Start here

Malachi’s Law

Malachi's Law

Proposed solution…MALACHI’S LAW
We believe that Parental Alienation or PAS deserves legislative changes. Although we are weary of the overbearing enormity of big government, the tears of our children whom God stores in a bottle and the blood of our forefathers who died for our constitution cries out for change in the form of Malachi’s Law. Please follow the link for a full explanation of Malachi’s Law. In short, we believe the severity of the damage inflicted on our helpless, vulnerable children justifies criminalizing Parental Alienation or PAS to a minimum third degree felony with mandatory prison time.
Malachi’s Bill is citizen’s answer to unresponsive, corrupt family courts:

The bill will:
1. Design a “three strikes” for custodial parents who intend to subvert visitation with the non custodial parent and the child.
2. Visitation exchanges will occur at a location in the local police department. Each parent will identify themselves using a fingerprint scanner. Name, date will be recorded into a database.
3. Strike one. Custodial or non custodial parent does not show for the visitation exchange.
4. Strike two. Custodial parent does not show up for the visitation exchange. Child support obligations for the non custodial parent are relieved that month, and will resume the following month.
5. Strike three. Custodial parent does not show up for the visitation exchange, triggering a third degree felony for T.I.C.K – Tortious Interference Child Kidnapping. The State Attorney or Prosecutor will file charges on the custodial parent for T.I.C.K.
6. Exceptions will be made as necessary for health emergencies.
7. Immunity for State Attorneys, Attorneys and Judges will be removed if those parties fail to enforce T.I.C.K. Complaints for violations by any party including Judges and attorneys will be maintained in the T.I.C.K database, available as public information for no charge.
8. Non custodial parents who do not appear for parenting time at the exchange will trigger a 50% increase in child support for that month, since the burden of support will be on the custodial parent.

