Thursday, April 30, 2015


CPS stats:

  • In less than 20 years the percent of children unified with parents has dropped by almost 10% (actual number - 15,000 fewer children returned);
  • The percent of children living with other relatives went up temporarily, but has dropped overall by 1% (actual number - about 3,000 fewer children with relatives);
  • The percent of children being adopted out has increased by 5% (actual number - more than 17,000);
  • The percent of children being emancipated has increased by 5% (actual number - over 12,000 more);
  • The percent of children in guardianship has increased by 5% (over 13,000 more).
In other words, children are no longer being returned to parents or families - they are being permanently placed elsewhere or "cut loose".

So what happened on or before 1998 to cause this change?

The Federal Adoption Incentive - also known as "cash for kids" was enacted in 1997. Amazing how in such a short time, the statistics have become so obvious.

Stand up, speak out, educate yourselves. CPS is a self-perpetuating group of bureaucrats who are only out for money and not the well-being of children and families.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Speak Out!

For More Information on the Jon Massey Case:

Interview with "The Captain"
Monday, April 27, 2015 from 8-10 pm EST

Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with The Captain0 on BlogTalkRadio

Interview with Tim Skomo of Parenting Revolution
Friday, April 17, 2015 from 10-12 pm EST

Interview with Marti Oakley of The PPJ Gazette
Friday, April 17, 2015 from 10-12 pm EST

Check Out News Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Marti Oakley on BlogTalkRadio

Monday, April 27, 2015

Drop the S

I didn't do my homework...and so I had to go through and revise my blog to change a number of references.

In my blog entry (now PA + NPD = Toxic Parenting) I mentioned that PAS (Parental Alienation Syndrome) was not recogonized by the APA and did not exist in the DSM-IV or DSM-5. Neither does Parental Alienation - without the "Syndrome" designation.

But when I did some further digging as to why Richard Gardner, the "author" of PAS was considered rather fringe in the psychiatric community, I had some interesting information forwarded to me by Mike Volpe.

I would recommend that all of you who are using the #PAS and identifying yourselves as victims shorten it to PA, Estrangement, or PT (for Pathological Triangle - as it is identified in the DSM-IV and DSM-5).

Read through the article: Overview of Dr. Richard Gardner's Opinions and scroll down to the bottom to find out how inappropriate many of his views on pedophilia actually are.

Alienation strategies and tactics do exist. There is no doubt about that and I have been subjected to some of the worst, as have many of you reading my entries.

Estrangement is used as a weapon by parents to "gain the upper hand" or "win" in Family Court with custody issues. Alienation techniques are used by CPS to fracture the bond between parents and children to fast track adoptions. These methods are encouraged by unscrupulous attorneys hoping to boost their "track record" in Family Court and secure more clients - sort of a warped pyramid scheme.

But you are known by the company you keep, and affiliating (unknowingly) with the junk science of a man who has less than desirable views on pedophilia damages credibility of a legitimate cause.

Lose the "S" - use Alienation or Estrangement, Pathological Triangle, but don't affiliate with a cause that defends the sexual abuse of children.

Stand up, speak out, educate yourself!

Sunday, April 26, 2015


One thing that has stood out throughout my readings on PA (Parental Alienation) is that it carries many of the same markers as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD).

Although PA has not been included under that label in the DSM-IV or DSM-5, it actually has been present in both editions under other descriptions. The phrases used are "pathological triangle" and "estrangement", and there are several different codes that are used for a diagnosis of what is essentially Parental Alienation. Click HERE for an article describing the presence of PA in the DSM.

However, NPD is definitely listed as a DSM-IV and DSM-5 disorder and many attribute the presence of PA to a parent who has NPD or borderline NPD. Two of the specific traits which most likely contribute to the inability to recognize that the PA they are inflicting is wrong is their lack of empathy, and their intimacy issues. They see relationships as being superficial and self-serving and are unable to recognize the harm that they are doing to others.

Indeed, when you google PA + NPD, there are multiple pages of articles that appear. To a tee, whether or not they acknowledge the legitimacy of PA, they acknowledge that NPD causes very toxic parenting - almost a scorched earth for the alienated parent as well as the children and any family members who are included under the umbrella of the alienator's abuse. The only one who "wins" (at least in their warped perspective) is the alienator him/herself.

Worthy of a read are the following selections:
There are many others available, but these seemed to be fairly comprehensive and research based.

Ultimately, what is important to recognize is that the techniqes and strategies used in what is now commonly known as Parental Alienation (PA) definitively fall into the range of emotional and psychological abuse - not just for the child(ren) involved, but also for the targeted parent and family members.

The environment of Family Court and the CPS system not only don't discourage PA, they actually provide a venue which fosters the behaviors. This is totally contradictory to their stated mission - providing support to maintain families. Yet without PA and NPD, the entire system would collapse for lack of business. So they maintain this unhealthy climate to provide themselves with job security.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt agency and system for the abusers that they are!

Her Own Words!

What is at the heart of the Jon Massey Case is the testimony of Ruby. After all, there was no other evidence to prove that her allegations against him were true.

Quite to the contrary - there was sufficient documentation through multiple parties that Ruby had been planning to get Jon out of the house since April (when he first interfered in her statutory rape relationship with a 21 year old while she was 14). 

Additionally, there were at least fifty witnesses who had been willing to testify that Ruby had always demonstrated a positive relationship with Jon and had repeatedly introduced him as "my father", as well as speaking about him in positive terms, and even encouraging her friends to meet him.

