I received the email below. I am changing the name to protect the sender’s identity, but this is a typical formula in family court.
Jim Johnson:
I am a “canceled dad.” I am also a business owner and United States Marine. I think my attorney conspired with my wife’s attorney on this whole injustice, and I don’t understand why.
All I know is that I asked the court for help, and everything got flipped onto me once Lisette Giacobbe hired Cohen and Wolf. Everything went bad. The GAL turned on me. I literally have notebooks of proof that she is absolutely 100% alienating my children from me, and all she had to do was block therapy so the kids couldn’t even go.
I have one, and I’ll give you copies of what they are alleging against me. I’m sure the judge will try to order me not to talk on social media about my children, because that’s what they’re shooting for. I won’t be silenced. I hope we can catch up, man. I’ll send you a copy of this latest court proceeding.
Frank Report Reply
Family law attorneys often pretend to be on their client’s side and opposed to the adversarial party. It is a ruse. In almost every community, the family law legal circle is collegial. And “family law attorneys who stay together, prey together.”
They know each other and conspire together. But the beauty of this scam is that they do not have to say it aloud. It is unspoken. The playbook is simple: Have a settlement talk with the opposing lawyer to analyze the case to determine how to extract the most money from the warring parent/clients.
The two best methods of extraction are “parental alienation” and the “silver bullet.”
The silver bullet works great in divorce cases. Merely make up a phony charge against your spouse, and he’s cooked,
The Silver Bullet
The term “silver bullet” in family law cases refers to an allegation or tactic used to gain a significant advantage, in a decisive, swift and dishonest manner. In most cases, this is done by a false accusation of domestic violence, abuse, or other serious misconduct that can dramatically influence the outcome of custody disputes and divorce proceedings. The accusation must be powerful enough to immediately shift the balance of the case, leading to restraining orders, supervised visitation, and loss of custody for the accused parent, even if the allegations are later proven unfounded. The accusation alone is enough to shift the case and destroy the reputation of the accused. This happened in the case of Luigi DiRubba where his adulterous wife accused him falsely as the evidence later proved. But there was no punishment for Annamaria Mongillo.
Annamaria Mongillo learned about the silver bullet.
Just the opposite. She got custody and all the money.
Victory, by the way, does not always go to the parent who has the most money. Take the case of Luigi DiRubba. He had the money, but he was naive. He thought the court was a place of justice. If you think family court is about justice, you are ripe for plundering, and you will possibly lose contact with your kids. I would compare it with people who think crocodiles are cute and stick their hands out to pet them.
But Annamaria knew better. She hired the notorious Mary Ann Charles and used the silver bullet – laid false charges against DiRubba for abuse. The wife, Anna Mangello seems the actual criminal. But it does not matter in family court.
She got full custody of the kids and she and Mary Ann Charles (and the GAL) split the marital assets, leaving DiRubba – who is a popular chiropractor – without his life savings and without contact with his six children. His adulterous wife took all.
In DiRubba’s case, the wife alienated the kids, but the attorneys decided not to employ parental alienation because it would not be as lucrative.
Parental Alienation
I remember the first case I covered: Ambrose-Riordan. Chris Ambrose had stolen all the marital money. He froze his wife of 17 years out of everything – about $2 million.
The children were afraid of him – and rightfully so. He had been an absent father, and at his insistence, the mother, Karen Riordan, had given up her job as a teacher and raised the three kids full-time. The father was an attorney who became a Hollywood TV writer (and got fired for plagiarism). But he knew the family court game and was ready to buy custody. So, leaving Hollywood (he was unemployable), he came home to CT.
The mother was naive and foolishly thought family court sought justice, not money first and foremost. Funny, there are many otherwise intelligent people who have this same misconception. If they wind up in family court, they will pay a woeful price for this lack of knowledge.
I would compare it with a person who has heard good things about Piranha fish, how they are good swimmers and love to gather together to share a good meal and then decides to go swim with them.
Ambrose was a Textbook Case of Parental Alienation as a Revenue Generator
Where this became a peach of a deal – what lawyers call “high conflict” – is that while Ambrose had unlawfully taken the money, this mother would fight for her children. She cared more about the kids than the money.
That means if the lawyers set it up right, they could make Ambrose pay a lot to fight off his wife. On top of that, the mother would borrow money and cash in her pension – anything to protect her kids. A perfect high conflict.
But to be blunt, the mother would only fight if she did not have any custody; she was willing to split custody. She even encouraged the children to be with their dad regularly.
So, the plan was to take all custody away from her.
Her first attorney, Rich Callahan, arranged with Ambrose’s attorney, Nancy Aldrich, on how they were going to set up Riordan, the mother, to lose custody. The father wanted this as well. This was the way he could keep all the assets and not pay alimony or child support.
The first thing to do was get a GAL, who is just another family law attorney, to steal the kids. They chose one from the same firm as your case – Cohen and Wolf, and the GAL chosen was Jocelyn Hurwitz.
Now these players all know each other. They shift positions too. Hurwitz might be an attorney in one case and in another the GAL. It doesn’t matter.
Now, the plan was laid out to Hurwitz with a simple one line in an email by the mother’s attorney (in a conspiratorial act of betrayal): “The father has control of the money and will be paying.”
Once the GAL knew this, the playbook called not for the silver bullet but for parental alienation.
The GAL’s first job was to get a custody evaluator, who would know her job was to find parental alienation. Everything is easy if the children’s best interests are not a factor.
The Worst of the Dregs of Society
Dr. Jessica Biren-Caverly will eliminate all your parenting problems.
The custody evaluator, the ruthless monster of CT Family Court, the porcine Jessica Biren-Caverly, AKA Biren-The Terrible, of course, found parental alienation. She recommended taking the kids away from the mother and giving them solely to the abusive father, who in fact paid her some $17,000 for her services.