Malachi 4:6 (NIV)
6 He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

167 Red Flags or Examples of Parental Alienation
The Alienating parent will exhibit specific behaviors, signs and symptoms than those of the children and the target parent.  The following examples of Alienators behavior are called Red Flags.  The more of these a parent exhibits or enacts, the higher the probability of PAS occurring.  Below is a list of over 150 most often used tactics to alienate children from a parent.  A score of 10 or more is an indicator of PAS.
1. Impeding with visitation, despite orders
2. Denigrating the other parent in front of anyone who will listen, including the children, as well as calling the TP or step-parent derogatory names in front of the child.
3. Filing allegations of abuse while constantly dragging the ex into court for child support or alimony.  (Note: A truly abused individual wants to have nothing to do with the abuser, making face-to-face confrontation out of the question..
4. Stopping any contact with the children and the ex’s extended family or friends who disagree with them
5. Believing that they are above the law, and that all orders/laws were made for everyone else but them.
6. Impeding Communication with the children, including blocking access to school records and meetings and events.
7. Grilling the children about their visit, asking the children to spy or collect evidence.
8. Refusing visitation because the ex spouse has been unable to afford the child support or not made a payment.
9. Statements of constant hatred and vengeance about the ex-spouse
10.Refusal to disclose their home address
11. Refusal to supply or keep the other parent in the loop on medical issues, educational issues, events pertaining to the child/ren and so on.
12. Continually referring to the child as their own children and not the spouses.
13. Continually not enforcing the visitation with the other parent by claiming the children do not want to go (Barring no true abuse is truly going on. and using the excuse that they are not going to force the children to go see their other parent if they do not want to.
14. Impeding any court orders, including Counseling orders.
15. Moving the children away from a parent they once had a loving relationship with, and thus making visitation and a relationship next to impossible.
16. During visitation times, constantly calling the house, to speak with the child/ren or leaving nasty disruptive messages.
17. On days that TP is in a public place the parent shows up to either push, swear at or just intimidate them or the stepparent in front of the child.
18. Making the child feel emotional responsible for the parent’s happiness so that the child is as protective as an adult might be towards a young child.
19. Lying or even involving the child in the divorce proceedings and custody or child support issues.
20. Making the child feel uneasy about talking to their therapist or other official person.
21. Having the child call his non-custodial parent by his/her first name; instead of Daddy or Mommy
22. Preventing the children from contacting their father by pulling the phone out of the wall, changing their phone number, refusing to allow them to accept calls, refusing to allow them to make phone calls or lying and claiming the children are not home or are asleep.  
23. Discussing and involving the children in court, child support and other legal matters, which they should not be involved in.
24. Insisting that the children call the new person in the AP’s life “Mom or Dad”
25. Escalating PASing behavior if the NCP commences a new relationship
26. Insisting that the children NEVER call a stepparent “mum” or “dad”.
27. Hanging up the telephone if discussions do not follow “their” agenda
28. When the child is allowed to speak to the TP on the telephone the PASing parent will oversee the call, instructing the child on what to say and how to respond to the TP and force the end of the call if either child or TP fail to conduct the call as the PASing parent deems appropriate.
29. Deliberately pulling the children away if they meet the target parent out i.e. at the shops.
30. Avoiding children’s activities i.e. school events as the target parent may be there
31. Previous evidence of anger management issues
32. Poor family support network or a family network that supports the PASing behavior
33. Refuse to communicate via fax, email or letter as to do so will provide evidence in the form of a paper trail of their activities.
34. Will wait until the last minute to inform the target parent of changes to visitation.
35. Will feel it is their right to provide the children for visitation late but insist the children MUST be returned to the exactly on time.
36. Will not provide any information to the target parent about the children’s day-to-day activities but will insist on knowing exactly what the target parent will be doing with the children whilst they are with the TP.
37. Will choose to pay others to provide childcare and not utilize the TP even if it would be more suitable for all parties.
38. Will claim the child is too sick to visit the target parent.
39. Will claim the TP is not capable of parenting the child “Properly”
40. Cause the child to feel guilt about wanting to see their other parent
41. Avoid, at all costs, using a neutral drop off / pick up location
42. Refuse to allow the TP any contact with ‘Professionals’ who are in support of the PASing parent
43. Not allowing the children to participate in activities, where they may come into contact with children associated with the TP.
44. Will instruct the school that the TP is not to be trusted, inferring or clearly stating that the TP has lied to others about the PASing parent and children, including putting notes in school files about not allowing contact or pick up by Targeted Parent. 
45. If cornered about providing TP’s information for school records, Protective Services or any other official, the PASing parent will give false or misleading information.
46. PASing parent has removed pages from a child’s classroom journal that fail to support PASing parent’s ideology and/or support the TP.
47. Totally controlling the children’s social life
48. Becoming overly involved with the children’s activities i.e. cub leader, parent support worker so that they are constantly with the children and keep the other parent from attending these activities.
49. Lie to the children about the separation/divorce including by giving details that are ‘obviously’ untrue which deliberately impede the child’s ability to love the other parent i.e. dad spends all his money on his girlfriends so I can’t afford to let you go to camp.
50. Involve the children in all the aspects of the separation, divorce and on going legalities whilst claiming the child has the ‘right’ to know what is happening
51. Claiming the TP is victimizing, stalking, abusing, and harassing them to the point of actually involving the police.  Filing of false allegations of abuse,  making false and repeatedly harassing complaints to child protective agencies, police and others so as to constantly put the Targeted Parent under attack and investigation.
