Bangkok Defends Father Who Steals 3 Kids; Condemns Parlato, Who Strikes Back

Bangkok has some special thoughts on Chris Ambrose. I respond to his precocious views.



Frank, please look at me when I’m talking to you.  Don’t look at your shoes. Look me in the eye, Sir.



Sir, I was looking down because I began to smirk at your whiteface and putty nose. Not to speak of that hunk of suppurating tissue off your dorsal appendage.


You claim your ‘goal’ of writing these Chris Ambrose articles is to get Ambrose to begin granting Karen Riordan visitation rights and/or custody rights. But you’re lying to your readers, Frank.

No intelligent person would honestly expect Ambrose to change his mind — and begin granting visitation. The reason is you keep trashing him with repetitive articles that essentially say the same thing.

You do NOT expect him to ever do that. That is NOT your ‘goal’ of writing these articles.

Chris Ambrose is unhappy with the Frank Report. His children are unhappy with him. The carrot and stick approach (to changing somebody’s behavior) only works if you HOLD SOMETHING BACK and do not unload everything in your arsenal against them.

But you’ve already unloaded your entire arsenal against Ambrose many times over, which means he’s got NO INCENTIVE to try and please you.


Because even if you stopped writing negative articles about him —– you’ve already got a dozen negative articles about Ambrose indexed in Google for eternity. This means there’s no VALUE/REWARD for ceasing these articles.

Duh, Frank.

Thus, even though your first articles initially perturbed Ambrose (and he sent you an email with toothless legal threats) —- you’ve lost the ability to hurt Ambrose any longer. There’s nothing left you can ‘expose’ about him.


But wait, Sir, I have more in my arsenal for Mr. Ambrose.


Your true ‘goal’ is NOT to win custody for Karen anymore. Your true ‘goal’ is simply to attack Ambrose to satisfy your own need to ‘win’ these juvenile mud-fights. It’s like two kids arguing on a playground or two pigs fighting in the mud.


I disagree. I want the children to be with their mother. It is not about Chris or even Karen. I want the children to have some say about who they want to be with.

It is not a battle between Chris and me. The war would end in two minutes if he did not abuse his children. I am not interested in fighting him.


The difference between your insulting comments, and mine, is that I rarely repeat the same insults about the same person, over and over, ad nauseam.

The media won’t ever jump on this story now — since it’s too juvenile between you two.


Don’t be too sure about that, Bangkok. There must be some kind of justice for these children.


Let’s not forget the “Nickola” issue —— which you have yet to apologize for or even discuss with your readers. LOL.


I am sorry for Nickola. But one cannot blame Karen or the children. Nickola went to a hearing. The purpose was the disqualification of Judge Gerard Adelman.

Nickola Cunha

Cunha decided to allege Adelman was Jewish, and all other actors involved in taking the mother out of the children’s lives were Jewish, and Adelman favored them because they were Jewish.

I have no idea if all of them are Jewish. I don’t know. Or care.

I am, however, ready to allege that all the bad actors who stole a mother from three Hispanic children happen to be white.

Nancy Aldrich, Jocelyn Hurwitz, Jessica Biren-Caverly, Judge Jane Grossman, Chris Ambrose, Judge Gerard Adelman, Bill Horn, and Karen’s duplicitous and/or incompetent lawyer Rich Callahan and the rapacious Edward Nusbaum.

All white. If I point that out, does that make me a racist?

Attorney Edward ‘Golden Fleecer’ Nusbaum [above and below] appears to work for the wealthy parent, no matter who he claims to represent. 

‘Show me your net worth, and I’ll tell you who is the better parent.’ This is the legal philosophy of Edward Nusbaum. 

What if I add that the only person who treated the children with compassion and fairness was a Hispanic – Judge Eddie Rodriguez?

Judge Eddie Rodriguez Jr. granted primary custody to the mother.

Then the others got together and robbed the children by switching judges to Grossman.

