CJE Research Partner Awarded Center for Institutional Courage Grant for “The Deadly Consequences of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) Tactics in Family Court”

The Center for Judicial Excellence is thrilled to announce that our U.S. Divorce Child Homicide research partner, Elizabeth Tomsich, Ph.D. from the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program, was recently awarded a grant for our collaborative project “The Deadly Consequences of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) Tactics in Family Court.”

Center for Institutional Courage’s inaugural research grant program focuses on institutional courage and institutional betrayal, with emphasis on unstudied institutions and marginalized populations.

The Deadly Consequences of DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) Tactics in Family Court study seeks to identify themes in California family court custodial/visitation practices that resulted in institutional failure by the state to protect the best interests and safety of a child in the context of custody litigation. The study will review family court custodial cases in California between 2008-2021 where a child was killed by a parent or caretaker with a history of family or intimate partner violence (IPV) who was permitted contact with the child over the objection of a non-abusive, protective parent. In addition, we will conduct interviews with surviving protective parents and family members.

Read More –>

RISE of the ‘FAUX BONO’ LAWYER!

RISE of the ‘FAUX BONO’ LAWYER!

DATELINE: LAS VEGAS, NEV., (Sept. 18, 2021).  Once upon a time, divorce laws required parties to prove “fault.”  Couples had to prove their spouses committed infidelities so horrific—that the court should dissolve the marriage.

NO-FAULT DIVORCE

In 1931, hoping to attract residents, Nevada enacted new divorce laws.  Nevada changed its residency requirements to six weeks and adopted a “no-fault” divorce.  Couples wishing to divorce could get un-hitched in just six weeks!—and they didn’t have to prove who cheated on whom!

DIVORCE MILLS

With the advent of new divorce laws, divorce mills sprung up throughout Nevada.  Reno became the Divorce Capital of America.  Nevada ranchers cashed in on the divorce gold rush—they offered accommodations at “divorce ranches” where folks would stay for six weeks to establish residency.  In 1951, Rita Hayworth took up residency in Tahoe before filing for divorce.

THE FAMILY LAW ACT

“No-fault” divorce demonstrated the popular belief that unhappy spouses should be able to quickly end a soured marriage—and move on with their lives.  In 1969, California followed Nevada.  Then-Governor Reagan signed the Family Law Act, which created “no-fault” divorce for California couples with “irreconcilable differences.”

NEVADA GOES RETRO

Sadly, Nevada has reverted back to a “fault” based system.  Nowadays, attorneys fight to show the ex is “at fault,” and if successful, their clients are eligible to be the “prevailing party,” which triggers an attorney’s fees award.

NOBODY WINS

But there are no winners or losers in family court; after all, when parties go to family court, they seek no redress for wrongdoings.  Rather, they seek only to divide marital assets and/or possession time of children.  And, because nobody wins in family court, the notion of “prevailing party” makes no sense.

THE PREVAILING PARTY FICTION

Where cunning attorneys can show the ex is “at-fault,” the attorneys’ clients are adjudged the “prevailing party”—which results in attorney’s fees.  This is the precise point where the corruption pathogen takes hold and begins to fester.  Next thing you know, attorneys from the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, (“LACSN”), pretend to be “pro bono”—with an underlying expectation they’re gonna get paid—but only if they show the other party is “at-fault!”

RISE of the ‘FAUX BONO’ LAWYER

Enter the notorious “faux Bono” lawyers—pretending to be do-gooders, supposedly donating time to charity cases—when in fact—they are money-grubbing, contingency fee lawyers—willing to wager they can show the ex is “at-fault”—and totally confident that crooked-ass judges will ensure the ex is “at-fault.”  (Get it?)

CROOKED-ASS JUDGES

Take, for example, Vince Ochoa.  Once a LACSN team member, Ochoa is now a LACSN lackey.  Nowadays, Ochoa’s job is to ensure that LACSN attorneys get paid!—by hook or by crook!  Ochoa knows the scam.  Ochoa understands that attorneys cannot donate campaign funds to the bench unless they have disposable income; and so, Ochoa ensures the LACSN attorneys get paid!

