New Livestream

 

 Topics include Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dr. James Gilbertson, Randy Rand, Brittney Spears, Family Bridges, parental alienation, JUdge Tamara Hall, and Marika Taylor.

Livestream

 

 Topics include Marc Abrams, Westchester County, Judge Fritz Mercer, Wendy Smith (Hudson), Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dr. Jim Gilbertson, Brandon Stahl, 20/20, Judge Angela Dalton, and Shannon Moreau

Litigants Describe Their Frustrations Dealing With Divorce/Custody Attorneys

 

Two litigants I previously featured say part of their divorce and custody matters stemmed from their own lawyers. 

Bill Sardi, featured here, and Molly Green, featured here, both had similar thoughts about the lawyers they paid to represent them. 

Find the full interview with Sardi here. 

 

 Find the full interview with Green here.

Sardi believes that his lawyers were colluding with the other side to move money from him, as he was the breadwinner, to his ex-wife, who had far less money. 

By doing this, both attorneys could get paid for years. 

Sardi said numerous violations of court orders by his ex-wife were ignored, "no action was taken against her because she is considered the non-income party. 

He said his attorneys would note her transgressions in declarations, but never file for sanctions. 

"My ex-wife seemed to know she was teflon don; she seemed to know there was going to be no action against her."

Meanwhile, sanctions were filed against him thirty time, he said. 

His attorney also recommended a private judge, a process he was told would speed things up, but instead, after four years in the private judge, the case still had not moved forward much. 

"You keep spinning time and money, and time and money," Sardi said of the process, "You get to a point like when we separated our assets, they frustrate you so that you will give in, give up."

Green said that not only did attorneys give her bad advice, they failed to communicate with her, and they made all sorts of bold promises which never materialized. 

She said her attorneys then quickly withdrew from her case. Another attorney, Green said, withdrew after Green insisted on continuing to speak about the sexual molestation her children had disclosed, ignoring the advice of one attorney. 

In December 2016, her attorneys advised her that she should accept an agreement which would give her ex-husband temporary custody because the judge would otherwise rule that she would lose custody entirely and her kids would wind up in foster care. 

She accepted this deal because her attorneys assured her that this order could be appealed. 

Green was shocked to learn that the judge said the order couldn't be appealed. 

Furthermore, her attorneys told her that within three months she would get custody back, almost five years later she still doesn't have access to her children. 

Sardi further noted that his attorneys never advised him of California laws, his home state, which benefited his situation. 

Working on his own, he learned that once his son turned fourteen, his son could testify in court as to what he wanted. 

"I filed it by myself without any lawyers," Sardi said, referring to provision 3042, "If I had an attorney at the time, none of them would have said there is such a provision which allows this."

Green said that another issue was her attorneys total lack of communication. 

"They're saying we'll fight for you," She said, "Then, your attorney who you trust is either not corresponding with you, is not fighting the fight that they told you they were going to do."

Green said multiple attorneys told her that her child support was way too high, but it remains in place. 

In fact, she said that communication has been so poor that she's not sure if they did not file anything or what they filed has been rejected. 

A recent attorney filed with the Ohio Supreme Court, where her case is, and did not tell her for over a year that they petition had been denied. 

Green suggests that people get in writing exactly what an attorney promises to do. 

This is advice that Malinda Sherwyn also said litigants should follow, 

Hi. Lawyers recuse themselves from cases when the retainer runs out or…. if the verbal promises they have made fall by the way side and they are called out on their failure to fight for their client! Suggestion: Attys. are most hungry at the beginning of the case, that is when you have your attorney put in writing their strategy to win your case. When does any person retain services from a professional without a full understanding of what they plan to do for you? Get it in writing before you pay the first retainer and when they come back for more money…Mr. and Ms. Family Law Atty put your plan/strategy to represent me in your retainer or you don’t get my money. 

Post Script

Find the fundraiser for Orange County, where Sardi's case is from, here. 

A Reader Responds to Bill Sardi's Article

                           (California Judge Tamara Hall, who presided over part of Bill Sardi's case)
 

Late in October, I wrote an article about Bill Sardi, a California small business owner who is going on his eighth year in family court. 

He described a frustrating, time consuming process, which caused him to be separated from his son for months at a time. He faced several judges and had to hire ten lawyers, none of them were satisfactory. 

The initial interview with Sardi is below. 

 

 I then did a follow up interview with Sardi specifically about his experience with his lawyers.  

 Following the second interview, I received a comment by email from Kathy Stevens, who felt my interviews were one sided. Her comment is below. 