As for Cunha, I do not think she is an anti-Semite. But she hurt her client’s case with her statements. And most importantly, the children are hurt. They continue to suffer.


Ambrose is the father, and it’s his decision how to raise his kids.


That’s what’s wrong. The children have a mother, and she has been excluded because he has the money he stole from her. And could pay these bad actors.

It does not matter if they are white or what religion they believe in. The children’s voices are not being heard. They are 15, 15, and 12.

They should have some voice in their lives.


You’re a blogger, not the father, so I’m not sure how your opinion should outrank a FATHER’s wishes.


Dammit, Bangkok, I’m a reporter, not a parental alienation adherent. But I know common sense.  Removing a mother from children’s lives is not what is best for the children.

Even Dr. McCoy would know enough not to remove a mother from children’s lives when there is no allegation of abuse or misconduct.

The only allegation against Karen is that she allegedly shared her negative view of the loathsome Chris Ambrose with her children.

Even if it were true, why do the children have to be punished? What if she did say bad things about Ambrose, and what if they were true? Should the children be punished?

Karen says she did not say bad things about Ambrose. I have plenty of evidence that he went out of his way to set up parental alienation against Karen by making himself despicable and odious to the children. They naturally did not want to see him. He blamed Karen, and his paid bad actors supported it because he had the money to pay them.

The children have repeatedly tried to get their mother in their lives.

Keep in mind that Karen raised them every day of their lives.

All their lives until two years ago, Karen raised the children as a single mother. When Ambrose got caught plagiarizing and had to return home, he set it up to remove Karen from the children’s lives.



The kids don’t get to decide how they’re raised by making social media posts—for the SAME REASON that kids don’t get to decide if they want to eat candy all day or party until the sun comes up, even though many of them want to do those things.


Wanting to eat candy all day and wanting their mother who raised them every day of their lives is not the same. Children should have a say in that. These children are 15, 15, and 12. When do they get their mother back?

Speaking of social media, the children were so alarmed by their father’s conduct and interests that they posted some of his photos from his phone on Pinterest to get help.

He seems to enjoy forced haircuts

He trolls men pretending to be a barber.

No one says an adult man should not view what he likes in adult porn, but he should not share it with his children.

However, I get a little alarmed when the father of three Latino children visits websites like this.

And when he views videos of boys getting their heads shaved, you gotta wonder about that infallible court, which knows better than their mother.


Let’s change gears now…

With all your righteous mud-slinging — you still have YET to prove the most important factor in the Connecticut Family Court debacle. You have yet to prove how THE JUDGE benefited from this alleged sale of children.

He’s not being paid by any of the parties.


How do you know that, Sir?


To be part of this conspiracy, you need to PROVE with evidence what he’s receiving in return for aiding this alleged ‘sale of children.’

You keep telling us that it’s wrong for the FBI to charge people without EVIDENCE (not just theories) — yet you seem to have no problem alleging criminal conduct to OTHERS, without evidence, whenever it suits you.

You seem to think it’s okay to allege ‘crimes’ (with nothing but one-sided testimony) — yet you scream “FOUL PLAY” when the FBI does that to others, including yourself. Don’t be a hypocrite.

If you don’t have the GOODS on the judge —– then he’s not part of this conspiracy.

And if the JUDGE is not part of this conspiracy, there can be NO CONSPIRACY —- since it only works if the judge is involved, as he’s the ultimate decision-maker.



I am not alleging the judges are part of a paid conspiracy, though perhaps they are. They can gain in other ways.

The Keith Raniere trial showed Allison Mack was part of sex trafficking because she gained social status by trafficking Nicole to Keith Raniere. She was not paid money. But Mack got something of value. 

