Connecticut Judge Thomas J. O’Neill, a former corporate litigation partner at Day Pitney LLP, has delivered a shocking ruling in the case of one-time Hollywood writer Christopher Ambrose.
The decision resulted in Ambrose’s ex-wife, Karen Riordan, being served with restraining orders preventing her from interacting with her children – Mia (16), Matthew (16), and Sawyer (13) – for an entire year.
This ruling has left the three children, who were under Riordan’s care, without a stable home. Seeking refuge, they sought temporary shelter at the residence of their maternal grandfather in Rhode Island.
Ambrose is seeking their forced return to his home, where he previously kept them in isolation for three years, until they ran away from him earlier this year.
Ambrose also seeks the arrest of Riordan for custodial interference.
The teenagers are adamant they will not return to their father, whom they claim abuses them.
Ambrose claims Matthew is so tiny brained that he cannot think for himself, and that his mother controls his thoughts and makes him say his father abuses him. Matthew, on the other hand, told Frank Report his father has abused him for years and gave gripping details of the abuse he suffered. He also provided photographs, videos and audios – none of which Judge O’Neill was willing to accept as evidence.
After a two-day hearing, Judge O’Neill ruled that Riordan subjected her teenage children to abuse under Jennifer’s Law, a new CT legislative measure to combat domestic abuse.
In this case, the allegations revolve around Ambrose’s claims that Riordan coerced her teenage children into making false accusations against him.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, Judge O’Neill chose not to have the teenagers testify.
O’Neill’s application of Jennifer’s Law has triggered a debate about the law’s purpose. The CT legislature designed the law to protect women and children from domestic abuse. But Judge O’Neill surprisingly invoked the law exactly the opposite to its intended purpose, with a male judge using it to shield an alleged male abuser.
Judge O’Neill’s novel interpretation of the law ignited concerns about its potential misuse. Critics argue that his application of Jennifer’s Law empowers the CT Family Court to continue to misuse the controversial theory of parental alienation to take children away from protective mothers.
While this happens sometimes, and perhaps often with younger children – the three Ambrose children are teenagers, and during a three year period when they did not see their mother – they continued to claim their father abused them.
Parental alienation is based on the belief that children’s claims of abuse against their father during custody disputes are almost always a lie.
The parental alienation theory is that the mother prompted the children to lie so that she can gain advantage in custody battles.
In CT Family Court, the prescribed remedy for parental alienation is to hand custody to the father, and bar the mother from contact with her children. This remedy often renders the mother homeless and the children traumatized – as it did in the Ambrose vs. Riordan custody case.
It is surprising how often the findings of parental alienation come where the father is affluent and the mother is not. In most of these cases, the father pays large sums to family court professionals, some of whom are supposed to be neutral, but somehow always manage to side with the man who pays them.
It is a national scandal, and CT Family Court is the epicenter of parental alienation abuse.
In Judge O’Neill’s case, using Jennifer’s Law to align with parental alienation raises concerns that the law’s real intent is now compromised. Some observers have drawn parallels between Judge O’Neill’s decision to remove the protective mother from the teens’ lives, leaving them vulnerable to the abusive father, with the tactics of the late Dr. Richard Gardner.
Dr. Richard Gardner wrote that the modern-day hysteria against pedophile fathers is similar to the hysteria against witches in the 17th century.
Dr. Gardner invented parental alienation as a method to defend affluent fathers accused of pedophilia – something Gardner believed was a natural human experience and a right that fathers deserve.
As family court professionals found out how much pedophile fathers will pay to exclude mothers and have free rein with their children, the professionals began adopting Gardner’s theories.
They posit that parental alienation is worse than pedophilia.
Following Gardner’s lead, American family courts have handed thousands of children into the hands of molesters.
Due to O’Neill’s shocking ruling, some are now calling Jennifer’s Law – Judge O’Neill’s “Pedophile Law.”