KRAMER vs. KRAMER

Do LACSN lawyers ever represent BOTH spouses in family court?  No, of course, not!  Why?—because one LACSN lawyer would have to lose!—and go home empty-handed!  And no gold-digging LACSN lawyer will take a “pro bono” gig if there’s a possibility they might have to work for free!

THE LACSN HUSTLE

If your ex is represented by LACSN, your crooked-ass judge will find YOU “at fault,” and your ex will be the “prevailing party”—because the LACSN lawyer must get paid.  Let’s say your ex LIES in open court and falsely accuses YOU of behaving badly.  Bamm!  The crooked-ass judge will believe your ex—guaranteed!  Family courts reward perjury.  Judges embrace the lies—because lies provide the necessary pretext to declare YOU “at fault.”  This means your ex is the “prevailing party,” and their LACSN attorney gets a handsome attorney’s fees award.

BETTER CALL SAUL

“Pro bono” is a Latin term meaning “for good” or “for charity.”  In contrast, “pro pecunia” is the Latin term meaning “for money.”  The “faux Bono” lawyer is NOT in the game for charitable reasons.  Getting paid is the sole objective.  The “faux Bono” lawyer is basically a contingency fee lawyer—a bus bench lawyer—like Saul Goodman—but with lower ethical standards.

UN CHINGO de DINERO

Greedy attorneys and crooked-ass judges have effectively re-transformed Nevada law—from “no-fault”—back to “fault-based” divorce.  Just think—only sixteen (16) civil judges for the entire civil docket, but twenty-six (26) for family court.  Why?—because they need TEN extra judges to manage the bustling child kidnapping industry—which generates gazillions of dollars—and causes widespread misery more dismal, more costly, and more destructive than any blight, pestilence, or plague imaginable.  Sit down, Covid—the family court is the real scourge!

BIG BUSINESS

Back in the day, enlightened Nevada lawmakers had a vision—to un-hitch couples after only six weeks’ residency.  But those days are gone forever.  Today, divorce is big business.  Nobody gets out in six weeks.  If your kid is five, and your spouse files for divorce, the custody battle will last 13 years—until the kid turns 18—guaranteed.

FAMILY COURT QUICKSAND

Regular civil courts have fast-track procedures—to quickly dispo cases, but not so family court.  It’s a criminal cabal—where lawless and psychopathic judges choke the life out of couples, stranding them in family court quicksand—opening their veins and bleeding them dry—draining the family’s assets and stealing the children’s futures.

LACSN DISCRIMINATES

If you can’t afford a lawyer, and if your ex has a really good job, LACSN will represent YOU in family court—for FREE!  On the other hand, if you can’t afford a lawyer—and your ex is on disability or welfare, then forget it—LACSN won’t touch your case with a 39-and-a-half-foot-pole.  LACSN discriminates against the poor, (i.e., “intra-class” discrimination).  LACSN treats poor people differently from one another—based only on whether the ex has a paycheck that LACSN can garnish.

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Where lawyers have the expectation of a payday—and they call themselves “pro bono,”—it’s inherently deceitful—a deceptive trade practice, [see NRS 598].  The venerable term “pro bono” must be reserved for attorneys with no expectation of pecuniary gain.  The moniker ”pro bono” must be unavailable to money-grubbing shysters.

50-50 CUSTODY NOW!

We call for mandatory 50-50 custody legislation in Nevada!—and not just a rebuttable presumption of joint custody—but full, equal, and undivided joint custody—as Equal Protection demands.

FINAL THOUGHT

It’s been said that equal parenting is integral for a child’s well-being.  If this is true, then the current system detriments children.  The system generates the most revenue by making parenting “unequal.”  Nevada is at a crossroads; we must decide—what’s more important?—the future of our children?—or Jennifer Abrams’ ability to buy another Porsche?

 

VETERAN in POLITICS INT’L (“Where Change Happens”)

 

Read More –>

He Beat Her Repeatedly. Family Court Tried to Give Him Joint Custody of Their Children.