I have reported that Judge Jane Grossman sought reappointment as a judge. Ambrose’s attorney, Nancy Aldrich, has a son, a CT state senator. He sits on the judiciary committee. The judiciary committee recommends which judges get reappointed. The state senators vote to confirm their reappointment. Senator Haskell was especially important, since he is the senator for the district where Judge Grossman sits.  The local senator gets deference for the judges in his district.

One of Judge Grossman’s best friends, Judge Jane Emons, did not get reappointed because she used parental alienation to rob children of their mothers one too many times.

Former Judge Jane Emons lights the way for the removal of incompetent judges by studying how she was removed herself.

People put billboards up complaining about her destruction of families. And her use of parental alienation.

The CT State Senate did not reappoint Emons.

Judge Grossman stole more mothers from their children’s lives for affluent fathers than Judge Emons ever thought of doing. 

Judge Grossman faced a hell of a hard time.

Aldrich knew which judge her son, the senator, could be the most helpful to Judge Grossman.

Judge Jane Grossman ordered the children out of their mother’s house.

Ambrose was also facing a hell of a time.

Judge Eddie Rodriguez had ruled Karen should have primary custody, and Ambrose should file a financial affidavit showing what he did with Karen’s money. If the case stayed with Judge Rodriquez, it was obvious where it was going. 

Ambrose would have to give Karen half of the money he stole back. He would not get primary custody and probably have to pay child support and maybe alimony to Karen. 

Aldrich arranged to transfer the case to Judge Grossman, who needed her son’s vote. 

Judge Grossman dutifully ruled that Ambrose should have sole custody of the children. She flipped custody without ever hearing from the mother or the children. 

But unlike Judge Rodriquez, who let the father see his children, Judge Grossman denied the children any contact with their mother.

Also, unlike Judge Rodriguez, who required Ambrose to account for the money he took, Judge Grossman did not feel it was important.  She let Ambrose control the money. All the better to pay her friend Aldrich.

So one day, the children were happy in their lifetime home with their mother, and the next day they were removed and told they could never return or even talk to their mother.

Can you imagine the trauma these children have undergone?  

But most adults were made happy. 

Ambrose paid Aldrich around $500,000 for her legal services. He got to keep his wife’s share of the marital assets – about $1 million.

In turn, Aldrich’s son, Senator Will Haskell, made Grossman happy. He supported Grossman’s reappointment the following year.  

I do not think Judge Grossman got cash for robbing these children of their mother. But she did get something of value. Everyone got to eat candy all day, except the children and their mother.


A loving parent would walk through FIRE to partially reunite with their kids again.


Karen proposed over twenty names of friends and former teachers to act as supervisor of the visits. Ambrose was given veto power and denied them all.

Ambrose and GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz selected the supervisor, Lisa Kerin. At the cost of $400 per hour. He paid her the first payment of $7500.

By the terms of the supervised visits, Karen could not see the reports and could not video tape the visitation sessions. GAL Jocelyn Hurwitz and Judge Jane Grossman would be the only ones to see the reports.

She had to sign forms which treated her like a criminal.

Karen did not believe the supervised visits as a way to reunite with her children. She saw it as a setup to keep her permanently away. And there was never a court hearing about why parental supervision was required.


If you truly love your kids more than anything in the world — then you’d agree to STOP BADMOUTHING the father and be a loving parent.


That is so true of the father. If he truly loved his kids, he would stop preventing them from seeing their mother.


No fit or loving parent would refuse to STOP doing this —– to regain partial custody.


She did not refuse to stop doing it. She did not do it. I have reams of evidence to show she wanted the children to have a good relationship with their father.  Ambrose is mentally unstable, but smart enough to game the system.


But Karen is obviously not a loving parent, since she REFUSED to do this.


Ditto times 1000 for Ambrose, for he is actually preventing – he alone – the children from seeing their mother. The court is not stopping him. The case is over. He has custody – at least for now.

That means he could decide tomorrow to let the children see their mother. There is no prohibition.  No court order. The case is over.


You’re just not impartial here, Frank.


