Richard Luthmann and Mary Auld Kovacs expose family court corruption, calling out greed and injustice in a system that fails parents and children alike.
Instead of this conspiracy stuff, you should do a story about how some women (ie. Weinstein, Kassenoff, and Aichour) are using false allegations of pedophilia and dog raping against their very successful husbands with the assistance of a corrupt discredited Psychiatrist Dr. Brandy X. Lee (sounds like a porn name). All these men are highly successful and all the women accusing them are complete losers. There is a pattern here.
Catherine Kassenoff is dead (we think?). I still believe that God is the final judge. I won't piss on her grave unless she has a "Lazarus moment" and has fooled us all. She may have:
I tried to contact Jimmy Cerveaux, and he ignored return my requests. If he had replied and said: "I would love to set the record straight by I cannot comment under advice of counsel," I would respect that. I'm not going to deep dive where the subject won't give me access.
What's the deal with Weinstein? Do you mean Harvey Weinstein? That story has already been told many times from many angles. What else is there to say?
He is right to advise him not to comment. These things are meant to be handled in court, and it is disgusting to destroy your children by attacking your successful husband publicly because that's just cowardly, Catherine is one of those people who think she is perfect, and her husband is evil. I will piss on her grave because what she did was to scar her children for life. I reviewed everything and they are both shitty parents, both are among the worst human beings I have ever seen, but she tops him. I am also talking about Elizabeth Harding Weinstein, another unemployed winner married to a successful man. She actually posted herself violating stay away orders and got locked up numerous times and put into a mental hospital which was very warranted. She is another abuser, and her grown children want nothing to do with her and all have protective orders keeping her away, but they are damaged for life. It pisses me off that these women were allowed to get away with this. I think the fear of losing their husbands high incomes and having to actually get jobs pushes them to make the outrageous false allegations.
Courts are not the end all and be all in our constitutional structure. They are but one branch of the government, and are still bound by the rule of law. I think I've told you before that I am a natural law originalist. You have an obligation to seek redress from the courts, but in the face of an unjust court, you have prerogative to seek redress consonant with natural law by other means. That may be by the political branches of government (executive and legislative), by the fourth estate (the press), or by other legal and legitimate means within decent public discourse. When that fails, it's guns and guillotines...or at least that's what the political philosophers the founding generation were reading in 1787 Philadelphia said.
Three women are destroying these children’s lives with the worse abuse. And their husbands also. They deserve long prison sentences. You talk about punishing abusers but in these cases, you are Ok with it. Double standard. False allegations and abusing children are not free speech especially when it destroys the lives of children and fathers. How will MC recover from being brainwashed that her father raped her and the family dog? And the motivation is simply greed for money which makes it worse. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre and hide behind “free speech”. The intention for the 1st amendment was for expression of political speech and religion not to abuse children. You are not allowed to stalk people. Thats a crime. This is no different than stalking and harassment. This is not free speech issue. It is an abuse issue. Abusers are creative in how they abuse their victims.
This is not an accurate statement: "The very term “parental alienation” (PA) is hotly debated. Some jurisdictions, such as Florida, recognize it under the law, while others, like New York and California, do not." New York and other states look at the totality of the circumstances including whether one parent attempted or succeeded in alienating the other parent under the "best interest of the child". Statutory elements of the best interest include abuse, mental illness and an inability to place the best interests of the child ahead of their own. A case could certainly be made that parental alienation is a form of mental and psychological abuse. Hypothetically, if a parent coaches a 4-year-old child to report to teachers and doctors that the other parent raped them and the family dog, without evidence, then the mental stability of that parent comes into question and a restraining order may be granted. When a parent goes public with unsubstantiated allegations, a court will issue a cease-and-desist order to protect the child from a lifetime of embarrassment and shame but is too late once they do so. Every child deserves to have both parents love them and not to be dragged into an interpersonal dispute and used as pawns to hurt the other parent.
