Bonnie Cohen Gallet

Wow and here I thought she was off the bench- But nope I was wrong- She's sitting in the Bronx Family Court. I almost didn't recognize her in this pic, this is a far cry from the world weary woman who barks out nonsence from the bench.

This woman isn't competent enough to hear a case on- which way to kick two dead cocaroaches laying on the side of the street.

Now how was it that I came accross her name- I was told she was canned..

Well thank you Site Meter - I noticed that someone from the Bronx Court System was reading what I was writing. I vaguely remember something about her being in the Bronx- then I heard she was taken off the bench (gag) I guess that was wishful thinking on everyones part.

Well, I wonder why she would be looking up MY case- the last time I was before her was sometime in 05. I highly doubt she watches all of her cases for over two years.

Nonetheless Ms. Gallet have I got something for you to read...

Stay tuned

P.S. Have you seen what you've done to my babies?

I'm sure you've seen that they haven't let me see them yet but from the pictures here, I'm sure you will take note that I have reason to fear for thier lives.

I promise you Ms. Gallet you will be held responsible for what you did to me and what you do to other families, if not in a court of law in this life, you will be held responsible in some other life, I have faith in the man above.

Stay tuned..

Domain Name

state.ny.us ? (U.S.)
IP Address

207.29.128.# (Unified Court System, State of New York)
ISP

Unified Court System, State of New York
Location

Continent
:
North America
Country
:
United States (Facts)
State
:
New York
City
:
Bronx
Lat/Long
:
40.8499, -73.8769 (Map)
Language

English (U.S.)en-us
Operating System

Microsoft WinXP
Browser

Internet Explorer 6.0Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Javascript

version 1.3
Monitor

Resolution
:
800 x 600
Color Depth
:
32 bits
Time of Visit

Dec 10 2007 4:34:19 pm
Last Page View

Dec 10 2007 4:49:35 pm
Visit Length

15 minutes 16 seconds
Page Views

7
Referring URL
http://www.google.co...%3aen&q=louise%20uccio/

Search Engine google.com
Search Words louise uccio
Visit Entry Page

http://www.disgustedwiththesystem.blogspot.com/
Visit Exit Page

http://www.disgustedwiththesystem.blogspot.com/
Out Click


Time Zone

UTC-5:00
Visitor's Time

Dec 10 2007 4:34:19 pm
Visit Number

1,082

Here's another disturbing picture

This was my baby's default picture on his "My Space"

WTF? Am I the only one that see's there is a major problem in that house?

With allegations of the live in girlfriend being a child poronography potographer, and then seeing this kind of &%$ !!

Lets not forget the estranged husbands connections to the CYO and a Supreme Court Judge.

What are your opinions?

Need Opinions

If this were a picture of your children that you have been "legally" kept from for years would it bother you and why?

This is my daughters My Space default picture and I'm very concerned with the fact that the baby appears to be naked and drugged.

Especially since I've been kept from them for no reason.

Could it be my estranged husbands connections to the Church via CYO and the State via a marraige between Director of CYO Jospeh Panepinto and Acting Supreme Court Judge Barbara Panepinto.

This picture forces me to remember the sex scandal within the Catholic Church and panic.

What's your opinion?

When I showed this to my therapist, her first question was "Why is he naked?"

Then she asked "Why does he look so malnurished?"

Questions I can not answer!

White washing complaints

Say it aint so ...

See-

Two New York Judges Censured....(MORE, CLICK HERE)

No wonder I haven't been able to get justice in my case!

Maybe now I can get my babies back- maybe just maybe the guards at the gate are being watched!

Writ and more time wasted

As you can see, that Notice of Motion went in October 06 [last year] yet ACS has NOT returned my children, apparently that's not how it works.

I have spent the last TWO YEARS before Judge McElrath wasting my time energy and money, from July 12 of 06 I had been trying to get him to act on CPLR 5015 [New Evidence] and a Writ Of Habeaas Corpus, yet he stalled and stamered, allowing all kinds of sick blatent lies from my estranged husband and his perjuring attorney Catherine Bridge.

When he wasn't excusing them for whatever BS they came up with as to why they wouldnt be in court that day [after I drove from Westchester to Staten Island 50ish miles] he claimed the Writ was lost, then the Writ wasn't put on the calendar and it was the clerks fault, then he didn't know how to proceed with the Writ when it finally made it's way back to his court.

On the day that Ms. Bridge sat in the court room claiming she wasn't retained for this hearing (gotta love it) while McElrath read out loud a hand written note from the estranged husband claiming he wasn't able to attend the hearing on the writ.

And yes you guess it, they were once again forgiven!

At the time my attorney had been planning to bring this case to my area of residence via a divorce, and he told me to say I wanted the Writ Dismissed, I did and well here we are- the big divorce bomb is in front of panepinto.

What a disgrace!

What if ..

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.

I REFUSED!

(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?

Suspicious coincidence?

Political Connections and perhaps much more?

Maternal Alienation is Parent Alienation with a twist

I know that anyone that really knows me is positive that I believe this whole alienated parent thing is personality driven opposed to gender driven.

I do not for a min believe that Parent Alienation Syndrome is used as an excuse by abusive men!

I firmly believe that a parent or other that alienated an innocent child from someone they love has issues, big fat hairy ugly issues that may be to deep for even a psychiatrist to handle..

(Sociopaths- FYI many Dr's refuse to deal with them)

I firmly believe each case is individual and the driving force behind the need for these challenged adults ( Severe -alienators) is also different.

So in this blog only I'd like to take a min to look into Parent Alienation Syndrome from another angle. A very sick angle, an alienated child is an alienated child no matter what you chose to call it.

That said, in the instance where a true abuser is alienating for the purpose of sexually abusing the children I've found the following article..

It was very interesting reading..

What is Maternal Alienation-
Sometimes a man who is violent within his family alienated his children from their mother as part of that abuse.

He often isolates his partner from any sources of support, and is skillful at convincing her family, the neighbors, the children's school and any professionals involved with the family, that she is mad or bad. This type of abuse has been called Maternal Alienation by Ann Moris Senior Project Officer of the Maternal Alienation Project.

It generally occurs within a context of violence against women and/or children, and is a term for both.

+ The range of tactics used by men to deliberately undermine and destroy the relationship between a mother and their children to

+ The profound and often lasting alienation created in the relationships between mothers and their children by the use of those strategies.

