Misuse of Domestic Violence Statutes

Misuse of Domestic Violence Statutes

OverviewThe Defendant(father) has been desperately trying to resolve numerous issues he perceives in

his divorce case, in the Circuit Court of Frederick County Maryland, Case: #: 10-C-10-000373. It is the Defendant's perception that attorneys and the judge have acted in ways inconsistent with the notions of equal protection, the right to present evidence, discovery laws, in his divorce case. But the real concern is the suppressed the evidence of cries for help from the child, along with much evidence supporting child abuse, parental alienation, and parentification, by the Plaintiff(mother). This has been compound by the fact that all the attorneys turned on the Defendant once he discovered that the evidence had been suppressed and requested admission of the evidence and a revision to the order. The evidence also includes statements by the Plaintiff that are self contradictory as to her domestic violence claims. The actions of the judge have been similarly out of character for a judicial member, seemingly denying multiple constitutional privileges to the Defendant.

The Defendant feels strongly that this was a small town fix up that went way too far. Seemingly highlighting the substantial need for reform to the divorce court process when domestic violence is asserted. The court found that the Defendant did commit domestic violence against the Plaintiff. This finding was concluded without any hard evidence or witness testimony of any kind. There was however testimony that contradicted her claims. The only supporting evidence was an expert witness that was (according ht the Defendant's attorneys) improperly discovered, the day of the hearing. He also had never interviewed the Defendant. Both parties had agreed to and taken a psychological evaluation by Dr Amado, who was chosen by the court appointed BIA. The Defendant's results were better than the Plaintiff's. Therefore the desire to bring in her own expert to contradict the reports. But as we had signed an agreement to the evaluation, the court's decision to admit the testimony of Dr Petrocelli effectively denied the parties right to contract, as well as the discovery laws.

The stated reasons for the attorney's actions is that they feel the Defendant has issues with paranoia, and is not safe to be around the child. In spite of him having a psych eval performed with the result stating that he was not a candidate for any such diagnosis and not a danger to his daughter. Their actions seem aggressive to the Defendant. He feels that this may be in retaliation for his coming forward with strong questions as to the appropriateness of the attorney's actions. But the central issue of the problem is the claims and statements of the Defendant and Plaintiff are so opposite that one of us is either lying or delusional. The evidence in the trial supports the Defendant in every claim he made. There exists substantial evidence that contradicts the Plaintiff's claims. There exists no evidence of any kind that supports her claims of abuse. There is evidence that directly contradicts her claims in her own words. Yet the harsh domestic violence statutes were applied, it feels seeming belligerent manor toward the Defendant. The suppressed evidence includes:

• Evidence of Child Abuse, by Mother. Corroborated by mother, daughter, father, neighbor.• Strong Evidence of Parental Alienation by Mother.• Many Inconsistencies in the Plaintiff's Testimony. Basically all key claims could be

contradicted. Provable contradictions.All items contradict the core to the case, and the judge's findings, in the words of the Plaintiff,

CPS investigators and the child. Punishment, for lack of as better word, associated with the domestic violence statutes is allowed to be much harsher that the standard equal distribution of property. As such the burden of proof should be proportionally higher, but in this case it appeared to be relaxed..

1/13


Attorney and Court Post Trial ActionsIn November 2011 the Defendant discovered substantial proof that during the trial (10 days of

hearings from Jun 1st thru August 10th 2011), that his attorneys suppressed evidence, misrepresented evidence, refused to correct the errors, even after the judge made clear issues of items that he had evidence contradicting the core of the courts findings, in the Plaintiff's own words. He felt this was very compelling and needed to be heard. He sent an email to all attorneys, describing what he had found and chiding them for allowing it to occur, and asked for their support in having the evidence heard. He submitted multiple motions containing a request for revisal based on MD Rule 2-535, based on the misconduct, irregularity, mistake, or fraud of his attorneys. In one motion he asked for revision due to “fraud upon the court” as the attorneys actions were so egregious that they would prevent a court from making a fair ruling, by denying the Defendant the right to be heard, and present evidence.

On December 7th 2011, the judge refused to hear any of the Defendants motions, the evidence of his attorney's actions, or his request to consider the suppressed evidence. The court proceeded to allow the BIA and Plaintiff’s counsel to use the fact that he discovered and submitted the information about his attorney's actions, and presented it as evidence of him being paranoid, and barred his visitation with his daughter.

