Judicial Response to 8/15/13 Motion and Answer

Judicial Response and Father's Written Response will be uploaded shortly

 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT

 

Plymouth Division                                                      Docket No.: PL06D-0566-DV1

 

 

 

______________________________

M. John Joseph,                                  )

            Plaintiff                                   )

                                                            )

                                                            )           RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S

                        v.                                 )           AFFIDAVIT

                                                            )          

                                    )          

Laura Bonetzky-Joseph,                     )          

Defendant                               )          

            ______________________________)

 

I, Laura, Bonetzky-Joseph, submit the following response to Father’s Affidavit:

1.      TRUE

2.      TRUE

3.      FALSE as evidenced at trial. Mother did NOT do anything voluntary.

4.      FALSE.

a.       Mark Kaeys was unavailable and Mother cannot afford the excessive costs for supervised visits that were ordered as a direct result of Father being found guilty of violating over 90% of previous visitations despite court order. Same standards for Mother have not been applied to Father.

b.      Since January 2013, Mother has repeated pled with the court for assistance in this matter which Court did not.

5.      FALSE as evidenced at trial as well as by NUMEROUS pleas by Mother at every court hearing.

6.      FALSE

a.       This is a violation of Mother’s religious freedoms and constitutional rights. Mother considers the acts by Father to be a hate crime. 

b.      Attorney Arabasz was permitted by this court to grill Mother on her religion during trial for three out of the twelve hours of trial with no reprimands.

c.       The change of this courts stance on this case changed after this line of questioning of Mother’s religion was permitted by this court. 

d.      Mother’s religious actions are done during times that do not interfere with court or job search and are supported by her religious community.

e.       Father failed to mention Mother’s other religious volunteerism for Hospice, Numerous Animal Shelters, Breast Cancer, Beth Israel Hospital, and American Cancer Society where ANY proceeds and been donated NOT just this domestic abuser’s repeated threats and attacks on a local organization that specializes in interpersonal violence.

f.       Court ordered community service does interfere with job search since community service is during the week day three days a week not two as Father states which again is deliberately intended to mislead this court.

g.      Mother has lost out on four job offers due to community service.

h.      Mother has lost out on three job fairs due to community service. 

i.        Mother has lost out on job interviews as a direct result of community service.

j.        The community service is punitive in nature and serves NO remedial benefit.

k.      Exhibits have been altered to omit the truth. Dates have been changed and/or omitted from the copies to distort the facts.

l.        Mother asks the Courts to PLEASE place sanctions and penalties against Father and Attorney Arabasz for such gross distortion of facts. NOT to mention, this just adds to the proof of Mother’s pleas for assistance to put an end to the abuse, harassment, and stalking by Father and Attorney Arabasz. (It shall be noted that Attorney Arabasz once again VERBALLY assaulted and threatened Mother in the Courthouse in August 2013.)

m.    These actions by Father are NOT in the best interests of the children.

7.      TRUE

8.      FALSE

9.      FALSE – Mother seeks the Court’s assistance in putting an end to the abusive, threatening, and harassing conduct by Attorney Arabaz and Father and requests the court to place sanctions, penalties, and criminal charges for perjury in their deliberate attempts to mislead this Honorable Court and to cause deliberate malicious harm to Mother which is NOT in the best interests of the children.

10.  FALSE

11.  FALSE

12.  FALSE

a.       Mother is threatened with six months of incarceration if Mother does not comply with paying child support.

b.      The court did NOT address Mother’s repeated pleas for addressing visitation.

c.       Mother has not seen her children since August 3, 2011 by no fault of her own.

d.      Father violated over 90% of pervious visitation order and was found guilty of contempt. The same standards that have been applied to Mother have NOT been applied to Father and Mother was sanctioned by the courts for Father’s failures to comply with visitation orders.  Father was rewarded for his gross misconduct despite case laws to support Mother’s arguments.

13.  FALSE – Mother does NOT know what Father is talking about.

14.  FALSE

15.  FALSE as evidenced by Mother’s past 10yrs of income with a peak annual income of $16,000 in 2012. As a result of ongoing abuse by Father and his Attorney, Mother now suffers from PTSD as evidenced by numerous medical letters.

16.  FALSE

17.  FALSE –

a.       Father needs to be held accountable for his repeated distortion of facts that are abusive, harassing, defaming, slanderous, and malicious in intent and perjurous.

b.      Unemployment was initially denied and became retroactively approved as evidenced by Father’s checks on 9/3/13.

 

Father did NOT acknowledge the SAME FOURTH criminal complaint filed against Mother when Father failed to coerce this court to incarcerated Mother for six months while refusing 100% of evidence supplied during the July 10, 2013 hearing. Father filed the SAME complaint a FOURTH time in order to continue to discredit Mother in Family Court and to continue his repeated abuses of the legal system to cause malicious harm to Mother. However, this FOURTH criminal complaint was dismissed for the FOURTH time and Father was told he will not be allowed to file the complaint again.

 

Mother seeks restitution in this matter as Father has used these FALSE criminal complaints successfully against Mother in the past in this court to keep Mother from having any normal relationships with her children and to discredit her costing her many employment opportunities, good health, loss of any meaningful bonds or relationship with her children and her family, and so much more that unfortunately a court cannot place a value on. Father’s REPEATED abusive acts are consistently demonstrating to NOT be in the best interests of the children.

 

Father and his attorney testified in June 2013 and July 2013 that they will not be seeking any more legal fees because they know Mother doesn’t have any money or assets to draw from. I think that testimony in itself should refute their own affidavit and agenda.

