The Rule of Three - Liar's Poker

Gather round kiddos, because today's math lesson is about exponents.

Why exponents? Because it directly applies to lying behavior.

Studies have shown that for every lie you tell, you need to tell three to keep it going or cover it up.

So you tell one lie.

Next you tell three lies to cover that first one up.

For each one of those, you tell an additional three lies.

The actual equation is 1 + 3^n where the exponent/power is determined by how far out you are from the original lie (which is represented by the 1). The base of three is the number of lies you tell to cover each one lie.

Example? You tell a lie, then you tell the three lies to cover it up. Now you need an additional three lies to cover each of those. And for each of those, another three lies.

1 + 3 x 3 x 3 = 28 lies

Now consider that the average person these days has difficulty remembering a phone number, which is only ten digits.

(About the only number most people remember is 867-5309, and Jenny Jenny isn't going to help you now.)

By the time most people get to that second round of dissembling, where the total is only ten lies, they are having difficulty keeping track of what they have already said.

That's when things should start to unravel, and often do in most cases.

Unfortunately, in this day and age of everything being documented and available on social media, the skillful liar will review the original lie and any supporting falsehoods in order to build a coherent, uniform story.

This is especially easy for those in the public eye, as their every breath and gesture is endlessly recorded and analyzed and available on social media platforms.

So although it is easy to see the lie unraveling for an individual you know personally, it isn't always easy to identify the same problem in a public figure.

Hallmark behaviors that can indicate "rehearsal" in order to cover up/explain a story would be lengthy periods of time before beginning an explanation or rationalization of misstatements, as well as multiple successive "press releases" with additional details and/or clarification.

In terms of personal behavior - if you don't tell lies, you are able to continue to provide a consistent story.

Let your word be your bond, lest you become one of the 10-15%.

Not that long ago, humankind used to be able to trust a person who took an oath that they were telling the truth.

Be that person who is known for their veracity, and it will make your life so much easier.

Truth Matters!

PA - Consider the Source

During the course of this case, CPS relied heavily on the testimony of Ken Shaw to repeatedly inflict personal attacks on the mother.

And Ken Shaw was more than happy to comply. After all, he had over the years developed an irrational hatred of the mother because of her refusal to maintain a relationship with him after she realized that he was a habitual liar, with substance abuse and anger issues.

The man had even told his own parents that she lived somewhere in Canada when he first introduced her to them.

Ken Shaw, at the urging and instigation of his attorney, has continued those attacks to this day, including attempting to throw false allegations out in the chat session of a radio interview conducted with the mother on Friday night. (See the "Here We Go Again" blog entry - episode 3 for details.) It is interesting that although he (or his cohorts) could have called in to the show and had their attempts broadcast live, they realized that their voices would be on air and possibly subject to further action (similar to episode 1).

Meanwhile, for those of you who aren't sure what to believe, maybe the following documentation will help you.

At one of the numerous hearings that was held in approximately April or May of 2013, the Judge ordered that the mother be allowed to bring a third party supervisor IN ADDITION TO her middle daughter when she had visits with her youngest daughter. Both Ken Shaw, and his wife, and his attorney were present at that hearing and heard the order from the judge. They actually objected to the idea and were overruled on the matter, so they were very aware of the judge's ruling and order.

At the very next visitation, Ken and Mary dragged the child out by her wrist and screamed and yelled at the mother, telling the mother that she was not allowed to bring anyone else with her at all.

This was an email sent by Ken Shaw to the mother:

Which demonstrates that he apparently was refusing to listen to and follow direct orders from the judge. After the mother sent him a copy of the court order permitting a third party in addition to herself and her other daughter, his wife Mary sent this fax to CPS (she had also been present in court when the judge issued the order):

It is obvious that either the two of them were gaming the system and pretending ignorance and stupidity, or...they aren't pretending...

This might explain part of the problem. In addition to Ken Shaw admitting that he himself regularly takes lorazepam and other medications for his alleged anxiety at a hearing in February 2014, he disclosed this information about his wife:

However apparently "long-standing mental health issues" that require three different medications are not "psychiatric". 