Florida recognizes the tort (personal injury) claim of alienation of children from a parent by a third party. The claim is NOT available for parents vs. parents. As stated in Davis v. Hilton, 780 So. 2d 974, 975-76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001):
"The Florida Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for intentional interference with a custodial parent-child relationship by a non-parent. Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999). In Stone, Stone and his ex-wife had a child S.P.S. S.P.S's maternal grandparents abducted S.P.S from the state, refused to tell Stone of the child's whereabouts, and refused to return the child. Id. at 1040. After having incurred travel, investigative, and other costs in relocating and returning the child, Stone filed suit against the maternal grandparents and maternal aunt for interference with his right as a father to custody and for damages and costs. Id. The Court relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, sections 699, 700 (1977), which recognizes the intentional interference with the custodial parent-child relationship and the alienation of affections as two distinct torts, and which specifically recognizes a cause of action for the former. Id. at 1045. While alienation of affections involved interference with the child's affections, intentional interference with the custodial parent-child relationship involves more; it involves depriving the custodial parent of physical custody of the child. Id. The Court found this distinction to be critical. Id. Tort litigation for alienation of affections carries the risk that litigation might increase intra-family disharmony and force children to testify in court, as pawns, testifying against a parent. Id. at 1046. The Court reasoned, therefore, that only where there is the additional element of interference with parental physical custody by a third party is it in the child's best interest to allow a cause of action in tort."
To my knowledge, New York, California, and many other states do not recognize parental alienation as harmful under the law in this respect. The only relationships that are actionable are business relationships. Feel free to correct and/or educate me.
The tort you are referring to is a separate cause of action not related to custody area. I think it is obvious that any judge in any jurisdiction will certainly look at parental alienation as a factor in determining custody if it is present. Normal people would not engage in this. A parent who will not foster a relationship with the other parent is frowned upon for good reason. Children should have the opportunity to have both parents in their lives absent abuse which could include parental alienation which is a pernicious form of abuse that has gained significant momentum since fathers have been awarded custody slightly more than before. Hypothetically, if a mother coached to a 4-year-old child that the father was raping her and the family dog, I think it would rise to the level of being psychotically evil and I think we need to make it a criminal offense because it goes beyond simply a factor in determining custody matters.
True. But a Florida judge would give more weight to child "interference" or "alienation" in the Family Court arena because it is enshrined in the state law - as opposed to a New York, Connecticut, or California judge? PA is not legally recognized for any purposes in those states, right?
You are hung up on the term "parental alienation". A person's behavior consists of many things. Each case is unique. I have seen very amicable divorces and child custody cases. The parents accepted that the marriage broke down and were friends regardless and they would still go to events together. I know a few where they actually continued to have sexual relations. On the other hand, I have seen both parents act completely insane to the point where I think neither parent was competent. In the Kassenoff case, neither parent was remotely capable of raising those kids, but the father was marginally better. The wife took her hatred beyond the grave after committing suicide guaranteeing those kids will suffer through life. A parent could be an alcoholic, drug abuser, narcissist, chronically unemployed, clinically depressed, too busy at work, religious zealot, ardent atheist, bad driver, uneducated, paranoid, etc... None of these are called out in any law but they can and are factors they look at. It's totality of the circumstances. And if you accuse the other spouse of being a dog rapist, you better have a video to back it up or else they might question your mental stability.
So a Florida judge would have a basis give more weight to child "interference" or "alienation" in the Family Court arena - in the "totality of the circumstances analysis" because it is enshrined in the state law - as opposed to a New York, Connecticut, or California judge, right?
No, it is not that cut and dry. No one factor in any state is supreme anywhere. A parent may have interfered with custody, but the other parent may have been worse in other ways. I've seen that. When you hear some of these women, they only tell you their side of the story and that they were angels sent from heaven with no flaws. I'll tell you that's never the case. People rarely can see the bad in themselves and typically blame others for everything. Women, much more than men, tend to be the alienators, Men, much more than women tend to not be the primary caretaker. So, if these were the only two factors, you have to say what are the effects on the child; how bad is the alienation how involved was the non-primary caretaker? It's not always simple. The best way to win custody is not by bashing the other parent, it's to focus on being the best parent you can be.
How many fathers are forced to liquidate their assets, and no one cares? What's with the ugly dog?