The court proceeding on June 13th and 14th 2012, appeared to be a continuation of the issue prone proceedings that occurred during the custody hearings. During this hearing the judge again refused to admit evidence that was suppressed by the Defendants attorney that directly contradicted the Plaintiff's claims in her own words, in the writings of the child, and in reports from CPS investigations. This time they barred all contact between father and child. Later modified to enable the child to call the Defendant.

The court's and attorneys' actions seem very aggressive, for example the Judge and BIA attempting to get the Defendant to agree to take paranoia medication that his doctors say he does not need and would be harmful to his condition. There were threats of incarceration by Plaintiff's counsel, in response to the Defendant's attempt to retrieve personal items from the home, prior to the Plaintiff moving in, following the judge ordering she have use and possession. They have gone as far as generating a court order barring all contact with his child by the Defendant. The Plaintiff who had previously refused to have their child call the Defendant, did so on two occasions immediately following the order barring all contact, leaving messages.

The Defendant is concerned by the actions of the Judge and the BIA, as they do not appear to offer any reasonable improvement in the safety or wellbeing of the child. Additionally their requests could potentially have very negative effects on the Defendants health and legal efficacy in his custody case as well as any other actions that may arise due to the legal faux pas that have occurred.

The BIA had stated strong support for the Defendant having full legal custody before and during the custody hearing. The attitude change in the BIA began following the Defendant’s discovery of irregularities by his attorneys, who had suppressed significant evidence and testimony that prevented the court from being able to render an unbiased decision. The Defendant’s attorneys refused to correct errors or even submit evidence to the court regarding the gross mischaracterizations of reality in the courts opinion., i.e, the definition of “fraud upon the court.” This, if proven, is so egregious it invalidates the entire proceed

2/13


The following list of things the Defendant has witnessed are the core of his concerns:

Items of concern• Number one concern: A father and daughter are being driven apart, with no legal basis, but full

support of the court. The appearance of favoritism in the court, resulting in suppression of evidence of child abuse and blatant alienation. A child’s own requests for help, was met with the response: “I know your mother and she would not do something like that”. CPS investigation report provides corroboratory statements from the child, mother, and father that the abuse occurred.. The child s story was found credible by CPS. There are far more details, their actions were malicious in the Defendants eyes. In what altered realty does this occur?

• Second concern: The domestic abuse statutes were misapplied in what seems to be an egregious small town fixed case. The Judge appears to have denied many state laws and constitutional privileges appearing to at with “ill will” toward the Defendant. Application of the domestic violence statute in the face of no supporting evidence seems to go beyond denying constitutional right to equal protection, to appearing to block it as well as deny his right to submit evidence, and be heard. The courts refusal to hear evidence but make judgements against the Defendant based on his reaction to the many wrong odd actions during the trial, by his attorneys.

• Third Concern: The fact that on June 13th 2012, Ms Conklyn and Judge Stepler were trying to get the Defendant to agree to take medication for paranoia, seemed inappropriate given the testimony it was based on was the opinion of a doctor that had never examined the Defendant. This testimony from Dr Petrocelli was objected to, due to the lack of notice (inappropriate discovery) and foundation for his opinion, as he had never interviewed the Defendant nor had the background data. Dr Petrocelli had not been given the data that had lead to the Defendant's concerns. So to declare someone needs treatment without ever having interviewed the person or having the data that the person stated caused his concern seems reckless. The judge ignored the psychological evaluation report of Dr David Fago that stated he was not a candidate for these types of medications or diagnosis, and is not a threat to his daughter. This appears to the defendant to be far beyond inappropriate.

3/13


The following list of odd occurrences in this case.

Misc Odd Items• On the first appointment Dr Snyder stated we will want to get a Best Interest Attorney (BIA).

She stated she had some say in who, as the clerks would call her and inquire. March 2010.• Dr Snyder made an assertion that the Defendant has an anger issue in front of the child. Mid

2010.• The BIA suggested that the Defendant see Dr Gibian, according to Mr Horman, in mid 2010.