You recently published two YouTube audio only interviews with Bill Sardi.  It is unfortunate that you do not choose to investigate the credibility of your subjects prior to these airings.  Had you bothered to do even a cursory check of the claims made by this man, you would have quickly distanced yourself.  

As a journalist, you should know that all you have is your reputation.  You are apparently comfortable hiding behind a “he’s entitled to his opinion” posture.  However, what Sardi failed to mention is that the delays and monies spent during this  contentious divorce we’re primarily because of his conduct and refusal to follow court orders - not any wrong doing by any other party.  Get the transcripts.  Your need for ratings should not outweigh the need to make sure your interviews are honest and fair.  If not, you’re not a journalist.   There are many things that could be improved with the Los Angeles Court system in general. I agree with you on that 100%. And shining a light on this need could be an honorable pursuit.   However, allowing people who have an ax to grind to continue to repeat their lies over and over is a poor representation of journalism.  

I would imagine you deal with a lot of sociopaths in your line of work. Perhaps if you think back over the years and the people you have allowed to, really, do no more than bitch about a bad deal they think they got, you will develop an eye for spotting sociopaths and people like Bill Sardi who think if they tell a story often enough it becomes the truth.  

I admit I have not looked at very much of your material. I fundamentally disagree with a lot of what you have to say. 

Or at least with the way you’ve chosen to say it.    Providing a forum for people who just like to hear themselves talk, and think everything has to be about them takes away the good you can do by shining a light where it’s needed. 

I am not the important one in the story, I have a lot of first-hand information, but it’s not about me or how I feel. It’s about a boy who has spent the last eight years lied to and confused.

I have no intention of taking this any further or carrying on this conversation in any manner. Just check your facts and be very sure that you are not just providing airtime to someone whose only relationships are with sycophants.  And watch out for the sociopaths if you ever find one. They will cut your heart out if you cross them.  And eventually, you will.

I noted to Stevens that I reached out to Sardi's ex-wife's lawyers with no response, to which she replied, "You recently published two YouTube audio only interviews with Bill Sardi.  It is unfortunate that you do not choose to investigate the credibility of your subjects prior to these airings.  Had you bothered to do even a cursory check of the claims made by this man, you would have quickly distanced yourself. 

What Stevens did not say is that she is Sardi's ex-wife's "divorce director". His response is below. 

Kathy Stevens is a former assistant district attorney (now physically disabled) and friend of the family who took it upon herself to coach my ex-wife how to navigate divorce and play tricks on the Petitioner (father), Stevens having been coached herself by a former divorce attorney to Hollywood stars she knew closely. 

Kathy Stevens is my ex-wife’s “divorce director” and is no impartial party to the matters of public interest at hand.  Stevens falsely alleged in a prior declaration that I as father of our son "went into tirade about me not being welcome in his home.”  That was not a tirade and because she was openly calling me a liar in front of my then 10-year old son.  I asked her to leave our property if she was going to continue slandering me in front of our son.  She refused to leave.  There was no “spitting food on her” as she alleges.  

Ms. Stevens did interfere with our son’s math tutoring when she had no call or authority to do so, arguing over the methods our son’s math tutor was using to teach arithmetic, which was none of her business.  The math tutor was the only tutor who had been able to get our dyslexic son to learn arithmetic.  The Respondent (mother) argued over the selection of the math tutor because he was selected by the father.  The Respondent (mother) sought to make all the tutors people she had selected. During that confrontation between Ms. Stevens and the math tutor, she misrepresented herself as our son’s “auntie.”  

The struggle over a laptop computer was simply that I had mistaken the laptop she was using as mine.  Stevens called the police over that event, claiming she was assaulted. Officers dismissed her claims.

Ms. Stevens, a spinster, says she had a “special bond” with our son and was caught kissing our son on the lips and cuddling up with him with total body contact on the couch while watching a movie in a dark living room as if she and my son were lovers.  I had to lay the law down and tell her she needed to find her own boyfriend.  She was doing this to intentionally provoke me to anger.  

Ms. Stevens makes no mention that our son’s mother had physically abused our son, twice running her fingernails down our son’s face, once beating him up when I was out of town on business, and finally twisting the nipple on his chest when he failed to follow her orders.  That is what provoked the divorce, and she was unrepentant.  Later in the divorce, Ms. Sardi put a black and blue mark on our son’s arm in a fit of anger, which a child counselor described as a “bad parenting moment.”  Had I done any of these abusive things, I’m sure I would have been arrested and behind bars.  

There is a difference between having an “ax to grind” and airing an issue that many parties face in family court that parties entering divorce should be made aware of.  