Another issue raised by reporter Mike Volpe is that if Jon had actually done what Ruby accused him of doing, Jon would have been the first molester in history to:
  • begin at the age of 50;
  • only molest for a short period of time (approximately six months);
  • stop when the victim asked him to stop;
  • stop when access to victim actually increased;
  • not have any other "victims" come forward (actually, quite to the contrary, many of Ruby's friends came forward in support of Jon);
  • have absolutely NO criminal record;
  • had been able to pass high-level security and bond screenings for employment (Jon had held top-secret clearances and was involved in multi-million dollar sales).
So now let's look at what happened, in Ruby's own "words" - her testimony to the Grand Juries.

The first Grand Jury was held on December 11, 2012 (less than five months after Ruby made the false allegations):

So, at the first Grand Jury, Ruby was able to twice give her original dates, AND reference them to when/where she was at school.

And at this point, Ruby was specifically referencing dates when Jon was NOT living at his apartment, he had suffered bi-lateral kidney stones (initial attack at the end of November 2010 - hospital records proved it - did not get lithotripsy to remove the stones until the end of April 2011) and had moved into our house. His landlord had been doing major renovations on the apartment and would have testified at the trial that they had to set up times specifically for Jon to meet them there, as he wasn't living there anymore.

Love the euphimism "date" - the ADA was apparently unaware at this point that Ruby had made recorded admissions to the sex as had Mike.

And just to document that Ruby had no problem recalling information correctly, she was able to correctly reference other specific life events that stood out in her life. (You would think that dates she had been sexually molested would stand out also...)

Now compare the above testimony to her testimony at the second Grand Jury on July 18, 2013 (almost a year after her false allegations):
 Note: Different ADA - the first one was no longer with the District Attorney's office.

 So - they got along. In fact they got along right up until the final time that we threatened to have the 21 year old boyfriend arrested, on July 22, 2012.
Again, her own words - she actually thought of Jon as a father. For the record, we only broke up once, remained friends, then worked out our differences and he moved back in.
Here is where the ADA begins constant reminders of the dates rather than Ruby remembering them.
 Ruby was actually FULLY AWARE of the cycle of the school year, as the child of a school employee who didn't work during the summer, the school year marked when we no longer had as much free time to do things.
And here we have it! The story that the ADA is trying to lead Ruby through by constantly reminding her of the dates (which conflicted with the story that Ruby had rehearsed and reported for almost a year) crashes and burns. Ruby was 12 going on 13 in 2010-2011, not the new set of dates being forced upon her.

 Note that the ADA is still repeatedly reminding Ruby of the dates.
 And again, the ADA is feeding Ruby the dates, and at this point Ruby indicates that she is "not sure".

 Hmmm...why is the ADA insisting that Ruby not give a year? Could it be because she knew that Ruby's whole story was a lie, and that the first version had fallen apart? And now they had to "remediate" the case to avoid a multi-million dollar lawsuit?

 Maybe you should listen to this:
And this:
Because Ruby's own friend testifies as to her drug behavior (use, sales, etc).

Now here is the parting piece of testimony regarding these matters:
So, apparently the 34+ hours that were spent with Ruby, especially the 3+ hours spent specifically walking through the time frame by the county psychologist, have all miraculously disappeared. (See the Doctor, Doctor, Give Me the News! blog entry for verification of his testimony.)

After all, a psychologist with a PhD would have no clue how to appropriately verify information with appropriate questioning techniques. Yet an ADA with a vested interest is able to lead her by the nose through the story (as documented above with the repeated reminders on dates).

The problem with telling a lie is that over time, it falls apart. And this would explain why the new ADA had to spend over 50 hours "coaching" her for the trial. (A good comparison is that 50 hours is approximately the same amount of time spent on rehearsals to perform a school play or community musical - practicing to be someone you aren't.)

It is time so stand up and speak out! Expose corruption!

Saturday, April 25, 2015

DNA Denial!

In my 30 years of working with about 100 people per year, I have learned people come in all types, and unless we have suddenly become a society composed solely of clones, that won't change any time soon. It is built into our DNA to come in different sizes, shapes, colors, and configurations. Life would be boring if we were all identical.

For CPS to intervene because a child doesn't meet their standards just demonstrates how ignorant they are and how far they will go to either: 1) seize children for their adoption/trafficking scheme; or 2) target former foster care children for ongoing monitoring akin to something out of a dystopian novel.

Yet such is the case of Angela Borths. She herself is very "petite", yet apparently she was expected to overcome genetics and produce "normal" sized children. The article about Angela and her battle with CPS can be found HERE.

The level of ignorance of CPS astounds me - if you check Angela's Facebook page dedicated to her battle, she has posted a growth chart on her daughter which shows steady growth, even though she has been consistently in the lowest percentile.

Wait, consistently in the lowest percentile, and yet Angela is expected to perform miracles and have her daughter reach "normal" height, despite the fact that the entire family is in the lower percentiles.

Maybe the CPS action is because Angela herself was a foster child. But wait, that doesn't make sense either. After all, CPS claims that they are the authority on parenting. In fact, according to CPS, if everyone in the family participates in all the services that CPS demands in their service plan, the family will turn out fine.

Angela is not the only former foster child who has been targeted as an adult. It seems to be a common denominator, especially when children are being seized and fast-tracked into adoption.

If you look at the pictures of Angela's children, you can tell that they would be in high demand for adoption - they are cute kids.