52. Encouraging the child to support the PASing parent to lie to authorities on how they are treated when with the TP even though there is no evidence of poor treatment, but just  the reverse.
53. Encourages the child to be defiant, to go on strike, to not comply with the reasonable rules when in the presence of TP.
54. PASing parent deliberately organizes ‘activities’ for the children on the TP’s visitation time i.e. parties, outings and social gatherings.
55. The PASing parent will use bribery and enticements to prevent a child from visiting with the TP, and make the child feel guilty for wanting to be with the TP rather than attend an event the PASing parent has organized to happen during TP visitation time.
56. Not allowing the children to have photos of or objects provided by the TP in the house.   The PASing parent will destroy any gifts, photo’s etc should the child bring them home.
57. When the child receives gifts from the TP and takes them home to show the PASing parent, the PASing parent refuses to allow the child to take them back to the TP’s house or keep them.
58. PASing parent refuses gifts from the TP and his family, actually making the children return them saying they are no good or cheap or useless and so on.
59. PASing parent will deliberately condemn the target parent’s gifts or purposely purchase them ahead the target parent so that the target parent’s gift is meaningless.
60. The PASing parent changes the child’s surname to the ‘new dads’ name without asking or notifying the birth father.
61. PASing parent will attend TP’s family functions without prior invite despite ‘knowing’ that their behavior will be viewed negatively.    The PASing parent will use this negativity to inform the children of the TP’s family’s hatred of them.
62. Refuses to pick up the telephone when the child is calling from the TP’s residence.
63. Insist that when the child is with the TP that they have the ‘right’ to excessive telephone contact with the child, yet allow the TP to have little to no telephone contact.
64. Deliberately changed the telephone number and maintaining a ‘silent’ number without notifying the TP or providing the TP with the number.
65. The PASing parent tells the child that ‘they hope they will be OK when with the TP, that they shouldn’t need to go to hospital, etc. thus creating an image of fear for the child when with the TP.
66. Telling the child that “Something” may happen to the PASing parent whilst the child is with the TP.
67. Demanding the TP pay for extra costs associated with child rearing i.e. Orthodontic work.
68. Informing the child that they cannot have ‘braces’ or other essentials because the TP won’t pay for it.
69. Refuse a child’s request to spend extra time with the TP, even when this time is for a one off special occasion. 
70. Refusing to send the child to school for events when the PASing parent becomes aware that the TP will be attending.
71. Removing money placed in the child’s bank account by the TP and not allowed the child to spend it or has not spent it on the child.
72. Tells the child in a deliberately malicious and vindictive manner that a behavior the child is / has done is similar to the TP.
73. PASing parent will excessively emphasize the physical and facial features that are similar to the PASing parent and associated family and ignore or deny features associated with the TP.
74. PASing parent refuses to allow the child to take a pet on visitation with TP even though TP is happy and willing to accommodate the pet.
75. PASing parent has deliberately moved without providing TP details prior to the move.
76. PASing parent has deliberately moved and refuses to provide TP with appropriate details.
77. PASing parent allows a person contact with the child contrary to the TP’s wishes especially when the TP has reasonable grounds for their concern, i.e. domestic violence, previously proven abuse.
78. The child undergoes or has undergone unnecessary surgical procedures without the prior knowledge or consent of the TP when there is evidence supporting the TP’s position.
79. The PASing parent attempts to bribe, extort or threaten the TP into signing court documents that will exclude the TP from the child’s life or enhance the PASing parent’s position.
80. The PASing parent has expressed a desire for the TP to be dead, die or be killed, or severely injured.
81. The PASing parent has expressed a desire for the TP and other family members / friends associated with the TP to suffer some major mishap or injury.
82. The PASing parent attempts or succeeds in changing the child’s religion.
83. Told the child they can’t see the other parent because they are behind in their child support payments.
84. Is unjustly rude and refuses to work co-operatively with the new partner of the other parent for the benefit of the child.
85. Has refused of failed to provide mental health support for the child when there is reasonable evidence to support the child needs and would benefit from mental health intervention.
86. Refusing to allow the child to participate in weekend sporting / developmental classes as the other parent would be present during the child’s attendance for part / half of the time.
87. Parent has attempted to bribe officials, specialists and professionals to act / report in the favor of that parent even when there is evidence to the contrary.
88. Parent has deliberately mislead, lied or concealed information or evidence to further his or her own case.
89. Parent has physically assaulted the target parent in the presence of the child.
90. Parent has forged, altered or tampered with official documentation to further his or her own case.
91. The parent has submitted false and misleading statements to the police about the target parent and their family that that parent knew in advance to be false and misleading.
92. Has displayed anger / verbal abuse concerning the target parent in front of the child or third party.
93. Has attempted to or actually assisted the child to write letters / notes or to delivery same to the target parent 
94. Encouraged the child to support them in their allegations against the target parent despite obvious evidence disputing claims made by both parent and child.
95. Coaching, threatening or intimidating the child to remain silent about incidents the child has witnesses that do not support the custodial parent.
96. Threatening or punishing the child for saying positive things about the target parent.
97. Refused to provide the child for DNA testing when requested to do so.
98. Deliberately cause alienation between siblings when one supports the custodial parent and the other the target parent.
99. Told the child that the other parent does not love him or her that the other parent never wanted the child to be born.
100. Told the child about intimate details pertaining to the marriage, which are inappropriate and done in a way to deliberately cause distress to the child.
101. Has refused to share prescribed medication with the other parent during access.
102. Alienator insists that the target parent’s extended family is not the children’s “real family” or that they are no good.
103. Alienator tells the child(ren. that they have been replaced by the TPs new partner. 
