Showing posts with label Indiana family court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Indiana family court. Show all posts

Friday, November 26, 2010

Dr. Edward J Connor is at it again. He's tattling on me.

On Wednesday I had a court hearing to approve the psychiatrist that I chose to perform a mental health evaluation of me in order to determine if I present a possible danger to my children or their mother. The girls’ mother has been objecting to my choice of psychiatrist because she believes that he may be biased. Of course she and her lawyer are basing my “potential danger” on psychological testing performed by Dr. Edward J. Connor. One of the more interesting things I learned on Wednesday is that while opposing counsel, Angela G. Loechel, was arguing that my mental health expert may be biased, while she continues to correspond with their original “unbiased” expert, Dr. Connor, in an effort to harm my children and keep them fatherless.

A couple weeks ago I was invited to go to a court hearing in Campbell County, Kentucky where Dr. Connor would be testifying. I was curious to hear what kind of “unorthodox” psychological jargon Dr. Connor could come up with in a different hearing. In the hearing Dr. Connor recommended that the parents alternate custody every year; one parent has custody one year and the other parent the next. It truly gave me additional insight into the disturbing practices of Dr. Edward J. Connor. Dr. Connor stated that the parents couldn’t get along well enough to share custody of their child so he suggested that they switch every year. In theory, each parent would have the authority to put the child into a different school every other year. But that’s what Dr. Connor does. He just writes and testifies to whatever he wants and he is never held accountable for his actions. Unfortunately, Dr. Connor was held publicly accountable for his actions that day because I went home and wrote about his ridiculous statements, and Dr. Connor went home and did what he does best; tries to seek revenge on me.

I have invited Dr. Edward J. Connor on numerous occasions to sue me and/or have me arrested if he believes I am guilty of anything. If Dr. Connor felt that I was a threat, he should seek a restraining order against me. If he thinks my writings are slanderous, he should sue me. What did Dr. Connor do after he and I appeared in a Kentucky courtroom at the same time? Dr. Connor tried to get me in trouble by contacting opposing counsel, Angela G. Loechel. Dr. Connor has to resort to tattling on me because he cannot sue me or have me arrested. If Dr. Connor initiated any criminal or civil proceedings against me, Dr. Connor would have to take responsibility for his actions in front of a jury. Any legal action taken against me could lead to criminal action against Dr. Connor. That’s why Dr. Connor lies in the shadows and takes shots at me from afar; he knows that his has conducted himself in an illegal manner.

In Wednesday’s hearing, Ms. Loechel went on and on as if I was the next coming of Charles Manson. She argued that my chosen psychiatrist would be biased. She said her client did a lot of research and came up with her own expert whom she felt was better qualified to perform the evaluation. I can see why she would want to go with her selection. The last “impartial” expert whom she and her attorney suggested was Dr. Connor, and Ms. Loechel is still working with Dr. Connor in an effort to get more information to help keep my children fatherless. Dr. Connor is no longer involved in my case. The fact that I attended a hearing in Campbell County, Kentucky has nothing to do with the safety of my children. It has more to do with the job security of people like Dr. Edward J. Connor and Angela Loechel. Ms. Loechel knows that there is no evidence that I have ever presented a danger to my children yet she continues to protect Dr. Connor despite knowing that Dr. Connor has operated in an illegal manner. Ms. Loechel and her client have spent the last fifteen months fighting to protect Dr. Connor’s case file because they know that the release of the file will demonstrate that my children lost a father due to the corrupt actions of a few professionals.

What it all comes down to is Dr. Edward J. Connor is a disturbed and dangerous psychological “expert” who is protected by people like Angela Loechel because they have the opportunity to obtain custom tailored reports and they have the ability to work with Dr. Connor to suppress evidence. While these people are playing their professional games, my children are suffering. Dr. Connor is a pathetic and cowardly man who knows that he has broken the law. Dr. Connor has contacted judges, lawyers, and prosecutors, in at least two different states in his attempts to harm my children and me. Rather than file civil or criminal action, Dr. Connor has to resort to tattling and interfering with legal hearings. The worst part is that Angela Loechel will continue to present writings like this to the Court in an attempt to demonstrate how my writings, which deal with the illegal conduct of professionals in the family court system, somehow make me dangerous to my children. Keep tattling Dr. Connor because that’s all you can do while you wait until states terminate your ability to continue practicing psychology and harming children. It’s only a matter of time before it is discovered that Ms. Loechel’s professional “expert” is a criminal and it will demonstrate how Ms. Loechel and her client capitalized on Dr. Connor’s illegal conduct to deprive my children of a father. Don’t worry girls, Daddy loves you and will keep fighting to protect your ability to grow up with both parents.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