Jennifer Moston was about seven months pregnant when, she said, her husband grabbed her by the arms, picked her up and threw her against the staircase. Each time she tried to get up, he pushed her down again. Such abusive episodes continued for several years, she said, until 2016, when he allegedly tried to strangle her. She went to the police and filed for divorce.

It seemed obvious to Jennifer that her husband, Ryan, shouldn’t get custody of their 3-year-old son, as Ryan now faced felony charges of domestic violence. How could someone with a violent history be trusted with a child? How could she stay out of harm’s way if she was interacting with him for drop-offs?

Jennifer assumed that the family court in her Wisconsin county would make her safety and that of her son a priority, and that the system would help her cut off contact with Ryan.

But it didn’t.

Wisconsin is considered a “leader” in the movement to give fathers equal rights as parents, with its percentage of shared custody cases among the highest in the nation. But a ProPublica investigation has found that the state’s family court system has been unable to adjust to protect domestic abuse survivors. ProPublica reporter Megan O’Matz explores how the complexities of domestic violence are often overlooked in the Wisconsin court system. Advocates and experts say the lack of reforms puts mothers and children at risk, often leaving women facing legal barriers and forced to co-parent with their abusers.

Read more here.

Read More –>

Former Corrections Officer Shoots Dead His Son, 3, in Murder-Suicide Amid Divorce After Death Threats to Wife and Her Family

Derek Thebo, 32, told his wife Katie that he would kill her and her children, according to a Police Protection Order (PPO) filed this year with the Kent County Circuit Court in Michigan. ‘He threatened to kill me, my children, and my family, and to commit suicide afterward,’ she wrote in court documents.

Just months later, investigators say the former Michigan corrections officer appears to have killed his 3-year-old son, Dylan, then shot himself on September 1, 2021 at their home in Lowell Township, Michigan.

Read more here.

 

Read More –>

Senator Dave Min – California Children Deserve to be Safe from Violence and Abuse. Here’s How We are Making it Happen.

This important Op Ed from California Senator Dave Min highlights his important bill SB 654 on child safety in family court. SB 654 passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and it will be taken up on the California Assembly floor next.

“An estimated one in every 19 children in California is abused, and the risk is even higher for children in families who separate and divorce. Every year, 58,500 children — including 6,000 here in California — are ordered into unsupervised visitation with abusive parents. More often than not, this leads to continued child abuse, with the long-lasting physical and mental harm that results. And far too often, we end up with tragically fatal outcomes, such as the case with the two Sacramento girls. According to the Center for Judicial Excellence, since 2008, 72 California kids were murdered during custody or visitation with an abusive parent. In 22 of these cases, the family court had been presented with evidence of some form of abuse.”

Read more here.

Read More –>

Pennsylvania Father Who Killed Children in Murder-Suicide ‘Very Angry’ Over Divorce

In the weeks before Richard A. Zimmer, 48, fatally shot his two children Madison Zimmer, 13, and Zachary Zimmer, 10, and himself in Greene Township, PA, he had grown more upset over his pending divorce, according to court records.

Read more here.

 

Read More –>

JENNIFER ABRAMS SETTLES with SANSON—for $155K! DATELINE:

JENNIFER ABRAMS SETTLES with SANSON—for $155K! DATELINE:

Clark County Nevada

June 11, 2021

 

Las Vegas, Nev., (June 4, 2021). The newsflash, apparently official, Jennifer Abrams has paid $155,000 to settle-up with Steve Sanson and Veterans In Politics, International (“VIPI”).

ABRAMS SETTLES for $155K

Moments ago, our editorial staff learned that local attorney, Jennifer V. Abrams, and the Abrams & Mayo Law Firm recently entered into a settlement agreement with Steve Sanson and VIPI. The Abrams Parties agreed to pay $155,000 to resolve the parties’ ongoing litigation.

Our editorial staff was informed that Abrams and her firm have already paid the settlement in full—$155k.

We presume the lion’s share of the $155k will go to the lawyers.

The lawsuit is continuing in district court. Louis Schneider a Nevada Attorney remains as a defendant. After the Nevada Supreme Court almost entirely upheld the district court’s prior decision to grant an anti-SLAPP motion, Schneider sought fees and costs and dismiss the remaining claims. Those motions are still pending.