Instead of this conspiracy stuff, you should do a story about how some women (ie. Weinstein, Kassenoff, and Aichour) are using false allegations of pedophilia and dog raping against their very successful husbands with the assistance of a corrupt discredited Psychiatrist Dr. Brandy X. Lee (sounds like a porn name). All these men are highly successful and all the women accusing them are complete losers. There is a pattern here.
Catherine Kassenoff is dead (we think?). I still believe that God is the final judge. I won't piss on her grave unless she has a "Lazarus moment" and has fooled us all. She may have:
https://frankreport.com/2023/06/20/psychiatrists-response-raises-questions-about-catherine-kassenoffs-reported-suicide/
I tried to contact Jimmy Cerveaux, and he ignored return my requests. If he had replied and said: "I would love to set the record straight by I cannot comment under advice of counsel," I would respect that. I'm not going to deep dive where the subject won't give me access.
What's the deal with Weinstein? Do you mean Harvey Weinstein? That story has already been told many times from many angles. What else is there to say?
He is right to advise him not to comment. These things are meant to be handled in court, and it is disgusting to destroy your children by attacking your successful husband publicly because that's just cowardly, Catherine is one of those people who think she is perfect, and her husband is evil. I will piss on her grave because what she did was to scar her children for life. I reviewed everything and they are both shitty parents, both are among the worst human beings I have ever seen, but she tops him. I am also talking about Elizabeth Harding Weinstein, another unemployed winner married to a successful man. She actually posted herself violating stay away orders and got locked up numerous times and put into a mental hospital which was very warranted. She is another abuser, and her grown children want nothing to do with her and all have protective orders keeping her away, but they are damaged for life. It pisses me off that these women were allowed to get away with this. I think the fear of losing their husbands high incomes and having to actually get jobs pushes them to make the outrageous false allegations.
Courts are not the end all and be all in our constitutional structure. They are but one branch of the government, and are still bound by the rule of law. I think I've told you before that I am a natural law originalist. You have an obligation to seek redress from the courts, but in the face of an unjust court, you have prerogative to seek redress consonant with natural law by other means. That may be by the political branches of government (executive and legislative), by the fourth estate (the press), or by other legal and legitimate means within decent public discourse. When that fails, it's guns and guillotines...or at least that's what the political philosophers the founding generation were reading in 1787 Philadelphia said.
Three women are destroying these children’s lives with the worse abuse. And their husbands also. They deserve long prison sentences. You talk about punishing abusers but in these cases, you are Ok with it. Double standard. False allegations and abusing children are not free speech especially when it destroys the lives of children and fathers. How will MC recover from being brainwashed that her father raped her and the family dog? And the motivation is simply greed for money which makes it worse. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre and hide behind “free speech”. The intention for the 1st amendment was for expression of political speech and religion not to abuse children. You are not allowed to stalk people. Thats a crime. This is no different than stalking and harassment. This is not free speech issue. It is an abuse issue. Abusers are creative in how they abuse their victims.
This is not an accurate statement: "The very term “parental alienation” (PA) is hotly debated. Some jurisdictions, such as Florida, recognize it under the law, while others, like New York and California, do not." New York and other states look at the totality of the circumstances including whether one parent attempted or succeeded in alienating the other parent under the "best interest of the child". Statutory elements of the best interest include abuse, mental illness and an inability to place the best interests of the child ahead of their own. A case could certainly be made that parental alienation is a form of mental and psychological abuse. Hypothetically, if a parent coaches a 4-year-old child to report to teachers and doctors that the other parent raped them and the family dog, without evidence, then the mental stability of that parent comes into question and a restraining order may be granted. When a parent goes public with unsubstantiated allegations, a court will issue a cease-and-desist order to protect the child from a lifetime of embarrassment and shame but is too late once they do so. Every child deserves to have both parents love them and not to be dragged into an interpersonal dispute and used as pawns to hurt the other parent.