"Serpico"; and how the good guys are somehow the bad guys


Last night I watched the 1973 film “Serpico” starring Al Pacino. “Serpico is based on a true story about an honest New York police officer, Frank Serpico, who blew the whistle on widespread police corruption. Serpico did not set out to bring down bad cops; the bad cops turned on him when he would not accept bribes and payoffs. Serpico’s actions in standing up to crooked officials in the police department and city government only got him labeled as a “bad cop.” When nobody in the system would do anything about rampant police corruption, Frank went to the newspaper. Shortly after the New York Times published a front page story about the corruption in the New York City Police Department, Serpico was sent to the dangerous ranks of the narcotics unit where he was shot in the face by a drug dealer while his fellow officers did nothing. Luckily Frank Serpico survived the incident and it brought forth sweeping reform to the department. Unfortunately, Serpico was still seen as a traitor amongst other police officers and received little recognition from the New York City Police Department for his bravery.

How can government spiral so far out of control to the point where the “majority rules” mentality kicks in and decides that if the bad guys outnumber the good guys, then the bad guys are right? “Serpico” is somewhat of a metaphor for government corruption on many different levels. I can liken it to my experiences in dealing with the Indiana Court System. One thing I feel that I share with Frank Serpico is a public perception of naivety. If individuals stand up against government corruption and civil rights violations in matters which the majority perceives to be impossible, the individuals are often labeled as being naïve. If the “naïve” individuals start asking too many questions, they are considered to be a threat. If the “threatening” individuals’ persistence begins to attract the ear of the public, then they are deemed dangerous. “Dangerous” is a label that dishonest officials place on people who pose a serious risk to their convenient unethical and/or illegal activity. In three simple steps, the new naïve guy in the system can somehow evolve into a danger to society. Corrupted officials need to label their opponents as being dangerous because it provides a means of justification to take almost any action necessary to eliminate the danger.

“You can’t beat the system.” I’ve heard that many times during the course of my dealings with the Indiana Court System and Dearborn County Law Enforcement. What people fail to understand is that I’m not trying to beat anything. I just want to be able to exercise all of my rights guaranteed to me by the US Constitution and I want those who are in a position to enforce the law to OBEY the laws they swore to protect. I was punished because I questioned the ethics of the Court’s expert, Dr. Edward J Connor. I was punished because I got Judge Carl H Taul to recuse himself because he violated the Indiana Judicial Code of Conduct by communicating with Dr. Connor outside the presence of the parties. I was punished for publicly writing about Dr. Connor and Judge Taul’s unethical/illegal conduct. Then I was punished for being persistent in trying to obtain the evidence against me. When I continued to question the system, I became the subject of a “secret” investigation by the Dearborn County Special Crimes Unit. When I began to request public records pertaining to the secret investigation and Judge James D. Humphrey, Dearborn County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard sent me an email where Mr. Negangard threatened to “make every effort to prosecute” me if I break any laws. Why is the Dearborn County Prosecutor threatening me? Is he threatening me because he believes I am dangerous, or is he threatening me because I am naïve? I guess it depends on what side of good or bad Mr. Negangard falls on.

Frank Serpico left the New York City Police Department after recovering from a gunshot wound to the face. The New York Times did an article on Mr. Serpico earlier this year. Frank Serpico was a victim of the NYPD yet he was viewed as a villain by many in the NYPD. The only thing Mr. Serpico was guilty of was failing to distinguish the difference between the criminals on the street and the criminals on the police force. Frank Serpico’s “inability” to differentiate the “good” criminals from the “bad” criminals prematurely ended his law enforcement career. In the January article by the New York Times, Frank Serpico said, “They took the job I loved most. I just wanted to be a cop and they took it away from me.” In a sense, I feel that I can relate to Mr. Serpico. Why should a person be punished because other people are angry that the person follows the law? I haven’t broken any laws in Indiana yet Indiana treats me as if I am a criminal. Indiana took the job I loved most. I just wanted to be a dad, and Indiana took it away from me.