I find that even as I attempt to document a list of the actions the list goes out of control. Even at a bulleted level, the overwhelmingness of individual aspects and issues never resolved and spanning over years causes the document to become overly long. It is a difficult document to write. It has been a more difficult to survive.
The following is a draft of a document I have been preparing in my head for years and typing for the last few days. It has become overwhelming… and it has yet to include many more issues. Everything was happening concurrently. It is difficult to follow the progression. It has been even more difficult to survive.
The custody battle is over. Brennan turned 18 over a year ago. I have not seen him since his 18th birthday. We were in court that day. I gave him a birthday card that had the message that I forgive him. The court now views him as an adult who is free to make his own choices. If he ever was to make the decision to come forward with the truth, he knows what they are capable of doing to him. He has seen what they have done to his father.
And then you discover bits of information kept secret and hidden…
|
Oddly when I find these things, my cell phone battery suddenly requires charging almost hourly, and my computer begins to slow down. On several occasions while typing a document such as this one, my computer has crashed and burned. The BIOS chip has been attacked or the hard disk rendered unusable.
It has happened in October 2008 while replying to their massive contempt petition. Again in July 2009 while replying to their rehashed version of the same contempt petition.
In June 2009, on the day I had finished editing the detailed petition requesting Judge Del Ricci recuse himself from the case, I was prevented from printing the document, or doing anythign else with it. That same day in the mail was a letter from Judge Del Ricci indicating he had decided to recuse himself and would do so in court a week or so later. But, I hadn’t yet asked him. His explanation for independently deciding to recuse himself was lacking in credibility. The recusal transcript, and my annotated version, is available here.
|
*****
NOTICE OF DISCOVERY OF EX PARTE ORDERS DATED AUGUST 20, 2007
1. On August 12, 2010, Defendant visited the Prothonotary in Norristown and requested to view the case file for the above referenced case.
2. Defendant has been to the Prothonotary between 8 and 12 times over the last three years to review the case file.
3. Previously, on August 10, 2010, the case file had been unavailable and the Defendant was informed the file was with Gordon Mair regarding Equitable Distribution.
3. On August 12, 2010, though still checked out to Gordon Mair, the Defendant was instead offered the “accordion folder” for review.
4. The ‘accordion file’ had never before been available, or offered, during any prior visit when the file was checked out by masters and judges.
5. The “accordion file” was considerably different from the case file. It was immediately obvious that the file was not the file which had been presented to the Defendant at any time before. The file was cleanly stacked and organized, where usually the case file provided was overflowing with documents and completely lacking in any organization.
6. The first document in the file was an order issued by Judge Rhonda Daniele on August 22, 2007. (Copy Attached as Exhibit A)
7. The Defendant had no knowledge of the order and had not received a copy of the order.
8. The Order did not have the added distribution information to parties and attorneys which has been entered on orders received by the Defendant.
8. The Court Order had never been docketed by the Prothonotary.
9. Prothonotary staff was questioned about the Order.
10. Defendant requested, and was provided, a copy of the order by the Prothonotary staff.
11. Upon review by several persons in the Prothonotary, the Order was docketed as 2007-12477-216.
12. Additionally, the ‘emergency’ scheduling order was docketed as 2007-12477-215.
13. As the order had not been docketed, there was no way for the Defendant to be aware of it’s existence.
14. As the order had not previously been in the case file, there was no way for the Defendant to be aware of it’s existence.
15. When the Defendant noticed the Order had not been docketed, he immediately alerted Prothonotary staff.
16. The Prothonotary Check Out form (attached as Exhibit B) includes the following court personnel:
Judge Daniele (1 time)
Judge Dickman (1 time)
Misc (2 times )
Sara Goren ( 4 times )
Gordon Mair ( 3 times )
Judge DelRicci ( 9 times )
Sharron Rex ( 1 time )
Judge Bertin ( 6 times )
Mindy Harris ( 1 time )
17. In the 28 times that masters and judges had the file to review, not one person ever noticed or reported that the first order issued in the case had never been docketed and made any attempt to correct the filing error.