Alluding to me as a “psychopath” when the definition of psychopath is “a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior”, “mentally unstable, being egocentric and antisocial, with a lack of remorse for one’s actions” is not something anyone other than Ms. Stevens has ever alleged.  I am a responsible, caring and judicious father of our son.  I am a semi-public figure, consumer advocate and was generous enough to come to the aid of Ms. Stevens when she was in a crisis of her own.  That is not something psychopaths do.

Ms. Stevens has been a troublemaker during the divorce, using cuss words and uttering unsavory terms to describe me to our son.   I consider Kathy Stevens comments slanderous. 

Stevens made allegations against me as father of our child in a declaration submitted to the court.

Find that declaration here.  

Post Script: Find the fundraiser for this series here. 

On The Shannon Joy Show

Topics include Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Samantha Baldwin, Judge Fritz Mercer, North Carolina, domestic abuse, Joanne McDowell, parental alienation, Grant Wyeth, and Judge David Knutson. 

Livestream

 

 Topics include Dori Foster Morales, Moore County, North Carolina, Rylan's Law, England, Open Courtrooms, Elaine Pudlowski, St. Louis County, Dr. James Reid, Victor Isler, and the Department of Social Services. 

Livestream

 

 Topics include Council For Children's Rights, parental alienation, North Carolina, Mecklenburg County, Libby Leonard, Judge Tamara Hall, and Ohio. 

Foster-Morales Off Controversial Case

 

Dori Foster-Morales, the high priced and high powered Miami area family law attorney, has asked to be removed from a controversial case. 

I first discussed the divorce of Gabe Shapiro and his ex-wife Paty Alcanter in the summer. See the interview with Gabe below, starting at about forty minutes in. 

 

 At the time, Shapiro, who along with family members had founded the successful jail electronic payment system called JPay, was barred from seeing his two children at all. 

(Morales, from her law firm website)

Morales had not only successfully argued for sole custody to her client but had even argued that Shapiro pay for her and other fees. 

Since the summer, things have not gone as well for Morales, who according to a court document charges $700 per hour. 

In August, Judge Ivonne Cuesta, who had provided many of Morales' favorable orders, recused herself from the case. 

Now, it appears she is ready to remove herself. 

"I have no objection to mother's counsel withdrawing," stated Anastasia Garcia, who is the guardian ad litem on the case, in a recent correspondence. 

Garcia has had much of her bill paid by Shapiro as well. 

In an unusual move, Garcia hired an attorney, Jacqueline Valdespino, and both their bills have been paid by Shapiro. 

Post Script

Please check out the previous parts of this Miami-Dade series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5. 

"

California Small Business Owner Says State Family Courts Don't Care About Children

(California Judge Tamara Hall)

A California man said his family court story- now in its eighth year- has taught him not to trust even his own lawyers. 

"They {the system} don't care about your kids." Sardi said. 

Find the full interview below.

 

 Sardi said he even paid for a private judge- on the advice of one of his attorneys- and this was supposed to speed up the process. Instead, the private judge took years to rule. 

Sardi said the entire experience has been a struggle to be heard, to have his son heard, and to be provided civil rights and due process.

He said that it was his ex-wife who committed acts of domestic violence, but the courts quickly covered it up. 

"Due to my ex-wife's frustration in giving orders and directions to my son- it was frustrating- so she ran her fingernails down the front of his face twice," Sardi said then described another incident, "She got frustrated with him and grabbed the nipple on his chest when I wasn't present. That's assault there."

Sardi said a totally different picture was painted in court, "Once we get into the courts, all that's forgotten. The wife is the victim. Not the child, and nothing is ever brought up about this incident}, and there was other abuse too. All this is  just pushed aside, never mentioned again by the court, and I am the perpetrator- the person causing all the mayhem in the family, and, and this is what goes on because they need to keep the trial going and the billing running."

Sardi said that not only was a false narrative of him being the problem painted but the case moved through the California courts painfully slowly. 

He said he filed for divorce in January 2014, but the couple did not split assets until June 2016. Meanwhile, a final ruling on custody until January of 2017.

"That's a lot of money spent on legal fees and jockeying around." Sardi said.

Sardi said one attorney recommended to go to a private judge in a private court to speed up the process. 

A California law firm described what a private judge is.

Private court is a euphemism commonly used to describe the practice of hiring private judges to rule over a California court case. A private judge in California acts very much like a public judge and will rule over property and asset division, custody, and support issues.

There are a few distinct differences between public and private courts.

Private judges in California have received some attention recently because Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have been using one. 

The private judge they were using was recently disqualified after failing to disclose some business relationships he had with Brad Pitt's attorneys. 