There is a similar personal admission by his son on social media documenting that he has "long standing mental health issues" in which he apologizes for "hurting anyone". (Although I would attribute the son's problems to the PA that Ken Shaw inflicted on both his sons in regards to his ex-wife.)

In the January hearing, under sworn oath, Ken Shaw gave this testimony:

He uses semantics to try to deny that he lied to the police. In fact, his testimony in front of two separate judges was that the child had told his mother that the dog had scratched her. He also testified that after he "suggested" that it was from the mother (without even seeing it), both of his mother and his daughter changed their story (although his mother, repeatedly cited as a source by Ken Shaw has NEVER appeared to testify).

This is his testimony from a hearing in this matter in February 2014 regarding the same incident:

Not to state the obvious, but a characteristic of lying is that you are unable to consistently report the same thing over and over again, because it is not grounded in reality and true memories. Ken Shaw demonstrated that less than a month later, he was unable to recall his prior testimony.

Next are two excerpts from his testimony - the testimony of an adult, 50+ year old man, about how he talks to and about young girls.

Neither episode is an appropriate way for a father or an adult male to talk about or treat young females.

what comes next is VERY interesting. In the "Gaslighting" blog entry I talked about Ken Shaw making false reports to the local police. Here is his testimony regarding that incident a year later, after initially claiming that he actually heard Jon Massey's voice because he was on speakerphone:

That last line from Ken was him stating that the youngest daughter heard it, not him. That he heard the mother's voice and that the child allegedly said she heard Jon Massey. This is a big change from his insistence a year prior that he heard Jon Massey himself, not only on that occasion but on others.

Another glaring example is the following testimony - which completely contradicts his subsequent reports:

When Ken Shaw made false allegations against the mother as part of his campaign of Parental Alienation, he repeatedly reported that he witnessed abuse. Yet this piece of testimony under sworn oath directly contradicts his reports.

Now here's where it gets interesting. There is this documentation that at the time he got temporary custody, he was $3K in arrears in child support.

And Ken Shaw's own testimony regarding child support and the fact that he stopped paying after his March 2011 support payment:

But somehow, despite the mother getting no moneys from him for support, Ken Shaw and his wife were able to post this to his Facebook page in March 2012.

Yet Ken Shaw claimed that he had "overpaid" the mother $3K, both in statements to CPS and in a formal notarized petition filed with the court.

Starting to see a pattern here?

Let's finish it up with this final piece of testimony from this oh so reliable source (sarcasm fully intended):

Here we have the testimony of this man who has admitted lying to the police, failing to pay child support, documented perjurer has demonstrated his own motives - a custody grab (and a subsequent filing for child support).

I think this speaks for itself!

A Grand Jury Ain't So "Grand"

For the "start of the story", visit the Jon Massey Caset.

The use of a Grand Jury hearkens back to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. For more reference, read up on the background of a Grand Jury here: Wikipedia Grand Jury.

However, despite its origins as an objective tribunal for realistically evaluating whether a matter merits prosecution, today's version is completely different.

A modern Grand Jury is completely under the control of the District Attorney. 

As a refresher, it is the District Attorney's job to convict someone. Why? Because it looks good, and will help them get re-elected. So they can put away more people. And look good. And get re-elected. Infinite cycle of job security. This is even more true for high profile offenses.

There is a saying among attorneys: "Any attorney can indict a ham sandwich...or exonerate Charles Manson covered in blood..." (and the accompanying issue is that if an attorney can't manage either, they are incompetent and should find a new career).

The district attorney controls what evidence is presented, and what witnesses are called. It shouldn't be that way for the Grand Jury to fully evaluate a matter, but the DA isn't interested in the Grand Jury objectively evaluating a case.

You ask again, why? Very simple - because once the DA gets an indictment from a Grand Jury, they blast it all over the media along with the picture of the "criminal". The media presentation often implies that the indicted person has been convicted. Jury pool is predisposed, the DA eventually gets their conviction, and looks good, and gets re-elected...ad infinitum.