UNWARRANTED SUPERVISED CUSTODY
18. The Court Order of August 22, 2007 grants primary physical custody of our son to the Petitioner.
“D. Petitioner shall have primary physical custody of the parties’ minor child;”
19. The Court Order of August 22, 2007 further grants “supervised visitation only” to the Defendant.
20. Supervised Visitation is applicable when a parent has pleaded guilty or no contest to a crime, or been convicted of a crime on the following list:
Criminal Homicide Kidnapping
Unlawful Restraint Rape
Statutory Sexual Assault Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse
Sexual Assault Aggravated Indecent Assault
Indecent Assault Indecent Exposure
Incest Endangering the Welfare of Children
Prostitution Sexual Abuse of Children.
21. Supervised Visitation is also called for when a parent has been charged with a crime on the following list:
Criminal Homicide Aggravated Assault
Terroristic Threats Stalking
Kidnapping Unlawful Restraint
False Imprisonment Rape
Statutory Sexual Assault Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse
Sexual Assault Aggravated Indecent Assault
Indecent Assault Indecent Exposure
Arson Incest
Endangering the Welfare of Children Sexual Abuse of Children
Contempt of Court Orders
22. The Defendant has never been accused of any of the crimes listed in PA Custody Act ( 23 PCSA 5303).
23. Supervised Visitation is entirely inappropriate in this matter.
23. As the Defendant was unaware of this Order which was issued without any formal court proceeding, he was provided no opportunity to respond to a false allegations.
24. The Emergency Petition for Special Relief filed by the Plaintiff on August 16, 2007 resulted in a Short List Conference with Judge Dickman on September 6, 2007.
25. The Short List Conference on September 6, 2007, which did not make any custody determination, produced an Agreed Order (#22) granting the Defendant exclusive use and occupancy; and deemed the other counts in the petition as moot.
26. As a result of the Defendant’s Motion for a Conference in Custody on July 23, 2007, the parties were scheduled to meet with Custody Conciliation Master Sara Goren on October 26, 2007.
CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS DELAYED FOR YEARS
27. Family Court Judges and Masters are aware of what circumstances call for “Supervised Visitation” and would be incredibly biased against the Defendant by the Order of August 22, 2007 signed by Judge Daniele.
28. Judge Daniele is the Head of the Family Court Division. It is logical to presume that the Masters and Judge‘s in the Family Court Division would be unlikely to question or reverse her order in a matter of custody where Judge Daniele believed the Defendant only deserved “Supervised Visitation.”
29. Defendant has been denied any relationship with his son since the child was abducted by his mother from the family home on July 12, 2007.
30. Defendant has felt the sting of very strongly biased Masters and Judges in all proceedings but most certainly in those related to custody. They never explained their reasoning, or their actions, or the rule of law being applied to the situation. They couldn’t without revealing their ex parte communications and documents.
31. While being attacked on all levels from every angle and receiving no justice from anyone, the defendant has been able to persevere for only one reason. The truth. He knew the truth. And while they could prevent the truth from being heard, and they could ignore the truth. They could not alter the truth. They were incapable of telling the truth.
*******
THE DOCUMENTED BEGINNING OF THE CUSTODY BATTLE
32. On October 26, 2007, Master Sara Goren authored and recommended a Custody Agreement which placed all responsibility for physical custody on the child.
33. On December 26, 2007, Defendant filed to modify custody as he had continued to be prevented from contact with his son.
34. The Custody Conciliation Conference scheduled for March 25, 2008 was cancelled when Sara Goren had a family emergency which required the conference to be rescheduled.
35. The Defendant was NOT contacted regarding the cancellation on March 24, 2008.
36. The Defendant was informed that the court did not have his phone number, which appeared on the Petition.
37. Additionally, opposing counsel indicated she did not have his phone number, though it was included on her paperwork.
38. On March 24, 2008, the Defendant was in the Court Administration Offices filing a petition regarding the Plaintiff’s Burglary and Vandalism of his home on March 22, 2008 which was in direct violation of the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007.
39. The Defendant was going to the conference unprepared. During the burglary, the Plaintiff had been photographed stealing the Defendant’s files which had been prepared for the Custody conference.
BURGLARY, VANDALISM
40. Police were alerted to the break-in at his home by neighbors and were shown a document by the Plaintiff which indicated she had the right to be in the home. The police allowed the burglary to continue unimpeded.
