Our Readers Respond...

Mother Pours Her Heart Out, Revealing Court’s Destruction Of Her Family

Dear Editor:

I’m a Mother, self-represented in the Westchester County Supreme Court. For years I’ve been involved in an acrimonious divorce and recently I was before Judge La Tia Martin.

I’m compelled to express the excruciating pain I feel since my three children were abducted by their father in October 2006. I have not seen nor spoken with my children in over 235 days. The nature and extent of this occurrence clearly violates my State and Federal Constitutional rights.

Ironically, Judge Sandra Edlitz of Family Court issued a baseless temporary custody order, without any independent fact-finding or evidentiary hearing, that handed over the children to live with their abusive father, John Walter, only to be unlawfully extended again by Judge Martin, of the Supreme Court, without a hearing and absent the benefit of effective counsel to the Mother.

Over the past years, I have continued to litigate for the protection of my three children and myself under the most tumultuous conditions while permeated with fraud upon the Court that denied our procedural and substantive
rights and Equal Protection clauses. In part, I believe I am being victimized because I helped expose the improper practices by the Supreme Court Judges and referee James Montagnino which led to the “Historical
Rotation” in June 2006.

The father, John Walter, took the children from their home as a retaliatory strike only a few days after he was financially obligated by the Supreme Court under Judge John LaCava’s direction. Since that time he now claims I no longer am fit as the primary caretaker of the children. Moreover, recently Judge Martin overrode a recent Appellate Court order that financially obligates the father to greater child support and maintenance to me. However, the unlawful action taken by Judge Martin places more pressure that affects my economic stability and furthermore, erases all of the fairness that I courageously sought in the courts. The years of painful measures that I’ve undertaken to exhaust the channels of legal remedies throughout the protracted litigation, literally went up in
smoke, due to Judge Martin’s lack of judicial wisdom to view the adversarial motivation underlying the totality of the circumstances presented.

It was clear, Judge Martin was unfamiliar with any of the details of the paperwork I presented and did not exercise any judicial sense of fairness. The financial hardship that I had fought in spite of, for years, to restore and which was finally granted in part, by the Appellate Division, included substantial retroactive child support and extended maintenance to adequately provide for the children and myself.

Judge Martin’s failure to recognize the contempt order I filed in compliance to the recent Appellate Court order for retroactive non-payment of the father’s mandated child support, coupled with her unlawful order to suspend child support, has effectively given the father carte blanche to steal and obliterate the integrity within the judicial framework.

Moreover, Judge Martin improvidently acted by automatically eliminating the funds I use to pay normal and recurring expenses that maintains the VERY household I saved from imminent foreclosure. Although, the merits seemed clear, the father forced the issue, of not keeping the house, back to court before Supreme Court Judge John LaCava. In October 2006, self represented, I battled to protect against the father wanting the children out of the house because of his mistaken expectation that his obligation would cease.

After that legal defeat on October 10th, the father, John Walter, Sr., Executive of the Leukemia and Lymphoma
Society, with a W-2 for $245,000 in 2006, who resides on the Upper East side of Manhattan without the need to pay for rent nor car expense, took the children away from me on October 14th.

All rights to my children have been relinquished because of him and, clearly, he further shows no compassion, as this clever father, co-navigated by unruly attorneys, are unbelievably railroading the Court to also coerce me out of my home, jeopardizing my ability to reasonably subsist at all.

Further, both Judge Martin and Judge Edlitz have relied on the purported law guardian Gregory Salant, Esq., to advocate in the best interest of the children. Mr. Salant immediately aligned himself with the father at the time of the custodial interference in October 2006. Since then he hasn’t conferred with me on any matters concerning the children. I was suspect of this automatic alliance and learned that the alleged law guardian blatantly lied to the court about a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety I had raised as an issue in court.

Had Mr. Salant told the truth about his actual role and association with the law firm, it would absolutely have been grounds of disqualification based on his inability to render independent counsel to my children. Both Judges have failed to recognize the heart of the matter since acceptance of the truth will completely compromise the integrity of the officer of the court and likely reveal such other systemic fraud and manipulation that permeates our Westchester legal system.

Ironically, based on my frame of reference, the only distorted course of action I can take is to use the court system again, and the legal abuse is underscored by a history of relentless battering and assaulting blows through the plight of a highly tainted administration of justice. Now I am challenged with torture to continue the endless nightmare of litigation without the benefit of counsel.

Indeed, the Judges would rather obliterate the truth of my devotion to the children and my dignity to protect our
rights and the consequences of the challenges than to confront the reality that the officers of the court are dishonest and have wrongfully led my children to believe that my disappearance is in their best interest.