104. Alienator tells the child(ren. that they have been replaced by children born to the TP and any new partner – whether or not children have been born. 
105. Alienator tells the child(ren. that they have been replaced by the TP’s new partner’s child(ren. and that they are therefore not wanted or loved by the TP. 
106. Alienator denigrates all statements, answers, discipline and activities of the TP with regard to their child(ren. . 
107. Alienator frequently suggests to the child(ren. that the TP and/or new partner will do harm to the child(ren. . 
108. Alienator demands that the TP be subjected to and accept blame for any injury incurred by the child however minor and natural in the course of life. 
109. Alienator forces the child to report minor injuries, bumps and bruises from play to a professional person as being the result of the TP and/or new partner. 
110. Alienator shaves off the child’s hair when the cut is provided by the TP stating that the cut is bad and the hair ruined. 
111. Alienator refuses the TP to comfort the child when injured in play. 
112. Alienator demands medical intervention for minor illnesses (ie. Demanding antibiotics for colds. and play injuries.
113. Alienator undertakes “doctor shopping” until a practitioner sympathetic to their cause is found.
114. Alienator does not comply with appropriate medical advice from practitioners who are not sympathetic to their cause. 
115. Alienator actively damages (cutting, tearing or staining. clothing provided for the child by the TP. 
116. Alienator refuses reasonably required medical treatment where the TP has sought review for a serious medical condition, which impairs the child or causes them to suffer.
117. Alienator allows the child to undertake activities after separation from TP, which were previously refused and blames the TP for denying the child such activities. 
118. Alienator refuses to allow the child(ren. time alone with other adults or children. 
119. Alienator refuses to allow children to attend sleepovers with friends accusing friends parents of abuse. 
120. Alienator refuses to allow sleepovers stating that they ‘do not want the children to see how others live.” 
121. Alienator frequently tells the child(ren. that TP will harm them, has mental health problems etc. creating a fear of the TP. 
122. Alienator informs the child(ren. that the TP has a criminal record for harming children. 
123. Alienator will not allow the child(ren. to undergo any medical or psychological assessment without being present.
124. Alienator informs the child(ren. that they were unwanted by the TP and that the TP insisted that pregnancy be terminated. 
125. Alienator insists that TP’s family never accepted she or the children and insisted that the pregnancy (ies. be terminated. 
126. Alienator blames TP for poor food quality, housing quality and/or availability of funds even where child support is paid and/or alienator contact is minimal. 
127. Alienator blames TP and new partner for stealing home, food, resources from the Alienator and child(ren. . 
128. Alienator ignores the child(ren. when they discuss activities with the TP. 
129. Alienator becomes angered when the child(ren. discuss activities with the TP. 
130. Alienator becomes angered when the child(ren. express a desire to see/phone the TP. 
131. Alienator becomes angered when child(ren. engage in mother’s/father’s day activities at school which are focused on the TP. 
132. Alienator becomes angered when child expresses desire for contact with TP to school teachers/mates/colleagues. 
133. Alienator removes child from school and relocates child without cause if the child expressed a desire for contact with TP. 
134. Alienator informs child(ren. that TP is happier without them. 
135. Alienator informs child(ren. that TP does not love them anymore, is never going to see them again, does not want them any more.
136. Alienator accuses the child(ren. of causing rifts/separation in the marriage. 
137. Alienator informs child(ren. that TP is leaving THE CHILD(REN. rather than the marriage or the alienator.
138. Alienator accuses the TP of infidelity in earshot of the child(ren. . 
139. Alienator writes letters ‘on behalf’ of the child(ren. claiming that the child(ren. have had input.
140. Alienator actively seeks to ensure that children believe that TP sends no letters, gifts or monies.
141. Alienator removes and destroys any items sent to the child(ren. through an outside facility (ie. School, grandparent. . This usually occurs on leaving the facility and appearing publicly to accept the items for the child. 
142. Alienator actively destroys and discards any gifts or letters that the child(ren. do see. 
143. Alienator insists that the child(ren. refer to TP using only a derogatory term (ie. The Bastard.  
144. Alienator presents school teachers/principals with falsified documents/letters from practitioners or the AP.
145. Alienator pawns the TP’s personal and private belongings citing financial hardship to the child(ren. . 
146. Alienator pawns or returns to the retailer, gifts from TP citing financial hardship to the children. 
147. Alienator takes every opportunity to belittle the TP, in the presence of the child(ren. , when seeking assistance from welfare agencies and providers. 
148. Refuses to provide TP with vital medical information thereby impeding the child(ren. s medical wellbeing. 
149. Refusing to notify TP of identified allergies. 
150. Refusing to notify TP of medical concerns or treatments for child(ren.  
151. Accuse TP of stealing items the child has lost. 
152. Attributing failure in school activities/studies to TP. 
153. Accusing TP of neglecting the child(ren. . 
154. Denies essential medical care or treatment on the basis of financial hardship caused by TP. 
155. Consumes drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol and blaming TP for addictions. 
156. Purchases personal luxuries whilst denying children essentials and blaming TP for financial hardship. 
157. Refusing to allow child to bid TP goodbye after visitation with any affection shown in front of Alienator. 
158. Makes derogatory noises/comments when child or TP exhibit affection in presence of alienator.
159. Accuses TP of displaying affection to child(ren. for ulterior motive. 
160. Accuses TP of PAS behaviours. 
161. Denigrates new partner or partner’s children to PAS children. 
162. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s new partner. 
163. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s extended family. 
164. Makes accusations of abuse against TP’s consequent children or children of new partner.
165. Contacts TP’s extended family in presence of child(ren. to make false allegations of abuse/neglect/PAS.
166. Refuses to allow child to give gifts/notes/paintings/letters to TP, new partner, children or extended family.
167. AP is constantly rude, nasty, controlling and dictates when, where and what the TP can do with the kids during their time.  This attitude is also permeated to the children who are rude, nasty, controlling and dictate when, where and how they will spend their time with the TP.
Source Link:
http://www.klothcon … attachment