Bangkok, you’re just not human here. You have no heart for the children. You want this to be adult-centric. The suffering of the children is meaningless to you.


You seem to be friends with Karen, and you cannot even acknowledge these things.


I am friends with all who wish to have compassion. The children are lonely, isolated, and traumatized. I wish I could tell all I know. It will all come out soon, I believe.


As for your comment, which said: “How can we trust the courts, if they might be wrong?”

Well, the courts are what society has decided to trust in such matters ———, since the alternative is to trust firebrand bloggers who have virtually no legal experience and a past record of trusting lawyers like Nickola as sources. LOL.

I’ll trust the courts over your own OPINIONS any day of the week.


I trust the children.


According to you, Nickola was not mentally ill and was a pure truth-teller.


I never took a position on Nickola being mentally well or not. I believe she told the court she had mental and/or physical health issues that caused her to say what she did that day.


You have JUDGEMENT issues, Frank.  Your judgment is not as ‘foolproof’ as you’d have us believe. You’re just as human as I am, Frank.  Have a good day.


No, Bangkok, you cannot join the human race just by living on this planet for a while. Back home, out there in zero gravity, with your wonky smile, long delicate fingers, and tentacles stretching involuntarily during the night, you may fool your own.

On your planet, they know nothing about how children might love their mother and not love their abusive asshole father.

But these children are from earth, so they need their mother. And anyone who can’t fathom that is not human at all. That includes their father.

Dammit, Bangkok, I’m a human blogger, not an inhuman monster that can ignore the cries of these children to go home – to their mother.

Go back to your microwave-emitting star, where mother-child love is unknown. May a million light years keep you and these children apart. And for God’s sake, take Ambrose with you.

About the author

Frank Parlato


Click here to post a comment

Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us! (Email & username are optional)

  • Attorney Cunha is a whistleblower who tried her best to address the corruption in a family court case.

    People used to call brave people like that “heroes”.

    Mr. Pattis and those who know how law works know the Court should have allowed Attorney Cunha to speak freely. Attorney Cunha could have addressed the corruption in the case starting with: “The judge and attorneys colluded for profit in their own best interests.”.

    Most attorneys in most courts build foundations for their arguments and Attorney Cunha didn’t know that mentioning a group of people with common interests who favor each other is unacceptable now.

    If that same judge and those same attorneys were members of the same baseball team; or members of the same orchestra; or members of the same fraternity at the same college, those facts presented would have been acceptable. Right now, Attorney Cunha probably would have preferred mentioning any of the above options given the knee-jerk reaction of the judge when she mentioned the Jewish religion.

    If all judges and vendors were Buddhist or Christian, Attorney Cunha could have said that. She would have been “building a foundation” for her argument regarding the corruption. The judge probably would have told her, “Go on. What’s your point?” Instead of considering immediate disbarment.

    Corrupted judges, attorneys and vendors in Connecticut family courts target brave citizens who expose corruption and crimes. A cold shoulder to unpopular attorneys and legislators, gossip, mocking and favoritism used to be good enough to silence dissent.

    Quick disbarment is a new one. It’s going to be a most useful option unless more whistleblowers step forward to share what they know about corruption in Connecticut family courts.

    These days, the number of politically-incorrect ways attorneys can offend a judge with a chip on his/her/their/xir/hir/xim etc shoulder are endless and ad nauseum.

    • “The judge and attorneys colluded for profit in their own best interests.”

      But she had zero evidence of that!

      • Anonymous —

        The court file and transcripts show “the judge and attorneys colluded for profit in their own best interest”. Judge Moukawsher was supposed to read the file and all the transcripts. Taxpayers pay judges to know who did what, when where and why — and the Ambrose file is about a foot too high.

  • Space Alien Guy:
    “Let’s not forget the “Nickola” issue —— which you have yet to apologize for or even discuss…”

    Pro-Truth Team:
    Is it a “Nickola issue”… or, is it “the corruption/racketeering issue” family court administrators and law enforcement refuse to discuss?