Maternal Alienation

+ Is simultaneous abuse of women and children


+ Is a form of emotional abuse

+ Occurs within both domestic violence and child sexual abuse

Men who alienate children from their mothers usually manage to convince the children and all those involved with the family that they are blameless and misunderstood, and the mother is to blame for all the problems. In this way, maternal alienation successfully hides the man's responsibility for the violence and abuse, and directs peoples attention towards the so called bad mother. The man who uses these tactics remains "invisible".

What is the evidence for it?

...In the area of child sexual abuse

A number of researchers and practitioners in the 1990's researched the tactics used by child sex offenders to isolate and entrap the child he was abusing. They found that the offender's greatest concern was to break the child's trust in his/her mother.

"The most common tactic acknowledged by (sex offenders) was that of dividing mother and child" 9Lang, 1000, 147).

The abusive man had appeared to take over the child, drawing her into secrecy surrounding the abuse and excluding the mother" (Hooper, 1992)

"The offender's actions create a context in which the mother and child are blind to his role in creating the difficulties in their relationship"

(Lang & Kamsler, 1990, 169)

Children's descriptions of the victimization process illustrate the way in which such "special" relationships are constructed, with abusive men manipulating children's estrangement from pontential sources of support.. study of abusive men show's they are fully aware of this process" (Hooper, 1992, 38)

..In the area of Domestic Violence

Recently there has been concern about the damaging effects of domestic violence on children, and some understanding of the manipulation of the mother-child relationship by men who use violence and abuse.

"Many practitioners and women commented that the undermining of the relationship between women and their children is a common behavior perpetrated by men who are violent" (Irwin, Waugh &Wilkinson, 2002, 129)

Maternal Alienation is deliberate and intentional. This element of intention has long been recognized as an aspect of violence against women.

Gender violence is intentional and patterned, and aims at achieving certain outcomes (Dobash & Dobash 1988, 141; Ptacek, 1998, 150)

Through instilling of fear, the humiliation, the degradation, the assault on her idenitiy as a woman", (Ptacek, 1988, 147), to perpetrators of violence set out to punish, to inflict injury, to silence, to isolate and to maintain dominance against women, in a form that is directed also against her relationship with her child.

..From 1999 Research on Maternal Alienation

In 1999 a research project was carried out in notth of Adelaide to investigate what had been perceived as an aspect of violence against women and children, This phenomemon had not received adequet recognition, and during research, the term maternal alienation was coined to name it (Morris, 1999)

The research identified a number of tactics commonly used by men to destroy the mother child relationship. These were based on both<

+ Denigrating the mother as a figure to be despised

+ Elevating the father as both a victim and a hero (Morris, 1999, 1990/2000) Maternal

Alienation is a powerful strategy of abuse, Its power is drawn from the tendency in our society to trust and believe what men say over and above what women and children say. Its power is also drawn from the tendency to give more credibility to those who appear logical and calm, over those who seem distressed. People who have been traumatised usually convey their testimonies in emotional and apparently incoherent ways, and what they say isoften painful to hear (Herman).

On the other hand, those that use power and control over others often speak logically and articulately, and so many be more likely to be believed. Thus professionals and non professionals alike may take up a man's explanation that the mother is to blame for the problems in the family, while he has been misunderstood and wronged.

Indeed, the research found that, lacking an understanding of maternal alienation, service providers accross many services and sectors tended to believe the man and often acted to exacerbate the family situation (Irwin et al; Morris, 1999).

When and where does it occur?

It appears that maternal alienation is a common element of domestic violence, as well as a part of child sexual abuse.

The men who perpetrate maternal alienation may not be the fathers of the children involved, but are the perpetrators of abuse against that woman and her children.

In some families, men use maternal alienation as one of the modes of abuse that is ongoing in that family, so that children grow up continually exposed to these denigrating messages about, and behaviours to, their mother.

In other cases, maternal alienation begins when a couple separates, and a man may use maternal alienation as a strategy to gain control of the children, and to isolate and punish his ex partner.

Involvement in court processes such as those to determine contact and living arangements is one major forum for the use of these tactics.

It is also common when maternal alienation is used at these times, for a man to attempt to turn a woman's family and friends against her as well as her children, and to try to involve other services such as Child Protection against her as well.

This next part is called

"Dont Women Do It Too"

Here is a part I disagree with, like I'll say until the day I die; alienation IS NOT GENDER SPECIFIC!

So therefore I am posting this as the full article but making it clear that I FIRMLY believe a narcissist or BPD WILL ALIENATE a child for their own personal gain..

Sad part is that men and women are spending so much time arguing the validity of Parental Alienation Syndrome that our children are being destroyed.

Is it that hard to understand ALIENATION IS NOT GENDER SPECIFIC? If anyone were to combine this article with info from Parent Alienation Syndrome articles and combine them, maybe just maybe they would figure out it's BOTH!

(1) It CAN and IS being used by abusive men, who are using similar tactics for sexual abuse of the child. AS WELL AS...

(2) It CAN and IS being used by abusive women also who want the child for themselves for again personal gain, perhaps not for sexual abuse of the child, but for abusing their husband or to ensure they are the custodial parent as to not pay C.S. or simply to lock in C.S. from their husbands.

Once "they" wake up and combine Maternal Alienation and Parent Alienation Syndrome and admit that both sexes have been guilty of alienating, there will be hope.

(Men reading this keep reading- there's a but in here somewhere in RED)

That said here's the rest of the article..

which by the way can be found in its original PDF by clicking the TITLE of this blog

Dont women do it too?

Most Domestic Violence and child sexual abuse is perpetrated by men (Irwin and Thorpe).

Similarly, most "successful" perpetrators of parent-child alienaton are men. When women try to alienate their children against their father, societal structures and beliefs make this difficult for women to achieve successfully.

(Now here in the next sentance I agree) People are more ready to hear and act on negative and blaming stories about women than about men.

(Therein lies the biggest problem with children being alienated IMO- once DV is personality specific not gender specific- the next generation has a chance)

These views can be reflected by service providers that become involved with family members (Irwin et al; Edleson; Morris, 1999; Humphreys).

Below, I agree with this comment somewhat- IN MY UNPROFESSIONAL OPINION - once again it is personality specific I feel this study must have been done with truly abused women who are usually like their male alienated counterparts, doormats aka yes people aka what I want need comes after what makes YOU happy aka Co -Dependent/Co Narcissist personalitys we are/were more willing to be the nice guy, the one that does everything right- the one who only wants whats fair and just- the one who is willing to scarfice for their child- the peace maker. The one who was alienated the TARGET!

