Partially GAGGED! FOR NOW!

REFRESH - Go to Home-Page

Today I'm going to give the reader a further look into the blatant abuses of power in my case...

I.. for one.. believe that the need to hide their abuse of power....is the sole reason for the injunction to gag me on this blog...

Click >> for Allan's opinion on this subject Myspace.com Blogs - A FICTIONAL STORY THAT’S ACTUALLY HAPPENING - Allan MySpace Blog

But Pfttttt who am I to assume... It wasn't like they wrote .....
WE WANT HER GAGGED SO THE PUBLIC CAN'T SEE THE INJUSTICES BEING DONE... AND HER CREDABILITY WON'T BE AS STRONG... IF SHE CAN'T PUBLISH DOCUMENTS.... Although it appears from the GAG order that the body of the order was written at a different time than the top and bottom portions.. the center is in BOLD ink.. where the top and bottom are in fine ink.. I bet the order was written well before I walked into the court yesterday..

But it is what it is FOR NOW .. and that's part of life...

So I'll state the facts and you decide.
(Verbatim--as I am banned from posting documents-- of this proceeding-- I am also banned from naming names--- including my children-- FOR NOW)

Let me say that when I say or do something it is usually after extensive research..

I DON'T spew &%$ out of my mouth or off my fingers... I call it like it is .. after EXTENSIVE research...

To *&$% bad for those that don't like it!!!

According to Chief Judge Kaye and Johnathan Lippman's Committee on Communications and Media Law...published in April of 2002 (vol. 55 No. 2) Titled, Open to Public: The effect of Presumptive Public Access to New York State's Family Courts...

Justice David B, Saxe, who heard the Macauley Culkin Case opened his courtroom upon application by the Associated Press, CBS, the Daily News and the Post, began his analysis with a historic fact that "custody trials held in the New York State Supreme Court have historically been open to the public.. Like Judge Schector in Ruben R., Justice Saxe also emphasized the "significant positive role" played by public access to court proceedings, noting that "public scrutiny of a custody trial indeed can 'promote fairness and due process and tends to prevent perjury, misconduct and biased results.'" [FN1]

I'm not sure if the Richmond County IDV judge is aware that ...
I am entitled to access all pleadings, filings, findings, decisions, orders and transcripts under § 202.5, and there are no restrictions on the Plaintiff (my) ability to share such documents with other persons, including news reporters [FN2]

There is an important public and legislative educational component to proceedings open to public scrutiny which transcends individual uneasiness and perhaps embarrassment in pursuing the truth of discomforting issues in an open court. Enhancing public understanding of the works of its municipal officers is important if there is to be public confidence in court proceedings. [FN3]

But apparently there are many that don't like it.. so they have fueled the fire under my ass even stronger than ever ...this time!

I say "the judge" with permission given to me yesterday from the Richmond County IDV judge who stated in court ... that she has a google alert set up for her to receive anything online with her name on it.. and she knows that I've blogged about her.. including the transcripts of my hearings .. and so on ...

WOW.. that's a brand new concept I had no idea that could be done! (Yes that was sarcastic)

She also warned me that If she finds her name online again with regards to my case she will recuse herself from my case and then there will be no other judge in Richmond County to hear my case..

Wait wait wait .. hold the presses...

There are two matrimonial judges in Richmond County.. and the other one already recused herself from my case... after a debate over whether or not our husbands worked together and knew each other.. and whether or not my estranged husbands live in girlfriend that shares the already recused judges last name ... may be a relative.. hence an appearance of impropriety?? Duh!

So.. I've been screaming for years now about how I have been unconstitutionally denied my rights to raise my children because of that connection.. by NUMEROUS players in Richmond County and how badly I wanted this case OFF the island.. and now she says .. I'll recuse if I find you used my name??

Was that tempting or what??

Now let's be fair here.. if this IDV judge did the right thing.. I wouldn't be bitching.. but ... she chose not to do what was ethically demanded of an IDV judge by ...

