A Judge Speaks

Judge Alex Kozinski has detailed 12 reasons why the criminal justice system is "worrying". (Click here for the full text of the article)

We encountered quite a few of these issues first hand during the Jon Massey Case.

As there was absolutely NO evidence in our case, it being completely a "he said/she said" situation, the first four situations didn't really apply.

However issue number 5 - the topic of human memory being reliable, was a central issue in the case. (See the blog entries (Her Own Words!, Doctor, Doctor, Give Me the News, and ADAs (Apparently Dumb Attorneys) for more details on what occurred in our case.)

This finding has troubling implications for criminal trials where witnesses are questioned long and hard by police and prosecutors before the defense gets to do so — if ever. There is thus plenty of opportunity to shape and augment a witness’s memory to bring it into line with the prosecutor’s theory of what happened. Yet with rare exceptions, courts do not permit expert testimony on human memory.

We had a judge and a District Attorney ignoring all the interview evidence that had taken place, and those parties actually PREVENTED the jury from hearing about this testimony in both the criminal trial, and the Family Court trial. It is fairly apparent that the falsity of the allegations was well-known, yet the judges and prosecutors were determined to get a "guilty" verdict at all costs.

Point number 7 - that juries follow instructions, was also an issue in our case. Twelve jurors reported out that the ONLY reason they believed a 16 year old girl (who was known to be sexually active and who had received fairly comprehensive health and human body instruction in school) was because she could describe the difference between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis. (See the blog entry Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for details.) There should have been no doubt that she could have gotten that information elsewhere, and there should have been no conviction.

Point 8 - "Prosecutors play fair" also came into play. I can tell you that prosecutors do NOT play fair.

We had witness tampering and intimidation occurring throughout the duration of the case. (Blog entries: Witness Tampering? and Coincidence?) This in addition to blatantly ignoring all testimony that had occurred at the suppression hearing from the county's own expert witnesses.

The prosecutor additionally used an "expert" witness to testify regarding a widely discredited theory, CSAAS. (Blog entry: Junk Science)

Finally, there was the active suppression of evidence and testimony by wrongfully applying a statute. (Blog entry: Wolf Cry!)

The police are NOT objective (point 10). (Blog entries: Pick and Choose! and This Isn't CSI Folks!) We had police officers intimidating witnesses and interfering with actual criminal matters - if the 21 year old boyfriend were charged, that would discredit the case against Jon Massey.

Judge Kozinski also spoke out about the fallibility of the Grand Jury system - which we also experienced: A Grand Jury Ain't So Grand!

Then end result is that Ruby not only got what she wanted (What a Girl Wants!) but also taught her friends how to manipulate the system to their own ends (Ruby Slippers).

It is time to stand up, speak out, and reform a system that is broken and corrupt beyond retrieval.

Ruby Slippers

There's the saying, "you can't know about someone else until you have walked a mile in their shoes".

Unfortunately, in this day and age of lives plastered all over social media, our younger generations are growing up believing that "what you see is what you get" aka WYSIWYG.

Almost three years ago, Ruby made false allegations against her de facto stepfather in order to keep her boyfriend at the time from being arrested (she was 14 and he was 21).

Ruby was also involved in drugs at multiple levels (stealing prescription drugs from family members, using drugs, and selling drugs to others) and that was on the verge of being discovered.

Read more about the outcome of that situation at www.jeffersoncountyny.com as well as in the earlier blog entries here.

Now Ruby was a highly intelligent young lady, and she had a friend with whom she maintained contact for a number of years, let's call her Sapphire.

Sapphire had also gotten caught up with the same crowd that was involved in drug and sexual behavior, and Ruby and Sapphire had renewed their contact, once Ruby was allowed access to social media.

By some mysterious coincidence - the drugs and other inappropriate behaviors (including potential theft or other threatening behaviors towards family members) have been occurring with Sapphire also.

And by another odd and "totally coincidental" event, Sapphire has now made false allegations against one of her family members who tried to stop her.

So Ruby has handed down her shoes - because she learned that she really didn't have to walk that mile at all.

Once the false allegations were out of her mouth - CPS and the District Attorney, as well as a corrupt court system, picked her up and carried her to the winner's circle.