    • its both. Nickola is an example of the corruption and racketeering the family court. Frank should defend why he relied so much on Nickola for his garbage.

      • Anonymous,

        You think a focus on Attorney Cunha and Frank INSTEAD of family court cases is a better use of time? Is that the old distraction trick or are you hinting at a new acceptable fetish?

        Destroying children for profit in professional offices in broad daylight could be stimulating, but why not make it more exciting (while still politically correct) with a few guardians ad litem dressed like furries, fairies or barbers?

        endless possibilities when anything goes 😉

      • Anonymous,

        An example of “the corruption and racketeering” — and criminal perversion — doesn’t have to do with “garbage” in one custody case. Did you not see how the Dulos case was mishandled?

        What the judges did in the Ambrose case — and hundreds of other child custody cases involving disclosures of child abuse — in Connecticut has to do with how the same judges, attorneys and evaluators grossly mishandle so many cases.

        Try finding Marv Bryer’s research about corruption, racketeering and criminal perversion in California family courts. That will give you a general idea of the corruption and racketeering that spread throughout the United States to Connecticut and around the world, actually.

        Look for information about Richard Gardner. “Dr.” Gardner. He was a custody evaluator just like Jessica Caverly is a custody evaluator. Dr. Gardner committed suicide by taking pills and stabbing himself in the heart repeatedly at 90 degree angles — which is the reason many say he was a “patsy” for a few big shots who would like to sexualize children as early as possible.

        Attorney Cunha didn’t have anything to do with any of that or any of this:

        “… As part of his theory, Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) proposes that pedophilia serves procreative purposes. Although the child cannot become pregnant, a child who is drawn into sexual encounters at an early age is likely to become highly sexualized and thus will crave sexual experiences during the prepubertal years. Such a “charged up child” is more likely to transmit his or her genes in his or her progeny at an early age. Gardner (1992, pp. 24-5) states: “The younger the survival machine at the time sexual urges appear, the longer will be the span of procreative capacity, and the greater the likelihood the individual will create more survival machines in the next generation… Gardner (1991, p. 118) suggests that Western society’s is “excessively moralistic and punitive” toward pedophiles. Gardner maintains that “the Draconian punishments meted out to pedophiles go far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime.” The current prohibition of sex between adults and children is an “overreaction” which Gardner traces to the Jews. …”

        Uh oh. Jews were mentioned. I better stop right there.

  • I think Frank’s refusal to acknowledge how much he depended on Nickola for dirt and. Is that she is admiring she is mentally I’ll he won’t apologize to his readers for making her a martyr.

    • Bangkok-

      You’ve only garnered 3 comments and one of them is your own.

      Clearly your thesis has fallen on deaf ears. Yah win some and lose some – like your parents when one of their three kids turned out to be you.

      “Keep on swinging for the fences”, my spiritual nephew.

      • Nice try, flaccid man.

        But you’re failing to see that most of my posts — especially the ones where everybody agrees with me 100% — wind up with very few comments.


        Because of the ‘Donald Trump effect’.

        If Donald Trump cured cancer, not a single media outlet would compliment him on it.

        Why? Cuz he’s too hated.

        98% of everybody on this site hates my guts and would rather rot in hell than ever agree with me (after I win an argument).

        That’s why 98% of everybody on this site won’t say a word when I make a really strong argument and they totally agree with me.

        Even ‘WTF’ hates my guts and has a hard time leaving any comments which might even slightly agree with my own.

        All liberals hate my guts —– because their ‘tribalism’ forbids them from thinking rationally on most issues.

        As an aside, out of those 98% of readers who hate my guts —– about 91% of them would HONESTLY raise a glass and drink a toast to news of my untimely demise.

        I’m just surprised that your Sicilian whore hasn’t divorced your sorry butt yet.