41. Upon arriving home to discover the Burglary and Vandalism, the Defendant contacted police to report the crime.
42. The Police informed the Defendant that the Plaintiff had failed to break into the home through the front door and had done so through the back door.
43. Police further informed the Defendant that they were called by neighbors, yet permitted the burglary to continue as the Plaintiff had paperwork indicating she had the right to be in the house.
44. Defendant produced the Agreed Order of September 6, 2007, and the Police indicated that it was definitely NOT the document which had been presented by the Plaintiff.
45. The Agreed Order of September 6, 2007 is a handwritten document which was fully executed by Judge Dickman.
46. Police scoffed at the handwritten court order and indicated the Plaintiff’s document looked more official.
47. At the Short List conference relating to the burglary with Judge Del Ricci on May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff’s attorney, Robert Angst, presented the document which the plaintiff had shown to the police.
48. Defendant requested to see the document and was denied by Judge Del Ricci.
49. Defendant requested a copy of the document and was denied by Judge Del Ricci.
50. Defendant has requested a copy of the document in Discovery, the Plaintiff denied the existence of any document in her response.
51. Defendant requested a copy of the document at a Motion To Compel Discovery Hearing before Mindy Harris and the existence of the document was again denied.
52. The Ex Parte Order issued on August 22, 2007 by Judge Daniele, authored by Valerie Angst and edited by Judge Daniele grants the Plaintiff exclusive possession of the home.
“Petitioner shall have exclusive possession of the marital residence…”
53. Defendant alleges the Plaintiff presented the Ex Parte Order issued on August 22, 2007 to the police intentionally misrepresenting the truth that she did not have exclusive possession.
54. Defendant alleges that the document present by Robert Angst to Judge Del Ricci was the Ex Parte Order of August 22, 2007.
55. Defendant alleges that Judge Del Ricci denied the Defendant’s request for a copy of the document to further conceal the Ex Parte Order.
CUSTODY CONCILIATION
56. On May 19, 2008, there was a custody conciliation conference with Sara Goren.
57. Plaintiff’s attorney, Valerie Angst, was at the Custody Master’s office that morning.
58. Additionally, Robert Angst represented the Plaintiff during a Protracted Hearing regarding Support which was scheduled at the same time as the custody conference.
59. The scheduling conflict was brought to the attention of Judge Del Ricci when the Protracted Hearing was scheduled, yet he refused to reschedule.
60. During that conference, the Defendant presented 9 pages of bulleted issues with regard to his son’s custody situation and provided copies of those pages to the Custody Master, Sara Goren.
61. The Plaintiff, who was not represented at the conference by her attorney, barely spoke a few sentences.
62. In concluding the conference, Sara Goren made the ridiculous suggestion that she delay scheduling a custody hearing with the court for a few weeks.
63. The Petition to Modify Custody was filed in December 2007, scheduled for March 25, 2008, further delayed until May 19, 2008 (because of Sara Goren’s family emergency on March 25, 2008), and after discussing 9 pages of custody issues including my son’s participation in the burglary Sara Goren thought it appropriate to reconsider moving forward to a full hearing.
64. After being denied any relationship with my son for over 10 months, Sara Goren’s suggestion was inconceivable.
65. The Defendant requested the matter be listed for court without delay, and Sara Goren suggested the Defendant was reacting improperly to her recommendation. Sara Goren offered no explanation for the flawed logic of her suggestion.
66. Sara Goren waited until May 27, 2008 to list the matter for a court hearing.
67. The Conciliation Report filed by Sara Goren on May 27, 2008 neglects to mention any of the custody issues raised by the Defendant during the conference.
68. The Conciliation Report neglects to mention the photographs of the parties’ minor child participating in the burglary and vandalism of the Defendant’s home, the photograph of the Plaintiff stealing the Defendant’s custody files, or the Plaintiff being found in contempt at the May 14 Short List Conference regarding the Burglary.
69. The Conciliation Report was not provided to the Defendant.
70. The Defendant obtained the Conciliation Report by going to the Prothonotary to review the case file.
PLANS FOR INTERNATIONAL ABDUCTION
71. On May 24, 2008, before Sara Goren had filed her report, the Defendant learned of plans for his son to travel to England with friends of the Plaintiff.