And now Sapphire will get the same free ride, because she has learned that if you don't get what you want, or you are on the verge of getting in serious trouble, make false allegations and it all goes away.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

Anti-Social Workers

"Social workers" hired by the "Family Services System" (CPS, DSS, Family Court) often have little or no education relevant to their job, and are often given "job training" and "workshops" by their employers which is specifically targeted at advancing the aims of these agencies. (Read the blog entries It's All About the Money!, It's All About MORE Money!, It's All About OUR Money! for more details.)

The Chen family found out just how inept and untrained these social workers can be when they contacted Family Services for assistance with their autistic son. (Click here for a link to the article.)

Rather than receiving the help that an agency named "Home Supportive Services" should be providing to parents tasked with round-the-clock care for a high needs child, the social worker took it upon herself to manufacture a CPS case against the Chens.

It took over a year and action by a Grand Jury to supposedly clear up the issue, although at this point the county isn't even acknowledging the problem.

All of the recent publicized incidents involving law enforcement (Baltimore, Ferguson, NYC) have raised doubt in the public and reluctance to turn to the police for assistance. But incidents like that encountered by the Chens (as well as many other people) have caused parents and families to actively turn away from and avoid those agencies that supposedly are tasked and funded to support and assist them.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose the fraud that is DSS/CPS/the Family Court System.

NYC #1

So apparently NYC rates as the "worst" foster care system in the United States.

But what goes beyond that is the defense of the system by a "Legal Aid" attorney who should be working to correct the problems.

Tami Steckler, head of the Legal Aid Society’s Juvenile Rights Practice, blasted the suit as “short-sighted” and warned that it could “stall the progress being made by those of us actually working with these families and children.”

“As the organization that represents almost all the children in New York City foster care, we have been working very closely with the current Commissioner to improve outcomes,” Steckler said in a prepared statement.

“This lawsuit is being brought by attorneys who have never represented clients in New York City’s foster care system, yet purport to know how to fix it, at a time when foster care numbers are at an all-time low and collaboration is at an all-time high.”

Collaboration at an "all-time high"? Sounds like the only collaboration that is doing well would be the collaboration between Steckler and the current Commissioner.

It would be interesting to trace the funding stream for the Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Practice - anyone care to hazard whether the money comes from the same locations that fund DSS and the foster care system?

So, let's take a look at their website: Legal Aid Society Juvenile Rights Practice - information from their own site reveals:

The Division was established concurrently with New York State's Family Court in 1962

and

The Juvenile Services Unit, the social work component, was formed as a result of the pioneering work of Juvenile Rights in teaming social workers with lawyers in order to adequately address the educational, social, and psychological issues that arise in Family Court proceedings.

Care to wonder where the "social workers" are found? I would be willing to bet that they are graciously supplied by DSS - in other words, DSS helps to keep control over the attorneys who should be only accountable to their child clients.

There has already been repeated documentation that DSS not only doesn't work to reunite families, but actively works to estrange family members from  each other, terminate parental rights as rapidly as possible, and farm children out for adoption.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose CPS for the outdated, abusive system that it is.

Disregard for the Truth!

Denise Robertson has written an article which sums up what is happening in so-called "child protective systems" around the globe on a daily basis. (Click here for the article.)

There is a systemic disregard for the truth inherent in the Family Court/CPS system. It has become blatantly obvious in Great Britain, the United States, Canada, and other countries that the system established to "assist" families in trouble is now being used to abuse children and families.

I have detailed just a few of the experiences we and other families have had - for every post I have written, there are (conservatively) a thousand other stories that have gone untold. Read the rest of my blog entries for details of some of the techniques and strategies used to systematically destroy the relationships between children and their families, usually for a financial profit.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

Off to the Races!

As if New York State CPS didn't need any more excuses to wrongfully seize children, terminate parental rights and set children up for adoption...(click for a link to the article)

Governor Cuomo Announces $1.57 Million For Post-Adoption Services

In other words, there is ALL NEW money to be sucked in, which means affirmation of the reasons why CPS will continue to deny parental and Constitutional rights, make false allegations and present fraudulent paperwork to Family Court, and otherwise be an enemy of families and children.

Don't forget, It's All About the Money, It's All About MORE Money, and It's All About OUR Money!

