Complaint
Background
Want to write a complaint about the judicial system? The Judicial Council of California is the body that supervises all of the Courts in California.and is responsible for managing the Court system. Your complaint may not be acted upon, but if you don't complain, nobody else will. Why not give it a shot? Send us a copy and we will post it here for everyone to see.
The following is a copy of a complaint filed to the Judicial Council of California
regarding federal funding fraud by Amador County Superior Court. It exemplifies how
federal "family" programs are mis-used to protect incest offenders/batterers in
the family law courts.
filed by Karen Anderson
Certified Mediator in accordance with the California Dispute Resolution
Programs Act
Complaint
P.O. Box 1009
Pioneer, CA 95666
Phone (209) 295-7002
Fax (978) 945-5569
Attention: Bonnie Huff
9/7/99
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Offices of the Court
455 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102-3660
Dear Ms. Huff,
Since all of my communications with the Judicial Council in relation to the concerns I
have expressed regarding mis-appropriation of public funds used by Amador County Superior
Court through contracts with the Judicial Council have been telephonic, this letter
suffices to document those concerns in writing, and will also serve as a written complaint
against the Amador County Superior Court to the Judicial Council.
Through an initial contact with Senator Jackie Speier’s office, I was directed to Lee
Mohar (sp?). During my conversation with Mr. Mohar, I explained to the best of my ability
my concerns about how the public funds of the state Family Law Facilitator Program
(hereinafter "Facilitator") and the Federal Access to Visitation Program
(hereinafter "A/V") were directly involved in my private family law matter
before Amador County Superior Court ("Court"). At Mr. Mohar’s request, you
contacted me about this issue to more fully understand my concerns.
During my conversation with you, I explained the following: The Program Director for the
federal Access to Visitation grant, Helen O. Page, represents my ex-husband in my private
family law matter 98 FL 0084, and continued to do so through all of the dates inclusive,
in which the Court was accessing A/V funds through this program. I have obtained records
from the county auditor, as well as from the Court, in the form of payment vouchers, the
grant application, and the grant contract. These documents declare that that the intent of
the A/V program is to "encourage contact between children and both parents," to
"facilitate contact between non-custodial supervised parents and children" with
a criteria for a "step-down" in supervised visitation.
The specifics of the grant application provided by the Court to Judicial
Council stated that the Court’s goal was:
a) to assist parents in EVERY case to understand the importance of both parents continued
contact with their children post divorce.
b) to provide a safe environment (supervised visitation program) for contact between
perpetrators and their children--to be in place by Jan. 99 The Court further specified
that court records would be monitored to determine whether the program resulted in:
c) increasing estranged parent contact with their children per program intent
d) decreased filings related to misconduct during exchanges and non-resident visitation.
The program "Need Statement" of the application alleges that the program will be
implemented to:
e) reduce conflict for non-intact families. The "Program Design" of the
application states:
f) that the court cannot make orders for supervised visitation without a designated
program
g) that supervised visitation rules will meet the uniform standards adopted by the
Judicial Council in 1998
h) that "therapeutic" supervised visitation applies to persons convicted of
domestic violence against his/her children or convicted of a child abuse statute The
actual contract between the Court and Judicial Council states:
i) that the funds can only be used for the established purposes and based upon itemized
charges
j) that there is to be no conflict of interest
k) the contract is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California
During the term of the A/V contract, the program director, Helen O. Page, under the
authority of the Court, violated the entire intent of the program and specific terms of
said contract for the gain of her private client, who is my ex-husband. Payment vouchers
to herself and to other participants who are/have been involved in the private litigation
of case 94 FL 0084, namely Larry Leatham, Marsha Nohl, and Nohl’s supervised
visitation program A.F.T.E.R., prove that while mandated to comply with the terms of the
A/V contract, all the forenamed have collectively engaged in accessing these public funds
under a conflict of interest, thus violating the terms of the contract.
The conflict is outlined herein:
Larry Leatham, court appointed custody evaluator, gave
fraudulent testimony in favor of Helen Page’s private client, my ex-husband in case
#94 FL 0084, resulting in a convoluted order assigning the father custody of the children
despite allegations, (with a corroborating medical report) by the children of being
sexually abused by their father. When the A/V program was initiated, Leatham then assisted
Page and the Court in obtaining the A/V contract by providing a letter to Judicial Council
declaring the need for the program. Leatham, in turn, became a recipient of the program
funds.