Now there are some simple hard and fast laws that govern the behavior of Grand Jurors (the people who are selected). The jurors are not to talk about the case, especially before the indictment has been served. And they are not to disclose the identity of other Grand Jurors.

What happened at the first Grand Jury? It was a horror show for Jon Massey. 

Although Jon was a diabetic and repeatedly requested water while he was testifying, the DA denied his request. Ultimately, when Jon kept trying to persuade the Grand Jury to listen to audio recording that would exonerate him, and to call several witnesses - including Mike Heisler, the DA took a recess. During the recess, under the pretext of getting a drink of water for Jon, he took him in a back room and screamed and yelled at him - pure and simple witness intimidation.

Additionally, the DA characterized one of the witnesses that Jon requested as a "convicted felon" and a "convicted drug user". The witness had no felony record and no drug arrests, so the DA lied in order to persuade the Grand Jury not to call him. 

The DA also called one of the witnesses that Jon requested a "snitch". That particular witness actually was a CRI (Confidential Registered Informant) who worked with the local Metro-Jeff Drug Task Force. As such he was registered in a database with a handler in law enforcement. Just for the record, "outing a snitch" is a criminal offense at the federal level, as it is considered endangering their life.

We have the Grand Jury transcript as well as the affidavits of Jon Massey and his attorney at the time, Eric Swartz, which document all of the above events.

As to the Grand Jury themselves? Well, apparently there were at least two members who knew our family personally. How do I know? Because the daughter of one of them approached my oldest daughter in public shortly after Christmas and started telling her all about what had transpired at the Grand Jury. 

The Grand Jury heard the case on December 11, 2012 and Jon was not indicted until on or around January 2, 2013. For any of the Grand Jurors to disclose material prior to his indictment would normally constitute a criminal offense.

According to the juror's daughter, the District Attorney took it upon himself to unseal and disclose legal records regarding my oldest daughter to the Grand Jury. Normally unsealing a record would take a judge's order, but none was ever produced that would document the legality of what the DA did. The records in question were under the control of DSS, and nothing that the DA would have access to. This indicates that either the DSS attorney or the CPS Caseworker was complicit in this circumvention of the law.

Now the disclosed records had nothing to do with Ruby or with Jon Massey, but they were presented in such a way as to make the jury believe that they did.

So, not only did the DA behave inappropriately in suppressing witnesses and evidence from the Grand Jury, but one of the Grand Jurors illegally broke the secrecy of the proceeding and described it in detail to her daughter. The juror's daughter also informed my oldest daughter of the name of one of the other Grand Jurors, a woman who had known all of my children and myself for quite a few years.

And not a thing was ever done to either the DA or the Grand Juror.

Indictment obtained under false pretenses and the sanctity of the process irreparably tainted. This is our justice system in Jefferson County, NY.

Lies CPS Will Tell You

In no particular order, here are some of the lies, half-truths, and myths of "working with CPS":

1. If you sign the service plan, CPS won't take your kids away. Status? MYTH/LIE - CPS will use your signature as acknowledgement of your guilt, and then even as you work through the service plan (which utilizes people who are paid directly by CPS and know where their pay is coming from), "issues" will keep cropping up that prove you are an unfit parent. Best case scenario? They will string you along for years before finally leaving your family traumatized but "intact" or "reunited".
2. If you don't let us in the house, we will take your kids away. Status? LIE - They cannot enter your house without a warrant, and a warrant takes probable cause. However if you live in a small community CPS works hand in glove with the local authorities and probably can get a warrant based on their lies. If you don't let them in, they will use it against you in court. If you do let them in, they will manufacture lies about your home/living environment and what they allegedly found. It's a no win.
3. If you sign over your kids to us, we won't seize custody. Status: LIE - If they don't prove their case, you can sue them for emotional distress. Once they hit this point, they are going to move heaven and earth to prove you an unfit and/or abusive parent. Part of this means that they need to have custody of your children to use parental alienation techniques.
4. Nobody should be talking to your children about the case. Status: LIE/MYTH/HALF-TRUTH - The only person who isn't allowed to talk to your children about the case is you. The caseworker and the foster parents will talk to your kids endlessly about the case, use parental alienation techniques, and taint your children's memories. Any family members who are cooperating with CPS are also allowed to continue to talk to the kids about the case in a way that is detrimental to you.
5. If you do everything we tell you, you will get your children back. Status: HALF-TRUTH - If you do everything in the service plan, AND have an attorney watching out for your interests, AND do everything that they add on to your service plan, AND you end up with a reasonably good set of foster parents or kinship care that doesn't use parental alienation, AND your children aren't easily adoptable, THEN you will get your children back. I've probably forgotten some of the hoops they make you jump through, but you get the idea.
6. You are the child's parent and still have input and feedback. Status: HALF-TRUTH/LIE - You are only allowed to make decisions or to get reports if you cooperate. Otherwise, the foster parents and the case worker get to make all decisions for your child regarding religion, education, medical care, etc. We even have an email from the DSS attorney to the case worker stating that "unless they let you in the house, don't give them any reports". So they ignored my input regarding my daughter's medical conditions, educational needs, etc. for a year and a half.