The Petition is available at http://www.AVNetnews.net/Malachi.php to sign up.

Image

FAMILY COURT…WE ARE NOT A DISPOSABLE GENDER

Image

As an advocate for fathers against family court’s anti-father rulings. They unintentionally obscure the real tyranny that fathers face. Their pleas and actions play into complex morass that family court and its benefactors use as a smokescreen to cover its tyranny.

The family court is a far cry from its original version during our nation’s first century. Then, societal values made divorce and out-of-wedlock children rare. Fathers and mothers were held responsible for contracted obligations but not denied their parental rights and benefits. Society recognized both the fundamental rights of individuals and the importance of preserving the family because of the natural protection and incentives it afforded to its members – and to freedom from government intrusion into the family.

But the family court has, now, long been perverted into the family destruction business. It does so by denying fit fathers their parental rights to their own children – the right to the care, custody, and companionship of them and to directly support them – and a host of other rights including the constitutional due process required when constitutional rights are at stake in a court action. These rights are supposed to be constitutionally guaranteed to each of us.

Nevertheless, perverted family law overrides these constitutional rights by invoking a ‘best interest of the child’ excuse to determine who will be assigned custody of the child – and who will not – based on the discretion or whim of the judge. This is unconstitutional. The ‘best interest of the child’ excuse was instituted for the case where the child had no fit parent.

But feminist influence over family court procedures these last 40 years has forged a family court that rips children from fit fathers for the power and profit of an exploding divorce and domestic violence industry based on this travesty of fathers’ rights. This state-based industry helps produce the mother-headed, fatherless families we see growing everywhere – consistent with the feminazi agenda of family destruction. The unconstitutional discretion of the judge is the key to the feminists’ influence on his determinations.

The judiciary ( i.e. judges, lawyers, affiliates) and the executive ( i.e. revenue collection, prosecution, and penal institutions) profit from the unconstitutional processes that family court impose on fathers. The legislature profits from kowtowing to feminist demands for ‘greater good’ laws that deny rights to fathers while benefiting women. Together, as the divorce and domestic violence industry – a most powerful state monster – they call all the shots and demand that fathers must play its game when they confront the family court under suits of divorce and paternity.

*Fathers advocates inadvertently cover up the tyranny by playing up to the family court game:
Many fathers and their advocates are just too overwhelmed by the power and control with which this tyrannical system lords over them. They desperately try some way – any way – to appease it to keep their children in their lives.

As a result, some fathers rights groups take the position of accepting the family court system as it is, but suggest that it needs some ‘tweaking’ to assure that fathers share in the parenting of their children more equally to mothers. They play on the ‘best interest of the child’ excuse arguing that studies show children are better off with two parents actively participating in their lives.

These same fathers groups may accede to the need for the current restraining orders for the safety of women excuse. But they want the judge to seek more evidence of objective fear against the father that women must claim to get the restraining order. They offer to work with women’s abuse groups to refine the abuse laws.

These fathers groups are afraid to be called angry fathers, to be called anti-women, to be called abusive as the feminist groups like to characterize fathers who vociferously demand their rights. They don’t know what they’re up against. They’re position is best characterized in the same way American communist sympathizers were characterized by the Marxist elites – as ‘useful idiots’.

This system won’t change; it thrives on the family court’s extortion of a fit fathers denied physical custody of his children without the required due process to protect his custody rights. Both the ‘best interest of the child’ and the ‘abuse of women’ excuses are used to override the constitutional due process that fathers – and mothers – deserve when such rights are at stake. These excuses are typical of the ‘greater good’ type excuses that all tyrannies use to overrule the individual rights of their citizens.

These ‘appeasing’ fathers advocates are wrong in their approach – an approach that obscures the real tyranny that the public should know about. It’s the unconstitutional system of the current family court and its greater good tyrannical laws that must be completely torn down. Judges ignore even the minimal protection that these perverted laws afford men. The greater good laws and the state monster they have created must be dismantled to guarantee the rightful liberties of freedom for all. This tyranny will not change but by force of public opinion and demand.
*Exposing the tyranny to the public:

Fathers groups must not appease and participate in this tyranny. They need to identify this divorce and domestic violence system for the unconstitutional tyranny it is. And they must expose its origin and ultimate support as stemming from state-instituted feminist policies of women’s benefits, privileges, and malicious sexism that destroys fathers’ rights, families and rightful freedom for all.

