Fighting Organized Crime
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO] is a federal law enacted to combat organized crime and criminal enterprises in the United States.
RICO conspirators often offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem or a problem that would not exist without the racket.
The Connecticut Bar Association [CBA] is a professional association of attorneys in Connecticut. The “Family Law Section” [FLS] is a section within CBA that focuses on helping members make more money through family law.
Since Connecticut will issue a ‘no-fault’ divorce for free, without the involvement of lawyers, FLS’s job is to provide creative opportunities and education for family law attorneys to help their clients avoid the free path to divorce.
The FLS provides members with seminars, workshops, and conferences on how to increase conflict without being obvious, how to use existing laws to stoke conflict, and how to collaborate with their colleagues to ensure maximum profits.
Clash of Interest
FLS operates on the factual premise that the higher the conflict, the more the profit.
The FLS’s existence is based on promoting the legal fiction that the best interests of the client and their children is the goal of family law attorneys.
The best interest of the attorney is an adversarial fight-to-the-death divorce and custody battle – maximizing every legal and extralegal remedy to stoke fever-pitch anger, angst, fear and desperation, while pretending to be their client’s cool-headed true friend in need and advisor-savior.
A smooth voice with a black heart is the hallmark of the family law attorney.
To stoke destructive war between spouses, the opposing attorneys must enter tacit collaboration while pretending to fight the good fight. This is the strategy to ensure an escalating and profitable battle, while duping the client whose whole life is on the line into thinking war is inevitable and that one can win wars against someone they once vowed to love forever.
The best interest of the divorcing couple is usually a quiet resolution between parties that once professed love for one another and profess love for their children.
Another service FLS provides is to lobby for and against legislation that would hold them accountable for the destruction of families, which is the primary fruit of family law practice.
If a body of elders without financial or other incentives were to guide divorcing couples, they might provide the sound advice that a full-scale battle between spouses with attorneys on both sides billing by the hour is nothing more than the destruction of their quality of life, happiness of their children, and the transfer of a lifetime of savings from the couple to the attorneys and their associates.
The wise elder might says:
Even when a family law attorney pretends it is so bad that the opposing side is so contentious, he is benefiting from it. Behind the scenes, he may be stoking the battle.
The family law attorney does not need to beat his fellow professional over the head with the plan. A wink and a nod will suffice.
Everyone knows that the key to a payday is stoking a war between spouses.
The evidence of racketeering is in the lawyer/judge conspiracy to thwart state law §46b-56(b), which requires the active and consistent involvement of both parents in the lives of children.
- (b) In making or modifying any order as provided in subsection (a) of this section, the rights and responsibilities of both parents shall be considered and the court shall enter orders accordingly that serve the best interests of the child and provide the child with the active and consistent involvement of both parents commensurate with their abilities and interests.
The legislature declared its will in plain, direct, and unambiguous terms. The phraseology of the law is ‘active and consistent.’
The standard judicial-fiat of no-contact orders isolating children from one parent defeats the law but produces profits for lawyers.
Denying visitation is beyond the family court’s jurisdiction, for in almost all judicial orders of no contact or supervised visitation, the state did not bring a claim of child protection.
Yet, judges routinely issue orders denying parents’ contact with their children based on paid actors’ reports to the court.
The law prohibits discretionary orders of child isolation. FLS and colluding judges hold no power to override the statute.
FLS’s conspiracy is seen in their lobbying efforts to keep the racket protected. It includes:
FLS opposes legislation removing immunity from lawyers, Attorneys for Minor Children (AMCs), and Guardians Ad Litem (GALs) involved in civil and family matters.
FLS opposes legislation limiting the circumstances under which the court can order supervised visits between a parent and child.
FLS opposes limiting the period during which a judge may order supervised visits.
Immunity for Psychologists & Psychiatrists
FLS supports legislation that would confer quasi-judicial immunity to mental health professionals appointed by the court to perform forensic evaluations of the parties and their children in custody cases.
Family Court Evaluations
A court-ordered forensic custody evaluation is an assessment conducted by a paid mental health professional, usually dependent for their livelihood from recommendations from FLS members.
The evaluator is typically a psychologist or psychiatrist, and is retained ostensibly to determine the best custodial arrangements for a child during a divorce or custody dispute.
The overt goal of a forensic custody evaluation is to provide the court with an impartial and expert opinion on the child’s best interests and the most suitable custody and visitation arrangements.
During the evaluation process, the evaluator typically briefly interviews the parents, the child, and some individuals involved in the child’s life.
They may also conduct various psychological testing and selectively review documents.
Forensic custody evaluations are dangerous:
- Subjectivity and Bias: The evaluator’s conclusions may be influenced by finances, bias, belief, experiences, and orders of who should be favored from the recommending GAL or lawyers. If the custody evaluator wants her next recommendation she had better “find” what the lawyer who recommends her wants her to find.
- Custody evaluations lack scientific reliability, it is an opinion. The reports are interpretative. Yet because the custody evaluation report is based on maximizing profits for lawyers, the judges almost always rely on them solely to the exclusion of contradictory reports.
- Custody evaluators depend on recommendations from court actors for their livelihood and must deliver results that support the recommending actors’ and not the children’s best interests. This is an unspoken, but completely understood mutual agreement.
- Trauma to the Child: The evaluation often leads to a flip of custody where children leave their happy home and are barred from contact with their primary attachment figure. It is one of the most beastly crimes against humanity of modern times.
- Limited Understanding: Evaluators who spend just a few hours with the various members of the family cannot possibly understand the complexities of a family’s dynamics, cultural background, or unique circumstances. Even if they were honest actors, which almost none of them are, the hasty methods they employ lead to inappropriate recommendations, which somehow almost always financially benefit the lawyers and the GAL.
- Suffice it to say that anyone who agrees to a custody evaluation is either in on the fix or a damn execrable fool.
The custody evaluator sells children for the good will of family law attorneys who recommend her services.
FLS opposes legislation that would:
Allow each parent to select their own custody evaluator in a child custody case.
Remove the child’s GAL from the list of persons who receive a copy of an evaluation report.
Permit copies of the custody evaluation report to go to the parents.
CT Courts do not allow parents to have a copy of the custody evaluation report that could steal their children from them and ruin the happiness of their children forever.
Opposes eliminating the requirement that parents keep the reports confidential.
FLS opposes any attempt to reduce or eliminate judicial discretion to issue custody or visitation orders.
The evidence of racketeering lies in lawyer invoices, court orders, and the defeat of statutes for the harm of children, enriching family court actors.
Let us next prepare a case with details, so that we can fulfill all the elements of racketeering.
The racketeering involves lawyers, GALs, custody evaluators, therapists and judges.