(I honestly don't feel they included any Borderlines (BPD) or female narcissists in this study.)

Important message - (Anything in RED should not be taken as medical or legal advice since it's only MY OPINION.)

Also making it less likely for women to act as alienators is their concern to support their children's relationship with their father, even at a cost to themselves.
(Irwin et al; Mullender et al)

The recent study by Mullender and colleagues reported that :

"What was remarkable ..was the extent to which mothers were willing to maintain a varity of forms of contact between the children's wishes and interests than their own saftey.

This finding is consistent with that in earlier studies..thus demonstrating a patern in women's decisions about contact that is at odds with what the courts frequently assume" (198)

My opinion on the above issue is..teach children in the JR High school years not to be "victims" of any kind. Teach assertiveness, teach personality disorders as part of the mandated cirriculum. As adults we need to make sure no child goes into H.S. not knowing what to watch out for in abusive relationships!

For those of us that are/were abused men and women, have others that have learned the difference between assertiveness, agressive behaviour, and door mats try to teach those that are comfortable in abusive/abused positions that until they change the nice guy, or the I come second attitude, things in their world will always be same ole same ole, and then they have no right to whine about it! Once someone is aware of the abusers tactics, and they themselves stand up and say OK ENOUGH, the abusers will walk all over you! Yes I learned this lesson the VERY HARD WAY!

I feel this information below is also the case in Parent Alienation when the abuser is the Female against the male..

Who is affected?

As maternal alienation is simultaneous abuse of children and women, both children and women are affected by it.

The effects can last a lifetime. Effects on the Children:

+ Children are divided from their mother, and are blocked from acccessing her as a loving nuturing parent + Children's trust in loving relationships is undermined

+ Children are affected in many ways by being used as "pawns" in the man's long campaigns against the mother and/or the child.

+ Children are trapped in a world created and controlled by the abuser + Children are often coached into perpetrating abuse and violence against their mother- and this may affect their later relationships with other women.

+ Children are punished for not participating in abuse against their mother.

+ Children often cannot heal from the effects of being subject to abuse while that are forced to adopt the "realities" of the perprtrator.

+ Children are caught up in primary relationship with a parent who is incosistent. tyrannical and puts his needs above those of his child. He may continue hsi abuse against the child.

+ Children often take up the role of the carer for their father, and subjugate their needs to his.

I feel this information below can be read as "effects on the victim" , and him and her after that can also be interchangable, but for the intention of "this article" I wont get into this part any deeper.

Effects on women:

+Women often blame themselves, and see themselves as the person others see them as-that is, as the person portrayed by the man who abuses her.

+Women are isolated and alienated from their family and community- sometimes for the rest of theier life.

+ Women feel enormous grief at "losing" their children.

+ Women find that they have little room to "move"- whatever they do, their words and actions are re-interpreted by the abuser (to children, family, community, professionals)

+ Women are traumatised by continual emotional abuse and the undermining of their relationships and attempts to communicate.

+ This constellation of effects impacts on a women's ability to represent themselves well in fourms as thej Family Court.

(My opinion once again - if the measures of assertiveness I mentioned earlier coupled with education in law- one has a better chance at defending oneself anywhere, if the card's aren't stacked against you with corruption or connections- But that stands with either sex)

I feel this can and should be used for both maternal alienation and Parent Alienation Syndrome..

What is being done about it?

Maternal alienation and it's devastating effects on children and women need to be understoof by more people. If more people and more services to families recognised it, something could be done about it.

These people and services include:

+ Families

+ Neighbors

+ Schools

+ Police

+ Community Health Workers

+ Jusges and Magistrates

+ Lawyers

+ Family Court Officials

+ Child Protection Workers

+ Child Care Workers

+ Child Health Workers

+ Domestic Violence Services

+ Religious Leaders People and services involved with the mother and/or childrencan make a positive difference if they

+ Support the mother to help her rebuild her realtionship with her children. This enables her to support and protect her children in the future, as well as helping her over come the effects of violence and abuse herself. The latest research points out that good practice for better child protection should be built on supporting the mother, (Irwin, Waugh &Wilkinson, 2003; Mullender, Hague et al 2002) not blaming or punishing her further (Edleson, 1998)

+ Understand and make visable the role of the man who uses abuse in this way. The invisablity of the perpetrator of abuse is an unhelpful, even dangerous tendency(Edleson, 1998) and is a strong factor in services not being able to address his continuing campaign against the mother and child.

A project called Maternal Alienation Project was set up in Adelaide in August 2002 to inform professional workers about maternal alienation and develop tools for addressing it's effects on children and women. This projectis set up as a partnership between Northern Metropolitan Community Health Service, Women's Health Statewide and University of Adelaide.

My last opinion on this subject is that if we can only bring this to America and incorperate it into everything I've mentioned above, Family Courts and CPS would be out of busniess and we all know that wont ever happen. But if my sharing this is able to help anyone- then it was worth all the work it involved.. in bringing it to you.

For more info on Maternal Alienation please see the link TITLE where I took all this info from to bring it to you- in hopes of saving at least one child!

http://www.whs.sa.gov.au/pub/Maternal_Alienation_Fact_S.pdf

Letters to the Editor

These are Letters a good friend of mine wrote to the Editor or the Brooklyn Daily Eagle.

To the Editor,

I read with interest your July 25, 2007 article on the naming of Monsignor Edward Scharfenberger as a “Promoter of Justice” in the Brooklyn legal community.
I urge that the corruption scandals in Brooklyn which have absorbed the public’s attention in matrimonial and family law matters deserve the close study of such a figure.

I propose for his consideration the positioning of an advisory moral and ethical authority such as his Diocesan Tribunal along with similar others from other faith traditions. The goal would be to respond to litigants who say they are being unheard and unheeded by the skeleton and fragmented crew of ethics and disciplinary bodies within the Judiciary and the Attorney Grievance Committees.

I think the need is greatest at the moment in family law. Granted, the Catholic Church does not approve of divorce, but does it approve of the rough handling of the sacred relationships between parent and child by the court system. Many veterans of divorce, both male and female, say that the process left them busy and broke for years without closure or healing as they were forced to watch the slow motion train wreck of their lives and their families.

