“WE’RE GOING TO TAKE HER DOWN AND TAKE EVERYTHING FROM HER!” was the chilling announcement made by my ex’s lawyer #6, Meg Jackson outside Judge Alfred Levinson’s courtroom #106, Rolling Meadows, Cook County Chicago. This evil cabal bullied and tortured my child and me, fulfilling that sinister promise. Later, she conveniently changed her name to “Mary Elizabeth” and moved her practice to Lake County after I exposed her corruption, along with that of child rep Natalie Koga, Judge Levinson, and court vendors Dr. Jonathan Gamze & Dr. Daniel P. Fisher on this site. Doreen Ludwig, herself a victim, succinctly dissects the slick paint by numbers playbook used over and over again by these soul-less vampires and parasites:
A federal judge is allowing a wrongful death lawsuit against a court-appointed guardian ad litem concerning a teen’s suicide to proceed.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Abbie Crites-Leoni denied a motion to dismiss in Cynthia Haynes v. Williams as to sexual assault and battery against defendant Charles Haynes and allegations of acting outside the scope of GAL duties against defendant Jennifer Williams and Spain, Miller, Galloway & Lee, a Poplar Bluff law firm that formerly employed Williams.
“If we can prove it and if the case survives, it will set the precedent that when a guardian ad litem violates criminal statute in performing their duties, a guardian ad litem will not be given immunity,” said Evita Tolu who is representing Cynthia Haynes.
Link to article: https://stlrecord.com/stories/629709729-federal-magistrate-allows-wrongful-death-lawsuit-against-law-firm-court-insider-concerning-teen-s-suicide-to-proceed?fbclid=IwAR2Cn3EzkMgHSS20c84fr0dYmlYeKMwNsonPAm9Yb3hbuBd4uIKonXlKorE
From MindFreedom International:
On July 28, from 6:00-8:00 ET, we will be presenting our 7th free monthly ‘Judi’s Room’ in the spirit of Judi Chamberlin who dedicated her life to organizing for human rights. This is a virtual event. Pre-registration is required HERE.
Judi’s Room is a partnership of MindFreedom International and I Love You Lead On.
Why are we discussing the following topic?
Conservatorship/Guardianship: Protecting Vulnerable Individuals or Exploitation?
Brittany Spears leaked public testimony HERE on how she continues to be mistreated has brought much needed attention to the abuses rampant in the guardian and conservator system. She has been stripped of her rights by a complex conservatorship which treats her as a money-making object and denies her personhood. People with disabilities, as well as the elderly are too easily taken advantage of under the false principle that it is “for their own good.” Anyone can be vulnerable. The presenters will describe the control that guardians have and will engage in dialogue with attendees on what can be done to change a system that exploits those who are vulnerable.
As with all previous Judi’s Room meetings, a panel of experts will share their perspectives, followed by a facilitated discussion.
Jim Gottstein is the author of The Zyprexa Papers and founder of PsychRights whose mission is to mount a strategic litigation campaign against forced psychiatric drugging and electroshock. Susan Fitzmaurice is a lifelong disability advocate and disabled with multiple disabilities. She has parented two young disabled people and made very different choices about guardianship resulting with very different consequences. She has a long history using the internet to provide disability support. Her first sexuality and disability website is over 25 years old. She created the first web-based resources for people with disabilities after the Katrina hurricane. She currently is devoted to the ILove You, Lead On Community – a space where disability and all its intersections are celebrated.
Dohn Hoyle is the Public Policy Director of The Arc of Michigan and long-time advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Dohn helped to rewrite the Michigan Mental Health Code to include person-centered planning and to eliminate the term mental retardation; was instrumental in the closure of specialized nursing homes for children and people with developmental disabilities, and the Regional Centers for People with Developmental Disabilities in his state. Dohn convenes the Howell Group, an organization of people across Michigan who intend to see that people with disabilities have the opportunity to experience what we know is right and they desire, and Advocates Concerned with Integrated Care, a group of disability organizations representing the concerns of persons who are eligible for Medicaid and Medicare and receive supports. Miranda Spencer is a staff editor at the webzine Mad in America. A longtime journalist and media critic, specializing in health, science, and social justice, her work is informed by her lived experience in the mental health system.