72. The Defendant reminded the Plaintiff that “shared legal custody” meant that his permission was required before their son could be permitted to leave the country.
73. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff provide details of the trip. Plaintiff refused.
74. The Defendant learned that the family traveling to England was not vacationing. They were relocating to England. The Defendant again requested the details of the trip. Plaintiff refused.
75. The Plaintiff’s actions and lack of cooperation were indicative of a potential international abduction according to the US State Department.
76. The Defendant advised the Plaintiff that if he did not receive the details of the trip he would file a petition to prevent the trip.
77. The Defendant’s much delayed Petition to Modify Custody was listed for court and scheduled for July 10, 2008.
78. After the Plaintiff failed to provide any travel information, the Defendant filed an Emergency Petition to prevent the trip on June 16, 2008,
– indicating that he had not been provided any details of the trip;
– indicating the child would be required at the hearing on July 10, 2008.
79. Judge Del Ricci ruled NOT EMERGENCY and the vacation issue was added to the July 10, 2008 court session regarding for the Petition to Modify Custody.
80. The Defendant contacted Judge Del Ricci and indicated that the trip was scheduled to commence prior to the Court date.
81. On June 24, 2008, a vacationing Judge Del Ricci refused to reconsider the scheduling and confirmed the hearing would be on July 10, 2008.
82. On June 24, 2008, the Plaintiff filed (electronically) an Emergency Petition for Special Relief regarding the ‘vacation’.
83. On June 25, 2008, Judge Tilson, standing in for the vacationing Judge Del Ricci, ruled the Plaintiff’s petition an EMERGENCY.
84. On June 25, 2008, Judge Tilson issued a “Temporary Ex Parte Order” requiring the Defendant to allow the trip to take place.
85. Judge Tilson’s “Temporary Ex Parte Order” did not have jurisdiction internationally and violated the Hague Convention by denying the Defendant due process.
86. On July 1, 2008, the Defendant filed his Response to Defendant’s Emergency Petition for Special Relief.
87. The Defendant’s response was ignored.
88. The Defendant was informed by Court Administration that since Judge Tilson had already ruled on the matter, his response was unnecessary.
89. On July 1, 2008, the Plaintiff filed (electronically) an Emergency Petition in Contempt threatening to have the defendant incarcerated if he should do anything to prevent the trip.
90. While in an emergency a Judge may issue an Ex Parte Order, it is expected to schedule a hearing on the matter within 10 days of issuing the order.
91. Judge Tilson did not schedule a hearing regarding the Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition for Special Releif (filed on June 24, 2008) Temporary Ex Parte Order issued on June 25, 2008.
92. Upon returning from his vacation, Judge Del Ricci never scheduled any hearing regarding the Plaintiff’s Emergency Petition for Special Relief.
93. At the July 10, 2008 proceeding, Judge Del Ricci ordered the Defendant’s Petition to Modify Custody (filed December 26, 2007) to be relisted; deemed moot the Defendant’s Petition for Relief; and ordered the parties’ son to attend 3 sessions with a Psychiatrist with the Defendant.
MISDIRECTION OF SESSIONS WITH PSYCHIATRIST
94. Prior to the first session with Dr. Gerald Belletiere, the Defendant met with him to present the issue which required his assistance. The inability and failure of his son to communicate with him.
95. The Defendant did not go into any detail regarding the criminal actions and terroristic divorce actions of the Plaintiff and her team. He focused on just the communication issue.
96. Prior to the first session, the Plaintiff also met with Dr. Belletierre.
97. After the Plaintiff’s session with Dr. Belletierre, the Defendant was contacted to arrange for payment for the session. The Plaintiff had falsely indicated the court ordered the Defendant to pay for her.
98. The Defendant reminded the doctor that a copy of the Court Order had been provided when they met to discuss the sessions.
99. The Court Order did not order the Defendant to pay for any session with the Plaintiff.
100. The Court Order did not order the Plaintiff to attend any sessions.
101. At the end of the 3 sessions, Dr Belletierre failed to offer any advice to the parties’ son regarding communication. The doctor did however recommend the Defendant consider psychotropic medications.
102. The Defendant scheduled a final session with Dr. Belletierre where he questioned the doctor’s apparent misdirection on the issue which had been brought to him.