Critics also raise questions about Judge O’Neill’s impartiality and connections with Ambrose’s attorney, Alexander Cuda, and the judge’s former law firm, Day Pitney.
What favors if any Judge O’Neill extracted in return for his bizarre ruling is a matter of speculation. Stay tuned.
Is there a connection between Judge Thomas J. O’Neill, Chris Ambrose and attorney Alexander Cuda that runs deeper than the mere surface injustice of greed driven family court results?
Quite possibly not, but it bears exploration – for things are not always what they appear.
As long as mainstream news outlets the blatant corruption and crimes committed in the family courts, the public curiosity about the Ambrose case MUST focus on the crimes committed in the original divorce and custody case.
Adelman didn’t allow Karen to present her case in a fair court. His April 26, 2022 “Memorandum of Decision” is based on the crimes committed in that case, not fact.
For those who don’t know how the law works, Mr. Adelman’s statements in his April 26th “Memorandum of Decision” are fiction-turned-into-facts.
Attorney Cunha witnessed the corruption in the Ambrose case. She noticed the corruption in the case and in good faith, she took her justifiable concerns to Mr. Adelman, the judge hearing the case.
At that point, Mr. Adelman was in full control of Attorney Cunha’s concerns about the corruption in that case. Mr. Adelman should have prompted an investigation of Attorney Cunha’s concerns about the corruption. Instead of prompting an investigation, Mr. Adelman punished Attorney Cunha for raising her concerns about the corruption.
How and why did the case then go to Mr. Moukawsher — who should have prompted an investigation of Attorney Cunha’s justifiable concerns about the corruption?
Instead of prompting an investigation, Mr. Moukawsher disbarred Attorney Cunha.
That alone should have sent up a few bright red flags.
Whether or not there was corruption in the case (there was corruption in the case) and whether or not the corruption and/or bias was about religion, tribalism, old friendships, profit and/or something else, the state of Connecticut’s judicial branch had an obligation to investigate the allegations of corruption in the family court case.
Instead, the state of Connecticut shot the messenger. What followed were coverups on top of coverups.
The current Ambrose case isn’t about whether or not the mother communicated with her children. It’s not about her parenting style. It’s not about her mental state as she navigates that dangerous and still-corrupted storm pro se.
It’s about players in family courts twisting the actual facts of a case to build an entirely different case to distract public attention away from corruption in Connecticut’s judicial branch.
It’s about using organized for-profit corruption in the family courts to push cultural norms with a political agenda. It’s about Connecticut’s judicial branch offering profit and political reward for any judge, attorney, evaluator or guardian ad litem with controversial morals and/or criminal intent who wants in on that long-standing CT AFCC, Inc. network that destroyed thousands of children and families for the past several decades.
That family court racket is the same family court racket in most states affected by that sinister nightmare.
Last month in California, the state Senate Judiciary …
… passed AB 957, which would consider it abusive for a parent to not affirm a child’s gender “identity” and would deny custody to non-affirming parents during custody disputes. An updated version of the bill specifically defines a child’s “health, safety, and welfare” to include “a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.” …
https://www.californiafamily.org/2023/06/ca-senate-passes-bill-that-would-remove-custody-from-non-affirming-parents/
“… Carried west by Phoenician sailors, Canaanite religious influences can be seen …“
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_religion
The kids should have no day. They are just kids. The court knows best.
However should one of them want to change their gender it’s an outrage to prevent them from living their authentic experience.
Chris is a pedophille thats violating court orders
His ego is so big he can’t see that forcing them back to him will only make them resentful
Let the kids decide and then go from there
That doctor is a quack and either is a total idiot, or a pedophile himself.
This case keeps me up at night. There is sadly often no safety for victims of domestic violence in family court, even when you bring all uour evidence. Shame on this judge and the judicial conduct board. Abusers are notoriously sociopathic. I bet if the FBI was involved, they could see in 2 seconds that Ambrose is highly deceptive and fits the profile of a con artist. If safe to do so, those kids should publish their videos of abuse on tiktok to show the world who they are dealing with.