Does our court system only know how to spell retribution and not restoration? Four years ago, Kings County D.A. Joe Hynes stunned the legal community in Brooklyn with the arrests of court officers and a [state] Supreme Court judge in the midst of the Levy v. Levy child custody case. According to witnesses, on the day the sentence was read mandating jail time of three to 10 years for Judge Gerald Garson and one year for Law Guardian Paul Simonovsky, Sigal Levy’s older sons were heard to publicly rail against their mother with rage and blame-filled venom, perhaps egged on by Garson attorney Michael Washor’s stab at blame shifting one last time against the traumatized and victimized mother, Sigal Levy, as if to say to the sentencing judge — the mother was going to lose custody of the boys anyway, so what’s the big deal? The big deal, we must ask, is what role did paternal and spousal bullying play in this going-to-win-anyway zero/sum litigation behind the scenes? What is the road back to parent/child restoration of relationship now that the criminal trial is over?

We have to ask ourselves what good is the court system to the Levy family even if the culprits are finally locked up? Is our system of jurisprudence off the hook if it leaves the soul of the family as bad off or worse in its suffering than when the family tragedy of divorce began? What the Levy family really needs is something our system hasn’t yet wrapped its arms around. Families like the Levys need to emerge as whole and healed as possible in spite of divorce and scandal. That won’t happen without intentional efforts on the part of people of good will and action. The giving and receiving of love, trust and emotional stability in parent-child relationships needs to get back on track and the wounded parties need to be allowed to heal. How to do that? First, for accountability, the question needs to be asked: Does the court system in fact play a destructive role in handing out the nails to the coffin for this and other families caught up in contested litigation? Hasn’t the court system ignored and compounded the financial and emotional exploitation by virtue of its very structure and modus operandi? Is the court system teachable? Can it be schooled in the ways of restorative justice by a bonafide and respected core group of interfaith promoters of justice from wisdom and faith traditions?

Is anyone in the court system ready to take a leadership position in order to discover the far reaching and soul-searing family abuse generated by a bullying and/or criminal spouse and parent with the help of court officials? This issue of spousal and parental bullying deserves its own column and is related to the nature of abuse of power — ethical, moral and personal — within the family and the court system.

— Nora Drew Renzulli
Staten Island, NY

The following letter was written in response to the July 25 article on Monsignor Edward Scharfenberger’s designation as a “Promoter of Justice” in the Brooklyn Diocese.

‘Bullying Spouse Syndrome’

In New York State we have recognized that elder abuse deserves our special attention so that the elderly are not exploited financially by their caregivers. The NYS Penal Code now provides for prosecution and specific focus on crimes against those age 60 and over. I believe that family abuse without age limit needs to be our next category for heightened awareness. We need to protect families of all ages, particularly those with children, from exploitation and abuse. As we know, the court system operates on the premise that the generation of conflict — our adversary system — is meant to lead to legal truth. We see, of course, that it can fall woefully short when the ability to reach the truth is short-circuited by lies, intimidation, and criminal behavior by court officials and litigants.
I respectfully suggest that the various faith traditions, be they Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic or others, not shy away from identifying the problem of corruption and unethical behavior in the court system itself. The self-regulation of the legal system is not working. We need respected outsiders to help establish a plumb line for measuring what is straight and what isn’t against the wall of deceit and manipulation we find ourselves confronting and recoiling from in the [trial of former Justice Gerald Garson, who was convicted on charges of bribe receiving].

Many people say that the glaring systemic corruption we were exposed to in that horrific case is only the tip of the iceberg. Interesting that they say iceberg. Ice is where in Dante’s imaginary journey to purgatory and hell he found the worst of sinners, those he recognized as traitors to family in the furthest distance of separation from God. They were not burning in the hellfires we usually picture in our minds as eternal damnation, but frozen in ice up to their necks.

The Bullying Spouse Syndrome (BSS) is my modest contribution as terminology to the naming of the problem and the search for solutions to family exploitation. I welcome readers to comment. I would like the Monsignor [Scharfenberger] to consider taking on a leadership role along with representatives of other faith traditions. I am anecdotally aware of a number of pending cases in which BSS is operating but presently under the radar screen or ken of family court and matrimonial judges in Kings County and elsewhere in the state. Obviously, the judge who took over the Levy case from Judge Garson has not been able to stop the ugliness and alienation that the children of the marriage were steeped in by a bullying spouse and father who was willing to corrupt his children by teaching them to hate their own mother and stunt them spiritually to achieve his end of “winning” custody. Avrahom Levy was the obvious catalyst and traitor to family — his children’s true interest to learn to give and receive love to both parents was obstructed and denied. This fraud on the children led to his attempted fraud on the court that ended with gaining the crucial participation of a venal judge and his favored law guardian. An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. May the wise and learned and spiritual masters in our midst help guide our way closer to human dignity and peace for bullied spouses and their children asking for justice from the court system.

— Nora Drew Renzulli
Staten Island, NY

Have You Been Victimized By The System?

We want you!

If you are or have been a victim of the system, if your children are victims of the system, we want you to become part of the Class Action Lawsuit and other events planed this summer for our God given rights, to our children!

Or, if you are a young adult, or are a Tax Payer you can join in as well.

See FAQ here-
http://indianacrc.org/FAQ.html

For a more detailed list of who can join, use this link-
http://www.indianacrc.org/ncp-cps-kid-taxpayer.html

My name is Louise, I am one of the State Directors for the United Civil Rights Councils of America.

We are looking for Non Custodial parents and their families, that have been victimized by the system! You are not alone, we are in numbers to high to ignore!

We are looking for families that have been victims of ACS (Child Protective Services) abuses as well!

If you or someone you know has been victimized and has had their civil rights trampled on, or eradicated, then this message is for you!

I need you to contact me (If you are in Westchester) or join your local yahoo group so we can make sure you are part of these important Civil Rights events happening this summer!

Simply go to this web site and join your local group, this is a class action lawsuit involving EVERY STATE! Copy and past the link below, and get involved, then tell a friend and have them tell a friend!

We want Government out of our families, we want the rights to raise our children free of unjustified Governmental interference! Too many wonderful parents are taken out of their children's lives and we've had it!

Join in on the class action lawsuits, find your State and join the local group for your county! Kick off 7/22/07

Tell your story on August 11th, 2007 to over 700 reporters, at the Straw Poll's!