AS ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY

Glen Gibellina

“An avalanche doesn’t look back at the damage it causes.”
Marty Rubin

My Congressional Testimony   http://youtu.be/2ytNK_jYf3Y

12th Circuit Court Judge Janette Dunnigan Moition to Disqualify

  • Glen GibellinaImage
    2 YEARS LATER, STILL HAVEN’T SEEN MY ONLY CHILD
    IT’S TIME TO DISMANTLE THE CURRENT FAMILY COURT SYSTEM “IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD”
    CHIEF JUDGE ANDREW D. OWENS RESPONSE, I ONLY APPOINT JUDGES.
    IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MANATEE
    FAMILY DIVISION 3

    GLEN GIBELLINA,
    Petitioner/Former Husband, CASE NO. 2002-DR-003254
    Filed October 25, 2011
    and Hon. Janette Dunnigan
    Chief Judge Andrew D. Owens, Jr.
    CONNIE GIBELLINA,
    Respondent/Former Wife
    __________________________________/

    PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, CLARIFICATION AND APPEAL
    TO 12TH CIRCUIT CHIEF JUDGE HON. ANDREW D. OWENS, JR.
    OF “ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS”
    INCLUDING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY HON. JANETTE DUNNIGAN

    NOW COMES Petitioner/Former Husband GLEN GIBELLINA, who, having his March 8, 2011 Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify Custody effectively dismissed by Court order dated September 26, 2011 (attached hereto), who having moved the Court on October 7, 2011 in writing to restore his time-sharing rights with his minor child Stormie, dob 7/19/01, suspended and denied since November 13, 2009 by order of this Court, and by a succession orders of this Court resulting from notices of hearing of status conferences that did not include the issue of time-sharing rights modification in the notices of hearing, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida; to declare a April 20, 2009 Order, a October 26, 2009 Order, and a December 22, 2009 Order entered herein void, discharged, satisfied, and/or inequitable to apply prospectively pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540, and to disqualify Hon. Janette Dunnigan for bias and prejudice against Petitioner’s cause (motions submitted Chief Judge Owens herewith), and Judge Dunnigan having entered an October 10, 2011 “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions” (attached hereto), your Petitioner respectfully requests Chief Judge Owens to exercise his administrative supervision over all courts within the judicial circuit in the exercise of judicial powers and over the judges and officers of the courts, and reconsider and issue clarification on said “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions” by stating as follows:
    1. Petitioner has not seen his 10-year-old daughter for two years, has never been found an unfit Parent by this court, or any other court or Tribunal in this county, circuit or the State of Florida and has never be found an unfit Parent in any other state in the US at any time.

    2. Petitioner filed a motion to disqualify because he justifiably feared that he would not receive a fair hearing on his motions to restore his time-sharing rights, and for relief from void orders pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5) because of the prejudice or bias of Judge Dunnigan, and moved to disqualify Judge Dunnigan pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(d)(1). A separate sworn affidavit averring the truth of the assertions therein and certifying the motion was made in good faith was submitted therewith, and there were no previous motions to disqualify filed or granted under Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330. The motion to disqualify was clearly legally sufficient.

    3. Petitioner had filed an Amended Supplemental Petition for change of custody in March of 2011 and was given on June 2, 2011 a trial date by Hon. Janette Dunnigan of August 22 and August 23, 2011.

    4. Counsel for Respondent had previously filed a Motion for the Appointment of Attorney Ad Litem for Minor Child on January 4, 2011, yet the need for the appointment of an Attorney Ad Litem did not even merit counsel for Respondent’s time to even set it for a motion hearing until six months after counsel filed the motion, until the Court set the Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify for trial on June 2, 2011. Only then did a nonsensical need for an Attorney Ad Litem become important enough to set the motion for hearing. This additional layer of government intrusion into the father/daughter relationship clearly was requested only for the purposes of delaying or preventing a hearing.
    5. The Court granted the motion and appointed Susan Chapman as Attorney Ad Litem on July 12, 2011.

    6. Susan Chapman made a motion to withdraw on August 2, 2011.

    7. Susan Chapman, according to the Hon. Janette Dunnigan, advised the Court that attorney Janella Leibovitz would accept the case, and so on the day of trial, the Court entered an order appointing Ms. Leibovitz as Attorney ad Litem. Ms. Leibovitz is a friend of Counsel for Respondent on Facebook.

    8. Respondent and her counsel filed a Motion To Continue the August 22, 2011 hearing in bad faith on August 18, 2011, one business day before the trial, at the last second so as to cause the greatest possible inconvenience and prejudice to Petitioner’s cause and his witnesses who made arrangements to testify at great expense, one witness even being from out of state.

    9. On August 22, 2011, Judge Dunnigan granted Respondent’s request for a 30-day continuance filed by attorney for Respondent one business day before the trial.

    10. Respondent’s Motion To Continue requested a 30-day adjournment of trial, and Judge Dunnigan engineered an open-ended adjournment of trial in this matter in the same way the social investigators, and the Attorney for Respondent, have engineered an open-ended, illegal limitation of a father’s rights to visit his daughter.

    11. Judge Dunnigan easily could have heard Petitioner’s witness’ testimony on the issue of custody, and adjourned the hearing to hear from the Attorney ad Litem at a later date without compromising the “independent legal interests” of the minor child.

