
Amended Brief of Appellant p. 4 states:
“The fundamental constitutional equal right of a loving, caring Mother is to be able to raise and nurture their children. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. In Bevil v. Carson 966 So. 2nd 1007, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), in reviewing a custody determination the appellate court considers whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the factual finding by the trial court and whether its in the best interests of the children. Id.
If substantial evidence does not support the factual finds then the court abused its discretion, Fuller v. Fuller 13 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). A parent has a constitutionally protected inherent right to a meaningful relationship with his or her children, and must be treated equally under all of the 4th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. (Exhibit B) There is no reason to excuse the judiciary participating in depriving the parents of the care and custody and time with their children, and sadly, in this case mother and R.S. and S.S have only had 68 hours of contact at the Supervised Visitation center.
The record is clear, Linda Sacks is a loving , caring, devoted Mother who was concerned for the safety and well being of her children and tried to protect them, and in doing so was placed on supervised visitation unjustly.”
Constitutional rights of a parent were also in other parts of the briefs as well. Abuse of Discretion issues were also raised, as well as the “best interest of children.”
Abuse of discretion was raised as it is the Standard of Review. The standard of review for the trial courts finding and determination regarding primary parental responsibility is abuse of discretion. The trial court finds regarding the best interests of the child must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Knifley v. Knifley, 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Also stated:
The trial court abused its discretion by not terminating the supervised visitation imposed on Linda Sacks and compounded that error by refusing to allow contact unless it was supervised, and knowing their was no detriment to the children, and no evidence to support the trial courts ruling on custody of Linda sacks, Appellant’s Minor children, R.S. and S.S
The trial court abused its discretion when substantial competent evidence does not support the erroneous findings of the trial court in the final judgment of the retrial of custody of children.
The trial on April 24 and 28, 2009 on the retrial of Custody of children and the evidence presented does not support the oral ruling or written final judgment showing clear bias and prejudice and abuse of trial discretion.
The Court compounded that error in granting primary residential responsibility and sole physical custody to the father and supervised visitation to mother once again.
In the briefs these arguments were supported by the record and case law to support the argument.
A transcript from the Retrial in April 2009, was submitted showing the father admitting on the stand to verbal abusing the mother in front of the children, to an altercation in the kitchen of the family home with R.S. at 8 years old that resulted in this child getting a split lip and blood, to wiping down the vaginas of R.S. and S.S. (school age children), to being in the bathroom again with S.S. as she was naked in the tub, with him having her stand on one leg, with her other leg in the air, after just being told by a licensed psychologist to STAY out of the bathroom, and on the way home from that very office, came in the house with S.S. and did it again…within minutes of arriving home.
All of these admissions collaborated the Dept and Children Child Abuse Hotline Calls the police reports and Mothers Domestic Violence Injunction of Protection. But Judge Briese dismissed all and said in his oral ruling on June 26, 2009, and this is included in the Appeal briefs (Reply Brief of Appellant p. 6 and 7) states:
Judge Briese states: “He testified that nothing, ever inappropriate happened, sexually or physically, and the court finds it to be the case, as it did the first time.(R. Vol. 2. T. p. 189, 1. 18-20)
This is an erroneous finding by the trial court, and in Donn v. Donn, 733 So. 2nd 581 (Fla 4th DCA, 1999) the appeals court noted that there were numerous inconsistencies between the Final Judgment and fact as presented in the Final hearing and this was reversed and remanded for a new hearing.
Thank you for taking the time to review this summary. Should you need copies of any documents, simply ask and they will be provided to you quickly. Linda Marie Sacks raised these issues in her court case and the appeal to preserve the issues on appeal to go to the US Supreme Court for the Cert Petition, and has preserved the trial record as she has $17,000 worth of trial transcripts.
For Information on Amicus Briefs
Please contact:
Linda Marie Sacks
386-453-3017
lindamariesacks@aol.com
For Press
Please contact:
Kathleen Russell
Executive Director
Center for Judicial Excellence
495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610
www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org
Friday, February 11, 2011
Mediator blows whistle, prompts audit of family court services (Nevada County, California)
The evidence for family court corruption just grows higher and deeper everyday. Mediation is not the magic answer to every family's problems, especially for families with abusive fathers ("domestic violence"). And it's not really mediation if participants are coerced or threatened, is it?
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/documents/FinalEmilyRelease.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:February 10,2011
CONTACT:Emily Gallup
–
530.478.1340
emilygallup@yahoo.com
Kathleen Russell
–
415.250.1180
kr@centerforjudicialexcellence.org
Mediator Blows Whistle, Prompts Audit of Nevada County Family
Court Services
Court Took Retaliatory Action Against Mediator for Repeatedly Raising Issues
Nevada County, CA – A Family Court Services mediator has prevailed in her grievance against her former employer, the Nevada County Superior Court, prompting an independent audit of the Nevada County Department of Family Court Services. Emily Gallup claimed that Nevada County Family Court Services violated state statutes and rules of court governing the recommending mediation process, while retaliating against her after she raised these issues with courts officials. M. Catherine Jones of Nevada City represented Ms. Gallup.
“The Nevada County Superior Court and its mediators have been using undue influence to pressure parents into custody agreements,” says Gallup. Among the tactics used by the courts, Gallup explained that parents were routinely shown a picture of a young man who had committed suicide the day his parents had been unable to reach an agreement in court.
Mediators were also pressured to complete their cases in one hour’s time.
According to Gallup, violations include failure to review legal files and criminal records, failure to contact collateral sources, and failure to follow domestic violence protocol. Gallup maintains that children and families throughout Nevada County have been harmed by the flawed practices of the family court department.