 

Mr. Joseph has testified under oath on numerous occasions that he is “federally licensed by the federal government”, which is FALSE.  Father is not a licensed federal agent of the government as he claims to be. Father uses is Series 6, 63, and 26 securities investment broker’s license and his mortgage broker’s license to access Mother’s private confidential information unlawfully as testified and evidenced on numerous occasions before this court.  These unlawful acts have been brought before this court on numerous occasions without consequences to the Father.

 

Father has testified to these unlawful acts and provided evidence with the help of Attorney Arabasz on numerous occasions before this court admitting to going to any means possible to stalk, harass, defame, slander, and to steal any private confidential information for the purposes other than what is before this court without consequences.

 

Father has testified falsely and maliciously under oath with fabricated evidence on numerous occasions with no consequences by this court.

 

Father has testified on numerous occasions that if he does not like what this court orders, he will NOT abide by those orders. He has failed to abide by the court’s orders with NO consequences.

 

Father has testified in court on numerous occasions that his authority supersedes the authority of this court with no consequences, sanctions, or penalties.

 

Father has repeatedly perjured himself before this court for acts such as to be a handwriting expert among other perjured statements with intent to deliberately mislead this court with no consequences.

 

Father has repeatedly violated prior visitation orders on 90% of the visits with NO consequences, penalties, or sanctions.

 

It shall be noted, NO sanctions, penalties or actions have been placed against Father for failing to abide by court ordered Therapy for the said children.

 

Father has failed to comply with court ordered phone calls with NO sanctions, penalties, or actions.

 

Father has failed to comply with divorce degree of summer added child expenses of $100 per week for the summer of 2007 with NO sanctions, penalties, or actions.

 

Father has failed to provide Mother with HALF of tax returns funds as per divorce decree from 2006 and 2007 with NO sanctions, penalties, or actions despite Mother’s repeated requests for court intervention.

 

Furthermore, since Father’s response FAILED to respond to any relevant facts of case laws or of the State of Massachusetts law of due process. Since Father did not address these citings by Mother, then Father must agree by omission. Father also failed to cite any relevant case laws or facts of law to refute Mother’s Motion for Reconsideration.

 

Father’s behavior is consistent with abuse by proxy, perjury, stalking, witness intimidation, threats, theft, harassment, coercion, manipulation, and fabrication which has been allowed on numerous occasions and NOT in the best interests of the children.

 

Exhibit “A” – Father’s financial lean from Discover Card of $4,900 dated 4/26/10. This is consistent with Father’s behavior to maliciously attack Mother financially and demonstrates why Father is so insistent to coerce this court to incarcerate Mother as well as file FOUR criminal complaints of Mother stealing her own money on a house that legally belonged to her. This PROVES Father has deliberately misled this court with his true intensions as documented by Father’s response to FINRA dated 5/22/13 … the SAME date Mother was incarcerated and Father did NOT receive the monies Mother he attempted to extort from her using this court despite her inability to comply.

 

Exhibit “B” – Father’s Affidavit

 

The same standards that have been applied to Mother, have NOT been applied to Father, and Mother asks for the same standards to apply without discrimination.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury,

 

Laura Bonetzky-Joseph                                                          10/4/13

8/15/13 Motion for Reconsideration of Contempt Order April 10, 2013 and Subsequent Orders

This motion was filed on August 15, 2013 in Brockton Family Court. To this date, I have not received a response on to whether this motion will be heard as there is a gateway required in my case. It is now Sept 1, 2013 and I have yet to receive a response as to approval or denial of this motion. So far to date 100% of my motions requiring a gateway have been denied and 100% of the motions filed by Father and his lawyer have been approved.

 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

PROBATE AND FAMILY COURT DEPARTMENT

 

Plymouth Division                                                      Docket No.: PL06D-0566-DV1

 

 

 

______________________________

M. John Joseph,                                  )

            Plaintiff                                   )

                                                            )

                                                            )           MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

                        v.                                 )           On CONTEMPT ORDER DATED APRIL  

                                                            )           10, 2013, MAY 22, 2013 ORDER, AND

                                    )           SUBSEQUENT FURTHER ORDERS ON

Laura Bonetzky-Joseph,                     )           CONTEMPT OF JUNE 28, 2013 AND

Defendant                               )           JULY 12, 2013

            ______________________________)

 

Now comes, Laura Bonetzky-Joseph, defendant in the above action hereby respectfully requests the Court reconsider the April 10, 2013 Partial Judgment, May 22, 2013 Order, June 28, 2013 Order (following Partial Judgment), and July 12, 2013 Further Order, for denial of due process from inability to comply with the terms of the above-entitled orders with the imposition of a prison sentence of up to (6) months if Mother does not comply.

1.         On February 26, 2013 Father (Plaintiff) filed a motion for Contempt against Mother. On April 10, 2013 the court held Mother in contempt and ordered her to do the following, inter alia:

A.                That Mother transfer $578.88 from child’s IRA account to Father.

B.                 Provide Father with signed release from her therapist.

C.                 That Mother pay legal sanctions to Father’s Attorney a sum of $1,500 and $50 in court costs on or before October 10, 2013.

D.                That Mother transfer her IRA account of $2,384 to Father.

E.     That Mother perform eight (8) hours of community service per  week until Mother has provided documentation confirming full compliance with the terms of the order.

F.      That Mother be held in criminal contempt and incarcerated for thirty (30) days or until she fulfills the payment of $344 due for child support.

2.         On May 22, 2013, pursuant to noncompliance with April 10, 2013 Partial Judgment, the Court revoked Mother’s suspension of sentence, and ordered her incarcerated for 30 days in the Plymouth County Jail or until she pays the sum of $480 which counteracts said April 10, 2013 order to pay $344. However, mother was not actually sent to Plymouth County Jail as per order, but imprisoned at Framingham State Prison which appear to arbitrary and capricious.