The FBI has been contacted about family court. Speaking of what is happening in the Calvary situation?
The FBI has been informed for years
Then some people need to be fired. Clean up the New Haven FBI.
Foxes guarding the foxes.
I see the playbook almost perfectly. What a God damn travesty. By reading frankreport and then reading all the extras sponsored by the comments section is like going to school. My thoughts are with Karen and her children.
O’Neil and Cuda are both pedophiles. May they BURN in Hell.
If your children were being sexually assaulted how compliant would you be with court orders? Pardon the women and give her her children back.
Well, you summarized the mom of children/wife of abuser experience -as well as the children. It’s only makes more court appointed professionals- you think those kids are ok? Look at opiate crisis in CT- not because of drug companies- it’s from 3 or 4 decades of these policies. Seriously- look into the history of lives of addicts and untimely deaths of them in CT. Also kids don’t have to come home- they are in Rhode Island who now has the duty to protect the kids
“Glossary of Terms
Protective / Restraining Order Glossary
Family Violence Protective Order (section 46b-38c of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an order that is issued at the time of arraignment during a criminal proceeding. Usually these orders are recommended by either the family relations office or in some cases the state’s attorney’s office. These orders are usually in effect from the date they are issued until the criminal case is sentenced and/or disposed of. In some cases a protective order can be removed prior to the underlying case being settled. 🤔?
Standing Criminal Restraining Order (section 53a-40e of the Connecticut General Statutes is an order that is issued usually at the end of a criminal case. These are lifetime orders and remain in effect until further order of the court. This order type is generally issued when it is a more severe criminal case. 🤔?
Restraining Order Application (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an application for a restraining order ex parte (immediate). It is given out at the clerk’s office to people who come in for relief from abuse in family cases. A Judge reviews the application and affidavit, and decides whether or not to issue a restraining order relief from abuse. If one is issued, the application is then updated to an ex parte restraining order. The Judge can also deny the ex parte relief and issue an Order for Hearing and Notice Summons. 🤔?
Ex Parte Restraining Order (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is an order issued by the family court when someone has completed the restraining order application. The Judge has reviewed the application and affidavit, and issues a temporary ex parte restraining order. A hearing date is scheduled, and the respondent must be notified. Generally speaking, this order is good for for 14 days, or until the date of the hearing. (Hearings can be scheduled before the 14-day time limit). 🤔?
Restraining Order After Hearing (section 46b-15 of the Connecticut General Statutes) is issued after a hearing on an ex parte restraining order, or an Order for Hearing and Notice Summons. Again, this order type is issued out of the family court. Generally speaking, it is effective for 6 months from the date of the hearing. A victim/applicant can request that the restraining order after the hearing be extended when the 6 months is about to run out. They must file a motion to extend and the respondent must again get notice. “ 👈 🤔 “issued out of the family court” ?
https://www.jud.ct.gov/statistics/prot_restrain/
He would have granted the protective order even if there was no Jennifer’s law. Karen Riordan has been constantly violating court orders from day 1. There is no corruption in this case. The judge cannot give custody to a parent who is constantly violating court orders in the most egregious ways possible. It baffles me why Karen cannot understand this. I can only guess she must be a narcissist who believes society’s laws don’t apply to her. Wake up! They do.
Don’t the teenagers’ desires count for anything?
They do and I think the court would be much more willing to consider their wants/requests if Karen would just follow the court order!
@Wake Up,
If your children were being sexually assaulted, would you violate court orders to protect them?
If your answer is anything other than “yes”, you are a pedophile just like O’Neil and Cuda.
What mother wouldn’t violate court orders to protect children from a pedophile father? Wake up and answer me that.
You are violating court orders and the law by abusing your children!
