From email@example.com Wed Aug 10 16:33:33 CDT 1994 Subject: false charges 1/2 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 94 00:59:00 -0500X-Post from Donald King, * FatherBoard North, Newark, DE (302) 737-6041
Gentleman (and others) :
Sorry for any delays in response to all participants who have left me messages. I've been quite busy making a living (for a change).
I wanted to share with the participants herein, the results of diligence, true investigation, and the sad reality of how our children are made to be the pawns of feminists, and the government. Further, to provide insight as to what REALLY can be accomplished when the FACTS are exposed. Since I have gotten zero response to my "Call To Arms", I think what you are about to read may shed some light on the points to be made, and what "we" can do.
Back in May, I got a referral from the nat'l HQ (NAF). In following up, I was contacted by a member (NAF) in No. CA with a serious problem. It seems that he was about to be charged with Child Molestation, and his wife was about to be charged with felony abandonment, and neglect. For purposes of this post, call the member "John".
As the story goes, John had been recently accused by his step-daughter of sexually molesting her. This was in Lassen County, CA. This fact will become important later, so remember it now.
It seems that John, and his wife (call her Cheryl), had some problems between them around Sept., 1993, and she took a vacation, with John's blessing, so that they could sort out the problems they faced. When she went on vacation, the natural father found out, and at the prodding of his mother (grandmother of the step child) filed for custody. The natural father had previously stated on open (court) record, he did not want custody of his child, and John has been the father ever since. The grandmother had made the same allegations of sexual molestations against previously, The allegations were investigated by CA CPS and proven to be unfounded, spanning a period of six years prior, as of 12/93. John faced the custody challenge in court, back in 12/93, and was awarded full custody of the step child. It seems the G-m's objective was to obtain custody of the child, for purposes of collecting child support from John, were she successful. The allegations raised in the 12/93 issue were flatly denied by the step child, and the case raised by the natural father (or prodded by the G-m) was denied.
This was the case history represented by John to me. He had been referred to the NAF from a waitress at someplace he frequented, and that started everything else. Given his story, and having little experience with this type of matter, we have our own experts that I could consult, for if this was some trying to cover up (exculpate) such a criminal act, and was true, John called the wrong place, for if true, I would have hung him myself! The details are voluminous, but can be summarized in the assertion of John that the child had concocted a story, that was in direct conflict with her prior testimony (recantation), covering the same time frames, because she had been caught stealing (shoplifting) from a store, and had been punished. The child was 13, and as a part of her punishment, could not contact her friends for a period in time, was grounded, etc.
There was a child of the marriage between John and Cheryl, a child of 6 years. Cheryl, at the time of the custody hearing (12/93), was still on vacation, somewhere in the US, and had written an agreement giving John temporary custody, of both children, until she returned.
Enter CPS (Child Protective Services). These were the same persons that had exonerated John back in Dec. 1993. Based upon the step-daughter's allegations, they walked in a removed both children from John's care. They contacted the mother (in April, 94), and told her of the allegations, and asked that she return to CA immediately, and promised to "set her up immediately", with welfare, etc., and get her a job, picket fence house, whatever.
Cheryl came back to CA the next day. CPS told her that it was their intent to have the DA file charges against John based upon the allegations of the child, and that she could have the kids that day, and be "set up" immediately. Then they (CPS) asked her if the allegations were true. She said "no". Then they asked if he (John) "was capable" of committing the alleged acts. While she acknowledged that physically he "was capable", she acknowledged that her daughter was an expert at manipulation, and was a compulsive liar, if she had something to gain by it. Then CPS "told her" what she was to respond with, if she wanted her children, and to be "set up". She refused, stating that it wasn't true, and she couldn't do that, specifically "lie about someone". Regardless of her and John's problems, she wouldn't lie to anyone about such heinous acts (sexual intercourse, fondling, etc., of a child), about anybody. Then, CPS turned on her, threatening her that if she didn't state these things they were "prepared" to file criminal charges against her for felony abandonment of her children, neglect, and were going to make them wards of the state, and further threatened, that if she ever wanted to see her children again, she was to do exactly as they said. In interviewing her, this was what she told me. Thank God for an honest woman.