Join us in D.C. on August 18th 2007, be heard!

Join us for the New Tea Party 9/17/07!

Don't sit there and take it- Take action today!

Contact me for more info or just go directly to this site and join your local group!
http://indianacrc.org/classaction01.html

Stand up America, Our rights to our children have been ignored long enough!

One of the N.Y. State Directors:
Louise Uccio
HaveUmistakenMe@aol.com

Breaking News!

A must read!

Breaking News: Supreme Court Upends Family Court.

June 18, 2007San Diego

With the U.S. Supreme Court considering applying the Confrontation Clause in Crawford retro-actively and all courts being equal - marks a new day for family court attorneys. Bringing in out-of-court statements without the speaker testifying in person "is fundamentally at odds with the right of confrontation," U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Crawford vs. Washington 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004).

Requiring children testify will happily turn the current custody process in family court upside down, according to Bonnie Russell of USAjudges.com.

Should the Court decides to apply Crawford retroactively, thousands of child custody cases might be completely retried as parents and attorneys realize they can pro-actively end parental alienation, false accusations and preserve the relationship between parent and child."Within a short period of time custody cases will resolve," Russell said.

"The standards of one court would not be any less in another, especially in criminal abuse of a child Family Court judges routinely address.

The Crawford ruling is a sudden ravine through the foundation that has held families hostage to a divorce and custody industry," Russell said while en route to a speaking engagement at a American College of Trial Lawyers 10th Regional meeting in Oklahoma City.

Traditionally Family Court judges eschewed listening to children, preferring instead to grant a full employment act to therapeutic experts and Guardian Ad Litems to act as intermediaries, and report directly to the courts without the children themselves ever testifying.

These third parties would not relay complaints, but report their interpretations of the child's words, and opinions of cases as fact.This resulted with thousands of parents losing custody rights to their children without the court ever directly hearing of experiences from a child.

Such conditions stoked parental alienation cases, in which parent with custody emotionally isolate children and effectively convince them of problems and situations that never existed."What has happened in family courts has been criminal in an ironic way, Russell says.

"Families have been torn apart, children turned against loving parents, because too many professionals had a financial interest in preventing children from speaking for themselves."The Court applying Crawford retro-actively, means attorneys will be able to reopen previously settled cases.

"This might be painful for some" says Russell, but family court has needed this clean wind to dry so many unnecessary tears.

Things will have to be different going forward. The only question is whether those who have already been through the system might finally see justice as well. Who knows with retro-applicability in the future, maybe some parents will just decide to stop fighting and on their own decide a fifty-fifty split."

Be Part Of the Solution

I have placed an Ad on Craigs list.. won't you do the same?
D.C. Family Rights Rally

Has your Family been destroyed by the current "System"?

Have you been torn from your Child/Children's lives by a vindictive ex, or the money driven Divorce Machine?

Perhaps it was the Government funding/incentives to State run "Child Protective Services" agencies that's at the root of your "founded" case that tore your family apart?

We are meeting in Washington DC on August 18, 2007, please join us!
(Link to Rally http://www.dcrally2007.com/)

We are also looking for more Main Stream Media to cover these events, hopefully we can bring awareness, which will cause change in the current "System" and save the future of America- OUR CHILDREN!

Two dedicated Fathers chose to bring awareness to the event by trecking 600+ miles by bicycle to attend!
(Link to story and info on this amazing effort by two Dads http://daddy.typepad.com/daddyblog/2007/04/robert_and_rob_.html)

My contribution today is this Ad as well as my daily blogs which can be found at..http://www.disgustedwiththesystem.blogspot.com/

Get involved, these are innocent children, being torn from their Families because of dollar signs on thier forheads! By working together we pray to get those dollar signs erased!

Are your children victim's of the system?

Gail Head
Awareness Quilt Project

***** PERMISSION GRANTED to distribute this information which may or may not include posting it to other websites and groups. *****


==========================================================================================
UPDATED INFORMATION IS BELOW
==========================================================================================


This Awareness QUILT Project is being created for display to bring attention to the plight of so many innocent children who have been VICTIMIZED BY CORRUPT Family Courts, and or STOLEN by CPS and placed into Foster Care, and some even SOLD into Adoptions by these same state agencies via the family courts. There is NO age limit nor restictions for being included if the child has been "victimized", they are WELCOME to be included in this quilt . It matters not whether the child was or is still in Foster Care, is or is not now home, or was in Foster Care but aged out of the system and was released, is or was or remains in Kinship care, or was SOLD into State arranged adoptions, they "should" be included in this quilt to show that they are NOT isolated cases and that this IS a National Problem . If your child/ren has been a victim of Governmental Corruption, then this QUILT Project INCLUDES your child/ren.

There are NO charges to you for the participation, unless you wish to have your child's photo included in this quilt. Having each child represented with his or her own square, costs you $ 0.00 which equals "ZERO".

SPECIFICATIONS: If you wish to make the squares youself, there should be ONE 5-inch x 5-inch square for EACH child. The fabric may be new or used and taken from old clothes, sheets, baby blankets, or even purchased new at a local store where fabrics are sold. If you wish to cut the squares from something that your child/ren used or wore, that will be fine. We ask that you please put EACH child's first name or initial and last name, date of birth or age, State case is/was in (town NOT needed), date they became victims of Family Court Corruption, or were STOLEN by CPS and placed in Foster or Kinship care, Date they returned home/aged out of system/SOLD into adoption or indicate if still in out of home care, or whatever applies, on the square that is representative of them. You may hand-write the information on the square with a permanent magic marker or ink pen, embroider it, use fabric paints, or even scan a picture on the computer, print it out, and transfer it to the squares. You are also welcome to cut the squares a little larger then 5-inches by 5 inches --- I will trim them down when I start to use them.

If you wish to just submit your child's information for inclusion in this quilt, all you need to do is send (mail or email) the above information for the child and they WILL be included in the quilt
If you wish to have the child's photo included in the quilt, the cost for the photo square is $ 3.00, which is to cover my cost of materials for making this. It is NOT a money-making scheme. Examples of these squares are visible in the posted photos of this quilt. You may mail the photo you wish to have used, or email the photo. Please mail your payment for the photo squares to the address given below.

We want these squares to be "personal" for your child so that when seen, people will realized that these are and were REAL children who have been victimized by Government Corruption in Family Courts and or Child Protective Services Agencies. I will post and make photos of this quilt available throughout the construction of it.