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose CPS!

Coincidence?

Interesting development - the Jefferson County District Attorney (who was in office during the whole Jon Massey Case and whose name is featured in at least one exonerating/exculpatory reference) has decided to NOT run for reelection (see article here).

Could it be that her "hands on" involvement in the case that lead to the death of Jon Massey gave the public doubt in her abilities to fairly administer justice?

Or is it because she herself sent an email to Jon Massey's attorney and made a phone call to a young man's parents that could be interpreted as witness tampering?

Could it be that assistant district attorneys under her command have been involved in ethically questionable legal behavior?

After all, one of them in the Jon Massey Case alone engaged in Grand Jury misconduct (click here for details) before he crashed and burned.

And then there is the second ADA on the case who, when the defense presented a very strong case, somehow managed to ignore all the facts and prior testimony and ended up with a witness who mysteriously changed her story in a way that contradicted the county's expert witness (click here for details).

But apparently now we will be blessed with a "replacement" - from the same regime. The candidate who announced her run last night has just as questionable a history in the DA's office.

Let's start with the fact that she was the ADA handling the CRI who was exposed during the Grand Jury in the Jon Massey Case. She was responsible for preserving the confidentiality of his identity, even from others in the DA's office. Obviously, she failed at that (click here for details).

But she was also involved in the Deputy John Hallett fiasco - apparently despite the fact that he was found passed out drunk behind the wheel of his running patrol vehicle with a bottle of booze in his lap and his K9 in the car, the candidate failed to see any reason to charge him (click for the Sheriff's report).

So, are we there yet? It appears that it will be "business as corrupt as usual" if she is elected.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose the corruption!

Who Wins?

As a case progresses through the morass of Family Court, who really wins?

The "family" doesn't win - despite the name, the grinding action of Family Court places families under such stress that most of them crumble under the strain. Those families that manage to stick together are subjected to pressures that erode their financial stability, their sense of justice, their feelings of security.

Children don't win. The very nature of so-called Family Court actions these days are adversarial - deisgned to promote competition between parents and alienation of parents from the children. The children are ultimately deprived of the love and care of one or both parents.

Parents don't win. Family Court fosters a "winners/losers" environment, rather than recognizing that it is in everyone's best interest to promote cooperation between parents instead of competition. The adversarial relationship is often escalated to the point that it consumes the lives of one or both parents.

The damaging environment that occurs in Family Court, often over an unnecessarily protracted period of time, manufactures long-term complications that often snowball into repeated trips to court over minor issues. These are usually accompanied by false allegations and other destructive behaviors designed to promote one parent at the expense of the other.

So who wins?

The court system benefits - they receive a stipend for every case that passes through their system. The more traffic (so to speak), the more income.

The family court lawyers benefit - for some of them this practice is their sole source of income, between divorces, child custody, and working as AFC, they secure their income from prolonging cases and generating repeat business.

Even the Jefferson County criminal court judge in the Jon Massey Case engaged in repeated returns to court in an attempt to prevail in his divorce in 1995 and again in 1996 - choosing to utilize the appeals process rather than more appropriately petitioning the court to modify. He had learned as a lawyer how to game the system to further his own desires.

The only winners are those collecting money - the more the case involves and the longer it takes, the more money they make.

When you factor in the CPS actions that process through Family Court, sometimes in conjunction with divorce and custody issues, the money changing hands increases exponentially - all at the cost to children and families.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose a corrupt system!

Cash for Kids

Over the course of the past three years, I have had numerous talks with my friends, relatives, and co-workers (not necessarily mutually exclusive) and have heard some fairly profound stories about just how badly the system is broken.

The intent of the Federal Adoption Incentive was to spur CPS and the Family Court system into finding "forever homes" for children who had been lingering in the system for years.

Unfortunately, there is a reason these children had been held in limbo, unadopted. Many of them had physical or developmental issues that would be difficult to manage. Others had been subjected to severe levels of physical, sexual, emotional, or psychological abuse that would require intensive treatment over a period of years.

To draw an analogy - most people would prefer a brand new puppy to a dog from the local animal shelter, and the mentality about adopting a child isn't much different.