Apparently Connecticut doesn’t care
The kids (teenagers) are claiming that their father is a pedophile. Don’t they deserve protection?
The go To is ignoring abusive fathers’ violations
Ok pedo
“in the most egregious ways possible”? Sounds bad.
What harsher punishments should the Court dispense? 🤔
… In a legal context, egregious conduct refers to an action that is obviously wrong, beyond a reasonable degree. The term can be used to describe a conduct of a party to a legal action, its attorney(s) or any other legal professional, or the court itself. Egregious behavior is considered in order to bring to an end the person’s actions, or to introduce a request for increased damages. …
#1 … Why did the Connecticut Judicial Branch decline an interview? 🤔
“… Efforts are underway at the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence to train judicial employees on the new law, such as court support staff, probation officers, and anyone who may touch a case in court.
Meghan Scanlon, CCADV President and CEO, said they’re also training community partners like health professionals.
“We’ve held about 15 trainings and trained over 350 people individuals that would interface with a victim through the civil, criminal family court,” said Scanlon.
But what about training on coercive control for judges, the ultimate decision-makers in these complex cases?
FOX61 asked the CT Judicial Branch to take part in this story. The branch declined an interview, but a spokesperson sent over an updated document that lists off the domestic-violence-related education required for judges over the last several years.
The document showed that in 2021 there was a program on coercive control and its impact on children and adults.
The CT Judicial Branch said in a statement: “Judges’ training on domestic violence is extensive, regular, long-standing, conducted by leading national experts in the field and is in addition to other resources available to a judge.”
The branch also informed us additional training on coercive control is planned for 2022 …”
https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/jennifers-law-closer-look-connecticuts-new-domestic-violence-law/520-8ea71886-ab2d-4998-a556-d47c37e2753d
Can Meghan Scanlon, CCADV President and CEO help? Her husband is Connecticut State Comptroller. His office should have all records of CT AFCC, Inc. grants and funds since 1984. Those records should track state and federal funds sent to the networks Attorney Cunha mentioned before she was disbarred for raising concerns about the corruption.
All CT AFCC, Inc. for the past few decades and involved in the Ambrose case: Director, Gerard Adelman and Treasurer/Secretary, Robert Horwitz, Linda Smith … who else?
Treasurer, Bruce Freedman was to be involved in the Ambrose “Parental Alienation” custody “flip” too but eventually wasn’t involved for some reason.
1923 The American Bar Association establishes the American Law Institute as its educational arm. In May, 1923, a study of the defects of American criminal law was begun.
1939 Yale Law Journal reports on Psychiatry and the Conditioning of Criminal Justice which describes the “infiltration of psychiatry into the administration of the criminal law.”
1948 Publication of Sexual Behavior In The Human Male by Alfred C Kinsey
1948 Morris Ernst writes a book lauding the Kinsey Reports that, “…virtually every page of the Kinsey Report touches on some section of the legal code.”
March 1949 New Jersey Commission on the Habitual Sex Offender is organized with Paul Tappan as “formulator”, and gratitude is expressed to Kinsey for consultation.
May 8, 1949 Kinsey speaks at a Columbia University Forum on Crime Prevention, saying sex offense laws must be changed.
1949 The California Subcommittee on Sex Crimes is created by House Resolution 232. On December 14, 1949, the Subcommittee convenes for an entire day to hear Kinsey give testimony.
February 1950 Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) issues statement that “we should go beyond the symptomatic illegal act itself and assess the total personality …the identification of the psychiatrically deviated sex offender..are functions of which the responsibility rests largely on the psychiatric expert. They are not matters best determined singly by the judge or by the jury”
1951 The Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders is organized. Kinsey and Pomeroy attend workgroup to devise the “Framework for Sex Offense Law.” The commission declares, “No specific reference to the Kinsey findings is made here since these permeate all present thinking on this subject.”