The original order for the reversal of custody to the father simultaneously included an
order denying me contact with the children (lasting 5 months) and thereafter severely
restricted supervised visitation. The supervised visitation was ordered due to the
testimony of Leatham to the bogus "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS). Marsha
Nohl was then independently hired by the father for the children, to perpetuate
Leatham’s testimony and thereby protect the father from the abuse allegations. All
the orders adverse to me post the reversal of custody were built upon the original
incompetent evaluation and fraudulent testimony of Leatham, followed by perjured testimony
and letters to the Court provided by Nohl and Dixon (minor’s counsel). Pursuant to
Nohl’s gross incompetence, violation of ethics, and perjured statements to the Court,
my contact with my children was restricted for over one year to supervised contact at
Nohl’s separate business, A.F.T.E.R., where I was forced to pay in cash to visit with
my children. Audio tapes provide clear and convincing evidence that I was extorted,
contrary to the business clarification statement of A.F.T.E.R., to sign a contract for
services that directly provided a financial benefit to Nohl, as executive director of
A.F.T.E.R. Audio tapes also prove that Nohl has repeatedly made perjured statements to the
court to assist my children’s father in maintaining custody of the children and
obstructing both a relationship and contact between the children and myself. An
investigator from the Dept. of Justice was aware that I was making the referenced tapes
and affirmed that they would provide good evidence. The court has consistently refused to
hear the tapes at the objections of Page and Dixon.
The court orders which have obstructed my liberty interest in parenting my children and
left my children at risk of continued molestation, along with the continual harassing
litigation perpetrated by Page for her private client, cause the case to be categorized as
"highly contested" for which Page/Court is able to access the A/V funds
according to the grant application. While Page fights through private litigation for her
client, my ex-husband, to keep me on supervised visitation, this also causes the case to
fall into the category that provides the necessity for the A/V funds according to the
grant application, which in turn personally benefits her financially through payments she
receives from the grant. In order to maintain the case in the category that provided
access to the A/V grant money, Page used Marsha Nohl (who Page made into a grant
sub-contractor) and Larry Dixon (state funded minor’s counsel), as allies in support
of the original grossly negligent evaluation and testimony of Leatham (who Page also has
made a grant sub-contractor). I have been maintained on supervised visitation and the case
itself is maintained as highly litigated, through acts of perjury, misconduct, intentional
misrepresentation, willful obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, by Page, Nohl
and Dixon.
I do not meet ANY of the criteria for supervised visitation per the legislative intent of
supervised visitation, nor as outlined in the A/V program. Yet, whenever I filed motions
to "step down" from supervised visitation which is a contract requirement for
the A/V funds, Helen Page vehemently fought for her private client to oppose a step down
from supervised visitation. Page assisted her client in completely severing contact
between the children and myself for months at a time. As per this writing, my children
have had no contact with me since April, because Page has represented her client, my
ex-husband, in refusing to agree to qualified visitation supervisors (this occurring
during the term of the A/V contract to the present time) This violates the A/V contract by
failing to encourage visitation and perform within the mandates of the State laws. State
law requires "frequent and continuing contact" between non custodial parents and
children. Additionally, Page is representing her private client in a contempt charge
hearing for his refusal to produce the children for the court ordered visitation, which
occurred while Page was accessing the federal A/V money intended to ensure contact between
myself and my children.
Through Page’s litigation for her private client, my ex-husband, I have been
continually ordered to "therapeutic" supervised visitation. The A/V contract
specifies that therapeutic supervised visitation is for persons who have been convicted of
domestic violence or child abuse statutes. I have never been accused, charged or convicted
of anything. Page’s purpose in representing her private client to keep me on
therapeutic supervised visitation is to obstruct contact between the children and I by
limiting the available persons that could do visitation monitoring, and also by hopefully
making visitation cost prohibitive. Page argued in court for her private client that if I
couldn’t afford to pay for therapeutic supervised visitation, I should "get a
second job."