    12. Attorney for Respondent’s dilatory attention to drafting a 30-day adjournment order pronounced orally in open court on August 22, 2011, and the Court’s ruling as an open-ended adjournment, and this contrivance to turn the continuance into an open-ended delay served merely to delay and obfuscate.

    13. Petitioner filed objections to proposed orders mailed September 13, 2011; however, Judge Dunnigan has indefinitely suspended the trial dependent on what she terms Petitioner’s compliance with the Court’s order of December 22, 2009.

    14. The Attorney Ad Litem issue is a red herring for the illegal limitation of a father’s rights to visit his daughter.

    15. When Judge Dunnigan agreed to adjourn the custody hearing, Petitioner orally moved to have his parental and visitation rights restored (Penny A. Zunker Transcript of August 22, 2011 hearing, pp 22, 83); however, the Court either deflected the motion (p 22), or ruled that Petitioner had not properly prepared and noticed a written motion (p 83).

    16. On August 23, 2011, the Court held Petitioner in contempt of court for visiting his daughter’s school on September 13, 2010, and for sending text messages to the Respondent to be relayed to his daughter in the nature of “I love you”. In so holding, and denying an oral motion to have the minor child participate with Petitioner’s therapist, Judge Dunnigan declared, “The Court will not hear any motions, any additional motions until such time there has been compliance with the 2009 order. When you do that, you may ask for additional relief.”

    17. Petitioner, as he did back in 2009-2010, again in August and September of 2011 attempted to comply with the illegal and hopelessly outdated order by contacting therapist Sara King for an appointment. Ms. King as of September of 2011 refuses to allow Petitioner to participate in therapy sessions pursuant to the 2009 order. She has filed a “Motion to be Removed from the Case”, though she desires to continue as the therapist for the minor child, a position she has held for two years and one-half years. She is either not making any professional progress whatsoever, or is milking the system for fees.

    18. Judge Dunnigan, in a September 26, 2011 order called “Order Striking Former Husband’s Notice For Trial” (attached hereto) has turned Respondent’s request for a 30-day adjournment into an indefinite adjournment by summarily denying without explanation Petitioner’s objections to orders proposed by counsel for Respondent.

    19. Judge Dunnigan made a finding not at issue in the August of 2011 hearings, without taking proofs on the issue of whether Petitioner had complied with the December of 22, 2009 order, and declared most disconcertingly, that “At the hearing on August 23, 2011, this Court ordered the Former Husband to comply with the General Magistrate’s Order and instructed him that until he complies with same, no further action shall be taken upon his Amended Supplemental Petition to Modify”, and the Court ordered on September 26, 2011 (received by Petitioner on September 28, 2011) that Petitioner 12 months to comply with the December of 2009 Order, or the Court would dismiss Petitioner’s Amended Supplemental Petition. Not only is that a false statement of what happened at the August 23, 2011 hearing, (Judge Dunnigan declared that no further motions could be filed, not that the custody trial would not be reset for hearing) Judge Dunnigan has denied Petitioner a fair trial, indeed any trial whatsoever on his Petition directly owing to her bias and prejudice against Petitioner as a “vexatious litigant”.

    20. Petitioner has been continuously sober since April of 2009, and the Court has denied him the right to see his daughter since November of 2009 without a finding of parental unfitness, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of Florida.

    21. Judge Dunnigan has effectively decided she needs to “punish” Petitioner, without taking proofs on the issue, for not following a Court order by requiring her subjective adherence to a December 22, 2009 order Petitioner submits was issued illegally in violation of due process. Even were it legal, said order is hopelessly subjective, outdated in that the Court’s own appointed social investigator refuses to participate in the process outlined in the order.

    22. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed an order denying recusal on facts similar to the present in Bundy v. Rudd, 366 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1978). There, it held:
    Regardless of whether respondent ruled correctly in denying the motion for disqualification was legally insufficient, our rules clearly provide, and we have repeatedly held, that a judge who is presented with a motion for his disqualification shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of disqualification. When a judge has looked beyond the mere legal sufficiency of a suggestion of prejudice and attempted to refute the charges of partiality, he has then exceeded the proper scope of his inquiry and on that basis alone established grounds for his disqualification. Our disqualification rule, which limits the trial judge to a bare determination of legal sufficiency, was expressly designed to prevent what occurred in this case–the creation of an intolerable adversary atmosphere between the trial judge and the litigant.

    23. The inquiry is supposed to focus on the reasonableness of the litigant’s belief that he or she will not receive a fair hearing:
    [A] party seeking to disqualify a judge need only show a well-grounded fear that he [or she] will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. It is not a question of how the judge feels; it is a question of what feeling resides in the affiant’s mind and the basis for such feeling. The question of disqualification focuses on those matters from which a litigant may reasonably question a judge’s impartiality rather than the judge’s perception of his ability to act fairly and impartially….

