It’s amazing what lengths people will go to in an effort to win. Why would a lawyer lie in a brief to the appellate court? That is what my ex-wife’s appellate lawyer, Leanna Weissmann, did. Maybe it was necessary given that there really isn’t a logical explanation for ripping a father away from two little girls.
Before I get started, I would like to tell any judge presiding over my case that they should refrain from reading this even though Leanna Weissmann snuck in some ex parte evidence regarding a new website and invited the appellate judges to review the new internet postings in my ex-wife’s brief to the Indiana Court of Appeals. Ms. Weissmann wrote, “Husband continues to post about the court system which now include references to this appeal. As of April 23, 2010, he maintained several sites with derogatory comments about many of the people involved in his case including Judge Humphrey. See e.g. http://Husbandhelpskids.com/index.html; http://Husbandbrewington.blogspot.com/. I am not aware why Ms. Weissmann felt compelled to refer to a website that wasn’t created until 6 months after the final hearing in my divorce but I am sure that she is aware of the appellate rules that forbid the court to review new, ex parte evidence. And I don’t know why she mentioned Judge Humphrey. My statements about Judge Humphrey have nothing to do with the appeal, other than it being just a cheap shot to tattle on me for talking about Judge Humphrey in an effort to gain favoritism with other judges. I felt compelled to write about my ex-wife’s appellee brief in the case that an Appellate Judge would take Leanna Weissmann’s illegal advice and check out the websites and new evidence for themselves. Since my lawyer follows the rules and is unable to offer new evidence, I’m just putting the information on my blog and website to explain why I am fighting for my daughters and how my attorney and I do not resort to dishonest measures that can damage children’s relationships with their parents.
The best place to start is probably near the end of the Appellee’s (my ex-wife’s) brief. Rather than just make a case for her client, Leanna Weissmann strikes out to speculate what my defense against their accusations might be. She wrote, “While husband will likely defend his behavior as aggressive litigating on behalf of his kids, a quick review of the Record should convince this Court otherwise.” This has been the whole song and dance from the very beginning. For some reason, none of these legal professionals seem to grasp that I am only doing this for my children. What I find rather ironic, is the appellate lawyer for my ex-wife is starting the debate of whether or not I am an aggressive litigator. That’s rather flattering considering that Leanna Weissmann wrote that one of the reasons Judge Humphrey justified his decision to terminate my parenting time was “Husband has Attention Deficit Disorder affecting his ability to concentrate.” Given that there are no facts that demonstrate that I am a danger to my children, they tattled on me for questioning judges and made things up.
Leanna Weissmann wrote, “Husband blogged and continued to post confidential information on the web after being ordered not to.” On April 29, 2009, Judge Humphrey held a hearing on my ex-wife’s motion requesting the Court force me to take down my internet content. On May 14, 2009, the orders from the Court were filed DENYING her motion. Ms. Weissmann made the above statement claiming it was justification for the Court ordering “Supervised Visitation.” Just for the record, Judge Humphrey did not order supervised visitation; he ordered NO VISITATION. Ms. Weissmann made up the supervised visitation order because the no visitation order was indefensible. Judge Humphrey only ordered me to take down my internet postings if I wanted UNsupervised visitation. In the final decree Judge Humphrey stated,
“Because of the potential danger to the children, Husband must remove all postings created by him from the internet concerning the children before any UNSUPERVISED visitation may commence and/or continue.”
Ms. Weissmann must have been a little confused about the situation which is understandable. Judge Humphrey’s order states that my web postings are only dangerous if I have UNsupervised visitation and not supervised visitation. I guess Judge Humphrey was concerned that if left unsupervised, I would allow my, now four and six year old, children to go to my website and read my internet postings. That would be a miraculous feat considering my oldest was just learning to read nine months ago.
Another false statement made by Leanna Weissmann was “Husband’s behavior in the courtroom required the presence of a police officer.” The officer was in the courtroom because it was his job. Judge Humphrey was angry with me because I kept questioning why I was not allowed to have Dr. Edward J. Connor’s evaluation case file when the law stated I was entitled to it. Judge Humphrey asked the officer to stand behind me. Actually it was an act of intimidation. If Judge Humphrey used a police officer to stand behind me to keep me from arguing for the rights of my children and me, then that’s an act of intimidation. If I was out of line, Judge Humphrey should have held me in contempt. Instead, he placed the threat of police action behind me for the three day proceeding.