Florida recognizes the tort (personal injury) claim of alienation of children from a parent by a third party. The claim is NOT available for parents vs. parents. As stated in Davis v. Hilton, 780 So. 2d 974, 975-76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001):
"The Florida Supreme Court recognized a cause of action for intentional interference with a custodial parent-child relationship by a non-parent. Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999). In Stone, Stone and his ex-wife had a child S.P.S. S.P.S's maternal grandparents abducted S.P.S from the state, refused to tell Stone of the child's whereabouts, and refused to return the child. Id. at 1040. After having incurred travel, investigative, and other costs in relocating and returning the child, Stone filed suit against the maternal grandparents and maternal aunt for interference with his right as a father to custody and for damages and costs. Id. The Court relied on the Restatement (Second) of Torts, sections 699, 700 (1977), which recognizes the intentional interference with the custodial parent-child relationship and the alienation of affections as two distinct torts, and which specifically recognizes a cause of action for the former. Id. at 1045. While alienation of affections involved interference with the child's affections, intentional interference with the custodial parent-child relationship involves more; it involves depriving the custodial parent of physical custody of the child. Id. The Court found this distinction to be critical. Id. Tort litigation for alienation of affections carries the risk that litigation might increase intra-family disharmony and force children to testify in court, as pawns, testifying against a parent. Id. at 1046. The Court reasoned, therefore, that only where there is the additional element of interference with parental physical custody by a third party is it in the child's best interest to allow a cause of action in tort."
To my knowledge, New York, California, and many other states do not recognize parental alienation as harmful under the law in this respect. The only relationships that are actionable are business relationships. Feel free to correct and/or educate me.
The tort you are referring to is a separate cause of action not related to custody area. I think it is obvious that any judge in any jurisdiction will certainly look at parental alienation as a factor in determining custody if it is present. Normal people would not engage in this. A parent who will not foster a relationship with the other parent is frowned upon for good reason. Children should have the opportunity to have both parents in their lives absent abuse which could include parental alienation which is a pernicious form of abuse that has gained significant momentum since fathers have been awarded custody slightly more than before. Hypothetically, if a mother coached to a 4-year-old child that the father was raping her and the family dog, I think it would rise to the level of being psychotically evil and I think we need to make it a criminal offense because it goes beyond simply a factor in determining custody matters.
True. But a Florida judge would give more weight to child "interference" or "alienation" in the Family Court arena because it is enshrined in the state law - as opposed to a New York, Connecticut, or California judge? PA is not legally recognized for any purposes in those states, right?
You are hung up on the term "parental alienation". A person's behavior consists of many things. Each case is unique. I have seen very amicable divorces and child custody cases. The parents accepted that the marriage broke down and were friends regardless and they would still go to events together. I know a few where they actually continued to have sexual relations. On the other hand, I have seen both parents act completely insane to the point where I think neither parent was competent. In the Kassenoff case, neither parent was remotely capable of raising those kids, but the father was marginally better. The wife took her hatred beyond the grave after committing suicide guaranteeing those kids will suffer through life. A parent could be an alcoholic, drug abuser, narcissist, chronically unemployed, clinically depressed, too busy at work, religious zealot, ardent atheist, bad driver, uneducated, paranoid, etc... None of these are called out in any law but they can and are factors they look at. It's totality of the circumstances. And if you accuse the other spouse of being a dog rapist, you better have a video to back it up or else they might question your mental stability.
So a Florida judge would have a basis give more weight to child "interference" or "alienation" in the Family Court arena - in the "totality of the circumstances analysis" because it is enshrined in the state law - as opposed to a New York, Connecticut, or California judge, right?
No, it is not that cut and dry. No one factor in any state is supreme anywhere. A parent may have interfered with custody, but the other parent may have been worse in other ways. I've seen that. When you hear some of these women, they only tell you their side of the story and that they were angels sent from heaven with no flaws. I'll tell you that's never the case. People rarely can see the bad in themselves and typically blame others for everything. Women, much more than men, tend to be the alienators, Men, much more than women tend to not be the primary caretaker. So, if these were the only two factors, you have to say what are the effects on the child; how bad is the alienation how involved was the non-primary caretaker? It's not always simple. The best way to win custody is not by bashing the other parent, it's to focus on being the best parent you can be.