The law guardian’s conduct is unconscionable. Mr. Salant, Esq’s duty, as a professional, must be scrutinized for his inappropriate appointment and involvement in this matter has caused improprieties that are robbing the best interests of the children from their 24/7, loving and caring mother simply because it favors the father’s financial interests, who clearly chose to take an inactive role during the children’s lives.

Moreover, Judge Edlitz failed to recognize the significant conflict of interest that exists in the history of my case with a former counsel Donna Abrams that affects the alleged law guardian working in the same law firm to act independently of the custodial and financial issues that pertain to my three children. Only recently was it revealed that the law guardian lied outright to Judge Edlitz of Family Court and to the public about his position (website
www.familycourtlawyers.com/) and association with the law firm stating previously to the Court that he was not a partner and worked independently whereas on his website it clearly establishes he is a partner and works closely with his father, Jeffrey Salant, another partner in the firm. Judge Martin refused to recuse herself regardless of the prejudice and bias she has clearly demonstrated against me in this case.

The father has improperly conspired with the direction of opposing counsel, Carl Stahl Esq’s bad-faith litigation and the law guardian to orchestrate provoked deliberations that led to the misrepresentations and extreme fact that falsely supports the father’s position. Opposing counsel’s practices underscore a history of grossly unlawful and unethical actions.

These illegal acts need scrutiny but come by no coincidence resulting from the association on my case between Carl Stahl, Esq and my former attorney, Joel Bender of Bender, Jenson, and Silverstein, LLC and James Montagnino, the former Special Referee of the matrimonial Part in the Westchester County Supreme Court.

Back in the spring of 2006, there was public attention to Mr. Montagnino’s bias and prejudice targeting
the at-home moms. Such inequities were manifested by stripping the non-monied spouse, often the stay-home mothers of their disproportionately allocated marital assets directed by the referee that inadequately provided for the needed care of their children and the mother.

Having read the recent article in the Westchester Guardian of the Debra Weissman vs Ronald Weissman case, it
proves to be just another example of the undue improprieties that are maneuvered by the very institution we place our trust in for fairness. One would expect uniformity in the Color Of Law but beware in Westchester, as there is no rule of thumb; the application of law belies on the thumbprints that choose to stay in line or those that go astray.

Moreover, the retaliation to the unauthorized loss of custody is reminiscent of the threat tactics used by former referee James Montagnino. I went out publicly in the New York Post last April 2006 to reveal Mr. Montagnino’s mindset of bias and prejudice, regularly shown inside and outside the courtrooms. Mr. Montagnino’s punitive measure for at-home moms was to routinely impute income regardless of the need to care for their young children and of the condition of their health.

Further, Mr. Montagnino wrongfully imputed income to me which evinces his will to go beyond gender bias by his prejudice of my national origin, too. Mr. Montagnino made it known in court that among the considerations for imputing income, was his view that despite my Cuban-born nationality, I did not have a trace of an accent and thus, not speaking with an accent was a determinant factor for my instant ability to be gainfully employed, retroactively from the time the father bolted out of the house, many years prior. The Appellate Division
reversed the imputed income.It took years of litigation, to finally get fairness at the Appellate Division and
now, the Supreme Court took both the support and the kids away. I continue to be embroiled in more litigation, totally injured with much less altogether. So far I’ve witnessed our legal system being governed by foul play under the guise of fair play, and the well preconceived monied litigant always wins.

Additionally, as in many cases, my matrimonial action has been legally tainted over the years, in part; the systemic
abuse of power has been due to malicious and capricious conduct, and rulings by the o cers of the court or by
acts in excess of authority. While unsure of the current status, I learned of a Federal investigation targeting the unlawful and criminal acts by the officers of the court that have resulted in the devastating tolls destroying families.

The purported law guardian is wrongfully acting as an agent of abuse by using his unauthorized power to usurp
my rights as a woman and mother to care for my three children. The law guardian refuses to permit my contact with the children, gave sole custody to the father devoid of any authority empowering him to do so and has had no contact with me, as the primary caregiver. Judge Martin has wrongfully ignored my rights and accepted the purported law guardian’s sole representation.

Further, Judge Martin has failed to recognize the protection of my rights to maintain a parent-child relationship and to prudently ensure that some level of contact is restored, a fundamental right that is even provided by law to convicted felons.

The inappropriate and harsh measures taken by the alleged law guardian and wrongfully supported by the Judiciary has denied me my Constitutional rights and has furthered the consequential damages caused by the intentional in-action of emotional distress and unwarranted financial pressures.

The obvious irretrievable injury to my three children and myself is a constant reminder of the continuous and immeasurable hardship that this wrongful notion of equitable distribution has generated over the years.

I so desperately need pro bono counsel willing to help rectify the systemic destruction of family as in this crucial
matter.