Family Court mediators, like Gallup, are required by law to guide parents into reasonable custody arrangements that protect children’s best interests. Mediators in recommending counties, like Nevada County, are also charged with the task of making child custody recommendations to the court in the absence of parental agreement. These recommendations carry great weight with the court, and are usually ordered.
“Emily’s courageous first-hand account proves beyond a doubt what court reform advocates have been saying for years – and what the recent state audit confirms. Complaints about mediators ignoring criminal records, domestic violence protocols and endangering children’s lives are legitimate,” said Kathleen Russell, Executive Director for the Center for Judicial Excellence, which pushed for the recent state audit.
The order for an audit of the Nevada County Superior Court comes just weeks after the conclusion of a 17-month audit of the Family Court Services departments of Sacramento and Marin counties. The audit of those counties revealed that large numbers of mediators are unqualified, untrained and unsupervised, and that the family courts maintained inadequate complaint procedures for the public. Gallup believes that a statewide audit is warranted at this time.
In a final and binding award dated February 6, 2011, Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that Gallup “had reasonable cause to believe that the Department of Family Court Services had violated or not complied with state statutes and rules of court in regards to the mediations required by the Family Law Code and the California Rules of Court.” He further ordered Family Court Services to undergo an audit to assess its compliance with the law. The cost of this audit will be born exclusively by the court, and the results will be released to the public.
Gallup repeatedly tried to address her concerns about the department with her superiors, including the Interim Director, the Family Law Judge, the Human Resources’ Director, and the Court’s Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Gallup’s efforts to bring her department into compliance with the law were unsuccessful.
Arbitrator Burdick found that “the Court took reprisal actions against Gallup for her repeatedly raising and discussing these issues.” Retaliatory activity against Gallup included negative performance evaluations, denial of her annual pay increase, and a written reprimand delivered to her the afternoon before her scheduled weeklong vacation. She was subsequently terminated from her job on December 21, 2010, prior to the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.
Burdick ordered the court to reimburse Gallup for her annual raise, her leave time, and attorney fees. It is estimated that the court’s handling of Gallup’s case has already cost taxpayers at least $100,000.
###
http://www.centerforjudicialexcellence.org/documents/FinalEmilyRelease.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:February 10,2011
CONTACT:Emily Gallup
–
530.478.1340
emilygallup@yahoo.com
Kathleen Russell
–
415.250.1180
kr@centerforjudicialexcellence.org
Mediator Blows Whistle, Prompts Audit of Nevada County Family
Court Services
Court Took Retaliatory Action Against Mediator for Repeatedly Raising Issues
Nevada County, CA – A Family Court Services mediator has prevailed in her grievance against her former employer, the Nevada County Superior Court, prompting an independent audit of the Nevada County Department of Family Court Services. Emily Gallup claimed that Nevada County Family Court Services violated state statutes and rules of court governing the recommending mediation process, while retaliating against her after she raised these issues with courts officials. M. Catherine Jones of Nevada City represented Ms. Gallup.
“The Nevada County Superior Court and its mediators have been using undue influence to pressure parents into custody agreements,” says Gallup. Among the tactics used by the courts, Gallup explained that parents were routinely shown a picture of a young man who had committed suicide the day his parents had been unable to reach an agreement in court.
Mediators were also pressured to complete their cases in one hour’s time.
According to Gallup, violations include failure to review legal files and criminal records, failure to contact collateral sources, and failure to follow domestic violence protocol. Gallup maintains that children and families throughout Nevada County have been harmed by the flawed practices of the family court department.
Family Court mediators, like Gallup, are required by law to guide parents into reasonable custody arrangements that protect children’s best interests. Mediators in recommending counties, like Nevada County, are also charged with the task of making child custody recommendations to the court in the absence of parental agreement. These recommendations carry great weight with the court, and are usually ordered.
“Emily’s courageous first-hand account proves beyond a doubt what court reform advocates have been saying for years – and what the recent state audit confirms. Complaints about mediators ignoring criminal records, domestic violence protocols and endangering children’s lives are legitimate,” said Kathleen Russell, Executive Director for the Center for Judicial Excellence, which pushed for the recent state audit.
The order for an audit of the Nevada County Superior Court comes just weeks after the conclusion of a 17-month audit of the Family Court Services departments of Sacramento and Marin counties. The audit of those counties revealed that large numbers of mediators are unqualified, untrained and unsupervised, and that the family courts maintained inadequate complaint procedures for the public. Gallup believes that a statewide audit is warranted at this time.
In a final and binding award dated February 6, 2011, Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that Gallup “had reasonable cause to believe that the Department of Family Court Services had violated or not complied with state statutes and rules of court in regards to the mediations required by the Family Law Code and the California Rules of Court.” He further ordered Family Court Services to undergo an audit to assess its compliance with the law. The cost of this audit will be born exclusively by the court, and the results will be released to the public.
Gallup repeatedly tried to address her concerns about the department with her superiors, including the Interim Director, the Family Law Judge, the Human Resources’ Director, and the Court’s Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Gallup’s efforts to bring her department into compliance with the law were unsuccessful.
Arbitrator Burdick found that “the Court took reprisal actions against Gallup for her repeatedly raising and discussing these issues.” Retaliatory activity against Gallup included negative performance evaluations, denial of her annual pay increase, and a written reprimand delivered to her the afternoon before her scheduled weeklong vacation. She was subsequently terminated from her job on December 21, 2010, prior to the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.
Burdick ordered the court to reimburse Gallup for her annual raise, her leave time, and attorney fees. It is estimated that the court’s handling of Gallup’s case has already cost taxpayers at least $100,000.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)