(1) On two court hearings.. denying to entertain my Writ of Habeas Corpus... even tho I've made it perfectly clear that I have documented piles of proof that my estranged husbands custody orders ARE FRAUD.. Obtained while he voluntarily chose to violate a life time Order of Protection that gave me custody .. and ordered him to stop with the disparaging remarks..

(2) Which by the way INCLUDES calling ACS and falsely accusing me of being a drug addict which gave him a free pass to custody... out from under my order of protection that gave me custody.. and it also led to my lawsuit six years later when I found out about it ..against ACS and the City of NY once I had it over turned..
(shaking my head-- how much more are they going to let this man get away with)

So here you have this IDV judge (check out the power she is suppose to have over situations like this) that is mandated to follow the law -
http://www.nadcp.org/handouts2007/Session%20A-16..Domestic%20Violence%20NY%20Experience.pdf

But no... Instead of finding the estranged husband is guilty of kidnapping and putting his ass in jail for breaking the O.P she put a red dot on my case and called in another Court Officer... then the only other issue she dealt with was GAGGING me and FREEZING the case.. because I demanded a Jury trial for grounds ..

Maybe she's not familiar with the laws? I clearly stated in yesterdays court proceeding ... "Am I to understand that this court is allowing Mr. Argenziano (No they didn't stop me from using his name) to benefit from his fraud?" [FN4]

I then asked .. "Is this court saying that it will not give my Order of Protection full faith and credit?

I then stated that it was MY RIGHT to have the children returned to me as they are being illegally detained.. I then stated Article 70 CPLR 7001- 70012.

(Proof of it's availability to me --Article 70. Habeas corpus. (7001-7012.)

(NY CPLR, Civil Practice Law & Rules, Gauthier Law Firm, Unio... Article 70. Habeas corpus. (7001-7012.) Article 71. Recovery of chattel. (7101-7112.)

Ok.. are you ready for the answer I got?

Nah.. I somehow don't think your ready for this.. especially from an IDV judge that KNOWS better than to aid and abet an abuser...

But here goes anyway ...

What article 70? I don't know what your talking about...

Anywho.. So the Writ of Habeas Corpus was ignored.. the fact that I have custody via my OP was ignored.. the fact that I want a jury trial to determine grounds was diminished to 5 years because the judge feels that "since you haven't lived together in 5 years.. how can you say that he's continued his domestic violence? No..your divorce is barred from the continued domestic violence clause .. because he has had no contact with you in five years" DivorceToday.Com: What Constitutes Cruel and Inhuman Treatment? [FN5]

Didn't matter that legal kidnapping of my children could be constituted as emotional torture.. emotional abuse... on the other hand would be if he had stopped when he was alienating the children against me .. destroying my image to innocent babies..robing them of an Innocent childhood..and attempting to crush me in the path of his selfish need to control and destroy... at least in my eyes.. what he's done is EMOTIONAL TORTURE!!! LEGAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE UNDER 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A [FN6]

So you bet your sweet &%## I'm going to fight to the end to until each and every one of these nameless (FOR NOW) accomplices is taken away in cuffs for their role in this kidnapping.

I kinda think I can convince 12 jurors that I am being emotionally tortured..with out saying ONE WORD.. Just showing them the documents!

FYI...

In - Parker v Parker (2003 NY Slip Op 23890)

This court notes that 22 NYCRR 202.15 specifically [*3] permits litigants to purchase additional copies of audio and videotapes of depositions and does not restrict their use by a party to an action.

Case Law Development: Court May Not Grant Blanket Orders Sealing Divorce Records
After their divorce, husband and wife moved to have their divorce records sealed, which the trial court granted. In a challenge by the Times-Picayune newspaper to the order, the Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ vacating the trial court's order. The court commented:

"Considering the strong constitutional bias in favor of open access by the public to court proceedings, we find the trial court's blanket order sealing the entire record in this case to be overbroad. Although there may be some justification for sealing certain sensitive evidence in a proceeding, the parties have the burden of making a specific showing that their privacy interests outweigh the public's constitutional right of access to the record. The trial court, should it grant such relief, must ensure that its order is narrowly tailored to cause the least interference possible with the right of public access."