        There must be a reason. Is she fat as a house and not able to find a NON-FREELOADING man who can actually match her income?

        Have a good day. 🙂

        • Donald Trump is a looser, so I don’t think you do yourself any favors comparing yourself to him. Frank is using Chris for clickbait. Before, I bet he would put anything Nickola said up as the truth and even though he is too shy to admit it, I think he is sticking to poking Chris because otherwise Frank wont get much if any attention. Frank is a criminal, and most criminals are terrible people.

          • There are charged and uncharged criminals. And some who are yet to be charged. Chris I believe is in the latter category.

            I was convicted of not filing an IRS form 8300 in 2010. I paid the tax in it. I just did not file the form. That is my criminality. But I never once dared commit a crime against nature by stealing from children their mother.

            Oh, the penalty for that crime is enormous and may not be paid solely in the courts of manmade law.

          • Are you a Marxist by any chance, Anonymous? Marxists like to make up lies to bully and mock other people. Their motto is, “By any means necessary”.

            That’s the family court lawyers strategy too. They make the most money off of child custody cases involving child abuse.

            Here is a Marxist To Do List. Is this your daily To Do List too, Anonymous?

            “Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

            Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression.

            Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

            Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

            Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

            Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”

            Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

            Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

            Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.”

          • Frank, you have never had the courage or option to have kids. You know nothing what it means to be a parent. All you can do is sit on your pretend perch and mock other parents. So let me explain parenting to you, Frank.

            We live in a world that has kids, and those kids have to be guarded by parents. Who’s gonna do it? As a parent I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Chris’s ex wife, and you curse the CT Family Court. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that divorce, while tragic, probably saved many children’s lives; and my existence as a parent, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves kids lives.

            We use words like “family,” “parenting,” “upbringing.” We use these words as the backbone of a life spent raising our children. You use them as a punch line.

            I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who is dependent on my children to pay his social security and provide the tax funds for the prison you will one day sleep in, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

            I would rather that you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you father a child and become a parent. Either way, I don’t give a DAMN about your opinions.

          • I appreciate you knowing more about me than I knew about myself. Actually, I thought I had two sons. One is a successful lawyer, and the other is a top performer in Nashville.

            I will tell you another thing– I could not do what Ambrose has done — deprive my children of their mother.

          • ‘…stealing from children their mother.

            Oh, the penalty for that crime is enormous and may not be paid solely in the courts of manmade law.’

            Even having forgiven my own father, I hope and pray this is true.

            Bless your good grace over all that Nx. tried and failed to do to you – and time for a bit of this, surely?


          • Lots of anti-Trump anonymous comments here.

            Maybe all from the same person?

        • Dear Bangkok. “If Donald Trump cured cancer, not a single media outlet would compliment him on it.” – I find that claim to be dubious:

          “President Donald Trump finally has something legitimate to take credit for in his coronavirus response: A vaccine that appears poised to reach Americans in record time.”
          “Should the administration be praised for this? Absolutely,”
          “Health experts broadly agree that the Trump administration’s national vaccine strategy was a success.”

          It’s too bad Trump’s voters don’t read CNN. About a million or so of them would be alive today. That’s a lot of dead potential Bangkok friends!

          Also, please stop using the term, ‘tribalism’. That term is reserved for use only by different total asshat. It’s beneath even you, Bangkok.

          And there’s no need to say mean things about Mrs. NiceGuy. I’m sure she’s lovely, and probably has a hell of a lot of patience. Now she’s unlikely to be a Lauren Salzman, but who really can be? I wish you luck with her Bangkok. I still advise you to try the mangy beagle angle with her.

        • You’re act is tired. Not worthy of a response. We all know your pattern of comments:
          1. Find something that you think will seem outlandish to many readers BUT you feel confident in clutching to a few arguments that will support your contrarian attention grab.
          2. Hope people pay attention to your lonely, bedraggled self.

          Didn’t you once get glossed, The Sashaying Screecher?