January 1951, GAP announces “education system is ready now to include programs for the promotion of healthy emotional development as part of the regular curriculum and to accept further responsibilities for the preparation of its students for adaptation to the problems of stressful life … Preventive psychiatry has as one of its chief goals the prevention of mental and emotional illness by the use of techniques which influence large groups.”
January 1951 GAP announces: Sex is announced as essential to happiness: “four basic human drives: adventure, security, recognition, and sex, and that these drives and their derivatives, if constructive outlets are provided, lead to happiness and mental health, and without constructive outlets, lead to unhappiness.” (p. 4)
In 1952, Professor Herbert Wechsler in the Harvard Law Review dubbed the common law “ineffective, inhumane, and thoroughly unscientific. Funded by the Rockefeller Foundation in 1950, the MPC sex offenses chapter first draft appeared in 1955 (MPC Draft 4) and was distributed to the states.
May, 1954: GAP states, “there is agreement that some part of the determination of [criminal] responsibility should be subjected to the expert opinion of the psychiatrist as witness…Today, individual behavior is no longer judged in terms of accountability to a divinity, but rather in the light of biological and cultural forces.”
1955 Guttmacher, head of GAP, corresponds with Wechler to develop ALI/MPC definition of criminal irresponsibility. Published correspondence in the 1955 draft of Model Penal Code distributed to the states.
1963 Louis B. Schwartz writes in Columbia Law Review describes the Model Penal Code sex offenses law in war terms such as “this kind of beach-head has been established in the hostile country of traditional faith,” and “individual visionaries who are willing to pay the personal cost to challenge the old moral order”.
1963 Morris Ploscowe reports on the Hague Congress on Sexual and Family Crimes, held at the Rockefeller owned Villa in Bellagio, Italy. He asks, “How far can the law go in interfering with an individual’s freedom to act in a sphere which is vital to the human being?”
1963 Herbert Packer, Professor of Law at Stanford publishes laudatory article on the MPC and beyond in Columbia Law Review, stating “fidelity to principle is the solid base on which the code is built“.
1965 Ralph Slovenko publishes Sexual Behavior and the Law, Slovenko announces in the Vanderbilt Law Review that four or five year olds are provocateurs: “Even at the age of four or five, this seductiveness may be so powerful as to overwhelm the adult into committing the offense.” (vol 15, 1962, p. 809)
1969: The chief psychiatric advisor for the Model Penal Code, Manfred Guttmacher, is quoted in the Georgia Law Review to prove everyone really wants to be sexually deviant: “Philosophically a sex offense is an act which offends against the sex mores of the society in which the individual lives. And, it offends chiefly because it generates anxiety among the members of that society. Moreover, prohibited acts generate the greatest anxiety in those individuals who themselves have strong unconscious desires to commit similar or related acts and who have suppressed or repressed them.”
1983 New Jersey reports a change in the definition of rape. Professor Charles Nemeth writes in the New Jersey Bar Association’s Journal, “Translating reform ideology into practical reality is no easy task. Even more taxing is attempting to change public perceptions and attitudes on a controversial topic such as rape law and legislation. No other area of law is as dynamic and has been as successful in changing public and legal perceptions as the law of rape. With few exceptions, all states have revised, reformulated and redefined rape in the last 20 years.”
1998: The Indiana University Press republished the Kinsey reports with no changes, claiming: ‘The Kinsey Reports,’ as this book was popularly designated fifty years ago, represents a milestone on the path
toward a scientific understanding of human sexual behavior.
“… Talmud (Rodkinson, M. L., edit.). 1896, 1899, 1903, 1916. New edition of the Babylonian Talmud. Original text, edited, corrected, formulated, and translated into English. Boston, Talmud Soc., Vols. 1-10.
Talmud (Epstein, L, and Simon, M. edit.). 1936 edit. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim. Gittin. London, Soncino Press, pp. xv + 474.