In Sardi's case, he said rather than streamlining the process, the private court only made things even more complicated. 

He said rulings by the private judge stopped him from seeing his son at all, even though everyone was still living in the same home. 

"I can't be in his room at nighttime," Sardi said, "I don't know where all this comes from. All of a sudden, everything is turning around against me."

Sardi said he advises people to stay away from private judges. 

Sardi said his case eventually moved out of private judges and into the courtroom of Judge Tamara Hall. 

Sardi described Judge Hall's rulings as arbitrary and capricious. 

So, while she technically restored him to 50/50 custody, Sardi said the stipulations of her orders set him up to fail. 

One paragraph in particular seems to have been put into the order to be weaponized against Sardi. 

One of Judge Hall's orders is below. 

1716633720 by mikekvolpe

Here is the pertinent portion, "Both parents are ordered to take {their son} to all of his tutoring classes, counseling sessions (with Ms. Rogers) and Physical educational during their respective custodial time. Failure to comply with result in Mother having primary care Monday through Friday and father having alternate weekends, Friday at 8pm — Sunday at 8pm."

That order, as it is written, means that if either parent violates this part of the order, Bill Sardi would be relegated to reduced custody time. 

After Judge Hall left the case, Sardi was left to face Judge Rolf Treu.

Judge Treu, Sardi said, handed out draconian punishment for minor violations. 

For instance, when, on one occasion, Sardi did not finish all his son's homework assignments, this was used to significantly reduce custody. Judge Treu's order is below. 

Minute Order 3.15.18 (1) by mikekvolpe on Scribd

Sardi then represented himself to try and overturn Treu's order. 

He said he eventually first lost all contact with his son. 

"I received a no contact order after I returned him two hours late." Sardi said. 

He said he found California law which allows children to be heard in front of a judge if they are 14 and older. 

"I filed what's called a 3042 application; it's a demand for my son to be heard before the judge, about what he wanted, which was both a father and a mother for significant time."

Finally, in January 2021, another judge, Judge Christine Byrd, restored Sardi's custody time back to 50/50, but he said the damage had been done. 

He said his son refused to be homeschooled when Sardi was barred from seeing him and has fallen behind. 

Sardi said a judge even acknowledged that the court was "taking a risk" with the court order- barring Sardi from contact- and that "he {Sardi's son} could rebel against the court order."

Sardi said he has several pieces of advice for people going through the same thing. Sardi said don't pay attorneys up front, don't trust private judges.

One of Sardi's attorney, Matthew Miller, provided this statement. 

In general, and not specifically responsive to your inquiry about a particular individual, an attorney is bound by the ethical responsibilities outlined in the California Rules of Professional Conduct, and owe to each client a duty of loyalty and a duty of confidentiality. These duties define an attorney and their professional reputation; if an attorney were to violate those duties, in any way, and/or engage in actions that are contrary to their own client's interests (i.e. "work against" a client), from a legal standpoint, they would subject themselves to professional discipline from the California State Bar, and/or could subject themselves to disbarment. Neither myself personally, nor any attorney from our office have ever, nor would they ever engage in the types of behaviors that you have alleged in your correspondence. To take action or engage in any course of conduct that is contrary to a client's interests, in addition to being unethical, would be tantamount to professional suicide. While this office cannot respond further to your inquiry about any specific individual, certainly not without a signed written waiver authorizing that communication (as to do so would potentially violate the duty of loyalty and confidentiality referenced above), if you are truly interested in the objective facts alleged in any dissolution of marriage action, as well as the manner in which those facts were argued in court documents, as opposed to an individual's perception and/or their recollection thereof, you should take a look at the publically accessible court file.  

"I would tell anybody going through divorce today, this is a criminal enterprise," Sardi said. 

Post Script: 

Check out the fundraiser which goes along with this article. 

Check Me Out on Surviving the Intimate

Topics include Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Samantha Baldwin, domestic violence, Miami-Dade, first amendment. 

Livestream

 

 Topics include Marty Gottesfeld, FCI Terre Haute, Indiana CMU, Kristen Rash, Tamara Molde, Regions Healthcare, Minnesota, Davie County, Wilkes County

Schulz and Yankee's Divorce Makes Little Mention of Blackhall Studios

 

Today, both Claire Yankee and Martin James Schulz are claiming they are the mastermind behind the creation and growth of Blackhall Studio, but when they divorced, Blackhall Studio was barely mentioned. 

Blackhall Studio was sold to a private equity fund for $120 million.