Ms. Weissmann rambled on and on about my numerous pleadings and how I kept trying to obtain my ex-wife’s medical records from Dr. Connor. This is the spin they have put on the release of the case file since I requested it over two years ago. My ex-wife’s legal fees were not due to my numerous pleadings and attempts to get the case file; they were a result of her and Dr. Connor not honoring the agreement that we both signed at the beginning of the custody evaluation. She consented to the release of the case file at the beginning and then successfully fought to not release it. Now their argument is that the court did not release it because the court was afraid that I would post confidential information on the internet. I had requested the file over a year before they submitted any of my web material to court. I first requested Dr. Connor’s case file on March 6, 2008. I did not post anything on the internet until mid-September of 2008. I created a website to tell people about Dr. Connor’s false/conflicting statements. My first blog post came on February 25, 2009; nearly a year after I requested Dr. Connor’s case file. If my ex-wife and Dr. Connor would have honored their part of the bargain and released the file, she wouldn’t have accumulated a high amount of legal fees. The irony in the situation is if Dr. Connor would have released the case file to me per the agreement that my ex-wife and I both signed, my website and this blog would never have existed.
Another thing Ms. Weissmann wrote about was how I inconvenienced Judge Carl H. Taul. Leanna wrote, “Husband then attempted to subpoena Judge Taul to testify, requiring Judge Taul to hire counsel to quash the subpoena.” I am not aware if Judge Taul had to reimburse Deputy Attorney General, Betsy Isenberg, for her legal services because it was never mentioned in court. I do not know why Leanna Weissmann is privy to this new information. What I do know is Judge Taul and Dr. Connor communicated outside the presence of the parties, which is against the rules. In a letter dated February 25, 2008, Dr. Connor stated,
“With this letter please be advised that Hon. Judge Carl Taul contacted me on 2/22/08 to convey his agreement for the review of the above-captioned case.”
If you assume Judge Taul follows the laws, then you have to assume that Dr. Connor is lying because it would be illegal for Judge Taul to contact Dr. Connor and make arrangements for the parties without the parties’ input or knowledge. Since Judge Taul recused himself after participating in ex parte communications with Dr. Connor, the only way to find out if Dr. Connor was telling the truth was to subpoena Judge Taul. Rather than hold Dr. Connor and Judge Taul accountable for doing something illegal, the professionals in the system got mad at me for following the rules in trying to deal with the situation. Ms. Weissmann even tattled on me for picketing my former lawyer’s office. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m going to post more information on www.danhelpskids.com about the situation to expand on some of the ridiculous arguments they made as an argument to keep me away from the children. Some examples include:
-“Husband’s attacks on Dr. Connor revealed by Dr. Connor’s testimony that Husband posted Dr. Connor was involved in a three-way sex triangle with his office manager.” My ex-wife knows Dr. Connor lied about the statement because she submitted my blog to court that contained my actual comments. [Check out the following link to see how they distorted the truth http://danbrewington.blogspot.com/2009/03/to-all-of-people-who-thought-my-story.html. The blog post is about Dr. Connor’s former office manager that pled guilty, after an FBI investigation, to making $126,558 worth of unauthorized purchases with Dr. Connor’s credit card. Just another reason to question the accuracy of Dr. Connor’s records.]
-“Husband allowed the children to watch age inappropriate movies, claiming Disney movies were more detrimental to the children than “Austin Powers.” That’s what you get for making an argument that Shrek and Austin Powers both have crude humor involving flatulents and kicks to the family jewels.
-“Husband has Attention Deficit Disorder affecting his ability to concentrate.” You heard that correct. My ex-wife is arguing that people with attention deficit disorder should have supervised visitation with their children.
-“Husband’s psychometric test results reveal a degree of psychological disturbance.” Dr. Connor graded the tests and then would not give me all the information behind his conclusions.
Here’s a memo to the people in the system who continue to cry about my web postings, “Stop doing illegal and/or unethical things to keep me from my children.” I’m getting tired of lawyers and judges whining about me trying to intimidate them. Last time I checked, they were lawyers and judges. I was going to refrain from posting anything about the specifics of the briefs that were filed with the appellate court, but since Leanna Weissmann provided the appellate court with ex parte evidence and encouraged the court to do their own investigation, I felt compelled to address the matter directly. Maybe if people understand that they will be held publically accountable for their actions, they would conduct themselves in a more professional manner. Check out www.danhelpskids.com for more information.
No comments:
Post a Comment