Talmud (Epstein, I., Daiches, S., and Slotki, I. W., edit.). 1936 edit. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim. Kethuboth. London, Soncmo Press, Vol. I, pp. xvii -I- 432; Vol. II, pp. 433-771.
Talmud (Epstein, I., and Freedman, H., edit.). 1936 edit. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim. Kiddushin. London, Soncino Press, pp. xiii + 463.
Talmud (Epstein, I., and Klien, B. D., edit.). 1936 edit. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim. Nazir. London, Soncino Press, pp. xiii -{- 300.
Talmud (Epstein, I., and Freedman, H., edit.). 1936 edit. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim. Nedarim. London, Soncino Press, pp. xiv -1-312.
Talmud (Epstein, I., edit., Slotki, I. W., transl.). 1936. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Nashim. Yebamoth. London, Soncino Press, Vol. 1, pp. xlviii -f 440; Vol. 2, pp. 441-930. …”
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187552/page/n789/mode/1up
Search keyword “Talmud” in the search bar to see what’s written.
According to the authors, the *lack of* traditional religious morals is an indicator of aberrant behaviors.
Unfortunately for parents in family courts today: ALFRED C. KINSEY, Professor of Zoology, Indiana University; WARDELL B. POMEROY, Research Associate, Indiana University; and CLYDE E. MARTIN
Research Associate, Indiana University didn’t consider harmful behaviors as harmful — and their twisted research formed part of the foundation for family “law” in family courts.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187552/page/n494/mode/1up?q=Talmud
Things are not always as they appear, when you’re schizophrenic.
Must have been to judicial training- that is the excuse for anyone with ptsd!
“Latest News, Notices and Updates
AUGUST 2, 2023
Chief Court Administrator Announces New Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters …
https://www.jud.ct.gov/
Chief Court Administrator Announces New Chief Administrative Judge of Family Matters Effective Sep. 4, 2023
Released on Aug. 2, 2023
Chief Court Administrator Elizabeth A. Bozzuto announced today that Judge Leo V. Diana has been assigned to serve as chief administrative judge of family matters effective September 4, 2023. Judge Diana succeeds Judge Michael A. Albis, who is completing a five-year term as chief administrative judge of family matters.
“Judge Albis has been an innovative and reliable leader as the Judicial Branch sought new and creative ways to continue processing family cases through the challenges of the pandemic,” Judge Bozzuto said. “As an example, beginning in April 2020, parties with full writte agreements in family court matters could request approval of their agreements without having to come to a courthouse for a hearing. Additionally, Judge Albis transitioned the family division to Pathways, a new way to process family cases that gives each case the level of court resources it needs and reduces the number of unnecessary court appearances.”
Of Judge Diana, she added: “I am most grateful that Judge Diana has agreed to succeed Judge Albis in this important role and build upon his many successes. Throughout his nine-year tenure, Judge Diana has proven himself to be an extremely talented and dedicated judge who has handled many sensitive and complex family matters. He will be a tremendous asset to the division and to the Judicial Branch as a whole.”
“I am very honored to be the chief administrative judge of the family division, although it will be difficult to follow in Judge Albis’ footsteps,” Judge Diana said. “He guided the family court through the pandemic and onto a clear path forward. The family court has served, and will continue to serve, the citizens of the State of Connecticut by maintaining and advancing efficient access to services. I am also thankful to Judge Bozzuto for having the confidence in me to lead this division.”
As chief administrative judge, Judge Diana will, among other responsibilities, work with the chief court administrator on policy and procedures affecting family matters; solicit advice and suggestions from other family judges and stakeholders; and assist with the statewide implementation of policies and programs.