People who are looking to adopt want a baby they can "raise from scratch", or a child who hasn't been subjected to the ordeals of actual abuse. But those didn't exist in the foster care system - so CPS had to find a way to generate such a marketable commodity.

With the rise of private adoptions, in which pregnant women could broker deals for the unwanted child they were carrying, CPS needed to find another source of babies and children to supply the adoption demand, and to start generating quotas to earn their state the bonuses under the Federal Adoption Incentive.

That meant that they needed to start seizing children who were "marketable", so CPS found a new target. They began to go after people on "neglect" charges - and they came up with a new description to broaden their search - "derivative neglect".  

In the eyes of CPS, parents are neglectful if they miss a doctor's appointment (even if they immediately reschedule), if their child misses too much school (even when there is documented illness and the parent coordinates with school and keeps their child up to date on work), if their child isn't dressed according to the standards of the social worker (regardless of whether the child's clothing meets "community standards" - what is considered acceptable to most of society), or if the parents aren't feeding a diet deemed acceptable by the social worker. All of it is entirely subjective, and gives caseworkers wide latitude to charge a parent wrongfully, setting in motion a seizure of their children.

Derivative neglect is even more interesting as a concept. It basically means that a parent can be charged for anything that may have happened to a child, even if they were not present, were not informed about it, and the child never told them or demonstrated any signs that anything occurred. Under this standard - each and every one of us could be deemed guilty of derivative neglect for the Boston Marathon bombing, or the Twin Towers - that is how broad the standard is and how non-existent a burden of proof is required.

And this is how CPS has been able to make their own niche in the Cash for Kids market - they find families with minor amounts of discord and assess for how "marketable" the children are, then proceed accordingly. The Family Court judges buy into this corruption because they receive funding based on case load and disposition, not the merits of the case. There is no incentive to adjudicate fairly - after all, once a family has been logged into the CPS system they become "fair game" for future action.

People worry about the NSA and other agencies maintaining a database - however there is a much more insidious database being maintained by a specific government agency - the CPS and Family Court System. Any individual who has ever been a "party" in Family Court or in any Child Support action, has now been entered into the CPS database. This includes not only the adults, but also the "subject" children. This is in addition to the records maintained on any and every report ever called in to CPS - whether "founded", "indicated", or "unfounded".

Foster children, victims of false reports, parents who have fully completed and complied with "service plans" (and learned and changed their behaviors as a result), are all fair game for the pickings. They have become a "fertile field" for CPS to harvest adoptable children.

And meanwhile, the situation that the Federal Adoption Incentive was designed to correct continues - with repercussions. Now only the most severely obvious cases of abuse are acted upon - and often those are the only families that are reunified. The system is bogged down with cases of "neglect" and "derivative neglect" that are fast-tracked into TPR (termination of parental rights) and adoption, rather than the reunification that should occur with these mild or even non-existent charges.

Meanwhile, foster parents looking to adopt the "high needs" children are put on the back burner - their cases are dragged out with repetitive paperwork and unnecessary delays - while children from intact families are fast-tracked into removal from their parents and placement for adoption.

I have spoken to two separate adoptive parents who refuse to work with our local CPS system any more after their experiences in foster-to-adoption. Both parents are mandated reporters who have been trained in the recognition and reporting of child abuse, and who have no doubts that the children they fostered and then adopted had been actually abused. Yet they faced what they characterized as a "lack of support" for ensuring that the needs of the children in their care were met. This would be expected - the needs of a genuinely abused child would require spending money long-term and would erode the CPS profit margin on the funds they receive from multiple sources.

Additionally, one of the adoptive parents was subjected to extortion attempts from the extended family of the children they were adopting. The family had absolutely NO interest in taking the two children, but upon learning of the employment status of the foster family adopting the children, they began making direct contact with the foster family requesting payments for them to sign off on the adoption quickly.

In conversations with several teachers, I learned about multiple cases that had been "hotlined" in which children made allegations against a parent, with more than sufficient evidence to back up the allegations. Yet not only weren't the children removed from the homes, nothing was done to address the abuse. In one instance a sexually abused child (one of several in the home) finally attacked the abusive parent with a hammer and was sent to a juvenile facility.

We even have a local county legislator who was showed up on CPS radar after his child and other kids got into a "very active" game of street hockey that left marks. Despite the evidence presented by all of the children involved, it took months before the legislator was given a "clean slate".