This QUILT will make its DEBUT in Washington DC on August 18, 2007, at the national Rally being held there to bring attention to the plight of our families and our children. It will also be displayed wherever there are other rallies, conventions, or affairs in which it has the chance to raise awareness about what is going on and happening to our children and make it known to our elected Public Officials that WE WANT CHANGE and PROTECTION for our families.

To participate in this project, Please send the squares representative of your child/ren to, or email the information to ghead@wccs.net

Quilt Project
c/o Gail Head
PO Box 392
Paradise, TX 76073

WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT~!!! DO IT for the love of your child/ren.

Sincerely,

Gail Head

Until my children are returned..

REFRESH - Go to Home-Page

It seems from my site meter readings that this is one of the more popular blog entries from my blog being shared via email and saved in favorites, around Staten Island, Brooklyn and New York so this blog entry was UPDATED.

Apparently when I originally wrote this... I didn't consider that the legal kidnapping of my children disguised as a custody/divorce case was, could be, or is larger than what it looks like on paper...

Alternatively, what it looks like when you put all the pieces together... a R.I.C.O case!!

Stupid me thought there would be justice in the courts.

Never did I consider that court employees including attorneys, judges, Secretaries, forensic evaluators and hearing officers would or could engage in R.I.C.O. Duh.. I'm learning my lesson being naieve dosen't work when your dealing with evil forces.

The more I research my case the more I'm convinced it is nothing short of a R.I.C.O. case - here you decide for yourself.

(R.I.C.O. Act ... then if the shoe fits.. what's that they say?) Wear it?

I didn't realize that my own attorneys would sell me out but now that I believe this is a RICO case ... of course they would or they wouldn't ever prevail in their legal professions)

I had no idea that a domestic violence judge Judge Silber, would let my attorney off the hook for an apparent B.S. break down in communication after my attorney demanded that we ask for visitation for me with my children to INCLUDE at all times my abusive estranged husband among many other things and I refused to sign the half assed bullshit motion to modify custody. But hind site being 20/20 now that I believe this is a R.I.C.O. Case I have to believe ... of course she would.. there were so many players before her This apparent RICO case involved to many people to allow my attorney to totally expose it.

Keep in mind the apparent fraud and preclusion of critical evidence (a false ACS case) used by Ms. Catherine Bridge Esq., Ms. Amerose., the late Mr. Mario Accunzo esq., and Hearing Officer Gallet in my estranged husbands custody being over turned.

Keep in mind this is the same estranged husband that has alienated kidnapped the children from me for the last SIX YEARS and refused me ANY CONTACT..

DUH if I thought about it they were kidnapped why would I have contact!

Keep in mind that I have a final and forever Order of Protection, which since his apparent political connections I might as well wipe my (&%$ with it, the police REFUSE TO INVESTIGATE his stalking me. Another DUH! Keep in mind R.I.C.O. then this all makes sense.
UPDATE finished, back to the original blog entry...

I will blog and talk about and demand justice for my family..

I'm sure they would like to put a gag on me..

But while I still have a voice I will do whatever it takes to educate the public on what is happening to families behind closed doors.

FYI mr wonderful is what I call my estranged ex.

I have a My Space account MySpace.com that my estranged husband and his side kick stalk me on, I'd like to share some of the intimidation tactics they are trying to use to silence me.

In responce to this blog,

Current mood: determined
Latest Comments

From
Subject
Time Posted
1 NEW!» AggieWhat's up with this? 09 Apr 07 1:42P..

Tomorrow it will be THREE WEEKS since Mr. wonderful (ex) has made it concrete clear for the record that he is stalking me.

Today he felt the need to respond with more psycho babble to my blog dated April 6th, as if anyone wants to hear what he has to say, but nonetheless he feels the need continue his stalking and harassing, despite my asking NUMEROUS times for him to stop, also despite my warning him that I have a valid O.P.

I'm begining to wonder if the political influence/connection it appeared he had, has figured out that my lawyer and I are on to what has been going on in Staten Island, with my case. (Proven with records or the lack thereof) and left him flat on his face to deal with the 200+ pages of a divorce motion.

A divorce motion in which my lawyer makes it clear that we feel all the civil rights violations (Proven in Exhibits A-Z then AA-ZZ) that I have had to endure over the last SIX YEARS may be connected to Supreme Ct Judge Barbara Panepinto, who happens to be married to Joseph Panepinto Director of the CYO, who BTW is my ex's boss and happens to share the same sir name as Aggie Panepinto (Ex's GF).

I am also wondering why it is, that no matter how many times I blog (here or on my Google bloger acount) about the suspicious coincidence with the Panepinto name, Mr wonderful pretends he never read that part of the blog, yet he will try desperately to distract from the meat and potatoes of this case which is the numberous civil rights violations, I feel were set into place because of this possible political connection.

Now another thing that makes ya go hmmmmmmm...

It's been SIXTY SIX days since he's been served with a Divorce action yet he has not answered.
(1) Could it be that his incompetent lawyer refused to stay on with him, given what has been exposed in the divorce papers?

(2) Could it be that he can't find a lawyer stupid enough to take on a case with such insane proven civil rights violations?

(3) Could my lawsuit against the City and ACS have spread thru the system?

(4) Could it be that someone somewhere is concerned that the county I have brough this case to is under Federal investigation?

(5) Could he think I'm stupid enuff to take his bait and arguee with him?

Or (D) all of the above?

They posted this,

i like to know wherre you come up with this carbage. how your mind works. they took your kids away face it thats all you have to do face it. instead you use every excuse in the book like corruption in the courts there is none wake up there is no realtionship with barbara panepinto and me . why dont you call her and ask. you know what let me call her and let her know that her name is all over the computer what do you call that slander.
Posted by Aggie on Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at 5:22 AM

Which inspired me to post this,

Libel and slander Category: News and Politics

It appears that my Stalker estranged husband and his side kick aggie panepinto are misinformed once again...