SANSON SPEAKS!

Our editorial staff spoke with Steve Sanson, who explained that the settlement agreement has no confidentiality clause. “Well, Abrams wanted confidentiality, but I said, NO!” explains Sanson, “This is about freedom of speech and I took an oath to defend the Constitution along with our fundamental liberty interests in freedom of speech. This case started with Jennifer Abrams suing to silence me and the public has an interest in knowing what happens in anti-SLAPP cases.”

THE BACKSTORY

Abrams is a controversial divorce attorney—who some see as emblematic of the chronic problems that plague the family court. Employees of Abrams’ law office run a Facebook hater group where they openly taunt and bully parents fighting for custody.

Sanson criticized Abrams’ sketchy courtroom conduct. Then Abrams retaliated—by filing a defamation lawsuit against Sanson, VIPI , and all its officers! (Holy guacamole!)

But Abrams’ defamation lawsuit was baseless. Abrams had no likelihood of prevailing on her specious defamation claim (and she knew it). Instead, it seemed that Abrams calculated her lawsuit for one purpose—chilling Sanson’s speech-related activities.

Abrams thought her defamation lawsuit would shut down Sanson’s criticisms of her shady courtroom conduct. But Abrams never counted on the indomitable fighting spirit of a United States Marine! “OO-rah!”

In response to Abrams’ half-stepping defamation lawsuit, Steve Sanson countered with an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss—and Abrams got knocked out! It was epic! Sanson handed Abrams a stunning upset defeat! Much like the Lakers victory over the Supersonics back in 1989!

THE LITIGATION

It was long, arduous litigation. Abrams lost in the trial court, then she appealed, but again, she (almost entirely) lost. It wasn’t even a valiant fight. It was just sad. Some legal observers speculate on whether Abrams was stubbornly prolonging her inevitable defeat—trying to prove a point. If so, the only point is that Abrams paid $155,000 (ouch!). Sanson showed himself to be a noble defender of First Amendment liberties!

In the court, Steve Sanson and VIPI established proved that his criticisms of Abrams’ courtroom conduct are free speech—protected by the First Amendment! This means that Sanson has a constitutional right to criticize Abrams—regardless of whether she is offended! Sanson’s triumph over Abrams was a ginormous victory for free speech enthusiasts nationwide!

Sanson added, “I am glad the Nevada Supreme Court correctly ruled that an attorney’s courtroom conduct is a matter of public interest, which we can discuss publicly! With all due respect to Ms. Abrams, she must learn to accept criticisms—especially when they’re valid.”

“And, I’d like to thank my lawyer, Maggie, McLetchie—a heavy hitter—a First Amendment guru—who always had faith in me,” says Sanson who added, “and I wish to thank her associates, the hard-working  Leo Wolpert, and  Alina Shell. Without these talented individuals, this landmark decision would not have been possible! I also want to give a shout-out to Anat Levy who always has my back!”

LEGAL SHOCK-WAVES

The Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Abrams vs. Sanson has sent shockwaves through the corridors of legal power statewide! The high court precedent is clear and unambiguous. The Nevada Supreme Court wholeheartedly supports free speech!

The VIPI editorial staff spoke with our legal correspondent, T. Matthew Phillips, a First Amendment aficionado, who explained, “What we do in life—echoes in eternity.” Phillips added, “When Carson City enacted our state’s anti-SLAPP statutes, they had in mind Jenny Abrams’ frivolous lawsuit against Steve Sanson.

Justice was served!”

We were also fortunate to speak with a world-renowned constitutional expert, Maggie McLetchie, who told our staff, “I’m pleased the parties were able to reach an amicable resolution.”

EPILOGUE

“She sued me to stifle my free speech,” says Sanson, “and the reason she tried to stifle my free speech was to hide her own misconduct.” Sanson added, “If you see something, say something, right? So, I see a shyster lawyer, I say something … she files a shyster lawsuit … she gets slapped out of the water! $155 thousand smackeroos! Cha-Ching! Thank you, please come again!”