This list is a "to be continued" - feel free to leave a comment that adds a new category or expands on one already listed. I will do revisions as we go.

If you were to ask me our particular favorite? The CPS investigator called me on the phone and told me that if I voluntarily signed my children over to him and if I testified against Jon, they wouldn't file charges against me. Last time I checked, that was known as "suborning perjury" and a criminal offense.

Please be sure to visit the article about Jon's trial! CLICK HERE

A Parent's Right

At this point I am sure there is speculation about why I don't/didn't believe Ruby's allegations.

Many of you will argue that like beauty, "truth is in the eye of the beholder", and I would have to agree, to a point. Any two people won't see the same incident the same way. But just because you are a parent, you don't have to believe everything your child tells you.

And when you have access to multiple episodes of contradictory evidence, why would you believe unfounded allegations?

Ruby repeatedly demonstrated that she was not afraid of Jon and didn't avoid being alone with him, despite her later testimony. That testimony directly contradicts what we as a family knew to be the truth. Below are some very specific examples:

• Anytime that Jon wanted to run an errand, she would request to go with him. When she was told no on occasion, she would get angry with me and/or Jon and whine.
• Ruby rode to school with me every day for two years - it was about 20 miles from home. We had to leave the house at about 6:45 am, and Ruby was definitely NOT a morning person. About once every other week or more frequently, she would be impossible to get out of bed. When I would insist, she would tell me that "Jon can take me later." Sometimes that would cause an argument if Jon had appointments to keep and couldn't oblige her.
• In 9th grade, once Ruby got involved in drugs (Tramadol, Valium, marijuana that she got at school), she would want to leave school early at least once a week, because she "didn't feel well". This was often not an option for me, and despite me telling her to rest in the nurse's office, Ruby would text or call Jon to come pick her up.
• In spring of 2012, a few months before the allegations, Jon and Ruby and I had tickets to go to a Chickenfoot concert. I had another obligation before we could leave, and Ruby tried insisting that she and Jon leave me behind and go themselves, even though the concert was five hours away and meant an overnight stay without two drivers. (After that concert, Ruby even began searching out concerts that she wanted Jon to take her to, and insisted that if they were too far away, the two of them could stay in a hotel - Jon repeatedly told her that wasn't going to happen.)
• Most telling of all was the period of time when Jon was working on an app for smart phones, a few months before the allegations. He sat the family down and explained that if he was able to get the app developed, he would need to go out to California to access funding. Ruby insisted that Jon take her with him. Jon refused and told her that he would be couch-surfing with friends, but Ruby began telling her friends that she was going to "move" to California.

Ruby had a history of making false allegations. 