3.         On June 28, 2013, pursuant to a June 26, 2013 hearing the Court entered an Order, which required Defendant to, inter alia,

a.       Perform eight (8) hours per week of community service

b.      Participate in the Job Search Program by reporting at least 10 employers… with proof of having actually applied for work.

c.       Provide a release to her therapist

d.      Pay current weekly child support and make weekly payments toward child support arrears

e.       Provide father with updated financial statements

f.       Pay legal costs and fees to Father’s attorney

g.      All provided in the Partial Judgment dated April 10, 2013

4.         Mother was unable to fully comply with April 10, 2013 Order and subsequent orders by no fault of her own due to the following circumstances

a.       Financial hardship and indigency

b.      Disability

c.       Hospitalization

d.      Illness

e.       Repeated stalking, threats and harassment by Father and his attorney, Attorney Raymond Arabasz, outside the courtroom which was reported to the Courts and other officials as witnessed by numerous individuals and Brockton Police Department with no relief

f.       Repeated Identity theft by Father and his lawyer, Attorney Raymond Arabasz,  with no relief

g.      And the fact that the Probation Department did not receive and process the order until May 29^th. The departmental error ultimately prevented Mother from fully complying with the order. Therefore, the order of subsequent community service is punitive and serves no redial benefit to the plaintiff or the courts.

h.      Repeated charges filed by Father for Mother stealing her own mortgage money for the 4^th time on a house that legally belonged to her with NO RELIEF from the repeated abuse. Next Court date for Mother to defend herself of said charges is September 19, 2013.

i.        Mother asked the court to reconsider said release of her therapist information to Father for the fact that the therapist has unsuccessfully been able to verify that Father has the children seeing a therapist per court order which was later verified by the children that they in fact have not nor ever seen a therapist as required by court order. The Court erred in judgment by not ordering Father to provide proof of said appointments to therapist and proper contact information for Mother’s therapist to contact the children’s therapist.

5.         On July 12, 2013, The Court entered a Further Order, stating the following, inter alia:

a.                   That Mother shall pay $758.77 IRA balance due to Father. These funds as proven in court were taken out in taxes, fees and penalties which mother had no control. 

b.                  That Mother “amend her 2009 and 2010 tax returns to delete her claim of dependency exceptions for the… children.”

c.                   That Mother perform the fifty-two (52) hours required pursuant to the June 28, 2013 Order in addition to the previously ordered eight (8) hours per week of community service. She was to “perform these fifty two (52) past due hours at the rate of four (4) hours per week for nine (9) weeks… in addition to the previously ordered (8) hours per week.”

6.         The court rendered said order in error without respect of mother’s ability to comply.  The court acknowledged mother is financially indigent and has been notified on numerous occasions of mother’s disabilities and repeated pleas for assistance and help to comply with order. To order mother to community service of (8) hours a week with additional (4) hours a week or three days a week unless said funds were paid to father with the imposition of a (6) six month prison sentence if she does not fully comply is punitive and serves no remedial benefit to the court or father and places mother at AUTOMATED risk of contempt by no fault of her own based on how the order is written due to mother’s financial indigency status and disability.

Mother has NO income and has received NO unemployment and has received no income since May 15, 2013. She has NO money to pay for transportation to and from said community service. Her lack of financial resources places Mother at increased health risk as well as contempt of current order unless it is amended. The Court has already been provided with medical documentation of the increased health issues since the April 10, 2013 order.

7.         Mother states that through the April 10, 2013 Partial Judgment, May 22, 2013 incarceration, and subsequent June 28, 2013 and July 12, 2013 orders, the Court erred in its judgment to hold her criminally contempt for noncompliance, as the orders were punitive and ineffective, and that they infringed upon her right to due process of law nd rights protected under the American Disabilities Act.

8.         The July 12, 2013 Further Order to complete fifty-two (52) past hours of community service per week was punitive in nature. Mother was never able to comply with the Judgment and Orders because she was and is financially indigent. "At the hearing of a complaint for civil contempt, the defendant shall have the burden of proving his or her inability to comply with the pre-existing order or judgment of which the complaint alleges violation." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 215, §34 (2012).

9.         Furthermore, "An essential element of civil contempt is the defendant's ability to comply with the court's order or judgment, and therefore inability to comply is a defense." Sodones v. Sodones N.E.2d 906 (Mass. 1974). The Court failed to acknowledge Mother’s indigence as a defense, despite multiple attempts to receive legal assistance and medical assistance under the ADA. For example, Mother has been unable to pay the $758.77 in paragraph “10”, which the court acknowledged in the Order by requiring that she continue to perform community service until she has paid the amount in full.

10.       Civil contempt orders are “‘remedial and coercive,’ intended to achieve compliance with the court’s orders for the benefit of the complainant.” Furtado v. Furtado 402 N.E.2d 1024, 1031 (Mass. 1980) (citing Cherry v. Cherry 148 N.E. 570, 571 (Mass. 1925)). Furthermore, “[i]n determining the amount of a fine imposed as a means of securing future compliance, a judge should take into account the character and magnitude of threatened harm, probable effectiveness of the sanction, the defendant’s financial resources, and the seriousness of the burden on the defendant. A coercive fine may not be punitive.” Labor Relations Com. V. Fall River Educators’ Asso., 416 N.E.2d 1340, 1350 (Mass. 1981)  

11.        Here, the July 12, 2013 order serves no remedial purpose for the complainant and has only served as punishment for the defendant. It is not effective. “…[S]upport of children and other aspects of domestic relations… has never been regarded as partaking of criminal features.” Blankenburg v. Commonwealth 157 N.E. 693, 696 (Mass. 1927). Furthermore, “[a] person judged in civil contempt may not be sentenced to prison for failure to pay a compensatory sum of money if he shows that he is unable to comply. To do so would be a denial of due process of law.” Salvesen v. Salvesen, 351 N.E.2d 499, 501. (Mass. 1976) (citing Sodones v. Sodones 314 N.E.2d 906, 912- 913 (Mass. 1974)).

