When restraining
orders are granted ex-parte,
for "emergency"
protection, they take on a
life of their own. From that
point forward the court seems
to believe there is actually
some legal process that has
happened, which places doubt
over the target of the order
(guilty until proven innocent).
Often times NOTHING has happened
except speculation on the
part of the "Victim"
(though usually no crime has
occurred), and often times
the defendant has not even
been accused of anything.
From here the "old boys
club" of judges kicks
in to protect each others
back, as in this case detailed
below. A father is denied
access to his children, clearly
violating constitutional rights,
with no real due process -
and the ban plays on, in spite
of that fact.
This is practice
is one of the most egregious
violations of rights and is
happening THOUSANDS OF TIMES
PER MONTH, in Massachusetts
alone. Judges are LITERALLY
high jacking the fathers homes
and all their possessions
and effectively kidnapping
the children and denying them
a father. They call this in
the "best interest of
the children", but this
is clearly no so - in in fact
to any educated observer is
to their great detriment.
The "Best interest of
the children" is a smoke
screen and a policy which
is so vague it is clearly
unlawful. It allows
judge to do whatever they
want. The supreme court
has said any vague law is
not enforceable - but judges
are enforcing this any way
they see fit every single
day.
The web site
http://www.massoutrage.com/rocases.htm
has lots of these stories
from Attorney Greg Hession,
who is on a mission to stop
the abuse of restraining orders.
SAMPLE STORY
From Chris Kennedy of CT:
This is from
a hearing for a
restraining order, which removed
my daughters. The
application was blank, listed
no children and contained
no allegation of abuse or
threats. Judge Kaplan, who
signed the Ex Parte order,
was the Administrative Judge
for the entire county.
It was granted for filing
a motion to recuse the judge,
a motion that was never heard
and the Judicial Review
Council dismissed my complaint. This
case is now at the Supreme
Court of CT. It's been
over a year since I had
any contact with my three
children.
Please forward
this to everyone you can,
Newspapers, Legislators, Civil
Rights Groups, - It
deserves an investigation,
before the next
father is abused. Stand
up and fight for you right
as a parent before you
or your sons go through
the same. Judges cannot
be free to arrest, restrain
and remove your children,
without reason. TRANSCRIPT
OF APRIL 5, 2004 LEANNA
PUTMAN V. CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY,
ROCKVILLE COURT, CT
HEARING TO CONTINUE A RESTRAINING
ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE JONATHAN
KAPLAN
JUDGE LAWRENCE KLACZAK PRESIDING
Page 3
MR. KENNEDY: I'd like to object
immediately, Your Honor, and
I'd like to move to have this
dismissed.
This restraining order, if
you read the copy of it, it
doesn't even list the children.
It was granted by Judge Kaplan
...
MR. KENNEDY: I don't understand
how a restraining can get
granted even ex parte if there's
no claims of abuse, and there's
no children listed.
THE COURT: That's what we're
here for.
Page 19
Q (Christopher) You mentioned
custodial interference, as
far as father being arrested
for custodial interference
--
A (Leanna) Yes.
Q --under those circumstances,
the children were to be dropped
off at seven o'clock p.m.
on a Wednesday night.
A Yes.
Q Were you home at that time?
A No, I wasn't.
Q Did you make any contact
with the father and where
to find him if you were home
or not home?
A No….
Page 23
Q (Christopher)…you had
a restraining order and you
chose to ignore it and go
pick up the children?
A (Leanna) I went to the children's
school? Yes. Absolutely. Yes.
…
MR. KENNEDY: She (Leanna)
entirely disregarded a restraining
order that was served on her.
THE COURT: Yes. She's testified
that she did
Page 38 THE COURT (To
Leanna): This is the issue
before me. It's simple. …
My concern is whether or not
there's a reasonable reason
for you to feel that these
children's safety is impaired
or in danger by his (Christopher)
act of going to Hartford and
getting a restraining order
THE COURT: That is the issue
here. I don't think there's
anything else other than language
in the affidavit, which doesn't
mean particularly much.
Ruling Page
63
THE COURT: …I've read the
motion that you filed in this
Court to recuse Judge Kaplan.
You're suggesting that criminal
charges be brought against
him in your affidavit to recuse
him. That, to me, smacks
-- of some instability.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I am
concerned for these children;
and I think because of the
concern -- and it's
a legitimate concern and a
reasonable concern through
the testimony that I've heard
here -- that this restraining
order should be continued.
Chris Kennedy
Ellington, CT 06029
860-871-8538(H)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/connecticutcivilrightscouncil/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/f4jnewengland/
The Shared Parenting Council
-CT
The Fatherhood Coalition
-MA
Fathers-4-Justice- UK
NCP
NATIONAL CLASS ACTION SUIT
- USA |