And while you are on the webpage Medical Kidnap, go to the homepage and take a look at other stories. Not coincidentally is another story about CPS and Boston Children's Hospital seizing an infant based on the mismanagement of the medical community rather than on the neglect of the parent. This is very similar to the Justina Pelletier case in my prior blog entry, Mito-Malpractice!

It is time to stand up, speak out and expose CPS for the self-serving, fraudulent, corrupt system that it is.


One of the issues that arose in the Jon Massey Case was the "irregularities" that occurred at the first Grand Jury. Something that seems fairly small and inconsequential, but actually has HUGE implications was the ADA "outing a snitch".

Jon tried to call a witness who was a Confidential Registered Informant (CRI) and who had information about Ruby's premeditation and exculpatory evidence (exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt). 

This CRI had a registration number and a specific handler within local law enforcement. This CRI had been instrumental in a number of larger weapons and drugs busts, involving individuals who were known for violence. The identity of this CRI was known to the DA's office, as they had utilized the CRI in Grand Jury testimony for securing sealed indictments for a number of criminal offenses.

The United States Attorney General's Office has very clear and specific guidelines that dictate the use of Confidential Registered Informants - they are the "gold standard" that are to be followed by all law enforcement agencies and prosecutor's offices (click here).

Of particular note is the following section:
2. The Chief Federal Prosecutor and his or her designee are required to maintain as confidential the identity of any CI and the information the CI has provided, unless obligated to disclose it by law or Court order. If a JLEA provides the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee with written material containing such information:
a. Such individual is obligated to keep it confidential by placing it into a locked file cabinet when not in his or her direct care and custody;
b. Access to the information shall be restricted to the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee and personnel deemed necessary to carry out the official duties related to the case;
c. The Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee is responsible for assuring that each person permitted access to the information is made aware of the need to preserve the security and confidentiality of the information, as provided in this policy;
d. Prior to disclosure of the information to defense counsel or in open Court, the Chief Federal Prosecutor or his or her designee must give the JLEA an opportunity to discuss such disclosure and must comply with any other applicable provision of 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.21-16.29; and
e. At the conclusion of a case or investigation, all written materials containing the information that have not been disclosed shall be forwarded to the JLEA that provided them.(3)
Because the federal guidelines are those that are to be followed by ALL law enforcement entities as well as ALL prosecutors, the actions of the ADA in this case violated Federal Law. Since the judge allowed this to continue with no repercussions, both are complicit.

This irregularity, as well as the others, was brought to the judge's attention immediately and he FAILED TO ACT. Under normal circumstances, the indictment would be thrown out and resubmitted to a new Grand Jury, as happened in a neighboring county less than a year after Jon Massey's death. (Click here for details.)

Additionally at fault is the prosecutor in the District Attorney's office who actually dealt directly with the CRI. - as the ADA who was prosecuting Jon Massey had never been involved directly with cases involving the CRI. Under the above guidelines, this ADA was under an obligation to keep the identity of the CRI secure, and that would include from other members of the DA's office under section 2.b. So there is plenty of blame to spread around. (It is interesting that the ADA in question has been involved and directly implicated in aiding a cover up in a matter involving the local Sheriff's department. Click here for details.)

"Outing a snitch" is considered an extremely serious offense, as it places the life and safety of the CRI in jeopardy, as well as endangering the safety of the CRI's family and friends. The CRI, upon learning of what had happened in front of 20 people, had filed a notice of claim against the County and the DA's office, as well as the ADA. Most lawsuits of this nature have won million dollar settlements.

But even more serious was the follow-up implication that has far wider reaching implications. The actions of the ADA indicate that any and all testimony of this CRI is untruthful in the eyes of the DA's office. 

That would indicated that any and all cases that relied on the testimony of and evidence produced by this CRI were "fruit of the poisonous tree". They can't have it both ways - either the CRI was a reliable witness or wasn't. 

Once again, there is documentation that the DA's office and the judge were working far too hard to ensure that there was a case against a man who had NO criminal record. Not only was there no criminal record, there were no other "victims" that came forward as normally happens. Quite to the contrary, the friends of Ruby rallied to the side of Jon and reported that the allegations were premeditated.

The only probable cause in this case was that the county was using any and every dirty trick they could to avoid lawsuits by Jon's partner and the CRI.

Read for yourself, learn the tools that are being used in our court system every day to PREVENT justice from being served.

It is time to stand up and speak out!

Friday, April 24, 2015

Criminal Injustice

If you haven't familiarized yourself with the Jon Massey Case yet, click here.

As a summary of what has been presented in this blog so far, in addition to the article above, are the following factors:
  1. Ruby's story changed by a whole year and many events AFTER she had been interviewed for well over 30 hours that are documented.
  2. The county psychologist (PhD) testified under oath that he believed the original time frame was correct, and that if Ruby changed her story after he had confirmed the time frame and details with her, she would be unreliable.
  3. Ruby changed her story less than a week after the psychologist testified, and claimed that "nobody had ever asked her" about when the alleged abuse occurred and what happened.
  4. The county psychologist did NOT diagnose Ruby with sexual abuse, or PTSD (as would be expected) - only "adjustment disorder".
  5. The county psychologist was not allowed to testify at trial.
  6. A counselor (MSW) testified that Ruby's "delayed disclosure" and "acting out" behaviors are characteristic of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS).
  7. CSAAS only is present when there has been a diagnosis of sexual abuse. See #4 above.
  8. The judge wrongfully invoked Rape Shield Law to prevent any testimony and witnesses regarding Ruby's relationship with a man that was the basis of her false allegations.
  9. The judge wrongfully invoked Rape Shield Law to prevent any testimony regarding Ruby's premeditation to remove Jon Massey from the house so she could continue the relationship.
  10. Ruby was unable to correctly provide physical description of Jon Massey - in fact she incorrectly described his physical characteristics.
  11. There were multiple violations that occurred from the judge and the district attorney, including wrongfully removing people from court, lying to the grand jury, and threatening defense witnesses.
These are just a quick summary of the "justice" that was meted out to Jon. If Jon was truly guilty, why were both the judge and the district attorney working so hard and violating so many rights to make sure they won the case?