At the point in time of the contact from John, they had already been to a preliminary, but had not been charged. They had both been appointed "Counsel", and were to appear for an arraignment, respective to juvenile law, and their parental rights potentially being removed, in May, 1994. John had only spoken to his appointed counsel, once, very briefly, during such consultation, his "attorney" advised him that he was to plead guilty in Juvenile court, his parental rights would be removed, and no further action would be taken. Loving his children, and recognizing the trauma induced in the six year old (of his own), prompted him to call the NAF. BTW, the attorney's name is Harold Abbott, Susanville, CA., if anyone wants to know "who not to hire".
Based upon the above, I suggested to John that he plead Not Guilty, were I in his same circumstance. He presented that to his attorney, at which time, his attorney advised him that "Men's Organizations" are nothing more than "pamphlet pushers" and not to listen to anything other than what had to happen, i.e., he had to plead NOLO and lose his children. Bear in mind that he was facing 18 years in the state pen, and she (Cheryl) was facing 9.
Given the response, I did some research, and suggested to him that
He took it to his attorney. Mr. Abbott (where is Costello?), immediately asked him who he was talking to and "who prepared this?". You see, John is a good old country boy. When pointed out that this was irrelevant, Mr. Abbot became irate, telling John he had to do "as told". John promptly told his attorney, that if he didn't do as John TOLD HIM to do, he was fired! After the initial shock, Mr. Abbott agreed to make whatever statement John directed.
A week later, John and his attn'y walk into court. Mr. Abbott stands for John and indicates to the court that John is intending to plead "No contest" to the allegations, at which time, John stands up, on court record and says "Bullshit!", "I am not going to plead guilty, or anything like it, to something I didn't do!". This was after the fact that John and Cheryl's attorney (and CPS) had spent over two hours in the judge's chambers. The judge immediately exclaimed "This is not what this court understood. It was the understanding of this court that settlement had been reached.", at which time, John (upon preparations and suggestions of the NAF) stood and said "I didn't agree to anything!". THE judge told John to sit and be quiet.
Over the next few weeks, John went to work, at the guidance of the NAF. He was able to obtain sworn declarations of the school-mates of the child that she had lied, liked the attention she got, and was going "to show him". Meanwhile the mother, in shock, worked closely with the NAF, to provide the needed history that would break down the fraudulent story, and CPS.
John met with his attn'y on many occasions, asking why he REFUSED to read the prepared statement. His attn'y advised Jooohn that if he didn't "stop balking the system", he was going to be "in deep shit". After much bickering, his attn'y again agreed to read the prepared motion.
John had all the declarations prepared, and submitted into evidence (a cute trick) prior to the hearing. There was no way out for the court. The method in which it was accomplished left no room for adjudication. On top of that, he had subpoenaed all his witnesses, with proper notice (which went unnoticed, apparently by the opposition). The opposition (CPS), given John's refusal to comply with such outrageous, and fraudulent allegations, brought in as counsel, one of "their heavies" from Sacramento (or is that Sacro-Tomato?).
At the hearing (second), John again instructed his attn'y to read the prepared motion. Again, his attn'y refused. John rose to fire his attn'y. The court recessed to chambers, for a couple of hours. In the interim, they were completely spooked by the number of children, and parents in the courtroom. The bailiff had attempted to order all parties to leave, when John spoke up, and pointed out that they were all witnesses, under subpoena, and could not leave. The bailiff, in shock, became flustered, and at least ordered all witnesses into the hall (which he could legally do), and promptly went into chambers.
The hearing was again postponed.
Enter C.A.S.A. (Court Appointed Special Advocates). A representative had previously been involved in the 12/93 issue, and was again involved. She interviewed all parties, and spoke with the NAF, and again concluded the same as before, the charges were unfounded. All the while, CPS would not leave her side.
Next hearing, bottom line, John is again denied the right to fire his attorney, all "discussion" takes place in chambers, and the judge emerges to award custody to the paternal G-m of CHERYL, in Louisiana, relinquishes jurisdiction of CA to LA. The G-m in LA is "sympathetic" to the case.
On exit (from the state), John's Liar calls him in to "talk" (what a surprise). Tells John that during this time, NAF, and its leaders, have been investigated by the local, state and Fed, they are not "pamphlet pushers", and Lassen Co. wants nothing to do with NAF! All charges are dropped against he and his wife, and the Co. wouldn't mind if they left (for LA), and never came back. He (John's attn'y) further related some of the cases we have in Fed, and state courts, and reiterated the above.
Guess where John and Cheryl may be?
On top of that, just got a call 2 days ago, from a victim father, in Lassen Co., this time from CASA! Let the games begin!!!
Men's Issues Page
False Report Index