12.       Here, Mother is not a defendant who willfully ignored her duty to comply with the terms of the contempt order. Mother is unable to comply because she suffers from intensifying effects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and domestic abuse as testified by her and other experts and as evidenced as a direct result of repeated domestic abuse, domestic abuse by proxy, and legal abuse by proxy. She is financially destitute and indigent, which the Court acknowledged with its approval of her indigence in June 2013.  Yet rendered said orders to pay monies without any means or assets with the imposition of a prison sentence of (6) six months for failure to comply.  As a result of her circumstances documented above, it is impossible for her to comply. Diver v. Diver, 524 N.E.2d 378 (Mass. 1988).

13.       Defendant’s financial resources also show her inability to comply with the orders. Defendant has not received any income since May 15^th, 2013, just days before she was incarcerated pursuant to the May 22, 2013 order to revoke the Suspension of Sentence. Even prior to her incarceration, Mother was not in a financial position to pay child support or the arrears. She did not own her own home, and the value of all of her property added up to approximately $1000. State ex rel. Mallet v. Shannon, 64 P.2d 87 (Or. 1937). Mother was incarcerated without being able to adequately prove her inability to comply, even when she provided written requests for assistance. M.M. v. D.A., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 197, 207 (2011); Collins v. Collins 158 So. 914 (Miss. 1935). Additionally, Mother also notified the Court that the DOR was handling all payments due to Father committing identity theft. However, the Court refused to accept this as a defense.

14.       Had the court allowed Mother’s multiple requests for counsel and medical assistance and applied the same standards to Father, she may have been able to keep her job, provide a defense to her inability to comply with court orders, and prevent accruing additional hours of community service and debts.

15.       Mother has suffered serious hardships in her attempts to comply with the orders, which caused her to file for disability, which the Court is aware. Mother has attempted to show courts medical letters documenting her inabilities to comply per court requests on May 22, 2013, prior to incarceration. However the Court has denied these medical letters and medical attention.  Mother always acted in good faith.

16.       Currently, the twelve (12) instead of eight (8) hours per week community service requirement has affected Mother’s ability to find and secure a job, which in turn has affected her ability to pay for child support, medical care compliance, and transportation to job interviews and medical appointments.  Mother has had to complete community service on specific days and within specific time periods, and as a result, there is not enough time set aside for her job search. The way the current order is written, Mother cannot be genuinely sick without being held in contempt. No matter how much Mother tries to comply with the orders, she falls into contempt.

17.       Since the Court has thwarted Mother’s attempts to secure legal and medical assistance, she is now at risk of being imprisoned for six (6) months for criminal contempt. Incarceration will destroy any prospect she may have of securing a job and steady income, living free of a lifetime of debt and incarceration, and of reuniting with and playing a positive role in her daughters’ lives. State ex re. Cash v. District Court, 252 P 388 (Mont. 1927) The June 28, 2013 Order, July 12^th, 2013 Further Order as it stands are punitive, as the Court has willfully acknowledged Mother’s financial indigence. The Court’s orders have added additional financial burdens, and have deliberately placed Mother in contempt due to her inability to comply by no fault of her own.

18. Furthermore, these orders also prevent Mother from her right to due process in continuing her appeal on which the April 10, 2013 order was based. Continuation of these actions place Mother at risk of violation of her rights under the law.
 

It shall be noted that Father has repeatedly testified in court of his blatant refusal to comply with his portion of the orders with NO sanctions and NO penalties. As testified at trial, if

Father does not agree with the orders he will not comply. The same standards that have been applied to Mother, have not been applied to Father, and Mother asks for the same standards to apply without discrimination.

WHEREFORE, Movant respectfully requests this Honorable Court vacate the April 10, 2013 Partial Judgment, May 22, 2013, June 28, 2013 Order, and July 12, 2013 Further Order based on the February 26, 2013 Motion for Complaint, in so far as they cause more harm than good, impede job search, ability to maintain health, and place additional burdens on an indigent person.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITED

Signed under pains and penalty of perjury,

 

 

BY: __________________________

Laura Bonetzky-Joseph

(address)

DOR Motion For Modification 8/6/13

Filed 8/6/13 and to this date have not received a hearing date for this urgent motion.

Help - 4th Criminal Complaint for Stealing My Money on House Owned by Me

I am asking for help... this is the 4th criminal complaint for stealing my own mortgage money on a house that legally belonged to me. Why won't the courts issue harassment protection and malicious prosecution.  This is insane. Btw please READ form. NO date of offense. NO offense code listed.  NO attached affidavit so I know what I am defending myself on. NO complaint type checked off. NO incident report. NO citations.  Also dated 5/15/13 and mailed 7/2/13.

Incarceration Contempt Order of 5.22.13, Order To Release 5.28.13, AND Next Contempt Continuance Hearing 6.26.13

Details on the events of what transpired in the courtroom on May 22, 2013 to come as well as the horrific treatment I endured at MCI Framingham State Prison.

 

Notice... I was sent to a DIFFERENT prison than what was ordered.

 

Pills were FORCED upon me and I was first sent to a DETOX unit and treated as if I were an addict.

 

ALSO NOTICE, the order for release is dated for Tuesday, May 28th. MCI Framingham REFUSED to release me until the following day despite court order for immediate release.