Both Yankee and Schulz have sued the Founder of Blackhall Studio, Ryan Millsap, claiming they are owed most of the proceeds of the sale. 

Schulz has been involved in ongoing litigation with Millsap, even though his claim stems entirely from a purported verbal contract which he claims was hammered out in a coffee shop. 

That has not stopped his attorney in this suit, Eric Taylor of Hunton, Andrews, Kurth LLP, from blaming Millsap for all the problems. 

Millsap Timeline by mikekvolpe

That lawsuit recently went to arbitration and a final decision is expected soon. 

Meanwhile, Yankee filed a suit of her own in September 2021, stating in part, "Unbeknownst to Ms. Yankee, Mr. Millsap and Mr. Schulz entered into a business agreement in December 2015 with the intention of stealing Ms. Yankee's business concepts and excluding her from potential profits."

But when Yankee and Schulz- who were married from 2011-2017- got divorced, Blackhall Studio was listed as another potential asset. 

In one document, there was no value or ownership percentage listed. 

Meanwhile, both Yankee and Schulz, showed themselves making very modest income, considering they now claim to stake significant claim to Blackhall Studio. 

(Claire Yankee's income declaration)

(Martin James Schulz income declaration)

Yankee, in particular, seemed unaware of any of the business dealings of Blackhall Studios.

In interrogatories, Yankee was constantly asking for documents related to Blackhall Studio of Schulz, and often Schulz would say he is not in possession of said documents. Below are some of the interrogatories. 

 

In the final agreement, neither party claimed any specific interest but rather both agreed each could continue to try and get any claim either  believes they deserve. 

Only now are both claiming to be the mastermind behind the operation. 

I reached out to Schulz and the attorneys for Yankee and Schulz in their suits against Millsap but received no response. 

Post Script

Check out Part one, Part two, Part three, and Part four of this series. 

 

Livestream

 

 Topics include Brenda Bryant, Judge Edward Miller, guardianship, Babcock Center, Cynthia Buckley, Judge David Knutson, Judge Tim Wermager, parental alienation, Judge Donna Scott Davenport, and Mooresville Police Department. 

New Livestream

 

 Topics include: Burkhart V Adkins, Judge Gary Henderson, Davidson County, Council on Children's Rights, John Bryan, and Wendy Smith. 

Anastasia Garcia Doesn't Like that Pesky Hearsay Rule

 Anastasia Garcia, the Guardian Ad Litem for Gabe Shapiro, believes that hearsay should not apply to people in her profession. She even proposed the idea in a lawyer's journal. 

Unshackling Guardians Ad Li... by mikekvolpe

"Commentators courts, and state legislators have reached an almost universal consensus recognizing the pivotal role played by Guardian ad Litem (GALs) in the administration of justice by protecting the vulnerable," Garcia begins in an essay from 2016.

Garcia, in the essay recognized the role of the hearsay rule but believed that GALs are so critical they should be exempt. 

"The interests served by the hearsay rule, ensuring that inherently unreliable statements do not come into evidence, is critically important. However, this needs to be weighed against the necessity of the Guardian to bring to light for the Court, details of an investigation from collateral sources who are (sic) available to testify. This factor has been considered by some Courts."

She continues, "Moreover, in balancing these competing interests the fact that family cases are always heard by a Judge militates heavily in favor of admitting the GAL reports."

These GAL reports, produced by people like Garcia, are often a collection of interviews by people close to both the mother and father. 

Often times, those interviewed for these reports have complained that their interviews were mischaracterized or otherwise twisted. 

Chris Mackney is the subject of my book "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce."

In that case, the custody evaluator, Stanton Samenow, who took on a similar role to a GAL claimed Mackney had no friends despite interviewing at least three of Mackney's friends. Mackney was in his 40s at time, and these friends, including Rich Ware, had been his friends since college. 

But Garcia, like many court actors, has the full faith and confidence in the court. 

"During a non-jury trial, it is presumed that the court is able to sift the wheat from the chaff and select only the legal evidence." Garcia quotes from a court decision. 

Indeed, Garcia, like this decision, believe that the reason for the hearsay rule is to protect the simpletons who normally make up a jury. Since judges, who Garcia thinks are much smarter than juries, preside over custody issues, they will be able to spot the good hearsay from the bad. 

She continues, "There is a way to address concerns about admitting potentially 'unreliable' statements through Guardian reports. As the current GAL statute requires the filing of a Guardian report 20 days before a final hearing if the time required for the filing of a report is extended to lets say 60 days, any lingering concerns about unreliable statements unduly influencing the court's decision-making process can be conclusively laid to rest."