This causes the Defendant concern as it has created an appearance of conflict of interest, given the events that have occurred with Dr Gibian. One item of concern was his suggestion to the Defendant that he follow his attorneys advice even though it meant perjury. Mid 2010

• A meeting called by the BIA, held after the Defendant had released Mr Horman (his first attorney and who put him in contact with Dr Snyder), which included Mr Horman, Dr Snyder and Plaintiff's counsel. The issue being I had fired him prior and asked that he not attend. He had also sent notice to the BIA's office. The meeting was treated as a settlement conference and the fact (according to Mr Horman, see attached) that many questions were asked of Dr Snyder, she was nullified as a witness on those topics. Mr Horman informed the Defendant that questions related to parentification and alienation were discussed. Note in the end result there was no finding of any of these topics by the court. The courts opinion states there was no evidence of alienation. The Defendant disagrees but also sees that significant evidence has been suppressed by this attorney. Summer 2010.

• She stated she was surprised that the psych evals came out the way they did (fathers was better than the mothers). Spring 2011.

• Dr Snyder attended a meeting in spring 2011, with the Defendant's attorney, Dr Gibian and the Defendant where she accused the Defendant of playing games. It felt like an intervention. Later the BIA denies this occurred. Spring 2011.

• She told the Defendant on a phone call post opinion that the judge was awarding his ex the house. Why would she get involved? September 2011

• After the decree, which was a shock, the Defendant made a formal request for any communications records or notes that she had with others involving the Defendant. Dr Snyder claimed it was privileged He pointed out he only wanted information about myself, which he is entitled to. Then the child’s BIA stated it was privileged This occurred in early November 2011.

• Post divorce the child said that Dr Snyder stated “You might not get to see me again if you don’t stop acting the way you have been.” November 25th 2011.

• The BIA flipped her position rather quickly in late November 2011 when the Defendant revealed some facts about the attorney's actions and requested answers. He had also requested a record of all communications that Dr Snyder had been involving the Defendant. Ms Conklyn stated that privilege applied. He fails to see how privilege applies between the child’s therapist and anyone regarding himself. He believes there may even be an entitlement to the information along the idea of the FOIA. The BIA's actions cause the Defendant concern. December 7th

2011.

4/13


• During the December 7, 2011 hearing the BIA stated effectively that if the Defendant did not comply that there would be more litigation. This causes the Defendant concern.

• The BIA claimed that a meeting with Snyder, Gibian, and Robbins did not happen. The Defendant has email before and after discussing the meeting from Dr Gibian. This denial of fact on the record by the BIA causes the Defendant concern. June 14, 2012

• On June 14th 2012, the BIA stated that the Defendant was accusing Master Sandy of making accusations. The Defendant statement was that he heard Master Sandy repeat what he had been told. Actually the Defendant is not certain it was Master Sandy at all. He just know it was a man's voice and it sounded similar. The attorneys said it was him. This caused the Defendant tremendous stress and concern. June 14th 2012,

• The BIA made the claim that while the Defendant was placed in a conference room adjacent to her office, while the attorneys talked on a speaker phone with Master Sandy, that the Defendant did not hear him say, "So you think this guy is a sociopath with psycho sexual tendencies." He went on to say he has seen very few of those. This was corroborated by the Defendant's second attorney, Ms Robbins and Tim Gibian. Dr Gibian's records should reflect this as he was focused on the response time. This causes the Defendant concern.

• defendant. • There were a lot of factual errors made during the June 13 and 14 hearings. The number

seemed excessive. This causes the Defendant concern.• The BIA, Judge and other counsel seem fully supportive of the fact that evidence of alienation,

abuse, and parentification was suppressed. This includes the Plaintiff's own words, CPS reports, the child's writings, etc. Why would anyone object to facts being heard. This causes the Defendant enormous concern.

So the fundamental question is (metaphorically), if someone pokes you in the eye, and while your holding your eye she sees you cant see and states your honor he cannot see, he must be blind. Will you find him guilty of

5/13


The Victim is Our Daughter Unfortunately our daughter has been the biggest sufferer. The net results of this case are as follows:

• The Plaintiff's admitted behavior of using the child in the divorce to protect herself, which was also reported by CPS investigator as manipulation and coaching, this was supported in their witness testimony. But this was unaddressed by the court. Disregarded the BIA's recommendation that the Defendant have 100% legal. The Defendant feels this is a classic case of alienation, and parentification still continues.

