Picture

San Joaquin Judge Profits from  Sex, Drugs and Stealing Kids

Following an appearance at California’s Judicial Council, San Joaquin County Judge Robin Appel  was invited to a secret dinner club in San Jose by Judge Patricia Lucas , the presiding judge of Santa Clara County who doubled as a legal advisor for California’s court adminstrators. 

When Appel appeared at Three Flames in San Jose, she was instantly recruited to a network of lawyers, judges, reporters, therapists  and cops  connected to California’s family courts that operates underground and through a dark money market. The enterprise is known for  moving drugs and kids up and down the state when their parents are involved in a divorce, and one parent is hiding sexual abuse, or fraud. These are the clients willing to pay anything to silence a former spouse and their children. 

As part of the recruitment process, the lawyers and judges promised Appeal media coverage in the Daily Journal and newpapers owned by Alden Capital. She would be given awards from the local bar, the gateway to future employment  at JAMS or ADR Services ,

Once retired from San Joaquin’s family court,. Appel was promised 20 times the income  she could as a public court judge.  Until that day, Appel was to award attorneys for lawyers  connected to the local bar fees. Fees must be awarded  in a manner that could not be reversed on appeal. Once she had brought in over $10 million to lawyers , veried for orders to pay trust accounts, or billing statements approved for lawyers acting in her through court appointments, the dream job as private judge would be hers.

The fastest way to earn the money was to sell family homes and give lawyers the equity. As a family court judge, Appel could also appoint lawyers and threrapists referring therapty and reunification camps for kids in welathy families.  Appel  reportedly agreed to do her part to  increase  busienss that operated outside of the court in San Jaoquin, overlaping with networks in the Sacramento to the north  connected to attorneys Nancy Perkovich and Paula Salinger, and to the south in Modesto as connected to attorney Tom Hogan., who provides payments to the district attorney’s office. 

Insiders at the schools where Appel’s  daughters, Sarah and Rachel, attend note Appel repeatedly used her position as a judge to access information about the families involved in family law cases to access. Appel used connections inside the school to alter the files of students to benefit the parent able to pay the network the most money. 

San Joaquin County family law attorneys Diane Butler and Lisa Theissen were recruited by Appel to the enterprise and to bring Appel business as a private judge. These valley lawyers  trained with lawyers in Contra Costa and Santa Clara through a network firmly  established by Phil Stal and Lynn Steinberg whose domain is Arizona and Southern California, largely Los Angeles and Orange County. Steinberg scored the Britney Spears conservatorship gig , the higest earning case seen in LA. 

For their part, Butler and Theirssen have tapped into drug rings connected through therapists Jann Blacksotne, John Page and Marcia Clark.. The rings run from Humbolt County and down into San Jose and LA where drugs are moved to vulnerable kids placed in foster care by CPS, or reunification camps because of high asset parents involved in a divorce.  

Attorneys John Conway and Rebekha Frye in San Jose and Los Gatos, are known to supplying kids drugs through lawyers appointed in their parents divorce. Conway’s clients are active in the cannibis industry where they have access to large sums of untrackable cash. 
Cash is deposited to attorney IOLTA trust accounts where it can be used to pay off cops, judges and theraptists willing to write reports for winning cusotdy of kids at the center of their parents’ divorce. 

The more absuive the parent, and the more they have to hide, the more the clients pay to the underground network using attorney trust accounts to move the money without IRS oversight. 

A paralegal working for Butler stated, ‘They know the IRS and the bar won’t do anything, so it has become the wild west and children are being destroyed all to get these lawyers and quacks rich. ” 

Read More –>

Picture

Elise Mitchell : Booga Bear Baby Stealer

Elise Mitchell , divorce  attorney,  in Alameda , Santa Cruz and Santa Clara  Counties  fullfills  race quotas and steals white kids through a family court racket connected to CPS and Catholic Chruch insiders.   

Mitchell  has been paid by the NFL to cover up rape, domesitc violence and illegitimate childen of players associated with the 49ers. Her current client, Ray McDonald was subjected to unrelenting media coverage after he, Ray McDonald, refused to pay the attorneys in his custody case after they  demanded  a ” fee”. of over $100,000 to cover what the NFL would not. 

Running a law practice, using her own children as staff,  Mitchell gets immunity from judges based on her connection to DDA Cindy Hendrickson, a prosecutor in Santa Clara County who has been bribed hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill criminal cases for players connected to the NFL and Superbowl entertainment assured by Lou Taylor.   

Mitchell is known for keeping books on bribes  attorneys pay judges and cops in exchange for  appointment  as minor’s counsel, or GALS in high asset divorce and custody cases. 

Mitchell once leaked information related to money laundered through attorney trust accounts and paid to cops in Gilroy and Fremont , where she uses process servers and Sheriffs in  Alameda County to serve restraining orders that bring in money  to judges appointing attorneys in divorce and custody cases where the lawyers are appointed to represent children. 