• Less than a year before the allegations against Jon, she insisted that I call the police because a former friend of hers had been "threatening her", and Ruby showed me the text messages. When the police officer investigated, he found that Ruby had been sending equally threatening and nasty messages, but that Ruby had conveniently deleted them from her phone before involving me.
• A year before Jon moved in, Ruby claimed that one of her classmates had been bullying her, as an excuse for why she wouldn't do her homework. I called the parents, and they grounded the "bully". The next day Ruby went to school and began laughing at him and teasing him. School got involved and it turns out that Ruby had a crush on the "bully" and he wouldn't pay attention to her, so this was apparently her way of forcing his attention.
• The statement of Mike Heisler isn't the only documentation we have that Ruby was threatening him with police involvement if he didn't see her - there are at least two other witnesses to that information that have come forward.

Ruby was constantly introducing and describing Jon as her "father" to all her friends and their parents, as well as to casual acquaintances. She would repeatedly tell everyone that he was a great parent. This was reported back to us by teachers, parents of her friends, and even her friends. We even had a friend who is a social worker in a different county (who has adopted children that have been abused) tell us that when she learned of the allegations, she did NOT believe them because she had witnessed Ruby's relationship with Jon and it was not characteristic of abuse. Ruby didn't limit this to just when we were around, she would say this when she was away from us also, including in her social media conversations and private messages with people who didn't know us.

Ruby had multiple opportunities to report the alleged abuse to people who would believe and support her including at least ten mandated reporters that she spent time with alone, three individuals that she knew had been sexually abused and would support her, and most of her friends. Ruby never bothered to make any allegations until Jon and I stepped between her and her relationship with Mike Heisler. Not only didn't she report any abuse, she repeatedly told multiple individuals that she was going to get Jon out of the house because she didn't think I would be able to monitor her as well.

Ruby had repeatedly threatened Jon and me with arrest or CPS involvement any time that we wouldn't give in to her demands.

• She wanted to go to a bonfire party one night, and when I told her no, she said that she would call CPS on me and report that the bruises she got from skateboarding were from me. I reminded her that she had already posted pictures of them all over Facebook describing the skateboarding incident so she backed off. 
• A few weeks later she assaulted me (I have photos of the bruises and multiple eye and ear witnesses) because I told her that we were going to have Mike arrested when we learned that they were trying to make arrangements to go to Camp Bisco for the weekend together with friends. 
• She would even threaten her sister Maura in the same way if Maura let us know about Ruby sneaking out or being involved with people who had police records or inappropriate behaviors.
• The night of the allegations, while at the police station in front of the police officer and the detective, and then again in the lobby, Ruby repeatedly threatened to "call CPS on you too" when I tried to file charges against Mike Heisler. This was witnessed by an additional police officer who came into the lobby to check on me and make sure that Ruby wasn't a threat to me.

The details of what Ruby gave for allegations don't match reality. 

She described going over to Jon's apartment "every week" and that the abuse allegedly occurred 10-20 times or more. Unfortunately for her, and fortunately for Jon, teens these days live on the web and leave a detailed digital footprint, in addition to what we have for records from school, the pediatrician, sports schedules, play practices, etc. We were able to develop a very detailed calendar that demonstrated that Ruby in fact had almost NO opportunity to go to Jon's apartment even once a month. Her social media (and that of her friends) demonstrated that she was at swim practices and meets, musical practice, and her friend's houses almost non-stop during BOTH periods of time (her first story and her second version). Since there were additional friends that she spent time with during both intervals that we didn't collect data from, it further limits her version of how she spent her time.

Additionally, since Jon was living at my house for almost the entire time period involving the first set of allegations, and Ruby didn't even go to Jon's apartment during the second time period (with his depression, it was his "safe place" and we were just friends and not dating), her story just doesn't ring true.

The only direct correlation was that Ruby only began escalating her behavioral problems AFTER we discovered the inappropriate relationship with Mike Heisler (he was 21 and she was 14) and tried to put a stop to it by whatever means possible.

I am and always have been an involved parent and insist on knowing where my children are, when she first began telling her story I knew that it was "off" and there were major issues and discrepancies. I expressed that to the police officer, to the detective, and to the CPS investigators, all of whom chose to ignore my concerns.

Ask yourself, do you have an obligation to support someone who you know is not telling the truth, no matter how close your relationship, if the false allegations will destroy someone else's life?