Our editorial team wondered whether there’s any legal insight that this litigation may offer—as a learning experience. T. Matthew Phillips explained, “Never underestimate your opponent.” Phillips reminds us, “That’s straight outta Sun-Tzu! Jenny Abrams underestimated a tough-as-nails United States Marine, who basically opened a can of whoop-ass with a side o’ fries and a triple-thick chocolate shake!”

THE WILLICK FACTOR

Note also, the legal battle rages on between Sanson and Marshal Willick another divorce attorney. Remarkably, Willick pulled the same stunt as his girlfriend, fiancée, wife (who knows) Jenny Abrams. And, like his girlfriend, Sanson served up a “how-do-you-do!” Willick now back-peddles, desperately trying to dismiss his own lawsuit against Sanson.

Stay tuned!

VETERANS in POLITICS INTERNATIONAL (“Where Change Happens!”)

Please click on the link below to view Saturday’s show: Tahra Violet self-healing on the Veterans In Politics Video Internet talk-show

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqjZwuTykcg&t=209s

Read More –>

Mother in Midst of Divorce Arrested After Murder of Her 2 Young Children in Tempe, AZ

Rest in peace, 9-yr-old Mia Inoue and 7-yr-old Kai Inoue, who were tragically murdered by their divorcing mother in their apartment in Tempe, Arizona after officers had been to the same apartment just after midnight for a domestic fight between the mother and father. Their mother reports hearing voices that told her to kill her children. Read more here.

Read More –>

“My 7-Year-Old Daughter Was Murdered—And This Mother’s Day, I Want You to Know Her Name”

Michelle Hord’s 7-year-old daughter, Gabrielle, was murdered by her father in 2017, the day after signing their divorce agreement.  In this personal essay, Michelle reflects on her tragedy, her survival, and lifts up mothers across the country who have lost a child to violence.

Read more here.

Read More –>

19momsfightback.jpg

The Colorado Mediator Mess

Read the full article at The Colorado Mediator Mess

19momsfightback.jpg

The Colorado Mediator Mess

Colorado domestic relations courts tend to have “trendy” court appointees. The latest trend is to use “mediators” who have no state standards of practice, no state oversight board and cannot be grieved for unlawful or questionable practices. Would you have confidence in using an unlicensed doctor, surgeon or dentist?

Your family could easily be victimized by agreeing to use a court ordered mediator.
PLEASE check it out before you agree to use a mediator in Colorado domestic relations courts.

Mediation is NOT recommended for families with a history of abuse.
If the mediator has served or serves also as a Child and Family Investigator (CFI) or Parent Responsibility Evaluator (PRE) that is a red flag in my book. My former CFI is now serving as a mediator and states having conducted over 150 PRE’s.  She didn’t know much about domestic abuse but said she did. PLEASE be careful.

Let’s use another court ordered/appointed role with divorcing families–Mediation.

  • One that has no state standardized, required training as it relates to the divorce process
  • One that no state standards that protect the parents and the children as consumers
  • One where the mediators are not readily removed for poor performance
  • One where it appears the attorneys will have a strong say in who gets selected as a mediator
  • One where there will be no disclosure required as in C.R.S. 14-10-127 (1.2), and 128.1 & .3
  • One that according to a California study, when court ordered, has been only 20% effective

(The same study did say when self-selected by families, mediation was up to 80% effective.)

 

“When Should You Not Mediate?”

This information is from an FAQ on a CCMO* web page. It is no longer on what is now the Colorado Mediator Association, the MAC, web page.

• You should not mediate if you do not believe you will be able to talk about what is important to you during the mediation, or if you believe the other party has so much power over you that you will agree to something you don’t really want to agree to.
• You should not mediate if you do not believe you or the other party has the ability to participate effectively in the process.
• Mediation may not be appropriate where there has been domestic violence or where one or more of the parties has serious mental health problems, and mediation is never appropriate if any of the parties is intoxicated by alcohol or drugs.

The post The Colorado Mediator Mess appeared first on Moms Fight Back.

Read More –>