FACT- AGGIE's Surname is PANEPINTO

FACT- MR WONDERFUL- is or was for over TEN YEARS EMPLOYED

(if that's the proper term for his being paid as a referee)

with the CATHOLIC YOUTH ORGANIZATION aka CYO

FACT- MR JOSEPH PANEPINTO- is or was the DIRECTOR of THE SAME CYO where mr wonderful is or was EMPLOYED

FACT- JUDGE BARBARA PANEPINTO- is or was a JUDGE IN STATEN ISLAND SUPREME COURT and is or was married to CYO DIRECTOR JOSPEH PANEPINTO

FACT- This case was in the Staten Island family court

FACT- ACS (agency for child protective services) and NYC ARE the defendants in a CLAIM BY MS. LOUISE UCCIO AND HER ATTORNEY- FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION and NEGLIGENT MISREPSENTATION derived from a FALSE "SUBSTANTIATED" ACS CASE - wherein LOUISE UCCIO was FALSELY ACCUSED of being a drug addict who attempted suicide, ON JULY 12, 2006 CASE WAS OVERTURNED!

FACT- mr wonderful called ACS NUMEROUS TIMES in 2001- trying to have MS. UCCIO's children taken from her-all but the last one WERE UNFOUNDED and ACS workers PUT IN WRITTING mr wonderfuls claims were NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE!

FACT- mr wonderful's ATTORNEY CATHERINE BRIDGE- was able to LEGALLY KEEP MS. UCCIO's CHILDREN FROM HER- AND HAVE CUSTODY FLIPPED TO mr wonderful WITH LIES -USING A FILED FOR BUT NOT RECIEVED ORDER OF PROTECTION AGAINST MS. UCCIO FOR HER DAUGHTER- ALSO BY USING THE FALSE SUBSTAINCIATED ACS CASE WHICH INDICATED MS. UCCIO WAS DRUG ADDICT WHO ATTEMPTED SUICIDE- THAT WAS HIS TRUMP CARD THAT WAS NEVER TRUE OR REVEALED IN COURT!

FACT- MS. UCCIO LOST CUSTODY WITHOUT BEING ALLOWED TO DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST HEARING OFFICER BONNIE COHEN GALLET, AND MS AMEROSE'S ACCUSATIONS OF DRUGS. IN FACT MS UCCIO WAS DENIED DRUG TESTING, ALSO A FACT MS. UCCIO's VOLUNTARY NEGATIVE HAIR DRUG TEST WAS DISMISSED BY HEARING OFFICER GALLET.

FACT- MS. UCCIO AND HER CHILDREN'S CIVIL RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TRAMPLED ON!

FACT- mr wonderful and his side kick aggie panepinto HAVE NOT ENCOURAGED ANY CONTACT BETWEEN THE CHILDREN AND MS. UCCIO. IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS SINCE THEY HAVE HAD A VISIT WITH THEIR MOTHER!

FACT- The children HAVE BEEN TURNED AGAINST MS. UCCIO SINCE 2002.

FACT- mr wonderful is unable to show respect for the childrens mother MS. UCCIO.

FACT- mr wonderful's inability to respect or even tollerate MS. UCCIO along with mr wonderful's NEED FOR REVENGE has led to an ESTRANGED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILDREN!

FACT- EVERY WORD OF THIS IS IN A 200+ PAGE DIVORCE ACTION served upon mr wonderful on february 2, 2007 which mr wonderful has not answered -45 days and counting.

MY OPINION- mr wonderful isn't smart enough to have pulled this off without someone's guideance and or help.

MY OPINION- mr wonderful underestimated me again, and never thought I would put 2 (aggie-panepinto) and 2 (Jospeh-panepinto) and 2 (Barbara panepinto) and 2 (CYO) and 2 (civil rights violations against my children and I ) together, and see these as possible red flags

FACTS- A PSYCHIATRIST and A PSYCHOLIGIST and A THERAPIST' as well as my LAWYER's OPINION- "ALL THESE FACTS ADD UP TO A VERY SUSPICIOUS COINCIDENCE." and "EGREGIOUS CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS"

FACT- I have always stated facts and let anyone reading it or hearing it decide for themself.

FACT- mr wonderful and his sidekick ARE STALKING ME, BREAKING A VALID ORDER OF PROTECTION!

MY OPINION- There isn't a lawyer on this planet that would take mr wonderful's case and attempt to defend him, especially in westchester where the FBI are still investigating corruption in the courts.

MY OPINION- All these FACTS have put mr wonderful into a corner and he feels trapped, and this "IN MY OPINION" is why he appears to be out of control, and why I fear for my life!

Slander and libel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Slander and libel
In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc and the like, then it is considered libel.

"Libel" comes from Latin : libellus ("little book")[1][2]
Even if a statement is derogatory, there are circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law.
Truth
Libel is studied in forensics. In many, though not all, legal systems, statements presented as fact must be false to be defamatory. Proving a defamatory statement to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel.

Statements of opinion that cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense. The use of the defense of justification has dangers, however. If the defendant libels the plaintiff and then runs the defense of truth and fails, he may be said to have aggravated the harm.

In some systems, however, notably the Philippines and the Canadian province of Quebec, truth alone is not a defense.[3] It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well-founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.

Public interest is generally not "that which the public is interested in," but rather that which is in the interest of the public. [4]

See also: Substantial truth

Privilege and malice

Privilege provides a complete bar and answer to a defamation suit, though conditions may have to be met before this protection is granted.

There are two types of privilege in the common law tradition:
"Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it was made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).

"Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made maliciously.
Similar but different delicts and torts

Some jurisdictions have a separate tort or delict of "verbal injury," "intentional infliction of emotional distress," or "convicium," involving the making of a statement, even if truthful, intended to harm the claimant out of malice; some have a separate tort or delict of "invasion of privacy" in which the making of a true statement may give rise to liability: but neither of these comes under the general heading of "defamation". Some jurisdictions also have the tort of "false light", in which a statement may be technically true, but so misleading as to be defamatory. There is also, in almost all jurisdictions, a tort or delict of "misrepresentation", involving the making of a statement which is untrue even though not defamatory; thus if a surveyor states that a house is free from the risk of flooding, he or she has not defamed anyone, but may still be liable to someone who purchases the house in reliance on this statement.