Pre-registration is required. To register click HERE
To view/share a flyer for this event, click HERE
Here is a copy of Ms. Hadzi-Tanovic’s Federal Complaint against ex-husband Slabodan Pavlovich, Associate Judge Robert W. Johnson, and former powerful attorney David Pasulka, who acted as the Guardian ad Litem on the Case. Pasulka also formerly headed a secret list of lawyers chosen for the highly lucrative appointments as GAL’s & Child Reps in Cook County Chicago. Recently, the IL ARDC finally acted to disbar Pasulka, after many years of ignored complaints. True to the pattern of bad judges and lawyers protecting one another through the IL ARDC, Judicial Inquiry Board, and the head judge offices, they only acted after significant publicity. Sadly, bad judges and lawyers continue causing serious harm to children and families on a routine basis, only facing consequences once the negative publicity finally becomes too great to ignore. In this case, the IL ARDC finally acted against Pasulka only after attorney Lawrence Thompson’s open letter calling for the resignations of Cook County’s head judges Tim Evans and Grace Dickler, for allowing Paulka to remain in power, was aired on CBS Channel 2 News. https://songsunsilenced.wordpress.com/2021/03/23/attorney-claims-top-chicago-judges-enabled-embattled-lawyer-david-pasulka-to-have-unchecked-power-in-selecting-family-lawyers/
“Aneta Hadzi-Tanovic, leader of the local Illinois Women’s Coalition, has filed an $8 million federal lawsuit against Family Court judge Robert Wade Johnson, the GAL, and her ex for conspiring to deprive her under the color of law of her right to due process and equal protection, as well as for the intentional torts “abuse of process” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress”.
Aneta’s custody nightmare mirrors women’s cases all over the country and world in which Family Court judges disregard substantial negative evidence about the father, and fabricate negative evidence about the mother, in order to justify switching custody to the father.” Mom Sues Judge, GAL and Ex For $8M In U.S. Federal Court
1. Conspiracy to deprive of due process [42 U.S.C. §1983]
2. Conspiracy to deprive of equal protection under the law [42 U.S.C. §1983]
3. Abuse of process [intentional tort]
4. Intentional infliction of emotional distress [intentional tort]
“We will never know the number of children and parents and spouses who have been impacted by this,” Thompson said.”
Attorney Claims Top Judges Enabled Embattled Lawyer David Pasulka To Have Unchecked Power In Selecting Family Lawyers
By Charlie De MarAugust 4, 2020 at 10:51 pm
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago area attorney on Tuesday was calling for the resignation of Cook County’s chief judge and the presiding judge of the Domestic Relations division, for allowing what he calls unchecked power in how attorneys are selected by the courts in messy divorce cases.
As CBS 2’s Charlie De Mar reported, the committee that selects those attorneys has been chaired by David Pasulka, who is now facing allegations of sexual assault.
Pasulka has hand-picked and curated a list of family attorneys. If you’re on the list, you’re eligible to be tapped by a judge to represent children caught in the middle of divorce cases – and it pays well to get on the list.
“The list can harm children,” said attorney Lawrence Thompson.
Pasulka was selected more than 20 years ago by a judge to hold this powerful role of gatekeeper.
In a 2016 picture posted to Facebook, Pasulka posed with the current presiding Cook County Judge for the Domestic Relations Division, the Honorable Grace Dickler.
“We will never know the number of children and parents and spouses who have been impacted by this,” Thompson said.
Thompson wrote a letter to Judge Dickler and Cook County Chief Judge Tim Evans, raising concerns about the list, who is on it, and the power Pasulka has held for decades.
“There’s a crystal clear conflict of interest,” Thompson said. “It created an incentive for those attorneys to favor Pasulka in the divorce litigation.”
In the letter, Thompson says Pasulka had the ability to blackball opposing attorneys from the list – or remove a lawyer already on it – so it benefitted Pasulka’s competition to toe the line, potentially putting profits over the interests of the child
“Pasulka, if the allegations are accurate, was doing some horrible things for a long time,” Thompson said.
In a complaint filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Pasulka is facing allegations of sexual assault and exchanging a favorable custody recommendation in divorce case in exchange for sex.