Judge Diana, a Superior Court judge since April 2014, has served in the Judicial District and GA Matters courthouses in Middletown and Norwich, was the presiding judge of the Regional Family Trial Docket in Middletown from September 2017 to September 2021, and most recently served as the presiding judge for the Hartford Judicial District’s Family Division and as the assistant administrative judge of the Hartford Judicial District …”
I don’t think people can imagine the horror if family court. It’s so blatantly rediculous. Ambrose had established poor character and a history of behavior in his career. Karen Riordan was a model parent and well respected member of her community. They have trashed this poor woman and taken away her ability to care for her self and her children. Everyone is video taping every thing. If you didn’t know a head of time any one Mom or Dad would bring their children to report abuse and sexual assault. This woman is being punished. The children are paying the ultimate price. Our family courts are in a state of functional disarray. It’s so disturbing. These children have the right to live free of abuse and harm. No matter what you do as a woman in family court they will not protect you if you don’t have money or a well connected Attorney. I’m sure some of the Dad’s have the same situation. Money is the root of all evil. It’s so sad to see this. There have to be some things else driving these cases. Please someone get to the bottom of it.
I agree! The FC system is broken and when you have children involved it’s just a shame! Children and families suffer the consequences. Never any winners! I do not know how the employees and workers in our judicial courts sit there on a daily basis and watch the destruction! Its abusive and sick! Yes, follow the money! Grossman set this up from the beginning and no one is going to go against her decisions like they all do for one another in the black robes. Not in Superior or at the State! Our families are falling apart as it is due to bad government policies and people running it!
Why are there no whistleblowers within the court system? We need whistleblowers to come forward and expose all the corruption.
… The affidavit continues, “During a remand hearing, CPS worker, Amy Thuman, testified that {their daughter} mimicked humping and punching noises during a multi-disciplinary hearing.
“Ms. Thuman further testified that {their daughter} stated that daddy plays the ‘dragon game’ where his pee-pee is the sword.”
Despite the concern from CPS, the AFC is mostly concerned with the purported connection between Lauren and Paul Boyne. …
https://michaelvolpe.substack.com/p/federal-lawsuit-alleges-widespread
A pastor, priest, rabbi or imam would be shamed and arrested for doing what Judge O’Neill did to those teenagers.
Aw come on, Frank. There’s no such thing as crime and no such thing as secrets.
“… FARMINGTON — Attorneys Norm Pattis and Kevin Smith have agreed to not discuss the Jennifer Dulos disappearance for the next four decades as part of a lawsuit settlement over legal fees they received weeks before their client’s suicide, according to a settlement awaiting the approval of a probate court judge …
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Why-Norm-Pattis-cannot-discuss-Jennifer-Dulos-16203931.php
“By 1850 the Dissenters and rationalists had moved in from the fringes to become London’s avant-garde — and [Thomas Henry] Huxley would meet them all … The crisis of faith was a collision of creeds, a product of the rents and changes in an industrializing society. ‘The result everywhere is the same’, Huxley said. ‘Every thinking man I have met with is at heart in a state of doubt, on all the great points of religious belief. And the unthinking men … are in as complete a state of practical unbelief’. … “
Desmond, Adrian J. “The Scientific Sadducee.” Huxley: From Devil’s Disciple to Evolution’s High Priest, Michael Joseph Ltd, Great Britain, 1994, p.160.
A hundred years later …
“To George Orwell (E. H. Blair)
Wrightwood. Cal.
21 October, 1949
Dear Mr. Orwell,
It was very kind of you to tell your publishers to send me a copy of your book. …
… May I speak instead of the thing with which the book deals — the ultimate revolution? The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at the total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuation, the consumption, of Robespierre and Babeuf. …
Another lucky accident was Freud’s inability to hypnotize successfully and his consequent disparagement of hypnotism. This delayed the general application of hypnotism to psychiatry for at least forty years. But now psycho-analysis is being combined with hypnosis; and hypnosis has been made easy and indefinitely extensible. …
Within the next generation I believe the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government than clubs and prisons, and that the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging and kicking them into obedience. …
Yours sincerely,
Aldous Huxley
https://archive.org/details/huxley-aldous-letter-to-george-orwell-page-1