The Contempt Order of 5.22.13 Sending Me To Jail Over $480 in Child Support AND The Order To Release

Attempts to gain Harassment Protection Order Against Attorney Arabsz

I originally filed for protection from the ongoing abuse I have suffered on Monday, May 6th, 2013. Have you aver heard a victim waiting OVER three weeks to be heard so I can feel safe from harm?

I am scared that I will be denied protection as the Court Clerk at the Hingham District Court told me on Wednesday, May 15th with an attitude of absolute, that "the judge will NOT grant this protection order". This came AFTER I was advised AGAIN, this time by the Hull Pd to go back to court and get immediate order after ANOTHER incident occurred that day. I have been advised by the Brockton PD, Hull PD, Hingham PD, and Quincy to get this protection order and ALL are dumbfounded that the presumption of a decision has already been made in this case.

I am so much in fear, that his latest attack on May 15th landed me in the hospital.

Is Attorney Arabasz gaining special privilege because he is an EX-district Attorney of Plymouth County and still practicing privately?

When will I be safe? When will my children be safe? When Attorney Arabasz or his client succeeds in their attempts to kill me via proxy?

I guess I will find out tomorrow if I will be safe from this man.

My Printed Contempt Hearing Response on April 5, 2013 Hearing

The following is for the most part what I read to the judge. I may have adlibbed to this, but it is the best I can supply short of getting court transcripts.

Contempt Hearing Notes: 4/3/13

Your honor we are here today for no other reason than for Mr. Joseph and Attorney Arabasz to continue their assaults and use this court to continue their assaults on me and harass me.

1 - Firstly, I am asking this court for immediate intervention and investigation as to the safety of my children since Attorney Arabasz and his client state Mr. Joseph’s RESIDENCE is 650 Plymouth St which is a commercial business not a residence and he told this court of a different address.

2 - I am in the process of seeking legal representation and therefore, requesting continuance under the ADA and my right to legal counsel due to my disability which was disclosed to this court in previous numerous occasions.

 3 – This case and order is pending appeal and request this contempt is postponed pending outcome of appeal., which Attorney Arabsz and his client are aware of.

Both Attorney Arabasz and his client know I have no money, and unable to comply with orders. They know it is not malicious or willful in intent but an inability.

ALSO, they only filed this right after I received a phone call from the SEC and USPS Inspector regarding Mr. Joseph’s and Attorney Arabasz’s conduct. As in similar past filings by them, this is purely a motion to harass and abuse me. The court orders currently outweigh if complied more than I make in income leaving no money for basic survival and necessities or travel to and from work, licensing, food, personal hygiene, and phone.

As previously testified and motioned, I repeatedly asked for court assistance stating my inability to comply with court orders as they stand and I asked for assistance. The court decided not to address these issues in the hearing in January 2013 and once again when motion for gateway denied soon after.

I cannot keep filing motions with the court asking for assistance due to threats of termination from my employment as well as negative recommendation for future employment.

1.       Email from Debra stating negative reflection on job performance as directly attributed to this court case.

2.       Lay off different than termination.

As testified in court in January 2013, I asked the court for help in regards to the supervised visitations, child support, and requests for services under the ADA

1.       In regards to the supervised visits, Attorney Arabasz once again misled the courts stating I had not contacted Mark Kaeys. Attorney Arabasz has no documentation supporting this statement but yet wants the court to believe as FACT I did not make any attempt.

2.       Mark Kaeys is NOT available for supervision per my conversation with him and I specifically asked the court in January for help in this matter as I cannot afford what is stated in the order.

3.       I also testified in court in January 2013 that I went to the Probation Dept, to try to find an alternative with no success. I once again asked for court assistance in this matter in January 2013. The court did not address this request.

4.       I also notified the court of my pending layoff from current employment in which I may not qualify for unemployment. This court did not want to see the teach out letter to employees nor did it want to see the job applications for attempts to gain new employment.

5.       I also testified with attempts to show incident reports and letters to Attorney Arabasz for his failures to comply to phone calls and even placing a call restriction on my number preventing from my calls going through as verified and documented with police department despite court ordered phone calls. I did not file contempt against Mr. Joseph due to threats of loss of job.

6.       The court did not address my pleas and request for help to fix this matter.

Mr. Joseph and Attorney Arrabasz have engaged in malicious abusive conduct in this case without consequences despite the constant reporting of misconduct to this court.

They have also engaged in witness tampering tactics as reported to the court on numerous occasions with threats and I believe Attorney Arabasz has already been in trouble for this in 2006 as recorded during a 209A.

Mr. Joseph and Attorney Arabasz admitted to stealing assault and battery evidence from the Plympton Police Department to prevent charges against Mr. Joseph from going forth. We would not be here today your honor, if this did not occur, as those charges would have prevented Mr. Joseph from gaining custody of the children.

Attorney Arabasz has used his status as a court official to steal evidence in a crime, maliciously fabricated and lie to the police department in an investigation obstructing justice, engage in multiple unlawful acts. He has stolen my identity and to this day has refused to tell me how my private nonpublic information was sent to him via fax without my consent or knowledge.  He aided and abetted his client in a theft of a $50k investment check, another  $30k insurance check as evidenced at trial and once again told a different story to this court than originally to law enforcement.

Mr. Joseph testified he makes $100k, has 50+ employees, is a RVP of a large fortune 500 financial services company, driving a newer model Infiniti and Toyota Sequoia . YET he testified under oath that he gets FREE health insurance under MASSHEALTH. According to Masshealth guidelines, he does not qualify so either he is lying to this court or he is lying to Masshealth. Cannot have it both ways. Either way it is perjury or fraud.

My income is currently at or below poverty guidelines, yet because I have employment and have some income now, my insurance is now Commonwealth Care that I must pay into and is still a Mass Health product. Yet Mr. Joseph makes $100k a year and gets FREE insurance and is above poverty guidelines.