Most recently, Pasulka was charged with driving drunk in a Glenview McDonald’s parking lot.
“I tried doing something good for the system a long time ago,” Thompson said. “I failed.”
Thompson took Pasulka to court unsuccessfully some 15 years ago raising similar concerns about Pasulka and the conflict of the screening committee.
“I want the system to change,” Thompson said.
In the letter sent on Tuesday, Thompson wrote: “The administration selected a bully-pervert, and put him in charge of regulating which of his associates would be the high-income in-crowd in the Cook County domestic relations courts.”
Thompson is calling for chief Judge Evans and Judge Dickler’s resignations, accusing them of enabling Pasulka through the unchecked power given to him
“I would hope that they would have an investment in cleaning up the system now,” Thompson said.
Thompson does acknowledge and does not shy away from the fact that his is personal for him. When Thompson went through a divorce, Pasulka represented his ex-wife in a divorce case.
Pasulka has been suspended from serving as guardian ad litem in Cook County; Judge Dickler, who presides over domestic relations cases, prevented him from doing so when she found out about the complaint, according to a spokesperson for Office of the Chief Judge of Cook County.
Dickler also suspended Pasulka from “any other Court Committee to which he has been appointed” in the domestic relations division due to the “serious allegations” in the complaint, the spokesperson said.MORE NEWS:Celebrate Patrick Kane 1,000 Games With The Blackhawks
Also, a spokesperson for Chief Judge’s office declined to comment, citing Supreme Court rules on the letter submitted by Thompson because of the open ARDC case against Pasulka. https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/04/attorney-claims-top-judges-enabled-embattled-lawyer-david-pasulka-to-have-unchecked-power-in-selecting-family-lawyers/
Facing Sexual Assault Charges, Powerful Attorney And Former Guardian Ad Litem David Pasulka Is Stripped Of Law License
“Pasulka chaired a secretive committee that selects child representatives and guardians ad litem — attorneys appointed to represent the best interests of children in the midst of custody disputes — for more than 20 years. An attorney who works in the division wrote a letter to Cook County Chief Judge Tim Evans and Judge Grace Dickler, who oversees the domestic division, calling for the two judges to resign for allowing Pasulka to remain in power.”
Author: CBS 2 Chicago Staff January 6, 2021 at 9:35 pm
CHICAGO (CBS) — Once-powerful Chicago attorney David Pasulka was facing more trouble Wednesday, as a state board stripped him of his law license.
Pasulka is already facing criminal charges related to sexual assault and abuse allegations, including accusations that he offered to recommend a parent get full custody of her children in exchange for sex with him.
He is also accused of sexually assaulting several employees.
Pasulka was charged in August with one count of criminal sexual assault, one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and one count of criminal sexual abuse — charges that could carry a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.
On July 23, CBS 2 reported Pasulka was accused by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) of offering to recommend a parent get full custody of her children if she had sex with him and touching her inappropriately during a meeting in 2016. The complaint also detailed allegations of repeated sexual assault of several employees at his law firm, Pasulka & Associates. https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/01/06/facing-sexual-assault-charges-powerful-attorney-and-former-guardian-ad-litem-david-pasulka-is-stripped-of-law-license/amp/?fbclid=IwAR3cAoiwG9pnEBzXW9FDQdfC7VXqtm3kbBjrFP0-4KCWFmqrd8JRurHH400
- Who is an “officer of the court”?A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).
- What is “fraud on the court”?
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in “fraud upon the court”. In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated “Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. … It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function — thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.”
“Fraud upon the court” has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to “embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication.” Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated “a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.”
- What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding?
“Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit “fraud upon the court” vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions.”); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) (“The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters …”); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) (“It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything.”); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed “fraud upon the court”, the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.
- What causes the “Disqualification of Judges?”
Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.” [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) “is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.”) (“Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.”).
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) “requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that “It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice.”
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice”, Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
“Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances.” Taylor v. O’Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that “We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed.” Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his “appearance of partiality” which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an “appearance of partiality” and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is in violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) (“The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.”).
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of “interference with interstate commerce”. The judge has acted in the judge’s personal capacity and not in the judge’s judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone’s next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an “appearance of partiality” and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states “disqualification is required” and that a judge “must be disqualified” under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.