My investigation of records revealed that $6200.00 was paid to a winery out of A/V funds
for "supervised visitation training" in Nov. of 1998. An additional $2500.00 was
paid to Marsha Nohl and her separate visitation business, A.F.T.E.R. for this same
"training." However, when I requested supervised visitation services in Jan. 99
and March 99, Page declared in court that I could not be provided services because there
was no supervised visitation program in Amador County. The contract between Amador County
Superior Court and Judicial Council for the A/V funds states that a supervised visitation
program was to be operative by Jan. 99. How is it legitimate to spend over $8,5000.00 for
supervised visitation training for a non-existent program? Failing to have a program in
place by Jan. 99 violates the A/V contract. Furthermore, an attendee of the supervised
visitation training declared to me that different programs were presented and that the
A.F.T.E.R. program was tremendously more expensive that the other program presented. So
why was A.F.T.E.R. chosen as the sub-contractor for the A/V grant, and why were their
supervised visitation rules, which exceed the standards set by the Judicial Council with
wholly unconstitutional parameters, determined to be the standard for the A/V program? I
could prove quite readily with audio tapes of supervised visitations at A.F.T.E.R that
their rules, as implemented, are punitive and suppressive to any normalcy in a
relationship between parent and child, thus violating the entire intent of the A/V
program, which is to encourage positive relationships between children and non-custodial
parents.
Concurrently with the A/V funded supervised visitation training, a public radio
advertisement declared that Helen Page and Julie Rowe were responsible for supervised
visitation training under Facilitator funds, which are separate from A/V funds. I
specifically requested under public records an itemization of all Facilitator funds, and
from what fund the radio advertisement was paid. Mary Beth Todd, Amador County Court
Administrator, stated that "there might not be any record of that." When I
questioned why she stated, "Helen Page gets $3000.00 per month as Facilitator and she
just spends it on whatever she thinks is necessary." Who ever heard of spending state
funds on "whatever?" .Having been denied itemized statements for the Facilitator
program, this begs the question if there is any "double dipping" of funds going
on in relation to supervised visitation training.
As Facilitator, Helen Page is contracted to be paid with State funds to assist custodial
parents in enforcing child support orders. Page represented her private client, my
ex-husband, in the bankruptcy court to obtain a leave of stay in order to bring sanctions
against me (for which there is no cause) in the private family law litigation for my
ex-husband and to obtain child support from me (which the judge chose not to order.) So,
as Facilitator, she can use state funds to represent her private client, my ex-husband, in
obtaining support and creating orders against me, while having represented him in
unlawfully taking custody from me and committing criminal acts of perjury, theft, contempt
of court, withholding visitation, etc.
I have persistently requested itemized activity statements for both the A/V grant fund
vouchers and the Facilitator grant fund vouchers. I have not been given a single statement
of justification for any of the A/V money that went by voucher directly to Helen O. Page.
In response to my request for itemization of funds, I have been given nothing but
meaningless, statements of amounts that in no way define the expenditure of any of the
funds. The A/V contract specifies that the funds are to be paid by way of itemized
statements. As a comparison, I asked of the Amador County Victim Witness program how their
funds were justified. I was told that the funds are itemized and documented to the penny.
The failure of production of requested public records for these programs is a violation
under F.O.I.A. and the Public Records Act.
OVERVIEW
Amador County Superior Court has violated the terms of the Facilitator and A/V contracts
under a gross conflict of interest. For the complete duration of the A/V contract, the
program director, Helen O. Page has been paid federal funds that are for the express
intent of ENCOURAGING relationships and contact between non-custodial parents and
children. These funds are to be used under the program contract to the advantage of EVERY
tri county resident in contested custody litigation. There is no exclusion in the contract
for providing benefit to my children or me. In direct opposition to the program intent and
specified terms, Helen O. Page, during the complete duration of the contract, litigated
for her private client to do everything possible to OBSTRUCT and PREVENT a relationship
and contact between my children and myself, all for her own and her private client’s
personal gain. The program mandates were violated by and through a collusion of program
sub-contractors that have assisted Helen Page in protecting her private client from
criminal charges of child sexual abuse and have encouraged the father’s mental abuse
of the children. The same program sub-contractors have intentionally aided Page in
representing her private client in obtaining damaging orders against me. These orders,
which have endangered the children, were created through criminal acts of perjury,
obstruction of justice, and witness tampering. The Court and all predicate actors involved
in this obstruction of justice have committed FEDERAL CONTRACT FRAUD. In the vernacular,
Helen O. Page used federal funds to grease the palms of (court appointed) allies, for
personal gain in promoting her private client’s interests. As a tri-county resident
qualified to receive benefit under the A/V program, I was not only denied appropriate
services, I was LEGALLY ABUSED in opposition of all the program guidelines for the
duration of time in which the Court was accessing the funds.