Stand up for your rights, speak out against corruption!


Mitochondrial disease is real!

Not only is it real, it is acknowledged as a legitimate medical condition by the CDC (Center for Disease Control), the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, the National Institute of Health, and...wait for it...Boston Children's Hospital.

That last entity is specifically highlighted on the list because it was at the center of the Justina Pelletier case, which I have mentioned in an earlier blog entry.

At the heart of the Justina Pelletier case is a relatively new category of abuse invented by CPS - medical child abuse. Medical child abuse is described as being when "a child receives unnecessary and harmful or potentially harmful medical treatment at the hands of a parent or caregiver".

Although Boston Children's Hospital has a mitochondrial disease treatment center, Justina didn't enter through that branch - she was brought in through the Emergency Room. An ER doctor diagnosed her with a psychological disorder and removed her from all her medications for mitochondrial disease, and when the parents objected, CPS was called in and the parents were charged.

Ironically, it was the actions of CPS in concert with the hospital staff - who never consulted with Justina's specialist or even their own mitochondrial treatment center - that harmed Justina.

Although mitochondrial disease is genetic and at this point in time cannot be "cured", the progressive nature of the disease in damaging almost all body systems can be slowed, or even stopped, for periods of time. But doing so relies on a "mitococktail", a combination composed primarily of dietary supplements that has usually been tailored to match the specific symptoms that have been evidenced by a patient.

Because a mitococktail can be purchased over the counter, most insurances do not cover the costs, and so CPS had an "in" to claim that this was an "unnecessary or potentially harmful treatment".  (To support the coverage of mitococktails by insurance, please sign a petition by clicking HERE.)

However, removing Justina from all her treatments not only didn't "cure her", she ended up returning to the custody of her parents with her condition being much further advanced as a result.

Wait, hold on a minute...under the CPS definitions, isn't it "medical neglect" when a parent or a caregiver fails to give medical treatment which a child needs? Therefore, since Justina was diagnosed with a legitimately recognized medical condition, CPS themselves are guilty of medical neglect by actively participating in denying her necessary medical treatment.

Although the Pelletiers regained custody of their daughter after more than a year, both Massachusetts and Connecticut now have "founded" or "substantiated" reports on them in the permanent files. This means that if there is even a hint of a problem in the future, once again they will be hauled through the travesty of a system that falsely charges parents for the offenses that they themselves are committing.

By definition, malpractice is improper, illegal, or negligent professional activity or treatment, especially by a medical practitioner, lawyer, or public official. And the actions of CPS in persecuting parents who are battling mitochondrial disease definitely qualify as malpractice. 

It is time to speak out, stand up, and overturn a corrupt, self-serving system!

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Junk Science - The Myth of CSAAS

A second tool that CPS and the criminal courts will use in the prosecution of sexual offenders is a theory called "Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome" (CSAAS). It even has its own place in the "blueprint" for prosecution manuals that are available on the internet.

Developed by Roland Summit in 1983, the theory explains why a variety of things occur after a child has been sexually abused, and among them were delayed disclosure and the entire kitchen sink of acting out behaviors.

The key point is that the theory is ONLY valid if the child has actually been sexually abused.

Unfortunately, CPS and prosecutors have latched on to the theory as being a diagnostic tool, and claim that any demonstration of any of the listed behaviors can be used to PROVE that sexual abuse has occurred.

The pathological misues of his theory became so rampant that in 1993, Roland Summit published an article on "Abuse of the Child Sexual Abuse Accomodation Syndrome".

What is very enlightening is that in the Jon Massey Case, the county psychologist did NOT diagnose Ruby as having been sexually abused. Without a diagnosis of sexual abuse, any behaviors she exhibited could not be and should not have been attributed to CSAAS.

And that is a second major reason why the county's expert psychologist was not called to testify for the prosecution. Not only would have had to document the change in Ruby's testimony by a full year - a change that he would have to also report as being unreliably by his own testimony on July 8, 2013, he would also have had to report that he failed to diagnose Ruby with sexual abuse.

Instead, the prosecutor's office brought in a so-called "expert" who was used to imply by inference that all of Ruby's behaviors resulted from this non-existent sexual abuse. The credentials of this expert (MSW) were far lower than the county psychologist (PhD), so her testimony would not outweigh his. Additionally, this expert either was not provided with the psychologist's report or chose to ignore it when giving her report on CSAAS and how it related to the case.

To give you a better perspective, a similar situation would be the following:

You walk into a room, begin coughing, complain about being chilled and achy, and your face is reddened and looks like you are running a fever.

Immediately every adult in the room pulls out a mask, gets on their cell phone, and demands that their primary care provider call in a prescription for Tamiflu, because of course you have the flu!