        • Bangkok-

          Brilliant take down:

          “I’m just surprised that your Sicilian whore hasn’t divorced your sorry butt yet.
          There must be a reason. Is she fat as a house and not able to find a NON-FREELOADING man who can actually match her income?”

          You didn’t just go for the jugular — you ripped it out. Finally! Bravo!

          The “Flaccid Man” is a nice touch.

          I don’t have a come back tonight. Take care Dipshit! 😉

          Don’t forget to lock your bedroom door tonight. You don’t want Daddy’s boyfriend, after he gets done doin’ Daddy — to sneak into your room and fuck you.

          Hint: Those condoms you find hanging out your ass some mornings aren’t from the Condom Fairy. 🧚‍♀️

    • It looks like Attorney Cunha isn’t “mentally ill”. It looks like she’s a whistleblower who tried her best to address the corruption in a family court case as best as she could. The Court should have allowed her to say what she said. Mr. Pattis and most others probably know that.

      Mr. Pattis also probably knows Attorney Cunha couldn’t address the blatant corruption and exorbitant profits made by simply telling the Court: “The judge and attorneys colluded for huge profits and their own interests.”

      Mentioning any group of people with common interests who favor working together is generally acceptable. If the same judge and the same attorneys were members of the same baseball team, Attorney Cunha probably would have mentioned that instead of religion. If they all played the same instruments in the same orchestra — or if they were members of the same fraternity at the same college: those facts would have been acceptable for “building the foundation” for her argument regarding the corruption.

      Most of us hang around with like-minded people. We’re prone to favor those who look, talk, think, pray, earn and eat as we do. Religious groups, political groups and lawyers with common interests prefer to spend time with each other rather than those without common interests. That’s fact. It’s not anti-Semitism or crazy talk of the “mentally ill”.

      Attorney Cunha obviously thought it was safe to mention a common religion among those who were clearly colluding and profiting in the case. Stating their minor shared interests seems to have been her foundation for facts about the blatant corruption. Her building of whatever foundation she chose to present her case should have been welcomed — and challenged — in an honest court. Her comments would have been welcomed if the judges and attorneys were all Norwegian and she used that as an introduction to prove other points. Of course, that would have been acceptable because Attorney Cunha isn’t Norwegian.

      Italians enjoy carnivals with Italian food and music. Wealthy yacht owners summer with other wealthy yacht people. Children who have fun playing soccer enjoy playing soccer with other children who have fun playing soccer. Many people with curly hair prefer to buy dogs with curly hair. Most consider all of that to be acceptable behavior. Some call that “tribalism” or “networking” — or “corruption” when criminals get together to commit crimes.

      It’s not a crime to notice any of that. It’s also not a crime to mention any of that.

      There’s minor and major corruption in most every system of government in America and throughout the world. Corruption has been a problem since each civilization began.

      Are we supposed to believe there’s no corruption in Connecticut family courts?

      Maybe so. The last time the Department of Justice prosecuted crimes committed in Connecticut family courts was: never.

      Given the fact that the Justice Department ignores corruption and crimes in Connecticut family courts, maybe Attorney Cunha should have started by asking the judge the following question: “Should Connecticut family courts handle the blatant corruption in the cases or should information about corruption be sent to the Feds?”

      Now that Mr. Pattis did what he did, will all Connecticut attorneys be disbarred, mocked and shamed for noticing corruption in Connecticut courts?

      Unfortunately, Attorney Cunha seems to trust Mr. Pattis. She apparently doesn’t see that he’s a well-greased cog in the machine that punished her for blowing the whistle on the corruption. Seems like he thoroughly fooled her with his “champion for the underdog” shtick.

      Purposeful distraction and deceit is common practice among criminals, scoundrels and attorneys in corrupted courts.

      That’s their religion.

    • Hi Anonymous,

      Are you on a first-name basis with Nickola or is that your way to try to convince others they should disrespect her as much as possible?