On April 6, 1999, the Office of the Attorney General filed a formal Accusation
representing complainant Board of Psychology against the custody evaluator, Larry Leatham,
for gross negligence specifically for acts and omissions in my case. It was his
incompetent evaluation and fraudulent testimony which all orders have been based and built
upon; those orders having negatively impacted the physical and emotional safety of my
children, and which have brought intense suffering to both the children and me. On Aug.
19, 1999 I received a letter from the Amador County District Attorney, in which he states
that the Attorney General’s office is "presently investigating whether or how to
proceed criminally" against my ex-husband for the molest of my children. If there
were not substantial evidence that my children were molested by their father, I do not
believe the Attorney General’s Office would be giving a single thought to criminal
prosecution.
I learned this week from a Sacramento attorney about another case in which Marsha Nohl
supported an alleged molester in having custody of his children. It was later discovered
that the father was molesting his own children the entire time Nohl was
"counseling" him and then went on to molest all of his step-children as well.
Nohl has a well know reputation for protecting incest offenders at extreme detriment and
risk to child victims.
I am sorry to say that the abuses in my case are representative of what is becoming an
epidemic in this state and all over the country. Honest judges do NOT put children in the
custody of molesters and batterers. Honest judges do NOT suppress evidence of child abuse
from being heard. In fact, to do so contravenes state statute. Honest judges do NOT allow
testimony to non-evidentiary bogus mental health labels, such as (PAS), whose deviant
creator promotes pedophilia as "normal." I am aware that the Judicial Council
has been given extensive information and documentation of cases in which children are
intentionally being placed in the custody of parents by whom the children have disclosed
molest and battery. What does the Judicial Council plan to do to protect all of these
children who are currently at risk because of bad judicial decisions?
The judicial abuses perpetrated against parents who attempt to protect their children from
incest and battery could not take place without deliberate collusion between the judges
and "favored" attorneys and court appointees, all lining their pockets in one
way or another, at the expense of the families that fall victim to them. Collusion between
court appointees, judges and perpetrators is the rule in these cases, as are illegal ex
parte communications. In my own case, the collusion is blatant. Minor’s counsel Dixon
and therapist Marsha Nohl have been seen driving alone in Dixon’s vehicle. The court
appointees, father, and his attorney all meet together and discuss strategy before and
after the hearings right in public view, and minor’s counsel sits at the same table
with the father and his attorney and together they discuss how to suppress evidence that
proves my case against the perpetrator. The public that witnesses these obscene displays
have NO respect for the judicial system. The laws are flagrantly violated and the
Constitution is completely ignored. Such corruption in family law courts across the
country is finally beginning to attract public attention through the media and on the
Internet. These corrupted courts bring disgrace to the judiciary and are an affront to
every decent judge who properly applies the law with the intent of truth seeking, while
ever vigilant to protect the Constitutional rights of the citizens.
Please advise me in writing of what action the Judicial Council plans on taking as a
result of this complaint.
Sincerely,
Karen Anderson
cc: Senator Jackie Speier
Citizen’ s Commission on Human Rights
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Susan Hanks, Judicial Council
Governor Gray Davis
Board of Behavioral Science Examiners
Chief Justice Ronald M. George
California Judicial Investigative Task Force
Colleen Callan, Inv. Reporter
Michael Lesher, Esq.
J.Kruger,Inv. Reporter
Karen Winner, Inv. Reporter William Vickery, Judicial Council
Judicial Watch
Copyright © Design Systems, Inc. All rights
reserved.
Last update 12/10/99