The common factor when children are seized? No evidence of abuse, often no evidence of neglect, and characteristics in the children that would make them "adoptable" - no disabilities or other issues that would render them undesirable. Even in our own case they tried to fast-track Ruby into adoption - within four months Ruby's father was told that she was going to be adopted out "soon", despite family members who wanted to take her. (It kind of makes you wonder who would be in the market for an intelligent, beautiful, blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl who at age 14 could pass for 17 or older.) 

The system is irreparably broken. It is merely a cover for the illegal seizure and sale of children and youth, as well as a source of revenue generation and career preservation.

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose CPS!

Pushing Buttons!

Suicide is a criminal offense!

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the person who commits suicide is a criminal - the criminals are those who put any person in a situation where they perceive that suicide is their only option!

Who are some of the victims of this particular offense?

Dave and Tiffany O'Shell were two police officers who were wrongfully charged with abuse when doctor's failed to diagnose their daughter with a genetic disorder. Their despondency at the persecution of their family by child protective services and the criminal courts led to a murder-suicide for the husband and wife. And the family was unable to prevail in a lawsuit against CPS for wrongful actions. The irony is that their daughter was diagnosed with a genetic disorder that explained her injuries and also caused her death soon after.

Eleanor de Freitas brought rape charges to the police, but although they believed her story, they felt there wasn't enough evidence to secure a conviction. The alleged perpetrator spent over 200,000 pounds to bring private prosecution against her and the Crown Prosecutor joined in (smell the money trail?). Eleanor, who suffered from bi-polar disorder, killed herself as a result.

Ron Mayfield Jr. was a teacher falsely accused of assault by a disruptive student. Without even informing or consulting the boy's parents, the school and CPS pursued charges against him. He was cleared by the police the morning that he killed himself, sadly enough. David Alan Papadakos suffered similar persecution after false allegations by his adopted son (who was on psychiatric meds at the time), and he also killed himself as a result.

Chris Mackney is another case, in which an ex-wife repeatedly and continuously dragged Chris through the Family Court system and criminal courts until he was bankrupt and had lost all hope of contact with his children. Despair over the inequity of the justice system caused Chris to kill himself.

I have previously written about Jon Massey, whose despondency over being unable to present the evidence and witnesses that would show the allegations against him were false made him give up all hope of justice and take his own life.

A simple Google search for "suicide", combined with any other terms of your choosing (false allegations, bullying, harassment, CPS, Family Court, etc) leads to hundreds of results of actual people who have been victimized by a system that fails to take action against those who have brought them to the brink of death.

In many suicides there are clear and distinct signs that actions and words of an individual or group were what prompted the attempt (whether successful or not), yet those people and systems responsible for the death of another person are rarely, if ever, held accountable.

What is not-so-surprisingly missing are the statistics on how many parents and children have died after being wrongfully dragged through the Family Court or Criminal Court systems by CPS. At this point, unless the friends and family members come forward, the true numbers will never be known.

What is known is that for over 25 years there have been questions about the legitimacy of the CPS system and the actions that it takes - often using coercive and underhanded techniques to continue cases without merit while ignoring the actual reasons for false allegations. (Click here for an article that details statistics from 1990 and earlier regarding false allegations and their effect on families.)

It is time to stand up, speak out, and expose the corruption that has existed for more than a quarter of a century!

Stats Too!

We've already looked at the statistics for children being taken from their parents, never to be returned.

Now let's take a hard look at this last column:  DEATH OF A CHILD

Read the column title again:  DEATH OF A CHILD

Now read the title of the table:  FOSTER CARE EXIT OUTCOMES

Since when is the death of even a single child considered nothing more than an "exit outcome"? Better yet, why are children in foster care dying? They have been placed there to "protect" them by a government agency.

And yet, it isn't just a single child - in the 12 years of this record, it is 6,317 children. Children who have been taken from their parents - the families who try to protect them and keep them safe.

If even a fraction of these had occurred in Ferguson or Baltimore or NYC, the riots would still be going. Yet these children are a blip on the radar, swept under the rug by a corrupt government agency that doesn't want to acknowledge that it is failing families and children.