Better yet, they start reporting your symptoms to a doctor who, without ever doing any type of exam on you, getting a history, or speaking to you, diagnoses you with the flu.

But wait, it was snowing outside, with a fairly brisk wind, and your car was last in the driveway so you got to shovel. And it was that heavy, wet, sticky snow, so you got soaked through while shoveling. And the cold air gave you a tickle in your throat, so you needed a drink of water to settle it down after all that exertion.

If a doctor had diagnosed you with the flu, you would expect the response from the other adults. However, since you knew there was a different reason for the symptoms, you thought the adults were borderline hypochondriacs.
This was the situation with Ruby in the Jon Massey Case. Her "acting out" behaviors had been present for years - long before Jon Massey renewed a relationship with her mother.

If the "symptoms" of CSAAS were used to diagnose sexual abuse in every instance when they occur, the parents and family members of at least 60% of all middle school students would either be sitting in jail or having their parental rights fast-tracked for termination by CPS.

It is time to speak out against systemic abuse and stop the use of discredited theories and junk science to persecute and abuse families.

Wolf Cry! - The Fallacy of the "Rape Shield Law"

The "Violence Against Women Act" of 1994 created a Federal "rape shield law", which followed after many states had already enacted equivalent versions during the 1970's and 1980's.

rape shield law is a law that limits a defendant's ability to introduce evidence or cross-examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. 

If you have listened to the radio interviews regarding the Jon Massey Case, you will have heard author Mike Volpe talk about how the judge and the district attorney used NY Rape Shield Law to obstruct Jon Massey's attorney. He was blocked from developing and presenting a defense against the false allegations made against him by Ruby, his partner's daughter.

Ruby's had compelling motivation to make false allegations - Jon and her mother had tried to prevent the 14 year old girl from having a romantic relationship with a 21 year old man for almost six months.

Her premeditated intent to remove Jon from the house solely to enable her to continue her relationship was repeatedly expressed by her in text messages and Facebook messages to her boyfriend, as well as to other individuals. 

At issue was not the sexual nature of the relationship - it was the fact that the boyfriend had been warned on at least three occasions that he was not to have any type of relationship with Ruby and that to do so would lead to pursuit of legal action. It was the constant attempts by Jon and her mother to prevent the relationship by any means necessary that prompted Ruby to make allegations that would remove Jon from any ability to interfere, as well as tie her mother's hands.

As a point of fact, when Ruby's mother tried to describe how Ruby responded violently when the subject of the boyfriend was even brought up, the judge not only began screaming at the mother from the bench, he also cleared the jury from the room and threatened to have her jailed for contempt of court. This occurred not once, but twice during the trial.

Not one of the defense witnesses was ever allowed to mention the boyfriend's name or allude that there even was one. The jury never heard about Ruby's threats against her mother and Jon if they interfered with her relationship. They were blocked from hearing the truth.

Additionally, one of the other potential witnesses who could testify to Ruby planning months in advance to "get Jon out of the house so he won't be able to monitor me" was a young man, and the judge refused to allow him to be called as a defense witness, again citing the Rape Shield Law.

The Rape Shield Laws are a necessary and a valid protective tool - they prevent defendants from using prior sexual behavior, lifestyle choices, or even attire to prejudice a jury against the victim. Nobody disputes that further exposing a victim to shame and humiliation is unnecessary and should be prevented whenever possible.

However, these laws were never intended as a tool to be used by the court or district attorney to prevent someone accused of a capital offense from preventing a valid defense, which is what has evidently evolved.

Even the NY Court of Appeals, in 1999 in the case People v. Jovanovic (in which a lower court improperly suppressed emails which would have cleared the defendant), affirmed that Rape Shield was not to interfere with a valid defense. (This sounds hauntingly familiar - as there was electronic evidence that Ruby was planning for months to remove Jon as she viewed him as the primary person able to monitor her behavior. The case was even cited by Jon's attorney in an attempt to persuade the judge to allow the documentary evidence and testimony, not only by Ruby's boyfriend, but by the other young man.)

The defense in this case wasn't even focused on the sexual behavior of Ruby - it was centered on her belief that Jon and her mother would be able to have her boyfriend arrested. Even without an admission of sexual activity from either Ruby or her boyfriend, the fact that he allowed her to spend the night at his house to "watch documentaries" would be chargeable as endangering the welfare of a child, as well as custodial interference. 

Instead of protecting victims however, the Rape Shield Laws have now become a tool to wrongfully convict people by cutting off their entire line of defense. The judge and the prosecutor in Jon Massey's case deliberately used them in that regard. 

It is interesting to note that available on the internet are several "handbooks" for district attorneys with "blueprints" for prosecuting sexual offenses. One of the strategies that is promoted is to attempt to use the Rape Shield Law to suppress any and all evidence of innocence or ulterior motive on the part of the alleged victim.

We all know the story of the boy who cried wolf. 

By allowing girls who make false allegations to hide behind the Rape Shield statutes and secure wrongful convictions, judges and district attorneys are creating a situation that could result in erosion of victim's rights. The more that people learn of these false convictions based on spite and vindictive behavior, the less likely they are to take true allegations seriously.

It is time to stop allowing prosecutors, judges, and "victims" who make false allegations to hide behind the Rape Shield Law and secure wrongful convictions. Preserve the rights of the true victims, don't allow the corruption of the system to erode their rights.

Speak out, stand up, make a difference!