    Facts alleged in the motion need only show that the party making it has a well grounded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of the judge. If the attested facts supporting the suggestion are reasonably sufficient to create such a fear, it is not for the trial judge to say that it is not there…

    The ultimate inquiry is “whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Id. This determination must be based solely on the alleged facts–the presiding judge “shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged nor adjudicate the question of
    disqualification.” Rogers v. State of Florida, 630 So.2d 513 (Fla. 1993; Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1086 (Fla. 1983).

    24. Though she does not do pass on the truth of the facts in form, Judge Dunnigan does so in substance—she rules that “the motion” (unspecified by the judge) is “legally insufficient”, then she enters an order entitled “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions”, which purports to deny all of the motions. Judge Dunnigan is a jurist of some subtlety, and she is clearly thorough and wise enough to have entered an order entitled “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify”, but she chose not to do so. Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify is patently legally sufficient on its face; Judge Dunnigan’s response leaves Petitioner without direction as to how to have his other motions, the Motion to Restore His Time-Sharing Rights, and his Motion For Relief Pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5)—heard. Petitioner has been held in contempt by Judge Dunnigan for visiting his daughter’s school on September 13, 2010, and for sending text messages to the Respondent to be relayed to his daughter in the nature of “I love you”. He has been instructed by Judge Dunnigan not to file any further motions, ostensibly in violation of his right to seek see his daughter and Judge Dunnigan’s duty to be a jurist. Petitioner is justly apprehensive that if he files further motions before Judge Dunnigan, he will be jailed by her, precisely what the Florida disqualification rule, which limits the trial judge to a bare determination of legal sufficiency, was expressly designed to prevent—the creation of an intolerable adversary atmosphere between the trial judge and the litigant.

    WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests 12th Circuit Chief Judge Hon. Andrew D. Owens, Jr. exercise his administrative supervision over all courts within the judicial circuit in the exercise of judicial powers and over the judges and officers of the courts, and reconsider on its face Petitioner’s Motion to Disqualify Judge Dunnigan pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(d)(1), and issue, or cause to be issued, disqualification of Judge Dunnigan, and clarification on said “Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions” so that Petitioner may have some idea of where, or if, his Motion to Restore His Time-Sharing Rights, and his Motion For Relief Pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4) and (5) can or has been heard.
    Respectfully submitted,
    ______________________________
    Glen Gibellina
    Petitioner
    2473 Twin Drive
    Sarasota, FL 34234

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by first class mail to Hon. Janette Dunnigan, P O Box 3000 Bradenton FL. 34206, and to Angela D. Tobaygo, Esq., t 3307 Clark Road, Suite 201, Sarasota, FL 34231 this 25th day of October, 2011.

    Glen Gibellina
    Petitioner
    2473 Twin Drive
    Sarasota, FL 34234

    I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been hand delivered Chief Judge Andrew D. Owens Jr. Circuit Court Judge Lynn N. 2002 Ringling Blvd. Silvertooth Judicial Center Sarasota, Florida 34237 this 25th day of October, 2011.

    ______________________________
    Glen Gibellina
    Petitioner
    2473 Twin Drive
    Sarasota, FL 34234

    Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. – Thomas Jefferson

Glen Gibellina, The Documentary “THE DISCARDED”

Originally posted on wethefamilies:

Image

The Documentary “THE DISCARDED”

THE DISCARDED tells the story of single father filmmaker, activist and co-director Glen Gibellina , who channels his experience of living through Family Court with the lens of a video camera. By using my unique perspective, I aim to pull the curtain back for viewers and expose how the current Family Court crisis is having a devastating effect on those who are victims and children of the Family Courts. A gritty, firsthand look at a reality most would rather turn away from.

THE DISCARDED challenges viewers to bear witness and confront the daily struggles and hopes of those living through Family Courts of a system that has rejected and abused them with no Judicial discretion.

THE DISCARDED is more than just a film, it is an expression of the anger, sadness, joys and hopes of people who have been historically stereotyped, destroyed, silenced and marginalized by…

View original 431 more words

Glen Gibellina on Parental Rights Manatee County School System

My 3 minute testimony on the destruction of a non custodial parent in the Manatee County School system and especially against Dads. I will never give up, never retreat and never surrender to “the list” of this current insane policy currently in place.

PARENTS RIGHTS BLOG

http://towardchange.wordpress.com/

Stop Harvesting Our Innocent Children via SITEMAP. “There is no system ever devised by mankind that is guaranteed to rip husband and wife or father, mother and child apart so bitterly than our present Family Court System” ~ Judge Brian Lindsay 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,109 other followers