So my question to you your honor, what did I do so wrong? I never abused my children. I do not drink. I do not abuse drugs. He stole my children as proven in the trial by the testimony by DCF when Mr. Joseph and Attorney Arabasz gained ex-parted custody under false pretenses as well as the impeachment of his witnesses which should have made the subsequent testimonies by Mr. Joseph questionable.  Yet, here I stand before you once again begging for mercy and assistance for my children who will one question why they never saw their mother again after that fateful day in Sept 2007.  Mr. Joseph as documented has told the children I do not care to see them and do not want to see them.  To this day, no judge or court has said what I did wrong to be ordered the kind of orders given to child rapists, molestors, drug addicts, alcoholics, and murderers where there are numerous cases where these individuals have more rights than I and NO ONE has ever told me what I did so wrong to deserve this. NO ONE said what my children have done to deserve their fate either.

By this court rendering order allowing my request for court tapes and all costs to be waived under indigency is a judicial acknowledgement that I am unable to comply with this court order. The bench stated “I will take care of the costs administratively” in reference to the court tapes during the hearing in January 2013. Those same indigency rules are supposed to apply in cases with supervised visitation.

Why won’t this court do the same for three innocent children who desperately miss their mother and want to see me as testified in court and as submitted by the children’s previous therapist and Court Appointed supervisor Mark Kaeys which the court opted to not take these two professionals who are familiar with case and interaction with the children into consideration when rendering the court orders regarding visitation.

Why has Mr. Joseph and Attorney Arabasz been allowed to laugh at this court, yell at this honor disrespecting the court, and repeatedly testify to the following:

1.       No intention to comply with court orders

2.       Stalking and harassment

3.       Theft of monies

4.       Id-theft – repeated on at least 4 occasions

5.       As well as intentions to brainwash the children for the children to forget their real mother exist as testified by Attorney Arabasz on numerous hearings.

Why is this court ignoring the previous court ordered supervisor’s Mark Kaeys and child therapist’s recommendations? The court has not given an explanation as to why these experts written testimonies are not relevant in this case and why their recommendations should not be written into order to render such as harsh order as this court has done?

Why are my children punished for their father’s flagrant disregard for orders as stated in your order by ordering supervised visitation because father was found guilty of contempt, but both my children and myself are punished once again by his actions. There is NO explanation to that.

The devastation and constant allowance of abuse is very hurtful and makes me afraid of this court and feelings of continued injustice.  The fact this court has chosen to not act in saving these children from continued abuses, has caused me tremendous trauma.

When a parent loses a child to say an illness or accident, the parent is allowed to grieve and the ability for that parent to move on and heal is allowed. There is an end date to their grief. Every human being goes through this process, and does not discriminate. It just is. Kubler Ross shows the grieving scale.

However, when a mother has the children taken ex-parte  on false pretenses, a parent grieves and continues to grieve with NO end date to completion as long as an abuser is allowed to use the courts, law enforcement, and other agencies to stalk, harass, and abuse their victim. By failing to put a stop to these abuses, has caused me trauma.

I have endured repeated trauma as documented in court records with repeated pleas for help with no success over a seven year period of time since 2006.  When we had the trial, I thought justice would finally prevail for the sake of the children, but it did not and was very traumatic for me.

I have a disability as notified to the court on numerous occasions and requested for assistance.  Under the American Disabilities Act (ADA), I have repeatedly requested the courts for assistance and help in my case due to my disability. The court has denied even hearing my requests which are rights I am guaranteed under the Constitution under the American Disabilities Act.

The bottom line, I suffer from these traumatic stresses as a direct result of this courts inaction of protecting me and my children from harm causing a host of physical issues as previously stated to the courts since 2008.  I also understand that under the ADA, it is a civil rights statute so it is strictly enforced and rights of immunity do not apply.

This court is aware or should have been aware that this case began as a domestic violence case in 2005 and this court has been repeatedly reminded of the duress it has caused me. The abuse I endured and witnessed by the children (as documented) has escalated over the years via domestic violence by proxy.  

I am a human being and a mother who loves her children deeply but has been almost completely deprived of her children for over 6 years. I have not seen my children since August 3, 2011.  I would not be normal if I were not upset and distraught over that alone.  I lost custody via ex-parte in September 2007 after being forced to lift a restraining order in order to get the arrears in child support owed as documented in court records. I have been pretty much shut out of my children's lives completely since Sept 2007. 

As a protective mother trying to protect her children from abuse, I went from having a restraining order to being forced to lift it to almost never seeing your children again for no just reason.  I have NEVER been given an explanation as to why.

I have missed ALL of my three daughters birthdays, first day of school, first dance, holidays, vacations, school volunteering since 2007. My youngest daughter, Kelly, is 9. That means I have already missed out on HALF her life. I am not a drug addict. I am not an alcoholic.  I was and still am an upstanding citizen in the community despite Attorney Arabasz and his clients attempt to cause deliberate and malicious harm to me. I do my best to volunteer in the community including hospice and domestic abuse and have won numerous awards for my volunteerism over the years which tends bring me a renewed sense of healing from my own traumas. My children and I cannot get back those formative years we have missed.  They are gone forever, never to return.  I am speechless in my ability to describe the pain and anguish I feel over this injustice alone.

Over that time, as documented through the courts, I have endured numerous repeated serious abuses that I have come to the court pleading for help with no prevail.  I am a human being who can take being abused only for so long.  I have suffered serious repeated unrelenting undue stresses, many which are criminal in nature, that have caused health issues. When the trial arrived, I prayed and hoped for justice to finally prevail for the sake of my children. 