Copeland v. Copeland, 2006 La. LEXIS 1649 (June 2, 2006 bgf)

California Billionaire Must Produce Records in Divorce Dispute –

Lower Court Ruling Striking Down Privacy Statute Left Standing

This week the California Supreme Court rejected efforts by billionaire Ronald W. Burkle to keep 1,200 pages of documents involved in his divorce under seal. He had argued that the need for keeping them from the public was necessary in order to protect his children. On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court let stand a decision by a lower appeals court that had struck down a law that would have kept the records from public view.

In this dispute, the California Court of Appeals, Second District, had earlier considered a challenge to that state’s Family Code section 2024.6 by the Los Angeles Times. The statute required that a court, upon the request of a party to a divorce proceeding, seal any pleading that lists and provides the location or identifying information about the financial assets and liabilities of the parties. The Appeals Court concluded that section 2024.6 is unconstitutional on its face. It said that the First Amendment provides a right of access to court records in divorce proceedings. However, while the privacy interests protected by section 2024.6 may override the First Amendment right of access in an appropriate case, the statute was neither narrowly tailored to serve the privacy interest being protected nor is it the least restrictive means of protecting those privacy interests. Therefore, because there were less restrictive means existing to achieve the statutory objective, section 2024.6 operates as an undue burden on the First Amendment right of public access to court records. News Source. Peter Y. Hong, Jean Guccione and Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times, times.com.

The complete news story can be found by clicking here (last visited May 20, 2006, reo).

Case Law Development: California Court of Appeals Holds Laws Sealing Financial Records in Divorce Actions Unconstitutional
The California Court of Appeals has held unconstitutional a section of the Family Code that requires a court, upon the request of a party to a divorce proceeding, to seal any pleading that lists and provides the location or identifying information about the financial assets and liabilities of the parties. The court found the provision violates the First Amendment, which provides a right of access to court records in divorce proceedings. The court noted that there may be instances in which the privacy interests of divorcing parties may override the First Amendment right of access, but the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve those interests and less restrictive means were available. Because the statute places an undue burden on the First Amendment right of public access to court records, the court found it unconstitutional on its face.

Burkle v. Burkle, 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 51 (January 20, 2006)
Opinion available on the web (last visited January 22, 2006 bgf)

Finally, as to the use of anonymous captions in matrimonial actions, we remind the bench and bar that, even where the parties seek to stipulate to such relief, the trial court should not pro forma approve an anonymous caption, but should exercise its discretion to limit the public nature of judicial proceedings "sparingly" and "then, only when unusual circumstances necessitate it" In matters involving child custody issues such relief should be granted only in the rare case, where, in considering the best interests of the children, there is a finding that their health and welfare would be protected, not their "privacy" or where the children's interests would be better served by such relief. [FN7]

[FN1] ID. At 871 quoting Matter of Douglas, N.Y.L.J., March 31, 1995 at 37, col.2 (Surr. Ct. Westchester Co.)

[FN2] In re Ulster County Dep’t of Social Servs. Ex rel. Jane, (1993, Fam Ct) 163 Misc 2nd 373, 621 NYS2d 428.

[FN3] Id. Quoting Katherine B Family Court Order, citing 22 N.Y.C.R.R. § 131.1.

[FN4] (Riggs v Palmer, supra at 512.) In Riggs, the Court was confronted with a situation in which a grandfather, who had left his grandson a substantial portion of his estate in his last will and testament, was murdered by that grandson. (Id. at 511-513.) Invoking the maxim that "[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found any claim upon his own iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime" (id. at 511),

[FN6] "[H]abitual cruel and inhuman treatment could be established only by a continuing course of conduct on the part of the offending spouse which was so unkind, unfeeling or brutal as to endanger, or put one in reasonable apprehension of danger to life, limb or health, and further, that such course of conduct must be habitual, that is, done so often, or continued so long that it may reasonably be said a permanent condition." Wilson v. Wilson , 547 So.2d 803, 805 (Miss. 1989).

[FN7] (see Anonymous v Anonymous, 158 AD2d 296 [1990]).