• The little girl whose mother had admittedly beaten her with a wooden spatula upon the head, arms, legs, buttocks and back. The Plaintiff had left bruises on more than one occasion. The child had kept it a secret from everyone including her father, who she had called at work in fear on occasion to intervene between mother and daughter, was able to muster the courage to tell the CPS investigator and her guidance counselor of her mothers behavior. Her reward for her courageous effort was to be told, “I know your mother and she wouldn't do something like that.” Further she was put in complete custody of the parent who caused her injuries, and be kept from visiting the father that in her own words to CPS would step in during her mothers attacks. What kind of message do you think she came away with?

• An 11 year old child has been and continues to be systematically alienated from her father. Seemingly with the full support of the child's court appointed Best Interest Attorney and the court. Visitation is blocked due to what appears to have been improper actions by his attorneys..

• A judge appeared one sided, violating discovery rules and potentially several constitutional rights. The Defendants attorney stated in writing: “Almost everything in her opinion is factually wrong. ... , the judge is not going to change the facts in her opinion. In order to render the decision she did, she had to use false facts. If she used the real facts, she couldn't have decided it the way she did.” They also suggested and authored a Judicial Disabilities complaint. However the Defendant's attorneys appear to have sandbagged his case. This brings into question whether they misrepresented the Defendant to the judge purposely. It was such a solid case that she had to bury evidence, block testimony, misrepresent evidence, and refuse to correct errors. That is what I am aware of and can prove. But I discovered significant missing key evidence and presented it to them requesting and demanding they submit it. Yet they avoided it and actually actively pushed me away from it. In one case the Defendant asked specifically for a motion to submit further evidence that directly contradicted the claim that that he had financially controlled the Plaintiff. The attorney chose to ignore my request and work on the Judicial Disabilities complaint. The Defendant having pointed out the missing items, asked them directly to submit additional evidence that directly contradicts the courts opinion in all the core claims and being given direct no on some occasions and evasiveness on others sees no possibility that this is anything other than fraud upon the court.

6/13


Defendant's Attorney's ActionsThis seems to further the thought that due process has been kept in a box far away from this divorce case. The Defendant is particularly disturbed by the seeming quarterbacking of the process that lead to the suppression of evidence, denial of the right too be heard, among other gross infringements of constitutional and perhaps even human rights. Given the fact that the Defendant offered to take any test from day one; why did they wait until just before the trial to perform it.

The Defendant had discovered what appears to be at best incompetence on the part of his attorneys. He found solid proof of correctable errors on their part. And the specific focus of all the discovered errors seems impossible to have been random mistakes.

• Stating that the judge is biased and the Defendant will not receive a fair hearing starting on day 1 of the 10 day trial. This was repeated several times each day during the hearing. But not once in all the emails.

• June 29th 2011, she advised that the Defendant should not make an offer to settle. In spite of believing he would not get a fair hearing. See Exhibit A.

• She refused to submit key evidence, in spite of dozens of written requests, and eventually demands. See Exhibit A.

• She refused to submit the evidence even after the court opinion was issued and made it clear that the evidence was critical. As it contradicts the core findings of the court in the Plaintiff’s own words. See Exhibit A.

• She misrepresented evidence and lead the Defendant to misstate something. She refused to correct it even after he provided proof to her in writing. See Exhibit C.

• She introduced the only piece of evidence used to challenge the Defendants credibility. She can be heard on one channel of the court recorder stating “this is working” as the Defendant is being cross examined on August 9th. See Exhibit D and evidence CD for the audio.

• She failed to develop the audit trail for the Defendant's premarital assets. See Exhibit E• She actively prevented the Defendant fro providing testimony on certain topics. These topics

were key in the opinion. See Attachments B.• She failed to provide the Defendant any options regarding the 10 day and 30 day post order

motions. Avoiding them hen directly asked. See Attachments.Upon realizing the extent of this. He attempted to present the evidence and asked for the

support of the other attorneys to achieve a fair hearing, and submitted a motion to revise. These actions have been used to block him from his child without hearing his evidence. As he has been accused of paranoia and delusional thinking as a result. He does not feel that this is true. He feels strongly that he can prove almost every statement of fact that he has made. He feels he is being punished for trying to the best he can to resolve a terrible error in this case. The facts in this case appear so egregious that the question of motive seems to arise. He has asked questions that challenge the attorneys involved. He feels that they have an ethical obligation to seek justice. The facts presented do not seem to support such a result, as stated by many observers. The Defendant's attorney stated: “Almost everything in her [Judge Stealer] opinion is factually wrong..” Yet refused to add evidence to challenge the errors in the judges opinion.

