REFRESH - Go to Home-Page
(1) In October 01, an Agency for Children’s Services case was falsely “Indicated” for attempted suicide allegedly with an over dose of prescription drugs. Case was “indicated” despite medical documentation [in patient psychiatric unit discharge papers], along with the treating psychiatrists evaluation and other physical evidence disproving the “indicated” suicide theory. Estranged abusive, vindictive husband had called ACS three times prior to this “indicated” case all unfounded.
(2) Thirty eight thousand dollars out of 40 thousand something dollars in back child support owed to subject mother of said false indicated case by estranged husband disappeared behind closed doors, without mothers knowledge, permission or signature. twenty five hundred or so had been sent to mother in September 03.
(2) Said “indicated false case was then “concealed” by the Richmond County Court and Staten Island Family Court Services for the next five years, while the subject of this false case was accused of being a dangerous drug addict who should have no contact with her children, yet repeatedly denied drug testing. [Intrinsic and extrinsic fraud]
(3) Subject mother of indicated case frustrated with allegations of her being a drug addict, desperate to see her children, and being denied drug testing went for her own private hair drug test through her place of employment using Quest Diagnostic Labs, test was 100% negative.
(4) Subject mother then desperately attempted to have this negative hair drug test entered onto the record, hearing officer refused to accept the test, or to allow subject mother any visitation with her children. [There was an appearance of an attempt at ONE supervised visit where children claimed they did not want to see subject mother.] Children told a witness the following day they were afraid their father would get angry if they saw the subject mother, so they declined.
(5) After eighteen months of the estranged husband and the court keeping subject mother and her children apart, estranged husband via his attorney Catherine Bridge had filed for custody, subject mother had no money to retain an attorney; she was given a court appointed attorney Mario Acunzo.
(6) Subject mother was now being charged with child support yet her industry was destroyed by 9/11. Child Support was building, and arrears were being applied.
(7) Subject mother was threatened by her court appointed attorney with never seeing her children again if she fought her estranged husband on the custody issue. Subject mother was desperate to see her children, she agreed to allow her estranged husband to have custody. Mother could not figure out how her estranged husbands “word” along with the family court services “word” that she was a drug addict was accepted yet her proof [negative hair drug test] that she was not a drug addict was deliberately kept off the record. Mothers biggest mistake was trusting her court appointed attorney.
(8) Subject mother and her children were never reunited, court gave mother “visitation” only at sports games and after school activities, ordered father to keep mother informed of such events.
(9) Father refused to allow mother to visit with children, by refusing to send her any information on after school activates and or sporting events. (2002-2007)
(10) Despite numerous motions by mother pro se, pleading with the court over the next three years to give her visitation/custody, the court refused to reunite mother and children.
(11) Despite numerous letters to James Veloce, [deputy court clerk,] William Quirk [court clerk,] to the grievance committee, Office of Professional Discipline, The Commission on Judicial Conduct, Sherrill Spatz [The special inspector general for bias matters] The Bar Association, Martin F. Horn, Commissioner and Chief Judge Kaye mother and children are still not reunited.
(12) Mother finds out about false indicated case from a Social Worker with ACS after mother contacted them, to plead with them to investigate the alienation as child abuse.
Mother contacted Albany and had an administrative review opened wherein case was over turned on the original evidence available to them from the beginning.
(13) Mother via her civil rights attorney sues the Administration of Children’s Services and the City for Malicious Prosecution and Negligent Misrepresentation.
(14) Mother found out that father is living Aggie Panepinto.
(15) Mother finds out that estranged husbands coaching job with the CYO is under the direction of Joseph Panepinto. Mother becomes curious as to the connection.
(16) Mother finds out that Joseph Panepinto is married to Supreme Court Judge Barbara Panepinto. Mother begins to wonder if this could be considered a political connection or is it just a suspicious coincidence.
(17) Mother finds something [in writing] stating that Aggie Panepinto uses her camera for child pornography.
(18) Mother borrows 15k from a friend to hire an attorney, and a psychologist to act as a consultant to the attorney to rebut the lies and to pay off arrears after she was put in jail for the third time on Child Support arrears. Mother is now not able to work she is suffering horrendous stress from this situation.
(19) Mother’s attorney files a summons and complaint for a divorce in January 2007, along with a Pendenti Lite motion to bring the custody case up to her home town [Westchester] along with the Divorce. Mothers Attorney fills out papers with joint custody, knowing joint custody WILL NOT WORK with a severe alienator, and he asks me to sign and agree, I REFUSE!
(20) Estranged Husbands attorney Catherine Bridge, submitted her answer, claiming that Jospeh Panepinto, works for catholic charities and she claims that the CYO is not part of the catholic charities. [Please entertain me and type in catholic charities and notice under youth- it clearly states CYO Director Jospeh Panepinto.
(21) Judge Lubell in Westchester granted estranged husbands motion via his attorney in estranged husbands absence; a motion for forum non-conveniens. The case has been in limbo with lost papers or other mishaps since then. My attorney who is well versed in Parental Alienation and is an alienated father himself suggests that I voluntarily terminate my parental rights, and that once I do that my children will come running back to me.
(22)Then what if the case got sent back down to the original jurisdiction and ended up in Judge Barbara Panepinto's lap?
(23) Then imagine your reaction when your own attorney, opposing counsel, and Judge Panepinto decide behind closed doors that she will NOT consolidate the divorce with the custody case, nor will she recuse herself!
(24) Finally after 2 court dates in front of Judge Panepinto she finally recuses herself, but not before arguing with your attorney from the bench, arms flailing all over the place, (attitude must have been "going back to her roots) "If your client wants me to recuse then file a motion!"
Blah Blah yadda yadda, the scandal, I mean saga continues.. I'll fill in the rest tomorrow...
How can I not wonder what the hell is going on here?
What if you were the judge and this case was sent to you, how would you rule?
What would you think is going on here, incompetent court system/child protective system?
Political Connections and perhaps much more?