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

The Unanswered Question

People are still going back to the question of where and how Jon Massey was able to get cyanide.

The why is fairly obvious - everyone knows what happens to "chomos" (child molesters) in prison, they are the lowest of the low and usually don't make it out alive.

But there are numerous irregularities about the "official" reports that surrounded Jon's collapse and subsequent death.

The first issue is that "a court employee" allegedly stated that they saw Jon put something in his mouth. Of course a court employee said that - after all, the judge knowingly waved off the court officer when he tried to put handcuffs on Jon. And the judge had full knowledge of the level of Jon's long-term depression and suicidality, those records were part of the medical reports that he ordered turned over to the DA.

A better question than where Jon got cyanide would be, "Why did a judge knowingly interfere with standard safety procedures on an extremely high-risk defendant?" After all, Jon had already attempted suicide with just the false allegations. Wouldn't being wrongfully found guilty increase his determination?

Let's get back to that hypothetical, unnamed court employee. Jon's best friend, Ruby's older sister, and I were in the courtroom that day also. We already knew that his attorney was watching the jury. But the three of us were watching Jon closely because we were concerned that he would try to kill himself. And he put nothing in his mouth. The only thing he did was to pick up a cup of water and drink it - without putting his hand to his mouth or dropping anything in the cup.

As a matter of fact, before we reentered the courtroom to hear the jury verdict, Jon's attorney asked him to get himself squared away. Jon kept his glasses, his comb, and made sure he had $50 for the commissary - not the actions of a man on the verge of killing himself. Jon also gave his attorney the order to file a notice of appeal immediately if necessary.

The second issue is that although the Undersheriff at the time had made the statement to the press that "Jon told the deputy at the loading dock that he had taken cyanide", one of our family members spoke to both deputies who had been there to transport Jon. Both deputies said that Jon collapsed without saying a word immediately upon exiting the elevator.

The third issue is that somehow, conveniently, no paperwork was exchanged between the court officer and the transporting deputies, making Jon a "John Doe" at the hospital - and resulting in medical personnel being unable to access his records for over 20 minutes. This was combined with the fact that none of his family members (myself, his sister, his mother) were notified at all. I found out about him being hospitalized from the news, after he had been at the hospital for over 30 minutes.

So more appropriate questions at this point would be "Why wasn't Jon formally identified by the people who had him in custody?" and "Why wasn't the family informed immediately?" Either one of these actions could have potentially resulted in better medical care through faster access to his records.

Finally, even after the autopsy report confirmed that Jon died from cyanide poisoning, there was no investigation into where he had gotten it from. None.

The question really isn't about where or how Jon got the cyanide, frankly I don't know. I do know that even in high school he was incredibly bright and we had amazing teachers. Jon had taken AP Chemistry and earned one of the highest scores on the AP exam in our school's history. He always figured out anything he put his mind to - figuring out cyanide wouldn't have been a challenge.

The question that really needs answering is, "Why are there so many other issues surrounding Jon taking cyanide?"

CPS = Constitutional Perversion System

Many of us believe that we have Constitutional rights, and until you become involved with CPS, it would be a logical assumption.

However the actions that CPS takes in their quest to fill adoption quotas, siphon money out of parents and taxpayers, and advance their careers and political aspirations, repeatedly and consistently violate and pervert the Bill of Rights.

An examination of the affected amendments in the Bill of Rights will make clear the illegality and unconstitutionality of CPS and the Family Court System, as well as the agencies that assist in these actions.


First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Many recent CPS/Family Court cases have made the news because judges have issued gag orders on the parents for speaking out against CPS and trying to expose the abuses. One of the most well-known is the Justina Pelletier case, in which the Family Court judge early on in the case issued a gag order against the parents in an attempt to keep them from getting publicity to defend themselves.

When the family attempted to seek redress from government agencies, and secure the return of their daughter after CPS medically kidnapped her, CPS and the Family Court retaliated by restricting and then removing their access to their daughter.

This is the norm, not the exception. If a family does not agree with CPS intervention, does not comply with their service plan (even though it is NOT court ordered), or attempts to present a defense, CPS escalates the punitive actions against them accordingly.


Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Where do I begin with this Amendment?

CPS believes that they have the right to enter a private home without a warrant or probable cause. If they are denied permission, they will fabricate a reason and recruit police and Family Court assistance in procuring a warrant.

CPS will seize children from their parents without a warrant or probable cause. If the parents do not allow them into the home and they are unsuccessful in securing a warrant, they will often seize the children from school.

CPS will present fraudulent paperwork to police and the Family Court, manufacturing lies and fabricating evidence in order to secure warrants. They deliberately commit perjury in presenting falsely sworn paperwork to the court, yet are never held to task for their criminal offense.


Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The course of events in the Jon Massey Case demonstrates that the Grand Jury system has evolved to be only a tool of pre-conviction that a DA will use to predispose a jury pool. Additionally, by fraudulently changing the allegations on the eve of trial, the DA's office put Jon Massey in jeopardy of life and limb not once but twice.

What is more important is that CPS actually violates the Fourth Amendment in respect to the last two sections. Incredible as it may seem in this day and age, children are usually considered "chattel" or property in the eyes of the law. So when CPS comes in and seizes children without due process, they are violating the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, since the goal of CPS is to secure child support payments from the parents and/or government funding from the Federal Adoption Incentive, there is also the issue that the children have been taken for public use, as the funds received go into the public coffers. And there is no way that CPS could possibly give "just compensation" for the theft of a child from the parents and family members.


Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

One of the major issues in the Jon Massey Case was that it took a year and a half before his trial was held - three times the length of time allowed by law. Yet the motion to dismiss based on lack of timeliness was dismissed by the judge, who had full discretion to allow the prosecution as much time as he saw fit. 

But not only does the criminal court (often an adjunct partner with CPS and the Family Court) fail to uphold the Constitution, Family Court and CPS fail to do so also. After all, even though Family Court is allegedly a civil proceeding rather than criminal, the level of penalties imposed during Family Court matters are often as punitive as any handed out in a criminal court, and so the court should be held to the same standard. Yet one of the most transparent tactics that CPS utilizes is dragging out cases in an attempt to wear the parents into submission or run them out of money to pay for attorneys. Then CPS turns around and uses the length of the court action against the parents in an attempt to terminate their rights.


Seventh Amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Family Court cases are considered "civil" or "common law" actions, equivalent to law suits, and I don't think anyone would argue that the value of a human life is far in excess of twenty dollars. Yet there is no opportunity for parents to have a trial by jury to resolve their cases. 

Additionally, even when matters brought forward by CPS are resolved in Family Court, they are continually brought forward at later dates and even used as the basis for continuing persecution of parents and families. CPS at this point in time actually has begun to track foster children, and to seize their children on the basis of them having been in foster care.


Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Can anyone think of a more cruel and unusual punishment for parents and children than what CPS does routinely - remove children from their parents, and inhibit or prevent contact between family members?


CPS and the Family Court System clearly violate six of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. They pervert the intent of our founding fathers to secure some basic rights to help ensure justice. 

The agency and system that was supposed to protect children against "perverts" have themselves become perverted.

Speak out against CPS and Family Court Corruption!

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

CPS (Career Preservation Society)

We all hope to one day get a career, not just a job. The difference between the two is that a job pays the bills, a career is something you believe in and enjoy doing (while you get paid to do it).

One of the factors of being employed (whether a job or a career) is being evaluated on what you do and how well you do it.

Such is the situation with CPS...they are accountable to a variety of forms of oversight - the government agencies directly responsible for the supervision of their branch (in NYS it is the county, then the state, and ultimately the federal government), the immediate supervisor, and the director of their branch.

But ultimately, their job, or career, or paycheck - however they view it - relies on one thing and one thing only: having enough cases to justify their positions, and those of their co-workers.

So they "found" cases based on the "quality" of the case in order to provide sufficient numbers to continue their employment.

However, many of the standards used have nothing to do with abuse or neglect, but are based solely on some very inappropriate reasoning.

The list below includes a number of reasons that CPS is taking children nationwide and funneling them into the foster care system. The ultimate goal is to help meet adoption quotas and secure funding, as well as to justify their jobs based on numbers of cases.
  • "Medical neglect" based on the disagreement of a temporary health care provider (ER doctor, first time specialist, etc) or the caseworker with the diagnosis of the regular provider or the parents' wish for a second opinion or different - but medically accepatable - treatment.
  • Ability of the parent to pay child support in excess of the foster care expenses.
  • Animosity between family members which can be utilized to generate additional false allegations of neglect or abuse.
  • "Adoptability" of the children - fitting the high-demand criteria (racial and ethnic appeal, lack of disabilities, lack of negatively impacting backgrounds).
  • "Prior history" of the parents, including any history of having been in foster care, prior reports to CPS, or any other item which CPS deems makes them "high-risk".
  • Inability of parent(s) to have the financial resources to implement a good defense.
Additionally, caseworkers will lie and manufacture allegations in the paperwork to support their wrongful seizure of children.

CPS no longer is an acronym for Child Protective Services, it has evolved to represent Career Preservation Society, a group of individuals whose sole purpose is to collect paychecks based on performing jobs in a manner that continues to support them collecting a paycheck.

Find a voice! Tell your story! Speak out against CPS! It is time to shut down the self-serving corruption!

A Shallow, Unmarked Grave

Civility died, unnoticed, its passing mourned only by a few.

It wasn't a quick, abrupt departure, rather a slow decline into obscurity, almost unnoticed over the passing of time.

One of the places its demise is most noticed is in the Family Court System (that deals with child welfare, divorce and separation, and child custody).

In what should be halls dedicated to justice and legal standards, false allegations to CPS and police, hearsay, manipulation, perjury, Parental Alienation Syndrome, and other unjust and even criminal behaviors prevail.

Lying and presentation of false paperwork by CPS caseworkers, as well as parties jockeying for better position in divorce and custody issues, is rewarded by the courts. The squeaky wheel gets the most favorable outcome.

Espousing the truth and attempting to do the right thing is punished, and those who are hoping for justice to prevail are sadly disappointed.

The only winners are the attorneys, the court employees, and the CPS workers. They collect their fees and paychecks regardless of the outcomes. In fact, the longer a case is drawn out, the more the attorneys are able to collect and the better the CPS workers are able to justify their jobs.

The "nuclear option" is the norm - scorched earth which drives irreparable divisions between family members, and puts people in contentious and oppositional positions rather than fostering cooperation.

The losers are the parents, who have to expend time and money to fight for what should be theirs by right; the children, who are often deprived of a loving relationship with both parents; and society, which is descending further into a "zero sum" abyss (where there MUST be a winner and a loser, rather than parties that agree to disagree).