Margarita T. Walter, Somers

Reader Blasts Letter Writer

Dear Editor:

I would like to respond to the letter written by Concerned Resident, printed May 24, 2007 regarding the “truth” about Mount Vernon’s City Government. Like Concerned Resident I, too, am a resident of Mount Vernon and would like to shed some light on the Ernest Davis Administration.

Ernie Davis, whom I have personally known for many years, is not corrupt now nor has he ever been! It is time for the lies – dare I mention the despicable allegations involving the handcuff and ankle bracelet – to stop! If Concerned Resident is purportedly so concerned,why didn’t he expose the corrupt political officials while he was employed by the city? He is a coward!

I am very active in the political workings in Mount Vernon, and I am led to believe that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt, an attempt by Ernest Davis’ political opponents to throw dirt on his name and so conveniently
near the upcoming election. If you are truly concerned about the City of Mount Vernon, we should talk about issues rather than giving breath to unfounded rumors.

Additionally Concerned “Coward”, after reading your letter it was quite obvious to me that you really do not know Serapher Halevi. My relationship with Serapher began in 1990 when my granddaughter attended her school and continues presently as I work with her as a District leader and friend. Serapher is one of the most caring, loving and compassionate womenthat I have ever had the pleasure to meet.

To imply that one receives “payoffs” is slanderous and should be supported with actual evidence rather than egregious assumptions. To state that she receives a “payoff” after evicting tenants is a lie and, as a former Assistant Property Manager at Levister Towers, I know this first-handed. I would prefer to no longer
continue your use of the word “payoff” as you so evidently have no real understanding of the word.

If by “payoff” you mean bribe, by definition a bribe is an under-the-table money transaction meant to influence
the judgment of a person. It has never been a secret that Serapher’s daughter works for the City of Mount Vernon and that she receives a regular paycheck.

Since you were a former employee of the city, Concerned Resident, I will assume that you are familiar with the process. Furthermore, her son does not have a “no-show” job, but spends a great deal of time working at his office.

And, finally, Serapher did not give herself the nomination for the seat as County Legislator but she was encouraged to join the race by political officials, family and friends who believe in her character and know that she is qualified for the position.

I can make these statements wholeheartedly because I know and have witnessed them for myself. What I also
know is that you are gutless, too afraid to sign your name to the lies you made a conscious decision to write!

Joan K. Battle, Mount Vernon

Judges Must Not Be Litigators

Dear Editor:

Yes, scrutiny of judicial misconduct is an old story, and a long one. It has, in fact, a still growing list of culprits. Gerald Garson of Brooklyn Supreme Court, Michael Feinberg of Kings County Surrogate Court, Laura Blackburne of Queens County Supreme Court and now, with The Guardian’s reportage, it may well
appear to be growing even longer. In this adversarial system, the fight may be nasty, lengthy, and expensive, but it must be a battle between the litigants, those party to the war. This contest between the parties, in Debra C. Weissman’s recent account (Thursday, May 24, 2007), and most recently, the plaintive story of “Deepest Heart”, mother of three (Thursday, June 7, 2007) whose experience with the litigation process is fraught with blatant threat, coercion, and collusion, brings into the picture the pervasive shadow that clouds the transparency
of the process for so many, the phantom litigator, the Judge.

The judge is meant to be the referee who makes sure that the lawyers follow the rules of this war game and ultimately decides who wins and takes home the spoils. The judicial inclination to “move things along” still must be activated by the promulgated devised rules that govern the litigation process. Even the appearance of impropriety is not tolerated by this procedure and its rules. Even a decision before a hearing with “evidence”
is not tolerated by this procedure with its rules. Even the appearance of a coin flip or pocketed bribe is not tolerated by this procedure and its rules.

Public expectation and legislated Public Policy on procedure is that decisions from the Bench are based on
rules of substantive law that are “fair” and they should be made after observing a “fair” process. “Having your
day in Court” was meant to have meaning beyond front row seats in this theater of the absurd. The surreal outcome of inappropriate judicial influence by Justice Silberman mentioned in Ms. Weissman’s letter to Judge Jonathan Lippman is the tip of the iceberg.

The behind-the-scene deals brought into focus by the tried and convicted likes of Judge Garson and Judge Feinberg are felt painfully by many mothers like “Deepest Heart” and ex-spouses like Ms. Weissman.

Judge Ann T. Pfau has a full plate of bitter deals to chew on as replacement for Jonathan Lippman as Chief Administrative Judge. Sherrill Spatz, as investigator for Chief Judge Kaye, should be kept busy too.

As long as judges act as litigators in the trial process, without repercussions, the long and old and tired story will only grow more so.

Seen It All