A statement by the BIA that she and Mr Colon had additional collateral tends to support the appearance that there has been something that may have tainted the case but was never presented in

7/13


court exists. This is supported by many other facts as well. The appearance of justice is an important concept in the legal system and is clearly stated in the judicial and attorney ethical rules. The Defendant feels his assumptions were reasonable in seeking to hold officers of the court to their obligations. He does not feel that actions such as his should be used to block him from his child.

The Defendant feels strongly that some actions have been improper and seeks their correction. There has been significant resistance however. The resistance seems to be active and focused, so it is not likely to be the result of apathy or incompetence. But now motions to block his access altogether are in the court. The appearance of justice is an important concept in the legal system. He asks only that it be fully protected here, as lack of transparency allows for the perception of wrong doing or error to survive.

In the Defendant's opinion the resulting court findings as represented in the judges opinion is full of mistake, misunderstandings and erroneous conclusions, his attorney concurs, stating: “Almost everything in her [Judge Stepler] opinion is factually wrong..” The Defendant feels that he can readily prove all core claims in the case are wrong using evidence that was appears to have been left out by his attorneys, in spite of numerous requests and demands by him. This evidence is primarily his ex-wife’s own words contradicting herself. The Defendant's attorney did not allow him to present testimony on key topics, misrepresented evidence, and lead him to misspeak and refused to correct these errors. His attorney continued to refuse to correct the errors even after the judges opinion made issue of these errors. In the end his attorneys failed to correct the errors and refused to submit further evidence to refute known errors, knowing this would diminish the chance of appeal.

The following email exchange between the Defendant and his attorney tells the story:Donna K. Rismiller [email protected] 8/20/11 to me, mlynch

Ernie,

I don't think you understand the situation right now. Any additional piece of information presented to this judge will only be used against you. We have to get the case away from this judge. That can only be done after an order is entered.

I'm very happy to hear you had a great time with XXXX. I'm sure the both of you needed that. Donna K. RismillerSent from my iPhone

On Aug 19, 2011, at 11:00 PM, "Ernest Seagraves" <[email protected]> wrote:Can I ask for a full custody evaluation?"

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Ernest Seagraves <[email protected]> wrote:

8/13


Can anything be done prior to order?

Such as put more evidence into the record?

did my historical financial data (Missy CC bill, and schwab records) get entered as I requested?

ThanksErnie

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:38 PM, Donna K. Rismiller <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Ernie,

Almost everything in her opinion is factually wrong. Our opportunity to respond only happens after the order is entered. However, the judge is not going to change the facts in her opinion. In order to render the decision she did, she had to use false facts. If she used the real facts, she couldn't have decided it the way she did. After the order is entered, your options are the ones we discussed: appeal, in banc review or leave it as is and request modification later. Donna K. RismillerSent from my iPhone

The above email sequence with his attorney clearly demonstrates that she sees dramatic error in the judges opinion. In response to what could be done she makes no mention of the 10 day post order motions, or the 30 day motions that could be used. She refused to correct the errors in any way. This one email only scratches the surface.

A more complete overview of the email communication between the Defendant and his attorney on the topic of evidence submission and giving testimony, that have effectively blocked his rights to be heard and present evidence, is given below:

• August 3, 2011 – 8:44 AM: Defendant notes concerns, factual errors and missing evidence.

• August 3, 2011 - 10:51 AM: Defendant asks attorneys if all requested evidence has been submitted. Reiterates his position of ensuring it is put in.

• August 6, 2011 – 3:34 PM: Defendant requests to have the psychological evaluator review the email and voice recordings.

• August 6, 2011 – 7:44 PM: Defendant reiterates that the Plaintiff had been notified of the recordings, and invited their use for the record. The Plaintiff did so in writing and also on more than one recording. He very directly states he wanted the email in front of the judge and requests an explanation if she fails.

9/13


• August 7 2011 – 1:56 AM: Defendant requests a critical timeline email be put into evidence. This email was the impetus for his trip to her apartment on June 13, 2010. As the timing was challenged this establishes a clear reason and timeline.