  • RE Bangkok’s Impassioned Defense of Ambrose the Ugly Albino:

    Well, if you the reader, reads between the lines Bangkok truly has mommy issues. Daddy must have been the better half — while mommy was too busy sharing her ‘lower half’.

  • Sorry but, IMO, if anyone is “punishing the children” it is Karen and her refusal to participate in supervised visitation. All she had to do was show up and! The kids have their mother in their lives.

    • There is no legal definition of supervised visitation, no approved vendors, no licensing, no insurance, no qualification standard, just made up silliness for judges to funnel money to pockets of friends, a judicial failure, no law, no court authority to order it.

      • And yet, somehow supervised visitation exists and is a proven way to see one’s kids and gain unsupervised visitation and eventually some custody. In fact, it has actually been demonstrated to work that way for many decades! What kind of magic is this?

      • Right. Why was Nick Sarno a/k/a Nick Siconolfi a/k/a etc. etc. etc. “supervising” mothers for $400 an hour?

        • Who gives a shit? What’s more important…getting mad about someone’s inflated hourly rate or seeing your children? Get a grip.

          • “… meet Nick Sarno, aka Nicolas J. Siconolfi, aka Nicholas Sicinolfi, who owns a visitation supervision company called N.J. Sarno and Company, which holds supervised visitations in the parking lot of the police department, and who packs a weapon which may not be entirely legal. His visitation supervisors do not have social work degrees, in fact, may not have any training at all in domestic violence or sexual abuse. Snow reports that the Sarno company, which is not listed as a visitation company in a national directory for Supervised Visitation Providers for Connecticut, is charging some parents upwards of $10,000 a month for supervision services. …”

    • “bingo!”?

      Like magic or the card game with the little plastic discs?

      WTF indeed.

      Read the case details. Then, submit yourself and your children to mandatory, for-profit, purposely adversarial Connecticut family courts which have virtually no oversight and no accountability before you comment next time, please.

      • I have read all the publicly available case details. As for submitting myself to an adversarial Connecticut family court before commenting again…um, yeah…ok…that’s a realistic request.

        So I guess every commenter here, both pro and con, on the Frank report should not comment on these posts until they themselves have submitted themselves to the Connecticut family court??? Get real.

        And yes, going to supervised visitation is as easy as 1, 2, see your kids. Don’t screw around suing the governor of Connecticut instead, dummy.

About the Author

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist.

His work has been cited in hundreds of news outlets, like The New York Times, The Daily Mail, VICE News, CBS News, Fox News, New York Post, New York Daily News, Oxygen, Rolling Stone, People Magazine, The Sun, The Times of London, CBS Inside Edition, among many others in all five continents.

His work to expose and take down NXIVM is featured in books like “Captive” by Catherine Oxenberg, “Scarred” by Sarah Edmonson, “The Program” by Toni Natalie, and “NXIVM. La Secta Que Sedujo al Poder en México” by Juan Alberto Vasquez.

Parlato has been prominently featured on HBO’s docuseries “The Vow” and was the lead investigator and coordinating producer for Investigation Discovery’s “The Lost Women of NXIVM.” In addition, he was credited in the Starz docuseries 'Seduced' for saving 'slave' women from being branded and escaping the sex-slave cult known as DOS.

Parlato appeared on the Nancy Grace Show, Beyond the Headlines with Gretchen Carlson, Dr. Oz, American Greed, Dateline NBC, and NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, where Parlato conducted the first-ever interview with Keith Raniere after his arrest. This was ironic, as many credit Parlato as one of the primary architects of his arrest and the cratering of the cult he founded.

Parlato is a consulting producer and appears in TNT's The Heiress and the Sex Cult, which premieres on May 22, 2022.

IMDb — Frank Parlato,_Jr.

Contact Frank with tips or for help.
Phone / Text: (305) 783-7083