So let's raise a toast to the loss of something which will take generations to regain. Civility lies in a shallow, unmarked grave.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

PA - Venue Shopping

A major characteristic of a Parental Alienator is the use of "Venue Shopping". In order to carry out their campaign, an Alienator needs to find sympathetic enforcement parties to help them limit or stop the access of the other parent(s) to the children.

An Alienator will often have a history of filing reports with a variety of police agencies (local police, Sheriff's department, State police, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, etc) as well as with CPS. They will also repeatedly relitigate custody and visitation, utilizing every court possible.

In our case, Ken Shaw used many of the above tactics in order to harass, intimidate, and develop a fraudulent case against our family.

He began with filing a false report with the Kingston Police Department on December 22, 2012. According to Ken Shaw, a friend of mine showed up at the visit with her two sons (aged 7 and 11) solely in an attempt to kidnap my youngest daughter from him. The Kingston Police never bothered to contact either my friend or me for our side of the story - they considered Ken Shaw that unreliable.

When that attempt didn't succeed, Ken Shaw contacted Homeland Security, claiming that my friend had tried to impersonate a Homeland Security agent. The agency investigated, and considered Ken Shaw so unreliable that they dismissed his allegations.

Next Ken Shaw manufactured false allegations about Jon Massey allegedly staying at my house in violation of an order of protection, and contacted the local police department with his trumped up story. He managed to gain some traction with the assistance of CPS, until we secured judicial intervention from the Family Court judge. The judge stated that if he found out that any of the parties in the family court case were involved in the original complaints or ongoing action he would take punitive action against them, and then lifted the order of protection keeping Jon from the house.

Behind the scenes Ken Shaw continued to file false reports with the Kingston Police Department, usually revolving around incidents in which he had behaved inappropriately (a gross understatement) at visitation. It speaks volumes towards his (lack of) credibility with them that not only did they not bother to contact me at all - which would have been standard procedure if they took a claim seriously - but they eventually told me that I should secure a restraining order against him through the Canadian courts.

When Ken Shaw had no success with filing reports with law enforcement, he turned to CPS both in Canada and the United States. The Canadian agency closed both reports he filed without ever contacting me, indicating that they did not take his reports seriously.

The only agency that took any action was the United States CPS. Yet despite Ken Shaw filing a report that alleged abuse of all of my children, after interviews all of them denied any abuse, except the one child who had been consistently under his control and influence, my youngest daughter.

Coincidentally, the Kingston Police reported to the US agency that they believed that the child had been coached by the father and step-mother and that she wasn't credible or reliable.

Even the initial Family Court judge did not believe the allegations brought forward, and expressed that clearly in court Then he ordered a new psychologist to evaluate the situation with my youngest daughter.

The DSS attorney ended up being sanctioned $1000 because he deliberately ignored the judges orders to have the psychologist evaluate the situation BEFORE any other evaluations and interviews. Rather than comply with the judge, CPS subjected my youngest daughter to multiple additional interviews as well as a psychological exam (by the local psychologist who receives over $185K a year under his contract with CPS) prior to allowing the judge's expert to evaluate her.

The CPS caseworker even acknowledged that she had to order Ken Shaw to stop questioning my youngest daughter, because he admitted that he was constantly questioning her about his abuse allegations.

What is ultimately indicative of Ken Shaw's lack of respect for the court process is the fact that while there was an ongoing action in the United States court, he filed for custody through the Canadian court system, a clear violation of the Hague Convention which dictates jurisdiction in child custody matters.

And of course, while under oath, when questioned about this clandestine filing, Ken Shaw lied and claimed that he "didn't know" that he had signed not one but at least two separate petitions for custody through the Canadian court, all of them alleging abuse by me - something that had never been investigated by the Canadian agency, and that had not yet been adjudicated by the US courts.

It took the US Family Court judge contacting the Canadian court directly to stop Ken Shaw's action.

This venue shopping for a "sympathetic" court is reminiscent of Susan Carrington's case - she was awarded full custody of her children,  but then her ex-husband applied to a different court and seized custody in violation of the UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act) which is designed to try to prevent just this type of behavior.

As a futher "accessory" the Alienator will shop for a therapist or mental health professional that will provide them with the reports necessary to advance their expedition.

In our case, Ken and Mary Shaw first took my youngest daughter, in the fall of 2012, to a therapist who stated that there was nothing wrong with her other than needing to adjust to the abrupt change in her circumstances.

So then after the December 22 incident, they found a new professional, and on the intake interview they LIED about why they had custody, claiming that my youngest daughter had been taken from me due to physical abuse, rather than as a temporary placement while the Jon Massey case was being resolved.

The notes from the therapist even document that at every session, Ken Shaw would first give a report to the counselor of everything that I had allegedly done at the prior visit(s), then she would ask my youngest daughter about the report.

Ultimately, the final order stated that I would be allowed to send cards, gifts, and letters to my daughter through this counselor. So what did Ken Shaw do next? He removed her from counselling.

These behaviors are very similar to those of Dina Mackney in the Chris Mackney case. She found mental health professionals that would back her up, even though they failed to follow acceptable practices.

CPS engages in the same behaviors - they set up a stable of psychologists, therapists, counselors, and other professionals who provide their mandated service plan requirements. Often this is the sole or primary source of income for these individuals, so they become just another tool to give the documentation that CPS needs.

When an Alienator starts shopping, the only person getting bargains and deals is the Alienator. The other parent(s) and the children lose!