• August 7, 2011 – 10:58 AM: Defendant asks for verification of 8 pieces of evidence that he feels are absolutely crucial. Later he finds that indeed the judges opinion directly hit the holes missed by leaving these items out. He asks for verification and evidence number.

• 7, 2011 – 12:12 PM: Defendant states he wishes to have the voice recordings heard. August Insisting.

• August 7, 2011 – 8:51 PM: Defendant responds to behavior by his attorney that makes him question their motivation or follow through. He asks some hard questions but still is maintaining them as his council. He is being cautious as he expresses that he be included in all future meetings. But he is clearly not paranoid as their actions to date would have been a breeding ground for such thoughts. He asks for written responses, because he has not been getting what he has asked for. He closes with: “I insist, no exceptions.”

• August 9, 2011 – 7:10 PM: Defendant requests other specific evidence make it in. He states his desire to speak to the judge on certain topics that were seemingly unaddressed.

• August 10, 2011 – 7:13 AM: Defendant states he feels the money issues are a huge hole in the case. Reiterates his strong desire to put into evidence financial records.

• August 11, 2011 – 7:30 AM: Defendant clearly and firmly requests the judge deliver the opinion personally. So that he can be heard.

• 10:49 AM: Defendant's Attorney responds no by stating, expense, no tangible benefit.• 11:10 AM: Defendant clearly responds “I insist.” It never happened.

• August 14, 2011 – 3:51 PM: Defendant reiterates his strong desire to have a face to face meeting with the judge. Stating “I absolutely insist.”

• 7:04 PM: Defendant's attorney responds stating they are expecting the opinion to be faxed he next day. She completely ignored my request to have the Opinion presented.

• 8:00 PM: Defendant replies he wants the opportunity to make several statements for the record.

• August 15, 2011 – 7:16 AM: Defendant's attorney informs him there is no opportunity to enter any statements for the record.

• August 19, 2011- 10:12 PM: Defendant states the opinion is wrong in many facts, and inquires what can be done. Corrections to errors, rebuttal, what are the deadlines, are extensions possible.

• 10:12 PM: Defendant's Attorney responds “Almost everything in her [Judge Stepler] opinion is wrong.” … “However the judge is not going to change the facts in her opinion. In order to

10/13


render the decision she did she had to use false facts. If she used the real facts she couldn't have decided it the way she did.” She goes on to state my options are after the order is entered. But she lists only appeal, en banc appeal, and later modification. She never mentioned the 10 day or 30 day motions available.. The Defendant discovered them talking to another attorney. He verbally asked them and they said yes those were options as well.

• September 1, 2011 – 12:33 PM: Defendant follows up on several verbal requests with an email reiterating the request for motions to correct the errors in the opinion and asking why it had not been done.

• September 7, 2011 – 1:16 AM: Defendant requests motions for additional evidence again

• September 11, 2011 – 9:35 AM: Defendant requests motions for additional evidence again. And states his faith in the judge if she has all the evidence. This is further evidence that the Defendant is not paranoid. If he was he would not be able to trust the judge.

• September 24, 2011 – 6:02 AM: Defendant requests motions for additional evidence and be heard prior to the order being entered.

• September 24, 2011 – 7:45 AM: Defendant demands additional evidence and be heard prior to the order being entered.

• October 7, 2011 – 3:24 PM: Defendant additional financial evidence be put in.–The list below contains the messages between the Defendant and his attorneys related to the topic of getting evidence submitted vs submitting a Judicial Disabilities complaint. I consistently and persistently requested the inclusion of the financial data. Once the Judges opinion was revealed it made clear issue if an easily provable false theory that the Defendant controlled the Plaintiff financially. Her credit card receipts showed an average monthly expenditure of over $7500.00 per month. The judge found that I had the power in the relationship. Her spending clearly says otherwise. This law firm refused to submit evidence and avoided requests and demands. This string of emails shows that failure clearly. The Defendant also believes that it showed intent to avoid the clients wishes, ass well as pushing the agenda of the judicial disabilities complaint. The Defendant feels that if their actions are found intentional then they have omitted fraud upon the court and billing fraud, as they were offering services under the guise of representation his best interest but intentionally failed to do so. Below is the communication relating to the idea of filing a complaint with the Judicial Disabilities Communication. Given the post trial behavior, evidence submission shortfalls, and lack of protection for financial position, of the attorneys the Defendant feels the intention s clear.