Her custody report is a masterpiece of deceit and distortion, and will no doubt be studied one day for how these criminal writings once passed as the rule of law.
Loss of Custody = Cash
The lawyers all knew that once then mother lost custody, there would be years of fighting (billings), since this mother would fight to protect her kids, and simultaneously did not comprehend the corruption of the family court system.
The lawyers had one problem. The judge was one of the rare honest judges — Judge Eddie Rodriguez. They needed a dishonest judge to protect the lawyers’ financial best interests.
Judge Eddie Rodriguez
Judge Rodriguez knew the kids were better off with the mother. He gave temporary custody to her. After all, they had lived with the mother all their lives.
Rodriguez also realized Ambrose had stolen all the money. He demanded a financial affidavit from him. The attorneys knew this would end the financial game, so the attorneys conspired to move the case to a judge who played their game — Judge Jane Grossman.
It was a perfect setup.
Jane Kupson Grossman
The Predictable Creature
Why Grossman? For one thing, she was up for reappointment. And she needed the approval of the state legislature’s judicial committee.
Ambrose’s attorney, Nancy Aldrich, had a son – State Senator Will Haskell – who was an important figure on the judiciary committee.
Attorney Nancy Aldrich with her son State Senator Will Haskell.
Kids for Cash
Ambrose was willing to pay six or even seven figures to buy custody.
Judge Grossman knew what she had to do. She knew there were instances where judges who did not play ball did not get reappointed. In fact, there was one judge who did not get reappointed who had to land at Cohen and Wolf as an attorney. Her name is Jane Emons. Look her up.
Former Judge Jane B. Emons
Now Grossman did not want to end up like Jane Emons.
So she destroyed three children’s lives by removing them from the mother – using the lie of parental alienation.
Imagine the utter cruelty. Three children – then 13, 13, and nine – who lived with their mother their entire lives, and to whom their father was largely a stranger and a scary and abusive one at that.
Chris Ambrose
Without notice on a Friday, Judge Grossman ordered them removed from the only home they ever knew, and forced them to live with their father, whom they do not know and are afraid of. More than that, the judge ordered that the mother and kids cannot even speak.
This sounds like hell. It is not. It is right here on earth, and it is done for money. Nothing more.
Artist’s depiction of Jane Grossman earning her final reward for her work in family court. The artist shows how when Grossman retires from the bench, and all her labors, she is welcomed to a gated community with a nice warm climate.
Money That Is Not His
Of course, Riordan fought, and she spent all she had. Not only that, Ambrose, now in the midst of the fight, spent about a million dollars. But it was not so bad for him. He just spent his wife’s share of the marital assets and kept his own.
Judge Grossman never required Ambrose to file a financial affidavit. So the clever attorney/plagiarist bought custody of the kids for about a million dollars but by using his wife’s million.
OPM – using other people’s money. That is also called leverage.
The kids ran away last year to go to the mother, but Ambrose spent about $100,000, he said, getting the kids back.
The case is still in court, and the mother is still barred from talking to her kids. But they never forgot her love and the years of their lives together. Sometime in May, however, things might get interesting. Two of the kids are almost 18 – and still forced not to see their mother.
According to reports, Judge Thomas J. O’Neill will bring the three teenage children to his chambers to hear their desires, something that no judge in this four-year-old dispute has ever done. I understand further that the judge will hear them in chambers without their father present to intimidate them.
I have interviewed these teenagers, and they are brave, articulate, and intelligent. The worm may turn on Ambrose suddenly if Judge O’Neill listens compassionately to the torment these children have undergone.
A happy Mia, 17, Matthew, 17, and Sawyer, 13, when they escaped from their father last summer.
Collaborating Grifters
Someday a book, movie, or documentary will show what happened in this case. But frankly, it is not unique; it is one of a million similar cases where the children’s best interests were ignored for money.
Riordan, by the way, realized her attorney Callahan was in league with Ambrose’s attorney and sold her down the river. But it was too late.
Richard Callahan
She blundered a second time and retained the selachian Edward Nusbaum, the shark of Westport. She spent her last $100,000 on this predator, who did nothing but collaborate with Ambrose’s attorney to force the sale of the family home – her last remaining asset to pay the attorneys – himself included.
Connecticut Attorney Ed Nusbaum
Below: an artist’s depiction of attorney Nusbaum.
MK10ARt’s depiction of Ed Nusbaum.
Frank Report’s study shows large-scale fraudulent billings to (falsely) justify the $100,000 he billed her.
In Particular, for Mr. Johnson
My point is this: Mr. Johnson. I would almost guarantee your attorney and your ex-wife’s attorney have worked many deals together and, along with the GAL, are working this deal together.
You apparently were chosen to be the goat. Not because they do not like you, but because by making you the goat, that is where the money is.
In the Ambrose case, he did abuse his children, but the attorneys decided to use parental alienation (falsely) because it was more lucrative. In DiRubba’s case, he really was a good father, but his wife and her attorney chose the silver bullet.
And that’s how the game is played.
You appear to have been chosen to be the goat, my friend. Not just by your wife or her attorney, but by your own attorney.
It will only get worse if you play along.
The details are superfluous. Please remember that family court is never about justice; it is only about extracting money. If taking away your children will make more money for the lawyers, they will take them away. If giving you your children will make more money for them, then you will get your children. And never forget that the lawyers are all colleagues. They only pretend to fight for show.
I would compare the decision-making process to four hungry wolves (your wife, her attorney, the GAL and your attorney) and a lamb (you) all voting on what to have for dinner.
The vote will be 4- 1.