103. While unable to ask what had been discussed during the Plaintiff’s session, the Defendant presented that the reason his son was having trouble communicating was because he was protecting his mother from being prosecuted for the criminal actions advised by her lawyer.
104. The parties children had inadvertently revealed in conversations that they were aware of the illegal surveillance of the Defendant’s computers, phones and life.
105. The custody order which left the decision for contact to the child placed the added burden of responsibility on the child for placing himself in a position where he might accidentally reveal the crimes of his mother.
106. The Defendant has never attempted to trick his children into revealing anything. When the children realized they slipped up, they ceased communicating with the Defendant.
107. The Defendant’s children have ceased all contact with their father, their grandmother and most of the extended family.
108. The last session ended with Dr. Belletierre indicating that he would contact Sara Goren to discuss the case.
CONCILIATION AGAIN
109. At the Custody Conciliation conference scheduled regarding the Plaintiff’s Counter Petition, the Plaintiff and her attorney’s failed to appear.
110. When contacted by the court staff regarding her failure to appear, Valerie Angst falsely indicated that an Agreement had been reached.
111. The Defendant has yet to be provided with any copy of the Custody Agreement.
112. The Plaintiff has attempted to explain that the issues were resolved at the July 10, 2008 session with Judge Del Ricci, however the Conciliation Conference was scheduled after that date.
CONTEMPT PETITION
113. On September 24, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lengthy, chaotic and misnumbered petition full of misinformation and fraud titled as Petition for Civil Contempt for Disobedience of a Court Order.
114. The Plaintiff did not serve the Petition to the Defendant. Instead, the Petition was sent to the lawyer who represented the defendant for one day only at the July 10, 2008 proceeding.
115. The Defendant obtained a copy of the Petition from the case file at the Prothonotary.
116. The Defendant indicated in his response that he believed the Petition to be intended to interfere with the pending custody hearing.
117. Judge Del Ricci consolidated Plaintiff’s Petition for Civil Contempt for Disobedience of a Court Order with the Defendant’s Petition to Modify Custody filed on December 26, 2007.
CONCILIATION AGAIN
118. Meeting again with Sara Goren regarding the Petition to Modify Custody filed December 26, 2007, Sara Goren had no recollection of her family emergency which had cancelled the March 25, 2008 conference.
119. Sara Goren additionally had no explanation for her failure to include any of the issues brought before her by the Defendant at the May 19, 2008 conference.
120. Sara Goren expressed a sudden need for haste in bringing the matter before the court.
121. Sara Goren then filed the same Conciliator’s Report she had filed previously
CONSOLIDATED PETITIONS
122. The consolidated petitions were before the court on October 31, 2008, where Judge Del Ricci held a discovery hearing and issued an order for discovery.
123. On October 31, 2008, the Defendant filed a Petition for Contempt of Custody/Interfering with Custody.
124. On December 16, 2008, Judge Del Ricci issued a discovery order for the Plaintiff to provide copies of all phone bills to the Defendant.
125. On December 29, 2008, the Defendant filed a Petition for Contempt of Custody Order/Direct Instructions of the Court as the Plaintiff had been admonished in court for her disregard for the custody order.
126. In his discovery order of October 31, 2008, Judge Del Ricci failed to indicate any deadline for the delivery of the documentation.
127. On January 5, 2009, Judge Del Ricci scheduled a Protracted Hearing for January 6, 2009.
128. When informed that the discovery documents had not yet been exchanged, Judge Del Ricci became angry.
129. When informed the he neglected to include a date for delivery in his discovery order of October 31, 2008, Judge Del Ricci became irate and decided to punish both parties by ordering the delay of any further scheduling for 30 days.
130. The decision to delay the scheduling had a far greater impact on the Defendant’s custody modification than the plaintiff’s contrived contempt petition.
EMOTIONAL BREAK. The story has become overwhelming again. And the realization that it still does not include the child support events, the repeat rescheduling by Judge DelRicci which resulted in the Defendant being tackled by guards and taken to jail. The poorly explained July 2009 last minute recusal of Judge Del Ricci after failing to rule on any issue and delaying the custody hearing for years, the ongoing financial burden. let alone the emotional affects of these events which are difficult to read, imagine living through them.
Like this:
Like Loading...