In other words, give the lawyers enough times and they can re-interview every witness and make sure to challenge all the unreliable statements. Except, this means the lawyers are spending all their time figuring out if the GAL report has improper hearsay statements, rather than making sure to prepare for the case. 

Ms. Garcia and I have wildly differing philosophies on GALs; I think GALs should be eliminated, while she thinks they should be given even more power. 

Please find the interview with Gabe Shapiro below. Starts at approximately 38 minutes. 

Post Script

Please check out the previous parts of this Miami-Dade series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Child on Brink of Living With Alleged Child Molester in Missouri

 

Melissa Hagemeier is facing an impossible choice. 

I've featured Hagemeier's story several times before. She lost custody of her twins- she has other children- in November 2020, after a Guardian ad litem- Molly Murphy- accused her of parental alienation. 

In the TRO, it states, "The Guardian ad Litem and the Court finds that the children will suffer immediate and  irreparable harm as set forth in the Application in the absence of the Temporary Restraining Order."

Upon being forced to live with her father, Hagemeier's daughter disclosed that her father had been molesting her. 

"He fucked me," the fourteen year old said referring to her father. "He literally put his dick inside of me."

"She then stated that she then lost her virginity but at least he wore a condom," the girl states in this portion, "{The girl} stated that she recalled that her night gown was pulled up and her underwear was pulled down. She disclosed that she had been laying on her back and her father crawled on top of her. {Her father} struck her in the left side of her face with his fist causing her to get dizzy. He then pushed her legs up pinning them against her chest when he put his penis into her vagina."

The Jefferson County- where dad lives- Sheriff's Office began investigating the claims, but that's when dad's attorney, Ryan Munro, and the GAL, Molly Murphy, sprung into action. 

Munro and Murphy schemed and forced this girl to sit for a deposition, which often last for hours and force those being question to answer nearly every question asked. 

At this deposition, Hagemeier told me, her daughter recanted the disclosures. 

"They did depo my daughter who recanted, which clearly was setup. We knew she would recant based off the email my daughter sent back in March after a conversation with her father."

In that March conversation, Hagemeier told me, her daughter said her father told her if she recanted she would go back to living with her mom. 

According to a recording, Hagemeier was despondent in her father's care. 

 

 In the recording, the girl is heard saying, "I just want to go home."

Now, the system is setting up to force this girl to spend half her time with the man she said molested her. 

According to a proposed consent order, Melissa and her ex will share 50/50 custody. 

Munro and Murphy did not response to messages for comment. 

Hagemeier is currently being represented by Julia O'Connor; shockingly, Hagemeier told me that O'Connor has been threatening for Hagemeier to accept this deal or O'Connor is threatening to withdraw. 

O'Connor did respond by text, telling me my facts were wrong. 

"I can't discuss any active cases with you, Mike. But can say that do not appreciate the name calling from someone who has wildly inactive facts." (This was in response to a voicemail where I said she would not be hired to be a dog catcher, after this is over)

"Mulvaney {she misunderstood my last name} sounds Irish. I don't know what county (sic) your people are from. But I do know they're disappointed in you. And your 'investigative journalistic' skills. Because leaving slanderous and aggressive messages from a conversation that's one sided instead of asking questions is a pathetic example of an 'investigator'. Such a shame."

(I was born in Russia, for the record)

This 50/50 arrangement was telegraphed. According to a recording from the Spring 2021, Murphy was planning this all along. 

 

 "Our ultimate goal is I would think- mine has been- is for the kids to share equal time and be happy, healthy, mentally healthy, okay in school. All that kind of stuff," Murphy states.

Post Script:

Find the previous articles in this series here:  Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4, Article 5, Article 6, Article 7, Article 8, Article 9, Article 10, Article 11, and Article 12, 

Livestream

 

 Topics include: Elaine Pudlowski, St. Louis County, Evita Tolu, Kristen Rash Davie County Social Worker, Wendy Smith, Judge David Siprell, Judge Carol Hicks,

Supreme Court Writ in Case Involving Family Bridges May Break 1st Amendment Ground

(Part of an order by Judge Kim Berkeley Clark)

 

A writ which waits for US Supreme Court acceptance or denial seeks to challenge the near unfettered ability of judges in family law cases to gag litigants. 

The writ filed by Richard Ducote, who has been involved in numerous high profile cases, cannot even identify his client by name, rather using SS, but says his client is not even allowed to say their own name publicly.