[edit] Criminal libel
Many nations have criminal penalties for defamation in some situations, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. For example, in Zimbabwe, "insulting the President" is, by statute, (Public Order and Security Act 2001) a criminal offense. The European Court of Human Rights has in some instances placed restrictions on libel laws by reason of the freedom of expression provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[5] An important example is Lingens v. Austria (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407. Lingens was fined for publishing in a Vienna magazine comments about the behavior of the Austrian Chancellor, such as 'basest opportunism', 'immoral' and 'undignified'. Under the Austrian criminal code the only defense was proof of the truth of these statements. Lingens could not prove the truth of these value judgments. The European Court of Human Rights stated that a careful distinction needed to be made between facts and value judgments/opinions. The existence of facts can be demonstrated, whereas the truth of value judgments is not susceptible of proof. The facts on which Lingens founded his value judgments were not disputed; nor was his good faith. Since it was impossible to prove the truth of value judgments, the requirement of the relevant provisions of the Austrian criminal code was impossible of fulfilment and infringed article 10 of the Convention.

Origins of defamation law
In most early systems of law, verbal defamations were treated as a criminal or quasi-criminal offense, its essence lying not in pecuniary loss, which may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be atoned for: a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By the law of the Twelve Tables, the composition of scurrilous songs and gross noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offenses of the same class seem to have found their place under the general conception of injuria, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression which involved abuse or insult.

In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of modern laws descend, verbal defamations are dealt with in the edict under two heads. The first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the offense lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offense lay in the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was therefore a sufficient defense, for no man had a right to demand legal protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough, because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of injuria.

The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the matter contained in them were true or false.

[edit] English law

[edit] Development of English defamation law
Modern libel and slander laws as implemented in many but not all Commonwealth nations, in the United States, and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from English defamation law.
The earlier history of the English law of defamation is somewhat obscure. Civil actions for damages seem to have been tolerably frequent so far back as the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). There was no distinction drawn between words written and spoken. When no pecuniary penalty was involved such cases fell within the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, which were only finally abolished in the eighteenth century. It seems, to say the least, uncertain whether any generally applicable criminal process was in use.

The crime of scandalum magnatum, spreading false reports about the magnates of the realm, was established by statutes, but the first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law is one tried in the Star Chamber in the reign of James I. In that case no English authorities are cited except a previous case of the same nature before the same tribunal; the law and terminology appear to be taken directly from Roman sources, with the insertion that libels tended to a breach of the peace; and it seems probable that not very scrupulous tribunal had simply found it convenient to adopt the very stringent Roman provisions regarding the libelli famosi without paying any regard to the Roman limitations. From that time we find both the criminal and civil remedies in full operation.

[edit] English admiralty law
In admiralty law, a libel was the equivalent of a civil lawsuit. The plaintiff was referred to as the "libellant". The verb "to libel" means "to sue [in admiralty]". Similar terminology was used in the United States legal system. The term has been rendered obsolete by the merger of the admiralty courts with tribunals of general jurisdiction and the adoption of simplified rules of civil procedure that specify "one form of action" for all claims.

[edit] Modern law
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
A statement can include an implication. A large photograph of Tony Blair above a headline saying "Corrupt Politicians" might be held to be an allegation that Tony Blair was personally corrupt.

The allowable defenses against libel are:
Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defense fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defense to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages.

Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.

Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defense of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published. The leading modern English case on qualified privilege in the context of newspaper articles which are claimed to defame a public figure is now Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45,[6] and the privilege has been widened by Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe 2006 UKHL 44, which has been described as giving British newspapers protections similar to the US First Amendment.[7]

An offer of amends - typically a combination of correction, apology and/or financial compensation - is a barrier to litigation in the courts.
The 2006 case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that discussions on the Internet were public enough for libel to take place.[8]

[edit] Burden of proof on the defendant
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. In criminal law, he or she is presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; whereas in civil law, he or she is presumed innocent until the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities. However, the common law of libel contains a kind of reverse-onus feature: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. In New York Times v Sullivan (376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710 (1964)), the United States Supreme Court changed this traditional feature of the common law with respect to public figures, and ruled that in cases where a public figure was libelled the burden of proof would be on the libeled person (the plaintiff). Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).

A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice. The definition of "public figure" has varied over the years.

The English laws on libel have traditionally favored the plaintiffs. A recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (in the so-called "McLibel case") held that, on the (exceptional) facts of that case, the burden on the defendants in the English courts was too high. However, it is unlikely that the case will provoke any considerable change in substantive English law, despite strong academic criticism of the current position.[9]

In 1990, McDonald's Restaurants sued Morris & Steel (called the McLibel case) for libel. The original case lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What's wrong with McDonald's: Everything they don't want you to know. The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sells unhealthy food, exploits its work force, practices unethical marketing of its products towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Although McDonald's won two hearings, the widespread public opinion against them turned the case into a matter of embarrassment for the company. McDonald's announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case.

Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries.

This is because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives strong protection to freedom of expression, which arose from the tradition of dissent in the American Revolution.

For most of the history of the United States, constitutional protections of freedom of speech had no impact on the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system.

This changed with the landmark 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, in which the
Supreme Court of the United States announced constitutional restrictions to state defamation law. The court held that where a public official was defamed, the plaintiff had to prove not just that an untruthful statement was made, but also that it was made with "actual malice" - that is, with knowledge of falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. The "actual malice" standard was subsequently extended to public figures in general, and even to private figure plaintiffs seeking punitive or presumptive damages.

One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Some states have criminal libel laws on the books, though these are old laws which are very infrequently prosecuted.

Most defendants in defamation lawsuits are newspapers or publishers, which are involved in about twice as many lawsuits as are television stations. Most plaintiffs are corporations, businesspeople, entertainers and other public figures, and people involved in criminal cases, usually defendants or convicts but sometimes victims as well. Almost all states do not allow defamation lawsuits to be filed if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. No state allows the plaintiff to be a group of people.

In the various states, whether by case law or legislation, there are generally several "privileges" that can get a defamation case dismissed without proceeding to trial. These include the allegedly defamatory statement being one of opinion rather than fact; or being "fair comment and criticism", as it is important to society that everyone be able to comment on matters of public interest. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected the opinion privilege outright and has declined to hold that the "fair comment" privilege is a Constitutional imperative.

[After Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, 1995 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995), applied the standard publisher/distributor test to find an online bulletin board liable for post by a third party, Congress specifically enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. §230(c) states that "that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties. Thereafter, cases such as Zeran v American Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), and Blumenthal v Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998), have demonstrated that although courts are expressly uneasy with applying §230, they are bound to find providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings. This immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, due to the fact that provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet.]

In November of 2006 the California Supreme Court ruled that 47 USC § 230(c)(1) does not permit web sites to be be sued for libel that was written by other parties.[10]