• August 26, 2011- 5:52PM: Ms Lynch → Defendant, Ms Rismiller… Your cause of action is with the Judicial Disabilities Commission. ...

• August 31, 2011- 9:51AM: Ms Rismiller → Defendant, Ms LynchTo follow up on our conversation this morning, here is the link to the information for the

11/13


commission for judicial disabilities and the complaint form:

• August 31, 2011- 111:53AM: Ms Lynch → Defendant, Ms RismillerErnie Donna and I believe it is fine for me to draft complaint. So I will be your "scribe" To make sure I accurately represent your feelings please send me in writing why the judge was not impartial, biased and demonstrated an appearance of impropriety. I will then incorporate your feelings in the complaint if this is what you wish to do. Thank you.

• September 1, 2011 – 11:29 AM: Defendant → AttorneysPlease file a motion to introduce the economic data all cc bills

• September 1, 2011 – 12:09 PM: Ms Lynch → Defendant, Ms RismillerGood afternoon, If you wish, I can draft the Disabilities Commission complaint. If you want for me to do this, please let me know. Then, if you could please forward me an outline of how you believe the judge has been unfair and impartial, that will ensure I will incorporate all that I can in the Complaint.

• September 1, 2011 – 12:23 PM: Defendant → AttorneysIs it your position that you are refusing to do as I have requested?

• September 1, 2011 – 12:27 PM: Ms Lynch → Defendant, Ms RismillerNo I was just following up on my email from yesterday. If you an donna decide to do this I am happy to draft this.

• September 1, 2011 – 12:33 PM: Defendant → AttorneysDonna/Maura, I specifically requested to put a motion in to admit further economic (Credit Card bills from Chase and Amex from 2004 - present) evidence in light of her opinion. This is a critical piece of evidence. I spoke with an appellate Attorney and it was suggested that it be entered. Are you saying with your response that you are unwilling to do so? As time is critical your actions bring me great concern over the apparent lack of due process. I need your support. Thanks

• September 1, 2011 – 12:34 PM: Defendant → AttorneysThis being the motion to admit the Credit Card statements and Schwab statements from 2004 to present? YES

• September 1, 2011 – 12:35 PM: Ms Rismiller → Ms Lynch, DefendantI believe we are in agreement that you should draft this, Maura. Thanks.

• September 2, 2011 – 8:32 AM: Ms Lynch → Defendantwhen you get a chance. Donna is headed to court, but we have discussed your emails, and I need to discuss your requests with you.

• September 6 2011 – 11:32 AM: Ms Lynch → Defendant, Ms RismillerGood morning, I have attached a draft of the Statement of Facts for the Judicial Disability

12/13


Commission. Please read it, and advise me of any edits, changes or questions. Thank you.

• September 7, 2011 – 11:16 AM: Defendant → AttorneysHow is the motion to get the financial history evidence coming? That includes all the Chase Amex. And schwab statements from 2001 to present. Like I have stared many times please get it it ASAP. I feel this must be in place for the appeal. Thanks Ernie

• September 8, 2011 – 9:28 AM: Ms Lynch → DefendantGood morning, Have you had the opportunity to review the draft of the complaint I sent you? Please advise me how you wish to proceed. The form will take me about half an hour to finish prior to sending it to you. I do not know if you will need me to do any edits for you. I also don't want to waste your money doing this if you do not wish to proceed. Thanks

• September 8, 2011 – 5:53 PM: Defendant → Ms LynchMaura, It sounds great. The only comment I have is stewardess is considered disrespectful. Change it to Flight Attendant. As for the plan I am leaving it for Donna and Trish to hash out, as to if we submit this. Thanks Ernie

• September 8, 2011 – 5:57 PM: Ms Lynch → Defendant, Ms RismillerYes, you are absolutely correct about the word stewardess. Thanks.

The indented messages were on the same thread, which was initiated by the Defendant asking for the credit card data to be presented to the court. In the Sept 1st 11:29 AM, 12:33 and 12:34 messages to both of them clearly re-requests the motion be generated. They ignored all three messages, as they failed to produce. Further they seem fixated on the Judicial Disabilities complaint. Why?

Ernest Seagraves, Virginia [email protected](240) 344-2256

13/13

Misuse of Domestic Violence Statutes

Documents

Transcript of Misuse of Domestic Violence Statutes