Petitioners Richard Ducote and Victoria McIntyre are attorneys representing Petitioner S.S., the mother of a now 14-year-old son, in a Pennsylvania child custody case. After S.S. lost custody to the father, Respondent S.B., and the ruling was affirmed on appeal, at S.B.’s urging the trial court issued a “gag order” against all three Petitioners forbidding them to: “speak publicly or communicate about this case including, but not limited to print and broadcast media, on-line or web-based communications, or inviting the public to view existing on-line or web-based publications”; and “direct or encourage third parties to speak publicly about this case including, but not limited to, print and broadcast media, on-line or web-based communications…”

The writ continues.  

S.B.’s counsel sought a gag order on Petitioners, plus $200,000 in sanctions, and $10,000 for each future violation of the proposed order. No evidence whatsoever concerning the child was presented at the hearing which resulted in the gag order. It is important to note that Petitioners have never publicly stated F’s name or otherwise publicly identified him. On April 19, 2018, over S.S.’s strenuous constitutional objections, Judge Clark first signed an interim gag order preventing all parties and their counsel from publicly speaking or communicating about the case. App. 80a. However, on April 27, 2018, Judge Clark entered a final gag order prohibiting only S.S., Mr. Ducote, and Ms. McIntyre—and not S.B., his counsel, or S.S.’s former trial counsel who presented the child’s testimony—from speaking about this case in any manner:

Ducote's writ of ceteriorari is below.

5-19-2021 Final Cert Petition by mikekvolpe

In the writ, Ducote states that the unusual action, taken by Judge Kim Berkeley Clark, the President Judge of the Fifth Judicial District of Pennsylvania, was in response to an article in the Pittsburgh City Times and a press conference which followed. Ducote continues in the writ. 

Petitioners, together with other professionals, parents, and a now grown child sharing common concerns and experiences, participated in a February 7, 2018, Pittsburgh press conference discussing child abuse victims and the courts’ failure to protect them.1 Mr. Ducote mentioned only S.S. by name, as a mother who lost custody of her un-named son, despite his testimony, to his un-named father. 

Independent of the conference, on February 28, 2018, the PITTSBURGH CITY PAPER published Parental Inequity: Children’s Advocates Say Family Courts Unfairly Favor Fathers, Even When They’re the Abusers (App. 114a). The article, which included comments from a Pennsylvania legislator and a George Washington University law school professor, highlighted proposed legal reforms to address custody cases with abuse allegations. F’s graphic testimony was anonymously quoted to illustrate the alarming nature of this problem. App. 114a.

Ducote alleged that this case involved the cover-up of child molestation. Here is what SS's son allegedly said during a judge's questioning of the boy.

Well, sometimes he would lay on top of me. He would like pull my pajamas down. He had these like shorty shorts that he would go running in. They didn’t need underwear. Well, the first thing is that I was—I acted asleep, but I was really awake when it all happened. He would stick his penis in my butt crack. Into what I call my poop hole. He would do that many times. When under my body he would be squeezing my penis. Sometimes I get really angry with myself because I always say that I could have stopped him 

The Pittsburgh City Paper article suggested that the bogus label of "parental alienation" was used as a response to the sexual molestation allegations, a common use for the parental alienation scheme. 

(From the Pittsburgh City Paper)

"At the heart of the problems surrounding custody cases," the Pittsburgh City Paper article states, "is the concept of parental alienation syndrome....Ducote has worked on hundreds of cases and says abusive parents often claim parental alienation to refute abuse allegations. He says the child custody case he's currently working in is a clear example."

Family Bridges appears to be a part of the scheme to cover-up the abuse.  According to an order in the case, Family Bridges was used for reunification, "Following the completion of the Family Bridges workshop, and before returning home with , Father shall take on a vacation of no less than five days in duration. The Court expects that will apply what he has learned during the Family Bridges workshop to improve their interactions with his Father during and following their vacation."

Family Bridges has received a great deal of scrutiny; Randy Rand, its principle, has problems with his license and many former children who have gone through the program say it destroyed their childhoods. 

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the gag order. That opinion is below.

Penn Supreme Court Opinion on Gag Order by mikekvolpe on Scribd

Appellants contend that the Superior Court’s affirmance of the gag order violates their constitutional rights to free speech as the order constitutes “freewheeling censorship” that prohibits them indefinitely from speaking about the case in any manner, while imposing no restrictions on Father’s speech. Brief for Appellants at 9. Categorizing the gag order as both a content-based restriction and a prior restraint on speech, Appellants posit that the heightened constitutional standard of strict scrutiny must apply. They maintain that because there is no compelling state interest supporting the imposition of an indefinite and total restraint upon their speech, the gag order cannot stand. 