I have been severed from my children’s lives with little to no contact since August 3, 2011 and even longer since September 2007. The verdict of August 2012 from the trial was devastating to me and I worried the about the long term negative impact and implications it would have on my children as medical research demonstrates and the most telling is the ongoing ACE Study funded by the CDC.

Per http://www.masslegalhelp.org/children-and-families/supervised-visitation

·         "Domestic violence" is sometimes called "battering," and it also refers to abusive patterns of power and control in family, household, and intimate partner relationships.

·         Know Your Rights: Domestic Violence, published by the American Bar Association, says that "Domestic violence is a pattern of many behaviors directed at achieving and maintaining power and control over an intimate partner, such as physical violence, emotional abuse, isolation of the victim, economic abuse, intimidation, and coercion and threats."

·         According to this page, supervised visitation is solely recommended in domestic violence cases. Yet Judge Roberts ordered a victim not perpetrator into supervised visitation.

 

ANSWERS TO Contempt claims –

1.       A pending appeal regarding said contempts and orders

2.       Motion to Stay pending appeal denied in January 28^th

3.       Failure to give Mr. Joseph and Attorney Arabasz the name, phone number, and address of my personal therapist.

a.       Firstly, the children have given NO indication they see a therapist on a regular basis and NOTHING from Attorney Arabasz or their therapist to show otherwise.

 

b.      My mental health records is privileged information and protected under federal statutes. There is NOTHING in the current order that states by releasing this information to the opposing party has any bearing on custody or visitation. Only so both therapists can communicate with each other. If that is the case then Opposing party and council have no need for that information considering past conduct by Attorney Arabasz and Mr. Joseph in the previous numerous attempts to acquire privileged information.

 

c.       I gave my therapist a copy of the order and the name and contact information regarding the children’s therapist. Because Attorney Arabasz has threatened my personal health professionals in the past, and by his actions where patient confidentiality and HIPAA violations occurred, my therapist is concerned as to why THEY NEED my information. If the sole reason is to engage in conversation between the therapists in the best interests of the children, then Attorney Arabasz and there is NOTHING in the current court order to warrant that Mr. Joseph and Attorney Arabasz have access to my personal medical information.

d.      I complied with the order by giving the information to my therapist to contact the children’s therapists.

e.      My personal mental health records are protected under Federal statutes under HIPAA and Privacy Act.

                                                               i.      If the court orders such said information, it will have a direct negative impact to the care I am receiving and will cause harm to my care and privacy.

                                                            ii.      See Masscases (scroll to bottom)

4.       Failure to pay child support

a.        In order to be in contempt, one must be willfully failing to comply. I have beseeched this court on at least three occasions since the court order asking for assistance with this court failing to address my repeated requests.

b.      I also notified the court of my pending layoff from current employment in which I may not qualify for unemployment. This court did not want to see the teach out letter to employees nor did it want to see the job applications for attempts to gain new employment.

c.       Increased expenses

                                                               i.      Travel to deal with mother’s health as I am POA

                                                             ii.      Medical expenses - $3k

                                                            iii.      Required CME to maintain RMA certification $50 a mo

                                                           iv.      Rent $450mo

                                                             v.      $135k legal for ex in contempt that court refused to award legal fees despite flagrant refusal to comply with court orders

                                                           vi.      No longer receiving food stamps $250mo

                                                          vii.      NOW phone broke and unable to come up with $100 to fix or get new phone so I can call my children.

                                                        viii.      Various costs associated with Appeals of this case and of the order in question

 

5.       Failure to do supervised visitation

a.      See above

b.      In regards to the supervised visits, Attorney Arabasz once again misled the courts stating I had not contacted Mark Kaeys. Attorney Arabasz has no documentation supporting this statement but yet wants the court to believe as FACT I did not make any attempt.

c.       Mark Kaeys is NOT available for supervision per my conversation with him and I specifically asked the court in January for help in this matter as I cannot afford what is stated in the order.

 d.      I also testified in court in January 2013 that I went to the Probation Dept, to try to find an alternative with no success. I once again asked for court assistance in this matter in January 2013. The court did not address this request.

 

6.       Phone Calls –

a.       I also testified with attempts to show incident reports and letters to Attorney Arabasz for his failures to comply to phone calls and even placing a call restriction on my number preventing from my calls going through as verified and documented with police department despite court ordered phone calls. I did not file contempt against Mr. Joseph due to threats of loss of job.

b.      NOW phone broke and unable to come up with $100 to fix or get new phone so I can call my children.

 

7.       Posting of Defamatory Info

a.       What is defamatory is Attorney Arabasz’s conduct defaming and insensitive and malicious statements about the children’s dire health situation is abhorred conduct for a court official and I am requesting the court to place restrictions on Attorney Arabsz’s unprofessional, unethical, and borderline or even illegal conduct.

b.      Attorney Arabasz has NEVER contacted me or attempted to contact me in regards to anything he has concerns about.

c.       He has also failed to furnish copies of his complaint to me so I may properly address, without the possible need for a hearing to afford me an opportunity to address first without filing a contempt.

d.      Previous order stated postings were not defamatory and are seeking of help. Nothing has changed.

e.      I also have a right under the First Amendment to seek assistance from third parties in this matter. If your honor finds me seeking help esp in my appeal which can render this honor unable to be impartial then I request this honor to seek recusal.

 

8.       2009/2010 taxes

a.       Firstly, the deductions Attorney Arabasz are claiming would not have any effect on Mr. Joseph’s  tax returns as he still got the deductions he is claiming and has nothing to refute the opposite. This is just an attempt to again financially “stick to me”

b.      Secondly, it will cost me over $800 to amend these returns for which I have NO money to do so and have yet to file my 2011 and 2012 tax returns for the same reason.