The scheme works to move money from families to a network of lawyers including Mitchell  where children are trafficked from parents though reunification networks and CPS progrmas in county governments. 

Documents found at the Catholic schools Mtichell and Hendrickson’s children attend show the lawyers are making millions , as are judges and cops, selling children whose parents are in a divorce, or dragged into the CPS network. The racket runs to family courts in California and North Carolina.

Read More –>

No-contact Orders in Pa Reunification Cases by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd

No-contact Orders in Pa Reunification Cases by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd

Parental Alienation and “Reunification” Camps _ Berkman Bottger Newman _ Schein LLP by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd

Parental Alienation and “Reunification” Camps _ Berkman Bottger Newman _ Schein LLP by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd

Parent-Child Reunification After Alienation _ Psychology Today by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd

Parent-Child Reunification After Alienation _ Psychology Today by Family Court-Corruption on Scribd

CA Assembly Passes “Piqui’s Law” by Senator Rubio, Family Court Bill Heads to Senate Judiciary

SACRAMENTO, CA – In a unanimous, bipartisan vote, the State Assembly today passed Piqui’s Law, by Senator Susan Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), which mandates judges take training on domestic violence and child abuse to prioritize child safety in custody proceedings and clarifies California’s ban on the use of dangerous reunification programs in family court.

Senate Bill 616, Piqui’s Law: Keeping Children Safe from Family Violence, is named for a 5-year-old murdered by his father. The boy’s mother, Ana Estevez, fought in family court to protect her son against her ex-husband before Piqui’s death. The bill will align with federal provisions within the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in order to receive funding to reform family court. The Assembly passed the bill in a 64-0.

Read more here.

Read More –>

Affairs of the Court

In the family courts, judges, lawyers, and court-appointed psychological evaluators have all become threats to an intellectually competent, psychologically compos mentis, moral, ethical society. The latest drove of pariahs to join the hordes of psychopathic predator judges and appointees across the country to speak for “family values” are the “reunification therapists.” On the list of […]

The post Affairs of the Court first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>

The Child Knows Best: The Resultant Provision of Wellbeing When the Court Hears & Rules Accordingly

The Child Knows Best: The Resultant Provision of Wellbeing When the Court Hears & Rules Accordingly

by Genevieve Brackins, Ph.D.

Children inherently deserve to be nurtured and supported in their growth and development yet abuse all too often harms the wellbeing and development of children.[1] When a parent does not provide care and protection for a child the child may attempt self-preservation. This attempt may take the form of trying to stay beyond the reach of an abusive parent. Yet, family courts across the nation have a pattern of denying these children the basic safety they so need: observable in family courts throughout the U.S. is a pattern of forcing the child back into the vicinity of the abuser in the name of reunification where the harm can, and often does, continue.

Through these court rulings, family courts in the United States have sentenced hundreds of children to their premature deaths at the hands of the very abusers from whom the children sought respite,[2] and hundreds of thousands more to endure harmful abuse (sexual, psychological, spiritual, physical, mental, emotional, financial, or social). For twenty-four years professionals have had the benefit of the results of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Studies. Throughout this nearly quarter of a century, it has been crystal clear that the chronic stress of living with the fear and harm of an offending parent’s abuse causes a real decrease in a person’s wellbeing, produces longstanding health problems, and is likely to account for a significant decrease in the person’s life expectancy. Parental abuse of children does not cease to have an impact when the child ages out of childhood (thereby gaining the legal ability to get away/escape the abuser’s physical presence), it is a wrong that may affect a person until their dying breath.

Family court judges across the United States sentence an average of 58,000 children per year to suffer the abuser’s abuse[3] and with frequency these courts legally prohibit the child and the protective parent from having contact with one another, serving another major blow to the development and wellbeing of the child. This problem is all the more possible when judges fail to utilize trauma-informed best practices. Often, court-appointed evaluators, expert witnesses, and other professionals upon whom these judges rely, also are not practicing a trauma-informed approach. Compounding this problem, often unchecked implicit biases in these professionals adversely affect the outcomes for the child as well. Whereas an attorney or judge may choose to defined “success” as clearing a case off the docket, such “success” may be a travesty against success to the child, who may now have been handed a life-sentence of agony due to the decision of the court and the enforcement of that decision. It is beyond crucial to listen to and account for the voice of the child about their experience. The importance of the child having a court-appointed trauma-informed children’s attorney is far-reaching as is the importance of directly addressing abusers’ attorneys that run the PAS strategy against the child’s best interest. The Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) theory was concocted by Richard Gardner, an unabashed advocate for adults who desire access to the bodies of children for the adults’ sexual gratification via the utilization of the bodies of children. Gardner self-published his books and articles purporting his PAS theory. Never were his publications peer reviewed and the DSM-IV and DSM-V deny PAS a place in the compendiums due to the lack of validity of the Gardner’s theory of PAS. The Men’s Rights and Father’s Movements have advocated and lobbied for the acceptance of PAS and attorneys representing child abusers frequently deploy the PAS strategy.[4] Often this strategy is invoked in an attempt to prohibit the protective parent from exercising a legal right to protect the child in order that the offending parent can continue the abuse unrestrained.