Relating to the claim that the gag order constitutes a content-based restriction on speech, Appellants’ position begins with the premise that content-based restrictions require the government to satisfy the strict scrutiny standard to pass constitutional muster. Brief for Appellant at 10 (citing Turner Broad. Sys. Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 642 (1994) (internal citation omitted) (holding that “[o]ur precedents thus apply the most exacting scrutiny to regulations that suppress, disadvantage, or impose differential burdens upon speech because of its content”)). They contend that the gag order’s plain language constitutes a total prohibition against speaking publicly about the custody case in any manner, not only in a manner that identifies Child, as held by the Superior Court. 

In support of this contention, Appellants rely exclusively upon the following sentence in the order: “It is hereby ORDERED that [Mother]; Richard Ducote, Esquire; and Victoria McIntyre, Esquire shall NOT speak publicly or communicate about this case including, but not limited to, print and broadcast media, on-line or web-based communications, or inviting the public to view existing on-line or web-based publications.” Trial Court Order, 4/27/2018, at 1. Ignoring the remaining text of the gag order, Appellants view the speech restriction as constituting a total ban on speech of a particular topic, i.e., Child’s custody proceeding, which, they argue, renders the regulation of speech content based. 

The US Supreme Court will decide later this month if it will accept the case. 

Post Script: 

Find the previous Family Bridges story here and go to the fundraiser. 

Newest Livestream

 

 Topics include Shannon Moreau, Burkhard V Adkins, Haynes V Haynes, Wendy Smith, Davidson County North Carolina, and Mecklenburg County North Carolina.

On Action Radio Talking Miami-Dade and 1st Amendment Violations

Topics include Kristen Rash, Davie County Social Worker, Richard Macon, Davie County Social Worker, Forsyth NC Judge Gordon Miller, Miami Dade, Dori Foster-Morales, Anastasia Garcia, Cindi Kamen, Judge Ivonne Cuesta, and Eric Satin. 

Livestream

 

 Topics include: Haynes V Haynes, Shannon Joy, Kristen Rash, Davie County Social Worker, Richard Macon, Davie County Social Worker, Dan Johnson, Alice Giordano, Rachel Alintoff, and Judge Angela Dalton. 

Child Support Paints a New Layer in Curious Lawsuit

 Martin James Schulz, the man at the center of a curious lawsuit based on a purported oral agreement, has at least two child support matters where this lawsuit was not disclosed. 

Schulz is currently suing Ryan Millsap, who sold the movie studio Blackhall Studios to a hedge fund for over $100 million. 

Schulz claims that he and Millsap have an oral agreement which entitles him to most of the proceeds of the sale. 

According to the child support documents, Schulz has come a long way to being a principle in a nine figure deal. 

In 2012, Schulz settled a child support matter with his ex Martha; in it, he claimed to have made $4,948 per month and was ordered to pay $917 per month. 

Schulz has not updated his income even though as part of his lawsuit he has received $6.7 million to remove a lis pendente in order to complete the sale of Blackhall Studios. 

This is not the only child support matter for Schulz; I also spoke to another ex-girlfriend, Alina, who said she had a relationship with Schulz starting in 2016 shortly before he went to rehab, which happened in 2017. 

At the time, she said he portrayed himself as the boss over at Blackhall Studios, however, he always had a drinking problem. 

She said Schulz went to rehab upon the advice of Millsap, but that upon his return he was barred from the studios. 

She said that Schulz has portrayed himself as constantly broke, unable to find work and pays her only a few hundred dollars per month. 

I reached out to Schulz by email but received no response. 

Arpad "Arki" Busson is the hedge fund manager who appears to be funding Schulz's lawsuit against Millsap. 

Alina said that Schulz told her he met Busson in rehab and that they may have attempted to do other business deals- she remembers Schulz flying to New York a lot after meeting Busson. 

She said that though his drinking would cause him to disappear for days sometimes he was never physically violent and treated her children well. 

There is also a new lawsuit recently filed in this case; this one by Schulz ex-wife, Claire Yankee. Yankee claims she was the mastermind behind Blackhall Studios. 

Claire Yankee Et Al. v. M. ... by mikekvolpe

In 2017, Schulz pled guilty to stalking Yankee. That is below.

18SC157086_Guilty Plea Tran... by mikekvolpe

I reached out to the two attorneys, Greg Godsey and Steve McConnell, but I did not receive a response back. 

Schulz lawsuit against Millsap goes to a three judge panel later in September. The three judges who will hear the arbitration are: Judge NS "Ken" Kendrick, Judge Edward Krugman, and Judge Randy Rich. 

Post Script

Check out Part one, Part two, and Part three of this series.