How many more children have died in the over five years since this data was recorded? How many more children killed in foster care will it take before we acknowledge that the system is broken and corrupt?

Stop the insanity and killing! Stand up, speak out! Expose CPS!

A Small Death!

Many of us have suffered through the death of a loved one or family member, and have learned about the stages of grief through that experience. (For more information, click here for one source.)

Here is a quick summary of the stages:

1. Denial — The survivor imagines a false, preferable reality.
2. Anger — The individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated, especially at nearby individuals or those perceived as being involved. 
3. Bargaining — The third stage involves the individual making negotiations, whether internally or externally, to try to get a desired outcome.
4. Depression —During the fourth stage, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen, or have physical symptoms such as sleeplessness, stomach aches and headaches.
5. Acceptance — The individual embraces the inevitable future, as they perceive it, believing that nothing can or will change.

For a child, being removed from a parent is a form of loss. It may not be permanent (although an alienator and CPS will do their best to make it permanent), but the stages are no different.

CPS and parental alienators, either consciously or subconsciously, through planning or ignorance, take advantage of these stages in order to "prove" their case against the targeted parent.

Let's walk through each one.

1. Denial - Initially, a child will act as though everything is "business as usual" when they are dealing with being removed from a parent, or denied access to that parent. Children are usually very resilient and will perceive the situation as just a small problem. CPS uses this apparent "lack of caring" as "proof" that the child has been abused and is now "relieved" that they are no longer in the "abusive" environment. An alienator uses this stage as an opportunity to point out that the child really doesn't have feelings for the other parent and the denial of contact or change in custody should continue.
2. Anger - As time passes, and the child realizes that what has been forced on them isn't just a temporary problem, the child begins lashing out, especially at the targeted parent. Children are very instinctively intelligent, and realize that reacting against the people who have custody and care would result in punishment and repercussions. Instead, they respond with anger towards the targeted parent for several reasons - they are encouraged to do so by CPS or alienators, and because the child perceives that the targeted parent has failed to protect them and rescue them from the situation. Meanwhile, both CPS and alienators are able to strongly advance their case in court at this stage, by pointing out that the child "lashing out" at the target parent is further "proof" that the child was abused and should be kept from contact with that parent.
3. Bargaining - The next phase the child moves through is often known as "magical thinking". The child believes that if they do everything that is expected of them they will be able to get back to their parent. They usually do not express this outwardly, but instead become fully compliant with all expressed and unspoken wishes from CPS or the alienating parent. And once again, this is used as "documentation" and "proof", but now CPS and the alienating parent are able to present "documentation" for their case. The marked improvement (in behavior, attitude, grades, etc.) is now highlighted by CPS as being "proof" that the child was abused - confirming any false allegations that have been made. (This falls under the misuse of Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, read more by clicking here.) The alienating parent uses the changed behavior as further "proof" that the child does not need or want contact with the target parent.
4. Depression - During the grieving process, the child will often exhibit symptoms of depression - sleeplessness, crying, headaches, stomach aches. These may occur concurrently with other phases. These symptoms are "welcomed" by both CPS and alienators - they are able to point to concrete "proof" that any relationship with the target parent is causing the child physical distress. Regardless of when the child exhibits the symptoms, they are used to indict the target parent. If the target parent is still being allowed contact with the child, the physical symptoms are used to "prove" that the child is distressed before a visit or after a visit (so they can cover all the bases, because it is always before or after a visit). If the target parent has no contact, CPS and the alienating parent use the symptoms as "proof" in a different way - they claim that the child is fearful that visits will resume.
5. Acceptance - Children actually know much more than they are given credit for. When, in their minds, the child believes that they will no longer be able to resume their relationship with the target parent, they become resigned to the situation. This is the point when CPS uses the situation to justify adopting the child out, and when the alienator justifies sole custody with no visitation.

The saddest part of all is that an abusive system (CPS and Family Court) and abusive parents (alienators) utilize a time when a child is grieving to further victimize and abuse the child and the family. Most sane and rational people are able to recognize the common sense of what is spelled out above, and realize that neither CPS nor alienating parents are doing what is in the best interests of children.

Stop the insanity! Stand up, speak out! Expose CPS!

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

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!

Snitch!

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!

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!

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.

A 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!