While the etymology of the English word “custody”
means safe-keeping and protection, today, in effect in the U.S.,
the word dehumanizingly means legal property rights in a living human
child for the child’s parent. No more ought the family court paradigm be about
coercing children and their protective parent into accommodating the offending
parent’s abuse. Family courts across the nation must produce rulings that
reduce the fear and stress inflicted upon children by the parents who have been
harming them. The paradigm must center parents’ responsibility for and to the
child, as well as parents’ obligations to adequately meet the needs of the
child, including development needs. Now is the time for the paradigm to evolve
into one that reminds grown humans (in the form of judges, attorneys and other
professionals, parents, and society at large) that the child is just as human
as are they and they the will and needs of the child are to be recognized and
honored to the greatest extent possible.

Custody cases hold the potential to be about the safe-keeping and protection of the child/children whom the litigation surrounds. We know this is more likely to occur when judges hear from the child through the child’s attorney and is more likely to occur when those involved in such cases (including evaluator, visitation supervisors, the parents’ attorneys, judges, GALs, etc.) are properly and thoroughly trained to utilize trauma-informed practices and approaches (and not when such professionals say they have received such training while actually not engaging in trauma-informed practices which is a common problem). With growing public awareness about this crisis and organized strategic advocacy on the part of professionals engaged with and within this legal system, there may be changes implemented that decrease court-inflicted suffering of children while increasing the safety and wellbeing of the children.

[1] In excess of 60% of youth surveyed in The National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence published in 2009 were impacted by violence. 46.3% had endured assault, 24.6% were impacted by robbery, vandalism, and/or theft, 10.2% were impacted by maltreatment, and 6.1% reported enduring sexual abuse.

[2] The yearly average is seventy-five court facilitated deaths a year [Goldstein, 2021].

[3] Bala, Cynwyd, 2008. How Many Children Are Court-Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With An Abusive Parent After Divorce? <www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html>.

[4] This is even withstanding that the data reveals that when a litigating parent makes the accusation of PAS of the other parent, that the majority of the time they themselves have brought about the relational disconnect between themselves and the child [Lubit 2019].


Dr. Genevieve Brackins serves as the University of Virginia’s Maxine Platzer Lynn Women’s Center’s Education & Outreach Specialist where she oversees the Men’s Leadership Project mentoring program among additional engaged scholarship work.

Genevieve’s has presented her scholarship at Universities in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Tunisia as well as a variety of states across the U.S.. She holds a Ph.D. in the Interdisciplinary Humanities from Florida State University. Her M.A. from Florida State University is focused in Cultural Studies and Postcolonial Theory. Her B.A. is a double major in Women’s Studies and Music from SUNY Oswego.

References

Center for Judicial Excellence. US divorce child murder data [online]. Available from: http:// centerforjudicialexcellence.org/cje-projects-initiatives/child-murder-data [Accessed 11 July 2019].

Bala, Cynwyd, 2008. How Many Children Are
Court-Ordered Into Unsupervised Contact With An Abusive Parent After Divorce?
www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/PR3.html

Felitti VJ, et al, The relationship of adult health
status to childhood abuse and household dysfunction
. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine. 1998; 14:245-258.

Finkelhor, David, et. al, 2009. Children’s
Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey
(Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, D.C.) [online] Available from: www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227744.pdf [Accessed 20 July 2019].

Goldstein, Barry. The
Least Worst Interests of the Child: The Only Outcome Family Courts Will
Consider
[online]. Available from: barrygoldstein.net/articles/the-least-worst-interests-of-the-child. [Accessed 19 July 2019].

Hannah, Mo Therese and Barry Goldstein, 2010. Princeton: Civic Research Institute. Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues

Read More –>

“Reunification Therapy” Destroys Families

The following redacted complaint was sent to the licensing board of the person we are calling “Ms. Therapist.” Copies were sent to other professionals who need to be informed of the unconscionable activity going on under the name of “therapy.” Introduction Please be advised that I write this most serious complaint against Ms. Therapist, not […]

The post “Reunification Therapy” Destroys Families first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>

“Reunification Therapy” Is Torture by Infliction of Acute, Overwhelming Emotional Distress

Here is that concept in action as a court-appointed therapist attempts to intimidate a client who rejects the pursuit of their rejected provider. Angeline Schuller, MSW, LCSW, “Reunification Therapist,” demonstrates the tactics and techniques of threats, coercion, and intimidation, accompanied by attorneys whose courtroom tactics include lying, cheating, and stealing money, property, and children via […]

The post “Reunification Therapy” Is Torture by Infliction of Acute, Overwhelming Emotional Distress first appeared on Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts.

Read More –>