 

9.       Other reasons

a.       Have been busy trying to find help to comply with said orders while paying expenses associated with my appeals.

b.      Have been seeking help and treated to deal with my trauma associated with this case.

c.       Been dealing with my mother’s grave health as I am her next of kin who has POA.

 d.      My father’s ail health due to broken ribs and broken hand which I had to help care for.

e.      Due to my disability, I have at times memory loss. Attorney Arabasz could have sent notice requesting status of his said contempts which he has not sent one notice to his claims. His only notice to these accusations were only served in a contempt.

f.        Bottom line, I have spent this time seeking assistance in this matter with no help including this court. The fact Attorney Arabasz NEVER sent any inquiries to his concerns prior to filing these contempts shows his malicious attempts and refusal to communicate in hopes to resolve any conflict out of court.

g.       This attempt is strictly with intent to further cause trauma and to get me fired from my job! His actions or inactions prove this to be true.

h.      Various costs associated with Appeals

10.   Court refusal –

a.       The court did not address my pleas and request for help to fix this matter in my motion to stay, during the hearing on Jan 28^th, 2013, and subsequent motion..

 

MASSCASES – Mental Health Access

P.W. vs. M.S.(1)

DOCKET 06-P-307.

Dates: June 14, 2006. - November 28, 2006.

Present Cypher, Doerfer, & Mills, JJ. - County Middlesex.

The father principally seeks the protection afforded by the psychotherapist-patient privilege, G. L. c. 233, § 20B.(9) http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleII/Chapter233/Section20B

The statute provides that, "in any court proceeding and in any proceeding preliminary thereto . . ., a patient shall have the privilege of refusing to disclose, and of preventing a witness from disclosing, any communication, wherever made, between said patient and a psychotherapist relative to the diagnosis or treatment of the patient's mental or emotional condition. This privilege shall apply to patients engaged with a psychotherapist in marital therapy, family therapy, or consultation in contemplation of such therapy." G. L. c. 233, § 20B, as amended through St. 1990, c. 177, § 361.

Section 20B contains an exception that is relevant here: "The privilege granted hereunder shall not apply to any of the following communications: . . . (e) In any case involving child custody . . . in which, upon a hearing in chambers, the judge, in the exercise of his discretion, determines that the psychotherapist has evidence bearing significantly on the patient's ability to provide suitable care or custody, and that it is more important to the welfare of the child that the communication be disclosed than that the relationship between patient and psychotherapist be protected." See McMahon v. McMahon, 1 Mass. App. Ct. at 649-650 (applying G. L. c. 233, § 20B[e], to issue of visitation).

Relying on the wording of that exception, the father argues that after he produced all the records previously ordered by the judge, the judge improperly allowed the GAL access, thereby delegating the judge's statutory duty to conduct an in camera review of those records. We agree. General Laws c. 233, § 20B, specifically states that the judge must exercise his or her discretion in making the privilege determination. See Custody of a Minor (No. 3), 16 Mass. App. Ct. 998, 1002 (1983). If the volume of material produced in discovery is overly burdensome, the judge may appoint a separate GAL or a discovery master to aid in the process.(10) See generally G. L. c. 215, § 56A; Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 26(j) (2000); Mass.R.Dom.Rel.P. 53 (1997).

However, before the judge undertakes such an endeavor, the father has an obligation to assert the privilege. Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. 279, 290 n.21 (1987), and cases cited. "[S]ome action by the patient or client is necessary to 'exercise' the privilege therein created. The privilege is not self-executing." Commonwealth v. Oliveira, 438 Mass. 325, 331 (2002). "The actual assertion of the privilege is a requirement of the statute, not a meaningless formality or a foregone conclusion." Id. at 335. "Absent an affirmative assertion of the privileges established by G. L. c. 233, § 20B, . . ., the court must treat such records as if they were unprivileged." Id. at 337. Upon assertion of a privilege, the judge should inspect the records in camera to determine the applicability of the privilege. See Commonwealth v. Clancy, 402 Mass. 664, 666 n.2 (1988).

Requiring the father and his counsel to designate those records which may contain privileged information is not an onerous task. It is obvious that many of the documents will not contain protected information. "While the scope of this privilege is broad, it does not cover all hospital records concerning nonpsychiatric admissions simply because some psychiatric information appears in the hospital record.[(11)] The records are privileged if they contain the communications or notes of communications between the patient and a psychotherapist." Petitions of the Dept. of Social Servs. to Dispense with Consent to Adoption, 399 Mass. at 287. Ultimately, "[t]he exercise of the privilege established by . . . § 20B, does not preclude admission of such parts of a psychiatric record as are 'conclusions based on objective indicia rather than on communications from the [patient].' Adoption of Abigail, 23 Mass. App. Ct. 191, 198-199 (1986)." Adoption of Seth, 29 Mass. App. Ct. 343, 353 (1990). See Adoption of Saul, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 546, 551-553 (2004) (diagnostic terms, without more, are not privileged).

Conclusion. The status of the father's claim for visitation should be clarified. If there is no genuine issue of visitation, then there is no basis for an order requiring disclosure of the father's medical or psychiatric records. If there is a genuine issue regarding visitation then the judge must make a determination as to whether the medical and psychiatric records are relevant to the resolution of the terms of visitation. The judge should issue an order, reasonably tailored in time, for the father to produce the records.(12) The father may then segregate the records he alleges are privileged and make an appropriate claim of privilege supported by affidavit. It is the judge's responsibility then to determine whether the records are privileged and, if so, whether their relevance and importance to the welfare of the children outweigh the privilege. If the judge determines that privileged material should be disclosed to the GAL, he or she may enter such an order with appropriate limitations on its disclosure and orders of confidentiality.